CAR_Public/180815.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, August 15, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 163

                            Headlines

AAC HOLDINGS: $25M Securities Case Settlement Gets Final Okay
AARON'S INC: Sevilla Seeks to Certify Class & SubClasses
ABBOTT HOME: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA, Wilson Suit Says
ADVANCED CALL: Mollberg Files Placeholder Class Certification Bid
AETNA INC: Sandra Peters Seeks to Certify Class Two ERISA Classes

AFLAC INCORPORATED: Class Action in Georgia Dismissed
AGRI STATS: Litterer Suit Alleges Sherman Act Violation
AKARI THERAPEUTICS: Parties Settle Class Suit for $2.7 Million
ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Appeal in Security Breach Suit Still Pending
ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Bid to Dismiss Aklile Suit Underway

ALDO US INC: Faces Murphy Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site
ALLERGAN PLC: 525 Testosterone Suits vs Allergan Finance Pending
ALLERGAN PLC: Appeal on Asacol(R) Litigation Still Continues
ALLERGAN PLC: Appeal Pending in Mass. Celexa(R)/Lexapro(R) Suit
ALLERGAN PLC: Consolidated Restasis(R) Class Action Continues

ALLERGAN PLC: Court Denies Class Certification Bid in TRT Suit
ALLERGAN PLC: Court Denies Summary Judgment in Namenda(R) Suit
ALLERGAN PLC: Faces 1,028 Actions on Opioid Drug Abuse Matters
ALLERGAN PLC: Gets Court Approval on Bid to Dismiss ERISA Suit
ALLERGAN PLC: Zeltiq Seeks to Drop 3rd Amended Advertising Suit

ALPEX USA: Lopez Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
ALTICE USA: Faces O'Neill IPO-Related Securities Suit in N.Y.
AMERICAN CORADIUS: Norton Files Placeholder Class Certification Bid
AMICA MUTUAL: Ct. Recommends Partial Dismissal of F. Carter's Suit
ANTERO RESOURCES: Bond et al. Seek to Certify Class Action

ANTHEM INC: Appeal in ERISA Litigation Still Pending
ANTHEM INC: Awaits Final Approval of Data Breach Case Settlement
ARATANA THERAPEUTICS: S.D.N.Y. Securities Suit Dismissed in June
ARCOAIRE AIR: Oddo et al. Seek to Certify Class & Subclass
ARIZONA: $1.1MM in Attys' Fees Awarded in Prisoners' Suit

ARIZONA: 9th Circuit Appeal Filed in Parsons Class Suit
ASCENA RETAIL: Fails to Pay All Wages and OT Pay, Leakey Suit Says
ASPIRO AB: Court Narrows Claims in Suit Over Life of Pablo Album
ASSOCIATED WHOLESALE: Court Denies Piazza's Certification Bid
ATHENE HOLDING: Oct.13 Hearing to Approve "Griffiths" Pact

AUTOMATIC DATA: Faces Class Complaints over Use of Biometric Info
AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES: Still Faces Actions over Apartment Fire
AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES: Voronov & Katz Seek to Certify Class
AVEO PHARMACEUTICALS: Issues Warrants for Class Action Accord
BANK OF NEW YORK: Still Defends Depositary Receipt Litigation

BANKRUPTCY MANAGEMENT: Spinner Sues Over Service Charge-Fixing
BB&T CORP: Court Narrows Claims in R. Sims' ERISA Suit
BEST BUY: Sanchez Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code
BIGLARI HOLDINGS: Defends Shareholder Suit in Indiana State Court
BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Bid for Protective Order in "Paxton" Pending

BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: BVU Still Faces Suit over Business Practices
BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Faces Anderson Class Suit on TCPA Breaches
BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Faces Landon et al. Suit over Timeshare Sales
BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Subsidiary Still Defends "Siu" Class Action
CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Gansburg Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection

CARRINGTON MORTGAGE: Ritenour Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass
CARRINGTON MORTGAGE: Wants Court to Deny Class Certification Bid
CBOE GLOBAL: Providence's Securities Suit v. Bats Global Underway
CBOE GLOBAL: Suit Alleging Manipulation of VIX Prices Underway
CBS CORP: Rosen Law Firm Probes Securities Claims

CEDAR RAPIDS, IA: Judgment on Pleadings in Flooding Suit Affirmed
CHARTER FINANCIAL: Parshall Suit Challenges Sale to CenterState
CHEMOURS COMPANY: $1.2M Paid for Medical Monitoring at June 30
CHEMOURS COMPANY: Still Defends Lawsuits over GenX Discharge
CHEMOURS COMPANY: Still Defends Suit over Indiana Superfund Site

CONNECTICUT: Radon at Newton Prison Caused Cancer, Suit Says
CONSOLIDATED WORLD: Bakov et al. Seek Class Certification
DR PEPPER: Court Certifies Class in J. Fitzhenry-Russell's Suit
ENERGY ENTERPRISES: Nordean Files Suit for Invasion of Privacy
EQUITABLE PRODUCTION: Court Certifies Class in Royalties Suit

FALCON FARMS: Gonzalez Suit Seeks to Recover Wages
FASHION NOVA: Jairam Files Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
FCA US: Court Denies Tomassini Class Certification Motion
FIAT CHRYSLER: Court Certifies Class in V. Pirnik's Securities Suit
FIDELITY INTEGRATED: Withholding Docs on ATM Fees, Suit Says

FIDELITY INVESTMENTS: Certification of Collective Action Sought
FINANCIAL ASSET: Douglas Sues Over Illegal Credit Collection
FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Court Dismisses M. Borozan's FDCPA Suit
FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE: Faces Espinal FDCPA Suit in NY
FOOD MANAGEMENT: Van Evera Suit Seeks Damages under FLSA

FOREST LABS: 166 Celexa(R)/Lexapro(R) Cases Underway
FORESTRY MANAGEMENT: Court Certifies Class of Truck Drivers
GEICO INSURANCE: Caraballo Insurance Row Removed to S.D. Fla.
GENERAL MOTORS: High Court Review Sought in Ignition Switch Case
GESE TRUST: McDonald Suit Seeks Relief Under ERISA

GLOBAL TEL LINK: Court Certifies Class in James et al. Suit
GOLDEN ABACUS: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Calero Claims
GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT: Court Dismisses Kaiser-Nyman Case
GROUP HEALTH: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss S. Plavin's Suit
HEALTHCARE NOW: Gouveia Suit Seeks to Recover OT Wages

INOTEK PHARMACEUTICALS: Gniadek Appeals Ruling to First Circuit
IOWA HUMAN SERVICES: J.S.X Seeks to Certify Class
JAVELIN MORTGAGE: Bid to Drop Merger Related Suit Still Pending
JNV GLASS: Guevara Suit Wins Conditional Class Certification
JOHN CHRISTNER: Drivers File Misclassification Suit

JPMORGAN CHASE: Settlement in E. Mansor's Suit Has Prelim Approval
JRV SERVICES: Pereira Seeks to Conditionally Certify Class
JUST BORN: Court Denies Motion for Class Certification
KEELER INSTRUMENTS: Retina Associates Sues over Unwanted Fax Ads
KERNERSVILLE, NC: Residents Win $12.3MM in Sewer Charges Lawsuit

KORBIN INSULATION: Ortiz Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
LAS VEGAS SANDS: Summary Judgment Ruling in "Fosbre" Suit Affirmed
LASERSHIP INC: E. Reynoso's Misclassification Suit Moved to E.D. Va
LEGACY FLOORING: Littlefield and Decker Seek Overtime Pay
LG ELECTRONICS: Court Dismisses A. Frost's Antitrust Suit

LIFECELL CORP: Still Defends Litigation over RepliForm Injuries
M.A.C. COSMETICS: Deguchy Suit Transferred to S.D. California
MABVAX THERAPEUTICS: Vinson Sues over Share Price Drop
MANDARICH LAW: D. Schiovone's Individual Claims Dismissed
MATTEL INC: Consolidated Securities Class Suit Dismissed

MAZZARO'S ITALIAN: Faces Spencer Suit in M.D. Florida
MDL 1203: Court Awards $296K in Attys' Fees in Diet Drugs Suit
MDL 2752: Class Certification Sought in Yahoo: Data Breach Case
MDL 2783: Mihalich Suit over J&J Talc Products Consolidated in NJ
METHUEN, MA: Ct. Narrows Claims in P. Pimentel's Civil Rights Suit

MIDLAND CREDIT: Cisneros Suit Alleges FDCPA Violation
MILLER ENERGY: Class Certification Bids Pending in Securities Suit
MMT HOLDINGS: Summary Judgments in School District Suit Reversed
MODCO INC: Grimes Seeks Overtime Pay for Delivery Drivers
MONAKER GROUP: "McLeod" Class Action Suit Still Ongoing

MRI INT'L: Court Orders Payment of Funds in "Takiguchi" Settlement
MYER HOLDINGS: Mark Elliott's 2nd Shot at Class Action Looms
NEW YORK: Ciaramella Sues Over Denied Dental Services
NEW YORK: To Pay Nurses $20 Million in Settlement
NEXEN CORPORATION: Griffin Seeks Wages and Benefits Under FLSA

NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Fuel Surcharges-Related Suit Still Ongoing
NORTHLAND GROUP: Furth Sues Over FDCPA Violation
NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Faces Gvarliani Suit Over FDCPA Breach
NY STATE UNIVERSITY: Pejovic Seeks to Certify Female Students Class
PANERA BREAD: NJ Asst. Managers' Class Conditionally Certified

PEPSI-COLA SALES: Page Limitations in Approval Bid Increased
PERCEPTA LLC: Layton Seeks Class Conditional Class Certification
PERSHING LLC: Still Defends Lawsuit over Alleged Ponzi Scheme
PG&E CORP: Case Management Conference Set for Sept. 17
PG&E CORP: Faces Weston and Moretti Securities Suits

PHILADELPHIA SCHOOL DISTRICT: Learners Seek to Certify Two Classes
POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Faces 2 Defective Product Suits in Minnesota
PRODUCERS SERVICE: Helms Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages
PROTHENA CORPORATION: James Files Securities Class Suit in Calif.
PURDUE PHARMA: American Resources Suit Transferred to N.D. Ohio

QUALCOMM INC: Awaits Court OK on Bid to Drop Securities Suit
QUALCOMM INC: Continues to Defend 3226701 Canada Inc. Suit
QUALITY CARE: Agreement to Settle Maryland Suits Reached
RENEW FINANCIAL: Faces Wyatt Suit Seeking Injunction on Liens
RENT-A-CENTER: Ken Herz Balks at Merger Deal with Vintage Capital

RGL ASSOCIATES: Cox Sues Over Illegal Collection Activities
SIX FLAGS: Plaintiff's Appeal in Biometrics Suit to Proceed
SK BAKERIES: Kyla Yi Sues Cinnabon Franchisees over No-Poach Deals
SOLAZYME INC: Bid to Dismiss 2nd Amended Securities Suit Granted
SOUTH CAROLINA FARM: Varner Seeks to Recover Wages Under FLSA

SSA COOPER: McIntrye et al. Seek Unpaid OT under FLSA
STATE FARM: MSPA Suit Moved to Southern District of Florida
STONEMOR PARTNERS: Appeal in Anderson Suit Pending Before 3rd Cir.
THC ORANGE: Court Certifies Two Classes in Song Suit
TIMELINE TRANSPORTATION: Faces Ihor Stasiuk Wage-and-Hour Suit

TRI SEA: Pedro Lazo Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
TSG 89 CORP: Fails to Pay Proper OT  Wages, Basurto Suit Says
UNIFUND CCR: Dovey Hits Illegal Credit Collection Activities
UNITED HEALTHCARE: Sohmer Sues Alleging ERISA/RICO Violations
UNITED STATES: Calif. Ct. Enjoins Separation of Families

UNITED STATES: Calixto et al. Seek to Certify Class
UNITED STATES: Crawford County Joins PILT Lawsuit
UNITED STATES: Seeks Review of Decision in Healthy Futures Suit
UNITED STATES: Thomas Suit Moved to Eastern Dist. of California
UNUM GROUP: Cunningham Suit Alleges Exchange Act Violation

US AUTO CREDIT: Aaron Ham Sues over Unwanted Text Messages
US DEFENSE DEPT: Kuang & Deron Seek to Certify Class
US INSPECTION: Lezotte Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
USG CORP: Still Defends Wallboard Price Fixing Related Suits
VITAL RECOVERY: D. Brunett's FDCPA Suit Dismissed

VUZIX CORP: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
VUZIX CORP: Sept. 24 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
WAL-MART STORES: Store Associates Sue Over Pregnancy Discrimination
WARNER CHILCOTT: Bid to Drop Marketing Practices Lawsuit Pending
WARNER CHILCOTT: Loestrin(R) Suit in Discovery

WARNER CHILCOTT: Still Faces Actonel(R) Lawsuits
WATER TREATMENT: Hood et al. Seek to Certify Class
WAUPACA FOUNDRY: Foundry Workers Suit Transferred to E.D. Wisconsin
WESLEY FINANCIAL: Burgess Seeks to Certify Class
WURTH LOUIS: Craftwood Seeks to Certify Class

XCERRA CORPORATION: Kahn Seeks More Info on Cohu Merger
YOUNIQUE LLC: Schmitt et al. Seek to Certify Classes

                            *********

AAC HOLDINGS: $25M Securities Case Settlement Gets Final Okay
-------------------------------------------------------------
AAC Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2018, that a Tennessee court has entered in June 2018 an
order and final judgment consistent with the terms of the
stipulation of settlement in the "Kasper" case.

On August 24, 2015, a shareholder filed a purported class action in
the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee against the Company and certain of its current and former
officers (Kasper v. AAC Holdings, Inc. et al.).  The plaintiff
generally alleged that the Company and certain of its current and
former officers violated Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by making allegedly false and/or misleading statements
and failing to disclose certain information.

On September 14, 2015, a second class action against the same
defendants asserting essentially the same allegations was filed in
the same court (Tenzyk v. AAC Holdings, Inc. et al.).

On October 26, 2015, the court entered an order consolidating these
two described actions into one action.

On April 14, 2016, the Company and the individual defendants filed
a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim.  On
July 1, 2016, the court denied the motion to dismiss.

On July 14, 2017, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification.

On December 28, 2017, the parties entered into a settlement term
sheet with the plaintiffs' representatives to memorialize an
agreement in principle to settle the litigation.

On February 15, 2018, the parties entered into a Stipulation of
Settlement, consistent with the December 28, 2017 agreement in
principle, that provided for defendants' payment of an aggregate
settlement amount of US$25,000,000 (which includes attorneys' fees
to be approved by the court) to establish a settlement fund (the
"Settlement Fund").  The Stipulation of Settlement provides that
the Settlement Fund was to be funded as follows: (a) defendant
Jerrod N. Menz will sell 300,000 shares and contribute the cash
derived from such sale(s) to the Settlement Fund; and (b) the
Company and individual defendants will pay in cash the difference,
if any, between the Settlement Fund and the stock component
addressed in (a).  The Stipulation of Settlement includes the
dismissal of all claims against the Company and the individual
defendants, a denial by defendants of any wrongdoing and no
admission of liability.

On March 7, 2018, the court entered an order preliminarily
approving the settlement.  On March 23, 2018, the Company paid the
full amount of the Settlement Fund and is preserving its claim to
recover the 300,000 shares that Jerrod N. Menz was supposed to
contribute.

On June 11, 2018, the court entered an order and final judgment
consistent with the terms of the parties' Stipulation of
Settlement.

AAC Holdings, Inc. provides inpatient substance abuse treatment
services for individuals with drug and alcohol addiction in the
United States. Its therapy services include motivational
interviewing, cognitive behavioral therapy, rational emotive
behavior therapy, dialectical behavioral therapy, solution-focused
therapy, eye movement desensitization and reprocessing, and
systematic family intervention services. The company is based in
Brentwood, Tennessee.


AARON'S INC: Sevilla Seeks to Certify Class & SubClasses
--------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled ARMINDA SEVILLA, individually and on behalf
of all other persons similarly situated, and on behalf of the
general public Plaintiff, v. AARON'S, INC., a Georgia corporation,
and Does 1 through 30, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No.
2:17-cv-04053-DMG-E (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court
on November 9, 2018, for an order:

   1. certifying the following classes and/or subclasses :

      Hourly Class:

      "all current and former employees employed by Defendants in
      the State of California who were compensated by the hour  
      from April 28, 2013 through the date of final disposition
      of this action";

      Waiting Time Class:

      "all former employees of DEFENDANTS in California that did
      not receive the timely payment of wages due and owing upon
      the termination of their employment from April 28, 2013
      through the date of final disposition of this action";

      Overtime Subclass:

      "all Hourly Class members who were paid overtime premiums
      that were improperly calculated due to DEFENDANTS’ failure
      to include all required compensation when calculating the
      regular rate of pay";

      Vacation Wage Subclass:

      "all Hourly Class members who were paid vacation wages that
      were improperly calculated due to Defendants' failure to
      pay vested vacation wages at the final rate of pay at
      termination";

      Business Expense Reimbursement Subclass:

      "all Hourly Class members who incurred necessary business
      related expenses and costs that were not reimbursed";

      Itemized Wage Statement Subclass:

      "all Hourly Class members who were not provided with
      accurate itemized wage statements"; and

      Waiting Time Penalties Subclass:

      "all Hourly Class members who were not provided with final
      wages at the time of separation of employment";

   2. appointing Arminda Sevilla, to be an adequate
      representative and certifying her as the class
      representative; and

   3. appointing Plaintiff's counsel, Shadie L. Berenji, as
      adequate class counsel and appoint the Berenji Law Firm,
      APC as class counsel for the proposed classes.

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Shadie L. Berenji, Esq.
          Brittanee A. Marksbury, Esq.
          BERENJI LAW FIRM, APC
          8383 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 708
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 855 3270
          Facsimile: (310) 855 3751
          E-mail: berenji@employeejustice.law
                  marksbury@employeejustice.law


ABBOTT HOME: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA, Wilson Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Zoe Wilson and Stefanie Wilson, Individually and on behalf of other
members of the general public similarly situated v. Abbott Home
Care Plus LLC, Abbott Home Care, Inc. and Paulette Klaiber, Case
No. 2:18-cv-00743-GCS-EPD (S.D. Ohio, July 31, 2018), seeks relief
under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the Ohio Minimum Fair
Wage Standards Act and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act for alleged unpaid
overtime.

AHC is a domestic corporation with its principal place of business
in Ohio.  AHC operates a home care staffing agency of direct care
workers, including nurses, therapists, and home health aides, for
individuals, who are in need of in home assistance.

AHC Plus is a domestic limited liability company with its principal
place of business in Jackson County, Ohio.  AHC Plus operates a
home care staffing agency of direct care workers, including nurses,
therapists, and home health aides, for individuals, who are in need
of in home assistance.  Paulette Klaiber is the Administrator and
owner of AHC and AHC PLUS.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          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 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


ADVANCED CALL: Mollberg Files Placeholder Class Certification Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled BARBARA MOLLBERG, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. ADVANCED CALL
CENTER TECHNOLOGIES LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-01210-NJ
(E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order certifying
proposed classes, appointing the Plaintiff as class representative,
and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as Class Counsel, and for such
other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate.

The Plaintiff further asks that the Court stay this class
certification motion until an amended motion for class
certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties relief
from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and requirement
that Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents in support of
this motion.

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification
motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on
the certification motion. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891,
896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First
Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of
that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class
from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs."). While the Seventh
Circuit has held that the specific procedure described in
Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual settlement of a class
representative's claims, the same decision cautions that other
methods may prevent a plaintiff from representing a class. Fulton
Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., 860 F.3d 541, 545-46 (7th Cir. 2017).

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
          Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
          Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482 8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482 8001
          E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com
                  jfruchter@ademilaw.com
                  bslatky@ademilaw.com


AETNA INC: Sandra Peters Seeks to Certify Class Two ERISA Classes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned SANDRA M. PETERS, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. AETNA INC., AETNA
LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, and OPTUMHEALTH CARE SOLUTIONS, INC., the
Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-00109-MR (W.D.N.C.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court for an order:

   1. certifying two Classes:

      Plan Claim Class:

      "all participants or beneficiaries of self-insured ERISA
      health insurance plans administered by Aetna for which plan
      responsibility for a claim was assessed using an agreed
      rate between Optum and Aetna that exceeded the provider’s
      contracted rate with Optum for the treatment provided"

      Member Claim Class:

      "all participants or beneficiaries of ERISA health
      insurance plans insured or administered by Aetna for whom
      coinsurance responsibility for a claim was assessed using
      an agreed rate between Optum and Aetna that exceeded the
      provider's contracted rate with Optum for the treatment
      provided".

   2. appointing Plaintiff as class representative;

   3. appointing The Van Winkle Firm and Zuckerman Spaeder LLP
      as Class Counsel.

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          D. Brian Hufford, Esq.
          Jason S. Cowart, Esq.
          Nell Z. Peyser, Esq.
          ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP
          485 Madison Avenue, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 704 9600
          Facsimile: (212) 704 4256
          E-mail: dbhufford@zuckerman.com

               - and -

          Larry McDevitt, Esq.
          David M. Wilkerson, Esq.
          THE VAN WINKLE LAW FIRM
          11 North Market Street
          Asheville, NC 28801
          Telephone: (828) 258 2991
          E-mail: lmcdevitt@vwlawfirm.com


AFLAC INCORPORATED: Class Action in Georgia Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------
A putative class action filed in Georgia against Aflac Incorporated
has been voluntarily dismissed without prejudice by the plaintiff,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2018.

On February 9, 2018, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia,
purportedly on behalf of purchasers of Aflac Incorporated stock
between February 27, 2013 and January 11, 2018.  The complaint
named the Parent Company and certain officers as defendants and
alleged that the Company's public disclosures were misleading in
relation to purported recruiting practices, misclassification of
independent contractors, manipulation of a sales metric, and
failure to adhere to the Company's Code of Business Conduct and
Ethics and corporate social responsibility standards.

On June 5, 2018, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the complaint
without prejudice, and on June 6, 2018, the case was closed by the
Middle District of Georgia.

Aflac Incorporated and its subsidiaries primarily sell supplemental
health and life insurance in the United States and Japan.


AGRI STATS: Litterer Suit Alleges Sherman Act Violation
-------------------------------------------------------
Amelia Litterer et al., on behalf of themselves individually and on
behalf of a Plaintiff Class v. Agri Stats, Inc. et al., Case No.
18-cv-02008 (D. Minn., July 16, 2018), seeks injunctive relief
under the Sherman Act; and for treble damages under the antitrust
laws, unfair competition laws, consumer protection laws, and unjust
enrichment common laws of the several states.

The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves
individually and on behalf of a plaintiff class consisting of all
persons and entities who purchased pork indirectly from a Defendant
or co-conspirator for personal use in the United States from at
least January 1, 2009 until the present (Class Period).

The complaint asserts that the Defendants Agri Stats, Inc., Clemens
Food Group, LLC, Hormel Foods Corporation, Indiana Packers
Corporation, JBS USA, Seaboard Foods LLC, Smithfield Foods, Inc.,
Triumph Foods, LLC, and Tyson Foods, Inc., entered into a
conspiracy from at least 2009 to the present to fix, raise,
maintain and stabilize the price of pork.

The Plaintiffs indirectly purchased pork and pork products for
their own use and not for resale that was produced by one or more
defendants or their co-conspirators.

The Defendant Agri Stats, Inc. is an Indiana corporation located in
Fort Wayne, Indiana and is a subsidiary of Eli Lilly & Co.
Throughout the Class Period, Agri Stats acted as a co-conspirator
of the pork integrator-defendants by facilitating the exchange of
confidential, proprietary, and competitively sensitive data among
defendants and their co-conspirators.

The pork integrator-defendants are the leading suppliers of pork in
an industry with approximately $20 billion in annual commerce.
[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
      Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq.
      Michelle J. Looby, Esq.
      Joshua J. Rissman, Esq.
      GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
      120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Tel: (612) 333-8844
      Fax: (612) 339-6622
      E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
              dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com
              mlooby@gustafsongluek.com
              jrissman@gustafsongluek.com

AKARI THERAPEUTICS: Parties Settle Class Suit for $2.7 Million
--------------------------------------------------------------
Akari Therapeutics PLC said in its Form 20-F report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on July 18, 2018, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that the parties in the Phase
II PNH related suit agreed in principle to a total payment of $2.7
million in cash.

In May 2017, putative class actions asserting violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, based primarily on
the company's press releases or statements concerning the Phase II
PNH trial of Coversin and a report issued on April 26, 2017 titled
"Akari's Coversin matches Soliris in Phase II", or the Edison
Report, by Edison Investment Research Ltd, or Edison, about the
company and actions taken by the company after the report was
issued were commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the company, a former Chief Executive
Officer and its Chief Financial Officer.

These actions were consolidated, and plaintiffs amended their
pleadings to include the company's Executive Chairman and Edison as
defendants.

On May 9, 2018, the parties entered into a memorandum of
understanding to settle the CAC. A memorandum of understanding is
not a definitive settlement agreement, which must be approved by
the Court.

On June 8, 2018, the parties entered into a memorandum of
understanding term sheet. By the terms of the memorandum, the
parties agreed in principle to a total payment of $2.7 million in
cash.

The parties are in the process of documenting the settlement which
will be presented to the court for approval.

Akari Therapeutics said "While we expect the full amount of the
litigation settlement to be covered by our directors' and officers'
liability insurance, there can be no assurance that our directors'
and officers' liability insurance will cover the settlement.
Separately, Edison Investment Research Ltd. has sought
indemnification from us including reimbursement of all legal
expenses that Edison incurs in connection with the securities class
action and lost profits from customer relationships that Edison
claims it lost as a result of the retraction of the Edison Report.
The parties have come to an agreement in principle to settle the
dispute. The settlement amount is expected to be immaterial to our
operations and future cash flows."

The parties are in continued discussions regarding finalizing a
settlement. In certain circumstances, the company is obliged to
indemnify its current and former officers who are named as
defendants in these lawsuits.

Any conclusion of these matters in a manner adverse to the company
could have a material adverse effect on the company's financial
condition and results of operations.

Akari Therapeutics, Plc, a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical
company, focuses on the development and commercialization of
therapeutics to treat rare and orphan autoimmune and inflammatory
diseases.


ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Appeal in Security Breach Suit Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Albertsons Companies, 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 16, 2018, that the appeal in the
security breach related suit is pending.

On August 14, 2014, the Company announced that it had experienced a
criminal intrusion by installation of malware on a portion of its
computer network that processes payment card transactions for its
retail store locations, including the Company's Shaw's, Star
Market, Acme, Jewel-Osco and Albertsons retail banners. On
September 29, 2014, the Company announced that it had experienced a
second and separate criminal intrusion. The Company believes these
were attempts to collect payment card data.

As a result of the criminal intrusions, two class action complaints
were filed against the Company by consumers, Mertz v. SuperValu
Inc. et al, filed in federal court in the state of Minnesota and
Rocke v. SuperValu Inc. et al, filed in federal court in the state
of Idaho, alleging deceptive trade practices, negligence and
invasion of privacy. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages.

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has consolidated the
class actions and transferred the cases to the District of
Minnesota. On August 10, 2015, the Company and SuperValu filed a
motion to dismiss the class actions, which was granted without
prejudice on January 7, 2016. The plaintiffs filed a motion to
alter or amend the court's judgment, which was denied on April 20,
2016. The court also denied leave to amend the complaint. On May
18, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Eighth
Circuit Court of Appeals and defendants filed a cross-appeal.

In a decision dated August 30, 2017, the Eighth Circuit Court of
Appeals reversed the District Court's dismissal of the case as to
one of the 16 named plaintiffs, affirmed the dismissal as to the
remaining 15 named plaintiffs and remanded the case to the District
Court for further proceedings.

On November 3, 2017, the Company filed a motion to dismiss with
respect to the remaining named plaintiff's claims on the basis that
the plaintiff was not a customer of any of the Company's stores,
and on March 7, 2018, the Company's motion to dismiss was granted
with prejudice. On March 14, 2018, the named plaintiffs filed a
notice of appeal to the Eight Circuit Court of Appeals. The appeal
is currently pending.

Albertsons Companies, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as a
food and drug retailer in the United States. Its food and drug
retail stores offer grocery products, general merchandise, health
and beauty care products, pharmacy, fuel, and other items and
services. The company is headquartered in Boise, Idaho.


ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Bid to Dismiss Aklile Suit Underway
---------------------------------------------------------
Albertsons Companies, 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 16, 2018, that the company filed a
motion to dismiss the putative class action brought by Mel Aklile.

On April 24, 2018, Mel Aklile, a Rite Aid stockholder, (the
"Plaintiff") brought a putative class action in Delaware Chancery
Court against Rite Aid, the Company, certain of the Company's
subsidiaries and each of the Rite Aid directors (the "Director
Defendants"), Del. C.A. No. 2018-0305-AGB.

Mr. Aklile contends that Rite Aid stockholders have appraisal
rights under Section 262 of the Delaware General Corporate Law (the
"DGCL") because, notwithstanding that (i) Rite Aid stockholders are
not required to receive consideration other than shares of the
Company's common stock (and cash in lieu of fractional shares, if
any) in the merger and shares of the Company's common stock will be
listed on the NYSE immediately after the merger, and (ii) the
election to receive cash consideration is voluntary and dependent
upon Rite Aid stockholders' election (other than cash in lieu of
fractional shares, if any), the alleged disparity in value between
the additional cash consideration of $0.1832 per share and the
additional stock exchange ratio of 0.0079 shares of common stock of
the Company per share of Rite Aid common stock amounts to a "false
choice" designed to deprive Rite Aid stockholders of their alleged
appraisal rights.

Plaintiff alleges breach of fiduciary duty claims against the
Director Defendants for their alleged failure to provide, and
inform Rite Aid stockholders of, their alleged statutory appraisal
rights under Delaware law and for allegedly falsely informing Rite
Aid stockholders that they will not have appraisal rights.

Plaintiff further contends that the proxy statement/prospectus
filed by the Company on April 6, 2018 was deficient under Section
262(d)(1) of the DGCL for failure to inform stockholders of their
alleged appraisal rights. Mr. Aklile seeks declarations from the
Chancery Court that the action is a proper class action and that
the Director Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by failing
to adequately inform class members of their appraisal rights under
Delaware law, to enjoin the proposed action from closing until such
time as class members are afforded the ability to seek appraisal of
their shares, or otherwise permit class members to petition the
Court for appraisal, and attorneys, fees, expenses and costs to the
Plaintiff.

The defendants oppose the Plaintiff's claims on the ground that
Rite Aid stockholders have no right of appraisal under the DGCL
because they have a right to receive all stock consideration as
described in the proxy statement/prospectus filed by the Company on
April 6, 2018. The defendants intend to seek to dismiss the claims
against them by bringing a dispositive motion and to otherwise
vigorously defend against this action.

On May 7, 2018, the Chancery Court held a hearing on Plaintiff's
motion to expedite and for a preliminary injunction. On May 9, 2018
the Chancery Court denied the Plaintiff's motion to expedite,
finding that the Plaintiff failed to assert a colorable claim for
relief. On May 16, 2018, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss
the Plaintiff's complaint.

Albertsons Companies, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as a
food and drug retailer in the United States. Its food and drug
retail stores offer grocery products, general merchandise, health
and beauty care products, pharmacy, fuel, and other items and
services. The company is headquartered in Boise, Idaho.


ALDO US INC: Faces Murphy Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site
---------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES MURPHY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. ALDO US, INC., Case No. 1:18-cv-06868-ALC (S.D.N.Y.,
July 31, 2018), arises from the Defendant's alleged failure to
design, construct, maintain, and operate its Web site --
http://www.aldoshoes.com/us/-- to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people.

ALDO is a Delaware Corporation doing business in New York.  The
Company is a shoes and accessories retailer that operates ALDO
stores as well as the ALDO Web site.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -


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


ALLERGAN PLC: 525 Testosterone Suits vs Allergan Finance Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2018, that there approximately 525 currently pending
actions against Allergan Finance, LLC, among other defendants,
related to testosterone products.  These cases have been
consolidated in an MDL in federal court in Illinois.

Beginning in 2014, a number of product liability suits were filed
against Actavis, Inc., now known as Allergan Finance, LLC, and one
or more of its former subsidiaries as well as other manufacturers
and distributors of testosterone products, for personal injuries
including but not limited to cardiovascular events allegedly
arising out of the use of Androderm(R).  There are approximately
525 currently pending actions which have been consolidated in an
MDL in federal court in Illinois.  The defendants have responded to
the plaintiffs' master complaint in the MDL and discovery is
ongoing.  The parties have reached an agreement in principle to
settle the remaining cases.  

Allergan plc, a specialty pharmaceutical company, develops,
manufactures, markets, and distributes medical aesthetics,
biosimilar, and over-the-counter pharmaceutical products worldwide.
It operates through US Specialized Therapeutics, US General
Medicine, and International segments. The Company was formerly
known as Actavis plc and changed its name to Allergan plc in June
2015. Allergan plc was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in
Dublin, Ireland.


ALLERGAN PLC: Appeal on Asacol(R) Litigation Still Continues
------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc continues to defend itself in the Asacol(R)
Litigation, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on August 3,
2018 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018.

Two class action complaints were filed on June 22, 2015, and three
more on September 21, 2015, in federal court in Massachusetts on
behalf of a putative class of indirect purchasers.  Complaints were
also filed on behalf of a putative class of direct purchasers of
Asacol(R) making similar allegations to the complaints filed by the
indirect purchaser plaintiffs.  Those matters have been
consolidated with the indirect purchaser cases.

In each complaint plaintiffs allege that they paid higher prices
for Warner Chilcott's Asacol(R) HD and Delzicol(R) products as a
result of Warner Chilcott's alleged actions preventing or delaying
generic competition in the market for Warner Chilcott's older
Asacol(R) product in violation of U.S. federal antitrust laws
and/or state laws.  Plaintiffs seek unspecified injunctive relief,
treble damages and/or attorneys' fees.

The Company has settled the claims brought by the direct purchaser
plaintiffs.  The court granted the indirect purchaser plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.  The Company filed a motion for
summary judgment seeking dismissal of the indirect purchaser
plaintiffs' claims which the court denied on November 9, 2017.
Trial was set to being on January 22, 2018.

However, on January 17, 2018, the Court of Appeals for the First
Circuit issued an order granting the Company's motion under
Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(f) to appeal the district court's decision to
certify the proposed class.  The appellate court thereafter issued
a decision staying the trial in the district court.  The appeal was
fully briefed on March 26, 2018.  Oral argument on the appeal was
held on May 8, 2018.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Allergan plc, a specialty pharmaceutical company, develops,
manufactures, markets, and distributes medical aesthetics,
biosimilar, and over-the-counter pharmaceutical products worldwide.
It operates through US Specialized Therapeutics, US General
Medicine, and International segments. The Company was formerly
known as Actavis plc and changed its name to Allergan plc in June
2015. Allergan plc was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in
Dublin, Ireland.


ALLERGAN PLC: Appeal Pending in Mass. Celexa(R)/Lexapro(R) Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the summary judgment order and the order denying
class certification in the Celexa(R)/Lexapro(R) Class Actions in
the federal district court in Massachusetts remains pending,
according to Allergan plc's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2018.

Forest and certain of its affiliates were named as defendants in
multiple federal court actions relating to the promotion of
Celexa(R) and/or Lexapro(R) all of which were consolidated in the
Celexa(R)/Lexapro(R) MDL proceeding in the federal district court
in Massachusetts.  Actions were filed in the federal district
courts in Minnesota and Washington in November 2013 and August
2014, respectively, seeking to certify a nationwide class of
third-party payor entities and consumers that purchased Celexa(R)
and Lexapro(R) for pediatric use.

The complaints each assert claims under the federal Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations ("RICO") Act, alleging that
Forest engaged in an off-label marketing scheme and paid illegal
kickbacks to physicians to induce prescriptions of Celexa(R) and
Lexapro(R).

The court denied both plaintiffs' class certification motions and
entered summary judgment in favor of the Company in both actions.
Plaintiffs in both cases have filed a Notice of Appeal of the
summary judgment order and the order denying class certification.

Allergan plc, a specialty pharmaceutical company, develops,
manufactures, markets, and distributes medical aesthetics,
biosimilar, and over-the-counter pharmaceutical products worldwide.
It operates through US Specialized Therapeutics, US General
Medicine, and International segments. The Company was formerly
known as Actavis plc and changed its name to Allergan plc in June
2015. Allergan plc was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in
Dublin, Ireland.


ALLERGAN PLC: Consolidated Restasis(R) Class Action Continues
-------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2018, that the plaintiffs in the Restasis(R) Class Action
Litigation have filed a consolidated amended complaint which the
Company has since moved to dismiss.

Between November 7, 2017, and February 26, 2018, seventeen putative
class actions were filed in federal district courts against
Allergan alleging that the company unlawfully harmed competition by
engaging in conduct to delay the market entry of generic versions
of Restasis(R).

Twelve of the complaints were filed on behalf of putative classes
of end-payors, and five were filed on behalf of putative classes of
direct purchasers.  One direct purchaser complaint and two
end-payor complaints were later voluntarily dismissed.  The cases
have all been consolidated in a multidistrict litigation in the
federal court in the Eastern District of New York.  The complaints
challenge Allergan's conduct in prosecuting and obtaining patents
covering Restasis(R), listing those patents in the FDA's Orange
Book, asserting those patents against potential generic competitors
in patent-infringement litigation, filing citizens petitions with
the FDA concerning generic companies' drug applications for generic
Restasis(R), and transferring patents to the sovereign Native
American Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe.  Both the end-payors and the
direct purchasers allege that these actions violated federal
antitrust laws, and the end-payors further allege violations of
state antitrust and consumer-protection laws and unjust
enrichment.

All plaintiffs seek damages, declaratory relief, and injunctive
relief.  Plaintiffs have filed a consolidated amended complaint
which the Company has since moved to dismiss.

Allergan plc, a specialty pharmaceutical company, develops,
manufactures, markets, and distributes medical aesthetics,
biosimilar, and over-the-counter pharmaceutical products worldwide.
It operates through US Specialized Therapeutics, US General
Medicine, and International segments. The Company was formerly
known as Actavis plc and changed its name to Allergan plc in June
2015. Allergan plc was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in
Dublin, Ireland.


ALLERGAN PLC: Court Denies Class Certification Bid in TRT Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The court has denied the plaintiff's class certification motion in
the Testosterone Replacement Therapy Class Action, according to
Allergan plc's Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 3, 2018, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2018.

On November 24, 2014, the Company was served with a putative class
action complaint filed on behalf a class of third party payers in
federal court in Illinois.  The suit alleges that the Company and
other named pharmaceutical defendants violated various laws
including the federal RICO statute and state consumer protection
laws in connection with the sale and marketing of certain
testosterone replacement therapy pharmaceutical products ("TRT
Products"), including the Company's Androderm(R) product.  This
matter was filed in the TRT Products Liability MDL notwithstanding
that it is not a product liability matter.

Plaintiff alleges that it reimbursed third parties for dispensing
TRT Products to beneficiaries of its insurance policies.  Plaintiff
seeks to obtain certain equitable relief, including injunctive
relief and an order requiring restitution and/or disgorgement, and
to recover damages and multiple damages in an unspecified amount.
Defendants jointly filed a motion to dismiss the third amended
complaint and in its ruling the court dismissed all claims against
the Company except plaintiff's RICO conspiracy claim.  Discovery in
this matter is ongoing.

Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification on November 6,
2017.  On March 5, 2018, Defendants filed papers in opposition to
Plaintiffs' class certification motion.  On July 26, 2018, the
court entered an order denying plaintiff's class certification
motion.

Allergan plc, a specialty pharmaceutical company, develops,
manufactures, markets, and distributes medical aesthetics,
biosimilar, and over-the-counter pharmaceutical products worldwide.
It operates through US Specialized Therapeutics, US General
Medicine, and International segments. The Company was formerly
known as Actavis plc and changed its name to Allergan plc in June
2015. Allergan plc was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in
Dublin, Ireland.


ALLERGAN PLC: Court Denies Summary Judgment in Namenda(R) Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The court has denied on August 2, 2018, Allergan plc's motion for
summary judgment in the Namenda(R) Litigation, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018.

In September 2014, the State of New York, through the Office of the
Attorney General of the State of New York, filed a lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
alleging that Forest was acting to prevent or delay generic
competition to Forest's immediate-release product Namenda(R) in
violation of federal and New York antitrust laws and committed
other fraudulent acts in connection with its commercial plans for
Namenda(R) XR.

The district court granted the state's motion for a preliminary
injunction which was later affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit.  Forest and the New York Attorney General reached a
settlement on November 24, 2015.

On May 29, 2015, a putative class action was filed on behalf of a
class of direct purchasers in the federal district court in New
York.  Since that time, additional complaints have been filed on
behalf of putative classes of direct and indirect purchasers.  The
class action complaints make claims similar to those asserted by
the New York Attorney General and also include claims that
Namenda(R) patent litigation settlements between Forest and generic
companies also violated the antitrust laws.

Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on two of the counts of their
complaint.  The Court granted plaintiffs' motion in part as to the
collateral estoppel effect of a prior finding of anti-competitive
conduct, and denied the motions on whether the Company's obtaining
pediatric exclusivity was anti-competitive conduct.

On August 2, 2018, the court denied the Company's motion for
summary judgment.

Allergan plc, a specialty pharmaceutical company, develops,
manufactures, markets, and distributes medical aesthetics,
biosimilar, and over-the-counter pharmaceutical products worldwide.
It operates through US Specialized Therapeutics, US General
Medicine, and International segments. The Company was formerly
known as Actavis plc and changed its name to Allergan plc in June
2015. Allergan plc was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in
Dublin, Ireland.


ALLERGAN PLC: Faces 1,028 Actions on Opioid Drug Abuse Matters
--------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that it has been named as a
defendant, along with several other manufacturers of opioid
products, in approximately 1,028 matters relating to the promotion
and sale of prescription opioid pain relievers and additional suits
may be filed.

The first complaints were filed by the California counties of Santa
Clara and Orange, on behalf of the State of California, the City of
Chicago and the State of Mississippi, in May 2014, June 2014 and
December 2015, respectively.  Each of the lawsuits alleges that the
manufacturer defendants engaged in a deceptive campaign to promote
their products in violation of state laws and seek unspecified
monetary damages, penalties and injunctive relief.

In May 2017 the State of Ohio filed a lawsuit in state court which
parallels the claims in the California, Chicago and Mississippi
matters.  Since the filing of the complaint by the State of Ohio,
additional cases have been filed, including cases filed by others
states but mainly by political subdivisions of states (i.e.,
counties and municipalities) in state and federal courts across the
country.

In addition, cases have been filed on behalf of consumers who were
prescribed opioid products or were prescribed opioid products and
were subsequently treated for an overdose or addiction.  The
federal court cases have been consolidated in an MDL in the federal
court for the Northern District of Ohio.

In the California case, which is pending in state court in
California, the court has set a trial date of June 28, 2019.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

The Company is aware that other states and political subdivisions
are filing comparable actions against, among others, manufacturers
and parties that promoted prescription opioid pain relievers.

Allergan plc, a specialty pharmaceutical company, develops,
manufactures, markets, and distributes medical aesthetics,
biosimilar, and over-the-counter pharmaceutical products worldwide.
It operates through US Specialized Therapeutics, US General
Medicine, and International segments. The Company was formerly
known as Actavis plc and changed its name to Allergan plc in June
2015. Allergan plc was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in
Dublin, Ireland.


ALLERGAN PLC: Gets Court Approval on Bid to Dismiss ERISA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A New Jersey court on July 3, 2018, granted Allergan plc's motion
to dismiss an ERISA complaint in its entirety, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 3, 2018, for the quarterly period ended June
30, 2018.

On November 4, 2016, a class action was filed by a putative class
of Allergan shareholders in federal court in California against the
Company and certain of its current and former officers alleging
that the Company and certain of its current and former officers
made materially false and misleading statements.

Additional similar class action complaints and one complaint by an
individual defendant have been filed and these cases have been
consolidated in the federal district court in New Jersey.

The complaints allege generally that between February 2014 and
November 2016, Allergan and certain of its officers made materially
false and misleading statements regarding the Company's internal
controls over its financial reporting and failed to disclose that
its Actavis generics unit had engaged in illegal, anticompetitive
price-fixing with its generic industry peers.  The complaint seeks
unspecified monetary damages.

After the Company filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs filed a
second amended consolidated complaint on November 28, 2017.  The
Company's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, filed on
January 22, 2018, is still pending.

A complaint was filed in California state court, premised on the
same underlying allegations, by an individual opt-out plaintiff on
February 2, 2018.  Two complaints were filed, one in the federal
district court in California and one in the federal district court
in New Jersey, that are premised on the same alleged underlying
conduct that is at issue in the securities litigation but that
assert claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974 ("ERISA").  These complaints also have been consolidated in
the district court in New Jersey.

The ERISA complaints assert claims on behalf of a putative class of
individuals who participated in the Company's retirement plans and
seek an unspecified amount of damages and other injunctive relief.
On October 23, 2017, the ERISA litigation Plaintiffs filed an
amended consolidated complaint which the Company moved to dismiss
on February 2, 2018.  On July 3, 2018, the court granted the
Company's motion to dismiss the ERISA complaint in its entirety.

Allergan plc, a specialty pharmaceutical company, develops,
manufactures, markets, and distributes medical aesthetics,
biosimilar, and over-the-counter pharmaceutical products worldwide.
It operates through US Specialized Therapeutics, US General
Medicine, and International segments. The Company was formerly
known as Actavis plc and changed its name to Allergan plc in June
2015. Allergan plc was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in
Dublin, Ireland.


ALLERGAN PLC: Zeltiq Seeks to Drop 3rd Amended Advertising Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2018, that on July 23, 2018, Zeltiq(R) Aesthetics, Inc. filed a
motion to dismiss the third amended complaint in the Zeltiq
Advertising Litigation.

On April 26, 2017, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against Zeltiq in state court in California alleging that Zeltiq
misled customers regarding the promotion of its CoolSculpting
product and the product's premarket notification clearance status.

On May 30, 2017, the case was removed to the United States District
Court for the Central District of California.  On July 20, 2017,
Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.  In August 2017, Zeltiq
filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.

On June 11, 2018, the Court granted Zeltiq's motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.  On July 2, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a third
amended complaint.  On July 23, 2018, Zeltiq filed a motion to
dismiss the third amended complaint.

Allergan plc, a specialty pharmaceutical company, develops,
manufactures, markets, and distributes medical aesthetics,
biosimilar, and over-the-counter pharmaceutical products worldwide.
It operates through US Specialized Therapeutics, US General
Medicine, and International segments. The Company was formerly
known as Actavis plc and changed its name to Allergan plc in June
2015. Allergan plc was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in
Dublin, Ireland.


ALPEX USA: Lopez Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
--------------------------------------------
Alejandro Lopez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Alpex USA Corp dba Simple 2 Own, LLC, Case No.
1:18-cv-22859 (S.D. Fla., July 16, 2018), is brought against the
Defendant for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff is a natural person who, at all times relevant to
this action, was a resident of Broward County, Florida.

The Defendant is a Florida corporation whose principal office is
located at 19577 NW 2nd Avenue, Miami Gardens, FL 33169. The
Defendant is a retail outlet that sells appliances, electronics,
and furniture to individuals and businesses. To promote its
services, Defendant engages in unsolicited marketing, harming
thousands of consumers in the process, says the complaint. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

ALTICE USA: Faces O'Neill IPO-Related Securities Suit in N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW O'NEILL, Individually and on Behalf of Himself and All
Others Similarly Situated v. ALTICE USA, INC., ALTICE EUROPE N.V.
(f/k/a ALTICE N.V.), PATRICK DRAHI, JEREMIE JEAN BONNIN, ABDELHAKIM
BOUBAZINE, MICHEL COMBES, DAVID P. CONNOLLY, DEXTER G. GOEI,
VICTORIA M. MINK, MARK CHRISTOPHER MULLEN, DENNIS OKHUIJSEN, LISA
ROSENBLUM, CHARLES F. STEWART, RAYMOND SVIDER, GOLDMAN SACHS & CO.
LLC, J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC,
CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER &
SMITH, INC., BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC., BNP PARIBAS SECURITIES CORP.,
CREDIT AGRICOLE SECURITIES (USA) INC., DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES
INC., RBC CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC, SCOTIA CAPITAL (USA) LLC, SG
AMERICAS SECURITIES LLC, and TD SECURITIES (USA) LLC, Case No.
711788/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Queens Cty., July 31, 2018), asserts
strict-liability, non-fraud claims under the Securities Act of
1933.

Mr. O'Neill brings this class action on behalf of all persons, who
purchased or otherwise acquired Altice USA common stock pursuant or
traceable to the Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in
connection with Altice USA's June 2017 initial public offering.  He
alleges that the Offering Documents contained untrue statements of
material fact and omitted to state material facts.  He points out
that Altice N.V. was, in truth, suffering severe customer attrition
in its most important markets, France and Portugal, as a direct
result of mismanaged price increases and shoddy network and
customer support, all of which was having a materially negative
impact on Altice N.V.'s revenues, margins, and market share.

Altice USA is incorporated under the laws of the state of Delaware,
headquartered in Long Island City, New York.  Altice USA is a
broadband communications provider and, until approximately June 8,
2018, was the United States subsidiary of Altice N.V.  Altice USA
is one of the largest broadband communications and video services
providers in the United States, delivering broadband, pay
television, telephony services, Wi-Fi hotspot access, proprietary
content, and advertising services to approximately 4.9 million
residential and business customers across 21 states, as of the
IPO.

Altice Europe N.V. was formally known as Altice N.V., prior to June
8, 2018.  Altice Europe is a Netherlands-based multinational
telecommunications company founded and controlled by Patrick Drahi.
Michel Combes was a director of Altice USA.

Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC, J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Morgan
Stanley, Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Merrill Lynch, Pierce,
Fenner & Smith, Inc., Barclays Capital Inc., BNP Paribas Securities
Corp., Credit Agricole Securities (USA) Inc., Deutsche Bank
Securities Inc., RBC Capital Markets, LLC, Scotia Capital (USA)
LLC, SG Americas Securities LLC and TD Securities (USA) LLC are
financial services companies that acted as underwriters for the
IPO, helping to draft and disseminate the Offering
Documents and solicit investors to purchase Altice USA securities
issued.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas L. Laughlin, IV, Esq.
          Rhiana L. Swartz, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
          The Helmsley Building
          230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10169
          Telephone: (212) 233-6444
          Facsimile: (212) 233-6334
          E-mail: tlaughlin@scott-scott.com
                  rswartz@scott-scott.com



AMERICAN CORADIUS: Norton Files Placeholder Class Certification Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned TROY NORTON, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN CORADIUS
INTERNATIONAL LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-01214 (E.D.
Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order certifying
proposed classes, appointing the Plaintiff as class representative,
and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as Class Counsel, and for such
other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate.

The Plaintiff further asks that the Court stay this class
certification motion until an amended motion for class
certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties relief
from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and requirement
that Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents in support of
this motion.

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification
motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on
the certification motion. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891,
896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First
Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of
that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class
from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs."). While the Seventh
Circuit has held that the specific procedure described in
Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual settlement of a class
representative's claims, the same decision cautions that other
methods may prevent a plaintiff from representing a class. Fulton
Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., 860 F.3d 541, 545-46 (7th Cir. 2017).

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
          Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
          Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482 8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482 8001
          E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com
                  jfruchter@ademilaw.com
                  bslatky@ademilaw.com


AMICA MUTUAL: Ct. Recommends Partial Dismissal of F. Carter's Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty of the U.S. District Court for
the District of Colorado recommended that Judge Raymond P. Moore
grants in part and denies in part Amica's motion to dismiss the
case, FRISBY MILES CARTER, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AMICA MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Civil Action No.
17-cv-02156-RM-MEH (D. Colo.).

Carter, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
initiated the purported class action on Sept. 7, 2017 and filed the
operative Amended Complaint on Dec. 20, 2017 alleging, inter alia,
that Defendant Amica unlawfully failed to pay its insureds --
specifically, holders of Amica automobile insurance policies --
ownership tax and title and registration fees associated with a
motor vehicle's total loss in the event that an automobile accident
or other event results in a total loss determination by Amica for
the insured's vehicle.

Carter obtained automobile insurance from Amica, which covered the
2016 calendar year, for a personal Toyota Tacoma automobile he
owned during that time period.  The policy provided for coverage in
the event of total loss of the motor vehicle.

In October 2015, the Plaintiff incurred $397.18 in ownership taxes
and registration and title fees related to the Toyota Tacoma.  On
Feb. 9, 2016, his Toyota Tacoma was in an accident.  The Plaintiff
submitted a claim to Amica based on the insurance policy he had
obtained for the Toyota Tacoma.

Amica apparently determined during its investigation the Toyota
Tacoma was a total loss as a result of the accident, and provided
the Plaintiff with a "Total Loss Summary," including an accounting
of the insurance benefits it would pay him in light of the total
loss.  As stated in the "Total Loss Summary," Amica did not agree
to pay the Plaintiff the pro-rata amount of any ownership taxes and
title and registration fees associated with the total loss of the
Toyota Tacoma, nor the total amount of ownership taxes and title
and registration fees he incurred related to the replacement
vehicle.  Instead, Amica paid him $7.20 related to a "Title Fee"
only.

Thereafter, in May 2016, the Plaintiff incurred $144.66 in
ownership taxes and registration and title fees related to a
replacement vehicle for the Toyota Tacoma.  He did not receive any
credit from the Department of Motor Vehicles ("DMV") for the
registration fees he incurred when registering the replacement
vehicle.

To date, Amica has not paid the Plaintiff, who is the policy
holder, the pro-rata amount of any ownership taxes and title and
registration fees he incurred for the Toyota Tacoma, nor has it
paid the total amount of ownership tax and registration and title
fees related to the replacement vehicle.

Based on these factual allegations, the Plaintiff claims, on behalf
of himself and others similarly situated, violations of Colo. Rev.
Stat. Section 6-1-105, et seq. and Section 10-3-1115, et seq., and
bad faith breach of insurance contract.

Amica moves to dismiss these claims arguing that the Plaintiff
fails to allege he is entitled to any ownership taxes or fees
associated with the total loss, fails to properly plead the
elements of his causes of action, fails to plead fraud with
specificity as required for an individual claim under the Colorado
Consumer Protection Act ("CCPA"), and lacks standing to bring a
claim for injunctive relief under the CCPA.

The Plaintiff counters that Colorado statutory law supports his
position that ownership taxes fall within the purview of Colo. Rev.
Stat. Section 10-4-639(1), and this section mandates the payment of
such taxes and fees; he has plausibly pled the elements of all
causes of action; he has properly pled fraud with specificity; and
he is not aware of binding case law prohibiting class-wide
injunctive relief under the CCPA.

Amica replies that the Plaintiff fails to articulate facts
supporting an allegation that he incurred unpaid fees and taxes
covered by the statute and associated with the total loss, and his
alleged entitlement to specific unpaid fees and taxes under C.R.S
Section 10-4-639(1) is a necessary condition precedent to each
claim alleged; he fails to allege facts to support the elements of
a claim that Amica unreasonably denied or delayed responding to a
request for payment of a covered benefit under the insurance
policy; his breach of contract claim is supported only by
conclusory allegations; and his CCPA class and individual claims
must be dismissed.

Magistrate Judge Hegarty concludes that (i) Colo. Rev. Stat.
Section 10-4-639(1) does not require an insurer to pay "ownership
taxes" in settlement for the total loss of a vehicle, but the
Plaintiff has plausibly pled his first and third claims to recover
any such "registration fees"; (ii) the Plaintiff has failed to
plead a deceptive trade practice with particularity as required by
Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b); and (iii) the Plaintiff does not plausibly
state claims for monetary and injunctive relief on behalf of a
class under the CCPA.

Given these findings, he respectfully recommends that Judge Moore
(i) grants Amica's motion to dismiss the first and third claims to
the extent they seek recovery of "ownership taxes," but otherwise
denies the motion to dismiss the first and third claims; and (ii)
grants the motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's second claim for
failure to plead a "deceptive trade practice" or, in the
alternative, dismisses the claim seeking class-wide monetary
damages and injunctive relief.

Based on the entire record and for the reasons stated, Magistrate
Judge Hegarty respectfully recommended that the Defendant's Motion
to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint, filed Feb. 6,
2018, be granted in part and denied in part as set forth.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 22, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/B50hjd from Leagle.com.

Frisby Miles Carter, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Behram Viraf Parekh, Kirtland &
Packard LLP, Joshua Adam Fields, Kirtland & Packard LLP, Michael
Louis Kelly, Kirtland & Packard LLP & Brett Norman Huff --
bhuff@huffandleslie.com -- Huff & Leslie, LLP.

Amica Mutual Insurance Company, a Rhode Island Corporation, and
DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendant, represented by Robert Gabriel Levy
-- rlevy@hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw & Culbertson, LLP, Robert John
Romero -- rromero@hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, Devin
Christopher Daines -- ddaines@lewisbess.com -- Lewis Bess Williams
& Weese P.C., Katherine Mesenbring Field -- kfield@lewisbess.com --
Lewis Bess Williams & Weese P.C. & Janette Lee Ferguson --
jferguson@lewisbess.com -- Lewis Bess Williams & Weese P.C..

ANTERO RESOURCES: Bond et al. Seek to Certify Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned JEFFREY T. BOND, et al., the Plaintiffs,
v. ANTERO RESOURCES, INC., the Defendant, Case No.
2:17-cv-00014-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an
order granting their motion to certify the lawsuit as a class
action and to appoint class counsel.

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Warner D. Mendenhall, Esq.
          190 N. Union Street, Suite 201
          Akron, OH 44305
          Telephone: (330) 535 9160
          Facsimile: (330) 762 9743
          E-mail: warner@warnermendenhall.com

               - and -

          Larry D. Shenise, Esq.
          P.O. Box 471
          Tallmadge, OH 44278
          Telephone: (330) 472 5622
          Facsimile: (330) 294 0044
          E-mail: ldshenise@sheniselaw.com


ANTHEM INC: Appeal in ERISA Litigation Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------
Anthem, 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 plaintiffs' appeal in the case
entitled In Re Express Scripts/Anthem ERISA Litigation is still
pending.

Anthem, Inc. is a defendant in a class action lawsuit that was
initially filed in June 2016 against Anthem, Inc. and Express
Scripts, which has been consolidated into a single multi-district
lawsuit captioned In Re Express Scripts/Anthem ERISA Litigation, in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The consolidated complaint was filed by plaintiffs against Express
Scripts and the company on behalf of all persons who are
participants in or beneficiaries of any ERISA or non-ERISA
healthcare plan from December 1, 2009 to the present in which the
company provided prescription drug benefits through the PBM
Agreement with Express Scripts and paid a percentage based
co-insurance payment in the course of using that prescription drug
benefit. The plaintiffs allege that the company breached its
duties, either under ERISA or with respect to the implied covenant
of good faith and fair dealing implied in the health plans, (i) by
failing to adequately monitor Express Scripts' pricing under the
PBM Agreement and (ii) by placing the company's own pecuniary
interest above the best interests of the company's insureds by
allegedly agreeing to higher pricing in the PBM Agreement in
exchange for the purchase price for the company's NextRx PBM
business, and (iii) with respect to the non-ERISA members, by
negotiating and entering into the PBM Agreement with Express
Scripts that was allegedly detrimental to the interests of such
non-ERISA members.

Plaintiffs seek to hold the company and Express Scripts jointly and
severally liable and to recover all losses suffered by the proposed
class, equitable relief, disgorgement of alleged ill-gotten gains,
injunctive relief, attorney's fees and costs and interest.

In April 2017, the company filed a motion to dismiss the claims
brought against it, and it was granted, without prejudice, in
January 2018. Plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal with the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Anthem said "We intend to vigorously defend this suit; however, its
ultimate outcome cannot be presently determined."

Anthem, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as a health
benefits company in the United States. It operates through three
segments: Commercial & Specialty Business, Government Business, and
Other. Anthem, Inc. was founded in 1944 and is headquartered in
Indianapolis, Indiana.


ANTHEM INC: Awaits Final Approval of Data Breach Case Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anthem, 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 a ruling on final approval of the parties
settlement in the cyber-attack related suit remains pending.

Civil class actions were filed in various federal and state courts
by current or former members and others seeking damages that they
alleged arose from the cyber-attack. In June 2015, the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation entered an order transferring the
consolidated civil actions to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, or the U.S. District Court in a
matter captioned In Re Anthem, Inc. Data Breach Litigation.

The parties agreed to settle plaintiffs' claims on a class-wide
basis for a total settlement payment of $115.0. In August 2017, the
U.S. District Court issued an order of preliminary approval of the
settlement. The U.S. District Court held hearings on plaintiffs'
motion for final approval and class counsel's fee petition in
February and June 2018 and appointed a special master to review
class counsel's fee petition. A ruling on final approval remains
pending.

Three state court cases related to the cyber attack are presently
proceeding outside of this multidistrict litigation.

Anthem, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as a health
benefits company in the United States. It operates through three
segments: Commercial & Specialty Business, Government Business, and
Other. Anthem, Inc. was founded in 1944 and is headquartered in
Indianapolis, Indiana.

ARATANA THERAPEUTICS: S.D.N.Y. Securities Suit Dismissed in June
----------------------------------------------------------------
The consolidated class action under the caption, In re Aratana
Therapeutics, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:17-cv-00880,
has been dismissed in June 2018, according to Aratana Therapeutics,
Inc.'s Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 3, 2018, for the quarterly period ended June
30, 2018.

The Company said, "We and two of our current officers were named as
defendants in a putative securities class action lawsuit filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York (the "Court") under the caption, In re Aratana Therapeutics,
Inc.  Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:17-cv-00880.  The lawsuit
alleged that we and our senior officers made false and/or
misleading statements and omitted material facts regarding our
business, operations, prospects and performance during the proposed
class period of March 16, 2015 to March 13, 2017.  We vigorously
defended all claims asserted, including by filing a motion to
dismiss.  On June 11, 2018, the Court issued an Opinion and Order
granting the motion to dismiss in its entirety and dismissing with
prejudice all claims asserted against us and our senior officers
(the "Opinion and Order").  The plaintiffs have not filed a notice
of appeal of the Court's Opinion and Order, and the time to file
such notice has expired.  We now consider the matter to be
closed."

Aratana is a pet therapeutics company focused on licensing,
developing and commercializing innovative therapeutics for dogs and
cats. As a pioneer in pet therapeutics, Aratana's mission is to
deliver safe and effective therapeutics that elevate the standard
of care in veterinary medicine.


ARCOAIRE AIR: Oddo et al. Seek to Certify Class & Subclass
----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned STEVE ODDO, RAJENE REARDON, ANTHONY
LASALA, LINDA LAMM, KEITH KIMBALL, NORMAN KLINGE, and DAN
GALLAGHER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. ARCOAIRE AIR CONDITIONING AND HEATING,
CARRIER CORPORATION, BRYANT HEATING AND COOLING SYSTEMS,
COMFORTMAKER AIR CONDITIONING & HEATING, INTERNATIONAL COMFORT
PRODUCTS LLC, and UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, the Defendants,
Case No. 8:15-cv-01985-CAS-E (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move
the Court on October 29, 2018, for an order:

   1. certifying class and subclasses:

      California Class (Represented by Plaintiff Steve Oddo):

      "all original purchasers1 in California, including
      individuals and entities, of new, 1.5- to 5-ton Carrier
      condensing units or Small Packaged air conditioning units,
      and not for resale, that utilize 410A refrigerant and
      contain an Emerson scroll compressor with a serial number
      beginning 13L through 14H, but excluding
      the compressors identified by Emerson in CARRIER_0043279
      as not containing Ryconox";

      CLRA Subclass:

      "all original purchasers in California who purchased for
      personal, family, or household purposes, and not for
      resale, new, 1.5- to 5-ton Carrier condensing units or
      Small Packaged air conditioning units that utilize 410A
      refrigerant and contain an Emerson scroll compressor with a
      serial number beginning 13L through 14H, but excluding the
      compressors identified by Emerson in CARRIER_0043279 as not
      containing Ryconox. The CLRA Subclass seeks class
      certification for violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies
      Act";

      Missouri Class (Represented by Plaintiff Norman Klinge):

      "all original purchasers in Missouri, including individuals
      and entities, that purchased for personal, family, or
      household purposes, and not for resale, new, 1.5- to 5-ton
      Carrier condensing units or Small Packaged air conditioning
      units that utilize 410A refrigerant and contain an Emerson
      scroll compressor with a serial number beginning 13L
      through 14H, but excluding the compressors identified by
      Emerson in CARRIER_0043279 as not containing Ryconox. The
      Missouri Class seeks class certification for (a) violations
      of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act; (b) common-law
      fraudulent concealment; and (c) common-law negligent
      misrepresentation."

      Georgia Damages Class (Represented by Plaintiff Linda
      Lamm):

      "all original purchasers in Georgia, including individuals
      and entities that purchased for personal, family, or
      household purposes, and not for resale, new, 1.5- to 5-ton
      Carrier condensing units or Small Packaged air conditioning
      units that utilize 410A refrigerant and contain an Emerson
      scroll compressor with a serial number beginning 13L
      through 14H, but excluding the compressors identified by
      Emerson in CARRIER_0043279 as not containing Ryconox. The
      Georgia Damages Class seeks class certification of claims
      for violations of the Fair Business Practices Act

      Georgia Injunctive Relief Class (Represented by Plaintiff
      Linda Lamm):

      "all original purchasing owners and subsequent owners in
      Georgia, including individuals and entities, that purchased
      new, 1.5- to 5-ton Carrier condensing units or Small
      Packaged air conditioning units that utilize 410A
      refrigerant and contain an Emerson scroll compressor with a
      serial number beginning 13L through 14H, but excluding the
      compressors identified by Emerson in CARRIER_0043279 as not
      containing Ryconox. The Georgia Injunctive Relief Class
      seeks class certification for violations of the Uniform
      Deceptive Trade Practices Act.";

      Indiana Class (Represented by Plaintiff Dan Gallagher):

      "all original purchasers in Indiana, including individuals
      and entities, that purchased for personal, family, or
      household purposes, and not for resale, new, 1.5- to 5-ton
      Carrier condensing units or Small Packaged air conditioning
      units that utilize 410A refrigerant and contain an Emerson
      scroll compressor with a serial number beginning 13L
      through 14H, but excluding the compressors identified by
      Emerson in CARRIER_0043279 as not containing Ryconox. The
      Indiana Class seeks class certification for violations of
      the Deceptive Consumer Sales Act."

      Excluded from all of the above classes are the following
      individuals and/or entities: the Court, all Court personnel
      involved in the handling of this case, as well as their
      immediate family members; Carrier and its subsidiaries,
      affiliates, officers and directors, current or former
      employees, and any entity in which Carrier has a
      controlling interest; all individuals who timely elect to
      be excluded from this proceeding using the correct protocol
      for opting out; and any attorneys or other employees of any
      law firms hired, retained and/or appointed by or on behalf
      of the named Plaintiffs to represent the named Plaintiffs
      and/or any proposed Class members or proposed class in this
      lawsuit; and

   2. appointing Chimicles & Tikellis LLP and Shepherd,
      Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP as Class Counsel.

Counsel for Plaintiff, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated:

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

               - and -

          Timothy N. Mathews, Esq.
          Zachary P. Beatty, Esq.
          CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP
          One Haverford Centre
          361 West Lancaster Avenue
          Haverford, PA 19041
          Telephone: (610) 642 8500
          Facsimile: (610) 649 633
          E-mail: tnm@chimicles.com
                  zpb@chimicles.com

               - and –

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


ARIZONA: $1.1MM in Attys' Fees Awarded in Prisoners' Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Victor Antonio Parsons, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Charles
L. Ryan, et al., Defendants, Case No. CV-12-0601-PHX-DKD (D.
Ariz.), Magistrate Judge David K. Duncan of the U.S. District Court
for the District of Arizona (i) granted in part the Plaintiffs'
motion for attorneys' fees, and (ii) granted in part and denied in
part their motion for reconsideration.

In October 2014, the Parties entered into a Stipulation resolving
the matter and empowering the Court to enforce it.  In April 2016,
the Plaintiffs filed their first "Motion to Enforce."  The
Defendants moved to stay briefing on the Motion to Enforce and
requested a status conference.  The Court conducted such a status
conference on April 26, 2016.

Since then, the Court has moved to monthly status conferences that
have grown from 30 minutes to an entire day.  During the last two
years, the Plaintiffs have filed several other Motions to Enforce
and have used the monthly status conferences to prosecute
enforcement claims for other aspects of the Stipulation, such as
the Stipulation's requirement to offer Class Members a mammogram or
colorectal screening.  As it became clear that the Defendants could
not readily comply with the Stipulation, the Court has heard
testimony on different aspects of compliance that are inextricably
intertwined with enforcement such as how the CGAR data is collected
and the Court has resolved a long string of disputes about how to
interpret various terms in the Stipulation such as "90 daynd "being
seen."

Paragraphs 43 and 44 of the Stipulation discuss different avenues
for the Plaintiffs' counsel to receive fees.  Paragraph 44 details
an annual payment to the Plaintiffs' counsel for work reasonably
performed or costs incurred to monitor or enforce the relief set
forth in the Stipulation and will not apply to any work performed
before the District Court to enforce or defend the Stipulation.

The Defendants' central argument against the Plaintiffs' fee
application is that the Plaintiffs are only entitled to fees if
they prevailed with respect to a specific dispute to enforce the
Stipulation.  Magistrate Judge Duncan concludes that this is an
inappropriately narrow interpretation of the Stipulation.  ll of
these various activities described are driven by the Plaintiffs'
attempts to enforce the Stipulation.  All of these matters are
before the Court because the Defendants have not satisfied their
obligations under the Stipulation thereby requiring the Plaintiffs
to move to enforce it.  Hence, all are covered by Paragraph 43.

Paragraph 43 states that the Plaintiffs' hourly rate "is governed
by 42 U.S.C. Section 1997e(d).  The parties disagree about what
dollar amount this translates into.  The Magistrate Judge concludes
that the Stipulation provides the Plaintiffs an hourly rate of
$219/hour for fiscal year 2017.  Because it appears that the delay
in filing the fee application was the Plaintiffs own doing, they're
not entitled to retrospective application of the higher rate.  At
the Court's direction, the Plaintiffs have submitted their hours
based on fiscal years and the Judicial Conference Rate for Fiscal
year 2016.

The Stipulation contains no mention of an enhancement or multiplier
and the Magistrate Judge understands that silence to mean that he
is free to evaluate the propriety of such an enhancement.  The
parties do not dispute that analysis of an enhancement is governed
by Kerr v. Screen Guild Extras, Inc., 526 F.2d 67, 70 (9th Cir.
1975), as modified by City of Burlington v. Dague, 505 U.S. 557
(1992).  The Magistrate Judge concludes the Plaintiffs satisfy the
Kerr factors.  
Among other things, he finds that (i) the Plaintiffs' use of
medical experts to review individual records is sufficiently
related to enforcement of the Stipulation; (ii) the Plaintiffs'
counsel has brought ideas from other jurisdictions to this matter
and this has assisted the Court (and the Defendants) with
solutions; (iii) the evidence before the Court is that the
Stipulation's current rate of $219/hour is comparable to private
practice rates for a first year lawyer; (iv) the  counsel (on both
sides) have deep experience in prison litigation and have used that
experience to accelerate the Court's focus on issues; and (v) the
Plaintiffs have represented the Class since the inception of the
matter.  Taken together, these factors all weigh in favor of
applying an enhancement to the Plaintiffs' fee award.

The Court previously denied the Plaintiffs' request for payment of
hours billed by law clerks and for photocopying expenses.  The
Plaintiffs moved for reconsideration of that request.  The
Magistrate Judge finds that the Plaintiffs have provided no
evidence that their law clerks received any actual compensation (as
opposed to law school credit).  In addition, he notes that, based
on real-world experience, the rate seems high but further notes
that the Clerk of the Court charges between 10 and 50 cents per
page.  Accordingly, he will award their Plaintiffs their copying
costs at .25 cents a page.

Based on the information submitted, Magistrate Judge Duncan
calculated the attorneys' fees as follows:

     Year      Office      Hours Spent  Rate     Total

     2015         PLO         75.2      $213   $ 16,017.60
     2015                                      $ 16,017.60

     2016         PLO        703        $216   $151,848.00
               Eidenbach     237.7      $216   $ 51,343.20
               ACLU-NPP      437.5      $216   $ 93,150.40
     2016                                      $296,341.60

     2017         PLO        662.5      $219   $145,087.50
               Eidenbach      63.9      $219   $ 13,994.10
                ACLU-NPP     379        $219   $ 82,239.90
     2017                                      $241,321.50

  2015-2017                                    $553,680.70
                         (with 2 Multiplier) $1,107,361.40

He further calculated costs as follows:

     PLO      - $118,806.40
     ACLU-NPP - $ 33,824.18
     Total    - $152,630.58

Based on the foregoing, the Magistrate Judge granted in part the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Fees.  He awarded the Plaintiffs
$1,107,361.40 in attorneys' fees and $152,630.58 in costs, for a
total of $1,259,991.98 pursuant to the parties' Stipulation.  The
Clerk of Court must enter judgment against the Defendants
accordingly.  He granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs'
Motion for Reconsideration.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 22, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/8h9gvc from Leagle.com.

Shawn Jensen, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Stephen Oliver Swartz, named as: Stephen Swartz/ on
behalf of himself an all others similarly situated, Sonia
Rodriguez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Christina Verduzco, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Jackie Thomas, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Jeremy Smith, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Robert Carrasco Gamez, Jr., named as:
Robert Gamez/ on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Maryanne Chisholm, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Desiree Licci, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Joseph Hefner, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Joshua Polson, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated & Charlotte Wells, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented
by Alison Hardy -- ahardy@prisonlaw.com -- Prison Law Office,
Amelia Morrow Gerlicher -- agerlicher@perkinscoie.com -- Perkins
Coie LLP, Amy B. Fettig -- afettig@npp-aclu.org -- ACLU, Caroline
N. Mitchell -- cnmitchell@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, Corene T.
Kendrick -- ckendrick@prisonlaw.com -- Prison Law Office, Daniel
Clayton Barr -- dbarr@perkinscoie.com -- Perkins Coie LLP, David
Cyrus Fathi -- dfathi@aclu.org -- ACLU, Donald Specter --
dspecter@prisonlaw.com -- Prison Law Office, John Howard Gray --
jhgray@perkinscoie.com -- Perkins Coie LLP, Kathleen E. Brody --
kbrody@acluaz.org -- ACLU, Kirstin T. Eidenbach , Eidenbach Law
PLLC, Sara Norman -- snorman@prisonlaw.com -- Prison Law Office,
Victoria Lopez , ACLU, John Laurens Wilkes -- jlwilkes@jonesday.com
-- Jones Day & Rita Katherine Lomio -- rlomio@prisonlaw.com --
Prison Law Office.

Arizona Center for Disability Law, Plaintiff, represented by
Caroline N. Mitchell, Jones Day, David Cyrus Fathi, ACLU, Kirstin
T. Eidenbach, Eidenbach Law PLLC, Rose Ann Daly-Rooney, Arizona
Center for Disability Law, Sarah Eve Kader, Arizona Center for
Disability Law, Asim Dietrich, Arizona Center for Disability Law,
Jamelia Natasha Morgan, ACLU, Jessica Pari Jansepar Ross, Arizona
Center for Disability Law, Jose de Jesus Rico, Arizona Center for
Disability Law, Maya Stock Abela, Arizona Center for Disability Law
& Rita Katherine Lomio, Prison Law Office.

Charles L Ryan, named as: Charles Ryan/ Director, Arizona
Department of Corrections (in his official capacity) & Richard
Pratt, Interim Division Director, Division of Health Services,
Arizona Department of Corrections (in his official capacity),
Defendants, represented by Ashlee B. Hesman --
ahesman@strucklove.com -- Struck Love Bojanowski & Acedo PLC,
Daniel Patrick Struck -- dstruck@swlfirm.com -- Struck Love
Bojanowski & Acedo PLC, Jacob Brady Lee -- jlee@strucklove.com --
Struck Love Bojanowski & Acedo PLC, Lucy Marie Rand, Office of the
Attorney General, Michael Evan Gottfried --
Michael.Gottfried@azag.gov -- Office of the Attorney General,
Nicholas Daniel Acedo -- nacedo@swlfirm.com -- Struck Love
Bojanowski & Acedo PLC, Timothy James Bojanowski --
tbojanowski@strucklove.com -- Struck Love Bojanowski & Acedo PLC,
Timothy Michael Ray, Struck Love Bojanowski & Acedo PLC, Jamie
Dennise Guzman -- jguzman@strucklove.com -- Struck Love Bojanowski
& Acedo PLC, Kevin Richard Hanger, Struck Love Bojanowski & Acedo
PLC, Rachel Love -- rlove@swlfirm.com -- Struck Love Bojanowski &
Acedo PLC & Richard Michael Valenti -- rvalenti@strucklove.com --
Struck Love Bojanowski & Acedo PLC.

Dale Frank Maisano, Movant, pro se.

Ethics Bureau at Yale, Amicus, represented by Milton Alan Wagner --
milton@mwagnerlaw.com -- Wagner Law LLC.

ARIZONA: 9th Circuit Appeal Filed in Parsons Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Victor Antonio Parsons, et al., filed an appeal from a
court ruling in their lawsuit styled Victor Parsons, et al. v.
Charles Ryan, et al., Case No. 2:12-cv-00601-ROS, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Arizona, Phoenix.

The appellate case is captioned as Victor Parsons, et al. v.
Charles Ryan, et al., Case No. 18-16424, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on August 8, 2018, Corizon
Health, Inc., filed an appeal from a court decision in the lawsuit.
That appellate case is titled Victor Parsons, et al. v. Charles
Ryan, et al., Case No. 18-16398.

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

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

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

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

   -- First cross appeal brief is due on October 29, 2018, for
      Richard Pratt and Charles L. Ryan, Warden;

   -- Second brief on cross appeal is due on November 28, 2018,
      for Arizona Center For Disability Law, Maryanne Chisholm,
      Robert Carrasco Gamez Jr., Joseph Hefner, Shawn Jensen,
      Desiree Licci, Victor Antonio Parsons, Joshua Polson, Sonia
      Rodriguez, Jeremy Smith, Stephen Swartz, Jackie Thomas,
      Christina Verduzco and Charlotte Wells;

   -- Third brief on cross appeal is due on December 28, 2018,
      for Richard Pratt and Charles L. Ryan, Warden; and

   -- Optional cross appeal for Victor Antonio Parsons, et al.,
      is due within 21 days of service of Third brief on cross
      appeal.[BN]

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

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

Plaintiff ARIZONA CENTER FOR DISABILITY LAW is represented by:

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

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

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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



ASCENA RETAIL: Fails to Pay All Wages and OT Pay, Leakey Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
ANITA LEAKEY, an individual, on her own behalf and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. ASCENA RETAIL GROUP, INC., a Delaware
corporation; LANE BRYANT, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No.
2:18-cv-12221-CCC-MF (D.N.J., July 31, 2018), alleges that the
Defendants fail to pay all wages and overtime compensation, in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Jersey state
wage and hour law.

Ascena Retail Group, Inc., is a corporation organized under the
laws of the state of Delaware and has its principal place of
business in Mahwah, New Jersey.  Ascena does business throughout
the United States as a specialty retailer offering apparel, shoes,
and accessories for woman under the "Ann Taylor", "LOFT", "Lou &
Grey", "Lane Bryant", "Maurice's", "Dressbarn" and/or "Catherine's"
brands, and for "tween" girls under the "Justice" brand.  Ascena is
the parent company of Lane Bryant.

Lane Bryant, Inc., is a corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Delaware.  Lane Bryant does business throughout the United
States as a specialty retailer offering apparel, shoes, and
accessories for woman under the "Lane Bryant" brand.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Michael Brusca, Esq.
          DAVIS & BRUSCA
          300 Carnegie Center Drive, Suite 150
          Princeton, NJ 08640
          Telephone: (609) 786-2540
          E-mail: mbrusca@dbtriallawyers.com


ASPIRO AB: Court Narrows Claims in Suit Over Life of Pablo Album
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Gregory H. Woods of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York granted in part and denied in part the
Defendants' motions to dismiss the case, JUSTIN BAKER-RHETT,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v. ASPIRO AB, a Norwegian limited liability company, and KANYE
WEST, an individual, together d/b/a/TIDAL, Defendants, Case No.
1:16-cv-5801-GHW (S.D. N.Y.).

On Feb. 15, 2016, Kanye West tweeted that his new album -- The Life
of Pablo -- will never never never be on Apple, will never be for
sale, and one can only get it on Tidal.  Six weeks later, the album
was on Apple, and was for sale on sites other than Tidal, the
online streaming service operated by Defendant Aspiro.

Mr. Baker-Rhett, on behalf of himself and a putative class, claims
that statements by Aspiro and Mr. West were deceptive -- and that
they fraudulently induced him to pay for Tidal's services in order
to obtain access to its purportedly exclusive content.  Mr. West's
allegedly false Tweet provides adequate support for the Plaintiff's
common law fraudulent inducement claims.  

The Plaintiff filed the action in the Northern District of
California against Mr. West, who resides in California, and S.
Carter Enterprises, LLC.  The factual predicate of the original
complaint was very similar to that pleaded in the governing
complaint in effect now.  Significantly, however, the original
complaint asserted claims arising under California state law --
particularly California's false advertising law, unfair competition
law, and California common law of fraudulent inducement and unjust
enrichment.

The Plaintiff amended his complaint on May 9, 2016, replacing
Defendant S. Carter, with Aspiro, but continuing to assert claims
under California law.  After Aspiro filed a motion to transfer
venue of the litigation to the Southern District of New York, the
parties entered into a stipulation to transfer the case to the
district.

Some months after the case was transferred to the district, Aspiro
filed a motion to dismiss the first amended complaint, arguing,
among other things, that New York substantive law should apply to
the Plaintiff's claims, and that, as a result, the claims governed
by California law should be dismissed.  The motion relied heavily
on the effect of the choice of law provision contained in the
"Terms and Conditions" to which Mr. Baker-Rhett and other Tidal
subscribers agreed in order to sign up for the service.

Aspiro's memorandum of law in support of its motion analyzed the
application of this governing law provision under California law.
In the first step of the analysis, Aspiro asserted that the claims
contained in the complaint fell within the scope of the contractual
governing law provision when analyzed under California law.  In the
second step of its analysis of the governing law clause applying
California law, Aspiro argued that New York bore a substantial
relationship to the plaintiff's claims.

The Plaintiff decided not to oppose Aspiro's motion to dismiss the
first amended complaint.  Instead, he entered into a stipulation to
dismiss the California claims and amend the complaint.  The parties
went on to agree that the Plaintiff would dismiss his claims under
California statutory law with prejudice as to himself, but without
prejudice as to the putative class.  He specifically reserved his
right to bring analogous claims under New York law.  The Plaintiff
also agreed to dismiss his fraudulent inducement and unjust
enrichment claims -- the latter with prejudice as to himself, but
not as to any putative class.  The Stipulation of Dismissal set a
deadline for the submission of a proposed Second Amended Complaint.
The Court "So Ordered" the parties' Stipulation of Dismissal on
Oct. 17, 2016.

The Plaintiff filed his Second Amended Complaint on Oct. 18, 2016.
In it, for the first time, he asserted claims under Sections 349
and 350 of New York State's General Business Law, and for
fraudulent inducement.  

Both Aspiro and Mr. West filed motions to dismiss the claims
brought in that complaint.  They claim that the Plaintiff lacks
standing to assert his New York statutory claims, and that the
Tweets at issue cannot form the basis for a claim of fraudulent
inducement because they were true at the time made.

Judge Woods finds that Mr. Baker-Rhett lacks standing to sue under
Sections 349 and 350 of the New York General Business Law in
connection with the alleged transactions.  There are no allegations
that the alleged deceptive transaction involving him occurred in
New York.  It is not alleged that he viewed the allegedly deceptive
Tweets in New York, or that he subscribed to the Tidal service in
New York -- it may be that he did so in California where he resides
and where he first brought the suit.  The only link that Mr.
Baker-Rhett can point to in order to establish a link to New York
is the choice of law and venue provision in the "Terms and
Conditions" that he agreed to when he signed up for the service.
Because the alleged deceptive transaction involving Mr. Baker-Rhett
did not have a sufficient nexus to New York, the claims by him
arising under Sections 349 and 350 of New York's General Business
Law are dismissed without prejudice.

The Judge also finds that the facts alleged in the complaint
provide strong circumstantial evidence of conscious misbehavior.
The complaint describes in detail the dire financial condition of
both Aspiro and Mr. West at the time of the release of his album.
It describes the tangible benefits of an increase in Tidal's
subscriber base for both defendants.  Most significantly, the
complaint asserts that at the time that Mr. West tweeted that the
album would "never never never" be available on Apple or for sale,
both defendants knew that it soon would.  And a mere six weeks
later, it was.  These allegations constitute strong circumstantial
evidence of conscious misbehavior.

Finally, the Judge finds that the Plaintiff's fraudulent inducement
claim against Aspiro on the basis of the content of its Feb. 14,
2015 Tweet alone is not pleaded adequately.  At the outset, the
Plaintiff does not sufficiently plead reliance on that Tweet alone.
The Plaintiff has alleged no special relationship or fiduciary
obligation requiring a duty of full and complete disclosure by
Aspiro to its prospective customers.  As a result, his claims
against Aspiro are dismissed to the extent that they rely on a
claim of fraudulent concealment of the limited duration of the
exclusivity period.

The Judge granted the Plaintiff leave to amend the complaint,
solely with respect to those claims that were dismissed without
prejudice, to correct the deficiencies identified in the Opinion.
Any amended complaint must be filed no later than 30 days after the
date of the Order.

For the reasons he stated, Judge Woods granted in part and denied
in part the Defendants' motions to dismiss.  The Plaintiff's claims
arising under Sections 349 and 350 of New York's General Business
Law are dismissed without prejudice.  His fraudulent inducement
claim against Aspiro predicated on Aspiro's February 14 Tweet or
alleged fraudulent concealment is dismissed without prejudice.  The
Plaintiff's claim against Aspiro may proceed to the extent that it
is predicated upon the alleged misrepresentation in Mr. West's
February 15 Tweet.  The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the
motions pending at ECF Nos. 96 and 99.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 22, 2018 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/ByWCxd from Leagle.com.

Justin Baker-Rhett, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin H. Richman
-- brichman@edelson.com -- Edelson PC, pro hac vice, Todd Logan --
tlogan@edelson.com -- Edelson PC, Fred David Weinstein --
fweinstein@kelaw.com -- Kurzman Eisenberg Corbin Lever & Goodman,
LLP & Sydney M. Janzen -- sjanzen@edelson.com -- Edelson PC, pro
hac vice.

Kanye West, doing business as, Defendant, represented by Andrew
Harrison Bart -- abart@jenner.com -- Jenner & Block LLP, Kenneth K.
Lee -- klee@jenner.com -- Jenner & Block LLP, Ava U. McAlpin --
amcalpin@jenner.com -- Jenner & Block LLP, Christina Avedissian
Aryafar -- caryafar@jenner.com -- Jenner & Block LLP & Christina
Avedissian, Jenner and Block LLP.

Aspiro AB, Defendant, represented by Ashley Lynn Shively --
ashively@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith LLP, pro hac vice, Casey Devin
Laffey -- claffey@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith LLP, Jordan W. Siev
-- jsiev@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith LLP, Pamela Lauren Schoenberg
-- pschoenberg@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith LLP, Robert D. Phillips,
Jr. --  RPhillips@ReedSmith.com -- Reed Smith LLP & Thomas A. Evans
-- tevans@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith LLP.

ASSOCIATED WHOLESALE: Court Denies Piazza's Certification Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled MICHAEL PIAZZA ET AL., the Plaintiffs, v.
ASSOCIATED WHOLESALE GROCERS INC., the Defendant, Case No.
2:17-cv-10289-JTM-KWR (E.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Jane Triche
Milazzo entered an order on August 3, 2018:

   1. denying Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification;
      and

   2. denying without prejudice Defendant's motion for Protective
      Order, and may be re-urged as appropriate in light of this
      order.

The Court said, "Plaintiff has not met his burden to conditionally
certify a class because Plaintiff fails to present any evidence
that potential class members were the victims of a common, unlawful
policy or practice. In support of Plaintiff's contention that a
group of potential plaintiffs qualify for conditional class
certification, Plaintiff submits declarations from eleven
individuals who state that they worked for AWG at the Pearl River
location, regularly worked through their lunch breaks "because the
work load was so demanding," and had 30 minutes automatically
deducted from their work hours each day even when they did not take
a lunch break. A twelfth declaration states that the individual
worked through his lunch break two to three times per week, but
does not allege that Defendant automatically deducted the lunch
period. The Plaintiff argues that these individuals are similarly
situated to him because of the automatic deduction and the fact
that they regularly worked though their lunch break. However,
Plaintiff fails to identify a common policy or practice of
Defendant's that is unlawful. An employer's use of an automatic
deduction for lunch does not, by itself, violate the Fair Labor
Standard Act. The Plaintiff cites to no authority stating
otherwise. Rather, the FLSA may be violated when an employer does
not compensate employees for time actually worked or fails to
ensure that when employees work through a break their time is
properly recorded. The declarations that Plaintiff submits say
nothing about why the declarants did not have their time properly
recorded. In light of Defendant's evidence of an existing policy
for correcting the automatic deduction when employees work through
lunch and examples of that policy being used in practice, Plaintiff
must present some evidence that the potential class members are
similarly situated with respect to why their time was not
corrected. Without such, Plaintiff may have shown that workers
share common facts about their employment, but fails to show that
the putative class members were together the victims of a single
policy or plan that was unlawful."


ATHENE HOLDING: Oct.13 Hearing to Approve "Griffiths" Pact
----------------------------------------------------------
A preliminary approval hearing on the settlement of John Griffiths'
putative class action lawsuit against Athene Holding Ltd. is set
for October 13, 2018, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2018.

On July 27, 2015, John Griffiths, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, filed a putative class action complaint against
the Company in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts.  An amended complaint was filed on December 18,
2015.  The complaint asserts claims against AHL, Athene Annuity and
Life Company (AAIA), and Athene London Assignment Corporation
(Athene London), in addition to an Aviva defendant.  AHL is a named
defendant due to its purchase of Aviva USA, and AAIA and Athene
London are named as successors to Aviva Life Insurance Company and
Aviva London Assignment Corporation, respectively.  The complaint
alleges a putative class of all persons who are the beneficial
owners of assets which were used to purchase structured settlement
annuities that Aviva Life Insurance Company, Aviva London
Assignment Corporation, and Aviva International Insurance Limited
(collectively, the Aviva Entities) or their predecessors, as
applicable, delivered to purchasers on or after April 1, 2003 that
were backed by a capital maintenance agreement issued by Aviva
International Insurance Limited or its predecessor (the CMA).

The complaint alleges that the Aviva Entities sold structured
settlement annuities to the public on the basis that such products
were backed by the CMA, which was alleged to be a source of great
financial strength.  The complaint further alleges that the Aviva
Entities used the CMA to enhance the sales volume and raise the
price of the annuities.  The complaint claims that, as a result of
Aviva USA's sale to AHL, the CMA terminated.  According to the
complaint, no notice of this termination was provided to the owners
of the structured settlement annuities.  The complaint alleges that
the termination of the CMA gave rise to claims for breach of
contract, breach of fiduciary duty, promissory estoppel, and unjust
enrichment.

AHL and plaintiff recently agreed to a term sheet settlement on a
class wide basis.  Terms of the settlement, which have been
preliminarily approved by the court, include: (1) AHL entering into
a capital maintenance agreement with Athene London requiring AHL to
provide capital to Athene London upon a missed structured
settlement payment that is not timely cured and (2) AHL paying a
monetary amount that is immaterial to the Company.

The preliminary approval hearing is set for October 13, 2018.

Athene Holding Ltd. is a retirement services company that issues,
reinsures and acquires retirement savings products designed for the
increasing number of individuals and institutions seeking to fund
retirement needs.  The Company's differentiated investment strategy
benefits from its strategic relationship with Apollo Global
Management, LLC, and its indirect subsidiary, Athene Asset
Management, L.P.  AAM provides a full suite of services for the
Company's investment portfolio, including direct investment
management, asset allocation, mergers and acquisition asset
diligence and certain operational support services, including
investment compliance, tax, legal and risk management support.


AUTOMATIC DATA: Faces Class Complaints over Use of Biometric Info
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Automatic Data Processing, Inc. is facing potential class action
complaints over alleged violations of the Illinois Biometric
Privacy Act, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
June 30, 2018.

In June 2018, a potential class action complaint was filed against
ADP in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois.  The complaint
asserts that ADP violated the Illinois Biometric Privacy Act, was
negligent and unjustly enriched itself in connection with its
collection, use and storage of biometric data of employees of its
clients who are residents of Illinois in connection with certain
services provided by ADP to clients in Illinois.  The complaint
seeks statutory and other unspecified monetary damages, injunctive
relief and attorney's fees.

In addition, similar potential class action complaints have been
filed in Illinois state courts against ADP and certain of its
clients with respect to the collection, use and storage of
biometric data of the employees of these clients.

All of these claims are still in their earliest stages and the
Company is unable to estimate any reasonably possible loss, or
range of loss, with respect to these matters.  The Company intends
to vigorously defend against these lawsuits.

Automatic Data Processing, Inc. provides business process
outsourcing services worldwide.  It operates through two segments,
Employer Services and Professional Employer Organization (PEO)
Services.  The company was founded in 1949 and is headquartered in
Roseland, New Jersey.


AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES: Still Faces Actions over Apartment Fire
--------------------------------------------------------------
Avalonbay Communities, Inc. continues to face legal actions related
to an apartment fire in Edgewater, New Jersey, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018.

In January 2015, a fire occurred at the Company's Avalon at
Edgewater apartment community located in Edgewater, New Jersey
("Edgewater").  Edgewater consisted of two residential buildings.
One building, containing 240 apartment homes, was destroyed and is
currently being reconstructed.  The second building, containing 168
apartment homes, suffered minimal damage and has been repaired.

In conjunction with legal matters associated with the Edgewater
casualty loss, the Company has established protocols for processing
claims from third parties who suffered losses as a result of the
fire, and many third parties have contacted the Company's insurance
carrier and settled their claims.

Three class action lawsuits have been filed against the Company on
behalf of occupants of the destroyed building and consolidated in
the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.
The Company has agreed with class counsel to the terms of a
settlement which provides a claims process (with agreed upon
protocols for instructing the adjuster as to how to evaluate
claims) and, if needed, an arbitration process to determine damage
amounts to be paid to individual claimants covered by the class
settlement.

In July 2017 the District Court granted final approval of the
settlement and all claims have been submitted to the independent
claims adjuster.

A total of 66 units (consisting of residents who did not previously
settle their claims and who did not opt out of the class
settlement) are included in the class action settlement and bound
by its terms.  However, only 44 units submitted claims.  The
independent claims adjuster is currently reviewing the claims
submitted; the submitted claims total approximately US$6,900,000
but, based on the Company's review of the initial determinations
made by the adjuster on a number of claims, the Company believes
that the total amount actually awarded will be significantly less.
To date, the claims adjuster has completed his evaluation of 25 of
these claims and it is expected that the evaluation of the
remaining claims should be completed within the next two months.

A fourth class action, being heard in the same federal court, was
filed against the Company on behalf of residents of the second
Edgewater building that suffered minimal damage.  In addition to
the class action lawsuits, 18 of the 19 lawsuits representing
approximately 143 individual plaintiffs filed in the Superior Court
of New Jersey Bergen County - Law Division were previously
scheduled for trial on January 2, 2018.  In advance of this date,
the Company was able to resolve all of these claims in principle
which included approximately 50 units.  The Company previously
resolved litigated claims with another 10 units.

There is currently one remaining lawsuit which was recently filed
in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Bergen County - Law Division
on behalf of one apartment unit.  The Company believes it has
meritorious defenses to the extent of damages claimed in that
suit.

There are also seven subrogation lawsuits that have been filed
against the Company by insurers of Edgewater residents who obtained
renters insurance; it is the Company's position that in the
majority of the applicable leases the residents waived subrogation
rights.  One of these lawsuits has been dismissed on that basis,
two have been amicably resolved in principle and the other four
have been consolidated and are currently pending in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey.  The District
Court denied the Company's motions seeking dismissal on this basis.
The Company will reassess the viability of this defense after
conducting additional discovery.

Having settled many third party claims through the insurance claims
process, the Company currently believes that any potential
remaining liability to third parties (including any potential
liability to third parties determined in accordance with the class
settlement) will not be material to the Company and will in any
event be substantially covered by the Company's insurance policies.
However, the Company can give no assurances in this regard and
continues to evaluate this matter.

AvalonBay Communities is a Maryland corporation that has elected to
be treated as a real estate investment trust ("REIT") for federal
income tax purposes under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the
"Code"). The Company focuses on the development, redevelopment,
acquisition, ownership and operation of multifamily communities
primarily in New England, the New York/New Jersey metro area, the
Mid-Atlantic, the Pacific Northwest, and Northern and Southern
California.


AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES: Voronov & Katz Seek to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JAQUELINE VORONOV and KATHERINE KATZ on their
behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs,
v. AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES, INC., ABC CORPORATIONS 1-10, and JOHN
DOES 1-10, the Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-02740-JLL-JAD (D.N.J.),
the Plaintiffs will moved the Court for an order:

   1. granting class certification of the following class:

      "all persons who were, as of January 21, 2015, tenants of
      any apartment in the River Building in the complex known as
      Avalon at Edgewater, or were occupying any apartment in the
      River Building under the rights of any tenant"; and

   2. appointing Kathy Katz and Yudenia Mesa as Class
      Representatives for the class above, and appointing the
      Ferrara Law Group, P.C., as Interim Class Counsel"

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Ralph P. Ferrara, Esq.
          Aaron L. Peskin, Esq.
          FERRARA LAWGROUP, P.C.
          One State St. Square
          50 W. State St., Suite 1100
          Trenton, NJ 08608
          Telephone: (609) 571 3738

Attorneys for Defendant:

          Ronald A. Giller, Esq.
          Daniel A. DiMuro, Esq.
          Gordon & Rees
          18 Columbia Turnpike, Suite 220
          Florham Park, NJ 07932


AVEO PHARMACEUTICALS: Issues Warrants for Class Action Accord
-------------------------------------------------------------
AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 8-K report with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed on July 16, 2018,
that the company has issued warrants to fulfill its obligation in
settling the case entitled, In re AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Securities Litigation et al., No. 1:13-cv-11157-DJC (D. Mass.).

On July 16, 2018, AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Inc. entered into a warrant
agreement with Computershare Inc. and Computershare Trust Company,
N.A.  The Warrant Agreement describes the terms of warrants for the
purchase of 2,000,000 shares of the Company's common stock, $0.001
par value per share issued pursuant to the terms of the stipulation
of settlement of a securities class action lawsuit, In re AVEO
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities Litigation et al., No.
1:13-cv-11157-DJC.

The Warrant Agreement also describes the obligations of the Warrant
Agent to deliver and oversee the administration of the Settlement
Warrants thereunder. The Stipulation was approved by the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts (the "Court)
pursuant to an order of final approval and final judgment on May
30, 2018.

The Stipulation was entered into by the Parties in accordance with
a binding Memorandum of Understanding (the "MOU") with class
representatives Robert Levine and William Windham (the
"Plaintiffs") regarding the settlement of the Class Action. The
Class Action was originally filed in 2013 against the Company and
certain of the Company's former officers.  The class members
included shareholders who purchased the Company's Common Stock
between May 16, 2012 and May 1, 2013 (the "Class").

In accordance with the Stipulation, all claims against the Company
and the Individual Defendants by the Class are released for
consideration consisting of (i) a cash payment of $15,000,000,
which has been paid by the Company's and the Individual Defendants'
insurance carriers, and (ii) the Settlement Warrants, which the
Company issued today. The consideration is inclusive of attorneys'
fees and litigation-related expenses awarded by the Court to
Plaintiffs' counsel.

The Stipulation contains no admission of wrongdoing on behalf of
the Company or the Individual Defendants. However, given the
potential uncertainty, cost and burden of continued litigation, the
Company believes the settlement is in its best interests and the
best interests of its stockholders.

AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, develops
and commercializes a portfolio of targeted medicines for oncology
and other areas of unmet medical need. AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
was incorporated in 2001 and is based in Cambridge, Massachusetts.


BANK OF NEW YORK: Still Defends Depositary Receipt Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation continues to defend itself
against two consolidated lawsuits over Depositary Receipt matters,
according to its Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 3, 2018, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2018.

Between late December 2015 and February 2016, four putative class
action lawsuits were filed against BNY Mellon asserting claims
relating to BNY Mellon's foreign exchange pricing when converting
dividends and other distributions from non-U.S. companies in its
role as depositary bank to Depositary Receipt issuers.  The claims
are for breach of contract and violations of ERISA.  The lawsuits
have been consolidated into two suits that are pending in federal
court in the Southern District of New York.

The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation provides a range of
financial products and services to institutions, corporations, and
high net worth individuals in the United States and
internationally. The company operates through two segments,
Investment Management and Investment Services.


BANKRUPTCY MANAGEMENT: Spinner Sues Over Service Charge-Fixing
--------------------------------------------------------------
SPINNER CONSULTING LLC v. BANKRUPTCY MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS, INC.,
Case No. 2:18-cv-12258 (D.N.J., July 31, 2018), is brought on
behalf of the Plaintiff and those similarly situated alleging that
BMS has orchestrated a conspiracy with its two largest competitors,
in violation of the Sherman Act, to fix the manner of charging
Chapter 7 bankruptcy estates for support services.

Through this conspiracy, which one bankruptcy trustee has termed "a
train robbery," BMS has unlawfully reduced competition and
extracted excessive, if not exorbitant, fees from the Estates, the
Plaintiff alleges.  The two largest competitors are Epiq eDiscovery
Solutions, Inc. and TrusteSolutions.

BMS is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the
state of California, with its principal place of business in
Irvine, California.  BMS is the largest provider of bankruptcy
support services, including software, in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ronald D. Coleman, Esq.
          MANDELBAUM SALSBURG P.C.
          3 Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 295-4600
          E-mail: rcoleman@lawfirm.ms

               - and -

          Laura Scileppi, Esq.
          DUNNEGAN & SCILEPPI LLC
          350 Fifth Avenue
          New York, NY 10118
          Telephone: (212) 332-8300
          E-mail: ls@dunnegan.com


BB&T CORP: Court Narrows Claims in R. Sims' ERISA Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Judge Catherine C. Eagles of the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina granted in part and denied in part the
Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment in the case, ROBERT
SIMS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BB&T CORPORATION, et al., Defendants,
Case No. 1:15-CV-732 (M.D. N.C.).

In 1982, BB&T established the Plan.  Eligible BB&T employees can
contribute some of their compensation to personal retirement
accounts invested through the Plan.  The Plan is a Defined
Contribution Plan under ERISA.

The Plan offers participants a number of investment options
including stock mutual funds, bond funds, and a guaranteed interest
option called the Bank Investment Contract.  It also gives
participants the option to use a self-directed brokerage account
with TD Ameritrade.  The participants decide how to allocate their
contributions among the Plan's investment options and may move
their investments to other options at any time.

The Plan's governing document establishes a Compensation Committee,
members of which are Plan fiduciaries.  The Compensation Committee
is responsible for adopting an investment policy statement for the
Plan and determining from time to time the investment funds to be
made available to participants.  The Compensation Committee engages
a consultant to assist it in evaluating the types of investments
options to offer Plan participants.

BB&T and its affiliates, including Sterling Capital Management,
offer mutual funds and other proprietary investment options to the
Plan, as well as to other retirement plans, pension funds, and
customers.  Until 2007, the Plan offered only investment options
from BB&T or its affiliates.  Non-proprietary funds were added to
the Plan beginning in 2007, but many proprietary mutual funds
remain as Plan options.  These funds -- proprietary and otherwise
-- generally charge the Plan fees for their services.

In this ERISA action, the Plaintiffs have sued the Defendants
alleging that they breached their fiduciary duties to the BB&T
401(k) Savings Plan and engaged in prohibited transactions in
connection with fees and investment options.  The Plaintiffs allege
in five separate counts that the Defendants breached their
fiduciary duties of loyalty and prudence:

     i. Count I - In the complaint, the Plaintiffs alleged that the
Defendants breached their duties of loyalty and prudence when they
failed to solicit bids for the Plan's recordkeeping services and
failed to monitor and control recordkeeping fees, and instead used
BB&T's Retirement and Institutional Services division, RIS, to
provide recordkeeping services.

     ii. Count II - The Plaintiffs allege that the defendants
breached their duties of loyalty and prudence when they included in
the Plan mutual funds that had excessive fees and were
underperforming and when they failed to consider lower cost, better
performing investment options such as separate accounts and index
funds.

     iii. Count III - The Plaintiffs allege that the defendants
breached their duties of loyalty and prudence when they kept the
Bank Investment Contract -- known as "BIC" -- in the Plan.

     iv. Count IV - The Plaintiffs contend that the defendants
breached their duties of loyalty and prudence when they kept the
Common Stock fund in the Plan and present three theories of
breach.

     v. Count V - The Defendants' summary judgment briefing does
not address this claim except to assert their statute of limitation
defenses. This claim will proceed to the extent it is based on acts
or omission that occurred after Sept. 4, 2009.

The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants committed prohibited
transactions in violation of both Section 406(a) (Count VI) and
Section 406(b) (Count VII) when they (1) caused the plan to use RIS
as a recordkeeper, and (2) included Sterling mutual funds as
investment options in the Plan.  They further contend that the
Defendants' summary judgment briefing does not address this claim
except to assert their statute of limitation defenses (Count VIII).


The Defendants move for partial summary judgment as to all claims
based on acts or omissions occurring more than six years before
suit was filed, and as to all claims relating to investment
expenses incurred and performance issues arising more than three
years before suit was filed.

Judge Eagles granted in part and denied in part the Defendants'
motion for summary judgment.  The motion is granted as Counts IV,
V, VIII; and otherwise denied.  Among other things, she finds that
that (i) the Defendants have established that there are no disputed
questions of material fact as to any of these three theories of
liability and that they are entitled to summary judgment on Count
IV; (ii) Counts V and VI will proceed to the extent it is based on
acts or omission that occurred after Sept. 4, 2009.)

The Judge struck paragraphs 79 to 105 of the Declaration of Troy A.
Doles proffered by the Plaintiffs (Document 328).  She finds that
these paragraphs are not factual or evidentiary in nature, but
provide argument responding to the Defendants' supporting factual
affidavits.  If it was important, such argument should have been
included in the Plaintiffs' responsive brief and had it been so
included the brief would have exceeded the Local Rule's 6,250 word
limit. L.R.7.3(d).  Future attempts to circumvent the Local Rules
will likewise be stricken.

The Judge has dealt with the arguments the Defendants have made and
has not gone beyond them.  Specifically, if they did not challenge
a particular aspect of a claim, he has not evaluated that aspect of
the claim, much less attempted to test the evidence or legal theory
supporting it.  By denying summary judgment as to some claims, he
expressed no opinion as to whether the Plaintiffs will prevail at
trial.

A full-text copy of the Court's Judne 26, 2018 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/jCVFxv from Leagle.com.

ROBERT SIMS, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF CLASSES OF
SIMILARLY SITUATED PERSONS, AND ON BEHALF OF THE BB&T CORPORATION
401(K) SAVINGS PLAN, ERIK GAVIDIA, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS A
REPRESENTATIVE OF CLASSES OF SIMILARLY SITUATED PERSONS, AND ON
BEHALF OF THE BB&T CORPORATION 401(K) SAVINGS PLAN, STEPHANIE
GAVIDIA, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF CLASSES OF
SIMILARLY SITUATED PERSONS, AND ON BEHALF OF THE BB&T CORPORATION
401(K) SAVINGS PLAN, STACY HOLSTEIN, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS A
REPRESENTATIVE OF CLASSES OF SIMILARLY SITUATED PERSONS, AND ON
BEHALF OF THE BB&T CORPORATION 401(K) SAVINGS PLAN & KERRI GREANER,
INDIVIDUALLY AND AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF CLASSES OF SIMILARLY
SITUATED PERSONS, AND ON BEHALF OF THE BB&T CORPORATION 401(K)
SAVINGS PLAN, Plaintiffs, represented by KAI H. RICHTER --
krichter@nka.com -- NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP, AARON E. SCHWARTZ --
sbd@uselaws.com -- SCHLICHTER BOGARD & DENTON, LLP, BROCK J. SPECHT
-- bspecht@nka.com -- NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP, CARL F. ENGSTROM --
cengstrom@nka.com -- NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP, DAVID B. PURYEAR, Jr. ,
PURYEAR AND LINGLE, P.L.L.C., JACOB T. SCHUTZ -- jschutz@nka.com --
NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP, JENNIFER K. LEE -- jlee@nka.com -- NICHOLS
KASTER, PLLP, TROY A. DOLES, SCHLICHTER BOGARD & DENTON & JEROME J.
SCHLICHTER, SCHLICHTER BOGARD & DENTON.

PAULA BRIDGES, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF CLASSES OF
SIMILARLY SITUATED PERSONS, AND ON BEHALF OF THE BB&T CORPORATION
401(K) SAVINGS PLAN, Plaintiff, represented by AARON E. SCHWARTZ,
SCHLICHTER BOGARD & DENTON, LLP, BROCK J. SPECHT, NICHOLS KASTER,
PLLP, DAVID B. PURYEAR, Jr., PURYEAR AND LINGLE, P.L.L.C., ETHAN D.
HATCH, SCHLICHTER BOGARD & DENTON, LLP, HEATHER LEA, SCHLICHTER
BOGARD & DENTON, LLP, JACOB T. SCHUTZ, NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP, KURT
C. STRUCKHOFF, SCHLICHTER BOGARD & DENTON, MICHAEL A. WOLFF ,
SCHLICHTER BOGARD & DENTON, LLP, SEAN E. SOYARS, SCHLICHTER BOGARD
& DENTON, LLP, TROY A. DOLES, SCHLICHTER BOGARD & DENTON & JEROME
J. SCHLICHTER, SCHLICHTER BOGARD & DENTON.

NANCY JOHNSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF CLASSES OF
SIMILARLY SITUATED PERSONS, AND ON BEHALF OF THE BB&T CORPORATION
401(K) SAVINGS PLAN, PATRICIA WELLS, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS A
REPRESENTATIVE OF CLASSES OF SIMILARLY SITUATED PERSONS, AND ON
BEHALF OF THE BB&T CORPORATION 401(K) SAVINGS PLAN, BREWSTER SMITH,
JR, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF CLASSES OF SIMILARLY
SITUATED PERSONS, AND ON BEHALF OF THE BB&T CORPORATION 401(K)
SAVINGS PLAN & DORIS KIROUAC, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS A REPRESENTATIVE
OF CLASSES OF SIMILARLY SITUATED PERSONS, AND ON BEHALF OF THE BB&T
CORPORATION 401(K) SAVINGS PLAN, Plaintiffs, represented by AARON
E. SCHWARTZ, SCHLICHTER BOGARD & DENTON, LLP, BROCK J. SPECHT,
NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP, DAVID B. PURYEAR, Jr., PURYEAR AND LINGLE,
P.L.L.C., ETHAN D. HATCH, SCHLICHTER BOGARD & DENTON, LLP, HEATHER
LEA, SCHLICHTER BOGARD & DENTON, LLP, JACOB T. SCHUTZ, NICHOLS
KASTER, PLLP, KURT C. STRUCKHOFF, SCHLICHTER BOGARD & DENTON,
MICHAEL A. WOLFF, SCHLICHTER BOGARD & DENTON, LLP, SEAN E. SOYARS,
SCHLICHTER BOGARD & DENTON, LLP, TROY A. DOLES, SCHLICHTER BOGARD &
DENTON & JEROME J. SCHLICHTER, SCHLICHTER BOGARD & DENTON.

BB&T CORPORATION, BB&T CORPORATION EMPLOYEE BENEFITS PLAN
COMMITTEE, BB&T CORPORATION BOARD OF DIRECTORS, COMPENSATION
COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF BB&T CORPORATION, JOHN P
HOWE, ANNA R. CABLIK, EDWIN H WELCH, ERIC C KENDRICK, LOUIS B LYNN,
TOLLIE W RICH, STEVE REEDER, CINDY POWELL, STERLING CAPITAL
MANAGEMENT LLC & JOHN DOES 1-40, Defendants, represented by BRENT
F. POWELL -- brent.powell@wbd-us.com -- WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US)
LLP, DEBBIE WESTON HARDEN -- debbie.harden@wbd-us.com -- WOMBLE
BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP, RONALD R. DAVIS -- ronald.davis@wbd-us.com
-- WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP, JUSTIN M. HOLMES --
jholmes@groom.com -- GROOM LAW GROUP, CHARTERED, MARK L. BIETER --
mbieter@groom.com -- GROOM LAW GROUP, CHARTERED, MICHAEL J. PRAME
-- mprame@groom.com -- GROOM LAW GROUP, CHARTERED & PAUL J.
RINEFIERD -- prinefierd@groom.com -- GROOM LAW GROUP, CHARTERED.

JOHN A. ALLISON, IV, JENNIFER S. BANNER, K. DAVID BOYER, JR., NELLE
R. CHILTON, RONALD E. DEAL, TOM D. EFIRD, JAMES A. FAULKNER, BARRY
J. FITZPATRICK, J. LITTLETON GLOVER, JR, L. VINCENT HACKLEY, JANE
P. HELM, I. PATRICIA HENRY, KELLY S. KING, VALERIA LYNCH LEE, JAMES
H. MAYNARD, ALBERT O. MCCAULEY, EDWARD C. MILLIGAN, J. HOLMES
MORRISON, CHARLES A. PATTON, NIDO R. QUBEIN, WILLIAM J. REUTER, E.
RHONE SASSER, CHRISTINE SEARS, THOMAS E. SKAINS, THOMAS N.
THOMPSON, STEPHEN T. WILLIAMS & BRANCH BANKING AND TRUST COMPANY,
Defendants, represented by BRENT F. POWELL, WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON
(US) LLP, JUSTIN M. HOLMES, GROOM LAW GROUP, CHARTERED, MARK L.
BIETER, GROOM LAW GROUP, CHARTERED, MICHAEL J. PRAME, GROOM LAW
GROUP, CHARTERED & PAUL J. RINEFIERD, GROOM LAW GROUP, CHARTERED.

PAUL BARNES, KEN FITCHETT, SHARON JEFFRIES-JONES, KEITH KISER, JOHN
SAPP, BECKY SINK, HENRY SKINNER & DEREK SURRETTE, Defendants,
represented by BRENT F. POWELL, WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP &
MARK L. BIETER, GROOM LAW GROUP, CHARTERED.

SEAN M. KANE & CARDINAL INVESTMENT ADVISORS, LLC, Movants,
represented by JAMES J. SWARTZ, Jr. -- jswartz@polsinelli.com --
POLSINELLI, PC.

BEST BUY: Sanchez Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code
---------------------------------------------------------------
DECKER SANCHEZ, on behalf of the general public as private attorney
general v. BEST BUY STORES, L.P., a Virginia Limited Partnership,
and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. BC716003 (Cal. Super.
Ct., Los Angeles Cty., July 31, 2018), seeks penalties on behalf of
the general public as private attorney general and all other
aggrieved employees, as well as wages due and owing under the Labor
Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants implemented policies and
practices, which led to unpaid wages resulting from their failure
to accurately pay overtime wages and failure to pay minimum wages,
among other failures.

Best Buy Stores, L.P., is a Virginia Limited Partnership and has
retail stores located throughout California.  The Plaintiff is
unaware of the true names, capacities, relationships and extent of
participation in the conduct alleged herein, of the Doe
Defendants.

The Defendants are engaged in the retail services of electronic
goods and home appliances, and operating at various retail
locations throughout the state of California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James R. Hawkins, Esq.
          Gregory E. Mauro, Esq.
          Michael Calvo, Esq.
          JAMES R. HAWKINS, APLC
          9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 387-7200
          Facsimile: (949) 387-6676
          E-mail: james@jameshawkinsaplc.com
                  greg@jameshawkinsaplc.com
                  michael@jameshawkinsaplc.com





BIGLARI HOLDINGS: Defends Shareholder Suit in Indiana State Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Biglari Holdings Inc. continues to defend itself against a
consolidated shareholders' complaint in the Superior Court of
Hamilton County, Indiana, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018.

On January 29, 2018, a shareholder of the Company filed a purported
class action complaint against the Company and the members of the
Company's Board of Directors in the Superior Court of Hamilton
County, Indiana.  The shareholder generally alleges claims of
breach of fiduciary duty by the members of the Company's Board of
Directors and unjust enrichment to the Company's Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer, Sardar Biglari, as a result of the issuance of
dual class common stock.

On March 26, 2018, a shareholder of the Company filed a purported
class action complaint against the Company and the members of the
Company's Board of Directors in the Superior Court of Hamilton
County, Indiana.  This shareholder generally alleges claims of
breach of fiduciary duty by the members of the Company's Board of
Directors.  This shareholder sought to enjoin the shareholder vote
on April 26, 2018 to approve the issuance of dual class common
stock.

On April 16, 2018, the shareholders withdrew their motions to
enjoin the shareholder vote on April 26, 2018.

On May 17, 2018, the shareholders who filed the January 29, 2018
complaint and the March 26, 2018 complaint filed a new,
consolidated complaint against the Company and the members of the
Company's Board of Directors in the Superior Court of Hamilton
County, Indiana.  The shareholders generally allege claims of
breach of fiduciary duty by the members of the Company's Board of
Directors and unjust enrichment to Mr. Biglari arising out of the
recent recapitalization of Biglari Holdings Inc. and the related
issuance of dual class common stock.

The shareholders seek, for themselves and on behalf of all other
shareholders as a class (other than the individual defendants and
those related to or affiliated with them), to seek a declaration
that the defendants breached their duty to the shareholders and the
class, and to recover unspecified damages, pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest, and an award of their attorneys' fees and
other costs.

San Antonio, Texas-based Biglari Holdings Inc. (NYSE: BH) is a
holding company owning subsidiaries engaged in a number of diverse
business activities, including media, property and casualty
insurance, and restaurants.  The Company's largest operating
subsidiaries are involved in the franchising and operating of
restaurants.


BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Bid for Protective Order in "Paxton" Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A Motion for Protective Order filed by plaintiffs in the "Paxton"
lawsuit against the subsidiary of Bluegreen Vacations Corporation
remains pending, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2018.

On August 24, 2016, Whitney Paxton and Jeff Reeser filed a lawsuit
against Bluegreen Vacations Unlimited, Inc. ("BVU"), the Company's
wholly-owned subsidiary, and certain of its employees, seeking to
establish a class action of former and current employees of BVU and
alleging violations of plaintiffs' rights under the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 (the "FLSA") and breach of contract.  The
lawsuit also claims that the defendants terminated plaintiff
Whitney Paxton as retaliation for her complaints about alleged
violations of the FLSA.  The lawsuit seeks damages in the amount of
the unpaid compensation owed to the plaintiffs.

During July 2017, a magistrate judge entered a report and
recommendation that the plaintiffs' motion to conditionally certify
collective action and facilitate notice to potential class members
be granted with respect to certain employees and denied as to
others.  During September 2017, the judge accepted the
recommendation and granted preliminary approval of class
certification.  Based on that conditional class certification, all
potential class members were provided Consent Forms to opt-in to
the lawsuit, which opt-in period has since expired, and a set
number of opt-ins has been determined (approximately 80).
Class-wide discovery was subsequently served and plaintiffs filed a
Motion for Protective Order which is pending.

The Company said, "We intend to seek to compel 59 of the currently
named opt-in plaintiffs to submit their respective claims to
arbitration on an individual basis.  We believe that the lawsuit is
without merit and intend to vigorously defend the action."

Bluegreen Vacations Corporation operates as a sales, marketing, and
management company focusing on the vacation ownership industry in
the United States.  It operates through two segments, Sales of VOIs
and Financing; and Resort Operations and Club Management.
Bluegreen Vacations Corporation was founded in 1966 and is
headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida.  Bluegreen Vacations
Corporation is a subsidiary of Woodbridge Holdings, LLC.


BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: BVU Still Faces Suit over Business Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bluegreen Vacations Corporation's wholly-owned subsidiary,
Bluegreen Vacations Unlimited, Inc. (BVU), continues to defend
itself against a lawsuit related to alleged violations of the
Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and the Florida
False Advertising Law, according to the Corporation's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2018.

The Company said, "On September 22, 2017, Stephen Potje, Tamela
Potje, Sharon Davis, Beafus Davis, Matthew Baldwin, Tammy Baldwin,
Arnor Lee, Angela Lee, Gretchen Brown, Paul Brown, Jeremy Estrada,
Emily Estrada, Michael Oliver, Carrie Oliver, Russell Walters,
Elaine Walters, and Mike Ericson, individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated, filed a purported class action lawsuit
against us which asserted claims for alleged violations of the
Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and the Florida
False Advertising Law.

"In the complaint, the plaintiffs alleged the making of false
representations in connection with our sales of VOIs, including
representations regarding the ability to use points for stays or
other experiences with other vacation providers, the ability to
cancel VOI purchases and receive a refund of the purchase price and
the ability to roll over unused points, and that annual maintenance
fees would not increase.  The complaint sought to establish a class
of consumers who, since the beginning of the applicable statute of
limitations, purchased VOIs from us, had their annual maintenance
fees relating to our VOIs increased, or were unable to roll over
their unused points to the next calendar year.  The plaintiffs
sought damages in the amount alleged to have been improperly
obtained by us, as well as any statutory enhanced damages,
attorneys' fees and costs, and equitable and injunctive relief.

"On November 20, 2017, we moved to dismiss the complaint and, in
response, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint dropping the
claims relating to the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices
Act and adding claims for fraud in the inducement and violation of
the Florida Vacation Plan and Timesharing Act.

"On March 20, 2018, the plaintiffs withdrew their motion for class
action certification and on March 23, 2018, the court ordered
dismissal of the suit.

"On April 24, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a new lawsuit against BVU,
for substantially the same claims, but only on behalf of the 18
named individuals and not as a class action.  We believe that the
lawsuit is without merit and intend to vigorously defend the
action."

Bluegreen Vacations Corporation operates as a sales, marketing, and
management company focusing on the vacation ownership industry in
the United States.  It operates through two segments, Sales of VOIs
and Financing; and Resort Operations and Club Management.
Bluegreen Vacations Corporation was founded in 1966 and is
headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida.  Bluegreen Vacations
Corporation is a subsidiary of Woodbridge Holdings, LLC.


BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Faces Anderson Class Suit on TCPA Breaches
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bluegreen Vacations Corporation continues to defend itself against
a potential class action suit filed by Katja Anderson and George
Galloway over alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer
Practices Act, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June
30, 2018.

The Company said, "On May 3, 2018, Katja Anderson and George
Galloway, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, filed a lawsuit against us which asserted violations of
the Telephone Consumer Practices Act.  The plaintiffs claim that
they received multiple telemarketing calls in the spring of 2015
despite their requests not to be called.  Plaintiffs seek
certification of a class of individuals in the United States who
received more than one telephone call made by us or on our behalf
within a 12-month period; to a telephone number that has been
registered with the National Do Not Call Registry for at least 30
days.  Plaintiffs seek money damages, attorneys' fees and a court
order requiring us to cease all unsolicited telephone calling
activities.  We have moved to dismiss the lawsuit, and our motion
is pending.  We believe the lawsuit is without merit and intend to
vigorously defend the action."

Bluegreen Vacations Corporation operates as a sales, marketing, and
management company focusing on the vacation ownership industry in
the United States.  It operates through two segments, Sales of VOIs
and Financing; and Resort Operations and Club Management.
Bluegreen Vacations Corporation was founded in 1966 and is
headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida.  Bluegreen Vacations
Corporation is a subsidiary of Woodbridge Holdings, LLC.


BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Faces Landon et al. Suit over Timeshare Sales
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bluegreen Vacations Corporation and its subsidiary are facing
purported class action lawsuit for alleged violations of the
Wisconsin Timeshare Act, Wisconsin law prohibiting illegal referral
selling, and Wisconsin law prohibiting illegal attorney's fee
provisions, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June
30, 2018.

The lawsuit was filed on June 28, 2018, by Melissa S. Landon,
Edward P. Landon, Shane Auxier and Mu Hpare, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated.

The Company said, "Plaintiffs allegations include that we failed to
disclose the identity of the seller of real property at the
beginning of its initial contact with the purchaser; that we
misrepresented who the seller of the real property was; that we
misrepresented the buyer's right to cancel; that we included an
illegal attorney's fee provision in its sales document(s); that we
offered an illegal "today only" incentive to purchase; and that we
utilize an illegal referral selling program to induce the sale of
VOIs.  Plaintiffs seek certification of a class consisting of all
persons who, in Wisconsin, purchased from us one or more VOIs
within six years prior to the filing of this lawsuit.  Plaintiffs
seek statutory damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief.  We
believe the lawsuit is without merit and intend to vigorously
defend the action."

Bluegreen Vacations Corporation operates as a sales, marketing, and
management company focusing on the vacation ownership industry in
the United States.  It operates through two segments, Sales of VOIs
and Financing; and Resort Operations and Club Management.
Bluegreen Vacations Corporation was founded in 1966 and is
headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida.  Bluegreen Vacations
Corporation is a subsidiary of Woodbridge Holdings, LLC.


BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Subsidiary Still Defends "Siu" Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bluegreen Vacations Corporation's wholly-owned subsidiary,
Bluegreen Vacations Unlimited, Inc. (BVU), still faces a potential
class action suit filed by Gordon Siu, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2018.

The Company said, "On January 4, 2018, Gordon Siu, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a lawsuit against
BVU and others, Choice Hotels International, Inc. which asserted
claims for alleged violations of California law that relates to the
recording of telephone conversations with consumers.  Plaintiff
alleges that after staying at a Choice Hotels resort, defendants
placed a telemarketing call to plaintiff to sell the Choice Hotels
customer loyalty program and a vacation package at a Choice hotel
via the Bluegreen Getaways vacation package program.  Plaintiff
alleges that he was not timely informed that the phone conversation
was being recorded and is seeking certification of a class
comprised of other persons recorded on calls without their consent
within one year before the filing of the original complaint.  After
BVU moved to dismiss the complaint, plaintiff amended his complaint
to dismiss one of the two causes of action in the original
complaint on the basis that that particular statute only concerns
land line phones.  Plaintiff and Choice agreed to a confidential
settlement and Choice has been dismissed from this lawsuit.
Plaintiff seeks money damages and injunctive relief.  We believe
the lawsuit is without merit and intend to vigorously defend the
action."

Bluegreen Vacations Corporation operates as a sales, marketing, and
management company focusing on the vacation ownership industry in
the United States.  It operates through two segments, Sales of VOIs
and Financing; and Resort Operations and Club Management.
Bluegreen Vacations Corporation was founded in 1966 and is
headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida.  Bluegreen Vacations
Corporation is a subsidiary of Woodbridge Holdings, LLC.


CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Gansburg Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sholom Gansburg, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Capital Management Services, L.P.,
Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-04380  (E.D. N.Y., August 2, 2018), seeks
redress for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Capital Management Services -- www.cms-collect.com -- is a
nationally licensed and recognized collections agency providing
delinquent receivables resolution. [BN]

Plaintiff appears pro se.


CARRINGTON MORTGAGE: Ritenour Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled CANDICE RITENOUR; individually, and on
behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated;
and CHERYL WEISER, individually, and on behalf of other members of
the general public similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
CARRINGTON MORTGAGE SERVICES, LLC, an unknown business entity; and
DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
8:16-cv-02011-CJC-DFM (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the
Court on September 10, 2018, for an order:

   1. certifying these Class and Subclasses:

      Class:

      "all current and former hourly-paid or non-exempt employees
      who worked for Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC in the
      State of California at any time during the period from
      September 30, 2012 up to the deadline, to be determined by
      the Court at a later date, by which class members may opt-
      out after being provided notice of certification";

      Meal Period Subclass:

      "all members of the Class who worked at least one shift of
      more than five hours at any time during the period from
      September 30, 2012 up to the deadline, to be determined by
      the Court at a later date, by which class members may opt-
      out after being provided notice of certification";

      Rest Period Subclass:

      "all members of the Class who worked at least one shift of
      three and one-half hours or more at any time during the
      period from September 30, 2012 up to the deadline, to be
      determined by the Court at a later date, by which class
      members may opt-out after being provided notice of
      certification";

      Wage Statement Subclass:

      "all members of the Class who earned commissions/non-
      discretionary bonuses/non-discretionary performance
      pay during pay periods in which overtime compensation was
      earned, all members of the Meal Period Subclass, and all
      members of the Rest Period Subclass";

      Waiting Time Subclass:

      "all members of the Meal Period Subclass and Rest Period
      Subclass whose employment with CMS has terminated";

      Unfair Competition Law Subclass:

      "all members of the Class who were subjected to CMS'
      unlawful, unfair, and/or fraudulent business acts or
      practices in the form of California Labor Code violations
      regarding meal periods, rest periods, and/or inaccurate
      itemized wage statements

   2. appointing Candice Ritenour and Cheryl Weiser as the class
      representatives;

   3. appointing V. Andre Sherman of Girardi | Keese and Edwin
      Aiwazian, Arby Aiwazian, and Jill J. Parker of Lawyers for
      Justice, PC as class counsel;

   4. requiring CMS to provide to counsel for Plaintiffs a list
      of all potential class members including their names,
      social security numbers, last known telephone numbers, last
      known e-mail addresses, and last known addresses for class
      notice purposes, within 30 days following this Court's
      order granting class certification; and

   5. directing Plaintiffs' counsel and CMS's counsel promptly
      meet and confer regarding a form of notice to the class and
      submit either an agreed upon form or their respective
      requested forms to this Court within 20 days following this
      Court's order granting class certification.

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Candice Ritenour and Cheryl Weiser:

          V. Andre Sherman, Esq.
          GIRARDI | KEESE
          1126 Wilshire Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 977 0211
          Facsimile: (213) 481 1554
          E-mail: asherman@girardikeese.com

               - and -

          Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
          Arby Aiwazian, Esq.
          Jill J. Parker, Esq.
          LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC
          410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 265-1020
          Facsimile: (818) 265-1021
          E-mail: edwin@lfjpc.com
                  arby@lfjpc.com
                  jill@lfjpc.com


CARRINGTON MORTGAGE: Wants Court to Deny Class Certification Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled CANDICE RITENOUR, individually, and on behalf
of other members of the general public similarly situated; CHERYL
WEISER, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general
public similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. CARRINGTON MORTGAGE
SERVICES, LLC, an unknown business entity; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 8:16-CV-02011-CJC-DFM (C.D.
Cal.), Carrington will move for an order denying class
certification of Plaintiffs' claims and striking Plaintiffs' class
allegations, on behalf of:

   CLASS:

   "all current and former hourly-paid or non-exempt employees
   who worked for any of the Defendants within the State of
   California at any time from September 30, 2012 to final
   judgment"; and

   SUBCLASS A:

   "[Members of the putative Class] who earned commission/non-
   discretionary bonuses/non-discretionary performance pay which
   was not used to calculate the regular rate of pay used to
   calculate the overtime rate for the payment of overtime."

Attorneys for Defendant:

          Terry E. Sanchez, Esq.
          Margaret G. Maraschino, Esq.
          Sara A. Mcdermott, Esq.
          MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
          350 South Grand Avenue, Fiftieth Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 683 9100
          Facsimile: (213) 683 4015
          E-mail: terry.sanchez@mto.com
                  margaret.maraschino@mto.com
                  sara.mcdermott@mto.com


CBOE GLOBAL: Providence's Securities Suit v. Bats Global Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cboe Global Markets, Inc.'s wholly owned subsidiary Bats Global
Markets, Inc., now known as Cboe Bats, LLC, continues to defend
itself against a securities class action lawsuit initiated by the
City of Providence, Rhode Island, according to Cboe Global's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018.

On April 18, 2014, the City of Providence, Rhode Island filed a
securities class action lawsuit in the Southern District of New
York against Bats and Direct Edge Holdings LLC, as well as 14 other
securities exchanges.  The action purports to be brought on behalf
of all public investors who purchased and/or sold shares of stock
in the United States since April 18, 2009 on a registered public
stock exchange ("Exchange Defendants") or a U.S.-based alternate
trading venue and were injured as a result of the alleged
misconduct detailed in the complaint, which includes allegations
that the Exchange Defendants committed fraud through a variety of
business practices associated with, among other things, what is
commonly referred to as high frequency trading.

On May 2, 2014 and May 20, 2014, American European Insurance
Company and Harel Insurance Co., Ltd. each filed substantially
similar class action lawsuits against the Exchange Defendants which
were ultimately consolidated with the City of Providence, Rhode
Island securities class action lawsuit.

On June 18, 2015, the Southern District of New York (the "Lower
Court") held oral argument on the pending Motion to Dismiss and
thereafter, on August 26, 2015, the Lower Court issued an Opinion
and Order granting Exchange Defendants' Motion to Dismiss,
dismissing the complaint in full.

Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal of the dismissal on September
24, 2015 and its appeal brief on January 7, 2016.  Respondent's
brief was filed on April 7, 2016 and oral argument was held on
August 24, 2016.  Following oral argument, the Court of Appeals
issued an order requesting that the SEC submit an amicus brief on
whether the Lower Court had jurisdiction and whether the Exchange
Defendants have immunity in the claims alleged.

The SEC filed its amicus brief with the Court of Appeals on
November 28, 2016 and Plaintiff and the Exchange Defendants filed
their respective supplemental response briefs on December 12, 2016.
On December 19, 2017, the Court of Appeals reversed the Lower
Court's dismissal and remanded the case back to the Lower Court.
On March 13, 2018, the Court of Appeals denied the Exchange
Defendants' motion for re-hearing.

The Exchange Defendants filed their opening brief for their motion
to dismiss May 18, 2018, Plaintiffs' response was filed June 15,
2018 and the Exchange Defendants' reply was filed June 29, 2018.

The Company said, "Given the preliminary nature of the proceedings,
the Company is unable to estimate what, if any, liability may
result from this litigation.  However, the Company believes that
the claims are without merit and intends to litigate the matter
vigorously."

Cboe Global Markets, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as an
options exchange in the United States.  The company operates in
five segments: Options, U.S. Equities, Futures, European Equities,
and Global FX.  The company was formerly known as CBOE Holdings,
Inc. and changed its name to Cboe Global Markets, Inc. in October
2017.  Cboe Global Markets, Inc. was founded in 1973 and is
headquartered in Chicago, Illinois.


CBOE GLOBAL: Suit Alleging Manipulation of VIX Prices Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cboe Global Markets, Inc.'s wholly-owned subsidiary Cboe Exchange,
Inc., is facing a putative class action related to VIX, according
to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018.

On March 20, 2018, a putative class action complaint captioned
Tomasulo v. Cboe Exchange, Inc., et al., No. 18-cv-02025 was filed
in federal district court for the Northern District of Illinois
alleging that the Company intentionally designed its products,
operated its platforms, and formulated the method for calculating
VIX and the Special Opening Quotation, (i.e., the special VIX value
designed by the Company and calculated on the settlement date of
VIX derivatives prior to the opening of trading), in a manner that
could be collusively manipulated by a group of entities named as
John Doe defendants.

A number of similar putative class actions, some of which do not
name the Company as a party, have been filed in federal court in
Illinois and New York on behalf of investors in certain
volatility-related products.

On June 14, 2018, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
centralized the putative class actions in the federal district
court for the Northern District of Illinois.  The cases assert
causes of action for, among others, alleged violations of the
Sherman Act, the Commodity Exchange Act and/or the Securities
Exchange Act.  Plaintiffs seek damages in an unspecified amount,
and relief including treble damages, punitive damages and/or
restitution, injunctive and equitable relief, pre and post judgment
interest, attorneys' fees and expenses and such other relief as the
court may deem just and proper.

The Company said, "Given the preliminary nature of the proceedings,
the Company is still evaluating the facts underlying the
complaints, however, the Company currently believes that the claims
are without merit and intends to litigate the matter vigorously.
The Company is unable to estimate what, if any, liability may
result from this litigation."

Cboe Global Markets, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as an
options exchange in the United States.  The company operates in
five segments: Options, U.S. Equities, Futures, European Equities,
and Global FX.  The company was formerly known as CBOE Holdings,
Inc. and changed its name to Cboe Global Markets, Inc. in October
2017.  Cboe Global Markets, Inc. was founded in 1973 and is
headquartered in Chicago, Illinois.


CBS CORP: Rosen Law Firm Probes Securities Claims
-------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it is
investigating potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders
of CBS Corporation (NYSE: CBS) resulting from allegations that CBS
may have issued materially misleading business information to the
investing public.

On July 27, 2018, media sources reported that The New Yorker would
be publishing an article containing allegations that Leslie
Moonves, CBS's Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer,
committed acts of sexual misconduct. CBS announced it would
investigate these allegations. On this news, shares of CBS stock
fell $3.52 or 6.12% to close at $54.01 on July 27, 2018.

Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action lawsuit to recover
losses suffered by CBS investors. If you purchased shares of CBS
please visit the firm's website at
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1385.htmlto join the class action.


         Laurence Rosen, Esq.
         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         Zachary Halper, Esq.
         The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
         275 Madison Avenue, 34thFloor
         New York, NY 10016
         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]

CEDAR RAPIDS, IA: Judgment on Pleadings in Flooding Suit Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARK GRIFFIOEN, JOYCE LUDVICEK, MIKE LUDVICEK, SANDRA
SKELTON, and BRIAN VANOUS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Appellants, v. CEDAR RAPIDS AND IOWA CITY
RAILWAY COMPANY, ALLIANT ENERGY CORPORATION, UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD
COMPANY, and UNION PACIFIC CORPORATION, Appellees, Case No. 16-1462
(Iowa), Judge Edward Mansfield of the Supreme Court of Iowa
affirmed the district court's ruling granting the Defendants'
motion for judgment on the pleadings.

The case is yet another outgrowth from the terrible flooding that
struck the state a decade ago.  Property owners in Cedar Rapids
have sued the owners of certain railroad bridges across the Cedar
River, alleging that their misguided efforts to protect those
bridges from washing out worsened the effects of the flooding for
other property owners.

In the summer of 2008, Iowa residents experienced devastating
flooding.  Cedar Rapids was hit particularly hard with the worst
flooding in its history.  More than ten square miles were impacted
by the floodwaters, and an estimated 10,000 residents were
displaced by the flood.

The Plaintiffs own property in Cedar Rapids.  The Defendants --
Cedar Rapids and Iowa City Railway Co., Union Pacific Railroad Co.,
Union Pacific Corp., and Alliant Energy Corpo. -- railroad bridges
traversing the Cedar River in Cedar Rapids. On J une 10, 2008, the
Defendants parked railcars laden with rocks on their bridges to
weigh down the bridges in an effort to keep them from washing away
during the flooding.  Two days later, two of the four bridges
collapsed.

The fallen railcars clogged the Cedar River and therefore caused or
exacerbated the damage to the Plaintiffs' property.  The two
bridges that did not collapse also caused damage when the rising
water reached the railcars atop the bridges, creating a dam effect
and diverting water to low-lying areas.

On June 7, 2013, the Plaintiffs filed a class action petition at
law in the Linn County District Court, alleging negligence, strict
liability for engaging in an abnormally dangerous or
ultra-hazardous activity, and strict liability based on violations
of Iowa Code sections 468.148 and 327F.2 (2009).  They sought
actual damages of $6 billion and punitive and treble damages.

The Defendants removed the action to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Iowa on the theory that the Plaintiffs'
claims were completely preempted by the Federal Interstate Commerce
Commission Termination Act ("ICCTA").  The district court denied
the Plaintiffs' motion to remand, held that complete preemption
applied, and dismissed the case.  The court offered no views
regarding any preemption defense that may be raised in state
court.

Following remand to the Linn County District Court, the Defendants
moved for judgment on the pleadings based on preemption.  In its
ruling on Feb. 12, 2016, the district court granted the motion for
judgment on the pleadings. The court reasoned that the Plaintiffs'
state law claims are expressly preempted by federal law because the
claims fall within the scope of the ICCTA preemption clause.

The Plaintiffs appealed, and the Court retained the appeal.

Judge Mansfield must decide whether the property owners' state-law
damage claims against the railroad bridge owners are preempted by
the ICCTA.  He explains that the ICCTA confers "exclusive"
jurisdiction on the Federal Surface Transportation Board over
"transportation by rail carriers" and over the "construction" or
"operation" of rail tracks or "facilities."  It expressly provides
"exclusive" remedies with respect to regulation of rail
transportation" and expressly preempts any other remedies provided
under Federal or State law.

After careful review of the ICCTA and authorities interpreting it,
he concludes this federal law does indeed preempt the property
owners' action alleging that the railroads' design and operation of
their railroad bridges resulted in flood damage to other
properties.  Accordingly, he affirmed the district court's ruling
granting the Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings.

His decision is consistent with the federal authorities examining
this question of federal law.  Clearly, not all state-law tort
claims involving railroads are preempted by the ICCTA.  But state
tort claims like the ones alleged here that involve second-guessing
of decisions made by railroads to keep their rail lines open are
expressly preempted by Title 49 Section 10501(b) of the ICCTA.

Two categories of state-law tort claims typically are not preempted
by the ICCTA.  One is a tort claim that challenges a railroad's
activities other than the maintenance and operation of its rail
lines.  A second category of claims are those relating to rail
safety, where a separate, narrower preemption provision in the
Federal Rail Safety Act applies.

In short, Judge Mansfield holds that there is nothing in the case
law that supports the argument that, through the ICCTA, Congress
only intended preemption of economic regulation of the railroads.
If a state-law tort claim requires second-guessing of a railroad's
operation and management of its own rail lines as opposed to other
activities, and the claim does not pertain to rail safety, it is
preempted by the ICCTA.  Hence, after careful consideration, he
concludes this tort action seeking a large sum of damages for
flooding allegedly caused by the railroads' maintenance of their
rail bridges is preempted.  In this instance, as in many preemption
cases, he does not believe further development of the record is
needed, and accordingly he affirmed the district court's grant of
judgment on the pleadings.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 22, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/Yj6XRK from Leagle.com.

Russell G. Petti -- RPetti@petti-legal.com -- of Law Offices of
Russell G. Petti, La Canada, CA; Sam Sheronick of Sam Sheronick Law
Firm, P.C., Cedar Rapids; C. Brooks Cutter -- info@cutterlaw.com --
and John R. Parker Jr. of Cutter Law P.C., Sacramento, CA; Edward
A. Wallace -- eaw@wexlerwallace.com -- and Amy E. Keller (until
withdrawal) of Wexler Wallace LLP, Chicago, IL; and Eric J.
Ratinoff of Eric Ratinoff Law Corp., Sacramento, CA, for
appellants.

Alice E. Loughran -- aloughra@steptoe.com -- of Steptoe & Johnson
LLP, Washington, DC; Charles T. Hvass Jr. of Donna Law Firm P.C.,
Minneapolis, MN; and Bruce E. Johnson of Cutler Law Firm, P.C.,
West Des Moines, for appellees Union Pacific Railroad Company and
Union Pacific Corporation.

Timothy R. Thornton -- tthornton@briggs.com -- and Leah Ceee O.
Boomsma -- lboomsma@briggs.com -- of Briggs and Morgan, P.A.,
Minneapolis, MN; and Kevin Collins -- KHCOLLINS@NYEMASTER.COM --
and Sarah J. Gayer -- SJGAYER@NYEMASTER.COM -- of Nyemaster Goode,
P.C., Cedar Rapids, for appellees Cedar Rapids and Iowa City
Railway Company and Alliant Energy Corportion.

CHARTER FINANCIAL: Parshall Suit Challenges Sale to CenterState
---------------------------------------------------------------
PAUL PARSHALL, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. CHARTER FINANCIAL CORPORATION, ROBERT L. JOHNSON, DAVID
ZIMRY CAUBLE III, JANE W. DARDEN, EDWARD D. SMITH, THOMAS M. LANE,
DAVID L. STROBEL, CURTIS M. JOHNSON and CENTERSTATE BANK
CORPORATION, Case No. 1:18-cv-02349-ELH (D. Md., July 31, 2018),
stems from a proposed transaction, pursuant to which Charter will
be acquired by CenterState Bank Corporation.

On April 24, 2018, Charter's Board of Directors caused the Company
to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with CenterState.
Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, stockholders of
Charter will receive 0.738 shares of CenterState common stock and
$2.30 in cash for each share of Charter they own.

Charter is a Maryland corporation and maintains its principal
executive offices in West Point, Georgia.  The Individual
Defendants are directors and officers of Charter.

Charter is a savings and loan holding company and the parent
company of CharterBank, a full-service community bank and a federal
savings institution.  CharterBank operates branches in the Metro
Atlanta, the I-85 corridor south to Auburn, Alabama, and the
Florida Gulf Coast.

CenterState is a Florida corporation and a party to the Merger
Agreement.  CenterState operates as the holding company for
CenterState Bank, N.A., that provides various consumer and
commercial banking services to individuals, businesses, and
industries in Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas J. Minton, Esq.
          GOLDMAN & MINTON, P.C.
          3600 Clipper Mill Rd., Suite 201
          Baltimore, MD 21211
          Telephone: (410) 783-7575
          E-mail: tminton@charmcitylegal.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          RM LAW, P.C.
          1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Telephone: (484) 324-6800




CHEMOURS COMPANY: $1.2M Paid for Medical Monitoring at June 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Chemours Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2018, that approximately US$1.2 million has been
disbursed from the escrow account as of June 30, 2018, for medical
monitoring related to Washington Works facility.

In August 2001, a class action, captioned Leach v. DuPont, was
filed in West Virginia state court alleging that residents living
near the Washington Works facility had suffered, or may suffer,
deleterious health effects from exposure to PFOA in drinking water.


E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company (DuPont) and attorneys for the
class reached a settlement in 2004 that binds about 80,000
residents.  In 2005, DuPont paid the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees
and expenses of US$23 million and made a payment of US$70 million,
which class counsel designated to fund a community health project.
DuPont funded a series of health studies which were completed in
October 2012 by an independent science panel of experts (C8 Science
Panel).  The studies were conducted in communities exposed to PFOA
to evaluate available scientific evidence on whether any probable
link exists, as defined in the settlement agreement, between
exposure to PFOA and human disease.  The C8 Science Panel found
probable links, as defined in the settlement agreement, between
exposure to PFOA and pregnancy-induced hypertension, including
preeclampsia, kidney cancer, testicular cancer, thyroid disease,
ulcerative colitis, and diagnosed high cholesterol.

In May 2013, a panel of three independent medical doctors released
its initial recommendations for screening and diagnostic testing of
eligible class members.  In September 2014, the medical panel
recommended follow-up screening and diagnostic testing three years
after initial testing, based on individual results.  The medical
panel has not communicated its anticipated schedule for completion
of its protocol.  DuPont is obligated to fund up to US$235 million
for a medical monitoring program for eligible class members and, in
addition, administrative cost associated with the program,
including class counsel fees.

In January 2012, DuPont put US$1 million in an escrow account to
fund medical monitoring as required by the settlement agreement.
The court-appointed director of medical monitoring established the
program to implement the medical panel's recommendations, and the
registration process, as well as eligibility screening, is ongoing.
Diagnostic screening and testing is ongoing, and associated
payments to service providers are being disbursed from the escrow
account.  The Company may place additional funds into the escrow
account from time to time, as necessary.

As of June 30, 2018, approximately US$1.2 million has been
disbursed from the escrow account related to medical monitoring.
While it is probable that the Company will incur costs related to
the medical monitoring program, such costs cannot be reasonably
estimated due to uncertainties surrounding the level of
participation by eligible class members and the scope of testing.

In addition, under the Leach settlement agreement, DuPont must
continue to provide water treatment designed to reduce the level of
PFOA in water to six area water districts and private well users.
At separation, this obligation was assigned to Chemours, which is
included in the accrual amounts recorded as of June 30, 2018.

Under the Leach settlement, class members may pursue personal
injury claims against DuPont only for those human diseases for
which the C8 Science Panel determined a probable link exists.
Approximately 3,500 lawsuits were filed in various federal and
state courts in Ohio and West Virginia and consolidated in
multi-district litigation (MDL) in Ohio federal court.

In March 2017, DuPont entered into an agreement with the MDL
plaintiffs' counsel providing for a global settlement of all cases
and claims in the MDL, including all filed and unfiled personal
injury cases and claims that are part of the plaintiffs' counsel's
claim inventory, as well as cases that have been tried to a jury
verdict (MDL Settlement).  The total settlement amount is US$670.7
million in cash, with half paid by Chemours and half paid by
DuPont.  DuPont's payment was not subject to indemnification or
reimbursement by Chemours, and Chemours accrued US$335 million
associated with this matter at December 31, 2016.  In exchange for
payment of the total settlement amount, DuPont and Chemours
received a complete release of all claims by the settling
plaintiffs.  The MDL Settlement was entered into solely by way of
compromise and settlement and is not in any way an admission of
liability or fault by DuPont or Chemours.  By September 30, 2017,
Chemours had paid the full US$335 million accrued under the MDL
Settlement.

DuPont and Chemours agreed to a limited sharing of potential future
PFOA costs (indemnifiable losses, as defined in the separation
agreement between DuPont and Chemours) for a period of five years.
During that five-year period, Chemours will annually pay future
PFOA costs up to US$25 million and, if such amount is exceeded,
DuPont will pay any excess amount up to the next US$25 million
(which payment will not be subject to indemnification by Chemours),
with Chemours annually bearing any further excess costs under the
terms of the separation agreement.  After the five-year period,
this limited sharing agreement will expire, and Chemours'
indemnification obligations under the separation agreement will
continue unchanged.  Chemours has also agreed that it will not
contest its indemnification obligations to DuPont under the
separation agreement for PFOA costs on the basis of ostensible
defenses generally applicable to the indemnification provisions
under the separation agreement, including defenses relating to
punitive damages, fines or penalties, or attorneys' fees, and
waives any such defenses with respect to PFOA costs.  Chemours has,
however, retained other defenses, including as to whether any
particular PFOA claim is within the scope of the indemnification
provisions of the separation agreement.

All MDL lawsuits were dismissed or resolved through the MDL
Settlement.

The MDL Settlement does not resolve PFOA personal injury claims of
plaintiffs who did not have cases or claims in the MDL or personal
injury claims based on diseases first diagnosed after February 11,
2017.  Since the resolution of the MDL, personal injury cases have
been filed in West Virginia, Ohio, and New York courts.  The New
York matters, which are not part of the Leach class, are brought by
three individual plaintiffs alleging negligence and other claims in
the release of perfluorinated compounds, including PFOA, into
drinking water, and seeking compensatory and punitive damages
against current and former owners and suppliers of a manufacturing
facility in Hoosick Falls, New York.

The Company said, "Management believes that the probability of loss
is reasonably possible but not estimable at this time due to
various reasons including, among others, that the proceedings are
in early stages and there are significant factual issues to be
resolved."

The Chemours Company provides performance chemicals in North
America, the Asia Pacific, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and
Latin America.  It operates through three segments: Titanium
Technologies, Fluoroproducts, and Chemical Solutions.  The Chemours
Company was founded in 2014 and is headquartered in Wilmington,
Delaware.


CHEMOURS COMPANY: Still Defends Lawsuits over GenX Discharge
------------------------------------------------------------
The Chemours Company continues to defend itself against class
action suits related to the discharge of the polymerization
processing aid HFPO Dimer Acid (sometimes referred to as GenX or C3
Dimer) and perfluorinated and polyfluorinated compounds from the
Company's facility in Fayetteville, North Carolina into the Cape
Fear River, groundwater and air, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018.

Civil actions have been filed against the Company and DuPont in
North Carolina federal court relating to discharges from the
Fayetteville site.  These actions include a consolidated action
brought by public water suppliers seeking damages and injunctive
relief, a consolidated purported class action seeking medical
monitoring and property damage and/or other monetary and injunctive
relief on behalf of the putative classes of property owners and
residents in areas near or that draw drinking water from the Cape
Fear River, and an action by private well owners seeking
compensatory and punitive damages.

It is possible that additional litigation may be filed against the
Company and/or DuPont concerning the discharges and certain
entities provided notice of their intent to file citizen suits
against the Company alleging violations of the Clean Water Act
and/or the Toxic Substances Control Act.

Chemours said, "The Company believes it has valid defenses to such
litigation including that the discharges did not impact the safety
of drinking water or cause any damages or injury."

The Chemours Company provides performance chemicals in North
America, the Asia Pacific, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and
Latin America.  It operates through three segments: Titanium
Technologies, Fluoroproducts, and Chemical Solutions.  The Chemours
Company was founded in 2014 and is headquartered in Wilmington,
Delaware.


CHEMOURS COMPANY: Still Defends Suit over Indiana Superfund Site
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Chemours Company continues to face a putative class action
lawsuit filed by area residents concerning the U.S. Smelter and
Lead Refinery Inc. multi-party Superfund site in East Chicago,
Indiana, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2018.

Six lawsuits, including one putative class action, are pending
against DuPont by area residents concerning the U.S. Smelter and
Lead Refinery multi-party Superfund site in East Chicago, Indiana.
Five of the lawsuits allege that Chemours is now responsible for
DuPont environmental liabilities.

The lawsuits include allegations for personal injury damages,
property diminution, and damages under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA,
often referred to as Superfund).

At separation, DuPont assigned Chemours its former plant site,
which is located south of the residential portion of the Superfund
area, and its responsibility for the environmental remediation at
the Superfund site.  DuPont has requested that Chemours defend and
indemnify it, and Chemours has agreed to do so under a reservation
of rights.

The Company said, "Management believes a loss is reasonably
possible, but not estimable at this time due to various reasons
including, among others, that such matters are in early stages and
have significant factual issues to be resolved."

The Chemours Company provides performance chemicals in North
America, the Asia Pacific, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and
Latin America.  It operates through three segments: Titanium
Technologies, Fluoroproducts, and Chemical Solutions.  The Chemours
Company was founded in 2014 and is headquartered in Wilmington,
Delaware.


CONNECTICUT: Radon at Newton Prison Caused Cancer, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------
Rich Kirby, writing for Newtown Patch, reports that two lawsuits
have been filed against Garner Correctional Institute claiming that
dangerous levels of uranium and radon at the prison have caused
cancer among correction officers and inmates, the News Times is
reporting.

The most recent claim alleges that radon killed at least two
correction officers and caused nearly a dozen to contract cancer
from dangerous levels of radon and uranium at the prison.

Scott Semple, the commissioner of the state Department of
Correction, is among those officials targeted in both class action
suits.

The lawsuit announced on behalf of correction officers is headed to
state Superior Court in Waterbury, and grows out of a federal suit
filed in 2017 representing inmates. [GN]


CONSOLIDATED WORLD: Bakov et al. Seek Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------
In the two class action lawsuits, the Plaintiffs ask the Court for
an order certifying a class of:

   "all persons in the United States (1) who Virtual Voice
   Technologies Pvt. Ltd. called from December 29, 2014 through
   March 20, 2016 to market a cruise aboard the Grand Celebration
   cruise liner sold by Consolidated World Travel, Inc. (d/b/a
   Holiday Cruise Line), and (2) who answered such call or
   calls."

The lawsuits are captioned as:

   "ANGEL BAKOV and JULIE HERRERA, individually and on behalf of
   all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. CONSOLIDATED
   WORLD TRAVEL, INC. d/b/a HOLIDAY CRUISE LINE, a Florida
   corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 1:15-cv-02980 (N.D.
   Ill.)";

        and

   "KINAY A HEWLETT, on Behalf of Herself and all Others
   Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. CONSOLIDATED WORLD
   TRAVEL, INC. d/b/a HOLIDAY CRUISE LINE, the Defendant, Case
   No. 1 :17-cv-00973 (N.D. Ill.)".

Counsel for Plaintiffs Bakov and Herrera:

          Katrina Carroll, Esq.
          Kyle A. Shamberg, Esq.
          LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
          111 W. Washington Street, Suite 1240
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 750 1265
          E-mail: kcarroll@litedepalma.com
                  kshamberg@litedepalma.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey Grant Brown, Esq.
          JEFFREY GRANT BROWN, P.C.
          221 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1414
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 789 9700
          E-mail: jeff@jgbrownlaw.com

               - and -

          Joseph J. Siprut, Esq.
          Todd L. McLawhorn, Esq.
          SIPRUT PC
          17 N. State Street, Suite 1600
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 236 0000
          E-mail: jsiprut@siprut.com
                  tmclawhorn@siprut.com
                  kliu@siprut.com

               - and -

          Robert Ahdoot, Esq.
          Tina Wolfson, Esq.
          AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
          1016 Palm Avenue
          West Hollywood, CA 90069
          Telephone: (310) 474 9111
          E-mail: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
                  twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com

Counsel for Plaintiff Hewlett:

          Yitzchak Kopel, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (646) 837 7127
          E-mail: ykopel@bursor.com


DR PEPPER: Court Certifies Class in J. Fitzhenry-Russell's Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JACKIE FITZHENRY-RUSSELL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DR.
PEPPER SNAPPLE GROUP, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No.
17-cv-00564 NC (N.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins
of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
(i) granted the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification; (ii)
denied Dr. Pepper's motion to exclude the Plaintiffs' expert
declarations in support of class certification; and (iii) granted
in part and denied in part Dr. Pepper's motion to seal portions of
its opposition brief, and certain exhibits.

In this putative consumer class action, Plaintiffs
Fitzhenry-Russell and Geghman Margaryan allege that Defendants Dr.
Pepper and Dr. Pepper/Seven Up, Inc. defrauded California consumers
by selling Canada Dry Ginger Ale with the phrase "Made From Real
Ginger" emblazoned on its packaging when, in fact, Canada Dry does
not contain the type of, or amount of, ginger consumers would
expect.  Instead, Canada Dry contains a ginger derivative, ginger
oleoresin.  The Plaintiffs allege that as a result of this
misleading packaging, Dr. Pepper was wrongfully able to charge a 4%
price premium on Canada Dry.

The operative complaint alleges claims under (1) the Consumers
Legal Remedies Act; (2) the false advertising law; (3) common law
fraud; and (4) unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent trade practices.
The Plaintiffs previously survived a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), and for lack of
personal jurisdiction.

The Plaintiffs move for class certification of all persons who,
between Dec. 28, 2012 and the present, purchased any Canada Dry
Ginger Ale products in the state of California.  Dr. Pepper opposes
class certification, and moves to strike the Plaintiffs' expert
declarations and testimony of Dr. Michael Dennis and Colin Weir.
Dr. Pepper also moves to seal portions of its opposition to the
motion for class certification, and certain exhibits to the
opposition.  Most of the proposed redactions are based on
information Dr. Pepper wishes to keep under seal, along with
Givaudan Flavors Corporation, who aids in the production of Canada
Dry.

The Plaintiffs retained Dr. Dennis, Ph.D, the Senior Vice President
at the National Opinion Research Center in Chicago, Illinois.  Dr.
Dennis has over 20 years of experience as a survey research expert,
as well as in designing and conducting surveys about the "opinions,
perceptions, attitudes, preferences, and values of customers" among
other groups.  Weir is the Vice President at Economic and
Technology, Inc., in Boston, Massachusetts.  Weir was retained to
ascertain whether it would be possible to determine damages on a
class-wide basis using common evidence, and if so, to provide a
framework for the calculation of, and a preliminary estimate of,
damages suffered by the proposed class of consumers" as a result of
the "Made From Real Ginger" claim.

Dr. Pepper's motion to exclude is largely aimed at Dr. Dennis's
findings.  The motion centers around Dr. Pepper's argument that Dr.
Dennis did not properly apply the methodologies behind his consumer
understanding survey and referendum battery.  Dr. Pepper argues
that Dr. Dennis's consumer understanding survey is unreliable under
Daubert because it "utilized biased, leading questions," while his
price premium survey is plagued with fatal defects.  Moreover,
because Weir's declaration relies on Dr. Dennis' conclusions, it
too is unreliable, and must be excluded.

Magistrate Judge Cousins finds that Dr. Pepper's motion to exclude
lacks merit because it does not undermine the reliability of Dr.
Dennis' findings, nor does it undermine Weir's findings, which are
based on Dr. Dennis' findings.  The Plaintiffs' expert evidence is
tethered to the facts of their case and their theory of liability.
To the extent that the Plaintiffs' expert evidence is imperfect,
these imperfections go to the weight of the evidence, not the
admissibility.  It is not for the Court to exclude such evidence on
these grounds.  Thus, he denied the motion to exclude.

Because he finds that Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and
23(b)(3) have been satisfied, the Magistrate Judge granted the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  He certified the class
of all persons who, between Dec. 28, 2012 and the present,
purchased any Canada Dry Ginger Ale products in the state of
California.  He appointed Plaintiffs Fitzhenry-Russell and
Margaryan as the class representatives; and Gutride Safier LLP and
the Margarian Law Firm as the class counsel.

By July 6, 2018, the parties must jointly submit a proposal for
class notification, with the plan to distribute notice by July 27,
2018.

Finally, as to Dr. Pepper's motion to seal, the Magistrate Judge
realizes that he will only permit the sealing of a limited amount
of the information Givaudan in particular seeks to retain under
seal.  However, he has not revealed the measurements of any of the
ingredients in Canada Dry, nor information about the processing of
the ginger allegedly contained in Canada Dry.  Thus, except for the
excerpts cited in the table, the motion to seal is denied as both
being not sufficiently narrowly tailored, and as not satisfying the
compelling reasons standard.

Dr. Pepper must refile the opposition to the motion for class
certification with only the approved redactions consistent with
theorder by June 29, 2018.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 26, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/86LCvf from Leagle.com.

Jackie Fitzhenry-Russell, Plaintiff, represented by Adam Gutride --
adam@gutridesafier.com -- Gutride Safier LLP, Kristen Gelinas
Simplicio -- kristen@gutridesafier.com -- Gutride Safier LLP, Marie
Ann McCrary -- marie@gutridesafier.com -- Gutride Safier LLP, Seth
Adam Safier -- seth@gutridesafier.com -- Gutride Safier LLP &
Matthew Thomas McCrary -- matt@gutridesafier.com -- Gutride Safier
LLP, pro hac vice.

Gegham Margaryan, as an individual, on behalf of himself, all
others similarly situated, and the general public, Plaintiff,
represented by Hovanes Margarian -- hovanes@margarianlaw.com -- The
Margarian Law Firm, Iveta Ovsepyan -- iveta@margarianlaw.com -- The
Margarian Law Firm, Marie Ann McCrary, Gutride Safier LLP, Matthew
Thomas McCrary, Gutride Safier LLP, pro hac vice & Seth Adam
Safier, Gutride Safier LLP.

Dr. Pepper Snapple Group, Inc., Defendant, represented by Monica
Hughes Smith -- monica.smith@bakerbotts.com -- Baker Botts L.L.P.,
pro hac vice, Jessica Elaine Underwood, Baker Botts L.L.P., pro hac
vice, Van H. Beckwith -- van.beckwith@bakerbotts.com -- Baker Botts
L.L.P., pro hac vice & Jonathan Acker Shapiro --
jonathan.shapiro@bakerbotts.com -- Baker Botts L.L.P.

Givaudan Flavors Corporation, Miscellaneous, represented by Aarti
Khanolkar Wilson -- awilson@willenken.com -- Willenken Wilson Loh
Delgado LLP & Kimberly Ellen Ramundo --
Kim.Ramundo@ThompsonHine.com -- Thompson Hine LLP, pro hac vice.

Third Party Vendor, Miscellaneous, represented by Kimberly Ellen
Ramundo, Thompson Hine LLP.

ENERGY ENTERPRISES: Nordean Files Suit for Invasion of Privacy
--------------------------------------------------------------
SAM NORDEAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ENERGY ENTERPRISES USA INC.; CANOPY ENERGY CALIFORNIA;
LIOR AGAM; JORDAN COHEN; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each
of them, Case No. 5:18-cv-01604 (C.D. Cal., July 31, 2018), accuses
the Defendants of negligently, knowingly and willfully contacting
the Plaintiff and class members on their cellular telephone in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby,
invading their privacy.

Energy Enterprises USA Inc. is a company engaged in the marketing
and selling of solar energy services.  Lior Agam is the chief
executive officer and director of Energy.

Canopy Energy California is a company engaged in the marketing and
selling of solar energy services.  Jordan Cohen is the chief
executive officer of Canopy.  The true names and capacities of the
Doe Defendants are currently unknown to the Plaintiff.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
          Meghan E. George, 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
                  abacon@toddflaw.com
                  mgeorge@toddflaw.com
                  twheeler@toddflaw.com




EQUITABLE PRODUCTION: Court Certifies Class in Royalties Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, APPALACHIAN LAND CO., Plaintiff, v. EQUITABLE
PRODUCTION CO., Defendant, Civil Action No. 7:08-CV-139-KKC (E.D.
Ky.), Judge Karen K. Caldwell of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Kentucky, Southern Division, Pikeville, (i)
denied EQT's Motion to Dismiss; (ii) granted in part and denied in
part ALC's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Award of
Attorney's Fees and Expenses; and (iii) granted in part ALC's
Motion to Certify Class.

Defendant EQT is a lessee, either by succession or as an original
party, under numerous Oil and Gas leases between EQT and various
other persons and entities in Kentucky, including ALC.  The leases
require payment of royalties by EQT based upon the market price of
gas at the well, but many do not contain any express language
indicating which party is responsible for paying Kentucky's
severance tax.  Where a lease was silent, it was EQT's policy to
withhold at least part of the severance tax from royalty payments.

Plaintiff ALC filed a class action complaint with the Court on July
8, 2008.  The complaint alleged that EQT's deduction of the
severance tax constituted a breach of ALC's lease contract, and
those with similar language.  

After EQT filed its Answer, the parties moved for a stay pending an
appeal in a substantially similar case: Poplar Creek Development
Co., v. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC, Civ. No. 08-190 (E.D. Ky.
2008).  In that case, the Sixth Circuit held that Kentucky law
allowed lessees, here EQT, to deduct gathering, compression and
processing costs from payment of royalties.

While Poplar did not speak specifically to severance taxes, the
Court found its logic applicable, and granted judgment on the
pleadings for EQT as to deduction of the tax.  ALC moved to alter
the judgment, which the Court denied, and then appealed to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.  Finding no Kentucky law
directly on point, the Sixth Circuit certified a question regarding
deduction of severance taxes to the Kentucky Supreme Court.

After reformulating the dispositive issue, the Kentucky Supreme
Court held that EQT severing natural gas from the earth is solely
responsible for the payment of the severance tax, absent a specific
contractual provision apportioning the tax.  On Oct. 27, 2015, the
Sixth Circuit reversed the Court's judgment on the pleadings, and
remanded for further proceedings consistent with the state Court's
holding.

In July 2016, and admittedly in response to the Kentucky Supreme
Court decision, EQT ceased deducting the severance taxes from
royalties paid under market value leases without express severance
tax language.  On March 7, 2017, it reimbursed royalty owners for
deductions taken from 1995 through 2016, by sending approximately
2,431 reimbursement checks.  EQT alleges that it paid $1,398,167.71
in reimbursements, and also placed $62,710.44 in a suspense account
for reimbursing recipients that have not yet been accurately
identified.  ALC admits to receiving a reimbursement check, but has
not cashed that check.

EQT has since filed a motion to dismiss ALC's claim for breach of
contract, arguing that its reimbursement of the deducted severance
tax has mooted the claim.  ALC has filed a motion for partial
summary judgment, seeking judgment on EQT's liability for breach of
the lease and for attorney's fees.  

ALC also requests that the Court certify the class of all persons
and entities who have entered into oil and gas leases with EQT
which obligate the lessee to pay royalties on gas produced from
wells, which leases do not expressly authorize the deduction of
severance taxes after it is severed from the wellhead.

Judge Caldwell finds that at the motion to dismiss stage, she
construes the complaint in the light most favorable to the
Plaintiff, accepts its allegations as true, and draws all
reasonable inferences in favor of the Plaintiff.  ALC claims
royalties have been withheld since at least July 1993; that it has
not deposited EQT's reimbursement check; that the check is not for
the complete amount owed under the lease agreement and thus does
not cure EQT's breach; and EQT admits that its check, even if
deposited, would not reimburse ALC for royalties prior to 1995.
Not only does this preclude the Court from finding ALC's claims to
be mooted, but ALC has also stated a claim upon which relief can be
granted.  As such, EQT's Motion to Dismiss ALC's claim for breach
of contract is denied.

The Judge granted ALC's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and
Award of Attorney's Fees as to liability on its breach of contract
claim; and denied as to ALC's request for attorney's fees.  EQT
attacks summary judgment in two ways.  First, EQT argues that the
Kentucky Supreme Court decision should not be applied retroactively
against it, but rather should be applied only prospectively.
Second, EQT raises several affirmative defenses, including payment
and acceptance, accord and satisfaction, laches, and estoppel.

The Judge finds that the Kentucky Supreme Court does not appear to
regard its decision as making a new principle of law or deciding an
issue of first impression that was not foreshadowed; the state
Court adopted the same interpretation as was applied to the
statutes prior iteration; and the Court has been presented with no
evidence of an inequitable result if the ruling is applied
retroactively.  And even ignoring EQT's failure to put forth any
evidence that it changed its position based on a representation or
concealment by ALC, EQT offers no prejudice other than what the
Court has previously rejected.  Finding no defense applicable, the
Judge granted summary judgment as to liability on ALC's breach of
contract claim.

In its motion for partial summary judgment, ALC asks the Court to
award attorney's fees in the amount of $486,959.38 -- a figure ALC
alleges is equal to one-third the amount EQT has thus far
reimbursed to royalty owners.  While this case has a long history,
the Judge finds that ALC has only recently moved for class
certification, and there is no indication that the counsel will not
have an opportunity to recover a reasonable fee for the work it has
performed at the conclusion of the case.  As such, she denied ALC's
request for attorney's fees at this time.

Finally, Judge Caldwell granted in part ALC's Motion to Certify
Class, consistent with her analysis and only as to the class
certified in section (II)(C)(2) of the Opinion.  She does not
include the period of 1993 and 1994 in the class certified at this
time.  Despite the familiarity of the parties at this point in the
litigation, ALC has suggested no other method for determining how
much EQT owed for those years, or to whom they owed it.  No
evidence has been submitted as to the numerosity of this potential
subclass, or the feasibility of identifying its members.  However,
the Judge is satisfied that ALC has carried its burden of proving
the elements of Rule 23(a), and the further requirements of Rule
23(b)(3).

She therefore certified the class, based upon her analysis and
ALC's requested class definition, of all persons and entities that,
during the period of Jan. 1, 1995 through July 31, 2016, were
lessors on Oil and Gas Leases with Equitable, or its predecessors
in title, covering lands in Kentucky, which obligate the lessee to
pay royalties on gas produced from wells at a rate of one-eighth of
the market price received at the wellhead and which leases do not
authorize the deduction of severance taxes, or other costs, and/or
expense incurred to market such gas after it is severed from the
wellhead.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 22, 2018 Order and Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/GXof5O from Leagle.com.

Appalachian Land Company, a Kentucky Corporation, on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by
Alexander E. Barnett -- abarnett20@hotmail.com -- pro hac vice,
Donna F. Solen , Whitfield Bryson & Mason LLP, pro hac vice, Gary
E. Mason -- gmason@masonlawdc.com -- Whitfield Bryson & Mason LLP,
pro hac vice, George E. Stigger, III, John C. Whitfield --
john@wbmllp.com -- Whitfie ld Bryson & Mason, LLP & Nicholas A.
Migliaccio -- nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com -- Migliaccio & Rathod
LLP, pro hac vice.

Equitable Production Company, Defendant, represented by Kimberly S.
McCann, VanAntwerp Attorneys, LLP, Leigh Gross Latherow, VanAntwerp
Attorneys, LLP, Wade W. Massie -- wmassie@pennstuart.com -- Penn,
Stuart & Eskridge, pro hac vice & Gregory L. Monge, VanAntwerp
Attorneys, LLP.

FALCON FARMS: Gonzalez Suit Seeks to Recover Wages
--------------------------------------------------
Juan A. Gonzalez, and other similarly-situated individuals v.
Falcon Farms, Inc., Case No. 1:18-cv-22842 (S.D. Fla., July 13,
2018), seeks to recover regular wages, half-time overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, costs, and reasonable attorney's
fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a local delivery driver
from January 18, 2016 through December 26, 2017.

The Defendant Falcon Farms is an importer and distributor of fresh
flowers. The Defendant provides logistic services such as
warehousing, distribution and transportation of florals. The
Defendant specialized in the production of bouquets and flower
arrangements to be sold at retail stores in Miami-Dade County,
Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
      ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
      9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
      Miami, FL 33156
      Tel: (305) 446-1500
      Fax: (305) 446-1502
      E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com

FASHION NOVA: Jairam Files Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
--------------------------------------------------------------
ANITA JAIRAM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. FASHION NOVA, INC., a California Corporation, Case No.
0:18-cv-61773-MGC (S.D. Fla., July 31, 2018), arises from the
Defendant's alleged transmission of unsolicited text messages to
its customers, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

Fashion Nova, Inc., is a California corporation with its principal
place of business located in Vernon, California.  The Company is an
on-line women's retail clothing company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
          HIRALDO P.A.
          401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 400-4713
          E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com

               - and -

          Ignacio J. Hiraldo, Esq.
          IJH LAW
          14 NE First Ave., 10th Floor
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: (786) 351-8709
          E-mail: ijhiraldo@ijhlaw.com

               - and -

          Scott A. Edelsberg, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
          19495 Biscayne Blvd., #607
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: (954) 525-4100
          E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com



FCA US: Court Denies Tomassini Class Certification Motion
---------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned ROBERT TOMASSINI, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. FCA US LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 3:14-cv-01226-MAD-DEP (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge Mae A. D'Agostino entered an order:

   1. denying Plaintiff's motion for class certification;

   2. denying as moot Defendant's motion to preclude expert
      testimony; and

   3. directing Clerk of the Court to serve a copy of the
      Memorandum-Decision and Order on all parties in accordance
      with the Local Rules.

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Elmer Robert Keach, III, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ELMER ROBERT KEACH III, P.C.
          One Pine West Plaza, Suite 109
          Albany, NY 12205

               - and -

          Jordan L. Chaikin, Esq.
          Daniel C. Calvert, Esq.
          PARKER WAICHMAN LLP
          27300 Riverview Center Boulevard, Suite 103
          Naples, FL 34134

               - and -

          Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
          Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
          MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
          412 H Street Northeast
          Washington, District of Columbia 20002

               - and -

          Gary E. Mason, Esq.
          Jennifer S. Goldstein, Esq.
          WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON, LLP
          1625 Massachusetts Ave., NW, Suite 605
          Washington, District of Columbia 20036

               - and -

          Gary S. Graifman, Esq.
          Jay I. Brody, Esq.
          KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C.
          747 Chestnut Ridge Road, Suite 200
          Chestnut Ridge, NY 10977

Attorneys for Defendant:

          Alan J. Pope, Esq.
          POPE, SCHRADER & POPE, LLP
          2 Court Street, 4th Floor
          P.O. Box 510
          Binghamton, NY 13902

               - and -

          Sharon B. Rosenberg, Esq.
          Kathy A. Wisniewski, Esq.
          Stephen A. D'aunoy, Esq.
          THOMPSON COBURN LLP
          One US Bank Plaza
          St. Louis, MO 63101


FIAT CHRYSLER: Court Certifies Class in V. Pirnik's Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, VICTOR PIRNIK, Plaintiff, v. FIAT CHRYSLER
AUTOMOBILES, N.V., et al., Defendants, Case No. 15-CV-7199 (JMF)
(S.D. N.Y.), Judge Jesse M. Furman of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York granted the Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification.

In this securities fraud lawsuit, the investors bring claims
pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against FCA NV, a
global car company; its United States subsidiary, FCA US, LLC; and
several officers and employees of the two companies, including
Sergio Marchionne, the CEOof FCA US.  The Plaintiffs allege that
the Defendants made false and misleading statements concerning
FCA's compliance with both applicable safety regulations and
applicable emissions regulations.

The Plaintiffs' claims arise from representations -- made, between
October 2014 and April 2016, in FCA's securities filings and during
earnings calls with shareholders -- that FCA was in compliance with
both safety and emissions regulatory requirements.  The Plaintiffs
claim that those statements were false and misleading because FCA
routinely ignored its obligations to timely inform owners of
serious safety defects, failed to provide NHTSA with proper
notifications and reports, and illegally used undisclosed and
hidden software to allow excess diesel emissions to go undetected
and evade emissions tests.  They contend that they and other class
members were damaged when, unaware of the truth, they purchased FCA
securities at artificially inflated prices; they allege that the
price of FCA's stock subsequently decreased as a result of
partially corrective disclosures beginning in July 2015 and ending
in May 2017.

In their motion, the Plaintiffs sought to certify the class of all
persons and entities who purchased, on a U.S. Exchange or in a
transaction in the U.S., Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V. (FCA,
Chrysler or the Company) common stock between Oct. 13, 2014 and May
22, 2017, both dates inclusive (the Fourth Amended Complaint Class
Period).

In addition, they sought appointment of the named Plaintiffs (Gary
Koopmann, Timothy Kidd, and Victor Pirnik) as the class
representatives, and appointment of Pomerantz LLP and the Rosen Law
Firm P.A. as the class counsel.  The Court issued a "bottom-line"
Order granting their motion -- with one minor modification -- on
June 15, 2018.

Judge Furman finds that there is no dispute -- and rightly so --
that the Plaintiffs satisfy most of the applicable Rule 23
requirements.  With one minor exception, for example, the
Defendants do not dispute that the Plaintiffs satisfy the four Rule
23(a) requirements.  Nor do they contest that a class action is
superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently
adjudicating the controversy.  

Instead, the Defendants' only arguments against class certification
concern the predominance requirement of Rule 23(b)(3), which calls
for a showing that questions of law or fact common to class members
predominate over any questions affecting only individual members.
Even then, the focus of the Defendants' arguments is narrow: For
instance, they do not contest that most of the elements the
Plaintiffs have to prove -- including a material omission or
misrepresentation; scienter; connection to the purchase or sale of
a security; economic loss; and loss causation -- can be proved with
common evidence.  They argue only that common questions do not
predominate with respect to proving reliance and that the
Plaintiffs' damages model fails to satisfy Comcast Corp. v.
Behrend.

Because the Defendants did not carry their burden of demonstrating
the absence of price impact, the Judge finds that the Plaintiffs
are entitled to the presumption of reliance pursuant to the
fraud-on-the-market theory.  It follows that, with respect to
proving reliance, questions affecting individual members of the
class do not predominate over questions common to the class.
Comcast also provides no basis to deny the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification.

Finally, the Judge sees no reason to divide the class into
subclasses.  The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs' allegations
concerning FCA's vehicle safety regulatory violations, on the one
hand, and emissions regulatory violations, on the other, involve
distinct (albeit overlapping) misstatements, entirely different
corrective disclosures, and differing time periods.  However, they
identified no intra-class conflict caused by the Plaintiffs'
allegations that the Defendants' statements of regulatory
compliance were false for two different reasons and revealed as
such through multiple corrective disclosures.  Thus, the Judge
certifies a single class.

For the reasons he stated, Judge Furman granted the Plaintiffs'
motion to certify their proposed class, as amended.  So too, the
Plaintiffs' motion to appoint the named Plaintiffs as the class
representatives, and to appoint Pomerantz LLP and the Rosen Law
Firm P.A. as the class counsel, is granted.  Further, as noted, the
Court's Order of June 15, 2018 is vacated.  Accordingly, the
Defendants' right to appeal runs from the date of the Opinion and
Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 26, 2018 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/cGY4tg from Leagle.com.

Gary Koopman, Lead Plaintiff, represented by Phillip C. Kim --
pkim@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm P.A..

Gary Koopman, Lead Plaintiff, represented by Jeremy Alan Lieberman
-- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, Laurence Matthew Rosen
-- lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., Sara Esther
Fuks -- sfuks@rosenlegal.com -- Milberg LLP & Michael Jonathan
Wernke -- mjwernke@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP.

Timothy Kidd, Lead Plaintiff, represented by Phillip C. Kim, The
Rosen Law Firm P.A., Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Pomerantz LLP, Laurence
Matthew Rosen, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., Sara Esther Fuks, Milberg
LLP & Michael Jonathan Wernke, Pomerantz LLP.

Victor Pirnik, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Jonathan Wernke,
Pomerantz LLP, Joseph Alexander Hood, II, Pomerantz LLP, Sara
Esther Fuks, Milberg LLP & Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Pomerantz LLP.

Sheila Ross, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by John Brandon
Walker, Bragar, Eagel & Squire P.C. & Todd Harris Henderson,
Bragar, Eagel & Squire P.C..

Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V., Defendant, represented by Anil
Karim Vassanji -- vassanjia@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan & Cromwell
LLP, Joshua Seth Levy -- levyjo@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan &
Cromwell, LLP, Robert Joseph Giuffra, Jr. -- giuffrar@sullcrom.com
-- Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP, Victoria Alterman Coyle, Sullivan &
Cromwell, LLP & William Brian Monahan -- monahanw@sullcrom.com --
Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP.

Sergio Marchionne, Defendant, represented by Anil Karim Vassanji,
Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, Joshua Seth Levy, Sullivan & Cromwell,
LLP, Robert Joseph Giuffra, Jr., Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP, Victoria
Alterman Coyle, Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP & William Brian Monahan,
Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP.

Scott Kunselman, Defendant, represented by Anil Karim Vassanji,
Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, Joshua Seth Levy, Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP
& Robert Joseph Giuffra, Jr., Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP.

FCA US LLC, Michael Dahl, Steve Mazure & Robert E. Lee, Defendants,
represented by Bradley Adams Harsch -- harschb@sullcrom.com --
Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP, Darrell Scott Cafasso --
cafassod@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP, Robert Joseph
Giuffra, Jr. -- giuffrar@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP,
Theodore Edelman -- edelmant@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan and Cromwell,
LLP & Thomas Charles White -- whitet@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan &
Cromwell, LLP.

FIDELITY INTEGRATED: Withholding Docs on ATM Fees, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------
Tomas Kassahun, writing for Florida Record, reports that the
plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit alleging that banks inflate
ATM fees have filed a motion to obtain ATM data, claiming that the
defendants -- including Fidelity Integrated Financial Solutions,
the world's largest provider of ATM processing services -- have
failed to respond to requests and subpoenas.

The plaintiffs filed the motion on July 20, in the US District
Court for the Middle District of Florida Tampa Division, in a case
involving Fidelity National Information Services Inc. (FIS),
Fidelity Integrated Financial Solutions, which provides data
solutions, and the Armed Forces Financial Network (AFFN), offering
banking services to the military community.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants are not acting in good
faith by failing to turn over information on ATM fees and
processing, according to court documents.

The plaintiffs include Andrew Mackmin, Mary Stoumbos and the
National ATM Council. They allege that "restraints adopted by the
banks" that participate in the Visa and Mastercard networks
artificially inflate ATM fees for consumers and independent ATM
operators.

"The ATM data maintained by defendants is limited," the plaintiffs
stated in court documents. "Accordingly, both plaintiffs and
defendants Visa and Mastercard have directed subpoenas to the
primary third-party ATM processors," who are the defendants in the
lawsuit.

According to the motion, ATM processors like FIS route ATM
transactions to a cardholder's bank over ATM networks, causing
funds to be transferred from the cardholder's bank account, and
authorizing ATMs to dispense cash to the cardholder.

In addition to certain categories of documents related to the
operations of processors, the plaintiffs said they have requested
monthly reports showing the cash withdrawals processed by FIS along
with access fees, interchange fees, switch fees and network fees
assessed on those transactions.

FIS and its subsidiary, Fidelity Integrated Financial Services
("FIFS"), maintain that they have none of the requested documents
in their possession, custody or control, according to the motion.

"This position is not credible," the plaintiffs said. "It is
contradicted by FIS and FIFS's own public statements, including
FIS's website, annual reports, and filings with the Securities and
Exchange Commission."

The plaintiffs said FIS states on its website that it offers "ATM
Driving, Processing, and Monitoring" services.

"Despite plaintiffs' best efforts, FIS and FIFS have refused to
explain the discrepancy between their public statements and their
subpoena responses," the plaintiffs said. "In fact, it is
inconceivable that a publicly traded company worth billions of
dollars does not have possession, custody or control over the
transaction data that constitute the core of its business."

FIS also argues that plaintiffs have not subpoenaed the correct
corporate entity within the Fidelity family, according to the
motion.

"This argument is also meritless," the plaintiffs said. "If another
company within the FIS family formally has control of these
subpoenaed documents, it is FIS's obligation to make that known to
plaintiffs and produce those documents."

AFFN, which is represented by the same counsel as FIS and FIFS, has
also refused to provide subpoenaed ATM information on the basis of
alleged trade secret and confidentiality concerns, the motion
states.

"AFFN's position is unsupportable," the plaintiffs said.
"Plaintiffs are seeking data that are entirely historical and
already covered by an existing protective order that limits
disclosure of confidential information."[GN]

FIDELITY INVESTMENTS: Certification of Collective Action Sought
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned BAILEY REYNOLDS and HELEN MARTINEZ on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. FIDELITY INVESTMENTS INSTITUTIONAL OPERATIONS
COMPANY, INC., FMR LLC, FIDELITY BROKERAGE SERVICES LLC, and
FIDELITY WORKPLACE INVESTING LLC, the Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-00423-CCE-LPA (M.D.N.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for
an order:

   1. conditionally certifying case as collective action and
      court-authorized notice pursuant to of the Fair Labor
      Standards Act;

   2. approving proposed FLSA notice of the action and the
      consent form;

   3. directing production of names, last known mailing
      addresses, last-known cell phone numbers, email addresses,
      work locations, and dates of employment of all putative
      plaintiffs within 15 days of the Order; and

   4. directing distribution of the Notice and Opt-in Form via
      first class mail, email, and text message to all putative
      plaintiffs of the conditionally certified collective, with
      a reminder mailing to be sent 45-days after the initial
      mailing to all non-responding putative plaintiffs.

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Gilda Adriana Hernandez, Esq.
          Emma J. Smiley, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF GILDA A. HERNANDEZ, PLLC
          1020 Southhill Drive, Suite 130
          Cary, NC 27513
          Telephone: (919) 741 8693
          Facsimile: (919) 869 1853
          E-mail: ghernandez@gildahernandezlaw.com
                  esmiley@gildahernandezlaw.com

               - and -

          Christine E. Webber, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC
          1100 New York Avenue, Suite 500 West
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 408 4600
          Facsimile: (202) 408 4699
          E-mail: cwebber@cohenmilstein.com

Attorneys for Defendants:

          Kevin Scott Joyner, Esq.
          Regina W. Calabro, Esq.
          Robert A. Sar, Esq.
          OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          4208 Six Forks Road, Suite 1100
          Raleigh, NC 27609
          Telephone: (919) 787 9700
          Facsimile: (919) 783 9412
          E-mail: kevin.joyner@ogletreedeakins.com
                  regina.calabro@ogletreedeakins.com
                  robert.sar@ogletreedeakins.com

               - and -

          August W. Heckman, III, Esq.
          Richard G. Rosenblatt, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS BOCKIUS LLP
          502 Carnegie Center
          Princeton, NJ 08540-6289
          Telephone: (609) 919 6600
          Facsimile: (609) 919 6701
          E-mail: august.heckman@morganlewis.com
          EMAIL: richard.rosenblatt@morganlewis.com


FINANCIAL ASSET: Douglas Sues Over Illegal Credit Collection
------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie J. Douglas, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Financial Asset Management Systems, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-04328 (E.D. N.Y., July 31, 2018), seeks
redress for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
for alleged illegal collection over a consumer credit involving
Douglas.

Financial Asset Management Systems -- www.fams.net -- is a
Georgia-based company that provides customized account receivables
management services in the education, finance and government
sector. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Court Dismisses M. Borozan's FDCPA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Freda L. Wolfson of the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss the case,
MICHAEL BOROZAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. FINANCIAL RECOVERY SERVICES, INC., and
JOHN DOES 1-25, Defendants, Civil Action No. 17-11542(FLW)(D.
N.J.).

The putative class action arises out of Borozan's claim that
Defendant FRS violated The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
("FDCPA").  The FDCPA claims in the case arise from a single letter
sent by FRS on April 21, 2017 regarding a consumer debt incurred by
the Plaintiff to TD Bank USA, N.A., in the amount of $346.43.

Based on this communication, the Plaintiff alleges that FRS
violated (i) 15 U.S.C. Section 1692g(a)(3) for failure to
effectively inform what he must do in order to dispute the alleged
debt; and (ii) 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e(10) by falsely representing
and misleading the Plaintiff into believing that if he wished to
dispute the alleged debt or any portion thereof, he could contact
FRS by phone or mail, when in fact a debtor must dispute a debt in
writing.

In the present matter, the Defendant moves to dismiss the
Plaintiff's FDCPA claims pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

Judge Wolfson finds that the substance and form of the FRS letter
do not violate the FDCPA.  While the invitation to call the toll
free number is directly next to the announced debt and above the
validation notice, the letter evaluated as a whole would not lead
to multiple interpretations by the least sophisticated consumer.
Additionally, nothing about the form of the FRS letter overshadows
or contradicts the information in the validation notice.  Also, the
language of the validation notice belies the Plaintiff's argument
as the FRS letter provides explicit instructions on how to dispute
the debt.  Thus, the validation notice plainly describes writing as
the only permissible method of disputing a debt.  As such, the
Judge rejects the Plaintiff's argument in this context.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff has failed to state claim under Section
1692g.

For the reasons why the Plaintiff fails to state a claim under
Section 1692g, his claim under Section 1692e also fails for the
same reasons.

For these reasons, Judge Wolfson granted the Defendant's motion to
dismiss, and dimissed the Complaint.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 22, 2018 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/3B4oJ7 from Leagle.com.

MICHAEL BOROZAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by BENJAMIN JARRET WOLF --
bwolf@legaljones.com-- Jones, Wolf & Kapasi, LLC & JOSEPH K. JONES
-- jkj@legaljones.com -- Jones, Wolf & Kapasi, LLC.

FINANCIAL RECOVERY SERVICES, INC., Defendant, represented by
ALEKSANDER P. POWIETRZYNSKI -- alex@winstonandwinston.com --
WINSTON & WINSTON PC.

FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE: Faces Espinal FDCPA Suit in NY
-----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Karol Espinal, individually and on behalf of all
those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Firstsource Advantage, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-04322 (E.D. N.Y., July 31, 2018), asserts
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Firstsource Advantage -- http://www.firstsourceadvantage.com/-- is
a collections service provider headquartered in Amherst, New York
catering to banking & financial services, auto financing and
education. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FOOD MANAGEMENT: Van Evera Suit Seeks Damages under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------
Donna Van Evera, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Food Management Partners, Inc., and FMP-Fresh Payroll,
LLC, both dba Furr's Fresh Buffet, Case No. 5:18-cv-00727 (W.D.
Tex., July 13, 2018), seeks declaratory judgment, monetary damages,
liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and costs, including a
reasonable attorney's fee, as a result of Defendant's failure to
pay Plaintiff and all others similarly situated minimum wages as
required by the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum
Wage Act.

The Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of Sebastian County,
Arkansas. The Plaintiff worked as a server for the Defendants.

The Defendants own and operate Furr's Fresh Buffet restaurants in
Arkansas, Texas, New Mexico and Oklahoma. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

FOREST LABS: 166 Celexa(R)/Lexapro(R) Cases Underway
----------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2018, that certain entities of Forest Laboratories, Inc.
are defendants in approximately 166 actions alleging that Celexa(R)
or Lexapro(R) caused various birth defects.

Several of the cases involve multiple minor-plaintiffs.  The
majority of these actions have been consolidated in state court in
Missouri; none of the actions are set for trial.

Allergan plc, a specialty pharmaceutical company, develops,
manufactures, markets, and distributes medical aesthetics,
biosimilar, and over-the-counter pharmaceutical products worldwide.
It operates through US Specialized Therapeutics, US General
Medicine, and International segments. The Company was formerly
known as Actavis plc and changed its name to Allergan plc in June
2015. Allergan plc was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in
Dublin, Ireland.


FORESTRY MANAGEMENT: Court Certifies Class of Truck Drivers
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned JOHN MACK MONTFORD, on behalf of himself
and others similarly situated who consent to their inclusion in a
collective action, the Plaintiff, v. FORESTRY MANAGEMENT SERVICE,
LLC and BRANDAN SPILLERS, the Defendants, v. Case No.
5:18-cv-00019-MTT (M.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Marc T. Treadwell
entered an order granting conditional certification of:

   "any and all individuals: (a) Who have been employed by
   Forestry Management as "truck drivers, loaders or tree
   cutters" in the United States from January 18, 2015 to the
   present; and (b) Who worked more than forty hours per week and
   were not paid overtime for their hours worked."

The Court said, "The Defendants ask the Court to 'limit the scope
of the proposed class and allow Defendants leave to respond to
Plaintiffs' proposed notice and notice plan.'  The Court is not
particularly concerned with limiting the scope of the proposed
class, given that, as the Defendants acknowledge, Forestry
Management is "a small company in a rural Georgia town" and
currently employs approximately 17 employees. Having granted the
nationwide conditional certification, the Court directs the parties
to confer regarding the proposed class notice. The parties are
directed to file a Jointly Proposed Notice and accompanying status
report by August 24, 2018. Moreover, to facilitate notice, the
Defendants shall provide the Plaintiffs' counsel, within 30 days
from the date of this Order, the full names, job titles, addresses,
telephone numbers, dates of employment, and locations of employment
of all employees who fall within the conditional class
definition."


GEICO INSURANCE: Caraballo Insurance Row Removed to S.D. Fla.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Esther Caraballo, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GEICO General Insurance
Company, Defendant, Case No. CACE-18-015356 (17th Judicial Circuit
in and for Broward County FL, June 28, 2018), was removed to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on August
2, 2018, under Case No. 18-cv-61793.

GEICO General Insurance Company, Inc. provides personal automobile
insurance products.[BN]

Esther Caraballo is represented by:

      Edward Herbert Zebersky, Esq.
      Mark S. Fistos, Esq.
      ZEBERSKY PAYNE, LLP
      110 S.E. 6th Street, Suite 2150
      Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
      Tel: (954) 989-6333, 933-5083
      Fax: (954) 989-7781
      Email: ezebersky@zpllp.com
             mfistos@zpllp.com

GEICO General Insurance Company is represented by:

      John Patrick Marino, Esq.
      Kristen Wenger Bracken, Esq.
      Lindsey Ryan Trowell, Esq.
      SMITH GAMBRELL RUSSELL
      50 N Laura Street, Suite 2600
      Jacksonville, FL 32202
      Tel: (904) 598-6104, 598-6100, 598-6125
      Fax: (904) 598-6204, 598-6225
      Email: jmarino@sgrlaw.com
             kbracken@sgrlaw.com
             ltrowell@sgrlaw.com

GENERAL MOTORS: High Court Review Sought in Ignition Switch Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Company 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 an objector has filed a
petition seeking appellate review by the U.S. Supreme Court in the
ignition switch related suit.

In a putative shareholder class action filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Eastern
District) on behalf of purchasers of the company's common stock
from November 17, 2010 to July 24, 2014, the lead plaintiff alleged
that GM and several current and former officers and employees made
material misstatements and omissions relating to problems with the
ignition switch and other matters in SEC filings and other public
statements.

In 2016 the Eastern District entered a judgment approving a
class-wide settlement of the class action for $300 million. One
shareholder filed an appeal of the decision approving the
settlement. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit affirmed the judgment approving the settlement in November
2017.

The objector subsequently filed petitions for rehearing and for en
banc review before the entire Sixth Circuit. Both of those
petitions were denied. The objector has since filed a petition
seeking appellate review by the U.S. Supreme Court.

General Motors Company, together with its subsidiaries, designs,
builds, and sells cars, trucks, crossovers, and automobile parts
worldwide. The company operates through GM North America, GM
International, and GM Financial segments. General Motors Company
was founded in 1897 and is based in Detroit, Michigan.

GESE TRUST: McDonald Suit Seeks Relief Under ERISA
--------------------------------------------------
Audrey McDonald, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. Board of Trustees of the City of Miami General Employees' &
Sanitation Employees' Retirement Trust, USI Insurance Services,
LLC, and United of Omaha Life Insurance Company, Case No.
1:18-cv-22866 (S.D. Fla., July 16, 2018), seeks equitable relief
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

The Plaintiff is a natural person who at all relevant times resided
in Mobile County, Alabama. For approximately 19 years, until 2006,
the Plaintiff was employed by the City as a clerk for the City's
police department. The Plaintiff is a beneficiary of the GESE Trust
who, at all relevant times, owned two life insurance policies
underwritten by United of Omaha and offered to GESE Trust
beneficiaries like herself.

The Defendant GESE Trust maintains principal offices in Coconut
Grove, Florida. The GESE Trust is a single-employer defined benefit
plan that is administered by the GESE Board and covers most of the
City's general and sanitation employees, except for: those who are
precluded from participation pursuant to City Code; those who have
their own separate pension trusts and those who are eligible to,
and do, decline membership.

The Defendant The GESE Trust, in partnership with USI and United of
Omaha, secured the group life insurance policies at issue here in
which its beneficiaries could enroll for coverage.

The Defendant USI is an insurance broker and consultant with
principal offices in Valhalla, New York and local offices in Coral
Gables, Florida.

The Defendant United of Omaha is an insurance underwriter with
principal offices in Omaha, Nebraska.  United of Omaha underwrote
the life insurance policies at issue here. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael L. Greenwald, Esq.
      James L. Davidson, Esq.
      Jesse S. Johnson, Esq.
      Alexander D. Kruzyk, Esq.
      GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
      5550 Glades Road, Suite 500
      Boca Raton, FL 33431
      Tel: (561) 826-5477
      Fax: (561) 961-5684
      E-mail: mgreenwald@gdrlawfirm.com
              jdavidson@gdrlawfirm.com
              jjohnson@gdrlawfirm.com
              akruzyk@gdrlawfirm.com

GLOBAL TEL LINK: Court Certifies Class in James et al. Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned BOBBIE JAMES, et al., the Plaintiffs, v.
GLOBAL TEL-LINK CORPORATION, INMATE TELEPHONE SERVICE and DSI-ITI
LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 2:13-cv-04989-WJM-MF (D.N.J.), the
Hon. Judge William J. Martini entered an order on August 6, 2018,
certifying a class of:

   "all persons of the United States who, between 2006 and 2016,
   were incarcerated in a New Jersey prison or correctional
   institution and who used the phone system provided by
   Defendants, or who established an advance pay account with
   Defendants in order to receive telephone calls from a person
   incarcerated in New Jersey, excluding Essex County prior to
   June 2010, or persons receiving calls from persons
   incarcerated in Essex County prior to June 2011."


GOLDEN ABACUS: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Calero Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
ANTONIO VARELA CALERO, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. GOLDEN ABACUS INC. (D/B/A BARKOGI), DANNY P.
LOUIE, LAURA WONG, ALBERT C. YUEN, and RICKY SOTO, Case No.
1:18-cv-06874 (S.D.N.Y., July 31, 2018), alleges that the Plaintiff
worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without
appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours
compensation for the hours that he worked.

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

The Defendants own, operate, or control a Korean restaurant,
located at 957 2nd Avenue, in New York City under the name
"Barkogi."  The Defendants' Korean restaurant is located in the
Midtown East section of Manhattan in New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT: Court Dismisses Kaiser-Nyman Case
---------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned Michael Kaiser−Nyman, the Plaintiff, v.
Coleman Government Procurement and Marketing, Inc. , the Defendant,
Case No. 1:18-cv-04440 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Sharon Johnson
entered an order dismissing case without prejudice.  According to
the docket entry made by the Clerk on August 7, 2018, the case is
dismissed without prejudice with leave to reinstate on or before
Jan. 31, 2019.


GROUP HEALTH: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss S. Plavin's Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Robert D. Mariani of the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Pennsylvania granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss
the case, STEVEN PLAVIN, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GROUP HEALTH INCORPORATED,
Defendant, Case No. 3:17-CV-1462 (M.D. Pa.).

The case is a putative class action against the Defendant brought
by Plavin, alleging unjust enrichment and violations of New York's
General Business Law and Insurance Law based on Group Health's
marketing statements about coverage benefits for its health
insurance plan, which was bargained for and sponsored by Plavin's
employer, the City of New York.

Group Health is a not-for-profit corporation that offers health
insurance plans to consumers through their employers.  Plavin is a
retired New York City police officer and a current resident of
Pennsylvania.  Prior to retirement, he was offered a choice of 11
health plans by his employer.  He enrolled in Group Health's
preferred provider organization plan in 1984 and has chosen to
re-enroll in the same plan since then.

Prior to open enrollment, New York City employees and retirees
receive the NYC Summary Program Description, which includes a
summary of each of the 11 plans offered, as drafted by the
respective insurers.  Plavin alleges that the Summary Program
Description is the only document distributed to NYC employees and
retirees prior to enrollment.  In addition to the Description,
Group Health also offered a Summary of Benefits & Coverage on its
website.  Besides these two documents, prospective members were not
provided with any certificate of insurance or schedule of
reimbursement rates, and such documents were not available on Group
Health's (or its parent EmblemHealth's) website.

Plavin alleges that both the Description and the Summary of
Benefits & Coverage misled members by suggesting that it offered
substantial reimbursement rates for out-of-network services, and
that there is only a mere possibility that reimbursements might be
less than the actual fee charged by out-of-network providers.

In addition to alleging misrepresentations regarding the
reimbursement rates, Plavin also alleges that Group Health
misleadingly touted the plan's "Catastrophic Coverage" feature.
The Complaint alleges that the feature is advertised as covering
100% of the Catastrophic Allowed Charge as determined by Group
Health for out-of-network expenses in excess of $1,500.  However,
Plavin alleges that the term "Catastrophic Allowed Charge" simply
meant the same thing as 'Allowed Charge' does, that is, it provides
for reimbursement of the exact same Allowed Amount set forth in the
Schedule that Group Health was already required to pay regardless
of whether the member was above or below the $1,500 'Catastrophic
Coverage' threshold.

The Complaint also alleges that there were misleading examples set
forth in the Summary of Benefits & Coverage, which was made
available on Group Health's website, including examples of
out-of-network procedures that required "0% co-insurance" and a
hypothetical illustrating how coverage might be calculated.  Most
of the Complaint's misrepresentation allegations are based on a
settlement agreement arising out of the New York Attorney General's
investigation, i.e. an Assurance of Discontinuance.

With respect to Plavin's personal injuries, the Complaint alleges
that he submitted four out-of-network medical services received by
his wife from February 2013 to July 2014.  Plavin does not allege
when the other three procedures were ultimately reimbursed.  Based
on these four concrete injuries, Plavin brings claims against Group
Health for unjust enrichment (Count I), violations of New York's
General Business Law ("GBL") Sections 349 and 350 (Counts II and
III), and New York Insurance Law Section 4226 (Count IV).  He filed
this action on behalf of himself and WI persons who were members of
Group Health Incorporated's Comprehensive Benefit Plan from 2011 to
2015.

On Oct. 6, 2017, Group Health filed a motion to dismiss all claims,
arguing that all the claims are time barred, and that in the
alternative, Plavin failed to state a claim as to all causes of
action.

Judge Mariani maintains reservations that the February 2015
reimbursement would have been the first time Plavin learned that
his expectations regarding reimbursement levels were not met.
Nevertheless, it is the only claim for which the Complaint not only
pleaded when claim was first submitted, but also when it was
ultimately reimbursed by Group Health.  On this allegation, it is
plausible that Plavin first learned that the plan's out-of-network
coverage would be less than he had expected in February 2015.
Thus, the Complaint has plausibly pleaded a timely GBL claim.

The Judge finds that the Group Health plan in the case was the
result of a privately bargained-for contract negotiated not for the
benefit of the public at large, but only for a certain class of
individuals.  Because there is no indication in the Complaint that
the plan would have been available to anyone who was not an
employee of the City of New York, and because it is undisputed that
Plavin's receipt of benefits from Group Health arises from a
contractual policy, Plavin's GBL claims fail to plead
consumer-oriented conduct.

Not only has the Complaint failed to allege consumer-oriented
conduct, but it has also failed to allege a material deception
actionable under the GBL, the Judge holds.  The Complaint has not
plausibly alleged how the statements from the Description and the
Summary would be materially misleading to the reasonable
prospective member choosing among the eleven plans offered by the
City of New York.  Because the Complaint forecloses the theory that
the conduct is "consumer-oriented" given its allegation that
members are eligible for this City-sponsored health insurance based
solely on their employment with the City, and because it has not
demonstrated the materially misleading nature of any of the
documents at issue, whose validity are uncontested, he finds that
leave to amend would be futile.  The GBL claims will be dismissed
with prejudice.

The Judge also finds that there are no allegations in the Complaint
that support a theory that Group Health acted with nefarious
intent.  He explains that the Description and the Summary fully
discloses that reimbursement levels may be less than the fee
charged by the non-participating provider; that the coverage
examples were not cost estimators; that the Catastrophic Coverage
only applied to expenses over $1,500 for nonparticipating providers
for predominantly in-hospital care; and that the optional rider
only increased certain out-of-network reimbursement levels.  These
disclosures, he says, undermine the notion that Group Health
knowingly and willfully violated New York Insurance Law by
presenting misleading statements in its marketing materials.
Accordingly, the Insurance Law claim will be also be dismissed with
prejudice.

Finally, the unjust enrichment claim must fail because its
allegations are premised on benefits that Group Health is
contractually obligated to provide under the policy negotiated by
his employer.  Before delving into the elements of the claim, the
Jugde notes that the parties have not addressed any potential
choice of law issues.  While New York GBL and New York Insurance
Law claims clearly require application of New York law, unjust
enrichment, a claim in equity, does not necessitate the application
of New York law simply because the other claims are based on New
York statutes.

Because Plavin is the only named Plaintiff in the case, and having
ruled that his claims must be dismissed, the putative class action
claims must also fail.

For the reasons he stated, Judge Mariani granted the Defendant's
motions to dismiss the Complaint.  Given that the purportedly
misleading statements underlying the Plaintiff's GBL, Insurance
Law, and unjust enrichment claims are apparent on the face of the
Complaint and its exhibits, and the fact that the Plaintiff's
claims are based on the Defendant's contractual obligations arising
from a policy negotiated between his employer and Defendant, he
finds that an amendment would be futile. A separate Order will
issue.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 22, 2018 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/yASH4N from Leagle.com.

Steven Plavin, Plaintiff, represented by J. Timothy Hinton,
Haggerty Hiinton & Cosgrove LLP, Michael F. Cosgrove, Haggerty
McDonnell & Hinton LLP, Arun S. Subramanian --
asubramanian@susmangodfrey.com -- Susman Godfrey LLP, Halley W.
Josephs -- hjosephs@susmangodfrey.com -- Susman Godfrey LLP, Steve
M. Cohen -- scohen@chorus.net -- Law Office of Steve Cohen &
William C. Carmody -- bcarmody@susmangodfrey.com -- Susman Godfrey
LLP.

Group Health Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Eric W.
Shannon, Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, Jared I. Kagan --
jikagan@debevoise.com -- Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, John Gleeson --
jgleeson@debevoise.com -- Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, Maura K.
Monaghan -- mkmonaghan@debevoise.com -- Debevoise & Plimpton LLP &
Peter H. LeVan, Jr. -- plevan@levanlawgroup.com -- LeVan Law Group
LLC.

HEALTHCARE NOW: Gouveia Suit Seeks to Recover OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------
Savannah Gouveia, on her own behalf, and on behalf of all similarly
situated individuals v. Healthcare Now Florida, Inc., and Cristobal
R. Rosario, M.D., P.A. Case No. 8:18-cv-01699 (M.D. Fla., July 13,
2018), seeks to recover overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed as a medical assistant from September
2015 through September 2017, and performed related activities for
the Defendant in Manatee County, Florida.

The Defendants operate multiple healthcare facilities in Manatee
County, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Marc R. Edelman, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      201 N. Franklin Street, #600
      Tampa, FL 33602
      Tel: (813) 223-5505
      Fax: (813) 257-0572
      E-mail: Medelman@forthepeople.com

INOTEK PHARMACEUTICALS: Gniadek Appeals Ruling to First Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Brian Gniadek filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit titled Gniadek, et al. v. Inotek Pharmaceuticals Corp., et
al., Case No. 1:17-cv-10025-LTS, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, Boston.

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violations of securities laws.

The appellate case is captioned as Gniadek, et al. v. Inotek
Pharmaceuticals Corp., et al., Case No. 18-1724, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that Docketing
Statement, Transcript Report/Order form, and Appearance form were
due August 14, 2018.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant BRIAN GNIADEK, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Stephanie A. Bartone, Esq.
          Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq.
          LEVI KORINSKY LLP
          733 Summer St., Suite 304
          Stamford, CT 06901
          Telephone: (203) 992-4523
          E-mail: sbartone@zlk.com
                  shopkins@zlk.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Regina M. Calcaterra, Esq.
          Correy A. Kamin, Esq.
          Gregory M. Nespole, Esq.
          WOLF, HALDENSTEIN, ADLER, FREEMAN
          270 Madison Ave.
          New York, NY 10016-0000
          Telephone: (212) 545-4600
          E-mail: Calcaterra@whafh.com
                  kamin@whafh.com
                  nespole@whafh.com

Plaintiff SAMANTHA WHITEHEAD, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, and Interested Parties INOTEK INVESTOR
GROUP; HAROLD KALT, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated; OBI NWABUEZE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated; and GARY BAGWELL, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq.
          LEVI KORINSKY LLP
          733 Summer St., Suite 304
          Stamford, CT 06901
          Telephone: (203) 992-4523
          E-mail: sbartone@zlk.com
                  shopkins@zlk.com

Defendants-Appellees INOTEK PHARMACEUTICALS CORPORATION, DAVID P.
SOUTHWELL, RUDOLF A. BAUMGARTNER, DALE RITTER and WILLIAM MCVICAR
are represented by:

          Deborah S. Birnbach, Esq.
          Jennifer B. Luz, Esq.
          Adam Slutsky, Esq.
          Emily S. Unger, Esq.
          GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
          100 Northern Ave.
          Boston, MA 02210
          Telephone: (617) 570-1339
          E-mail: dbirnbach@goodwinprocter.com
                  jluz@goodwinprocter.com
                  aslutsky@goodwinprocter.com
                  eunger@goodwinlaw.com



IOWA HUMAN SERVICES: J.S.X Seeks to Certify Class
-------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled J.S.X. through his next friend D.S.X.,
C.P.X. through his next friend S.P.X., and K.N.X. through his next
friend Rachel Antonuccio, for themselves and those similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Jerry Foxhoven in his official
capacity as Director of Iowa Department of Human Services; Richard
Shults in his official capacity as Administrator of the Division of
Mental Health and Disability Services; Mark Day in his official
capacity as Superintendent of the Boys State Training School, the
Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-00417-SMR-HCA (S.D. Iowa), the
Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:

   a. certifying a Plaintiff Class of:

      "all boys confined to Boys State Training School since the
      filing of the Complaint, now, or in the future, who have
      received psychotropic medications or a diagnosis for a
      mental health disorder specified in the Diagnostic and
      Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition or
      Fourth Edition, as determined by a mental health
      professional;

   b. appointing J.S.X., C.P.X., and K.N.X. as class
      representatives; and

   c. appointing attorneys from Children's Rights, Disability
      Rights Iowa, and Ropes & Gray LLP as class counsel.

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Harry Frischer, Esq.
          Marissa C. Nardi, Esq.
          Stephanie Persson, Esq.
          CHILDREN'S RIGHTS, INC.
          88 Pine Street, Suite 800
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 683 2210
          Facsimile: (212) 683 4015
          E-mail: hfrischer@childrensrights.org
                  mnardi@childrensrights.org
                  spersson@childrensrights.org

               - and -

          Nathan Kirstein, Esq.
          Jane Hudson, Esq.
          DISABILITY RIGHTS IOWA
          400 E. Court Avenue, Suite 300
          Des Moines, IA 50309
          Telephone: (515) 278 2502
          Facsimile: (515) 278 0539
          E-mail: jhudson@driowa.org
                  nkirstein@driowa.org


JAVELIN MORTGAGE: Bid to Drop Merger Related Suit Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Armour Residential REIT, 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 court has not
issued a ruling on the motion to dismiss filed in the case, In re
JAVELIN Mortgage Investment Corp. Shareholder Litigation

Nine putative class action lawsuits have been filed in connection
with the tender offer (the "Tender Offer") and merger (the
"Merger") for JAVELIN. The Tender Offer and Merger are collectively
defined herein as the "Transactions."

All nine suits name ARMOUR, the previous members of JAVELIN's board
of directors prior to the Merger (of which eight are current
members of ARMOUR's board of directors) (the "Individual
Defendants") and JMI Acquisition Corporation ("Acquisition") as
defendants. Certain cases also name ACM and JAVELIN as additional
defendants.

The lawsuits were brought by purported holders of JAVELIN's common
stock, both individually and on behalf of a putative class of
JAVELIN's stockholders, alleging that the Individual Defendants
breached their fiduciary duties owed to the plaintiffs and the
putative class of JAVELIN stockholders, including claims that the
Individual Defendants failed to properly value JAVELIN; failed to
take steps to maximize the value of JAVELIN to its stockholders;
ignored or failed to protect against conflicts of interest; failed
to disclose material information about the Transactions; took steps
to avoid competitive bidding and to give ARMOUR an unfair advantage
by failing to adequately solicit other potential acquirors or
alternative transactions; and erected unreasonable barriers to
other third-party bidders.

The suits also allege that ARMOUR, JAVELIN, ACM and Acquisition
aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the
Individual Defendants. The lawsuits seek equitable relief,
including, among other relief, to enjoin consummation of the
Transactions, or rescind or unwind the Transactions if already
consummated, and award costs and disbursements, including
reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses.

The sole Florida lawsuit was never served on the defendants, and
that case was voluntarily dismissed and closed on January 20, 2017.


On April 25, 2016, the Maryland court issued an order consolidating
the eight Maryland cases into one action, captioned In re JAVELIN
Mortgage Investment Corp. Shareholder Litigation (Case No.
24-C-16-001542), and designated counsel for one of the Maryland
cases as interim lead co-counsel. On May 26, 2016, interim lead
counsel filed the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint for
Breach of Fiduciary Duty asserting consolidated claims of breach of
fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting the breaches of fiduciary duty,
and waste.

On June 27, 2016, defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint for failing to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted. A hearing was held on the
Motion to Dismiss on March 3, 2017, and the Court reserved ruling.
To date, the Court has not issued an order on the Motion to
Dismiss.

Armour Residential REIT, Inc. invests in residential mortgage
backed securities in the United States. The company is managed by
ARMOUR Capital Management LP. Its securities portfolio primarily
consists of the United States Government-sponsored entity's (GSE)
and the Government National Mortgage Administration’s issued or
guaranteed securities backed by fixed rate, hybrid adjustable rate,
and adjustable rate home loans, as well as unsecured notes and
bonds issued by the GSE and the United States treasuries; and money
market instruments. The company was founded in 2008 and is based in
Vero Beach, Florida.


JNV GLASS: Guevara Suit Wins Conditional Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled JOSE ADRIAN GUEVARA, the Plaintiff, v. JNV
GLASS INSTALLATION AND REPAIR LLC, et al., the Defendant, Case No.
2:17-cv-10625-JCZ-DEK (E.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Jay Zainey entered
an order:

   1. granting conditional class certification of:

      "all individuals who worked or are working performing
      manual labor for JNV Glass Installation and Repair LLC
      and/or Zinsel Glass and Mirror, LLC during the previous
      three years, and who are eligible for overtime pay pursuant
      to the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. section 207 and who did not receive
      full overtime compensation."; and

   2. directing Defendants to produce, 30 days from the entry
      of the Order, a complete list of the names, current
      addresses, dates of employment, and dates of termination of
      all workers employed by Defendants within the previous
      three years who fall within the class definition.


JOHN CHRISTNER: Drivers File Misclassification Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Curtis Killman, writing for Tulsa World, reports that more than 400
drivers have joined a federal lawsuit that claims a Sapulpa
trucking company is violating California labor laws and the federal
Fair Labor Standards Act by requiring drivers to work without
compensation.

The civil lawsuit alleges John Christner Trucking LLC misclassifies
its drivers as independent contractors, when they are actually
employees who are subject to federal and California labor laws.

An attorney for the plaintiffs in the lawsuit said simply calling a
driver an independent contractor is not adequate if they are
treated as employees. Workers who are deemed employees, rather than
independent contractors, are protected by the FLSA, which
establishes minimum wage and other requirements.

"We'd like to make sure that the class members have been properly
compensated for all the hours that they are entitled to," attorney
Robert Boulter, Esq. -- rsb@boulter-law.com -- said. "The first
step is going to be establishing that they are employees rather
than independent contractors.

"You have a lot of these folks who are out there working for weeks
at a time and are not getting an adequate paycheck."

Darryl Christner, a co-owner and chief financial officer for John
Christner Trucking, said the company follows all labor laws and
denies the allegations in the lawsuit.

"We've been in business for a little over 32 years, so if we were
patently doing something illegal or unethical on a continuous
basis, we wouldn't be in business," Christner said.

Lawsuits challenging the independent contractor status in the
trucking industry have been increasing in recent years, Christner
said.

"We're one of thousands of trucking companies that are facing the
same (type of) litigation," Christner said. "It's just been an easy
place for plaintiff attorneys to go, and the state of California
has been supporting it."

The lead plaintiff in the lawsuit, Thomas Huddleston, claims he
worked as a driver for John Christner Trucking for about four
months in 2016. The California resident claims he routinely worked
98-hour weeks for JCT and it was not uncommon to be paid less than
$500 for the week.

Some weeks, because of truck lease payments and other deductions
from his paycheck, Huddleston claims he ended up owing money to the
trucking company at the end of the pay period.

The lawsuit was filed July 12, 2017, in a California federal court
and includes allegations of violations of Oklahoma's Consumer
Protection Act. The lawsuit was transferred Sept. 28, 2017, to
Tulsa federal court at the request of John Christner Trucking and
over the objection of the plaintiffs.

A federal judge in May granted conditional certification of the
potential class of plaintiffs to include current and former
individuals who provided transportation services as an independent
contractor for John Christner Trucking between May 1, 2015, and May
1, 2018.

Individuals who contracted with the company during that time period
and who leased trucks from John Christner Trucking or its
affiliate, Three Diamond Leasing LLC, must notify plaintiff's
counsel prior to the Sept. 16 deadline if they wish to be a
plaintiff in the lawsuit.

The court has authorized a website be established to provide
information about the case and permit individuals to electronically
join the lawsuit: www.huddlestonvjohnchristnertrucking.com.

Boulter said over 2,500 notices have been sent out to prospective
plaintiffs. Once the deadline passes to join the lawsuit, a judge
will decide whether the case can proceed as a collective action
lawsuit.

A July 25 court filing indicated 426 individuals have opted to join
in the lawsuit. Collective action lawsuits, as they are called in
FLSA cases, require individuals to opt in to the case rather than
be automatically be included as is the practice in the more
commonly known class-action lawsuits, Boulter said.

Boulter said the lawsuit is a reaction to a trend among some
trucking companies whose practices include shifting business costs
to its workers.

One such practice involves requiring drivers to lease trucks from
the company or an affiliate, Boulter said.

"Usually the terms and conditions of the lease agreements, and the
independent contractor agreements, is essentially the employees are
captive; they are not really free to drive as a practical matter,
free to drive for other companies," Boulter said.

Huddleston claims in a court filing that John Christner Trucking
"exercised complete control" over all his activities relating to
driving for the company.

The company, he claimed, prohibited him from declining a load,
controlled his equipment and required him to lease company-provided
communication equipment and the truck he drove.

"I was never given the option to obtain a truck from anyone other
than JCT," Huddleston claimed. "JCT then automatically deducted two
payments for the truck from my compensation on a weekly basis —
one a flat weekly rent payment, and another payment that increased
with the number of miles driven.

"JCT did not allow me to use the truck to drive for any carrier
other than JCT," Huddleston continued. "I was told this was because
the truck was JCT's property.

"Because I was not allowed to haul for any other carrier, I was
entirely dependent on JCT to earn income."

A trucking industry expert agreed these types of lawsuits have been
on the rise in recent years.

"These cases are going to continue to grow in number and challenge
the existing model of the (trucking) industry for sure," said Steve
Viscelli, a sociologist at the University of Pennsylvania.

Viscelli, author of "The Big Rig: Trucking and the Decline of the
American Dream," said companies can run afoul with labor laws when
they exercise too much control over contract labor.

"The law requires if you control the person directly, what they are
doing, how they do it when they do it, they are your employee,"
Viscelli said, rather than contract labor.

Trucking companies who hire independent contractors for drivers are
"moving in the wrong direction" when it comes to giving workers
control, Visceilli said.

Poor wage complaints are common in the industry, he said.

While some drivers are able to earn good incomes, many who are apt
to be misclassified as an independent contractor and subject to
minimum wage violations can earn an annual income in the $30,000
range, Viscelli said.

If the drivers are not "running really high miles, drivers can earn
between $20,000 and $40,000 despite averaging 80-plus hours a
week," Viscelli said.

Many drivers are also unaware of what they are signing up for when
sign independent contractor agreements and truck lease agreements,
he said.

"They just don't know all the economics of it when they are getting
in to it partly because the company has all those numbers,"
Viscelli said.

Others have more information but they don't know how many miles
they actually are going to be permitted to drive, he said.

"So they may be thinking ‘I've been running over the road I get
3,000 miles a week. This company is ... telling me I'm going to get
2,800 miles a week.'

"Later it turns out the driver is only getting about 2,100 miles
per week," Viscelli said.

"Well, over the course of that month, that 1,000 miles ... makes
this between a good paycheck and something less than they were
making before," he said.

Meanwhile, Christner said he doubts that many of the drivers who
have signed on to the lawsuit know what they are getting into.

"Honestly, a lot of people who have joined this lawsuit, in my
opinion, have no idea what this lawsuit is about," Christner said.
"They just think they are going to get some money."

While saying he believes his trucking company "will eventually
prevail" in the lawsuit, he concedes that it would result in big
changes in the trucking industry should lawsuits like this go
against the trucking industry.

"And so if case law, if it would go against that model completely,
I would say that a lot of folks including us would have to change
our business model and the arrangement as it relates to the labor
component," Christner said. "It would be an enormous shift in the
way that everything is transacted."[GN]

JPMORGAN CHASE: Settlement in E. Mansor's Suit Has Prelim Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, EDMUND J. MANSOR and ROBERTA M. MANSOR, Plaintiffs, v.
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., Defendant, Civil Action No.
1:12-cv-10544-JGD (D. Mass.), Magistrate Judge Judith D. Dein of
the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted
the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class
Action Settlement.

The Magistrate Judge finds that the proposed Settlement, as set
forth in the Parties' Settlement Agreement, appears to be fair,
reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the Class.  She
further finds that the Settlement was entered into at arm's-length
by highly experienced counsel following mediation with the
Honorable Margaret R. Hinkle (Ret.).  She therefore preliminarily
approved the proposed Settlement and entered the Preliminary Order
thereto.

She conditionally certified, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and
23(b)(3), the Settlement Class defined as all persons who purchased
or otherwise acquired Millennium CDs or whose funds remained in the
Millennium accounts at Chase from Sept. 25, 2008 through March 9,
2009, which includes persons whose CDs purportedly rolled over or
whose funds were deposited in or remained in the Millennium
accounts at Chase.

The Magistrate Judge appointed Plaintiffs Edmund J. Mansor and
Robert M. Mansor as the Class Representatives of the Settlement
Class; the law firm of Kozyak Tropin Throckmorton, LLP, attorneys
Harley S. Tropin and Tal J. Lifshitz, and attorney Keith L. Miller
as the Class Counsel to the Settlement Class; and Richard B. Roper
of Thompson & Knight LLP, 1722 Routh Street, Suite 1500, Dallas,
Texas 75201 as the settlement administrator.

She approved the form and content of the proposed Class Notice, and
the Parties' proposal to distribute the Class Notice as set forth
in the Settlement Agreement.  She also approved the parties'
proposed schedule for dissemination of the Class Notice, requesting
exclusion from the Settlement Class or objecting to the Settlement,
submitting papers in connection with Final Approval, and the Final
Approval Hearing, as follows:

     a. 15 days after entry of Preliminary Order: deadline for the
Class Counsel's request for attorneys' fees and expenses and Class
Representatives' enhancement award

     b. 30 days after entry of Preliminary Order: deadline for
mailing Class Notice

     c. 60 days after the date of Class Notice: deadline for
opt-outs and objections

     d. 15 days after Opt-out Deadline: deadline for Receiver to
file a declaration with the Court identifying the list of opt-outs,
if any

     e. 10 days before Fairness Hearing: deadline for affidavit
regarding mailing

     f. 10 days before Fairness Hearing: deadline for Defendant to
notify the Court if it intends to withdraw from the Settlement
Agreement due to opt-outs exceeding threshold set forth in Section
V.C. of the Settlement Agreement

     g. 7 days before Fairness Hearing: deadline for the Mansors to
file motion for final approval

     h. As soon as may be heard: Fairness Hearing

As described in the Notice to the Class, any member may opt out of
the Class by mailing a completed Request for Exclusion to the
Receiver within 60 days after the date of the Notice to the Class.

A Fairness Hearing is scheduled to be held on Nov. 13, 2018 at 2:00
p.m.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 22, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/VP15G2 from Leagle.com.

Edmund J. Mansor & Roberta M. Mansor, Plaintiffs, represented by
Harley S. Tropin -- hst@kttlaw.com -- Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton,
LLP, pro hac vice, Keith L. Miller, Law Offices of Keith L. Miller,
Michael R. Lorigas -- mlorigas@kttlaw.com -- Kozyak, Tropin &
Throckmorton, LLP, pro hac vice, Tal J. Lifshitz -- tjl@kttlaw.com
-- Kozyak, Tropin & Throckmorton, LLP, pro hac vice, Thomas A.
Tucker Ronzetti, Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, P.A., pro hac vice &
William H. Gagas -- wgagas@kbn-law.com -- Law Office of William H.
Gagas.

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Defendant, represented by Beth I.Z.
Boland -- bboland@foley.com -- Foley & Lardner LLP, Rachel M. Blise
-- rblise@foley.com -- Foley & Lardner LLP, pro hac vice, Courtney
Worcester , Foley & Lardner LLP, Michael Thompson --
mxthompson@foley.com -- Foley & Lardner LLP, Redi Kasollja, Foley &
Lardner LLP & Stephen J. Quinlan, Foley & Lardner LLP.

Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Interested Party,
represented by Peter C. Koch, Office of the Comptroller of the
Currency.

JRV SERVICES: Pereira Seeks to Conditionally Certify Class
----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled ROLANDO PEREIRA, on behalf of himself and
other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. JRV SERVICES
LLC, PRA-SE CONSTRUCTION, LP, and JUANA VARGAS, the Defendants,
Case No. 2:18-cv-02720-EEF-DEK (E.D. La.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court for an order conditionally certifying a class, approving
judicial notice, and directing disclosure of the names and
addresses of potential "opt-in" plaintiffs.

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Emily A. Westermeier, Esq.
          Roberto Luis Costales, Esq.
          William H. Beaumont, Esq.
          BEAUMONT COSTALES LLC
          3801 Canal Street, Suite 207
          New Orleans, LA 70119
          Telephone: (504) 534 5005
          E-mail: eaw@beaumontcostales.com


JUST BORN: Court Denies Motion for Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled DARYL WHITE, JR., Individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. JUST BORN,
INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-04025-NKL (W.D. Mo.), the
Hon. Judge Nanette K. Laughrey entered an order on August 7, 2018:

   1. denying Mr. Daryl White, Jr.'s motion for class
      certification; and

   2. denying Defendant's motion for leave to file a sur-reply.


KEELER INSTRUMENTS: Retina Associates Sues over Unwanted Fax Ads
----------------------------------------------------------------
RETINA ASSOCIATES MEDICAL GROUP, INC., individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. KEELER
INSTRUMENTS, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 8:18-cv-01358 (C.D.
Cal., Aug. 3, 2018), alleges that Defendant violated the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, by transmitting Fax to Plaintiff and
substantially similar facsimile advertisements to the other Class
members without obtaining their prior express invitation or
permission and by not displaying the proper opt-out notice required
by 47 C.F.R. section 64.1200(a)(4)(iii).

According to the complaint, the Defendant intended to cause damage
to Plaintiff and the Class, to violate their privacy, to interfere
with the recipients' fax machines, or to consume the recipients'
valuable time with Defendant's advertisements; therefore, treble
damages are warranted under 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(3). The
Defendant knew or should have known that (a) Plaintiff and the
other Class members had not given express invitation or permission
for Defendant or anyone else to fax advertisements about
Defendant's goods, (b) the Fax and the other facsimile
advertisements were advertisements, (c) Defendant did not have an
established business relationship with Plaintiff and the other
Class members, and (d) the Fax and the other facsimile
advertisements did not display the proper opt-out notice.

Keeler Instruments was founded in 1996. The company's line of
business includes distributing professional equipment, such as
drafting instruments.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


KERNERSVILLE, NC: Residents Win $12.3MM in Sewer Charges Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fox 8 News reports that  more than 10,000 Kernersville residents
will soon have a check in the mail.

According to a news release, a superior court approved a $12.3
million settlement in a class action lawsuit over excess sewer
charges which will benefit 10,541 residents.

The July 27 settlement means the sewer customers are set to receive
full refunds of excess charges paid from 2012 to 2016, including
about 9 percent interest.

"We sincerely appreciate the time and attention that judge (Edwin)
Wilson has put into the case, and are glad that people who were
overcharged will be made whole," said plaintiffs and class
representatives Ed and Debra Fasano in a news release.

The suit began in 2016, accusing the Town of Kernersville and the
City/County Utilities Commission of Winston-Salem and Forsyth
County of overcharging for sewer services over four years.

According to the release, the suit claimed the town and commission
violated a 2011 agreement that required Kernersville sewer rate to
decrease beginning June 30, 2012.

The $12.3 million compensation is meant to pay customers back for
excess charges from July 1, 2012, to Aug. 1, 2016.

Settlement payments depend on the class member's sewer bills, but
more than 75 percent of the 10,541 class members will receive
checks for between $100 and $2,000.

Class members can expect their checks sometime after they are
mailed out in September and should arrive during 2018.

The class was represented by attorneys H. Brent Helms, Esq. --
bhelms@robinsonlawing.com -- and Scott Templeton, Esq. --
stempleton@robinsonlawing.com -- of Robinson & Lawing, LLP in
Winston-Salem, and by Alan Duncan, Esq. --
aduncan@turningpointlit.com -- and Stephen Russell Jr., Esq. --
srussell@turningpointlit.com -- of Mullins Duncan Harrell & Russell
PLLC in Greensboro.

The case was filed as Fasano v. Town of Kernersville and the
Winston-Salem-Forsyth County City/County Utilities Commission.[GN]

KORBIN INSULATION: Ortiz Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------
ABNER ORTIZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. KORBIN INSULATION SYSTEMS, LLC, and
JAMES C. BROUSSARD, the Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-00547 (E.D.
Tex., Aug. 3, 2018), alleges that Defendants failed to pay
Plaintiff and its other workers overtime in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff routinely worked in
excess of 40 hours per week on Defendants' behalf but was not paid
lawfully for doing so because Defendants only paid Plaintiff on a
day and piece rate basis.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Forester, Esq.
          FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
          1701 N. Market Street, Suite 210
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Telephone: (214) 210 2100
          Facsimile: (214) 346 5909


LAS VEGAS SANDS: Summary Judgment Ruling in "Fosbre" Suit Affirmed
------------------------------------------------------------------
Las Vegas Sands Corp. 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 U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit unanimously affirmed a U.S. District
Court's summary judgment ruling for the defendants in a class
action lawsuit.

On May 24, 2010, Frank J. Fosbre, Jr. filed a purported class
action complaint in the U.S. District Court, against LVSC, Sheldon
G. Adelson and William P. Weidner. The complaint alleged that LVSC,
through the individual defendants, disseminated or approved
materially false information, or failed to disclose material facts,
through press releases, investor conference calls and other means
from August 1, 2007 through November 6, 2008.

The complaint sought, among other relief, class certification,
compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

On July 21, 2010, Wendell and Shirley Combs filed a purported class
action complaint in the U.S. District Court, against LVSC, Sheldon
G. Adelson and William P. Weidner. The complaint alleged that LVSC,
through the individual defendants, disseminated or approved
materially false information, or failed to disclose material facts,
through press releases, investor conference calls and other means
from June 13, 2007 through November 11, 2008.

The complaint, which was substantially similar to the Fosbre
complaint, discussed above, sought, among other relief, class
certification, compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs.


On August 31, 2010, the U.S. District Court entered an order
consolidating the Fosbre and Combs cases, and appointed lead
plaintiffs and lead counsel. As such, the Fosbre and Combs cases
are reported as one consolidated matter.

On November 1, 2010, a purported class action amended complaint was
filed in the consolidated action against LVSC, Sheldon G. Adelson
and William P. Weidner. The amended complaint alleges that LVSC,
through the individual defendants, disseminated or approved
materially false and misleading information, or failed to disclose
material facts, through press releases, investor conference calls
and other means from August 2, 2007 through November 6, 2008.

The amended complaint seeks, among other relief, class
certification, compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs.


On January 10, 2011, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint, which, on August 24, 2011, was granted in part
and denied in part, with the dismissal of certain allegations. On
November 7, 2011, the defendants filed their answer to the
allegations remaining in the amended complaint. On July 11, 2012,
the U.S. District Court issued an order allowing defendants' Motion
for Partial Reconsideration of the U.S. District Court's order
dated August 24, 2011, striking additional portions of the
plaintiffs' complaint and reducing the class period to a period of
February 4 to November 6, 2008.

On August 7, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a purported class action
second amended complaint (the "Second Amended Complaint") seeking
to expand their allegations back to a time period of 2007 (having
previously been cut back to 2008 by the U.S. District Court)
essentially alleging very similar matters that had been previously
stricken by the U.S. District Court. On October 16, 2012, the
defendants filed a new motion to dismiss the Second Amended
Complaint. The plaintiffs responded to the motion to dismiss on
November 1, 2012, and defendants filed their reply on November 12,
2012.

On November 20, 2012, the U.S. District Court granted a stay of
discovery under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act
pending a decision on the new motion to dismiss and therefore, the
discovery process was suspended.

On April 16, 2013, the case was reassigned to a new judge. On July
30, 2013, the U.S. District Court heard the motion to dismiss and
took the matter under advisement. On November 7, 2013, the judge
granted in part and denied in part defendants' motions to dismiss.
On December 13, 2013, the defendants filed their answer to the
Second Amended Complaint. Discovery in the matter resumed.

On January 8, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion to expand the
certified class period, which was granted by the U.S. District
Court on June 15, 2015. Fact discovery closed on July 31, 2015, and
expert discovery closed on December 18, 2015.

On January 22, 2016, defendants filed motions for summary judgment.
Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motions for summary judgment
on March 11, 2016. Defendants filed their replies in support of
summary judgment on April 8, 2016. Summary judgment in favor of the
defendants was entered on January 4, 2017. The plaintiffs filed a
notice of appeal on February 2, 2017, and their opening brief in
support of their appeal on July 14, 2017. Defendants filed their
answering briefs in opposition to the appeal on October 13, 2017.
Plaintiffs filed their reply brief in support of their appeal on
December 14, 2017.

On May 1, 2018, a three judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit unanimously affirmed the U.S. District
Court's summary judgment ruling for the defendants. The Company
intends to defend this matter vigorously.

Las Vegas Sands Corp., together with its subsidiaries, develops,
owns, and operates integrated resorts in Asia and the United
States. Las Vegas Sands Corp. was founded in 1988 and is based in
Las Vegas, Nevada.


LASERSHIP INC: E. Reynoso's Misclassification Suit Moved to E.D. Va
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts transferred the case, EDWARD REYNOSO,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. LASERSHIP, INC. and BLAKE AVERILL, Defendants, Civil
Action No. 17-11607-NMG (D. Mass.), to the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Virginia pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section
1404(a).

Reynoso brings the purported class action against LaserShip and its
CEO, Averill, for alleged violations of the Massachusetts Wage Act
and Massachusetts overtime laws.  Reynoso contends that LaserShip
classifies its employees as independent contractors in order to
avoid paying overtime wages.

Reynoso, a Massachusetts resident, was a professional
owner-operator providing equipment and labor services to LaserShip
from November 2012, to May 2017.  In May, 2017, the parties
executed an Independent Contractor Agreement which governed the
terms and conditions of their business relationship.  The Agreement
contains a merger clause stating that it supersedes any and all
other agreements between the parties (January 2014, August 2014 and
March 2016 independent contractor agreements).

Reynoso asserts that he, and others similarly situated, have been
misclassified as independent contractors and that there was an
employer-employee relationship between LaserShip and those
providing equipment and labor services to LaserShip.  He also
alleges that as a result of that misclassification, he and other
delivery drivers have suffered damages and incurred expenses that
should have been paid by LaserShip, such as expenses for gasoline,
vehicle maintenance and payroll taxes.  Further, Reynoso and other
drivers regularly worked more than 40 hours per week and, because
paystubs did not include all hours worked, Reynoso and others
similarly situated suffered lost wages.

Reynoso brought the action in Massachusetts Superior Court for
Middlesex County asserting claims individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated for 1) misclassification as independent
contractor in violation of the Wage Act, 2) nonpayment of overtime
wages in violation of the Massachusetts Overtime Law, 3) nonpayment
of earned overtime wages in violation of M.G.L. c. 149, Sections
148 & 150, 4) failure to maintain proper payroll records in
violation of M.G.L. c. 149, Section 148, M.G.L. c. 151, Section 15
and 454 CMR 27.02(2) and 5) unjust enrichment.  LaserShip timely
removed the case to the Court on diversity grounds.

LaserShip moves to dismiss Reynoso's claims pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(b)(6) or, in the alternative, to transfer venue pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a).  Reynoso admits the forum selection
clause exists, but responds that it is against public policy
because it does not allow Massachusetts residents to bring claims
pursuant to Massachusetts law and is therefore unenforceable.

Because (1) the Supreme Court has held that a district court should
"ordinarily" rely upon Section 1404(a) to enforce a forum-selection
clause and (2) the appropriate federal district for venue can be
determined by the forum-selection clause, obviating the need for
plaintiff to refile if the case is transferred pursuant to Section
1404(a), Judge Gorton will proceed to consider the Defendants'
motion to transfer pursuant to Section 1404(a).

He finds that Reynoso has not met his burden of demonstrating that
Virginia's choice-of-law rules would select a law other than
Massachusetts.  Accordingly, the forum-selection clause does not
operate as a "special contract" that would impermissibly waive
rights under the Wage Act and the motion to transfer will be
allowed.

LaserShip also moves, in the alternative, to dismiss Reynoso's
claims on the theory that Reynoso is required to arbitrate under
the Agreement's mandatory arbitration clause.  Although the
Plaintiff's argument has since been rejected by the United States
Supreme Court because the Court cannot compel arbitration in
another forum under the Federal Arbitration Act, the Judge holds
that it is appropriate instead to transfer the case.

Finally, LaserShip moves for fees, costs and damages associated
with the Motion to transfer pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1927,
contending that the Plaintiff's counsel refused to transfer the
action to Virginia voluntarily despite the advice of the
Defendants' counsel with respect to the forum-selection and
arbitration clauses of the Agreement.  The Judge finds that the
Plaintiff's counsel has not complicated the proceedings so
unreasonably or vexatiously as to require his payment of fees and
penalties.  Although the Plaintiff's public policy argument is
tenuous and nullification of a forum-selection clause is
disfavored, the counsel did not display a serious and studied
disregard for the orderly process of justice.  Hence, sanctions
will not be imposed.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Gorton allowed the Defendants'
motion to dismiss or transfer venue, and transferred the case to
the Eastern District of Virginia.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 22, 2018 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://is.gd/5nKgUZ from Leagle.com.

Edward Reynoso, individualy and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated, Plaintiff, represented by Nicholas F. Ortiz --
nfo@mass-legal.com -- Law Office of Nicholas F. Ortiz, P.C. & Raven
Moeslinger -- rm@mass-legal.com -- Law Office of Nicholas F. Ortiz,
P.C.

Lasership, Inc. & Blake Averill, Defendants, represented by Douglas
J. Hoffman -- hoffmand@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis PC & Ethan
J. Davis -- davise@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis, P.C.

LEGACY FLOORING: Littlefield and Decker Seek Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------
Pamela Littlefield and Rita K. Decker, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Legacy
Flooring LW LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-02535 (W.D. Tenn.,
Aug. 3, 2018), seeks to recover damages and other relief as a
result of Defendant's violations under the federal Fair Labor
Standards Act.

According to the complaint, Littlefield regularly worked between 50
and 60 hours per week without receiving overtime compensation.
Decker regularly worked between 60 and 80 hours per week without
receiving overtime compensation.  During these weeks, Defendant did
not provide Plaintiffs or similarly situated account managers with
overtime compensation at a rate of one-and-one-half times their
regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40.  Instead,
Defendant compensates Plaintiffs and similarly situated store
account managers on a salary basis.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William B. Ryan, Esq.
          Janelle C. Osowski, Esq.
          DONATI LAW, PLLC
          1545 Union Avenue
          Memphis, TN 38104
          Telephone: (901) 278 1004
          Facsimile: (901) 278 3111
          E-mail: billy@donatilaw.com
                  janelle@donatilaw.com


LG ELECTRONICS: Court Dismisses A. Frost's Antitrust Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case, A. FROST and JOSE RA, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. LG ELECTRONICS INC.;
LG ELECTRONICS U.S.A., INC.; SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.; and
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., Defendants, Case No.
16-cv-05206-BLF (N.D. Cal.), Judge Beth Labdon Freeman of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose
Division, entered the judgment for Defendants and against the
Plaintiffs.

The Plaintiffs' Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint
has been dismissed without leave to amend, and the antitrust suit
has been dismissed.  Judge Freeman ordered and adjudged that the
Plaintiffs take nothing by the action.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 22, 2018 Judgment is available
at https://is.gd/WpOGUf from Leagle.com.

A. Frost, Plaintiff, represented by Brittany N. Resch --
bresch@gustafsongluek.com -- Catherine Sung-Yun K. Smith --
csmith@gustafsongluek.com -- Daniel E. Gustafson --
dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com -- at Gustafson Gluek PLLC; Eric L.
Cramer -- ecramer@bm.net -- Michael Jay Kane -- mkane@bm.net -- at
Berger & Montague, P.C.; Kenneth A. Wexler -- kaw@wexlerwallace.com
-- at Wexler Wallace LLP; Kyla Jenny Gibboney --
kgibboney@saverilawfirm.com -- Matthew Sinclair Weiler --
mweiler@saverilawfirm.com -- Joseph R. Saveri --
jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com -- at Joseph Saveri Law Firm; Rachel
Nicole Rivers -- rrivers@grosskleinlaw.com -- Stuart George Gross
-- sgross@grosskleinlaw.com -- at Gross & Klein, LLP; Vincent J.
Esades -- at Heins Mills & Olson, P.L.C.

Jose Ra, individually and on behalf similarly situated, Plaintiff,
represented by Adam John Zapala -- azapala@cpmlegal.com -- Steven
Noel Williams -- swilliams@cpmlegal.com -- Elizabeth Tran --
etran@cpmlegal.com -- at Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy LLP.

Andrew Amironovin, ikndividually and on behalf of all other person
similarly situated, Plaintiff, Jason Michael Lindner
-- lindner@stuevesiegel.com -- Jason Scott Hartley --
hartley@stuevesiegel.com -- at Stueve Siegel Hanson, LLP.

LG Electronics Inc. & LG Electronics USA, Inc., Defendants,
represented by John Harrison L'Estrange, Jr. --
jlestrange@wlelaw.com -- Andrew Edward Schouten --
aschouten@wlelaw.com -- Joseph Thomas Ergastolo -- jte@wlelaw.com
-- at Wright, LEstrange Ergastolo; Nathan P. Eimer --
neimer@eimerstahl.com -- Daniel David Birk -- dbirk@eimerstahl.com
-- James William Joseph --
jjoseph@eimerstahl.com -- James Kylstra --
jkylstra%20@eimerstahl.com -- at Eimer Stahl LLP.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd, Defendant, represented by Anne Davis
-- anne.davis@apks.com -- Carolyn Ann Pearce --
carolyn.pearce@apks.com -- James L. Cooper -- james.cooper@apks.com
-- Kenneth Lee Chernof -- kenneth.chernof@apks.com -- at Arnold and
Porter LLP.

Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Anne
Davis, Arnold and Porter LLP, pro hac vice, Carolyn Ann Pearce,
Arnold and Porter LLP, Daniel B. Asimow, Arnold & Porter Kaye
Scholer LLP, James L. Cooper, Arnold and Porter, pro hac vice &
Kenneth Lee Chernof, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP.

LIFECELL CORP: Still Defends Litigation over RepliForm Injuries
---------------------------------------------------------------
LifeCell Corporation continues to face litigation associated with
its biologic mesh product RepliForm, according to Allergan plc's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018.

LifeCell Corporation has been named as a defendant in approximately
325 cases alleging that its biologic mesh product RepliForm did not
perform as intended and caused various injuries.  In all of those
cases Boston Scientific Corporation, LifeCell's distributor, has
been named as a co-defendant.  In addition, a significant portion
of those cases also name another manufacturer as a defendant whose
product was implanted at the same time.  All but a few of the cases
have been consolidated for centralized management in the Superior
Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex County.  The other cases are
venued in federal court in West Virginia, and state courts in
Delaware and Minnesota.  Approximately 200 of these cases have been
settled or dismissed.  

Allergan plc, a specialty pharmaceutical company, develops,
manufactures, markets, and distributes medical aesthetics,
biosimilar, and over-the-counter pharmaceutical products worldwide.
It operates through US Specialized Therapeutics, US General
Medicine, and International segments. The Company was formerly
known as Actavis plc and changed its name to Allergan plc in June
2015. Allergan plc was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in
Dublin, Ireland.


M.A.C. COSMETICS: Deguchy Suit Transferred to S.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled MERCEDES DEGUCHY, as an individual
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
M.A.C. COSMETICS, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through
100, the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-01210, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, to
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
(Western Division - Los Angeles) on Aug. 3, 2018. The Central
District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:18-cv-06700-SVW-AFM to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
the Hon. Judge Stephen V. Wilson.

The case is brought pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act,
Labor Code, et seq.   The case alleges these unlawful policies of
the Defendant: (a) failing to provide required meal and rest
breaks, as required under California Labor Code section 226.7; (b)
failing to pay all wages, including overtime, as required under
California Labor Code sections 510, 1194, and 1197; (c) failing to
pay all final wages upon quitting and termination under Labor Code
sections 201 - 203; (d) failing to pay all wages by the appropriate
pay period, as required by Labor Code § 204; (e) failing to
provide accurate wage statements as required under California Labor
Code section 226; and (f) failing to reimburse business expenses as
required under Labor Code section 2802.[BN]

Attorneys for Mercedes Deguchy:

          Allison H. Goddard, Esq.
          James Richard Patterson, Esq.
          PATTERSON LAW GROUP, APC
          1350 Columbia Street, Suite 603
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 895 1004
          Facsimile: (619) 756 6991
          E-mail: ali@pattersonlawgroup.com
                  jim@pattersonlawgroup.com

Attorneys for M.A.C. Cosmetics Inc.:

          Kathy A Le, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          200 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 500
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 885 1360
          Facsimile: (949) 885 1380
          E-mail: kathy.le@jacksonlewis.com

               - and -

          Nicole Shaffer, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS LLP
          200 Spectrum Center Drive Suite 500
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 885 1360
          Facsimile: (949) 885 1380
          E-mail: nicole.shaffer@jacksonlewis.com


MABVAX THERAPEUTICS: Vinson Sues over Share Price Drop
------------------------------------------------------
JERRY VINSON, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. MABVAX THERAPEUTICS HOLDINGS, J. DAVID
HANSEN, and GREGORY P. HANSON, the Defendant, Case No.
3:18-cv-01819-LAB-AGS (S.D. Cal., Aug. 3, 2018), is a securities
class action on behalf of all individuals and/or entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of MabVax between
June 30, 2014 and May 18, 2018, inclusive.

MabVax through its subsidiaries develops human antibody-based
products and vaccines to address unmet medical needs for the
treatment of diseases such as pancreatic, lung, sarcoma ovarian and
breast cancer. On January 30, 2018, the Company filed an 8-K with
the SEC disclosing an investigation by the SEC. On this news the
Company's shares fell $0.47 per share, or nearly 18%, to close at
$2.19 per share on January 30, 2018. Then, on May 21, 2018, the
Company filed an 8-K with the SEC disclosing more details regarding
the SEC investigation into the Company and its officers and
directors' potential violation of federal securities laws, as well
as an investigation into potential violations of securities laws by
various holders of the Company's securities.

Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose: (1) that
the Company's internal controls over financial reporting were
materially weak and deficient; (2) that the Company had incorrectly
calculated and reported beneficial ownership of MabVax shares, and
permitted improper influence or control over MabVax, and/or the
Company's officers and directors by certain shareholders; and, (3)
that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial
statements and Defendants' statements about MabVax's business,
operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and
omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the
Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have
suffered significant losses and damages.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MANDARICH LAW: D. Schiovone's Individual Claims Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DEREK SCHIAVONE on behalf of himself, and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MANDARICH LAW GROUP, L.L.P.,
CACH, LLC, and SQUARETWO FINANCIAL CORPORATION, Defendants, Case
No. 3:16-cv-06696-WHO (N.D. Cal.), Judge William H. Orrick of the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted
Schiavone and the Defendant's Joint Motion to Dismiss.

The action is dismissed with prejudice as to all individual claims
asserted by the Plaintiff against the Defendant, and without
prejudice as to the class action claims asserted in the lawsuit and
the individual claims against CACH, LLC and SquareTwo Financial
Corporation pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
41(a)(1)(A)(ii).  Each party to bear their own costs and fees.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 22, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/Bgbdry from Leagle.com.

Derek Schiavone, on behalf of himself, and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Patric Lester --
pl@lesterlaw.com -- Lester & Associates, Alexis Marie Wood --
admin@consumersadvocates.com -- Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron,
APLC, Kas Larene Gallucci, Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron & Ronald
A. Marron, Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron, APLC.

Mandarich Law Group, L.L.P. & SquareTwo Financial Corporation,
Defendants, represented by Kelly Susan Knepper Stephens --
kstephens@messerstrickler.com -- Messer Strickler & Nicole Marie
Strickler -- nstrickler@messerstrickler.com -- Messer Strickler,
Ltd., pro hac vice.

Cach, LLC, Defendant, represented by Kelly Susan Knepper Stephens,
Messer Strickler & Nicole Marie Strickler, Messer Strickler, Ltd..

MATTEL INC: Consolidated Securities Class Suit Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------
Mattel, 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 Court granted the company's motion to
dismiss the class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.

A purported class action lawsuit is pending in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California
(consolidating Waterford Township Police & Fire Retirement System
v. Mattel, Inc., et al., filed June 27, 2017; and Lathe v. Mattel,
Inc., et al., filed July 6, 2017) against Mattel, Christopher A.
Sinclair, Richard Dickson, Kevin M. Farr, and Joseph B. Johnson
alleging federal securities laws violations in connection with
statements allegedly made by the defendants during the period
October 20, 2016 through April 20, 2017.

In general, the lawsuit asserts allegations that the defendants
artificially inflated Mattel's common stock price by knowingly
making materially false and misleading statements and omissions to
the investing public about retail customer inventory, the alignment
between point-of-sale and shipping data, and Mattel's overall
financial condition.

The lawsuit alleges that the defendants' conduct caused the
plaintiff and other stockholders to purchase Mattel common stock at
artificially inflated prices. On May 24, 2018, the Court granted
Mattel's motion to dismiss the class action lawsuit, and on June
25, 2018, the plaintiff filed a motion informing the Court he would
not be filing an amended complaint. The plaintiff will have the
opportunity to file an appeal after the Court enters judgment in
favor of Mattel.

Mattel, Inc. designs, manufactures, and markets a range of toy
products worldwide. The company operates in three segments: North
America, International, and American Girl. Mattel, Inc. was founded
in 1945 and is headquartered in El Segundo, California.


MAZZARO'S ITALIAN: Faces Spencer Suit in M.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mazzaro's Italian
Market, LLC. The case is captioned as Jiying Spencer, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Mazzaro's Italian Market, LLC and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. 8:18-cv-01910-VMC-SPF (M.D. Fla., Aug. 3,
2018).

Mazzaro Italian Market is an Italian cuisine fine food market
located in St. Petersburg, Florida. It hosts wine tastings and book
signings. It is known for its cheeses, olives, deli sandwiches,
bakery items, handmade pastas and pre-made dishes.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian K. Herrington, Esq.
          HERRINGTON LAW, PA.
          1520 N. State Street
          Jackson, MS 39202
          Telephone: (601) 208 0013
          Facsimile: (601) 235 9947

               - and -

          Chant Yedalian, Esq.
          CHANT & COMPANY
          1010 N. Central Avenue
          Glendale, CA 91202
          Telephone: (877) 574 7100
          Facsimile: (877) 574 9411

               - and -

          Dewitt M. Lovelace, Esq.
          LOVELACE LAW FIRM, PA
          12870 US Hwy 98 W, Suite 200
          Miramar Beach, FL 32550
          Telephone: (850) 837 6020
          Facsimile: (850) 837 4093
          E-mail: dml@lovelacelaw.com


MDL 1203: Court Awards $296K in Attys' Fees in Diet Drugs Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: DIET DRUGS
(PHENTERMINE/FENFLURAMINE/DEXFENFLURAMINE) PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION. THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: SHEILA BROWN, et al., v.
AMERICAN HOME PRODUCTS CORPORATION, MDL No. 1203, No. 99-20593
(E.D. Pa.), Judge Harvey Bartle, III of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted Levin Sedran &
Berman's Petition for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Expense
Reimbursements Relating to Common Benefit Work Performed from Jan.
1, 2017 through Dec. 31, 2017

Before the Court is the petition of Levin, in its respective
capacities as the Plaintiffs' Liaison Counsel, the Co-Lead Counsel
for the Plaintiffs, and the Class Counsel, for an award of
attorneys' fees and expense reimbursements relating to work
performed from Jan. 1, 2017 through Dec. 31, 2017.  The court has
previously awarded fees in Pretrial Order ("PTO") Nos. 2262, 2859,
7763A, 8516, 8646, 8869, 9102, 9294, 9398, 9465, and 9490.

Levin seeks an aggregate award of attorneys' fees in the amount of
$295,656.25 from the AHP Settlement Trust in accordance with the
stipulation approved in PTO No. 9297 between Wyeth and the Class
Counsel that described, among other things, the terms of funding of
future awards and class-related fees.  Additionally, it requests an
award of attorneys' fees in the amount of $18,462.50 from the MDL
1203 Fee and Cost Account for MDL-related services performed during
2017.

Finally, Levin incurred a total of $15,842.17 in litigation
expenses during 2017.  The Court has already authorized payment of
$15,377.14 of expenses from the MDL 1203 Fee and Cost Account.
Pursuant to PTO No. 7763, Levin seeks an order directing the Trust
to reimburse $7,688.57 to the MDL 1203 Fee and Cost Account.  Levin
petitions for reimbursement of the remaining $465.03 in
out-of-pocket expenses advanced by Levin to be allocated for
payment to Levin as follows: $232.51 from the Trust related to
class action work and $232.52 from the MDL 1203 Fee and Cost
Account.  There have been no objections to the petition.

Upon consideration of the Petition for an Award of Attorneys' Fees
and Expense Reimbursements Relating to Common Benefit Work
Performed from Jan. 1, 2017 through Dec. 31, 2017, Judge Bartle
approved the reimbursement of $15,842.17 in litigation expenses
incurred by Levin, including amounts previously approved by the
Court or advanced pursuant to order of the Court, to be paid,
reimbursed and/or allocated as follows:

     a. Prior expense reimbursements in the amount of $15,377.14
will be attributed to the MDL 1203 Fee and Cost Account as having
been properly and finally allocated to that Account for payment;

     b. Within 30 days from the date of the Order, the Trust will
transfer the amount of $7,688.57 to the Escrow Agent for the MDL
1203 Fee and Cost Account to reimburse that account for expense
reimbursements previously paid from that Account that should
ultimately be paid by the Settlement Fund under Sections III.B.2,
III.C.3 and VIII.E.1 of the Settlement Agreement;

     c. Within 30 days from the date of this Order, the Trust will
pay from the Settlement Fund the amount of $232.51 to Levin to
reimburse Levin for previously unreimbursed litigation expenses;
and

     d. Within 30 days from the date of this order, the Escrow
Agent for the MDL 1203 Fee and Cost Account will pay from the MDL
1203 Fee and Cost Account the amount of $232.52 to Levin to
reimburse Levin for previously unreimbursed litigation expenses.

In addition to the amounts previously awarded in Pretrial Order
Nos. 2262, 2859, 7763A, 8516, 8646, 8869, 9102, 9294, 9398, 9465,
and 9490, the Judge awarded Levin an attorneys' fee in the
aggregate amount of $295,656.25 for the class action work performed
by Levin during the period from Jan. 1, 2017 to Dec. 31, 2017.
This fee award is to be paid by the Trust in accordance with the
terms of the "Stipulation between Wyeth and Class Counsel with
Regard to the Funding of Future Awards of Class-related fees,"
approved by the Court in PTO No. 9297.

No earlier than 20 days after the date of the Order and as soon
thereafter as is commercially reasonable, the Trust will disburse
the payments set forth in the Order.  The Trust will make such
payments by check and will deliver such checks to the payees by
overnight courier in a manner that generates a written
acknowledgment of receipt by the payees.

In addition to the amounts previously awarded in Pretrial Order
Nos. 2262, 2859, 7763A, 8516, 8646, 8869, 9102, 9294, 9398, 9465,
and 9490, the Judge awarded Levin an attorneys' fee in the
aggregate amount of $18,462.50 to be paid from funds on deposit in
the MDL 1203 Fee and Cost Account to compensate Levin for services
of benefit to the plaintiffs in MDL 1203 and the coordinated
state-court litigation performed by Levin during the period from
Jan. 1, 2017 through Dec. 31, 2017.

No earlier than 20 days from the date of this Order and as soon
thereafter as is reasonably practicable, Heather C. Giordanella,
Esq., as Escrow Agent for the MDL 1203 Fee and Cost Account, will
disburse from said Account the payment set forth in the Order.  Ms.
Giordanella will make such payment by check and will deliver such
check to the payee by overnight courier in a manner that generates
a written acknowledgment of receipt by the payee.  In order to make
this payment Ms. Giordanella may transfer funds from the MDL 1203
Fee and Cost Account to a disbursement account at an appropriate
financial institution.

The full-text copies of the Court's June 26, 2018 Memorandum and
Order are available at https://is.gd/nsn8Yf and
https://is.gd/isarbH, respectively, from Leagle.com.

WILLIAMS DAILEY, Special Master, represented by MICHAEL L.
WILLIAMS, WILLIAMS O'LEARY LLC.

VIVIAN NAUGLE, QUINTIN LAYER, Plaintiffs, represented by ARNOLD
LEVIN -- alevin@lfsblaw.com -- LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN, CHRISTOPHER
MICHAEL PLACITELLA -- cplacitella@cprlaw.com -- COHEN PLACITELLA &
ROTH PC, DIANNE M. NAST -- dnast@nastlaw.com -- NASTLAW LLC, GENE
LOCKS -- glocks@lockslaw.com -- LOCKS LAW FIRM PLLC, JOHN J.
CUMMINGS, III, CUMMINGS CUMMINGS & DUDENHEFER, MARK W. TANNER --
mtanner@feldmanshepherd.com -- FELDMAN, SHEPHERD, WOHLGELERNTER,
TANNER & WEINSTOCK, MICHAEL D. FISHBEIN, LEVIN, FISHBEIN, SEDRAN &
BERMAN, RICHARD S. LEWIS -- rlewis@hausfeld.com -- HAUSFELD LLP,
RICHARD S. WAYNE -- rswayne@strausstroy.com -- STRAUSS & TROY,
ROBERT ERIC KENNEDY, WEISMAN, KENNEDY & BERRIS, SOL H. WEISS --
sweiss@anapolweiss.com -- ANAPOL WEISS & STANLEY M. CHESLEY, WAITE,
SCHNEIDER, BAYLESS & CHESLEY CO., L.P.A..

JOAN S. LAYER, Plaintiff, represented by SOL H. WEISS, ANAPOL
WEISS.

BRENDA CHAMBERS, ISABEL CONNOR, RANDY G. ALLEN, Appellants,
represented by ARNOLD LEVIN, LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN.

CHARLENE ALLSPAUGH, Appellant, pro se.

DORIS ATANMO, Appellant, pro se.

EVELYN AMEND, Appellant, pro se.

JOAN BAKANOWSKY, Appellant, pro se.

STEVEN BERKOWITZ, Appellant, pro se.

KATHY BURROW, Appellant, pro se.

LINDA BUSBY, Appellant, pro se.

JO BUTTERFIELD, Appellant, pro se.

LINDA CASTON, Appellant, pro se.

AMERICAN HOME PRODUCTS CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by
Andrew A. Chirls, Esq. -- achirls@finemanlawfirm.com -- FINEMAN
KREKSTEIN & HARRIS PC; Kevin A. Cline, Esq. --
kevin.cline@aporter.com -- ARNOLD & PORTER LLP; Leslie Anne
Benitez, Esq. --
lbenitez@gordonrees.com -- GORDON & REES LLP; Edward F. Hanover,
III, Esq. -- ehanover@reedsmith.com --  Louis W. Schack, Esq. --
lschack@reedsmith.com -- and Milind M. Shah, Esq. --
mshah@reedsmith.com -- REED SMITH LLP.

AMERICAN HOME PRODUCTS CORPORATION, Defendant, pro se.

MDL 2752: Class Certification Sought in Yahoo: Data Breach Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit RE: YAHOO! INC. CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY BREACH
LITIGATION, Case No. 5:16-md-02752-LHK (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs
will move the Court for an order on November 1, 2018:

   1. certifying these classes and subclasses:

      UCL Injunctive Relief Class under Rule 23(b)(2):

      "all persons who registered for a free Yahoo account(s) in
      the United States whose PII was stolen from Yahoo in the
      2013 Breach, the 2014 Breach, and/or the Forged Cookie
      Breach";

      CA UCL Injunctive Relief Class under Rule 23(b)(2):

      "all persons who registered for free Yahoo account(s) in
      California, or who are free Yahoo account users residing in
      California, whose PII was stolen from Yahoo through the
      2013  Breach, the 2014 Breach, and/or the Forged Cookie
      Breach";

      Damages Class and Subclasses under Rule 23(b)(3):

         -- Damages Class:

      "all persons who registered for any Yahoo or Aabaco
      account(s) in the United States and Israel whose PII was
      stolen from Yahoo in the 2013 Breach, the 2014 Breach,
      and/or the Forged Cookie Breach";

         -- Free Users Subclass:

      "all persons who registered for free Yahoo account(s) in
      the United States or Israel whose PII was stolen from Yahoo
      in  the 2013 Breach, the 2014 Breach, and/or the Forged
      Cookie Breach";

         -- Paid Users Subclass:

      "all persons who registered for paid Yahoo account(s),
      excluding Yahoo Small Business or Aabaco accounts, in the
      United States or Israel whose PII was stolen from Yahoo in
      the 2013 Breach, the 2014 Breach, and/or the Forged Cookie
      Breach";

         -- Small Business Users Subclass:

      "all persons who registered for Yahoo Small Business or
      Aabaco account(s) in the United States or Israel whose PII
      was stolen from Yahoo or Aabaco in the 2013 Breach, the
      2014 Breach, and/or the Forged Cookie Breach"; and

         -- California Users Subclass:

      "all persons who registered for any Yahoo or Aabaco
      account(s) in California, or who are Yahoo or Aabaco
      account users residing in California, whose PII was stolen
      from Yahoo in the 2014 Breach and/or the Forged Cookie
      Breach".

   2. certifying Plaintiffs Kimberly Heines, Hashmatullah Essar,
      Paul Dugas, Matthew Ridolfo, and Deana Ridolfo as Class
      Representatives for the UCL Injunctive Relief Class, and
      alternatively, certify the same claims on behalf of the
      following class, to be represented by Plaintiffs Heines and
      Dugas;

   3. certifying Plaintiffs Kimberly Heines, Hashmatullah Essar,
      Paul Dugas, Matthew and Deana Ridolfo, Mali Granot, Yaniv
      Rivlin, Andrew Mortensen, and Brian Neff as Class
      Representatives for the Damages Class;

   4. certifying Plaintiffs Kimberly Heines, Hashmatullah Essar,
      Paul Dugas, Matthew Ridolfo, Deana Ridolfo, Mali Granot,
      and Yaniv Rivlin as Class Representatives for the Free
      Users Subclass;

   5. certifying Plaintiff Andrew Mortensen as Class
      Representative for the Paid Users Subclass;

   6. certifying Plaintiff Brian Neff as Class Representative for
      the Small Business Users Subclass; and

   7. certifying Plaintiffs Heines and Dugasas Class
      Representatives for the California Users Subclass; and

   8. appointing John A. Yanchunis of Morgan & Morgan, Gayle M.
      Blatt of Casey Gerry Schenk Francavilla Blatt & Penfield
      LLP, Karen Hanson Riebel of Lockridge Grindal Nauen
      P.L.L.P., Ariana H. Tadler of Milberg Tadler Phillips
      Grossman LLP, and Stuart A. Davidson of Robbins Geller
      Rudman & Dowd LLP as Class Counsel.

Plaintiff Andrew Mortensen also seeks to ligate his claim for
unfair and deceptive business practices in violation of the
Consumers Legal Remedies Act on behalf of the Paid Users Subclass.
Should the Court determine that Plaintiff Mortensen may not
litigate his CLRA claim on behalf of users who registered their
accounts in, or reside outside of, California, he requests that the
Court certify this alternative subclass:

      CA Paid Users Subclass:

      "all persons who registered paid Yahoo account(s),
      excluding Yahoo Small Business or Aabaco accounts, in
      California, or who are paid Yahoo account users residing in
      California, whose PII was stolen from Yahoo through the
      2013 Breach, the 2014 Breach, and/or the Forged Cookie
      Breach".

Plaintiff Neff further seeks to litigate his claim for fraudulent
business practices in violation of the UCL on behalf of the Small
Business Users Subclass. Should the Court determine that Plaintiff
Neff may not litigate his UCL claim on behalf of users who
registered their accounts in, or reside outside of, California, he
requests that the Court certify the following alternative
subclass:

      CA Small Business Users Subclass:

      "all persons who registered for Yahoo Small Business or
      Aabaco account(s) in California, or who are Yahoo Small
      Business or Aabaco account users residing in California,
      whose PII was stolen from Yahoo or Aabaco through the 2013
      Breach, the 2014 Breach, and/or the Forged Cookie Breach".

Plaintiffs Heines and Dugas also seek to litigate their CRA claim
on behalf of the California Users Subclass.

Excluded from all Classes are Defendants, any entity in which
Defendants or their successors have a controlling interest, and
Defendants' officers, directors, legal representatives, successors,
subsidiaries, and assigns. Also excluded from all Classes are any
judges, justices, or judicial officers presiding over this matter,
the members of their immediate families and judicial staff, and
Plaintiffs' counsel.

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

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Proposed Class Counsel:

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

               - and -

          Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: 561 750 3000
          Facsimile: 561 750 3364
          E-mail: sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Gayle M. Blatt, Esq.
          CASEY GERRY SCHENK FRANCAVILLA
           BLATT & PENFIELD LLP
          110 Laurel Street
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 238 1811
          Facsimile: (619) 544 9232
          E-mail: gmb@cglaw.com

               - and -

          Ariana J. Tadler, Esq.
          MILBERG TADLER PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLP
          One Pennsylvania Plaza, 19th Floor
          New York, NY 10119
          Telephone: (212) 594 5300
          Facsimile: (212) 868 1229
          E-mail: atadler@milberg.com

               - and -

          Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
          100 Washington Ave. South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339 6900
          Facsimile: (612) 339 0981
          E-mail: khriebel@locklaw.com


MDL 2783: Mihalich Suit over J&J Talc Products Consolidated in NJ
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled BARBARA MIHALICH, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC., the Defendant, Case No.
3:18-cv-01027, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois to the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey (Trenton) on Aug. 3, 2018. The New Jersey
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-12421 to the
proceeding. The lead case is Case No. 3:16-md-02738-FLW-LHG.

The Mihalich case is being consolidated with MDL 2738 in re:
Johnson & Johnson Talcum Powder Products Marketing, Sales Practices
and Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of
the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Jan
1, 2018.

In its January 1, 2018 Order, the MDL Panel found that these
actions involve common questions of fact with the actions
transferred to MDL No. 2738, and that transfer under 28 U.S.C.
section 1407 will serve the convenience of the parties and
witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the
litigation. In our order centralizing this litigation, we held that
the District of New Jersey was an appropriate Section 1407 forum
for actions sharing factual questions arising from allegations that
plaintiffs or their decedents developed ovarian or other
gynecological cancer following perineal application of Johnson &
Johnson's talcum powder products. The Plaintiffs do not dispute
that their actions share multiple factual issues with those already
in the MDL. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Freda L.
Wolfson.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin P. Green, Esq.
          Mark C. Goldenberg, Esq.
          Thomas P. Rosenfeld, Esq.
          GOLDENBERG HELLER ANTOGNOLI & ROWLAND PC
          2227 South Route 157
          P.O. Box 959
          Edwardsville, IL 62025
          Telephone: (618) 656 5150
          Facsimile: (618) 656 6230
          E-mail: kevin@ghalaw.com
                  tom@ghalaw.com

               - and -

          Timothy G. Blood, Esq.
          BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON LLP
          501 West Broadway, Suite 1490
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 338 1100
          Facsimile: (619) 338 1101
          E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Timothy J. Hasken, Esq.
          BRYAN CAVE, LLP -ST. LOUIS
          One Metropolitan Square
          211 North Broadway, Suite 3600
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 259 2879
          Facsimile: (314) 552 8879

               - and -

          Dan H. Ball, Esq.
          BRYAN CAVE, LLP
          One Metroplitan Square, Suite 3600
          211 N Broadway
          St. Louis, MO 63102-2750
          Telephone: (314) 259 2000
          Facsimile: (314) 259 2020


METHUEN, MA: Ct. Narrows Claims in P. Pimentel's Civil Rights Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge F. Dennis Saylor, IV of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts granted in part and denied in part the
Defendants' motion to dismiss the case, PATRICIA PIMENTEL, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
CITY OF METHUEN, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 17-11921-FDS
(D. Mass.).

The case is a civil rights action arising out of the use of an
incorrect Spanish-language advice-of-rights form by the Methuen
Police.  Pimentel is a citizen of the Dominican Republic who
illegally immigrated to the United States in 2003.  She was
arrested for drunk driving on Oct. 21, 2014.  After she was
arrested, she was given an advice-of-rights form in Spanish, her
native language.

The Spanish version of the form included incorrect information; for
example, it stated that the legal limit for blood alcohol content
("BAC") while driving was 0.10%  (it was actually 0.08%) and that a
jury would be informed of her refusal to take a breathalyzer test
(it would not).  She was then given a separate "Statutory Rights
and Consent Form" that correctly stated her rights.  She then
submitted to a breathalyzer test, which revealed her BAC to be
0.25%, more than three times the legal limit.

Pimentel eventually received a continuance without a finding
("CWOF") after admitting to sufficient facts to one count of
operating under the influence ("OUI") and two counts of leaving the
scene of an accident causing property damage.  That disposition,
however, caused her immigration problems; she had previously
qualified for protection under the Deferred Action for Childhood
Arrivals ("DACA") program, and the CWOF jeopardized that status.

After securing new counsel, Pimentel was able to obtain a new trial
on the ground that her prior counsel had rendered ineffective
assistance.  In its order, the state court stated that the
breathalyzer test likely would have been suppressed because the
incorrect advice-of-rights form coerced her consent. Prosecutors
then agreed to dismiss one of the property-damage charges and the
remaining charges were resolved in a manner that did not threaten
her immigration status.

On Oct. 5, 2017, Pimentel brought suit against the City of Methuen,
Methuen Police Chief Joseph Solomon (in his individual and official
capacities), Officers Jajuga, Alacron, and Tardiff (in their
individual capacities), and Jonathan Blodgett, the Essex County
District Attorney (in his official capacity).  The complaint
contains 11 counts.

Count 1 asserts a claim under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 for violations
of Fourteenth Amendment substantive-due-process rights; Count 2
asserts a claim under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 for violations of
Fourteenth Amendment procedural-due-process rights; Count 3 asserts
a claim under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 for violations of Fourteenth
Amendment equal-protection rights; Count 4 asserts a violation of
42 U.S.C. Section 1981; Count 5 asserts a violation of Title VI of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000d, by the City
of Methuen; Count 6 asserts violation of the Massachusetts Civil
Rights Act; Count 7 asserts a claim for substantive-due-process
violations under the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights; Count 8
asserts a claim for procedural-due-process violations under the
Massachusetts Declaration of Rights; Count 9 asserts a claim for
equalprotection violations under the Massachusetts Declaration of
Rights; Count 10 asserts a claim for intentional infliction of
emotional distress against the individual police defendants; and
Count 11 purports to reserve the right to amend the complaint to
bring further tort claims.  The complaint seeks class-action
certification, damages, and various forms of equitable relief.

The Defendants have moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to
state a claim and to dismiss all claims against the individual
defendants on the basis of qualified immunity.

Judge Saylor granted in part and denied in part the Defendants'
motion to dismiss.  Specifically, the motion is granted as to
Counts 2, 7, 8, 9, and 11; as to Count 6 against the City of
Methuen; and otherwise denied.

The Judge finds that the equal-protection claim is sufficiently
plausible to survive a motion to dismiss.  Whether Defendants acted
knowingly and intentionally, rather than out of neglect or mistake,
is a question that can only be answered after discovery and
development of the record.  Accordingly, teh Defendants' motion to
dismiss is denied as to Count 3.  And because the parties did not
substantively address the claim in their briefs, Count 4 will
remain pending.

Count 5, unlike Count 3, does not allege discrimination on the
basis of language; instead, it alleges that the use of the
unlawfully coercive Spanish language advice-of-rights form in
connection with arrests and prosecutions of Spanish-speaking
Hispanic individuals for OUI matters in Methuen discriminates
against individuals based on their race, color, or national origin.
That language, in context, is sufficient to allege a claim of
discrimination based on national origin.  The motion to dismiss
Count 5 is accordingly denied.

The Defendants further contend that the MCRA claims against the
individual Defendants should also be dismissed because none of them
are personally alleged to have used threats, intimidation, or
coercion to make plaintiff take the breathalyzer test.  In her
opposition, the Judge finds that the Plaintiff alleges that because
Officers Jajuga, Tardiff, and Alacron all observed or interacted
with her at the police station, they were involved in the coercive
conduct that violated her rights.  At the very least, there is a
question as to whether any of the individual Defendants were aware
that plaintiff was being given the incorrect form such that their
conduct could be said to be "coercive."  Therefore, the motion to
dismiss the MCRA claim against the individual Defendants is
denied.

Even if the Defendants' conduct violated the Plaintiff's civil
rights, the Judge holds that does not necessitate a finding that
the conduct is sufficiently egregious to state a claim for IIED.
The complaint has pleaded sufficient facts creating a plausible
inference that the individual defendants were aware of errors in
the advice-of-rights form and nevertheless proceeded to give it to
plaintiff. If true, that could potentially constitute the
"profoundly shocking conduct" necessary for an IIED claim.
Therefore, the motion to dismiss is denied as to Count 10.

A full-text copy of the Court's Judne 26, 2018 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/VYlowy from Leagle.com.

Patricia Pimentel, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Howard M. Cooper --
hcooper@toddweld.com -- Todd & Weld, Joseph M. Cacace --
jcacace@toddweld.com -- Todd & Weld, Murat Erkan , Erkan &
Associates & Saraa Basaria -- sbasaria@toddweld.com -- Todd &
Weld.

City of Methuen, Joseph E Solomon, in his individual and official
capacities, James Jajuga, Jr., in his individual capacity, Elvin
Alacron, in his individual capacity & Shawn Tardif, in his
individual capacity, Defendants, represented by William P. Breen,
Jr. -- wbreen@eckertseamans.com -- Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott,
LLC.

MIDLAND CREDIT: Cisneros Suit Alleges FDCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------
Neftali Oliva Cisneros, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. and Midland
Funding, LLC, Case No. 2:18-cv-02209 (D. Ariz., July 13, 2018), is
brought against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Debt
Collections Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is a natural person who at all relevant times resided
in the State of Arizona, County of Maricopa, and City of Phoenix.

The Defendant MCM is an entity who at all relevant times was
engaged, by use of the mails and telephone, in the business of
attempting to collect a "debt" from the Plaintiff.

The Defendant Midland Funding is an entity who acquires debt in
default merely for collection purposes, and who at all relevant
times was engaged, by use of the mails and telephone, in the
business of directly or indirectly attempting to collect a "debt"
from Plaintiff. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MILLER ENERGY: Class Certification Bids Pending in Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Motions for class certification in a consolidated putative class
action against MLV & Co. are pending, according to B. Riley
Financial, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 3, 2018, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2018.

On January 5, 2017, complaints filed in November 2015 and May 2016
naming MLV & Co. ("MLV"), a broker-dealer subsidiary of FBR, as a
defendant in putative class action lawsuits alleging claims under
the Securities Act, in connection with the offerings of Miller
Energy Resources, Inc. have been consolidated.

The Master Consolidated Complaint, styled Gaynor v. Miller et al.,
is pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Tennessee, and, like its predecessor complaints,
continues to allege claims under Sections 11 and 12 of the
Securities Act against nine underwriters for alleged material
misrepresentations and omissions in the registration statement and
prospectuses issued in connection with six offerings (February 13,
2013; May 8, 2013; June 28, 2013; September 26, 2013; October 17,
2013 (as to MLV only) and August 21, 2014) with an alleged
aggregate offering price of approximately US$151.0 million.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory damages and
reimbursement of certain costs and expenses.  In August 2017, the
Court granted Defendant's Motion to Dismiss on Section 12 claims
and found that the plaintiffs had not sufficiently alleged a
corrective disclosure prior to August 6, 2015, when an SEC civil
action was announced.  Defendants' answer was filed on September
25, 2017.

Plaintiffs have filed motions for class certification and to remand
the case to state court following a positive ruling in an unrelated
case by the U.S. Supreme Court.

B. Riley Financial said, "Although MLV is contractually entitled to
be indemnified by Miller in connection with this lawsuit, Miller
filed for bankruptcy in October 2015 and this likely will decrease
or eliminate the value of the indemnity that MLV receives from
Miller."

B. Riley Financial, Inc. provides financial services and solutions
in North America, Australia, and Europe. The company operates in
four segments: Capital Markets, Auction and Liquidation, Valuation
and Appraisal, and Principal Investments - United Online. The
company is based in Woodland Hills, California.


MMT HOLDINGS: Summary Judgments in School District Suit Reversed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CITY OF DUBLIN SCHOOL DISTRICT, v. MMT HOLDINGS, LLC
et al., Case No. A18A0506 (Ga. App.), Judge Carla Wong McMillian of
the Court of Appeals of Georgia for the First Division reversed the
trial court's order denying the School District's motion for
summary judgment and granting MMT's motion for partial summary
judgment.

MMT filed the putative class action against the School District and
City of Dublin, Georgia, seeking a refund from the Defendants of ad
valorem taxes MMT contends were illegally assessed and used by the
School District to meet obligations not approved by the voters, as
well as an injunction against the City to bar it from transferring
the taxes it had collected over to the School District.

MMT filed a motion for partial summary judgment, asserting it was
entitled to a refund of the assessed ad valorem tax increase, and
the School District filed a motion for summary judgment arguing,
among other things, that the doctrine of sovereign immunity bars
MMT's claims.  Following a hearing, the trial court entered an
order denying the School District's motion for summary judgment and
granting MMT's motion.  The School District appealed to the Supreme
Court, and the Supreme Court transferred the appeal to the Court.

Because she agrees MMT's claims against the School District are
barred by sovereign immunity, Judge McMillian reversed.  Here, MMT,
who bears the burden of establishing waiver,4 asserts that the
legislature waived the School District's immunity by enacting OCGA
Section 48-5-380 (a) (1), which it contends entitles them to seek a
refund against the School District and the City for the allegedly
illegally assessed taxes.

Judge McMillian explains that OCGA Secttion 48-5-380 (a) (1)
provides in relevant part that each county and municipality will
refund to taxpayers any and all taxes and license fees which are
determined to have been erroneously or illegally assessed and
collected from the taxpayers under the laws of this state or under
the resolutions or ordinances of any county or municipality.  Under
subsections (b) and (c) of that code section, the taxpayer may
either file a claim for refund with the governing authority of the
county or municipality within the prescribed time or proceed
directly to filing suit.

Thus, while the plain language of the statute entitles taxpayers to
seek a refund from the governing body of a county and municipality,
the Judge holds that the statute says nothing about filing suit or
seeking a refund from a school district and does not contain any
language that could be read as broadening the waiver of immunity to
encompass governmental entities other than those specifically
listed.  MMT points to no other statute that would authorize the
type of claims it has asserted against the School District, and we
have found none.  Accordingly, the School District has immunity
from the claims asserted against it, and the trial court should
have granted the School District's motion for summary judgment.

In light of the holding in Division 1, it is unnecessary for the
Judge to address the School District's remaining contentions.
However, she makes plain that nothing in the opinion is intended to
address MMT's claims against the City as the City did not move for
summary judgment and is not party to the appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 22, 2018 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/IS8yz5 from Leagle.com.

Phillip L. Hartley, for Appellant.

Hieu Minh Nguyen, for Appellant.

Charles Mitchell Warnock, Jr., for Appellant.

Joshua Wade Powell, for Appellee.

Jerry A. Lumley, for Appellee.

MODCO INC: Grimes Seeks Overtime Pay for Delivery Drivers
---------------------------------------------------------
GREGORY GRIMES, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. MODCO, INC. the Defendant, Case No.
3:18-cv-00518-RGJ (W.D. Ky., Aug. 3, 2018), alleges that Defendant
has failed to pay Grimes and those similarly situated to him in
accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant misclassified Plaintiffs
as independent contractors, as opposed to employees, at all times
in which they worked as delivery drivers for Defendant. As a
result, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff, and all other members
of the proposed class, overtime compensation that they were
entitled to under the FLSA. Furthermore, Plaintiffs were deprived
of all other perquisites of employment, such as paid time off and
participation in Defendant's 401(k) plan.

Modco, Inc., doing business as Zip Express, provides delivery
services. The Company delivers addressed letters, parcels, and
packages.Zip Express serves customers throughout the United
States.[BN]

Attorneys for Gregory Grimes:

          Andrew Dutkanych III, Esq.
          BIESECKER DUTKANYCH & MACER, LLC
          Evansville, IN 47708
          Telephone: (812) 424 1000
          Facsimile: (812) 424 1005
          E-mail: ad@bdlegal.com


MONAKER GROUP: "McLeod" Class Action Suit Still Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------
Monaker Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 16, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended May 31, 2018, that the company continues to
defend itself in a class action suit entitled, McLeod v. Monaker
Group, Inc. et al., in Southern District of Florida court.

On December 9, 2016, a class action lawsuit McLeod v. Monaker
Group, Inc. et al (Case No.: 0:16-cv-62902-WJZ) was filed against
the company, William Kerby, its Chief Executive Officer and
Chairman, Donald Monaco, its director, and D'Arelli Pruzansky,
P.A., its former auditor, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida on behalf of persons who purchased our
common stock and exercised options between April 6, 2012 and June
23, 2016 (the "Class Period").

The lawsuit focuses on whether the Company and its executives
violated federal securities laws and whether the Company's former
auditor was negligent and makes allegations regarding the
activities of certain Company executives. The lawsuit alleges and
estimates total shareholders losses totaling approximately
$20,000,000.

The lawsuit stems from the Company's announcement in June 2016 that
it would have to restate its financial statements due to issues
related to the Company's investment in RealBiz.

On February 16, 2017, the company filed a Motion to Dismiss the
lawsuit and on March 3, 2017, the Court entered an order staying
discovery and all other proceedings pending resolution of the
Motion to Dismiss.

On March 16, 2017, the plaintiffs responded to the Motion to
Dismiss, and on March 30, 2017, the company filed a Reply
memorandum in support of our Motion to Dismiss. On January 24,
2018, the Court granted the company's Motion to Dismiss and
dismissed Plaintiff's complaint and gave Plaintiff leave to file an
amended complaint.

On February 23, 2018, Mcleod, joined by new plaintiff, Ronald Mims,
filed an Amended Complaint with the same allegations of security
fraud as alleged in the original complaint. On March 29, 2018, the
company filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint,
which the Plaintiffs have since filed a response to.

Monaker Group said "We believe the claims asserted in the lawsuit
are without merit and intend to vigorously defend ourselves against
the claims made in the lawsuit. The Company has no basis for
determining whether there is any likelihood of material loss
associated with the claims and/or the potential and/or the outcome
of the litigation."

Monaker Group, Inc., a travel and technology company, operates an
online marketplace for the alternative lodging rental (ALR) market
worldwide. The company was founded in 2002 and is headquartered in
Weston, Florida. Monaker Group, Inc. is a subsidiary of
Extraordinary Vacations Group Inc.


MRI INT'L: Court Orders Payment of Funds in "Takiguchi" Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SHIGE TAKIGUCHI, et. al, Individually and On Behalf of
All Others Similarity Situated, Plaintiffs, v. MRI INTERNATIONAL,
INC., EDWIN J. FUJINAGA, JUNZO SUZUKI, PAUL MUSASHI SUZUKI, LVT,
INC., dba STERLING ESCROW, and DOES 1-500, Defendants, Case No.
2:13-cv-01183-HDM-NJK (D. Nev.), Judge Howard D. McKibben of the
U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada has entered the
parties' stipulated order directing payment of funds held in trust
by law firms and financial institutions pursuant to final approval
of class action settlement.

On Dec. 11, 2017 the Suzuki Defendants entered into a Settlement
Agreement with the Plaintiffs by which they agreed to pay certain
funds held at various financial institutions or attorney trust
accounts as consideration for resolution the action.

On May 22, 2018, the Court granted final approval of the class
action settlement with the Suzuki Defendants.

Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement the following entities are
required towire transfer the entire balances from the  accounts
designated to the Court appointed claims administrator, Heffler
Claims Group to be held in a qualified settlement fund:

     1. The entire balance held in trust by Damon Key Leong Kupchak
Hastert for the benefit of Junzo Suzuki, Keiko Suzuki, Paul Suzuki,
Catherine Suzuki, Suzuki Enterprises, Inc., or Puuikena Investments
LLLP;

     2. The entire balance held in trust by McDonald Carano LLP for
the benefit of Junzo Suzuki, Keiko Suzuki, Paul Suzuki, Catherine
Suzuki, Suzuki Enterprises, Inc., or Puuikena Investments LLLP;

     3. The entire balance of account number xx-xx3072 at First
Hawaiian Bank in the name of Junzo and Keiko Suzuki;

     4. The entire balance of account number xx-xx3746 at First
Hawaiian Bank in the name of Suzuki Enterprises, Inc.;

     5. The entire balance of account number xxx-x1J26 at Merrill
Edge Wealth Management (Bank of America, N.A.) in the name of Junzo
Suzuki Trustee U/A DTD 08/19/20013;

     6. The entire balance of account number xxx-x1J27 held at
Merrill Edge Wealth Management (Bank of America, N.A.) in the name
of Keiko Suzuki Trustee U/A DTD 08/19/20013; and

     7. The entire balance of account number xxxx-xxxx-3467 held at
Bank of America, N.A. in the name of Junzo Suzuki and Keiko
Suzuki.
The Parties stipulated and Judge McKibben granted that:

     1. Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert is ordered to wire transfer
the entire balance it holds in trust for the benefit of Junzo
Suzuki, Keiko Suzuki, Paul Suzuki, Catherine Suzuki, Suzuki
Enterprises, Inc., or Puuikena Investments LLLP to the qualified
settlement account designated by Heffler Claims Group;

     2. McDonald Carano LLP is ordered to wire transfer $22,912.62
it holds in trust for the benefit of Junzo Suzuki, Keiko Suzuki,
Paul Suzuki, Catherine Suzuki, Suzuki Enterprises, Inc., or
Puuikena Investments LLLP to the qualified settlement account
designated by Heffler Claims Group.  The remaining balance of
$20,294.20 that McDonald Carano LLP holds in trust will be retained
by them for the payment of outstanding legal expenses owed by the
Suzuki Defendants.  In order to make up for the funds being
retained by McDonald Carano LLP, $20,294.20 will be credited to the
Plaintiffs from the excess funds from the irrevocable trust
accounts in the name of Junzo Suzuki and/or Keiko Suzuki, which are
already in the custody of Heffler Claims Group;

     3. First Hawaii Bank is ordered to wire transfer the entire
balance in account number xxxx3072 held in the name of Junzo and
Keiko Suzuki to the qualified settlement account designated by
Heffler Claims Group;

     4. First Hawaii Bank is ordered to wire transfer the entire
balance in account number xxxx3746 at First Hawaiian Bank held in
the name of Suzuki Enterprises, Inc. to the qualified settlement
account designated by Heffler Claims Group;

     5. Merrill Edge Wealth Management (Bank of America, N.A.) is
ordered to wire transfer the entire balance in account number
xxx-x1J26 held in the name of Junzo Suzuki Trustee U/A DTD
08/19/20013 to the qualified settlement account designated by
Heffler Claims Group;

     6. Merrill Edge Wealth Management (Bank of America, N.A.) is
ordered to wire transfer the entire balance in account number
xxx-x1J27 in the name of Keiko Suzuki Trustee U/A DTD 08/19/20013
to the qualified settlement account designated by Heffler Claims
Group; and

     7. Bank of America, N.A. is ordered to wire transfer the
entire balance in account number xxxx-xxxx-3467 at Bank of America,
N.A. held in the name of Junzo Suzuki and Keiko Suzuki to the
qualified settlement account designated by Heffler Claims Group.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 22, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/cRrGdY from Leagle.com.

Shige Takiguchi, Fumi Nonaka, Kaoruko Koizumi, Tatsuro Sakai &
Mitsuaki Takita, Plaintiffs, represented by James Edwin Gibbons --
jeg@manningllp.com -- Manning & Kass Ellrod, Ramirez, Trester LLP,
James R. Olson, Olson, Cannon, Gormley, Angulo & Stoberski, Mariko
Taenaka, Law Offices of Robert W. Cohen, Robert W. Cohen, Law
Offices of Robert W. Cohen, APC & Steven Jeff Renick --
sjrnull@nullmanningllp.com -- Manning & Kass, Ellrod, Ramirez,
Trester LLP.

Shizuuko Ishimori, Yoko Hatano, Yuko Nakamura, Hidehito Miura,
Yoshiko Tazaki, Masaaki Moriya, Hatsune Hatano, Satoru Moriya,
Hidenao Takama, Shigeru Kurisu, Saka Ono, Kazuhiro Matsumoto, Kaya
Hatanaka, Hiroka Yamajiri, Kiyoharu Yamamoto, Junko Yamamoto,
Koichi Inoue, Akiko Naruse, Toshimasa Nomura & Ritsu Yurikusa,
Plaintiffs, represented by James Edwin Gibbons, Manning & Kass
Ellrod, Ramirez, Trester LLP, James R. Olson, Olson, Cannon,
Gormley, Angulo & Stoberski, Mariko Taenaka, Law Offices of Robert
W. Cohen, Robert W. Cohen, Law Offices of Robert W. Cohen, APC &
Steven Jeff Renick, Manning & Kass, Ellrod, Ramirez, Trester LLP,
pro hac vice.

MRI International, Inc. & Edwin J Fujinaga, Defendants, represented
by Daniel L. Hitzke, Hitzke & Associates & Erick M. Ferran.

Junzo Suzuki, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey A. Silvestri --
jsilvestri@mcdonaldcarano.com -- McDonald Carano Wilson, Nicolas
Morgan -- nicolasmorgan@paulhastings.com -- Paul Hastings LLP, pro
hac vice & Paul J. Georgeson -- pgeorgeson@mcdonaldcarano.com --
McDonald Carano Wilson LLP.

ICAG, INC., Defendant, represented by Jacob A. Reynolds --
jreynolds@hutchlegal.com -- Hutchison & Steffen, Mark A. Hutchison
-- mhutchison@hutchlegal.com -- Hutchison & Steffen, LLC & Robert
T. Stewart -- rstewart@hutchlegal.com -- Hutchison & Steffen, LLC.

First Hawaiian Bank, Defendant, represented by Christopher R. Ramos
-- cramos@vedderprice.com -- Vedder Price (CA), LLP, pro hac vice,
Rex Garner -- rex.garner@akerman.com -- Akerman LLP, Ariel E. Stern
-- ariel.stern@akerman.com -- Akerman LLP, Lisa M. Simonetti --
lsimonetti@vedderprice.com -- Vedder Price, LLP.

Suzuki Enterprises, Inc. Profit Sharing Plan, Defendant,
represented by Gregg D. Zucker -- gregg@foundationlaw.com --
Foundation Law Group & Robert A. Rabbat -- rrabbat@enensteinlaw.com
-- Enenstein Ribakoff LaVina & Pham.

Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert, Interested Party, represented by
Paul D. Alston -- PAlston@ahfi.com -- Alston Hunt Floyd & Ing,
Albert G. Marquis -- amarquis@maclaw.com -- Marquis & Aurbach,
Candice Renka -- crenka@maclaw.com -- Marquis & Aurbach & Nickolas
A. Kacprowski -- NKacprowski@ahfi.com -- Alston Hunt Floyd & Ing.

Mary Luszczyk, Material Witness, represented by Mark S. Dzarnoski,
Gordan & Silver, Ltd.

MYER HOLDINGS: Mark Elliott's 2nd Shot at Class Action Looms
------------------------------------------------------------
Myriam Robin, writing for Financial Review, reports that before
Myer was battling supplier and shareholder Solly Lew, it was
sparring with Mark Elliott, the former Minter Ellison partner
turned Computershare exec who tried, back in 2016, to sue Myer over
what he claimed was misleading or deceptive conduct regarding its
FY15 results.

Myer earned an early victory in 2016, when Elliot's class action
against it was thrown out as an abuse of process (Elliott was the
plaintiff, litigation funder and initially the lawyer on the class
action, which the courts had an issue with).

But Elliott is still causing plenty of trouble for Myer. A firm in
which he's a director, Australian Funding Partners Limited, is the
quiet funder behind a second multimillion-dollar class action
against the department store.

The action was launched in late 2016 by shareholder TPT Patrol, the
trustee of the Amies Superannuation Fund.

The Amies Superannuation Fund purchased 40,000 Myer shares in
November 2014. That was a few weeks after ex-CEO Bernie Brookes
(now an industry fellow at Swinburne University) told an analyst
call that Myer expected not only "anticipated sales growth" in
FY15, as mentioned in its statement to the market, but also
"anticipated profit growth". The comments were duly and widely
reported by both analysts and journalists. But Myer did not grow
profits that year.

In a defence filed in February 2017, Myer said Brookes' comments
came in the midst of a verbal presentation to external analysts
lasting 90 minutes, and otherwise denied the allegations. Myer has
previously claimed it became aware its yearly outlook would fall
below consensus at a board meeting in March 2015, a day before
then-new and since-departed CEO Richard Umbers slashed guidance.  

Given the more traditional make-up of the Amies' class action (with
separate lawyers, litigation funders and plaintiffs) it doesn't
appear Myer, represented by Clayton Utz, is running the same
abuse-of-process defence it did last time. Even though it alluded
to it in its earliest statements on the action, when it noted that
both Elliott's and the Amies' actions were being represented by
Portfolio Law.

It's rare for securities class actions to actually go to trial. The
parties had a May 18 deadline to resolve things in mediation, which
they did not. The Federal Court's Justice Jonathan Beach, recently
in the news for his rulings on the BBSW and Cormack trials, is
scheduled to spend three weeks from August 6 hearing evidence. [GN]

NEW YORK: Ciaramella Sues Over Denied Dental Services
-----------------------------------------------------
Frank Ciaramella and Richard Palazzolo, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Howard Zucker, as
Commissioner of the Department of Health, Defendant, Case No.
18-cv-06945, (S.D. N.Y. August 2, 2018), seeks permanent injunction
ordering coverage for medically necessary dental services;
enjoining Zucker from denying medically necessary dental coverage
to Medicaid-eligible individuals; removal of the categorical ban on
dental implants; costs and disbursements, including reasonable
attorneys' fees; and such other and further relief under the
Rehabilitation Act.

Ciaramella and Palazzolo are Medicaid recipients.

Dr. Howard A. Zucker is Commissioner of Health for New York State.
[BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Wesley Railey Powell, Esq.
      Mary Jane Eaton, Esq.
      WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP (NY)
      787 Seventh Avenue
      New York, NY 10019
      Tel: (212) 728-8264, 728-8000
      Fax: (212) 728-8111
      Email: wpowell@willkie.com
             maosdny@willkie.com

             - and -

      Belkys Raquel Garcia
      Legal Aid Society (BX2)
      Bronx Neighborhood Office
      953 Southern Boulevard
      Bronx, NY 1107
      Tel: (718) 991-4758
      Fax: (718) 842-2867
      Email: brgarcia@legal-aid.org

             - and -

      Rebecca Antar Novick, Esq.
      Legal Aid Society
      199 Water Street, 3rd Floor
      New York, NY 10038
      Tel: (212) 577-7958
      Fax: (646) 616-9456
      Email: ranovick@legal-aid.org

NEW YORK: To Pay Nurses $20 Million in Settlement
-------------------------------------------------
Chaunie Brusie, writing for Nurse.org, reports that thanks to a
special law in New York City, employees who worked "physically
taxing" jobs were allowed to collect their full pensions starting
at age 50, after 25 years of service, in order to account for the
fact that their jobs would be too physically demanding to perform
for extended periods of time.

All in all, 380 traditionally male-dominated professions such as
window cleaners, exterminators, and mechanics were all included in
the special program but the one profession not included?

Nursing.

Nursing Is Not A "Physical Taxing" Occupation?

Somehow, being on your feet for 12+ hour shifts, moving patients
who are unconscious, morbidly obese, or even actively trying to
hurt you, running to codes, bending, twisting, and moving in every
way possible to care for other people every single day didn't make
the cut as "physically taxing"? Um, no.

As you can imagine, the New York Times reported that NYC nurses
protested the law and starting in 2004, the New York State Nurses
Association petitioned lawmakers to add nurses to the list of
physically taxing professions.

The program ended for new employees in 2012, so the nurses' group
was petitioning that any nurses who worked during the time that the
program was active should be eligible for the full pension after 25
years of service.

The NYSNA, led by Anne Bove, a 62-year-old nurse and 40-year
employee at the publicly-run Bellevue Hospital who led the
initiative, asked the city to include nurses working at city
hospitals in the program a total of three times. And all three
times they were turned down.

Nurses Win Gender Discrimination Lawsuit

Now, however, New York City is paying out $20.6 million dollars
thanks to a class-action lawsuit with the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC) that ultimately found that the
pension plan was gender discriminatory towards male-oriented
professions, leaving out nursing because it has traditionally been
a female-majority led form of work.

The EEOC determined that nursing requires a high threshold for
physical requirements, with injury rates, illness and physical
strain in general being one of the highest of any profession.

The New York State Nurses Association announced the settlement this
morning on their website, stating,

"NYSNA thanks the City of New York for their settlement today and
for finally recognizing that nurses and midwives are among the
hardest working residents of this city. Unfairly denying pension
benefits to NYSNA nurses was wrong and fixing this wrong was long
overdue. Regardless of our gender or occupation, nurses are as
deserving as anyone of equal benefits and respect for the tireless
work we do every single day."

The payout will go towards 1,600 nurses and midwives at public
hospitals who qualified for the pension during the time it was
active, as well as over $100,000 in legal fees, according to New
York Daily News, pending a judge's approval for the settlement.

In a statement, United States Attorney Richard Donoghue said,

"City nurses and midwives care for sick and injured adults,
juveniles and infants through long days and nights under difficult
circumstances and rightfully should be recognized as doing
physically taxing work. Equal treatment under law means just that,
equal treatment, and this office is committed to ensuring that
women are treated fairly and equitably in the workplace."

A Victory For Women's Equality

For the nurses who worked during the time of the pension and all of
the nurses who have come after them, working themselves to the
literal bone to care for the patients, it's not just about the
money -- it's about acknowledging the truth about how hard nurses
work in every capacity, spiritually, emotionally, and physically,
in their profession.

"Thank you," wrote one supporter on the NYSNA Facebook page in
response to the news that nursing was being recognized as
physically taxing.

"We nurses always knew this. It is about time it is law."

"This is a great victory," wrote another.

"Anne has been a tireless advocate from the beginning and this
shows the power of perseverance for everyone involved. This was a
difficult campaign, I can remember working on this right after my
son was born and he is 11 now. Amazing work everyone!"

For the nurses, especially Bove, who never gave up working
tirelessly as an advocate and a professional, the settlement has
been a long time coming, but the fight has been worth it for not
only the nurses involved, but those who will come after.

"The most important part was the recognition," stated Bove.

She continued, "this is one small part of the picture in terms of
acknowledging the equality of women."[GN]

NEXEN CORPORATION: Griffin Seeks Wages and Benefits Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
GREGORY GRIFFIN and MAXWELL MCKEARNEN, on behalf of themselves and
all other persons similarly situated, known and unknown v. THE
NEXEN CORPORATION, a Michigan for-profit business, STEVEN KIRKA, a
natural person, and AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware for-profit
business, Case No. 2:18-cv-12369-LJM-APP (E.D. Mich., July 30,
2018), seeks relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Michigan Workforce Opportunity Act.

The Plaintiffs are former employees of the Defendants whose rights
have been violated, and they now seek to recover the benefits due
to them from the Defendants under the FLSA and the WOWA as a result
of the Defendants' failure to pay the Plaintiffs at least the
minimum wage for all hours worked.

Nexen is a for-profit Michigan company with its main office located
in Romulus, Michigan.  Steven Kirka is the Registered Agent,
President, and a corporate officer of Nexen.  Nexen is a
subcontracting company that contracted with Amazon to provide
laborers for Amazon's warehouses.

Amazon is a Delaware Limited Liability Company.  Amazon is one of
the largest Internet retailers in the world.  Amazon offers a range
of products and services through its Web sites.  Amazon's products
include merchandise and content that it purchases for resale from
vendors and those offered by third-party sellers.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Fuel Surcharges-Related Suit Still Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Norfolk Southern 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 the company
continues to defend itself in a class action lawsuit over fuel
surcharges.

In 2007, various antitrust class actions filed against the company
and other Class I railroads in various Federal district courts
regarding fuel surcharges were consolidated in the District of
Columbia by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. In
2012, the court certified the case as a class action.

The defendant railroads appealed this certification, and the Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia vacated the District
Court's decision and remanded the case for further consideration.
On October 10, 2017, the District Court denied class certification;
the findings are subject to appeal.

Norfolk Southern said "We believe the allegations in the complaints
are without merit and intend to vigorously defend the cases. We do
not believe the outcome of these proceedings will have a material
effect on our financial position, results of operations, or
liquidity."

Norfolk Southern Corporation, together with its subsidiaries,
engages in the rail transportation of raw materials, intermediate
products, and finished goods. It also transports overseas freight
through various Atlantic and Gulf Coast ports, as well as coal,
automotive, and industrial products; and provides commuter
passenger services. Norfolk Southern Corporation was founded in
1883 and is based in Norfolk, Virginia.


NORTHLAND GROUP: Furth Sues Over FDCPA Violation
------------------------------------------------
Shulem Furth, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Northland Group, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
18-cv-04374  (E.D. N.Y., August 2, 2018), seeks redress for
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Northland (now known as Radius Global Solutions) --
www.northlandgroup.com -- provides business process outsourcing
services focused on accounts receivable management and collection
services for national credit grantors. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
     ADAM J. FISHBEIN, P.C.
     735 Central Avenue
     Woodmere, NY 11598
     Tel: (516) 668-6945
     Email: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Faces Gvarliani Suit Over FDCPA Breach
----------------------------------------------------------
Khatuna Gvarliani, individually and on behalf of all those
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Northstar Location Services, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-12208 (D. N.J., July 30, 2018), was filed
pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The case was brought for alleged illegal collection means over a
consumer credit involving Gvarliani.

Northstar Location Services -- www.thenorthstarcompanies.com --
operates a credit counseling service in Cheektowaga, New York,
providing full-service receivables debt collection solutions. BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

NY STATE UNIVERSITY: Pejovic Seeks to Certify Female Students Class
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled ISIDORA PEJOVIC, CHAE BEAN KANG, ALBA SALA
HUERTA, AND CHASSIDY KING, individually and on behalf of all those
similarly 1:17-cv-01092-TJM-DJS situated, and GORDON GRAHAM, the
Plaintiffs, v. STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK AT ALBANY, and MARK
BENSON, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01092-TJM-DJS (N.D.N.Y.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:

   1. certifying a class consisting of:

      "all present, prospective and future female students who
      are harmed by and wish to end SUNY Albany's sex
      discrimination in the allocation of athletic participation
      opportunities, with respect to Count I of the Complaint
      against Defendant State University of New York at Albany
      for violation of Title IX of the Education Amendment Act of
      1972, 20 U.S.C. section 1861, et seq. and its implementing
      regulations, 45 C.F.R. section 86.41"; and

   2. appointing law firm of Rimon, P.C. as class counsel, and
      for such other or further relief as may be just.

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Bernays T. Barclay, Esq.
          RIMON, P.C.
          255 Patroon Creek Boulevard No. 4467
          Albany, NY 12206
          Telephone: (516) 375 2524


PANERA BREAD: NJ Asst. Managers' Class Conditionally Certified
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JACQUELINE FRISCIA, and all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. PANERA BREAD COMPANY, and PANERA, LLC,
Defendants, Civil Action No. 16-3754 (ES) (SCM) (E.D. N.J.), Judge
Esther Salas of the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey (i) granted in part and denied in part Friscia's motion for
conditional certification; and (ii) denied without prejudice
Panera's motion to strike Friscia's motion and supporting
declarations.

Friscia brings the putative collective and class action against the
Defendants under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New
Jersey Wage and Hour Law ("NJWHL").  Friscia, a former Panera
assistant manager, alleges that Panera misclassified her and other
assistant store managers as "exempt" under the FLSA and therefore
failed to pay them overtime wages.  Friscia worked as a full-time
assistant manager at Panera's Woodbridge, New Jersey location from
August 2012 to January 2015.  

Pending before the Court is Friscia's motion for conditional
certification of a proposed collective action under Section 216(b)
of the FLSA.  She seeks conditional certification of the proposed
collective defined as The Plaintiff and all other individuals who
currently or formerly worked for Panera Bread Co. and/or Panera,
LLC as assistant managers in New Jersey, New York, or Massachusetts
from Feb. 1, 2014 to the present and did not receive overtime
compensation for hours worked over 40 in a work week.

Panere moves to strike Friscia's motion and supporting
declarations.  Its motion stems from its depositions of Friscia and
Manrique, which, according to Panera, establish that the
declarations are, in fact, a sham.  Panera argues that Friscia's
and Manrique's deposition testimony confirms that critical portions
of their earlier declarations, which Friscia solely relied on in
support of her Motion for Notice, are untrue and/or based on
guesswork, not personal knowledge.

Panera identifies five general areas where Friscia's or Manrique's
declarations purportedly proffer inconsistent, inaccurate, or
purely speculative testimony: (i) common corporate training
manuals, policies, and procedures; (ii) assistant managers'
authority to hire or fire other employees; (iii) day-to-day job
duties of assistant managers; (iv) amount of time devoted to
managerial duties; and (v) Friscia's discussions with and
observations of other assistant managers.

Judge Salas finds that to be sure, Panera cites only a handful of
cases in the FLSA stage-one context, and not one involves a
separate -- let alone successful -- motion to strike.  Instead,
Panera relies on cases where the court denied motions for
conditional certification because the plaintiffs failed to make the
"modest factual showing" that the proposed plaintiffs were
similarly situated.  And in support of Panera's claim that the
Court has routinely disregarded declarations offering assertions
not based upon personal knowledge, Panera cites cases outside the
FLSA context.  Accordingly, the Judge denied without prejudice
Panera's motion to strike Friscia's motion for conditional
certification and supporting declarations.  Panera may raise these
arguments at stage two of the certification process.

The Judge granted in part and denied in part Friscia's motion to
conditionally certify the proposed collective.  Specifically, she
finds that Friscia has made a modest factual showing of a factual
nexus between the manner in which Panera's alleged unlawful policy
affected her and the manner in which it affected other assistant
managers at Panera locations in New Jersey -- but not New York or
Massachusetts -- during the proposed time period.

She will therefore conditionally certifies the collective of the
Plaintiff and all other individuals who currently or formerly
worked for Panera Bread Co. and/or Panera, LLC as assistant
managers in New Jersey from Feb. 1, 2014 to the present and did not
receive overtime compensation for hours worked over 40 in a work
week.

The Judge instructed the parties to meet and confer about Friscia's
proposed forms and then submit agreed-upon proposed forms -- along
with details regarding the method and timing of notification -- to
the Hon. Steven C. Mannion, U.S.M.J., within 15 days of the date of
the Court's accompanying Order.  This process will ensure that
timely notice is provided to the potential collective-action
members.  If the parties are unable to agree on proposed forms,
each party will submit to Magistrate Judge Mannion, within 20 days
of the date of the accompanying Order, its own proposed forms --
along with a letter brief (not to exceed three single-spaced pages)
in support of its proposed forms -- and details regarding the
method and timing of notification.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 26, 2018 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/5rYMrY from Leagle.com.

JACQUELINE FRISCIA, And all other persons similarly situated,
Plaintiff, represented by ANDREW I. GLENN, JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP
PA, KARA SUE MILLER -- kmiller@vandallp.com -- VIRGINIA & AMBINDER
LLP, LLOYD R. AMBINDER -- lambinder@vandallp.com -- VIRGINIA &
AMBINDER, LLP, MICHELE A. MORENO -- mmoreno@vandallp.com --
VIRGINIA & AMBINDER LLP & JODI J. JAFFE, JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP PA.

PANERA BREAD COMPANY & PANERA, LLC, Defendants, represented by
HOWARD MARK WEXLER -- hwexler@seyfarth.com -- SEYFARTH SHAW LLP.

PEPSI-COLA SALES: Page Limitations in Approval Bid Increased
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NATHANIEL HELTON, on behalf of himself, all others
similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public, Plaintiff,
v. PEPSI-COLA SALES AND DISTRIBUTION, INC.; NEW BERN TRANSPORT
CORPORATION; PEPSICO, INC.; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-01135-EMC (N.D. Cal.), Judge Edward M.
Chen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California has entered an order granting the parties' stipulation
to increase the page limitations on the Motion for Preliminary
Approval of Class Action Settlement; Conditional Certification;
Approval of Class Notice; and Setting of Final Approval Hearing.

Plaintiff Helton is allowed to file a Memorandum of Points and
Authorities in support of his Motion for Preliminary Approval of
Class Action Settlement not to exceed 35 pages.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 22, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/nzYGkE from Leagle.com.

Nathaniel Helton, on behalf of himself, all others similarly
situated, and on behalf of the general public, Plaintiff,
represented by David Thomas Mara -- dmara@turleylawfirm.com -- The
Turley Law Firm, APLC, Jamie Kathryn Serb --
jserb@turleylawfirm.com -- The Turley Law Firm, William David
Turley -- wturley@nydisabilitylaw.com -- The Turley Law Firm, APLC
& Tony Roberts -- roberts@turleylawfirm.com -- The Turley and Mara
Law Firm, APLC.

Pepsi-Cola Sales and Distribution, Inc., New Bern Transport
Corporation & PepsiCo, Inc., Defendants, represented by Daniel
Francisco De La Cruz -- ddelacruz@shepppardmullin.com -- Sheppard,
Mullin, Richter, Hampton, LLP, Samantha D. Hardy --
shardy@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton &
Ashley Teiko Hirano -- ahirano@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard
Mullin Richter and Hampton LLP.

PERCEPTA LLC: Layton Seeks Class Conditional Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned LAUREN LAYTON, and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff(s), v. PERCEPTA, LLC, a Delaware Limited
Liability Company, the Defendant, Case No. 6:17-cv-01488-CEM-DCI
(M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order granting
conditional certification of this action and awarding the following
additional relief:

   a) to require that within 30 days hereof, the Defendants
      provide Plaintiff's counsel with a list of all current and
      former customer service/call center employees who worked
      for Defendant, PERCEPTA in the State of Florida, from
      August 14, 2014 to the present so that each member of the
      Putative Class can be notified of the pendency of this
      action and his/her rights;

   b) to approve the sending of notice by U.S. Mail to each
      current and former employees who worked as a customer
      service/call center employee for the Defendant in the State
      of Florida, from August 2014 to the present in the form
      appended hereto as, which includes a proposed opt-in form
      as Exhibit "E";

   c) to require the Defendant to post the Notice appended hereto
      as Exhibit "D" in a conspicuous place in Defendants'
      Melbourne, Florida location in either an employee break
      room and/or next to the Minimum Wage Notice posters located
      in each of the Defendant's Customer service/Call centers;

   d) to appoint Maurice Arcadier, Esquire of Arcadier, Biggie &
      Wood, PLLC., as counsel for the putative class; and

   e) to award such other and further relief as the Court deems
      just and proper.

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Ethan B. Babb, Esq.
          Maurice Arcadier, Esq.
          Joseph C. Wood, Esq.
          Stephen Biggie, Esq.
          ARCADIER, BIGGIE & WOOD, PLLC.
          2815 W. New Haven, Suite 304
          Melbourne, FL 32904
          Telephone: (321) 953 5998
          Facsimile: (321) 953 6075
          E-mail: office@wamalaw.com
                  arcadier@wamalaw.com


PERSHING LLC: Still Defends Lawsuit over Alleged Ponzi Scheme
-------------------------------------------------------------
Two putative class actions against Pershing LLC related to
purchases of certificates of deposit remains pending, according to
The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation's Form 10-Q filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018.

In late December 2005, Pershing LLC ("Pershing") became a clearing
firm for Stanford Group Co. ("SGC"), a registered broker-dealer
that was part of a group of entities ultimately controlled by R.
Allen Stanford ("Stanford").  Stanford International Bank ("SIB"),
also controlled by Stanford, issued certificates of deposit
("CDs").  Some investors allegedly wired funds from their SGC
accounts to purchase CDs.

In 2009, the SEC charged Stanford with operating a Ponzi scheme in
connection with the sale of CDs, and SGC was placed into
receivership.  Alleged purchasers of CDs have filed 15 lawsuits
against Pershing that are pending in Texas, including two putative
class actions.  The purchasers allege that Pershing, as SGC's
clearing firm, assisted Stanford in a fraudulent scheme and assert
contractual, statutory and common law claims.

On July 12, 2018, a federal district court dismissed six of the
individual lawsuits.  A series of FINRA arbitration proceedings
also have been initiated by alleged purchasers asserting similar
claims.

The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation provides a range of
financial products and services to institutions, corporations, and
high net worth individuals in the United States and
internationally. The company operates through two segments,
Investment Management and Investment Services.


PG&E CORP: Case Management Conference Set for Sept. 17
------------------------------------------------------
PG&E Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that court set the next case
management conference in the Northern California wildfires related
suit for September 17, 2018.

As of July 20, 2018, PG&E Corporation and the Utility are aware of
approximately 270 complaints on behalf of at least 2,900 plaintiffs
related to the Northern California wildfires, six of which seek to
be certified as class actions. These cases have been coordinated in
the San Francisco Superior Court. The coordinated litigation is in
the early stages of discovery.

The litigation pending against PG&E Corporation and the Utility
includes claims under multiple theories of liability, including
inverse condemnation and negligence. Plaintiffs also seek punitive
damages.

PG&E Corporation or the Utility also could be the subject of
investigations or other actions by the county District Attorneys to
whom Cal Fire has referred its investigations into the McCourtney,
Lobo, Honey, Sulphur, Blue, Norrbom, Adobe, Partrick, Pythian,
Pocket and Atlas fires. Regardless of any determinations of cause
by Cal Fire, ultimately PG&E Corporation and the Utility's
liability will be resolved through litigation, regulatory
proceedings and any potential enforcement proceedings, which could
take a number of years to resolve. The timing and outcome of these
and other potential proceedings are uncertain.

PG&E Corporation and the Utility are continuing to review the
evidence concerning the causes of the Northern California
wildfires. PG&E Corporation and the Utility have not yet had access
to all of the evidence collected by Cal Fire as part of its
investigation or to the investigation reports for the fires Cal
Fire has referred to the county District Attorneys.

In addition, insurance carriers who have made payments to their
insureds for property damage arising out of the fires have filed 10
subrogation complaints in the San Francisco County Superior Court.
These complaints allege, among other things, negligence, inverse
condemnation, trespass and nuisance. The allegations are similar to
the ones made by individual plaintiffs.

Further, various government entities, including Mendocino, Napa and
Sonoma Counties and the cities of Napa and Santa Rosa, have also
asserted claims against PG&E Corporation and the Utility based on
the damages that these public entities allegedly suffered as a
result of the fires.

Such alleged damages include, among other things, loss of natural
resources, loss of public parks, property damages and fire
suppression costs. The causes of action and allegations are similar
to the ones made by individual plaintiffs and the insurance
carriers.

On April 16, 2018, PG&E Corporation and the Utility submitted
notices of claims against, among other government entities,
Mendocino, Napa and Sonoma Counties, reserving their rights to
pursue claims against these entities for contribution and equitable
indemnity stemming from these entities' actions and inactions
before and during the Northern California wildfires.

On March 16, 2018, PG&E Corporation and the Utility filed a demurer
to the inverse condemnation cause of action in the Northern
California wildfires litigation. On May 21, 2018, the court
overruled the motion. On July 20, 2018, PG&E Corporation and the
Utility filed a writ in the Court of Appeal requesting appellate
review of the trial court's decision.

The court set the next case management conference for September 17,
2018.

PG&E Corporation and the Utility expect to be the subject of
additional lawsuits in connection with the Northern California
wildfires. The wildfire litigation could take a number of years to
be resolved because of the complexity of the matters, including the
ongoing investigation into the causes of the fires and the growing
number of parties and claims involved.

PG&E Corporation, through its subsidiary, Pacific Gas and Electric
Company, engages in the sale and delivery of electricity and
natural gas to residential, commercial, industrial, and
agricultural customers in northern and central California, the
United States. G&E Corporation was founded in 1905 and is based in
San Francisco, California.


PG&E CORP: Faces Weston and Moretti Securities Suits
----------------------------------------------------
PG&E Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the company faces two
purported securities class action suits entitled, David C. Weston
v. PG&E Corporation, et al. and Jon Paul Moretti v. PG&E
Corporation, et al., respectively.

The cases were filed in June 2018 in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, and name PG&E
Corporation and certain of its current and former officers as
defendants.  The complaints allege material misrepresentations and
omissions related to, among other things, vegetation management and
transmission line safety in various PG&E Corporation public
disclosures.

The complaints assert claims under Section 10(b) and Section 20(a)
of the federal Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, and seek unspecified monetary relief, interest,
attorneys' fees and other costs. Both complaints identify a
proposed class period of April 29, 2015 to June 8, 2018.

No date for defendants' response to the complaints has been set.
PG&E Corporation and the Utility are unable to predict the timing
and outcome of these proceedings. In addition, PG&E Corporation and
the Utility anticipate that other similar complaints may be filed
in the future.

PG&E Corporation, through its subsidiary, Pacific Gas and Electric
Company, engages in the sale and delivery of electricity and
natural gas to residential, commercial, industrial, and
agricultural customers in northern and central California, the
United States. G&E Corporation was founded in 1905 and is based in
San Francisco, California.


PHILADELPHIA SCHOOL DISTRICT: Learners Seek to Certify Two Classes
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned T.R. et al., the Plaintiffs, v. The School
District of Philadelphia, the Defendant, Case No. 2:15-cv-04782-MSG
(E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order:

   1. certifying two classes:

      Parent Class:

      "all parents as defined by 34 C.F.R. section 300.30(a) with
      limited English proficiency and whose children now or in
      the future are enrolled in the School District of
      Philadelphia and identified or eligible to be identified as
      children with a disability within the meaning of the
      Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and/or Section
      504 of the Rehabilitation Act and related state laws"; and

      Student Class:

      "all students who now or in the future are enrolled in the
      School District of Philadelphia in grades kindergarten
      through the age of legal entitlement who are identified or
      eligible to be identified as children with a disability
      within the meaning of the IDEA and/or Section 504 and
      related state laws, whether or not they are classified as
      English language learners and whose parents as defined by
      34 C.F.R. section 300.30(a) are persons with limited
      English proficiency."

   2. appointing L.R., D.R., and J.R. and their mother, Madeline
      Perez, and R.H. and his mother, Manqing Lin, as Class
      Representatives;

   3. appointing Public Interest Law Center, Education Law
      Center, and Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP as Class Counsel.

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Michael Churchill, Esq.
          Dan Urevick-Ackelsberg, Esq.
          THE PUBLIC INTEREST LAW CENTER
          1709 Benjamin Franklin Parkway
          Second Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 627 7100
          Facsimile: (215) 627 3183
          E-mail: mchurchill@pilcop.org
                  dackelsberg@pilcop.org

               - and -

          Maura McInerney, Esq.
          EDUCATION LAW CENTER
          1315 Walnut Street, 4th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 238 6970
          E-mail: mmcinerney@elc-pa.org

               - and -

          Paul H. Saint-Antoine, Esq.
          Chanda A. Miller, Esq.
          Lucas B. Michelen, Esq.
          Victoria L. Andrews, Esq.
          DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
          One Logan Square, Suite 2000
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-6996
          Telephone: (215) 988 2700
          Facsimile: (215) 988 2757
          E-mail: paul.saint-antoine@dbr.com
                  chanda.miller@dbr.com
                  lucas.michelen@dbr.com
                  victoria.andrews@dbr.com


POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Faces 2 Defective Product Suits in Minnesota
----------------------------------------------------------------
Polaris Industries 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 two
putative class action suits in Minnesota.

Polaris Industries said "We are aware of two putative class actions
pending against Polaris in the U.S. One putative class action is
pending in the United States District Court for the District of
Minnesota and arises out of allegations that certain Polaris
products suffer from unresolved fire hazards allegedly resulting in
economic loss, and is the result of the consolidation of the three
putative class actions we reported in our April 26, 2018 quarterly
report and that were filed between April 5-10, 2018: James Bruner,
Jose Luna, Clint Halvorsrod, Robert Lenz, Michael Zeeck, Chad
Rogers, Richard Berens, Steve Bailey, Michael Jacks, Bryan Forrest
and Ed Beattie, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Polaris Industries/Sales Inc. (D. Minn.), June 15,
2018. The second putative class action also is pending in the
United States District Court for the District of Minnesota and
alleges excessive heat hazards on certain other Polaris products
and seeks damages for alleged personal injury and economic loss:
Riley Johannesshon, Daniel Badilla, James Kelley, Kevin Wonders,
William Bates and James Pinion, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Polaris Industries (D. Minn.), October
4, 2016."

As these proceedings are still in the early stages, the company is
unable to provide an evaluation of the likelihood that a loss will
be incurred or an estimate of the range of possible loss.

Polaris Industries Inc. designs, engineers, manufactures, and
markets power sports vehicles worldwide. The company operates
through four segments: Off-Road Vehicles (ORVs)/Snowmobiles,
Motorcycles, Global Adjacent Markets, and Aftermarket. Polaris
Industries Inc. was founded in 1954 and is headquartered in Medina,
Minnesota.


PRODUCERS SERVICE: Helms Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Samuel Helms, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Producers Service Corporation, Case No. 5:18-cv-00684
(W.D. Okla., July 16, 2018), is brought against the Defendant to
recover overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff worked for PSC as a shop mechanic in Hennessey,
Oklahoma from approximately August 2017 until February 2018.

The Defendant PSC is based in Zanesville, Ohio and provides high
pressure pumping, shale fracturing and acidizing, and water pumping
services in the oil and gas industry. The Defendant operates in the
states of Ohio, Oklahoma, West Virginia, New Mexico, Pennsylvania,
and Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Noble K. McIntyre, Esq.
      MCINTYRE LAW, P.C.
      8601 S. Western Avenue
      Oklahoma City, OK 73139
      Tel: (405) 917-5250
      Fax: (405) 917-5405
      E-mail: noble@mcintyrelaw.com


PROTHENA CORPORATION: James Files Securities Class Suit in Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Simon James, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Prothena Corporation PLC, Gene G. Kinney, Tran B. Nguyen, and
Sarah Noonberg, Case No. 3:18-cv-04261 (N.D. Calif., July 16,
2018), is brought against the Defendants for allegedly issuing
false and misleading statements in violation of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

This is a federal securities class action on beha1f of all
investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Prothena common stock
between October 15, 2015 and April 20, 2018, inclusive.

The Plaintiff Simon James purchased Prothena common stock.

The Defendant Prothena is a development-stage biotechnology
company. The Defendant is incorporated in Ireland with its U.S.
operations headquartered in the city of South San Francisco,
California. The Company's common stock trades on the NASDAQ under
ticker symbol "PRTA." Prothena currently has over 39 million shares
of stock outstanding.

The Individual Defendants are executive officers of Prothena. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Adam C. McCall, Esq.
      Adam M. Apton, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
      44 Montgomery Street, Suite 650
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Tel: (415) 291-2420
      Fax: (415) 484-1294
      E-mail: amccall@zlk.com
              aapton@zlk.com

PURDUE PHARMA: American Resources Suit Transferred to N.D. Ohio
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned American Resources Insurance Company, Inc., on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
Purdue Pharma L.P., Purdue Pharma Inc., The Purdue Frederick
Company, Inc., Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Laboratories, Inc., Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Actavis South Atlantic LLC, Cephalon
Inc., Johnson & Johnson, Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc.,
Ortho-Mcneil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc., Janssen Pharmaceuticals
Inc., Janssen Pharmaceutica Inc., Janssen Pharmaceuticals,
Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00145 (S.D. Ala., March 27, 2018), was
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Ohio on August 3, 2018, under Case No. 18-OP-45910.

Plaintiff seeks redress for violations of the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act. [BN]

American Resources Insurance Company is represented by:

      David Anthony Busby, Esq.
      DANIELL, UPTON, PERRY & MORRIS
      30421 Highway 181
      Daphne, AL 36526
      Tel: (251) 625-0046
      Fax: (251) 625-0464

Purdue Companies are represented by:

      Blair Graffeo Mattei, Esq.
      FRAZER GREENE UPCHURCH & BAKER
      104 St. Francis Street, Ste. 800
      Mobile, AL 36602
      Tel: (251) 431-6020
      Fax: (251) 431-6030

Endo Companies are represented by:

      F. Grey Redditt, Jr., Esq.
      MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE
      27000 RSA Tower
      11 North Water Street
      Mobile, AL 36602
      Tel: (334) 432-9772
      Email: gredditt@maynardcooper.com

West-Ward Pharmaceuticals Corp. is represented by:

      Hansel Eli Lightner, II, Esq.
      Thomas E. Walker, Esq.
      WHITE ARNOLD & DOWD
      2025 Third Avenue North, Ste. 500
      Birmingham, AL 35203
      Tel: (205) 323-1888
      Fax: (205) 323-8907
      Email: elightner@whitearnolddowd.com
             twalker@whitearnolddowd.com

KVK-Tech, Inc. is represented by:

      Frederick George Helmsing, Jr., Esq.
      MCDOWELL KNIGHT ROEDDER & SLEDGE, L.L.C.
      P.O. Box 350
      Mobile, AL 36601
      Tel: (251) 432-5300
      Fax: (251) 432-5303
      Email: fhelmsing@mcdowellknight.com

             - and -

      Thomas Earl Rice, Jr.
      Suzanne Elizabeth Billam, Esq.
      BAKER STERCHI COWDEN & RICE, LLC
      2400 Pershing Rd., Suite 500
      Kansas City, MO 64108
      Tel: (816) 471-2121
      Fax: (816) 472-0288
      Email: sbillam@bscr-law.com
             rice@bscr-law.com

UCB Inc. is represented by:

      Helen Kathryn Downs, Esq.
      LAW IN MOTION: DOWNS, LLC
      420 20th Street North, Suite 2200
      Wells Fargo Tower
      Birmingham, AL 35203
      Tel: (205) 492-8290
      Fax: (205) 297-2201
      Email: hk.downs@lawinmotionllc.com

             - and -

      Shayna Susanne Cook, Esq.
      GOLDMAN ISMAIL TOMASELLI BRENNAN & BAUM LLP
      564 W. Randolph St., Suite 400
      Chicago, IL 60661
      Tel: (312) 881-5947
      Fax: (312) 881-5247
      Email: scook@goldmanismail.com

Tris Pharma is represented by:

      Caroline Thomason Pryor, Esq.
      CARR, ALLISON, PUGH, HOWARD, OLIVER & SISSON, P.C.
      6251 Monroe Street, Suite 200
      Daphne, AL 36526
      Tel: (251) 626-9340
      Fax: (251) 626-8928

             - and -

      Thomas L. Oliver, II, Esq.
      CARR, ALLISON, PUGH, OLIVER & SISSON, P.C.
      100 Vestavia Pkwy, Ste. 200
      Birmingham, AL 35216
      Tel: (205) 822-2006
      Email: toliver@carrallison.com

AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation is represented by:

      David L. Brown, Jr., Esq.
      H. Lanier Brown, II, Esq.
      J. Patrick Strubel, Esq.
      WATKINS & EAGER
      2204 Lakeshore Drive, Ste. 114
      Birmingham, AL 35209
      Tel: (205) 586-6262
      Email: dbrown@watkinseager.com
             lbrown@watkinseager.com
             pstrubel@watkinseager.com


QUALCOMM INC: Awaits Court OK on Bid to Drop Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
QualComm Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 25, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 24, 2018, that the court has not yet
ruled on the company's motion to dismiss the consolidated
securities class action suit.

On January 23, 2017 and January 26, 2017, securities class action
complaints were filed by purported stockholders of the Company in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California against the Company and certain of its current and
former officers and directors.

The complaints alleged, among other things, that the defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, by making false and misleading
statements and omissions of material fact in connection with
certain allegations that the Company is or was engaged in
anticompetitive conduct. The complaints sought unspecified damages,
interest, fees and costs.

On May 4, 2017, the court consolidated the two actions and
appointed lead plaintiffs. On July 3, 2017, the lead plaintiffs
filed a consolidated amended complaint asserting the same basic
theories of liability and requesting the same basic relief. On
September 1, 2017, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint. The court has not yet ruled on the
motion.

The Company believes the plaintiffs' claims are without merit.

QUALCOMM Incorporated designs, develops, manufactures, and markets
digital communication products worldwide. It operates through three
segments: Qualcomm CDMA Technologies (QCT); Qualcomm Technology
Licensing (QTL); and Qualcomm Strategic Initiatives (QSI). QUALCOMM
Incorporated was founded in 1985 and is headquartered in San Diego,
California.


QUALCOMM INC: Continues to Defend 3226701 Canada Inc. Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
QualComm Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 25, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 24, 2018, that the company continues to
defend itself in a securities class action suit entitled 3226701
Canada, Inc. v. QUALCOMM Incorporated et al.

On November 30, 2015, plaintiffs filed a securities class action
complaint against the Company and certain of its current and former
officers in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California. On April 29, 2016, plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint.

On January 27, 2017, the court dismissed the amended complaint in
its entirety, granting leave to amend. On March 17, 2017,
plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, alleging that the
Company and certain of its current and former officers violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, by making false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business outlook and product development between November
19, 2014 and July 22, 2015. The second amended complaint sought
unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees and other costs.

On May 8, 2017, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the second
amended complaint. On October 20, 2017, the court entered an order
granting in part the Company's motion to dismiss, and on November
29, 2017, the court entered an order granting the remaining
portions of the Company's motion to dismiss. On December 28, 2017,
the plaintiffs filed an appeal to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. No hearing date has been set.

The Company believes the plaintiffs' claims are without merit.

QUALCOMM Incorporated designs, develops, manufactures, and markets
digital communication products worldwide. It operates through three
segments: Qualcomm CDMA Technologies (QCT); Qualcomm Technology
Licensing (QTL); and Qualcomm Strategic Initiatives (QSI). QUALCOMM
Incorporated was founded in 1985 and is headquartered in San Diego,
California.


QUALITY CARE: Agreement to Settle Maryland Suits Reached
--------------------------------------------------------
Quality Care Properties, Inc. said in its Form 8-K report with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed on July 13, 2018,
that the company has reached an agreement to resolve two purported
class action suits filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland.

On July 11, 2018, Quality Care Properties, Inc. reached an
agreement to resolve two purported shareholder class action
lawsuits on behalf of QCP shareholders filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Maryland (the "Actions").

The first action, captioned Sanderson v. Quality Care Properties,
Inc. et al., Case No. 8:18-cv-01912-TDC (the "Sanderson Action"),
names as defendants QCP and the members of its board of directors,
alleging violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule
14a-9 and 17 C.F.R. Section 244,100 promulgated thereunder, and
Second 20(a) of the Exchange Act in connection with the filing of
the Schedule 14A with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
(the "SEC") on June 21, 2018 (the "Proxy Statement") regarding the
Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of April 25, 2018, by and
among the Company, certain of its Subsidiaries, Welltower Inc.
("Welltower") and Potomac Acquisition LLC, a subsidiary of
Welltower (the "Merger Agreement"), pursuant to which the parties
agreed that, subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the
Merger Agreement, Welltower would acquire all of the outstanding
capital stock of the Company in an all-cash merger (the "Merger").


The complaint filed in the Sanderson Action alleges that the Proxy
Statement omits material information, rendering the information
disclosed false and misleading.  The Sanderson Action seeks, among
other things, orders (i) enjoining the defendants from proceeding
with or consummating the Merger, (ii) directing the defendants to
account for all damages sustained by the putative class, and (iii)
awarding plaintiff's costs and attorneys' and expert fees.

The second action, captioned Kent v. Quality Care Properties, Inc.
et al., Case No. 8:18-cv-01935-PWG (the "Kent Action"), names as
defendants QCP and the members of its board of directors, alleging
violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9
promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act in
connection with the filing of the Proxy Statement.  

The complaint filed in the Kent Action alleges that the Proxy
Statement omits material information, rendering the information
disclosed false and misleading. The Kent Action seeks, among other
things, orders (i) enjoining the defendants from proceeding with,
consummating, or closing the Merger, (ii) rescinding the Merger if
it is consummated or, alternatively, awarding unspecified
rescissory damages, (iii) directing the individual members of the
QCP board of directors to file an amended Proxy Statement, (iv)
declaring that the defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act, as well as Rule 14a-9 promulgated under the
Exchange Act, and (v) awarding plaintiff's costs and attorneys' and
expert fees.

In connection with resolution of the Actions, the Company has
agreed to make an amended and supplemental disclosures (the
"Amended and Supplemental Disclosures") to the Proxy Statement. The
Amended and Supplemental Disclosures should be read in conjunction
with the Proxy Statement, which should be read in its entirety.
Plaintiffs have agreed that, following the filing of the Current
Report on Form 8-K, they will dismiss the Actions in their
entirety, with prejudice as to the named plaintiffs only and
without prejudice to all other members of the putative class.

The resolution of the Actions will not affect the timing of the
special meeting of the QCP shareholders, which is scheduled to be
held on July 25, 2018, or the amount of the consideration to be
paid to QCP shareholders in connection with the Merger. The
resolution of the Actions is not, and should not be construed as,
an admission of wrongdoing or liability by any defendant.  

A copy of the amended and supplemental disclosures is available at
https://goo.gl/BzuWNe.

Quality Care Properties, Inc. ("QCP" or the "Company") is a
publicly-traded Maryland corporation primarily engaged in the
ownership and leasing of post-acute/skilled nursing properties and
memory care/assisted living properties. The company is based in
Bethesda, Maryland.


RENEW FINANCIAL: Faces Wyatt Suit Seeking Injunction on Liens
-------------------------------------------------------------
PATTI WYATT, an individual v. RENEW FINANCIAL GROUP, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company and DOES 1-20, Case No.
37-2018-00037983-CU-OR-CTL (Cal. Super. Ct., San Diego Cty., July
30, 2018), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and a class
consisting of:

     All persons who were age 65 or older at the time they signed
     a PACE assessment contract with RENEW FINANCIAL GROUP, LLC
     placing an assessment lien on residential real property
     located within the state of California from the date of
     filing of this complaint going back 4 years.

The class action seeks an injunction against RENEW and/or any other
assignee having the contractual right to enforce the PACE
assessment lien prohibiting it from initiating collection
procedures on any delinquent assessment by a class member without
prior judicial determination that the assessment lien was not
obtained as a result of a violation of the Civil Code.

RENEW is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal
place of business and headquarters/corporate nerve center in
Oakland, California.  RENEW is a seller of services provided in
connection with the improvement of real property under the Civil
Code.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James Swiderski, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JAMES SWIDERSKI
          325 W. Washington Street #2125
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (858) 775-8769
          E-mail: JamesSwiderski@WhatIsTheLaw.com



RENT-A-CENTER: Ken Herz Balks at Merger Deal with Vintage Capital
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KEN HERZ, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. RENT-A-CENTER, INC., J.V. LENTELL,
MICHAEL J. GADE, JEFFREY J. BROWN, MITCHELL E. FADEL, and
CHRISTOPHER B. HETRICK, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01162-UNA
(D. Del., Aug. 3, 2018), alleges that Defendants violated Sections
14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in
connection with a proxy statement.

According to the complaint, the case stems from a proposed
transaction announced on June 18, 2018, pursuant to which
Rent-A-Center, Inc. will be acquired by Vintage Capital Management,
LLC and its affiliates. On June 17, Rent-A-Center's Board of
Directors caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of
merger with Vintage Rodeo Parent, LLC and its wholly owned
subsidiary, Vintage Rodeo Acquisition, Inc. Pursuant to the terms
of the Merger Agreement, if the Proposed Transaction is approved by
Rent-A-Center's shareholders and completed, Rent-A-Center's
stockholders will receive $15.00 in cash for each share of the
Rent-A-Center common stock they hold. On July 16, 2018, defendants
filed a preliminary proxy statement with the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed
Transaction. The Proxy Statement omits material information with
respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Proxy
Statement false and misleading.

Rent-A-Center is an American public furniture and electronics
rent-to-own company based in Plano, Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


RGL ASSOCIATES: Cox Sues Over Illegal Collection Activities
-----------------------------------------------------------
Gina Cox, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. RGL Associates, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00094
(S.D. Ga., August 3, 2018), seeks redress for violations of the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

RGL -- www.rglassociates.com -- is a collections business located
at 3536 Darien Hiway, Brunswick GA 31521. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Germaine Anthony Austin, Esq.
     HAWKINS, PARNELL, THACKSTON & YOUNG, LLP
     303 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 4000
     Atlanta, GA 30308
     Tel: (404) 614-7440
     Fax: (404) 614-7500
     Email: austingermaine@gmail.com


SIX FLAGS: Plaintiff's Appeal in Biometrics Suit to Proceed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Six Flags Entertainment 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 the Illinois
Supreme Court granted the plaintiff's leave to appeal.

On January 7, 2016, a potential class action complaint was filed
against Six Flags Entertainment Corporation in the Circuit Court of
Lake County, Illinois. On April 22, 2016, Great America, LLC was
added as a defendant.

Six Flags Entertainment said "The complaint asserts that we
violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA") in
connection with the admission of season pass holders and members
through the finger scan program that commenced in the 2014
operating season at Six Flags Great America in Gurnee, Illinois,
and seeks statutory damages, attorneys' fees and an injunction."

An aggrieved party under BIPA may recover (i) $1,000 if a company
is found to have negligently violated BIPA or (ii) $5,000 if found
to have intentionally or recklessly violated BIPA, plus reasonable
attorneys' fees in each case. The complaint does not allege that
any information was misused or disseminated.

On April 7, 2017, the court certified two questions for
consideration by the Illinois Appellate Court of the Second
District. On June 7, 2017, the Illinois Appellate Court granted the
company's motion to appeal. Accordingly, two questions regarding
the interpretation of BIPA were certified for consideration by the
Illinois Appellate Court. On December 21, 2017, the Illinois
Appellate Court found in the company's favor, holding that the
plaintiff had to allege more than a technical violation of BIPA and
had to be injured in some way.

On March 1, 2018, the plaintiff filed a petition for leave to
appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court. On May 30, 2018, the Illinois
Supreme Court granted the plaintiff's leave to appeal.

Six Flags Entertainment said "We intend to continue to vigorously
defend ourselves against this litigation. Since this litigation is
still in an early stage, the outcome is currently not determinable
and a reasonable estimate of loss or range of loss in excess of the
immaterial amount that we have recorded for this litigation cannot
be made."

Six Flags Entertainment Corporation owns and operates regional
theme and water parks under the Six Flags brand name. The
company’s parks offer various thrill rides, water attractions,
themed areas, concerts and shows, restaurants, game venues, and
retail outlets. Six Flags Entertainment Corporation was founded in
1961 and is based in Grand Prairie, Texas.


SK BAKERIES: Kyla Yi Sues Cinnabon Franchisees over No-Poach Deals
------------------------------------------------------------------
KYLA YI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. SK BAKERIES, LLC, a Washington Limited
Liability Company, CINNABON FRANCHISOR SPV, LLC, a Delaware Limited
Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-05627 (W.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 Cinnabon
franchisees could not solicit for employment the employees of
Cinnabon and/or of other Cinnabon franchisees) and no-hire
agreements (i.e., agreements that Cinnabon franchisees could not
hire the employees of Cinnabon. and/or other Cinnabon franchisees)
that were all entered into by Cinnabon 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 Cinnabon and its franchisees, and between its franchisees,
including, upon information and belief, SK Bakeries. The illegal
conspiracy among and between Defendants and other Cinnabon
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 Cinnabon, that Cinnabon would no longer enforce
provisions in its franchise agreements that prevented workers from
being hired or solicited by other Cinnabon 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]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          India Lin Bodien, Esq.
          INDIA LIN BODIEN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          2522 North Proctor Street, No. 387
          Tacoma, Washington 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


SOLAZYME INC: Bid to Dismiss 2nd Amended Securities Suit Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NORFOLK COUNTY RETIREMENT SYSTEM, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. SOLAZYME, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 15-cv-02938-HSG
(N.D. Cal.), Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California granted the
Defendants' motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint.

This is a consolidated putative securities class action brought
against Solazyme, Jonathan S. Wolfson, Solazyme's CEO during the
class period, and Tyler W. Painter, Solazyme's Chief Financial
Officer, pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

On Dec. 29, 2016, the Court granted motions to dismiss brought by
the Defendants and by Goldman, Sachs & Co. and Morgan Stanley &
Company, LLC.  

The Plaintiffs filed an Amended Consolidated Complaint on Feb. 15,
2017.  They contend that Defendants omitted material facts in their
February 26 and March 14 statements, which created a false
impression of the state of the Moema facility.

On Feb. 26, 2014, Solazyme issued a press release and hosted a
conference call for investors and analysts.  During that call,
Wolfson noted that Solazyme had neared completion of the 100,000
metric ton Moema plant, that Solazyme was making strong and steady
progress at Moema.  The complaint alleges that the Moema plant was
not close to achieving commercial viability at any point during
2014, and that commercial oil production never truly got underway
at the Moema Facility during any point in the Class Period.  The
complaint further alleges that there was no reasonable basis to
conclude that the Moema Facility would achieve nameplate capacity
of 100,000 MT in 12 to 18 months.

On March 14, 2014, Solazyme filed its 2013 Form 10-K with the SEC.
In it, the Defendants stated that their process is compatible with
commercial-scale, widely-available fermentation and oil recovery
equipment, that the commercial scale achieved at ADM's Clinton
Facility is comparable to the fermentation equipment at the
Solazyme Bunge Renewable Oils facility in Brazil.  The Plaintiffs
again rely on the allegations that Moema was not close to achieving
commercial viability at any point during 2014, and that there was
no reasonable basis to conclude that the Moema Facility would
achieve nameplate capacity of 100,000 metric tons in 12 to 18
months to show falsity of the March 14 statements.

On May 5, 2014, Solazyme hosted another conference call for
investors.  During the call, Wolfson attributed delays at the Moema
facility to intermittent power and steam availability resulting
from the start up of a new cogen facility at the adjoining Moema
sugar mill, and stated that, steam and power aside, they're
progressing closer to completion of the plant.  The Plaintiffs
allege that these statements were misleading because, according to
a confidential witness, even if the power and steam issues had not
occurred, the Moema Facility still would not have been on schedule
with its ramp up to commercial production levels by May 5, 2014
because the Company was so far behind its production targets at
that time, and plagued by so many other problems, which included
the poor quality of the oil being produced.  The Plaintiffs contend
that, by omitting the problems unrelated to the power and steam
issues, Wolfson affirmatively created a false impression of the
state of the Moema facility.

On May 29, 2014, Solazyme issued a special press release, stating
that it had successfully produced its first commercially salable
products on full-scale production lines at Moema, and that
production was underway.  On July 30, 2014, Solazyme hosted a
conference call to discuss company operations in the second quarter
of 2014.  The Plaintiffs allege, based on the statements of three
confidential witnesses that Solazyme was never able to produce
commercially salable oil at the Moema Facility at any point during
2014, and that commercial oil production never truly got underway
at the Moema Facility at any time during the Class Period.

Pending before the Court is the Defendants' motion to dismiss the
SAC.

Judge Gilliam finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to identify the
statements at issue and set forth what is false or misleading about
the statements and why the statements were false or misleading at
the time they were made.  The Plaintiffs also fail to plead facts
sufficient to allege that Wolfson's statements were inaccurate at
the time he made them.  They rely on the opinions of their
confidential witnesses, who believed that the power and steam
issues did not have a significant effect on the oil production
output, and were intentionally being exaggerated.  These opinions,
according to the Judge, formed with the benefit of hindsight, do
not establish that Wolfson, or anyone making statements on behalf
of Solazyme, shared the confidential witnesses' opinions on May 5,
2014.

The Judge further finds that the Plaintiffs have not adequately
pled scienter in the SAC.  The SAC does not provide an adequate
basis for determining that the witnesses in question have personal
knowledge of the events they report.  Nor does the SAC allege that
the confidential witnesses shared the purportedly contradictory
information with the Defendants before they made the challenged
statements.

As many of the allegations do not support a finding of scienter at
all, the combination of the allegations also fails to raise a
strong inference of scienter.  As a result, the Judge finds that
the Plaintiffs have failed to adequately plead scienter with
respect to the May 29, July, and August 2014 statements regarding
the production of commercially salable oil at Moema.  Because he
finds that the Plaintiffs have not adequately pled a primary
violation of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, he will grant the
Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Section 20(a)
claims.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Gilliam granted with leave to
amend the Defendants' motion to dismiss only as to the May 29,
2014, July, and August statements.  The motion is granted without
leave to amend as to all other statements, based on the Plaintiffs'
failure to adequately plead those claims following the Court's
prior grant of leave to amend, and their abandonment of several
statements not addressed in their opposition brief.  Any amended
complaint must be filed within 28 days of the date of the Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 26, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/x8xuDs from Leagle.com.

Norfolk County Retirement System is represented by Joel H.
Bernstein, Esq. -- jbernstein@labaton.com -- Mark S. Arisohn, Esq.
-- marisohn@labaton.com -- Michael Walter Stocker, Esq. --
mstocker@labaton.com -- and Corban S. Rhodes, Esq. --
crhodes@labaton.com -- LABATON SUCHAROW LLP -- Matthew Seth
Melamed, Esq. -- mmelamed@rgrdlaw.com -- Willow E. Radcliffe, Esq.
-- willowr@rgrdlaw.com -- and Shawn A. Williams, Esq. --
shawnw@rgrdlaw.com -- ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP

James Ackels, Leonardo Fernandez, Nancy Ackels, John Medlin & John
Hussain, Plaintiffs, represented by Joel H. Bernstein, Esq. --
jbernstein@labaton.com -- LABATON SUCHAROW LLP.

Solazyme, Inc., Jonathan S. Wolfson & Tyler W. Painter, Defendants,
represented by Mark R.S. Foster, Esq. -- mfoster@mofo.com --
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP.

Nicholas Sarnelli, Movant, represented by Whitney E. Street --
whitney@blockesq.com -- Block & Leviton LLP.

Alexander Davis & Marc Alexandre van Hoorn, Movants, represented by
Laurence M. Rosen -- lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm,
P.A.

Peter Lenzenwoeger, Movant, represented by Ramzi Abadou, Kahn Swick
Foti LLP.

Harry Haryanto, Movant, represented by Avraham Noam Wagner --
avi@thewagnerfirm.com -- The Wagner Firm.

John Medlin & John Hussian, Movants, represented by Ex Kano S.
Sams, II -- esams@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP,
Robert Vincent Prongay -- RProngay@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay
& Murray LLP, Brian O. O'Mara -- bomara@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & Willow E. Radcliffe --
willowr@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Norfolk County Retirement System, James and Nancy Ackels, Harry
Berkley & Leonardo Fernandez, Movants, represented by Brian O.
O'Mara, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & Willow E. Radcliffe,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

SOUTH CAROLINA FARM: Varner Seeks to Recover Wages Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY L. VARNER, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. SOUTH CAROLINA FARM BUREAU INSURANCE COMPANY,
SOUTH CAROLINA FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, PALMETTO
CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, OCONEE COUNTY FARM BUREAU, SOUTHERN
FARM BUREAU CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, SOUTHERN FARM BUREAU LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY, and A, B, and C CORPORATIONS, Case No.
3:18-cv-02098-TLW (D.S.C., July 30, 2018), seeks to recover payment
of wages lost or unpaid back wages, liquidated damages, punitive
damages, reasonable attorneys' fees, costs of prosecution of the
action, and pre- and post-judgment interest pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

South Carolina Farm Bureau Insurance Company, South Carolina Farm
Bureau Mutual Insurance Company, Palmetto Casualty Insurance
Company and Oconee County Farm Bureau are South Carolina
Corporations.  Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company and
Southern Farm Bureau Life Insurance Company are Mississippi
Corporations.

The Defendants are insurance companies.  All six Farm Bureau
Defendants are an integrated enterprise, each of which jointly
employed Mr. Varner and other insurance Agency Managers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Amy L. Gaffney, Esq.
          Regina Hollins Lewis, Esq.
          Susan Rawls Strom, Esq.
          GAFFNEY LEWIS & EDWARDS, LLC
          3700 Forest Drive, Suite 400
          Columbia, SC 29204
          Telephone: (803) 790-8838
          Facsimile: (803) 790-8841
          E-mail: agaffney@glelawfirm.com
                  rlewis@glelawfirm.com
                  sedwards@glelawfirm.com

               - and -

          David B. Yarborough, Jr., Esq.
          William E. Applegate, IV, Esq.
          Christopher J. Bryant, Esq.
          YARBOROUGH APPLEGATE LLC
          291 East Bay Street
          Charleston, SC 29401
          Telephone: (843) 972-0150
          Facsimile: (843) 277-6691
          E-mail: david@yarboroughapplegate.com
                  william@yarboroughapplegate.com
                  chris@yarboroughapplegate.com

               - and -

          S. Ray Hill, III, Esq.
          CLAYTON O'DONNELL, PLLC
          P. O. Drawer 676
          Oxford, MS 38655
          Telephone: (662) 234-0900
          Facsimile: (662) 234-0900
          E-mail: rhill@claytonodonnell.com

               - and -

          Dana G. Dearman, Esq.
          CLAYTON O'DONNELL, PLLC
          P. O. Box 755
          Tupelo, MS 38802-0755
          Telephone: (662) 620-7938
          Facsimile: (662) 620-7939
          E-mail: ddearman@claytonodonnell.com




SSA COOPER: McIntrye et al. Seek Unpaid OT under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------
Logan McIntrye, Lucas Wisniakowski, William P Topping II, Brice
McNamara, Randall Coaxum, Andrew Welch, Timothy Mitchum, Dakota
Schmaltz, Ryan Jeffords, Robert Mullen, Simmons Martin, Christopher
Frazier, Harry Griffin, Matt Lundell, Dawson Wilkins, Roland
Ziegler, Paul Cobb, Larry David Gordan, Austin Ruddy, Macon Cooper
Davis, Joseph Heuer, Brandon Shuey and Randall Smith, On Behalf of
Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
SSA Cooper, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-02150-DCN (D.
S.C., Aug. 3, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime provisions of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

SSA Cooper, LLC is the world's largest operator of marine and rail
cargo terminals. The Defendant provides full-service Stevedores for
loading and unloading cargo on steamships. The Stevedores handle
containers, bulk commodities, paper products, lumber, steel,
stuffing and stripping containers on terminals.

According to the complaint, the Defendant does not pay, Plaintiffs
and similarly situated Stevedores, one and one-half times their
regular rate of pay for all hours worked, when they work in excess
of 40 hours in a work week. The Plaintiffs and similarly situated
Stevedores regularly work more than 40 hours in a work week. The
Plaintiffs and similarly situated Stevedores are required to be
available to work, 7 days a week, 24 hours a day.[BN]

Attorney for Plaintiffs:

          Marybeth Mullaney, Esq.
          MULLANEY LAW
          1037-D Chuck Dawley Blvd, Suite 104
          Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
          Telephone (843) 588 5587
          E-mail: marybeth@mullaneylaw.net


STATE FARM: MSPA Suit Moved to Southern District of Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
MSPA CLAIMS 1, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, MSP
RECOVERY CLAIMS, SERIES LLC, a Delaware entity, and SERIES
16-05-456, a series of MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS, SERIES LLC, the
Plaintiffs, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, a
Florida profit corporation, Case No. 2015-17104-CA-01, was removed
from the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for
Miami-Dade County, Florida, to the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Florida on Aug. 3, 2018. The Southern
District of Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-23165-RNS
to the proceeding.

State Farm is a large group of insurance and financial services
companies throughout the United States with corporate headquarters
in Bloomington, Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Andres Riveo, Esq.
          Jorge A. Mestre, Esq.
          Alan H. Rolnick, Esq.
          Charles E. Whorton, Esq.
          Kingsley C. Nwamah, Esq.
          David L. DaPonte, Esq.
          RIVERO MESTRE LLP
          2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., Suite 1000
          Miami, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 445 2500
          Facsimile: (305) 445 2505
          E-mail: arivero@riveromestre.com
                  jmestre@riveromestre.com
                  arolnick@riveromestre.com
                  cwhorton@riveromestre.com
                  knwamah@riveromestre.com
                  ddaponte@riveromestre.com

Attorneys for State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company:

          Benjamine Reid, Esq.
          CARLTON FIELDS JORDEN BURT, P.A.
          100 S.E. Second Street, Suite 4200
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 530 0050
          Facsimile: (305) 530 0055
          E-mail: breid@carltonfields.com

               - and -

          D. Matthew Allen, Esq.
          CARLTON FIELDS JORDEN BURT, P.A.
          Corporate Center Three
          at International Plaza
          4221 W. Boy Scout Boulevard, Suite 1000
          Tampa, FL 33607
          Telephone: (813) 223 7000
          Facsimile: (813) 229 4133
          E-mail: mallen@carltonfields.com


STONEMOR PARTNERS: Appeal in Anderson Suit Pending Before 3rd Cir.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Stonemore Partners L.P. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on July 17, 2018, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that an appeal from an order
dismissing the case, Anderson v. StoneMor Partners, LP, et al., No.
2:16-cv-06111 (E.D. Pa., November 21, 2016) is pending in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

The plaintiffs in this case -- as well as Klein v. StoneMor
Partners, LP, et al., No. 2:16-cv-06275, filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on December
2, 2016, which has been consolidated with this case -- brought an
action on behalf of a putative class of the holders of Partnership
units and allege that the Partnership made misrepresentations to
investors in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 by, among other things and in general, failing to
clearly disclose the use of proceeds from debt and equity offerings
by making allegedly false or misleading statements concerning (a)
the Partnership's strength or health in connection with a
particular quarter's distribution announcement, (b) the connection
between operations and distributions and (c) the Partnership's use
of cash from equity offerings and its credit facility.

Plaintiffs sought damages from the Partnership and certain of its
officers and directors on behalf of the class of Partnership
unitholders, as well as costs and attorneys' fees.

Lead plaintiffs have been appointed in this case, and filed a
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint on April 24, 2017.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss that Consolidated Amended
Complaint on June 8, 2017. The motion was granted on October 31,
2017, and the court entered judgment dismissing the case on
November 30, 2017.

Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on December 29, 2017. This case
is now pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit.

StoneMor Partners L.P., together with its subsidiaries, owns and
operates cemeteries and funeral homes in the United States. It
operates through two segments, Cemetery Operations and Funeral Home
Operations. The company is based in Trevose, Pennsylvania.


THC ORANGE: Court Certifies Two Classes in Song Suit
----------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled EMMY SONG, as an individual and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. THC – ORANGE
COUNTY, INC., a California Corporation; and Does 1 through 100,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 8:17-cv-00965-JLS-DFM (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Josephine L. Staton entered an order on
August 6, 2018:

   1. certifying these classes:

      Rounding Class:

      "all current and former California non-exempt employees of
      Defendant who worked at any time during the period of June
      6, 2013 through the present"; and

      The Wage Statement Class:

      "all current and former California non-exempt employees of
      Defendant who received wage statements for overtime wages
      at any time form June 6, 2016, through the present."

   2. appointing Emmy Song as the class representative.

   3. appointing Larry W. Lee, Mai Tulyathan, Edward W. Choi, and
      Alex Cha as class counsel; and

   4. directing parties to meet and confer and to submit an
      agreed-upon form of class notice that will advise class
      members of, among other things, the damages sought and
      their rights to intervene, opt out, submit comments, and
      contact class counsel. The parties shall also jointly
      submit a plan for the dissemination of the proposed notice.
      The parties must work together to generate a class list to
      be used in disseminating class notice, and they must work
      together to create a notice that satisfies Rule 23. The
      proposed notice and plan of dissemination, as well as a
      proposed order granting approval, shall be filed with the
      Court on or before September 14, 2018.


TIMELINE TRANSPORTATION: Faces Ihor Stasiuk Wage-and-Hour Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
IHOR STASIUK, Plaintiff, v. TIMELINE TRANSPORTATION, INC; UNIVERSE
CARRIER, INC; ULIANA LOMEI; VIKTOR DEMYANIV, the Defendants, Case
No. 2018CH09950 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., Aug. 3, 2018), seeks
equitable relief of accounting, declaratory judgment and unjust
enrichment, pursuant to the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure, and
the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act.

The Plaintiff brings this case on behalf of himself and others who
currently work, and who worked as drivers paid on a per mile basis
for the Defendants at any time during the relevant statute of
limitations preceding the filing of the original complaint. The
Defendant has been an Illinois corporation engaged in
transportation and delivery business in Illinois and throughout the
United States. During Plaintiffs employment and employment of
others similarly situated with the Defendants, they worked as truck
driver delivering goods across the state lines, for which the
Defendants were supposed to pay them on a per mile basis at an
agreed-upon rate of pay. The Defendants allegedly failed and
refused to pay Plaintiff and others similarly situated for some or
all work performed, as in instances of some truck driver, members
of the proposed class.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Julia Bikbova, Esq.
          3400 Dundee Road, Suite 150
          Northbrook, IL 60062
          Telephone: (847) 541 8100


TRI SEA: Pedro Lazo Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------
PEDRO LAZO and All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
TRI SEA STABILIZERS, LLC and TIMOTHY NICHOLS, the Defendants, Case
No. 0:18-cv-61804-DPG (S.D. Fla., Aug. 3, 2018), seeks to recover
unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a marine service company that
services and installs marine stabilizing gyroscopes.  Plaintiff and
other similarly situated service technicians would regularly and
routinely work more than 40 hours in multiple workweeks while
working for Defendants. The Defendants further would require that
Plaintiff and the other similarly situated service technicians
travel to locations outside of their home areas for work, but would
not pay/reimburse them for the reasonable employment-related
expenses that they reasonably incurred while traveling. The
Defendants further failed and refused to pay/reimburse Plaintiff
and the other similarly situated service technicians for the
travel-related expenses they incurred, which operated to reduce the
"cash in hand" to below the agreed-upon hourly wage amounts.

Defendants required Plaintiff and the other similarly situated
service technicians to keep track of the time they worked using a
phone-based application called "T-Sheets". The Defendants would
review the information submitted through the "T-Sheets" application
and so knew at all times material that Plaintiff and the other
similarly situated service technicians worked more than 40 hours in
one or more workweeks. The Defendants ultimately circulated an
email that they did not pay overtime in response to one other
employee's request about payment of overtime wages.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian H. Pollock, Esq.
          FAIRLAW FIRM
          7300 North Kendall Drive, Suite 450
          Miami, FL 33156
          Telephone: (305) 230 4884
          Facsimile: (305) 230 4844
          E-mail: brian@fairlawattorney.com


TSG 89 CORP: Fails to Pay Proper OT  Wages, Basurto Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE LUIS GOMEZ BASURTO, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. TSG 89 CORP (D/B/A MIDNIGHT EXPRESS DINER),
THEODORE SANTIS, ARI DOE, GEORGE SANTIS, and ALEX SANTIS, Case No.
1:18-cv-06827 (S.D.N.Y., July 30, 2018), alleges that the Plaintiff
worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without
appropriate minimum wage and overtime compensation for the hours
that he worked.

TSG 89 Corp is a domestic corporation organized and existing under
the laws of the state of New York.  The Individual Defendants serve
or served as owners, managers, principals, or agents of the
Defendant Corporation.

The Defendants own, operate, or control a diner restaurant, located
at 1715 2nd Avenue, in New York City under the name "Midnight
Express Diner."  The restaurant is located in the Upper East Side
section of Manhattan in New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


UNIFUND CCR: Dovey Hits Illegal Credit Collection Activities
------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Dovey, Amanda Gill and Joel Sandel, individually and on
behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Unifund CCR,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-04331 (E.D. N.Y., July 31, 2018),
seeks redress for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act for alleged illegal collection over a consumer credit involving
Dovey.

Unifund CCR, LLC is a debt collector. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

UNITED HEALTHCARE: Sohmer Sues Alleging ERISA/RICO Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
SAMANTHA SOHMER, STEPHEN HAWKS, and KATHY L. FELLGREN, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. UNITED HEALTHCARE
SERVICES, INC. and UNITED HEALTHCARE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.
3:18-cv-01262 (D. Conn., July 30, 2018), alleges violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and the
Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

The Plaintiffs, who received prescription drug benefits through
group health plans administered and managed by the Defendants, also
bring the action alleging state law claims for breach of contract
and breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
resulting from the Defendants' alleged common fraudulent and
deceptive scheme to artificially inflate prescription costs causing
consumers to pay more than they otherwise should have paid for
medically necessary prescription drugs.

United HealthCare Services, Inc., is a Minnesota corporation with
an office in Hartford, Connecticut.  United HealthCare Services
provides health insurance plans for employers, individuals, and
families throughout the United States, and manages and administers
both ERISA Plans and non-ERISA Plans.

United HealthCare Insurance Company operates as a subsidiary of
UHIC Holdings, Inc., which is a subsidiary of United HealthCare
Services.  United HealthCare Insurance is a corporation organized
under the laws of Connecticut with a principal place of business in
Hartford, Connecticut.  United HealthCare Insurance contracts on
behalf of itself and its affiliates for the payment of healthcare
services provided to a participating provider's patients.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert A. Izard, Esq.
          Craig A. Raabe, Esq.
          Christopher M. Barrett, Esq.
          IZARD, KINDALL & RAABE, LLP
          29 South Main Street, Suite 305
          West Hartford, CT 06107
          Telephone: (860) 493-6292
          Facsimile: (860) 493-6290
          E-mail: rizard@ikrlaw.com
                  craabe@ikrlaw.com
                  cbarrett@ikrlaw.com

               - and -

          William H. Narwold, Esq.
          Mathew Jasinski, Esq.
          MOTLEY RICE LLC
          One Corporate Center
          20 Church Street, 17th Floor
          Hartford, CT 06103
          Telephone: (860) 882-1681
          Facsimile: (860) 882-1682
          E-mail: bnarwold@motleyrice.com
                  mjasinski@motleyrice.com

               - and -

          Derek W. Loeser, Esq.
          Gretchen S. Obrist, Esq.
          Matthew Gerend, Esq.
          Laura Zanzig-Wong, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK, LLP
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101-3052
          Telephone: (206) 623-1900
          Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
          E-mail: dloeser@kellerrohrback.com
                  gobrist@kellerrohrback.com
                  mgerend@kellerrohrback.com
                  lzanzig-wong@kellerrohrback.com

               - and -

          Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
          Carey Alexander, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
          The Helmsley Building
          230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10169
          Telephone: (212) 223-6444
          Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
          E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com
                  calexander@scott-scott.com

               - and -

          Erin Green Comite, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
          156 South Main Street
          P.O. Box 192
          Colchester, CT 06415
          Telephone: (860) 537-5537
          Facsimile: (860) 537-4432
          E-mail: ecomite@scott-scott.com

               - and -

          Ronen Sarraf, Esq.
          Joseph Gentile, Esq.
          SARRAF GENTILE LLP
          14 Bond Street, Suite 212
          Great Neck, NY 11021
          Telephone: (516) 699-8890
          Facsimile: (516) 699-8968
          E-mail: ronen@sarrafgentile.com
                  joseph@sarrafgentile.com


UNITED STATES: Calif. Ct. Enjoins Separation of Families
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Ms. L.; et al., Petitioners-Plaintiffs, v. U.S
Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE"); et al.,
Respondents-Defendants, Case No. 18cv0428 DMS (MDD) (S.D. Cal.),
Judge Dana M. Sabraw of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California granted the Plaintiffs' motion for classwide
preliminary injunction.

Eleven weeks ago, the Plaintiffs leveled the serious accusation
that the Government was engaged in a widespread practice of
separating migrant families, and placing minor children who were
separated from their parents in government facilities for
unaccompanied minors.  According to them, the practice was applied
indiscriminately, and separated even those families with small
children and infants -- many of whom were seeking asylum.  The
Plaintiffs noted reports that the practice would become national
policy.

On May 7, 2018, the Attorney General of the United States announced
a "zero tolerance policy," under which all adults entering the
United States illegally would be subject to criminal prosecution,
and if accompanied by a minor child, the child would be separated
from the parent.  Over the ensuing weeks, hundreds of migrant
children were separated from their parents, sparking international
condemnation of the practice.

Six days ago on June 20, 2018, the President of the United States
signed an Executive Order to address the situation and to require
preservation of the "family unit" by keeping migrant families
together during criminal and immigration proceedings to the extent
permitted by law, while also maintaining rigorous enforcement of
immigration laws.  The EO did not address reunification of the
burgeoning population of over 2,000 children separated from their
parents.  Public outrage remained at a fever pitch.  On June 23,
2018, the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") issued a "Fact
Sheet" outlining the government's efforts to ensure that those
adults who are subject to removal are reunited with their children
for the purposes of removal.

The Plaintiffs assert the EO does not eliminate the need for the
requested injunction, and the Fact Sheet does not address the
circumstances of the case.  The Defendants disagree with those
assertions, but there is no genuine dispute that the Government was
not prepared to accommodate the mass influx of separated children.
Measures were not in place to provide for communication between
governmental agencies responsible for detaining parents and those
responsible for housing children, or to provide for ready
communication between separated parents and children. There was no
reunification plan in place, and families have been separated for
months.  Some parents were deported at separate times and from
different locations than their children.  Migrant families that
lawfully entered the United States at a port of entry seeking
asylum were separated.  And families that were separated due to
entering the United States illegally between ports of entry have
not been reunited following the parent's completion of criminal
proceedings and return to immigration detention.

The Court previously entered an order finding the Plaintiffs had
stated a legally cognizable claim for violation of their
substantive due process rights to family integrity under the Fifth
Amendment to the United States Constitution based on their
allegations the Government had separated the Plaintiffs from their
minor children while they were held in immigration detention and
without a showing that they were unfit parents or otherwise
presented a danger to their children.

A class action has been certified to include similarly situated
migrant parents.  The Plaintiffs now request classwide injunctive
relief to prohibit separation of class members from their children
in the future absent a finding the parent is unfit or presents a
danger to the child, and to require reunification of these families
once the parent is returned to immigration custody unless the
parent is determined to be unfit or presents a danger to the
child.

Judge Sabraw finds that the unfolding events -- the zero tolerance
policy, EO and DHS Fact Sheet -- serve to corroborate the
Plaintiffs' allegations. The facts set forth before the Court
portray reactive governance -- responses to address a chaotic
circumstance of the Government's own making.  They belie measured
and ordered governance, which is central to the concept of due
process enshrined in our Constitution.  This is particularly so in
the treatment of migrants, many of whom are asylum seekers and
small children.  The extraordinary remedy of classwide preliminary
injunction is warranted based on the evidence before the Court.
For the reasons set out, he granted the Plaintiffs' motion for
classwide preliminary injunction.

The Jduge ordered as follows:

     (1) The Defendants, and their officers, agents, servants,
employees, attorneys, and all those who are in active concert or
participation with them, are preliminarily enjoined from detaining
the Class Members in DHS custody without and apart from their minor
children, absent a determination that the parent is unfit or
presents a danger to the child, unless the parent affirmatively,
knowingly, and voluntarily declines to be reunited with the child
in DHS custody.

     (2) If the Defendants choose to release the Class Members from
DHS custody, the Defendants, and their officers, agents, servants,
employees and attorneys, and all those who are in active concert or
participation with them, are preliminary enjoined from continuing
to detain the minor children of the Class Members and must release
the minor child to the custody of the Class Member, unless there is
a determination that the parent is unfit or presents a danger to
the child, or the parent affirmatively, knowingly, and voluntarily
declines to be reunited with the child.

     (3) Unless there is a determination that the parent is unfit
or presents a danger to the child, or the parent affirmatively,
knowingly, and voluntarily declines to be reunited with the child:

          (a) the Defendants must reunify all Class Members with
their minor children who are under the age of five within 14 days
of the entry of the Order; and
          
          (b) the Defendants must reunify all Class Members with
their minor children age five and over within 30 days of the entry
of the Order.

     (4) The Defendants must immediately take all steps necessary
to facilitate regular communication between Class Members and their
children who remain in ORR custody, ORR foster care, or DHS
custody.  Within 10 days, the Defendants must provide parents
telephonic contact with their children if the parent is not already
in contact with his or her child.

     (5) The Defendants must immediately take all steps necessary
to facilitate regular communication between and among all executive
agencies responsible for the custody, detention or shelter of Class
Members and the custody and care of their children, including at
least ICE, CBP, BOP, and ORR, regarding the location and well-being
of the Class Members' children.

     (6) The Defendants, and their officers, agents, servants,
employees, attorneys, and all those who are in active concert or
participation with them, are preliminarily enjoined from removing
any Class Members without their child, unless the Class Member
affirmatively, knowingly, and voluntarily declines to be reunited
with the child prior to the Class Member's deportation, or there is
a determination that the parent is unfit or presents a danger to
the child.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 26, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/z2l2uT from Leagle.com.

Ms. L., Petitioner, represented by Anand Venkata Balakrishnan, ACLU
Immigrants Rights Project, pro hac vice, Bardis Vakili, ACLU
Foundation of San Diego & Imperial Counties, Judy Rabinovitz, ACLU
Immigrants Right Project, pro hac vice, Lee Gelernt, ACLU
Immigrants' Rights Project, pro hac vice, Stephen B. Kang, American
Civil Liberties Union Found of Northern California & Spencer E.W.
Amdur, ACLU Immigants' Rights Project.

Ms. C., Petitioner, represented by Stephen B. Kang, American Civil
Liberties Union Found. of Northern California & Lee Gelernt, ACLU
Immigrants' Rights Project.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, (ICE), U.S. Department of
Homeland Security, (DHS), U.S. Customs and Border Protection,
(CBP), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, (USCIS), U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, (HHS), Office of Refugee
Resettlement, (ORR), Thomas Homan, Acting Director of ICE, Greg
Archambeault, San Diego Field Office Director, ICE, Joseph Greene,
San Diego Assistant Field Office Director, ICE, Kirstjen Nielsen,
Secretary of DHS, Jefferson Beauregard Sessions, III, Attorney
General of the United States, Kevin K. McAleenan, Acting
Commissioner of CBP, L. Francis Cissna, Director of USCIS, Pete
Flores, San Diego Field Director, CBP, Alex Azar, Secretary of the
Department of Health and Human Services & Scott Lloyd, Director of
the Office of Refugee Resettlement, Respondents, represented by
Samuel William Bettwy, U S Attorney's Office Civil Division, Sarah
B. Fabian, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Immigration
Litigation & Nicole N. Murley, U.S. Department of Justice.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection, (CBP), Respondent, represented
by U S Attorney CV, U S Attorneys Office Southern District of
California.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, (USCIS), Respondent,
represented by U S Attorney CV, U S Attorneys Office Southern
District of California.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, (HHS), Respondent,
represented by U S Attorney CV, U S Attorneys Office Southern
District of California.

Office of Refugee Resettlement, (ORR), Respondent, represented by U
S Attorney CV, U S Attorneys Office Southern District of
California.

Thomas Homan, Acting Director of ICE, Respondent, represented by U
S Attorney CV, U S Attorneys Office Southern District of
California.

Greg Archambeault, San Diego Field Office Director, ICE,
Respondent, represented by U S Attorney CV, U S Attorneys Office
Southern District of California.

Joseph Greene, San Diego Assistant Field Office Director, ICE,
Respondent, represented by U S Attorney CV, U S Attorneys Office
Southern District of California.

Kirstjen Nielsen, Secretary of DHS, Respondent, represented by U S
Attorney CV, U S Attorneys Office Southern District of California.

Jefferson Beauregard Sessions, III, Attorney General of the United
States, Respondent, represented by U S Attorney CV, U S Attorneys
Office Southern District of California.

Kevin K. McAleenan, Acting Commissioner of CBP, Respondent,
represented by U S Attorney CV, U S Attorneys Office Southern
District of California.

Michael Wishnie, et al., amici curiae, Amicus, represented by
Michael Shipley -- michael.shipley@kirkland.com -- Kirkland &
Ellis, LLP.

Children's Rights., Inc., et al., amici curiae, Amicus, represented
by Summer J. Wynn -- swynn@cooley.com -- Cooley Godward Kronish.

UNITED STATES: Calixto et al. Seek to Certify Class
---------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled LUCAS CALIXTO, et al., the PLAINTIFFS, v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, et al., the DEFENDANTS, Case
No. 1:18-cv-01551-ESH (D. Colo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for
an order:

   1. certifying the case as a class action, with the class
      consisting of all persons:

      (i) who have enlisted in the U.S. Army (including the Army
      Reserve) through the Military Accessions Vital to the
      National Interest ("MAVNI") program; (ii) who are the
      subject of a final discharge or separation decision since
      September 30, 2016 (whether or not the soldier received a
      formal discharge order and regardless of whether the
      "effective date" of the discharge or separation has
      passed); (iii) whose discharge or separation has not been
      characterized by the Army (including "uncharacterized and
      "entry level" discharges or separations); and (iv) whose
      final discharge or separation decision was made without the
      soldier first being afforded the process due under
      applicable Army and Department of Defense regulations and
      the law, including adequate notice of the discharge
      grounds, an opportunity to respond, due consideration of
      the soldier's response by the Army, or other requirements
      of law; and

   2. appointing their attorneys as class counsel.

Counsel for Plaintiffs:

          Douglas W. Baruch, Esq.
          Jennifer M. Wollenberg, Esq.
          Joseph J. LoBue, Esq.
          Kayla Stachniak Kaplan, Esq.
          Neaha P. Raol, Esq.
          Shaun A. Gates, Esq.
          Katherine L. St. Romain, Esq.
          FRIED, FRANK, HARRIS, SHRIVER & JACOBSON LLP
          801 17th Street, NW
          Washington, D.C. 20006
          Telephone: (202) 639 7000
          Facsimile: (202) 639 7003
          E-mail: douglas.baruch@friedfrank.com
                  jennifer.wollenberg@friedfrank.com
                  joseph.lobue@friedfrank.com


UNITED STATES: Crawford County Joins PILT Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------
Sean P. Ray, writing for The Titusville Herald, reports that
Crawford County is joining a class action lawsuit that targets the
federal government over underpayments to county governments over
the period of 2015 to 2017.

The suit, titled "Kane County, Utah v. United States," deals with
the Payments in Lieu of Taxes Act (PILT Act), a federal law which
reimburses county governments for tax exempt properties.

According to the court documents dealing with the case, obtained
online, the Secretary of the Interior underpaid beneficiaries of
the PILT Act, the county governments only receiving 99.7 percent of
the money they were owed for the years 2015, 2016 and 2017.

Kane County, Utah brought the suit against the U.S. government in
June 2017. A United States Court of Federal Claims ruled in the
county's favor in December, later that year.

According to Crawford County Commissioner Chairman Francis
Weiderspahn, the class action suit is unlike most of its kind.

"In a lot of class action suits, you're automatically in it unless
you opt out," Weiderspahn said. "In this one, it's only if you opt
in."

The Crawford Commissioners voted unanimously to join in to the suit
at their meeting on Juy 25.

An official notice from the Court of Federal Claims gave the
commissioners until Sept. 14 to join in the suit.

Had the county not joined in to the suit, it would have needed to
file a separate lawsuit to gain those missing funds.

Weiderspahn said that he was unsure exactly how much Crawford was
underpaid, nor how much the county would receive from the suit.

He further said that multiple counties across the country have
already joined or are considering joining in the lawsuit. A Google
search regarding the suit revealed articles about counties joining
from Alaska to Texas.[GN]

UNITED STATES: Seeks Review of Decision in Healthy Futures Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Department of Health and Human Resources and Alex
Michael Azar, II, filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit entitled Healthy Futures of Texas v. Dept. of Health and
Human Services, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-00992-KBJ, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 12, 2018, Judge
Ketanji Brown Jackson entered an order certifying a class of:

    "all entities awarded Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program
     grants by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
     in 2015, with five-year project periods, whose grants HHS
     purported to 'shorten,' effective June 30, 2018."

The appellate case is captioned as Healthy Futures of Texas v.
Dept. of Health and Human Services, et al., Case No. 18-5236, in
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee Healthy Futures of Texas, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Allison M. Zieve, Esq.
          Sean Sherman, Esq.
          PUBLIC CITIZEN LITIGATION GROUP
          1600 20th Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20009
          Telephone: (202) 588-1000
          E-mail: azieve@citizen.org
                  ssherman@citizen.org

Defendants-Appellants Department of Health And Human Resources, and
Alex Michael Azar, II, Secretary, Department of Health and Human
Services, are represented by:

          DOJ APPELLATE COUNSEL
          U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20530
          Telephone: (202) 514-2000





UNITED STATES: Thomas Suit Moved to Eastern Dist. of California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Lena Thomas, an individual of a
protected class bringing suit for herself and as a class or
representative action on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated in the United States of America, the Plaintiff, v. United
States Attorney General, doing business as: the United States of
America, the Defendant, Case No. 18CECG01434, was removed from the
Fresno Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California - (Fresno) on Aug. 3, 2018. The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-01044-LJO-SKO to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Lawrence J.
O'Neill.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se,

Attorneys for United States Attorney General:

          Alyson A. Berg, Esq.
          UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
          2500 Tulare Street, Suite 4401
          Fresno, CA 93721
          Telephone: (559) 497 4000
          Facsimile: (559) 497 4099
          E-mail: alyson.berg@usdoj.gov


UNUM GROUP: Cunningham Suit Alleges Exchange Act Violation
----------------------------------------------------------
Scott Cunningham, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Unum Group, Richard P. McKenney, John F.
McGarry and Daniel J. Waxenberg, Case No. 1:18-cv-00154 (E.D.
Tenn., July 13, 2018), seeks to recover damages caused by the
Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

This is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons or entities other than Defendants who
purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded Unum securities
between January 31, 2018 and May 2, 2018.

The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational
and compliance policies.

The Plaintiff acquired Unum securities at artificially inflated
prices during the Class Period.

The Defendant Unum purports to provide financial protection
benefits in the United States and the United Kingdom. The Company
represents that its products include disability, life, accident,
critical illness, dental and vision, and other related services.
Founded in 1848, Unum is headquartered in Chattanooga, Tennessee.
Unum's common stock trades on the New York Stock Exchange under the
ticker symbol "UNM".

The Individual Defendants are officers of Unum. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Paul Kent Bramlett, Esq.
      Robert Preston Bramlett, Esq.
      BRAMLETT LAW OFFICES
      P.O. Box 150734
      Nashville, TN 37215-0734
      Tel: (615) 248-2828
      Fax: (866) 816-4116
      E-mail: PKNASHLAW@aol.com
              Robert@BramlettLawOffices.com

          - and -

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

US AUTO CREDIT: Aaron Ham Sues over Unwanted Text Messages
----------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Ham, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. U.S. Auto Credit Corporation, the
Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-02478-JZB (D. Ariz., Aug. 3, 2018),
seeks damages, injunctive relief, and any other available legal or
equitable remedies, resulting from the illegal actions of the
Defendant, in negligently and/or intentionally contacting Plaintiff
on Plaintiff's cellular telephone via text messages, in violation
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff received multiple SMS
text messages from Defendant before May 22, 2018, and responded
that he no longer wished to receive the text messages. The SMS text
messages were sent using equipment that had the capacity to store
or produce telephone numbers to be called using a random or
sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers, and was
therefore an automatic telephone dialing system as defined by 47
U.S.C. section 227(a)(1). The SMS text messages were sent using
equipment that can send a text message to cellular telephone
numbers stored as a list or database without human intervention.
The Plaintiff revoked any consent Defendant may have had previously
on May 22, 2018, if not previously, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. section
227 (b)(1)(A).

The Plaintiff suffered an invasion of a legally protected interest
in privacy, which is specifically addressed and protected by the
TCPA. The Plaintiff was personally affected by Defendant's conduct
because Plaintiff was frustrated and distressed that Defendant
interrupted Plaintiff with an unwanted text message using an ATDS.
Defendant's text messages forced Plaintiff and other similarly
situated class members to live without the utility of their
cellular phones by occupying their cellular telephone with one or
more unwanted calls, causing a nuisance and lost time. Defendant's
text messages to Plaintiff's cellular telephone number was
unsolicited by Plaintiff and without Plaintiff's permission. These
SMS text messages made by Defendant or its agents were sent in
violation of 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(1)(A)(iii).[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and Putative Class:

          David J. McGlothlin, Esq.
          HYDE & SWIGART
          2633 E. Indian School Road, Ste. 460
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Telephone: (602) 265 3332
          Facsimile: (602) 230 4482
          E-mail: david@westcoastlitigation.com

               - and -

          Ryan L. McBride, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          2633 E. Indian School Road, Ste. 460
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Telephone: (800) 400 6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520 5523
          E-mail: ryan@kazlg.com


US DEFENSE DEPT: Kuang & Deron Seek to Certify Class
----------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JIAHAO KUANG AND DERON COOKE on behalf of
themselves and those similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, JAMES MATTIS, in his official
capacity as Secretary of Defense of the United States Department of
Defense, the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-03698-JST (N.D. Cal.),
the Plaintiffs will move the Court on October 25, 2018, for an
order:

   1. certifying a class consisting of:

      "all persons who: (i) are lawful permanent residents of the
      United States; (ii) have signed an enlistment contract with
      the U.S. military; and (iii) pursuant to Defendants'
      October 13 Memo, have not been permitted to enter into
      Active, Reserve, or Guard Service pending completion of
      their Military Service Suitability Determinations (MSSDs)
      and National Security Determinations (NSDs);

   2. appointing Named Plaintiffs as class representatives; and

   3. appointing undersigned counsel to represent the class.

Attorneys for Jiahao Kuang and Deron Cooke:

          Peter A. Wald, Esq.
          Colleen C. Smith, Esq.
          Megan C. Fitzpatrick, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
          505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 391 0600
          Facsimile: (415) 395 8095
          E-mail: peter.wald@lw.com
                  colleen.smith@lw.com
                  megan.fitzpatrick@lw.com

               - and -

          Jennifer Pasquarella, Esq.
          Michael Kaufman, Esq.
          Sameer Ahmed, Esq.
          Christine P. Sun, Esq.
          ACLU FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
          1313 West 8th Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 977 5232
          Facsimile: (213) 977 5297
          E-mail: jpasquarella@aclusocal.org
                  mkaufman@aclusocal.org
                  sahmed@aclusocal.org
                  csun@aclunc.org


US INSPECTION: Lezotte Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------
LANE LEZOTTE, the Plaintiff, v. US INSPECTION SERVICES, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 5:18-cv-01799 (N.D. Ohio, Aug. 4, 2018), seeks
to recover unpaid wages, including overtime wages, and all other
available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Inspectors typically work at least 40 hours per workweek, not
including travel time. Inspectors would often have to travel as
much as two hours or more to a job site, after reporting to
Defendant's place of business. Defendant did not pay inspectors for
all of their travel time that was part of the day's work.
Consequently, Defendant failed to pay proper wages, including
overtime wages, to Named Plaintiff and other similarly situated
individuals Lezotte regularly worked more than 40 hours per
workweek.

US Inspection operates as a testing and inspection company. The
company provides mechanical testing, metallurgical analysis, and
chemical analysis.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff:

          Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
          Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER LLC
          7266 Portage Street, N.W., Suite D
          Massillon, OH 44646
          Telephone: (330) 470 4428
          Facsimile: (330) 754 1430
          E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com
                  sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com


USG CORP: Still Defends Wallboard Price Fixing Related Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
USG 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 the company continues to
defend in Wallboard Price Fixing Conspiracy related suits.

In 2015, USG, the company's subsidiary United States Gypsum
Company, the company's former subsidiary L&W Supply Corporation,
and seven other wallboard manufacturers were named as defendants in
a lawsuit filed by twelve homebuilders alleging that the defendants
conspired to fix the price of wallboard sold in the United States.

Earlier, in 2013, class action lawsuits making similar allegations
were filed in Canada on behalf of a class of purchasers of
wallboard in Canada.

USG said "We believe that the cost, if any, of resolving the
homebuilders' lawsuit and Canadian class action litigation will not
have a material effect on our results of operations, financial
position or cash flows."

USG Corporation, through its subsidiaries, manufactures and sells
building materials worldwide. The company’s Gypsum division
manufactures and markets gypsum and related products to construct
walls, ceilings, roofs, and floors of residential, commercial, and
institutional buildings, as well as for various industrial
applications.  USG Corporation was founded in 1901 and is
headquartered in Chicago, Illinois.


VITAL RECOVERY: D. Brunett's FDCPA Suit Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------
Judge J.P Stadtmueller of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Wisconsin dismissed with prejudice the case, DARLENE M.
BRUNETT, Plaintiff, v. VITAL RECOVERY SERVICES LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 18-CV-399-JPS (E.D. Wis.).

The Plaintiff filed the class action on March 13, 2018.  She sues
the Defendant for sending her, and members of the putative class,
allegedly misleading debt collection letters.  The Plaintiff brings
claims under various provisions of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act ("FDCPA").  The Defendant moved to dismiss the
Plaintiff's Complaint on May 7, 2018.


The Plaintiff allegedly owed a debt to Comenity Bank.  The debt was
later purchased by Crown Asset Management and apparently assigned
to the Defendant for collection.  The Defendant sent Plaintiff a
letter attempting to collect that debt on April 17, 2017.

The Plaintiff brings her FDCPA claims in two counts.  Count One is
asserted pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e, which prohibits the
use of false or misleading representations in the collection of a
debt.  Count Two is brought pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Section 1692f,
which forbids unfair or unconscionable collective activity.

The Defendant argues that each aspect of Count One is plainly not
misleading, and so the entire claim should be dismissed.  It chides
the Plaintiff for alleging that "we" is confusing when she herself
clearly knows that it refers to the Defendant.  Further, the text
of the Letter makes it plain that "we" refers to the Defendant as
the sender of the Letter.  The Plaintiff's counterargument,
confusingly located in the introduction to her brief, is that the
Letter would be clearer if the Defendant said "we" referred to
"Vital Recovery Solutions," despite the fact that it's name is
Vital Recovery Services.

Judge Stadtmueller finds that the Letter is plainly not deceptive
or misleading.  He concludes that the Plaintiff fails to allege
that the Letter fraudulently represents the Defendant's settlement
authority.  The Plaintiff's allegations thus fall short of stating
a Section 1692e violation.

Count Two also fails.  The Judge explains that courts in the
Circuit and elsewhere hold that Section 1692f cannot be used to
address alleged collection misconduct which forms the basis of a
plaintiff's other claims.  The Plaintiff did not offer a meaningful
response.  Nor could she, as Count Two is expressly pleaded in
reliance on the allegations of Count One.  Accordingly, the Judge
must agree with  the Defendant that the Plaintiff's Section 1692f
claim lacks a factual basis independent from her Section 1692e
claim. Count Two will therefore be dismissed.  

For these reasons, the Defendant's motion to dismiss must be
granted.  Generally, after granting a motion to dismiss, courts
should allow a plaintiff leave to amend her complaint to correct
its deficiencies prior to dismissing an entire action.  Leave needs
not be given, however, if the defects are clearly uncorrectable,
and thus amendment would be futile.  Amendment would indeed be
futile in the case, the Judge concludes.  The Plaintiff cannot
change the language of the Letter.  Further, she did not ask for
leave to replead and he will not allow amendment without such a
request.  The action will, therefore, be dismissed with prejudice.

Accordingly, Judge Stadtmueller granted the Defendant's motion to
dismiss, and dismissed with prejudice the action.  The Clerk of the
Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 22, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/KGi0Pm from Leagle.com.

Darlene M Brunett, Plaintiff, represented by Ahmad T. Sulaiman,
Sulaiman Law Group Ltd., Mohammed O. Badwan, Sulaiman Law Group
Ltd., Nathan C. Volheim , Sulaiman Law Group Ltd., Omar T.
Sulaiman, Sulaiman Law Group Ltd. & James C. Vlahakis, Sulaiman Law
Group Ltd.

Vital Recovery Services LLC, Defendant, represented by David M.
McDorman, McDorman Law Office.

VUZIX CORP: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Vuzix Corporation ("Vuzix" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: VUZI)
and certain of its officers.   The class action, filed in United
States District Court, Southern District of New York, and docketed
under 18-cv-06793.  This is a class action on behalf of persons and
entities, other than Defendants, that: (a) acquired Vuzix
securities pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's false and/or
misleading registration statement and prospectus (collectively, the
"Registration Statement") issued in connection with the Company's
January 2018 secondary public offering ("SPO" or the "Offering");
and/or (b) acquired Vuzix securities between November 9, 2017, and
March 20, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues
claims against the Defendants, under the Securities Act of 1933
(the "Securities Act") and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act").

If you are a shareholder who purchased Vuzix securities between
November 9, 2017, and March 20, 2018, both dates inclusive, you
have until September 24, 2018, to ask the Court to appoint you as
Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the Complaint can be
obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. Those who inquire by e-mail are
encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and
the number of shares purchased.

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

On January 26, 2018, the Company filed its SPO prospectus on Form
424B5 with the SEC, which forms part of the SPO Registration
Statement. In the SPO, the Company sold 3,000,000 shares of common
stock at a price of $10.00 per share. The Company received proceeds
of approximately $28.4 million from the SPO, net of underwriting
discounts and commissions. The proceeds from the SPO were
purportedly to be used to for general corporate purposes, including
expanding Vuzix's product lines, and for general working capital
purposes.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants
failed to disclose that: (i) Vuzix used unlawful stock promotion
tactics to boost the Company's stock price; (ii) Vuzix used
misleading stock promotion tactics to raise nearly $30 million at
an all-time high share price; and (iii) as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' statements in the Registration Statement
regarding Vuzix's business, operations, and prospects, were
materially false and/or misleading.

On March 16, 2018, MOX Reports published a report alleging that
Vuzix had used undisclosed stock promotion tactics involving
mainstream media outlets to artificially inflate its share price.

On this news, the Company's share price fell $1.70 per share, or
more than 22%, on heavy trading volume, over the course of three
trading sessions, to close on March 21, 2018 at $5.95 per share.

         Robert S. Willoughby, Esq.
         Pomerantz LLP
         Email: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com [GN]

VUZIX CORP: Sept. 24 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick&Foti, LLC and KSF partner, former Attorney General of
Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors that they have
until September 24, 2018 to file lead plaintiff applications in a
securities class action lawsuit against Vuzix Corporation
(NasdaqCM: VUZI), if they purchased the Company's securities: a)
issued in connection with the Company's January 25, 2018 Secondary
Public Offering; and/or, b) between November 9, 2017, and March 20,
2018, inclusive (the "Class Period").  This action is pending in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.

What You May Do

If you purchased securities of Vuzix and would like to discuss your
legal rights and how this case might affect you and your right to
recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost
to you, contact KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn toll-free at
1-877-515-1850 or via email (lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com), or visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqcm-vuzi/ to learn more. If
you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you
must petition the Court by September 24, 2018.

About the Lawsuit

Vuzix and certain of its executives are charged with failing to
disclose material information during the Class Period, violating
federal securities laws.

On March 16, 2018, Mox Reports published an in-depth report
charging the Company with utilizing an illegal and wide-ranging
stock promotion scheme to artificially inflate its share price and
volume, and then raise $30 million.

On this news, the price of Vuzix shares plummeted $1.70 per share,
or more than 22%, on heavy volume, over the course of three trading
sessions, to close on March 21, 2018 at $5.95 per share.

         Lewis Kahn, Esq.
         1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200
         New Orleans, LA 70163
         Email: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com [GN]

WAL-MART STORES: Store Associates Sue Over Pregnancy Discrimination
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Meaghan M. McDermott, writing for Democrat and Chronicle, reports
that former Walmart store associates Leigha Klopp and Kaitlyn
Hoover filed a class-action lawsuit in state Supreme Court claiming
the Arkansas-based company's absentee policy penalized them after
they had to take time off for unscheduled pregnancy-related
hospital visits, and violated their rights under state law.

Their suit joins a growing chorus of similar complaints nationwide,
claiming that America's largest retailer and numerous other large
companies systematically punish pregnant employees with
discriminatory policies and practices.

Walmart's policy in particular "flouts New York's pregnancy
accommodation law by punishing pregnant workers for lawful
absences," said Dina Baskt, co-president and co-founder of worker
advocacy group A Better Balance, which filed the suit July 24 on
behalf of Klopp, Hoover and any other pregnant woman affected by
what the suit claims is Walmart's policy in New York state. "No
pregnant worker, many fearing miscarriage, should be fired for
seeking emergency medical care," she added.

At issue in the suit is New York's Pregnant Worker Fairness act,
enacted in 2016, which requires employers to make "reasonable
accommodations" for medical needs related to pregnancy unless such
accommodations would create "undue hardship" on the employer. Those
accommodations include providing limited time off or an altered
schedule for medical visits.

This suit is the first class-action suit brought under the new
law.

Baskt called on the company to "immediately change its policies to
comply with this law and ensure that no pregnant worker is forced
to choose between a healthy pregnancy and a pink slip."

In an emailed statement on July 26, Walmart spokesman Randy
Hargrove disputed that company policies codify discrimination but
said the company would look into the women's claims.

"We take these issues seriously and do not tolerate
discrimination," he said. "Like any company, we have an attendance
policy that helps ensure we are taking care of our customers. We
understand associates may have to miss work on occasion and we have
processes in place to assist them. This includes legally protected
and authorized absences, such as medical-related accommodation,
FMLA leave, pregnancy and bereavement that are not counted against
our attendance policy."

Leigha's story

A 2015 graduate of Albion High School, Leigha Klopp landed a job at
Walmart in October 2016, making $9.75 per hour. She worked in the
apparel department, typically folding and organizing clothing
during her shifts and filling in at other departments on an
as-needed basis.

According to the lawsuit, Walmart's disciplinary policy at the time
was that employees would accumulate so-called "points" each time
they missed a scheduled shift, arrived late or left early without
advance approval from a supervisor. Under the scheme, hourly
employees like Klopp and Hoover would get one point for each full
shift missed, and a half-point for each incomplete shift or
tardiness.

If an employee accumulated four points during their first six
months of employment, they could be fired. After probation,
employees who accumulated nine points during any rolling six-month
period were at risk of being fired, according to the court
documents.

Although Klopp and fiancé Jakob Kenward hadn't been trying, it was
a happy surprise when they learned she was pregnant in late
December 2016.

"It was scary because it wasn't planned, but we were making the
best of the situation," she said.

On the afternoon in mid-January 2017, while organizing her store's
shoe department, Klopp was suddenly overcome by dizziness and
started having cramps.

"It got to the point where I couldn't stand, I couldn't physically
work, I was in tears," said Klopp. "I was terrified. I was scared
something was wrong, and my first instinct was that I had to go to
the hospital."

A coworker summoned her supervisor.

"I told the supervisor I was pregnant and having a lot of pain and
cramps and I'm worried that I'm miscarrying," she said.

The manager told her to go, but said she'd be docked a half-point
for leaving early.

She went to an area hospital, where doctors provided her
intravenous fluids and anti-nausea medications and gave her a note
putting her out of work for the next three days.

When she returned to work, according to the suit, managers refused
to accept it and gave her a half-point for leaving early on that
day.

A few weeks later, Klopp said, she awoke nauseated, thinking she'd
only throw up, and then go in to work.

"But when I vomited it was bloody, so I immediately called my
OB/GYN and she said you have to go to the hospital," said Klopp. "I
said, but I have to work or I'll get fired. And she said, 'It's not
a question.' "

In her lawsuit, Klopp said when she called the Walmart store that
morning to report that she was going to take her doctor's advice,
the manager told her if she didn't make her shift that day, she'd
have "too many points" and would be terminated.

With a doctor's note in hand to excuse her absence, Klopp returned
to Walmart a few days later for her next scheduled shift. But, she
said, the bosses refused to take the document, walked her to the
main office and fired her.

"They asked me to hand in my vest and my badge and to clean out my
locker," she said. "It felt very unfair that I was being punished
for something that wasn't in my control and that the employers just
didn't care about me as a person, or my family or what I was going
through."

According to the suit, if company officials had excused Klopp's
pregnancy-related illnesses, she would not have been fired.

Reasonable accommodations

Circumstances were similar for Kaitlyn Hoover, who was fired in
March 2017 after severe nausea, vomiting and dehydration in the
early weeks of her pregnancy resulted in her missing work due to a
brief hospitalization, according to the lawsuit.

When Hoover returned to her store for her next scheduled shift, she
too was told her absence was not excusable, that the company
doesn't accept doctor's notes and was summarily fired.

"I was devastated when Walmart fired me. I had a baby coming and
all of a sudden I couldn't pay my bills," said Hoover in a written
statement.  "I am bringing this lawsuit because what happened to me
was wrong and I want to make sure that Walmart is held accountable
so that other pregnant women won't be treated like I was."

New York's pregnant worker protection act requires employers to
make "reasonable accommodations" for medical needs related to
pregnancy, unless it would create an undue hardship or if the
employee cannot, with accommodation, perform the activities of her
job in a reasonable manner. The law says an employer may request a
health care provider's note to verify the existence of the
pregnancy-related condition.

Examples of reasonable accommodations include: bathroom, food or
drink breaks; allowing an employee to carry a water bottle; dress
code flexibility; limits on lifting requirements; transfer to a
less-strenuous shift, position or work location; limited time off
or altered schedule for medical visits; and a reduced schedule.

The women's lawsuit alleges that when Walmart employees phone in to
report an absence, "they are consistently told that absences for
pregnancy-related conditions cannot be authorized and that they
will incur points if they cannot appear for their scheduled
shift."

They claim their managers never considered whether they should make
accommodations for them even though time off to seek medical
attention or recover from pregnancy-related conditions is
"explicitly contemplated as a reasonable accommodation under the
PWFA," according to the suit.

In October 2017, Walmart revised its policies to allow employees
who are pregnant, breastfeeding or recovering from childbirth to
ask for job adjustments, reasonable accommodations or a temporary
transfer to a different position.

Walmart has 30 days to respond to the suit filed by Klopp and
Hoover.

Not just Walmart

Across the country, Walmart is facing similar lawsuits and other
legal actions. A federal judge recently denied the company's bid to
dismiss a different class action suit filed that alleges the
company refused to accommodate medically-imposed lifting
restrictions for two pregnant employees in Illinois and Florida.

And Walmart is not alone. Other major businesses under fire for
alleged pregnancy discrimination include pharmaceutical companies
Merk & Co., Novartis, AT&T, Whole Foods, 21st Century Fox, and the
auditing firm KPMG.

In June, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo even directed the state Division of
Human Rights to investigate past and present claims made against
Walmart, Merck, Novartis and commodity traders Glencore.

"New York leads the nation in advancing equal rights, and these
actions will build on our proud record to help ensure women have
equal opportunities to succeed in the workplace," he said in a
press release announcing the move. "Discrimination against those
who are pregnant is illegal, and we will hold employers who violate
the law fully accountable."

The state also launched a comprehensive education campaign to help
inform pregnant woman of their rights under the law.  

A state hotline is available to anyone who is pregnant or
breastfeeding and believes their rights have been violated at (888)
392-3644 or MCDERMOT@Gannett.com

Know your rights

Under New York state law, pregnant workers are have the right to
reasonable accommodations for pregnancy-related conditions. Those
accommodations include:

occasional breaks to rest or drink water;
a modified work schedule;
leave for related medical needs;
available light duty assignments;
transfers away from hazardous duty.

Additionally, if you take leave due to a pregnancy or
pregnancy-related condition, you have the right to return. Your
employer may not require you to remain on leave until you give
birth and they must hold your job for you as long as they do for
employees who take leave for other reasons.For more information,
visit: dhr.ny.gov/ [GN]

WARNER CHILCOTT: Bid to Drop Marketing Practices Lawsuit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint in a class
action complaint related to Warner Chilcott Marketing Practices
remain pending, according to Allergan plc's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2018.

On February 13, 2018, a class action complaint was filed against
Warner Chilcott and certain of its affiliates in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts.  The Complaint asserts
claims under the federal RICO statute, violations of number of
state consumer protection statutes, common law fraud, and unjust
enrichment with respect to the sale and marketing of certain
products.

The complaint seeks to certify a nationwide class of private payer
entities, or their assignees, that paid Medicare benefits on behalf
of their beneficiaries.

On April 9, 2018, the plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint, adding
certain other Allergan subsidiaries as defendants.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on June
11, 2018.

Allergan plc, a specialty pharmaceutical company, develops,
manufactures, markets, and distributes medical aesthetics,
biosimilar, and over-the-counter pharmaceutical products worldwide.
It operates through US Specialized Therapeutics, US General
Medicine, and International segments. The Company was formerly
known as Actavis plc and changed its name to Allergan plc in June
2015. Allergan plc was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in
Dublin, Ireland.


WARNER CHILCOTT: Loestrin(R) Suit in Discovery
----------------------------------------------
Allergan plc disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2018, that parties in the Loestrin(R) 24 Litigation are
currently engaged in discovery.

On April 5, 2013, two putative class actions were filed on behalf
of putative classes of end-payors in the federal district court
against Warner Chilcott and certain affiliates alleging that Warner
Chilcott's 2009 patent lawsuit settlements with Watson Laboratories
and Lupin related to Loestrin(R) 24 Fe were unlawful.

Warner Chilcott Limited is an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of
Allergan plc and has the same principal business activities.

The complaints generally allege that Watson and Lupin improperly
delayed launching generic versions of Loestrin(R) 24 in exchange
for substantial payments from Warner Chilcott in violation of
federal and state antitrust and consumer protection laws.  The
complaints each seek declaratory and injunctive relief and damages.
Additional complaints making the same types of allegations have
been filed by different plaintiffs, including a class of direct
payors and by direct purchasers in their individual capacities.

All the cases have been consolidated in the federal court for the
District of Rhode Island.  The parties are currently engaged in
discovery.

Allergan plc, a specialty pharmaceutical company, develops,
manufactures, markets, and distributes medical aesthetics,
biosimilar, and over-the-counter pharmaceutical products worldwide.
It operates through US Specialized Therapeutics, US General
Medicine, and International segments. The Company was formerly
known as Actavis plc and changed its name to Allergan plc in June
2015. Allergan plc was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in
Dublin, Ireland.


WARNER CHILCOTT: Still Faces Actonel(R) Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that its indirect
wholly-owned subsidiary Warner Chilcott Limited is a defendant in
approximately 168 cases and a potential defendant with respect to
approximately 383 unfiled claims involving a total of approximately
553 claimants relating to Warner Chilcott's bisphosphonate
prescription drug Actonel(R).

The claimants allege, among other things, that Actonel(R) caused
them to suffer osteonecrosis of the jaw ("ONJ"), a rare but serious
condition that involves severe loss or destruction of the jawbone,
and/or atypical fractures of the femur ("AFF").  Warner Chilcott is
in the initial stages of discovery in these litigations.

All of the filed cases are in either federal or state courts in the
United States, with the exception of three cases filed in
provincial courts in Canada.  Two Canadian cases involve a single
plaintiff, and the other is a purported product liability class
action involving two named plaintiffs.  The Canadian action
alleges, among other things, that Actonel(R) caused the plaintiffs
and the proposed class members who ingested Actonel(R) to suffer
ONJ or other side effects.  It is expected that the plaintiffs in
the purported class action will seek class certification.

Plaintiffs have typically asked for unspecified monetary and
injunctive relief, as well as attorneys' fees.  Warner Chilcott is
indemnified by Sanofi for certain Actonel claims pursuant to a
collaboration agreement relating to the two parties' co-promotion
of the product in the United States and other countries.

In addition, Warner Chilcott is also partially indemnified by the
Procter & Gamble Company ("P&G") for ONJ claims that were pending
at the time Warner Chilcott acquired P&G's global pharmaceutical
business in October 2009.

In May and September 2013, Warner Chilcott entered into two
settlement agreements that resolved a majority of the then-existing
ONJ-related claims.

Allergan plc, a specialty pharmaceutical company, develops,
manufactures, markets, and distributes medical aesthetics,
biosimilar, and over-the-counter pharmaceutical products worldwide.
It operates through US Specialized Therapeutics, US General
Medicine, and International segments. The Company was formerly
known as Actavis plc and changed its name to Allergan plc in June
2015. Allergan plc was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in
Dublin, Ireland.


WATER TREATMENT: Hood et al. Seek to Certify Class
--------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned HOOD, ET AL., the Plaintiffs, v. WATER
TREATMENT & CONTROLS COMPANY, ET AL., the Defendants, Case No.
3:16-cv-00235-SDD-RLB (M.D. La.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for
an order:

   1. certifying a class of:

      "all persons who were of customers of Watch Treatment and
      Controls Company (People's Water) in the Donaldsonville, La
      area who were customers between September 1, 2015 and March
      31, 2016 and did not own or work for People's Water during
      that period; and

   2. appointing Casey G. Hood, the Grapevine Cafe, LLC, and Toni
      P. Weil as class representatives;

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Martin k. Maley., Sr.
          MALEY LAW FIRM
          PO Box 3154
          Baton Rouge, LA 70821
          Telephone: (225) 346 9781
          Facsimile: (225) 346 6788
          E-mail: mkmaley@eatel.net

               - and -

          Stephen M. Irving, Esq.
          STEVE IRVING, LLC
          111 Founders Drive, Suite 700
          Baton Rouge, LA 70810
          Telephone: (225) 752 2688
          Facsimile: (225) 752 2663
          E-mail: steve@steveirvinggllc.com

               - and -

          Marvin Gros, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MARVIN GROS, APLC
          P.O. Box 1040
          807 Railroad Avenue
          Donaldsonville, LA 70346
          Telephone: (225) 473 7868
          Facsimile: (225) 473 1266
          E-mail: marvingros@cox.net

Attorneys for Defendants:

          Shawn Rene' R. Bush, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF SHAWN RENE' R. BUSH
          1210 E. Worthey Road
          Gonzales, LA 70737

               - and -

          Kenneth J. Dupaty
          THE DUPATY LAW FIRM
          714 N. Burnside Avenue
          Gonzales, LA 70737

               - and -

          Mr. Marvin Gros
          PO Box 1040
          Donaldsonville, LA 70346

               - and -

          Maurice Dewayne Hall
          23515 Railroad Avenue
          Plaquemine, LA 70764

               - and -

          Timothy J. Poche, Esq.
          Taylor Porter, Esq.
          P.O. Box 1040
          Donaldsonville, LA 70346

               - and -

          Jeffrey Michael Heggelund, Esq.
          1404 S. Burnside Avenue
          Gonzales, LA 70737

               - and -

          Robert M. Lucky, Esq.
          Michael Thomas Malinowski, Jr.
          THE LUCKY LAW FIRM
          3765 Government Street, Suite A
          Baton Rouge, LA 70835

               - and -

          Jeffrey R. Nicholson
          Nicholson LAW FIRM, LLC
          P.O. Box 40516
          Baton Rouge, LA 70835

               - and -

          Travis J. Turner, Esq.
          TURNER LAW FIRM, LLC
          413 W. Main Street
          Gonzales, LA 70737


WAUPACA FOUNDRY: Foundry Workers Suit Transferred to E.D. Wisconsin
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Ryan DeKeyser, Thomas Cooper, Harley Granius,
Carlos Lantz, Jason VanHoose and Ronnie Smithers, Jr. on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, v. Waupaca Foundry,
Inc., successor to ThyssenKrupp Waupaca, Inc. Defendant, Case No.
17-cv-248, (E.D. Tenn., November 10, 2017), was transferred to the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin
on August 2, 2018, under Case No. 18-cv-01193.

Waupaca employed Plaintiffs as foundry workers at its Etowah,
Tennessee plant. They seek to recover unpaid wages, unpaid overtime
wages, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees, and declaratory
relief. [BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      David W. Garrison, Esq.
      Seth M. Hyatt, Esq.
      BARRETT JOHNSON MARTIN & GARRISON LLC
      414 Union St., Suite 900
      Nashville, TN 37219
      Tel: (615) 244-2202
      Fax: (615) 252-3798, 244-4345
      Email: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com
             shyatt@barrettjohnston.com

             - and -

      John Gordon Rudd, Jr., Esq.
      ZIMMERMAN REED PLLP
      1100 IDS Center
      80 S Eighth St.
      Minneapolis, MN 55402-4123
      Tel: (612) 341-0400
      Fax: (612) 341-0844
      Email: jgr@zimmreed.com

             - and -

      Kelly A. Lelo, Esq.
      T. Joseph Snodgrass, Esq.
      LARSON KING LLP
      2800 Wells Fargo Pl
      30 E 7th St.
      St Paul, MN 55101
      Tel: (651) 312-6565, 6510
      Fax: (651) 312-6618
      Email: klelo@larsonking.com
             jsnodgrass@larsonking.com

Waupaca Foundry is represented by:

      Alexander M. DeGuire, Esq.
      Joseph Louis Olson, Esq.
      Lee M. Seese, Esq.
      Mitchell W. Quick, Esq.
      Paul E. Benson, Esq.
      MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP
      100 E Wisconsin Ave., Ste. 3300
      Milwaukee, WI 53202-4108
      Tel: (414) 271-6560
           (414) 223-2502
      Fax: (414) 277-0656
      Email: amdeguire@michaelbest.com
             jlolson@michaelbest.com
             lmseese@michaelbest.com
             mwquick@michaelbest.com
             pebenson@michaelbest.com

             - and -

      Eric T. Presnell, Esq.
      BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP
      1600 Division St., Ste. 700
      Nashville, TN 37203
      Tel: (615) 252-2355
      Fax: (615) 252-6355

WESLEY FINANCIAL: Burgess Seeks to Certify Class
------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned VALERIE JEAN BURGESS, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. WESLEY
FINANCIAL GROUP, LLC, CHUCK MCDOWELL, CHARLES W. MCDOWELL IV, and
JON BROWNING, the Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-01655 (M.D. Tenn.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order certifying the case as a
class action and naming Plaintiff and her counsel as
representatives of all putative Class Members, consisting of:

   "all Sales Representatives who worked at Wesley Financial
   Group, LLC since January 1, 2011."

Attorneys for Plaintiff, Opt-in Plaintiffs and the Putative Class:

          Martin D. Holmes, Esq.
          Joshua L. Burgener, Esq.
          DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC
          Fifth Third Center, Suite 800
          424 Church Street
          Nashville, TN 37219
          Telephone: (615) 244 6538

Attorneys for Defendant:

          Andrea Taylor McKellar, Esq.
          Lyndsay Smith Hyde, Esq.
          MCKELLAR|HYDE, PLC
          411 Broadway, Suite 302
          Nashville, TN 37203


WURTH LOUIS: Craftwood Seeks to Certify Class
---------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned Craftwood II, Inc., et al., the
Plaintiffs, v. Wurth Louis & Company, et al., the Defendants, Case
No. 8:17-cv-00606-DOC-KES (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court
for an order:

   1. certifying a class of:

      "all persons and entities that were subscribers of
      facsimile telephone numbers to which material that
      discusses, describes, or promotes Wurth Louis and Company's
      property, goods or services, was sent via facsimile
      broadcasts between March 7, 2013, and April 19, 2017";

   2. designating Craftwood II as Class Representative;

   3. appointing C. Darryl Cordero and Scott O. Luskin of Payne &
      Fears LLP as lead Class Counsel, and Joel S. Magolnick of
      Marko & Magolnick, P.A., as additional class counsel; and

   4. directing to class members the best notice that is
      practicable under the circumstances, including individual
      notice to all members who can be identified through
      reasonable effort.

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          C. Darryl Cordero, Esq.
          Scott O. Luskin, Esq.
          Leilani E. Livingston, Esq.
          PAYNE & FEARS LLP
          400 Continental Blvd., Suite 600
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (310) 689 1750
          Facsimile: (310) 689 1755
          E-mail: cdc@paynefears.com
                  sol@paynefears.com
                  llj@paynefears.com


XCERRA CORPORATION: Kahn Seeks More Info on Cohu Merger
-------------------------------------------------------
WASEEM KHAN, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated
v. XCERRA CORPORATION, ROGER W. BLETHEN, DAVID G. TACELLI, MARK S.
AIN, ROGER J. MAGGS, JORGE TITINGER, and BRUCE R. WRIGHT, Case No.
1:18-cv-11592 (D. Mass., July 30, 2018), seeks to enjoin the vote
on a proposed transaction, pursuant to which Xcerra will be
acquired by Cohu, Inc., through its wholly owned subsidiary Xavier
Acquisition Corporation ("Merger Sub").

On May 8, 2018, Xcerra and Cohu issued a joint press release
announcing their entry into an Agreement and Plan of Merger to sell
Xcerra to Cohu.  Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, Xcerra
stockholders will receive: (i) $9.00 in cash; and (ii) 0.2109 of a
share of Cohu common stock for each share of Xcerra common stock
they own.  Based on the closing price of Cohu common stock as of
May 7, 2018, the Proposed Transaction values Xcerra at $13.92 per
share, with a total enterprise value of approximately $627
million.

According to the complaint, the shareholders need more information
about the actual transaction because they will be harmed if the
deal goes through without more disclosures

Xcerra is a Massachusetts corporation with its principal executive
offices located in Norwood, Massachusetts.  Xcerra is comprised of
four businesses involved in the semiconductor and electronics
manufacturing test markets.  The Individual Defendants are
directors and officers of Xcerra.

Xcerra is a global provider of test and handling capital equipment,
interface products, test fixtures and related services to the
semiconductor and electronics manufacturing industries.  The
Company operates in the semiconductor and electronics manufacturing
test markets through its atg-Luther & Maelzer, ECT, LTX-Credence
("LTXC") and Multitest businesses.

Cohu is a Delaware corporation with its principal executive offices
located in Poway, California.  Cohu is a leading supplier of
semiconductor test and inspection handlers, micro-electro
mechanical system test modules, test contactors and thermal
sub-systems used by global semiconductor manufacturers and test
subcontractors.  Merger Sub is a Delaware corporation and wholly
owned subsidiary of Cohu.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mitchell J. Matorin, Esq.
          MATORIN LAW OFFICE, LLC
          18 Grove Street, Suite 5
          Wellesley, MA 02482
          Telephone: (781) 453-0100
          E-mail: mmatorin@matorinlaw.com

               - and -

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


YOUNIQUE LLC: Schmitt et al. Seek to Certify Classes
----------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned MEGAN SCHMITT, DEANA REILLY, CAROL
ORLOWSKY, and STEPHANIE MILLER BRUN, individually and on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
YOUNIQUE, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 8:17-cv-01397-JVS-JDE (C.D.
Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court for an order on October
15, 2018:

   1. certifying California, Ohio, Florida, and Tennessee
      classes, composed of:

      "individuals who purchased one or more Younique 3D
      Fiberlash Mascara Products at any time during the
      applicable statute of limitations period"; and

   2. appointing Plaintiffs' attorneys, The Sultzer Law Group,
      Walsh, PLLC, and Nye, Peabody, Stirling, Hale & Miller, LLP
      as class counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g) of the Federal
      Rules of Civil Procedure".

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Class:

          Jonathan D. Miller, Esq.
          Alison M. Bernal, Esq
          NYE, PEABODY, STIRLING, HALE
            & MILLER, LLP
          33 West Mission St., Suite 201
          Telephone: (805) 963 2345
          Facsimile: (805) 563 5385
          E-mail: Jonathan@nps-law.com

               - and -

          Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH SWEET
          KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP
          1350 Columbia Street, Ste. 603
          Telephone: (619) 762 1900
          Facsimile: (619) 756 6991
          E-mail: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com



                            *********

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

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

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

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

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

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

                   *** End of Transmission ***