CAR_Public/180816.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, August 16, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 164

                            Headlines

447 MARKET INC: Rosales Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
ACCESS RECEIVABLES: Gurto Sues Over Auto-dialed Collection Calls
ACRONIS NA: Huckaby to Recover Overtime Pay, Sales Commissions
ADAM'S EUROPEAN: $1.97MM Settlement in Wage Suit Has Prelim OK
ADVANCED MEDITECH: New Albany Medical Hits Unsolicited Faxed Ads

AFFINION GROUP: Calif. Class Suit vs. Webloyalty Still Ongoing
AFFINION GROUP: Connecticut Class Suit vs. Webloyalty Underway
AK BUILDING: Martinez Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
ALEXION PHARMA: Bid to Dismiss Solaris-Related Suit Still Pending
ALKERMES PLC: Bid to Dismiss "Gagnon" Suit Underway

ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Goldberger Action Disputes Collection Letter
ALLY BANK: Chinitz Files Suit for Unjust Enrichment
ALLY FINANCIAL: Faces Randall Suit in Suffolk, Massachusetts
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Fails to Pay Proper OT, Kouchi Suit Alleges
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Settlement of DC Suit Receives Initial Approval

APOLLO ENVIRO: Cond. Certification of Welders Class Recommended
ATHENS ORTHOPEDIC: Ga. App. Affirms Dismissal of Data Theft Suit
B & C TOWING: N.J. App. Div. Reverses Denial of Class Certification
BAY RIDGE HOSPITALITY: Santamaria Action to Recover Unpaid Wages
BAYADA HOME: Court Certifies Class of Home Health Workers

BIGHAM CABLE: Pettiford Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
BIRCH'S BREWHOUSE: Servers/Bartenders Seek Unpaid Wages, Damages
CALIFORNIA: State Judge Salary Increase Ruling Enforcement Upheld
CARPACCIO INC: Underpays Food Runners & Servers, Lopez Suit Claims
CELGENE CORP: Settlement in Principle Reached in JCAR015 Suit

CHSPSC LLC: 6th Circuit Appeal Filed in Sutton FLSA Suit
COMMUNITY BANK: Parshall Seeks to Block Sale to CVB Financial
CONSUMERS ENERGY: Still Defends Gas Index Price Reporting Suit
CONTRACT CALLERS: Certification of Class Sought in Voeks Suit
CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Proceedings in Woodward Suit Stayed

COPPER THROAT: Guerrero Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
CORECIVIC OF TENNESSEE: Class of Scabies-Infested Inmates Certified
CREDIT PROTECTION: Thibodeaux Action Disputes Collection Letter
CTA PIZZA: James Call Files Suit to Recover Proper Wages
CUISINART INC: Wicklund Injured by Lid Defect, Seeks Damages

DARP INC: Court Narrows Claims in M. Fochtman's Slavery Suit
DCT INDUSTRIAL: Faces Putative Class Suits over Prologis Merger
DIAMOND RESORTS: Gonzales Suit Disputes Overtime Pay Computation
DISH NETWORK: Appeal from Krakauer Suit Judgment Still Pending
DISTINCTIVE MAINTENANCE: Tanooli Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages

DOWDUPONT INC: Subsidiary Defends 38 Lawsuits over PFOA Exposure
DOWDUPONT INC: Unit Faces Consolidated Lawsuit over PFC Discharge
EAGLE CAPITAL: Gonzalez Files Suit to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
EDISON INTERNATIONAL: San Onofre OII Dismissal Order under Appeal
EDISON INTERNATIONAL: Still Defends 401(k) Savings Plan Suit

EL POLLO LOCO: Appeals Class Status Order in "Turocy, et al." Suit
EL POLLO LOCO: Class of Stockholders Certified in Turocy Suit
EL POLLO LOCO: Court Certifies 2 Class of Plaintiffs in "Olvera"
ENBRIDGE ENERGY: Mesirov Replaces Brinckerhoff in Delaware Lawsuit
ENHANCED RECOVERY: Kola Sues Over Illegal Collection

ERIE INDEMNITY: 3rd Cir. Denies Petition for Rehearing in "Beltz"
EVENTBRITE INC: Wu ADA Suit Says Website not Blind-friendly
FACEBOOK INC: Still Defends Class Suits Related to Data Misuse
FARMLAND MUTUAL: Court Narrows Claims in S. Mejia's Wage Suit
FENIX PARTS: Count I in A. Beezley's Securities Suit Dismissed

FIVE GUYS: Oct. 2 Filing Deadline of "Lusk" Class Certification Bid
FLOWERS FOODS: Distributors' Suit Seek Unpaid Wages, Damages
FOULKE MGMT: Dismissal Order in J. Stollsteimer's Suit Affirmed
FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Connecticut Securities Suit Underway
FUNKO INC: Court Denies A. Parikh's Bid for Lead Plaintiff

GAMESTOP CORP: Horton Sues Over Illegal Personal Info Disclosure
GENOCEA BIOSCIENCES: Sept. 25 Hearing for Bid to Drop Class Suit
GENPACT SERVICES: Hoffman Disputes Vague Collection Letter
GNC HOLDINGS INC: Continues to Defend Pa. Workweek Related Suit
GNC HOLDINGS: Court  Narrows Class Claims in Naranjo Suit

GOLDMAN SACHS: Awaits 2nd Cir. Ruling on Gender Pay Disparity Suit
GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Nix Commodities-Related Suit Still Pending
GOLDMAN SACHS: Bids to Drop Adeptus Health Class Actions Pending
GOLDMAN SACHS: Bids to Drop Securities Lending Suits Still Pending
GOLDMAN SACHS: Bids to Drop U.S. Treasury Securities Suit Pending

GOLDMAN SACHS: Interest Rate Swap Antitrust Actions Still Ongoing
GOLDMAN SACHS: Lawsuit over 2012-2014 Securities Sales Pending
GOLDMAN SACHS: Lawsuit over Sale of Valeant Shares Still Ongoing
GOLDMAN SACHS: Must Defend Calif. Suit over Snap IPO
GOLDMAN SACHS: Plaintiffs in SunEdison Lawsuit Seek Class Status

GOLDMAN SACHS: Still Faces Currencies-Related Litigation in N.Y.
GOPRO INC: 2018 Shareholder Class Complaints Underway
GOPRO INC: Shareholder Lawsuit in N.D. Calif. Still Ongoing
HAMILTON COUNTY, OH: Court Approves Settlement of Inmates' Suit
HANOVER INSURANCE: Settlement in Principle Reached in Durand Suit

HAYNES TRUCKING: Certification of Truck Drivers' Class Upheld
HUB GROUP: Claims in Robles Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
HUNTER WARFIELD: $21K Deal in FDCPA Suit Has Final Approval
IC SYSTEM: Delgado Seeks Certification of Class Under FDCPA
ILG INC: Faces Hohman Class Suit over Marriott Vacations Merger

ILG INC: Still Awaiting Court Ruling on Bid to Drop Mass Action
IMPERVA INC: Settlement in Principle Reached in Calif. Class Suits
INVUITY INC: Paciga Securities Class Lawsuit Still Pending
JACOB TRANSPORTATION: Settlement in R. Greene's Suit Has Prelim OK
JAMES MAYER: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Barry Says

JONATHAN KLEIN: Lundi Sues Over Illegal Credit Collection
JP MORGAN: $285K in Attys' Fees Awarded in M. Loeza's Wage Suit
LAMB WESTON: Kennard Sues Over Under-filled Snack Product
LANDMARK CREDIT: $950K Deal in Overdraft Fees Suit Has Prelim OK
LEE COUNTY, FL: Court Dismisses H. Gonzalez's Prisoners Suit

LJM PARTNERS: Faces Shlifka Suit Over Growth Fund Collapse
M CULINARY CONCEPTS: Alejandro Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
MACERICH COMPANY: Murphy Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site
MACTANZ INC: Snider Moves to Certify Class of Servers Under FLSA
MASTER JANITORIAL: Retina Associates Sues Over Illegal Faxed Ads

METROPOLITAN TRANSIT: Randle Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
MIAMI-DADE EXPRESSWAY: Class Cert. in Axle Toll Suit Affirmed
MICROSOFT CORP: Antitrust Class Lawsuit in Canada Still Pending
MICROSOFT CORP: Canadian Cell Phone Class Action Remains Dormant
MISSISSIPPI COUNTY, AR: Bryan Suit Alleges FLSA Violation

MRI INT'L: Insurance Policies Liquidation in "Takiguchi" Ordered
MTGE INVESTMENT: Faces 4 Civil Actions over Annaly Merger Accord
MTGE INVESTMENT: Meyer Suit Seeks to Halt Sale to Annaly
MVP WORKFORCE: Smith Alleges Discrimination in Job Placements
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Awaiting Court's Okay of "Jordan" Settlement

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Still Defends Class Suit over Telephone Calls
NATURE'S BEST: Arbitration Ruling in Drivers' Suit Reversed
NAVIENT CORP: Bid to Drop Lord Abbett Funds Suit Underway
NAVIENT CORP: Bid to Nix Consolidated "Pope" Suit Still Pending
NETGEAR INC: Klebba Response to Bid to Dismiss Suit Due Aug. 20

NETGEAR INC: Sassine Voluntarily Drops Class Action
NETGEAR INC: Still Faces Fischer Suit over WiFi Range Extenders
NEW YORK: Filing of 2nd Amended Suit vs. NYPD Partly OK'd
NORTH CAROLINA: Drivers File Suit v. DMV Over License Revocation
NORTH SHORE BAKING: Bakers File Suit to Recover Unpaid OT Wages

OANDA CORP: Suit Over Excessive Forex Spreads Dismissed
OCLARO INC: Franchi Challenges Lumentum Merger Deal
OCLARO INC: Ryan Files Suit Over Proposed Lumentum Merger
OMNICELL INC: Status Conference in Mazya Lawsuit Set for Oct. 4
ONEMAIN HOLDINGS: Securities Class Action in New York Ongoing

ONESPAN INC: Still Defends Putative Class Lawsuit in N.D. Illinois
PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Bid to Dismiss Sgarlata Suit Underway
POAH COMMUNITIES: Tenants Demand Whereabouts of Security Deposit
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Garcia Appeals D.N.J. Ruling to 3rd Circuit
POST HOLDINGS: Unit Settles Indirect Buyers' Antitrust Suit

PQ NEW YORK: Murphy Files ADA Suit v. Cafe Chain
PROTHENA CORPORATION: Granite Point Sues over Drop in Share Price
RATCHFORD LAW: Walch Class Suit Asserts FDCPA Breach
RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE: Muszytowski Moves to Certify Class
ROSENDIN ELECTRIC: J. Lopez's Labor Suit Remanded to State Court

S1 SECURITY GROUP: Suarez Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Show Cause Order in "Kerkorian" Suit Entered
SCHOOL REFORM COMMISSION: Taxpayers Seek to Rescind Contract
SEATTLE GENETICS: Cascadian Acquisition-Related Suits Dismissed
SEATTLE GENETICS: Court Dismisses CD33A Class Action

SEMPER SOLARIS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Anthony Suit Alleges
SIRIUS XM: Still Defend "Buchanan" Suit over Robocalls
SOLSTICE MARKETING: Faces Wu Suit in S.D. New York
SPACE NK USA LLC: Olsen Says Website not Blind-friendly
SSC KERRVILLE: Fails to Pay OT Wages to RNs & LVNs, Passmore Says

STRAND BOOK: Murphy Wants Web Site Accessible to Visually-impaired
SUPER MICRO: Consolidated Securities Suit Filing Due Sept. 24
SUPERRUAY CORP: Fails to Pay OT to Cooks, Basurto Suit Alleges
SUPERVALU INC: Summary Judgment, Class Cert. Bids Still Pending
TAKING CARE: Gipson Action Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay

THREE SONZ: Branum Suit Seeks Payment of OT, Minimum Wage
TUMINO'S TOWING: Jurisdictional Discovery Ordered in "Kiley" Suit
ULTA BEAUTY: Levi & Korsinsky to Lead in Securities Fraud Suit
UNITED STATES: NY Court Certifies Class of UAC
UNITED STATES: Pars Challenges Ban on Muslims From Five Countries

UNITED STATES: Retirees File Suit Over Pension Reduction
UNIVERSAL FIDELITY: Class Certification Sought in "O'Boyle" Suit
US BANK NA: McGovern Sues Over Excessive Bank Fees
VICTORY FOR YOUTH: Quinones Seeks Unpaid Wages, Damages
VIKING GROUP: Faces Jackson Suit Over Defective Fire Sprinklers

VISHARA VIDEO: Silva Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Premium
WAUPACA FOUNDRY: Garrett Labor Suit Transferred to E.D. Wisconsin
WAUPACA FOUNDRY: Sarrell Labor Suit Transferred to E.D. Wisconsin
WELLS FARGO: RMBS Investors' New York Class Suit Still Ongoing
WORLEY CLAIMS: Rosell Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages

YAHOO INC: Summary Judgment in B. Domiguez's TCPA Suit Affirmed

                            *********

447 MARKET INC: Rosales Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------------
David Rosales and Noe Capulin, on behalf of themselves and all
other similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiffs, v. 447
Market, Inc. and Kim Boong Yung, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-04798,
(S.D. N.Y., May 30, 2018), seeks maximum liquidated damages for
late overtime wages and non-payment of minimum wages, recovery of
compensation for not receiving notices and statements including not
being paid on a weekly basis, and costs and attorneys' fees
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, New York Minimum Wage Act
and New York Labor Law.

Defendants operate Jubilee Marketplace, a deli and grocery
business. Plaintiffs worked for Jubilee as food preparers. They
worked approximately 54-60 hours a week without overtime pay.
Plaintiffs also worked a spread of hours of more than ten hours a
day but were not paid an extra hour of pay each such day. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Abdul K. Hassan, Esq.
     ABDUL HASSAN LAW GROUP, PLLC
     215-28 Hillside Avenue
     Queens Village, NY 11427
     Tel: (718) 740-1000
     Fax: (718) 355-9668
     Email: abdul@abdulhassan.com


ACCESS RECEIVABLES: Gurto Sues Over Auto-dialed Collection Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Gurto, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Access Receivables Management, Defendants, Case No.
18-cv-01565, (D. Md., May 30, 2018), seeks actual and statutory
damages, costs, and reasonable attorneys' fees and such further
relief under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Defendant used an automatic telephone dialing system to collect a
debt allegedly owed by Gurto, notes the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eric N. Stravitz, Esq.
      STRAVITZ LAW FIRM, PC
      4300 Forbes Boulevard—Suite 100
      Lanham, MD 20706
      Tel: (240) 467-5741
      Fax: (240) 467-5743
      Email: eric@stravitzlawfirm.com

             - and -

      Aaron D. Radbil, Esq.
      GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
      106 East Sixth Street, Suite 913
      Austin, TX 78701
      Phone: (512) 322-3912
      Fax: (561) 961-5684
      Email: aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com


ACRONIS NA: Huckaby to Recover Overtime Pay, Sales Commissions
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Huckaby, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Acronis North America Inc., a foreign
corporation, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-01650, (D. Ariz., May 31,
2018), seeks unpaid overtime compensation, as well as an additional
amount as liquidated damages, costs and reasonable attorneys' fees
under the provisions of Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff has worked for Acronis from October 2017 through the
present, dialing and receiving calls from potential customers in an
effort to sell Acronis's products and services. Acronis did not
track the hours worked by Huckaby who routinely worked in excess of
forty hours per week. Acronis also continues to withhold certain
commissions owed to Plaintiff, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brad A. Denton, Esq.
      Timothy F. Coons, Esq.
      DENTON PETERSON, P.C.
      1930 N. Arboleda Road, Suite 200
      Mesa, AZ 85213
      Tel: (480) 325-9900
      Fax: (480) 325-9901
      Email: Brad@DentonPeterson.com
             Timothy@DentonPeterson.com


ADAM'S EUROPEAN: $1.97MM Settlement in Wage Suit Has Prelim OK
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JANUSZ BOGDAN, MARIAN MASLAG, WIESLAW KONOPKA, and
MARIUSZ KONOPKA, individually and on behalf of other persons
similarly situated who were employed by ADAM'S EUROPEAN
CONTRACTING, INC., Plaintiffs v. ADAM'S EUROPEAN CONTRACTING, INC.,
ARCH INSURANCE COMPANY, and JOHN DOE BONDING COMPANIES 1-6
Defendants, Docket No. 654432/12, Motion Seq. No. 005 (N.Y. Sup.),
Judge Nancy M. Bannon of the New York County Supreme Court granted
the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of a settlement of
the class action dated Jan. 18, 2018, approval of the forms of
notices and claims, the appointment of the Plaintiff's counsel as
the class counsel, and the scheduling of a fairness hearing.

Bogdan, Maslag, Wieslaw Konopka, and Mariusz Konopka, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated, commenced the action
against AEC, its insurer, Arch Insurance Co., and several
unidentified bonding companies, alleging that, from 2006 through
2011, AEC violated Labor Law Section 650 et seq., Labor Law Section
190 et seq., Labor Law Section 220, et seq., and 12 NYCRR 142-3.2
by failing to pay the required minimum overtime wages and
supplemental benefits to its employees, who were engaged in public
works projects, and compelling those employees to work longer than
the maximum number of daily and weekly hours, as limited by law.

The class sought to be certified consists of all individuals
employed by AEC who performed construction work and all work
incidental thereto from Dec. 19, 2006, through June 21, 2016,
excepting clerical, administrative, professional, or supervisory
employees.

By order dated Sept. 16, 2015, the Court denied the Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification on the ground that they failed to
appear for oral argument.  By order dated Jan. 6, 2016, the Court
denied their motion for the same relief as procedurally improper,
in as much as the Plaintiffs did not seek to vacate their earlier
default before seeking substantive relief.  By order dated March 1,
2016, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion to vacate their
default in appearing.  By order dated June 21, 2016, the Court
ultimately granted the Plaintiffs motion under motion to certify
the class.

The proposed class settlement will require the Defendants to pay
the gross sum of $1,970,000 into a settlement fund, of which
$475,000 thereof is allocated to pay the fees of the Plaintiff's
attorneys.  The Defendants agree to allocate payments to class
members as 50% as W-2 wages and 50% as liquidated damages under the
Labor Law, the latter of which will be reported on IRS form 1099
without withholding.

Judge Bannon finds that the lump sum fund set forth in the
settlement agreement to properly pay for overtime wages and
liquidated damages fairly and adequately compensates the class
members for their unpaid overtime wages and liquidated damages, and
is in their best interest.  The affidavit of the Plaintiff's
counsel also describes dozens of class actions that her firm has
litigated successfully, which amply demonstrated its experience and
skill in class action litigation, and that it will adequately
represent the interest of all class members.

For these reasons, Judge Bannon granted the Plaintiff's motion.
Accordingly, without opposition, she preliminarily approved the
settlement agreement and the forms for notices and claims.  A
fairness hearing will be conducted on Sept. 19, 2018, at 10 a.m.
The Decision and Order constitutes the Decision and Order of the
Court.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 27, 2018 Decision and Order is
available at https://is.gd/ZkeYF5 from Leagle.com.

ADVANCED MEDITECH: New Albany Medical Hits Unsolicited Faxed Ads
----------------------------------------------------------------
Internal Medicine Rural Health Clinic of New Albany, P.A., doing
business as New Albany Medical Group, Plaintiff, v. Advanced
Meditech International, Inc., also known as AMI and doing business
as VasectomyStore.com, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00125, (D. Md.,
May 31, 2018), seeks damages and injunctive relief pursuant to the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 and the Junk Fax
Prevention Act of 2005.

New Albany Medical Group operates a facility providing various
health care services in Union County, Mississippi. On October 20,
2017, Advanced Meditech faxed an advertisement regarding medical
instruments for use in performing vasectomies. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      L.N. Chandler Rogers, Esq.
      ROGERS LAW GROUP
      201 E. Bankhead Street
      New Albany, MS 38652
      Tel: (662) 538-5990
      Fax: (662) 538-5997
      Email: chandler@rogerslawgroup.com

             - and -

      Winston B. Collier, Esq.
      THE COLLIER FIRM
      2090 Old Taylor Road
      Oxford, MS 38655
      Tel: (870) 347-2100
      Fax: (870) 347-1164
      Email: winston@thecollierfirm.com

             - and -

      Gregory M. Zarzaur, Esq.
      ZARZAUR MUJUMDAR & DEBROSSE-TRIAL LAWYERS
      2332 2nd Avenue North
      Birmingham, AL 35203
      Tel: (205) 983-7985
      Fax: (888) 505-0523
      Email: Gregory@zarzaur.com


AFFINION GROUP: Calif. Class Suit vs. Webloyalty Still Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Affinion Group Holdings, Inc.  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 class action
suit against Webloyalty in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California is still ongoing.

On June 7, 2012, a class action lawsuit was filed against
Webloyalty in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California.

After filing several amended complaints, the plaintiff asserted a
variety of claims, including claims under the EFT, the ECPA,
California Business and Professional Code § 17200, et seq. (the
"CBPC"), CUTPA, various privacy statutes, and common law.  The
plaintiff seeks to represent a nationwide class of consumers whose
credit or debit card information was obtained by Webloyalty via
data pass, and had their credit or debit cards charged on or after
October 1, 2008.

On June 22, 2015, the District Court of S.C. entered judgment
dismissing the plaintiff's federal claims with prejudice, and his
state claims without prejudice. The plaintiff appealed that
judgement to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.

On March 28, 2017, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the
plaintiff's ECPA and privacy-based state law claims, but reversed
and remanded the dismissal of other claims, including the
plaintiff's claims under the EFT, CBPC, and CUTPA. On September 5,
2017, the plaintiff filed a third amended complaint, which asserts
the claims that were remanded by the Ninth Circuit. Webloyalty has
answered the complaint and denied all liability.  The matter is now
in discovery.

On June 29, 2018, the plaintiff moved for class certification on
his claims for violation of the EFT on behalf of a nationwide
class, and on his claims for conversion, and violation of CBPC on
behalf of a California class. Webloyalty expects to oppose that
motion prior to the due date of August 20, 2018.

Affinion Group, Inc. designs, administers, and fulfills loyalty,
customer engagement, and insurance programs and solutions. The
company operates through four segments: Global Loyalty, Global
Customer Engagement, Insurance Solutions, and Legacy Membership and
Package. The company is headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut.
Affinion Group, Inc. is a subsidiary of Affinion Group Holdings,
Inc.


AFFINION GROUP: Connecticut Class Suit vs. Webloyalty Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
Affinion Group Holdings, Inc.  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 putative class
action suit against Webloyalty filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Connecticut, is still ongoing.

On August 27, 2010, a former member of Webloyalty's membership
programs filed a putative class action lawsuit against Webloyalty,
one of its former clients, and one of the credit card associations
in the United States District Court for the District of
Connecticut.

The plaintiff alleged that Webloyalty's enrollment of the plaintiff
using debit card information obtained from a third party via data
pass, and not directly from the plaintiff, was deceptive.  The
Plaintiff seeks to represent a nationwide class of consumers whose
credit or debit card data was transferred to Webloyalty via data
pass on or after October 1, 2008.

The complaint, which was amended several times, asserted, among
others, claims for violations of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act
("EFT"), the ECPA, and CUTPA as well as other common law claims.

On October 15, 2015, the Connecticut District Court entered
judgment dismissing all claims with prejudice.  The plaintiff
appealed that judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit (the "Second Circuit"). On December 20, 2016,
the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court of Connecticut's
dismissal in part, but reversed and remanded the dismissal of
claims against Webloyalty and its former client under CUTPA and the
EFT.

The District Court of Connecticut held a scheduling conference on
March 23, 2017, but discovery has not yet commenced. The defendants
have answered the complaint and denied any liability.

Affinion Group, Inc. designs, administers, and fulfills loyalty,
customer engagement, and insurance programs and solutions. The
company operates through four segments: Global Loyalty, Global
Customer Engagement, Insurance Solutions, and Legacy Membership and
Package. The company is headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut.
Affinion Group, Inc. is a subsidiary of Affinion Group Holdings,
Inc.


AK BUILDING: Martinez Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Marta A. Martinez on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. AK Building Services Inc. and Ana Castano,
Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-22144, (S.D. Fla., May 30, 2018), seeks
to recover from Defendants minimum and overtime wages, liquidated
damages, and costs and reasonable attorney's fees under the
provisions of Fair Labor Standards Act.

AK Building Services provides janitorial and maintenance services
for office buildings, condominiums, medical facilities schools and
different commercial accounts throughout Dade County, Broward, Palm
Beach, and other areas within Florida. Martinez was a cleaning
employee assigned to an office building located at 2999 NE 191 ST,
Aventura Florida 33180. She worked more than 40 hours per week but
was never properly compensated for overtime hours worked. Plaintiff
was misclassified as an independent contractor. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ALEXION PHARMA: Bid to Dismiss Solaris-Related Suit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 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's bid to
dismiss the putative class action suit related to Solaris remains
pending.

On December 29, 2016, a shareholder filed a putative class action
against the Company and certain former employees in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Connecticut, alleging that
defendants made misrepresentations and omissions about Soliris.

On April 12, 2017, the court appointed a lead plaintiff. On July
14, 2017, the lead plaintiff filed an amended putative class action
complaint against the Company and seven current or former
employees. The complaint alleges that defendants made
misrepresentations and omissions about Soliris, including alleged
misrepresentations regarding sales practices, management changes,
and related investigations, between January 30, 2014 and May 26,
2017, and that the Company's stock price dropped upon the purported
disclosure of the misrepresentations.

Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on September 12,
2017. Plaintiffs filed an opposition to defendants' motion to
dismiss on November 13, 2017, and defendants' filed a reply brief
in further support of their motion on December 28, 2017.
Defendants' motion to dismiss is now fully briefed and pending
before the court.

Alexion Pharmaceuticals said "Given the early stages of this
litigation, an estimate of the possible loss or range of loss
cannot be made at this time."

Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company,
develops and commercializes various therapeutic products. The
company was founded in 1992 and is headquartered in Boston,
Massachusetts.


ALKERMES PLC: Bid to Dismiss "Gagnon" Suit Underway
---------------------------------------------------
Alkermes Public Limited Company 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's motion
to dismiss a purported class action suit by a company stockholder
entitled, Gagnon v. Alkermes plc, et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-09178
(S.D.N.Y., November 22, 2017), remains pending.  The case was filed
against the Company and certain of its officers.

This complaint has been amended twice since its initial filing.
The second amended complaint was filed on behalf of a putative
class of purchasers of Alkermes securities during the period of
February 24, 2015 to November 14, 2017, and alleges violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, based on allegedly false or misleading statements and
omissions regarding the Company's marketing practices related to
VIVITROL.

The lawsuit seeks, among other things, unspecified damages for
alleged inflation in the price of securities, and reasonable costs
and expenses, including attorneys’ fees. On June 29, 2018,
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint.


Alkermes plc, a biopharmaceutical company, researches, develops,
and commercializes pharmaceutical products to address unmet medical
needs of patients in various therapeutic areas in the United
States, Ireland, and internationally. Alkermes plc was founded in
1987 and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.


ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Goldberger Action Disputes Collection Letter
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bernard Goldberger, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Alltran Financial Limited
Partnership, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-04372 (E.D. N.Y., August 2,
2018), seeks damages and declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant
to the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act.

Alltran Financial, LP is a debt collection company. It violated
provisions of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by sending a
collection letter containing unclear language regarding applicable
interest and fees on a debt, says the complaint. The August 2017
collection letter that sought to collect Goldberger's debt on an
American Express credit card failed to indicate the minimum amount
owed, the applicable interest rate, the amount of late fees or when
they will be added, and other critical information regarding the
individual's obligation, adds the complaint. [BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

ALLY BANK: Chinitz Files Suit for Unjust Enrichment
---------------------------------------------------
Ronald E. Chinitz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Ally Bank, and Does 1-50, Case No. 5:18-cv-04329 (N.D.
Calif., July 17, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for
violation of the Expedited Funds Availability Act and for unjust
enrichment.

The Defendant's failure to pay interest on funds it receives from
standard ACH transfer requests for its customers' benefit starting
from the day it receives those funds is unlawful, and forms the
basis of this action, says the Plaintiff.

Ronald E. Chinitz is an individual, and has been a resident of
Santa Cruz County, California.

The Defendant Ally Bank is a Utah chartered online bank and an
indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of Ally Financial, Inc., a bank
holding company. Ally became a member of the Federal Reserve System
in March 2016. Ally offers a variety of deposit and other banking
products in California and nationwide, with total assets of $123.5
billion and deposits of $78.9 billion as of December 31, 2016.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Sheri L. Kelly, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF SHERI L. KELLY
      31 E. Julian St.
      San Jose, CA 95112
      Tel: (408) 287-7712
      Fax: (408) 583-4249
      E-mail: slk@sherikellylaw.com


ALLY FINANCIAL: Faces Randall Suit in Suffolk, Massachusetts
------------------------------------------------------------
James Randall, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Ally Financial Inc., Defendant, Case No.
182201C (Comm. Mass., Suffolk Cty., July 16, 2018) alleges that the
Defendant fails to provide the Plaintiff a with all appropriate
repossession notices and information required by Massachusetts
law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff entered into a loan
agreement with the Defendant for the purchase of a Jeep Grand
Cherokee on March 16, 2017. On October 26, 2017, the Defendants
repossessed the vehicle. On April 19, 2018, the Defendant sent the
Plaintiff a notice advising him of the repossession and of intent
to sell the vehicle. The notice erroneously states that if the
money the Defendant get from the sale, after paying the costs, it
will reduce the amount the Plaintiff owes to the Defendant and if
the Defendant get less money than what the Plaintiff owes, the
Plaintiff still owes the Defendant the difference.

Ally Financial Inc. provides various financial products and
services for consumers, businesses, automotive dealers, and
corporate clients in the United States and Canada. The company was
formerly known as GMAC Inc. and changed its name to Ally Financial
Inc. in May 2010. Ally Financial Inc. was founded in 1919 and is
headquartered in Detroit, Michigan. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Raven Moeslinger, Esq.
          Nicholas F. Ortiz, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF NICHOLAS F. ORTIZ, P.C.
          99 High Street, Suite 304
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 338-9400
          E-mail: rm@mass-legal.com


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Fails to Pay Proper OT, Kouchi Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Kouchi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. American Airlines, Inc., and Does 1 through
50, Defendants, Case No. BC714156 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
July 16, 2018) is an action against the Defendants for unpaid
regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal
and rest periods.

Mr. Kouchi was employed by the Defendants a hourly non-exempt
employee.

American Airlines, Inc. operates as a network air carrier. The
company provides scheduled air transportation services for
passengers and cargo. The company was founded in 1934 and is
headquartered in Fort Worth, Texas. American Airlines, Inc. is a
subsidiary of American Airlines Group Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
          Anna R. Salusky, Esq.
          George B. Singer, Esq.
          Shawan I. Pardo, Esq.
          MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC
          249 E. Ocean Blvd., Ste. 814
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: (562) 590-5550
          Facsimile: (562) 590-8400


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Settlement of DC Suit Receives Initial Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
American Airlines Group Inc. 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 settlement in
the air passenger capacity agreements related suit has received a
preliminary approval.

In June 2015, the company received a Civil Investigative Demand
(CID) from the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) as part of
an investigation into whether there have been illegal agreements or
coordination of air passenger capacity. The CID seeks documents and
other information from the Company, and other airlines have
announced that they have received similar requests. The company is
cooperating fully with the DOJ investigation.

Subsequent to announcement of the delivery of CIDs by the DOJ, the
company, along with Delta Air Lines, Inc., Southwest Airlines Co.,
United Airlines, Inc. and, in the case of litigation filed in
Canada, Air Canada, have been named as defendants in approximately
100 putative class action lawsuits alleging unlawful agreements
with respect to air passenger capacity.

The U.S. lawsuits have been consolidated in the Federal District
Court for the District of Columbia. On June 15, 2018, the company
reached a preliminary settlement agreement with the plaintiffs in
the amount of $45 million that, once approved, will resolve all
claims in the U.S. lawsuits. That settlement received preliminary
approval from the Court on June 18, 2018.

American Airlines said "We expect the Court to issue final approval
of the settlement later this year."

American Airlines Group Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as
a network air carrier. It provides scheduled air transportation
services for passengers and cargo. American Airlines Group Inc. was
founded in 1934 and is headquartered in Fort Worth, Texas.

APOLLO ENVIRO: Cond. Certification of Welders Class Recommended
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ABRAHAM DELGADO, Individually and on behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. APOLLO ENVIRONMENTAL
STRATEGIES, INC., Defendant, Civil Action No. 4:18-cv-00526 (S.D.
Tex.), Magistrate Judge Frances H. Stacy of the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, recommended
the approval of the Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional
Certification Under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Delgado, who filed the FLSA case on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, complains that the Defendant improperly
classified welders working for it as independent contractors and
then failed to pay them overtime.  

The Plaintiff seeks certification of the case as a collective
action of all current and former Welders classified as independent
contractors by Apollo at any time during the last three years.

The Declarations of the Opt-in Plaintiffs, Daniel Vargas and Sergio
Guzman, are substantially similar to that of Delgado.  The
Plaintiff argues that the evidence contained within the
Declarations is sufficient to meet the low threshold burden for
collective action certification.  Even though his Motion was filed
as "opposed," the Defendant has not, as of the date of the
Memorandum and Recommendation, filed a response to the Plaintiff's
Motion for Conditional Certification.

Magistrate Judge Stacy finds that the Plaintiff has established a
representative class, has identified an improper pay practice
common to those in the representative class and has provided
sufficient evidence that there are other welders who have expressed
an interest in participating in the case.

As for the proposed notice, while the Defendant has not objected to
the form or contents of the proposed notice, the Magistrate Judge
holds that it should include the following: the notice should
include the style and cause number of the case; state the reason
why the notice is being sent along with a class definition;
describe the Plaintiff's allegations in the lawsuit and the relief
sought; should state (i) that the Court has not yet decided whether
Apollo has done anything wrong or whether this case will proceed to
trial; (ii) how a potential opt-in may join in the case; (iii) that
the opt-in Plaintiffs will be bound by the Court's judgment,
whether favorable or unfavorable, and set forth the consequences of
opting in; should inform potential the opt-in Plaintiffs that they
may contact the Plaintiff's counsel, or any attorney of their
choosing to discuss the case; (iv) the costs of opting in; (v) that
Apollo may not retaliate against claimants for joining the suit;
and (vi) that the Court has not ruled on decided any of these
issues, including the merits of the claims or defenses.

Based on the foregoing, Magistrate Judge Stacy recommended that (i)
the Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification Under the Fair
Labor Standards Act be granted; (ii) the Court conditionally
certifies a class of all current and former Welders classified as
independent contractors by Apollo at any time during the three
years before Feb. 22, 2018 up to the present and who were not paid
overtime compensation; and (iii) the Notice be sent to the class
members by regular U.S. mail, which includes the language/revisions
set forth.

The Magistrate directed the Clerk to file this instrument and
provide a copy to all counsel and unrepresented parties of record.
Within 14 days after being served with a copy, any party may file
written objections.  Failure to file objections within such period
will bar an aggrieved party from attacking factual findings on
appeal.  Moreover, absent plain error, failure to file objections
within the 14-day period bars an aggrieved party from attacking
conclusions of law on appeal.  The original of any written
objections will be filed with the United States District Clerk.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 27, 2018 Memorandum and
Recommendation is available at https://is.gd/jd2GjO from
Leagle.com.

Abraham Delgado, Plaintiff, represented by Taft L. Foley --
info@foleylaw.com -- The Foley Law Firm.

Apollo Environmental Strategies Inc, Defendant, represented by
Laura E. De Santos -- ldesantos@grsm.com -- Gordon Rees Scully
Mansukhani.

ATHENS ORTHOPEDIC: Ga. App. Affirms Dismissal of Data Theft Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge William M. Ray, II, of the Court of Appeals of Georgia for
the Fifth Division affirmed the trial court's order granting AOC's
motion to dismiss the case, COLLINS, et al. v. ATHENS ORTHOPEDIC
CLINIC, Case No. A18A0296 (Ga. App.).

After an anonymous hacker known as the "Dark Overlord" stole the
personally identifiable information ("PII") of approximately
200,000 current and former AOC patients, Collins, Paulette
Moreland, and Kathryn Strickland filed a putative class action.  

The Plaintiffs allege that the hack took place and was discovered
by AOC in June 2016, and that AOC notified them of the breach in
August 2016.  The Dark Overlord apparently gained access to the PII
database by using a third-party vendor's log-in credentials, and
when AOC refused to pay a ransom for the information, the Dark
Overlord offered some of it for sale on the "Dark Web," and made
some of it at least temporarily available on Pastebin, a
data-storage website designed to facilitate the sharing of large
amounts of data online.

The Plaintiffs allege that the data breach exposes them to the
threat of identity theft and other harm.  All of the three
Plaintiffs were notified that their information had been
compromised, and spent time placing fraud or credit alerts on their
credit reports.  Only Collins had fraudulent charges made on her
credit card and spent time getting them reversed.

On Jan. 20, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed a putative class action
alleging violation of the Georgia Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices
Act ("OCGA"), breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and
negligence.  The Plaintiffs also seek a declaratory judgment and
attorney fees.  They seek reimbursement for costs incurred and
future costs to be incurred for the purchase of credit monitoring
and identity theft protection, or the placing of credit freezes on
their accounts, as well as injunctive relief.

On June 26, 2017, the trial court granted AOC's motion to dismiss.
T he Plaintiffs appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by
implicitly finding that they failed to state a claim and lacked
standing under Article III of the United States Constitution; and
by relying on facts outside the four corners of the complaint.

While credit monitoring and other precautionary measures are
undoubtedly prudent, Judge Ray finds that they are not recoverable
damages on the facts before us because the Plaintiffs seek only to
recover for an increased risk of harm.  He finds that, as in the
context of medical monitoring in toxic tort cases, prophylactic
measures such as credit monitoring and identity theft protection
and their associated costs, which are designed to ward off exposure
to future, speculative harm, are insufficient to state a cognizable
claim under Georgia law.

Because the Plaintiffs have not alleged a legally cognizable claim,
their claim for breach of implied contract also must fail.  The
Judge finds that he tharms alleged in the complaint are too
speculative under our law to constitute "damages" and the
Plaintiffs seek a prophylactic recovery, for which the law does not
provide.

As for their declaratory judgement claim, the Judge finds that the
Plaintiffs cite to no Georgia authority requiring AOC to provide
them with credit monitoring or identity theft protection at this
juncture, nor does the Court discern any.  Further, although the
Plaintiffs contend that they need court guidance to protect them
from the uncertainty of AOC's inability to safeguard their PII, the
pleadings do not actually show any uncertainty which a declaration
by a court would resolve.

Judge Ray disagrees with the Plaintiffs' argument that the trial
court erred in dismissing their claims under the Georgia Uniform
Deceptive Trade Practices Act ("UDTPA").  He says the Plaintiffs do
not allege any future, nonspeculative harm which an injunction
would remedy.  It is impossible to say whether the Dark Overlord or
anyone else with access to the stolen data actually will use that
data.  To receive relief, at the very minimum, the Plaintiffs must
show some causal connection between something AOC has done and
their own nonspeculative damages.

Because the Plaintiffs did not plead unjust enrichment as an
alternate theory of recovery based on a failed contract, their
claim for such relief cannot succeed.

Finally, the Plaintiffs argue that the trial court erred in
dismissing their claim for attorney fees under OCGA Section
13-6-11.  However, attorney fees and litigation expenses under OCGA
Section 13-6-11 are ancillary and recoverable only where other
elements of damage are recoverable on the underlying claims.

For these reasons, Judge Ray affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 27, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/B1YJ4a from Leagle.com.

David Andrew Bain -- Send Email -- for Appellant.

Mark S. Goldman -- mgoldman@labaton.com -- for Appellant.

Douglas J. Bench -- bench@lawgsp.com -- for Appellant.

John Durand Dalbey -- jddalbey@cclblaw.com -- for Appellee.

B & C TOWING: N.J. App. Div. Reverses Denial of Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, reversed the
District Court's Order denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification in the cases captioned ERNICE PISACK, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Respondent, v. B & C TOWING, INC.,
Defendant-Respondent/Cross-Appellant, and MARIE J. CAVALCHIRE and
ALAN ANTHONY YOUNG, Defendants, and B & C TOWING, INC.,
Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent/Cross-Appellant, v. THE
CITY OF NEWARK, Third-Party Defendant-Respondent; EPTISAM
PELLEGRINO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NICK'S TOWING SERVICE, INC.,
Defendant-Respondent, and NICHOLAS TESTA and SUSAN TESTA,
Defendants. CHRISTOPHER WALKER, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ALL POINTS AUTOMOTIVE &
TOWING, INC., Defendant-Respondent, and THOMAS LOCICERO, Defendant,
Docket Nos. A-2546-16T4, A-5399-16T3, A-5668-16T3 (N.J. Super. App.
Div.).

These three appeals involve the non-consensual towing of vehicles
and raise questions concerning the Predatory Towing Prevention Act
(Towing Act), the Consumer Fraud Act (CFA), and the
Truth-In-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act (TCCWNA).

Walker

Christopher Walker was driving his vehicle in River Edge when he
was stopped by a police officer. The officer observed the vehicle
was not registered. Thus, the officer issued Walker a summons and
directed that the vehicle be towed and held until Walker registered
the vehicle. Defendant All Points Automotive & Towing, Inc. (All
Points Towing), which had a contract with River Edge, towed
Walker's vehicle.  Walker filed a complaint on behalf of himself
and similarly situated individuals against All Points Towing and
its owner. Walker alleged that the Towing Act did not permit an
administrative charge for the non-consensual towing of a vehicle
that was not involved in an accident. Walker contended that the
administrative charge violated the Towing Act, the CFA, and the
TCCWNA.

Pisack

The son of Bernice Pisack illegally parked her car on a public
street in Newark. The Newark Police contacted B & C Towing, Inc.
(B&C Towing) and directed it to tow Pisack's vehicle to its lot.
B&C Towing had a contract with Newark to provide such towing
services.  Bernice Pisack filed a proposed class action against B&C
Towing and its owners, alleging violations of the Towing Act, the
CFA, and the TCCWNA. Specifically, Pisack challenged the labor
charge and the administrative fee.

Pellegrino

Eptisam Pellegrino was involved in a motor vehicle accident in East
Rutherford. At the direction of the East Rutherford Police, Nick's
Towing Service, Inc. (Nick's Towing), towed Pellegrino's vehicle.
Three days later, Pellegrino contacted Nick's Towing to inquire
about the charges related to the towing and storage services. She
was informed that the charges totaled $448.36, and she authorized
Nick's Towing to charge her credit card.  Pellegrino filed a
complaint on behalf of herself and similarly situated individuals
against Nick's Towing and its owners. Pellegrino alleged that the
yard charge, the credit card surcharge, the administrative charge,
and the storage fee violated the Towing Act, the CFA, and the
TCCWNA.

The Towing Act

The Towing Act requires the Director of the Division of Consumer
Affairs (Director) to establish, by regulation, a schedule of the
services for which a towing company can charge fees in connection
with the non-consensual towing of a motor vehicle. The Towing Act
also provides that the fees charged "shall be reasonable and not
excessive and defines presumptively unreasonable and excessive. A
fee is presumed to be unreasonable if it is more than twenty-five
percent greater than fees charged to consumers who consent to the
tow, or more than fifty percent higher than fees charged by towing
companies in the municipality from which the vehicle was towed.

The CFA

To obtain relief under the CFA, a consumer must prove: "1) unlawful
conduct by defendant; 2) an ascertainable loss by plaintiff; and 3)
a causal relationship between the unlawful conduct and the
ascertainable loss.

The TCCWNA

A plaintiff bringing a claim under the TCCWNA must establish that
he or she is an aggrieved consumer and the defendant violated a
clearly established legal right or responsibility.

Whether the Towing Act Requires the Exhaustion of Administrative
Remedies

The Towing Act does not mandate administrative remedies. The Towing
Act itself uses only the word "may."  Specifically, the provision
defining unlawful practice states: "In addition to any penalties or
other remedies provided in the CFA, the Director may order a towing
company that has billed a consumer for any non-consensual towing or
related storage an amount determined by the Director to be
unreasonable to reimburse the consumer for the excess cost with
interest."

That regulatory language does not create administrative remedies
that preclude an aggrieved vehicle owner from pursuing a claim in
court. The word "shall" is used in connection with the direction
that the vehicle owner and towing company use good faith efforts to
try to resolve a dispute. There is no mandatory language requiring
further administrative dispute resolution efforts. Where a
statutory provision contains both the words 'may' and 'shall,' it
is presumed that the lawmaker intended to distinguish between them,
'shall' being construed as mandatory and 'may' as permissive.

In addition, the statutory provision that gives the Director the
permissive "may" authority to order a reimbursement also states
that it is an unlawful practice and a violation of the CFA to
violate any provision of the Towing Act. That statutory provision
further provides that the Director's authority to order a
reimbursement is in addition to any penalties or other remedies
provided in the CFA.  Consequently, the Legislature contemplated
that vehicle owners could file their CFA claims in court, and
nothing in the Towing Act or its regulations limits that right.

Whether Towing Companies Have Derivative Immunity Under the TCA

The TCA creates certain limited exceptions to the sovereign
immunity enjoyed by governmental entities.  Accordingly, the TCA
applies to governmental entities and their employees. It expressly
excludes independent contractors from the definition of employees.


The Legislature did not address sovereign immunity or the TCA in
the Towing Act. To accept the argument that towers are protected by
sovereign immunity would render the Towing Act inapplicable any
time the police directed a vehicle to be towed. Such a construction
would be inconsistent with the plain language of the Towing Act and
undermine its purpose, and is not required by the TCA. Thus, we
hold that there is no derivative immunity under the TCA for alleged
violations of the Towing Act committed by a privately-owned towing
company.

Whether the Towing Act Limits the Types of Services for Which a
Towing Company Can Charge a Fee

The Towing Act then provides that it is an unlawful practice for
any towing company to charge a fee not listed on the schedule of
services established by the Director.

The regulations also provide that a towing company may charge for
tolls it incurs driving to the site from which a motor vehicle will
be towed and while towing the motor vehicle from that site to the
towing company's storage facility. Finally, the regulations state
that a towing company shall not charge any fee for non-consensual
towing and related storage services not included in the schedule.


In short, if a service is not listed on the Director's schedule, a
towing company cannot charge for that service. In addition, any fee
for a permitted service must be charged consistent with the
requirements and limitations in the Towing Act and its
regulations.

Whether Plaintiffs Can Pursue Claims Under the TCCWNA

A consumer is defined under the TCCWNA as any individual who buys,
leases, borrows, or bails any money, property or service which is
primarily for personal, family or household purposes.
Here, the vehicle owners meet the definition of a consumer. The
Legislature defined a vehicle owner under the Towing Act as a
consumer. Like the Towing Act, the TCCWNA is remedial legislation
intended to protect consumers. It is therefore logical to give a
consistent construction to terms used in both statutes.
Accordingly, if vehicle owners are consumers under the Towing Act,
they also should be considered consumers under the TCCWNA.

The inclusion of prohibited charges in the bill deceives a consumer
into thinking that they are enforceable. Charges not permitted by
the Towing Act violate a clearly established legal right or
responsibility. Finally, if the vehicle owner paid for unauthorized
services, the owner has suffered an ascertainable loss.
Accordingly, towing bills with prohibited charges are the type of
deceptive consumer transaction that the Legislature aimed to
prevent under the TCCWNA.

Whether Plaintiffs Have Asserted Certain Claims That Can Be Pursued
As Class Actions

Depending on the facts developed after discovery, violations of the
Towing Act, as well as the related claims under the CFA and the
TCCWNA, may be appropriate for class certification. For example,
claims against a towing company that uniformly charges a relatively
modest fee for a service or services not permitted under the Towing
Act and its regulations, may be well suited for class
certification. One consumer may not think it worthwhile to pursue
such a claim, but if there are hundreds of such aggrieved
consumers, a class may be appropriate.

In summary, all three orders on appeal are reversed and the matters
are remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

A full-text copy of the Superior Court's June 14, 2018 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ybsxg79c from Leagle.com.

Andrew R. Wolf -- awolf@wolflawfirm.net -- argued the cause for
appellant/cross-respondent in A-2546-16 and appellant in A-5668-16
(The Wolf Law Firm, LLC, and Christopher J. McGinn, attorneys;
Matthew S. Oorbeek -- moorbeek@wolflawfirm.net -- on the briefs).

Andrew R. Wolf argued the cause for appellant in A-5399-16 (The
Wolf Law Firm, LLC, andEdwyn D. Macelus , attorneys; Matthew S.
Oorbeek , on the briefs).

Gabriel H. Halpern -- ghalpern@pinilishalpern.com -- argued the
cause for respondent/cross-appellant in A-2546-16 (Pinilis Halpern,
LLP, attorneys; Gabriel H. Halpern, of counsel and on the brief).

Steven F. Olivo -- smo.attystfo@snet.net -- Assistant Corporation
Counsel, argued the cause for respondent in A-2546-16 (Kenyatta K.
Stewart -- Kenyatta.stewart@hunthamlinridley.com -- Corporation
Counsel, attorney; Steven F. Olivo, on the brief).

Jeremy B. Stein -- jstein@hdrbb.com -- argued the cause for
respondent in A-5399-16 (Hartmann Doherty Rosa Berman & Bulbulia,
LLC, attorneys; Paul S. Doherty, III -- pdoherty@hdrbb.com -- and
Jeremy B. Stein, on the brief).

Brian T. Giblin, Sr. , argued the cause for respondent in A-5668-16
(Giblin & Gannaio, attorneys; Brian T. Giblin, Sr., and Brian T.
Giblin, Jr. , on the brief).

BAY RIDGE HOSPITALITY: Santamaria Action to Recover Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Yonathan Carolyn Javier and Yonathan Santamaria, on behalf of
themselves and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
Bay Ridge Hospitality, LLC, Carlo D'Ambrosi, Paul DiDonato and John
Does 1 through 10, inclusive Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-04395 (E.D.
N.Y., August 2, 2018), seeks to recover compensation for wages paid
at less than the statutory minimum wage, unpaid wages from
defendants for overtime work for which they did not receive
overtime premium pay as required by law, and liquidated damages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

Bay Ridge Hospitality operates as Grotto Italian Table, an Italian
restaurant in Brooklyn. Javier was employed as a waitress while
Santamaria was employed as busboy, waiter and barback.

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.

BAYADA HOME: Court Certifies Class of Home Health Workers
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHELE KENNETT, individually and on behalf of the
Proposed Colorado Rule 23 Class, Plaintiff, v. BAYADA HOME HEALTH
CARE, INC., Defendant, Civil Action No. 14-cv-02005-CMA-MJW (D.
Colo.), Judge Christine M. Arguello of the U.S. District Court for
the District of Colorado granted Kennett's Uncontested Motion for
Class Certification Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23
and Stipulation as to Monetary Relief.

The Plaintiff initiated the action in 2014 on her own behalf and on
behalf of a proposed class of hourly home health care workers
employed by the Defendant in Colorado.  She alleges the Defendant
violated Colorado's wage and hour laws and seeks unpaid overtime
wages.  The Defendant has long argued that the Plaintiff and
members of the proposed class constituted "companions" and were
therefore expressly excluded from the minimum wage and overtime
obligations of the Colorado Wage Act and related orders, consistent
with the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Pursuant to the Court's scheduling order, the action has proceeded
in two stages.  The first phase has focused on the Defendant's
companion exemption defense.  In February 2015, the parties filed
separate Motions for Summary Judgment on the Defendant's companion
exemption defense.  On Sept. 24, 2015, the Court concluded that the
Defendant's companion exemption defense was inapplicable and that
the Plaintiff was not barred from overtime pay under Colorado's
statutes and regulations.  It therefore denied the Defendant's
Motion for Summary Judgment and granted the Plaintiff's Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment.

The Defendant subsequently filed and the Court denied its Motion
for Reconsideration or, in the Alternative, to Certify the Court's
Sept. 24, 2015, Order for Interlocutory Appeal.  In February 2016,
the Defendant filed a Motion for Certification of a Question of Law
to the Colorado Supreme Court, and on May 31, 2016, the Court
certified the Defendant's question to the Colorado Supreme Court
and stayed the action.  The Colorado Supreme Court declined to
answer the certified question on June 16, 2016, concluding the
first phase of the litigation.

The second phase of litigation has focused on the class
certification and the damages.  The parties engaged in negotiations
after the Colorado Supreme Court declined to address the certified
question.  Because the Defendant asserted its intent to appeal the
Court's conclusion as to its companion exemption defense to the
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, the parties did not reach a
settlement agreement.  They did, however, agree to an amended
scheduling order in which they would conduct discovery on class
certification and damages and then stipulate to class certification
and to a judgment on damages.  The Plaintiff would then file a
motion for attorneys' fees and costs, and the Defendant would file
a Notice of Appeal.  The Court entered the Amended Scheduling Order
on Oct. 25, 2016.  Over the course of several months, the parties
exchanged information and engaged in good faith discussions to
reach a stipulation.

The parties have now reached a stipulation concerning the amount of
damages owed to the Plaintiff and the members of the putative
class, including prejudgment interest.  The Plaintiff describes in
the Motion presently before the Court that the parties agree that
the putative class is owed $282,273.87 of overtime pay for the
two-year class period at issue, and prejudgment interest of
$109,889.29.  The Attorneys' fees will be addressed following the
Court's entry of Judgment, as contemplated in the Amended
Scheduling Order dated Oct. 25, 2016.  The Additional attorneys'
fees and post-judgment interest will be addressed, if necessary,
after the conclusion of the Defendant's appeal to the Tenth
Circuit.

In accordance with the parties' agreement, the Plaintiff seeks to
certify the class, pursuant to Rule 23, of all individuals who are
or have been employed by the Defendant as hourly paid home health
care workers in Colorado from July 21, 2012, through Nov. 15,
2015."

The Plaintiff also asks the Court to appoint her as the class
representative, and Rachhana T. Srey and Robert L. Schug of Nichols
Kaster, PLLP as the class counsel, and to approve the parties'
proposed notice to the class.  The Plaintiff represents that the
Defendant does not contest these requests, and it has not responded
to the Plaintiff's Motion.

Judge Arguello is satisfied that the Plaintiff's proposed class
satisfies the four prerequisites of Rule 23(a), as well as the
elements of Rule 23(b)(3).  Accordingly, she granted the
Plaintiff's Uncontested Motion for Class Certification Pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and Stipulation as to Monetary
Relief.  

Having found the requirements of Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3)
satisfied, she certified the class, under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23, of all individuals who are or have been employed by
the Defendant as hourly paid home health care workers in Colorado
from July 21, 2012, through Nov. 15, 2015.

The Judge appointed Rachhana T. Srey and Robert L. Schug of Nichols
Kaster, PLLP as the class counsel in the matter.  She approved the
Plaintiff's stipulated proposed Class Notice.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 27, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/bkiU7i from Leagle.com.

Michele Kennett, individually and on behalf of the Proposed
Colorado Rule 23 Class, Plaintiff, represented by Robert Loren
Schug -- schug@nka.com -- Nichols Kaster, PLLP & Rachhana T. Srey
-- srey@nka.com -- Nichols Kaster, PLLP.

Bayada Home Health Care, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jacob M.
Theis -- jtheis@pennstatehealth.psu.edu -- Buchanan Ingersoll &
Rooney, P.C. & Thomas G. Collins -- thomas.collins@bipc.com --
Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney, P.C..

BIGHAM CABLE: Pettiford Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chad Pettiford on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Bigham Cable Construction Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 18-cv-00109, (M.D. Ga., May 29, 2018), seeks compensation
for all unpaid and underpaid wages, liquidated damages, litigation
costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees and such other and further
relief under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act.

Bigham operates a telecommunication construction business. It
primarily installs, repairs, and maintains main telecommunication
lines. Plaintiff worked for Defendant as an aerial cable installer.
He claims to be denied overtime pay for hours rendered in excess of
40 per work week. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael J. Moore. Esq.
      Aimee J. Hall, Esq.
      POPE, MCGLAMRY, KILPATRICK, MORRISON AND NORWOOD P.C.
      3391 Peachtree Road, Suite 300
      Atlanta, GA 30326
      Tel: (404) 523-7706
      Fax: (404) 524-1648
      Email: michaelmoore@pmkm.com
             aimeehall@pmkm.com
             efile@pmkm.com

             - and -

      David W. Garrison, Esq.
      Joshua A. Frank, Esq.
      BARRET, JOHNSTON, MARTIN & GARRISON LLC
      414 Union Street, Suite 900
      Nashville, TN 37219
      Tel: (615) 244-2202
      Fax: (615) 252-3798
      Email: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com
             jfrank@barrettjohnston.com


BIRCH'S BREWHOUSE: Servers/Bartenders Seek Unpaid Wages, Damages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Zajec and Jacalyn Dunham, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated Plaintiffs, v. Birch's Brewhouse, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 27-CV-18-9051, (D. Minn., May 29, 2018), seeks
unpaid wages and an equal amount of liquidated damages, reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs and all other relief under the Minnesota
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Birch's Brewhouse employed Plaintiffs as servers and/or bartenders
at its restaurant, Birch's on the Lake Brewhouse. Defendant
required its employees to pool their gratuities for distribution to
other employees, including servers, bartenders and indirect service
employees such as bussers and food runners. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      A. L. Brown, Esq.
      Joshua Williams, Esq.
      CAPITOL CITY LAW GROUP, LLC
      413 Wacouta Street, Suite 140
      Saint Paul, MN 55101
      Telephone: (651) 705-8580
      Facsimile: (651) 705-8581


CALIFORNIA: State Judge Salary Increase Ruling Enforcement Upheld
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ROBERT MALLANO, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOHN
CHIANG et al., Defendants and Appellants, Case No. B285285 (Cal.
App.), Judge Victoria M. Chavez of the Court of Appeals of
California for the Second District, Division Two, affirmed the
trial court's order enforcing the declaratory judgment entered on
March 10, 2016, in favor of Mallano, individually and on behalf of
a class of similarly situated persons.

The declaratory judgment states that salary increases for
California state judges were mandated as follows: 0.97% for fiscal
year 2008-2009, 0.10% for fiscal year 2009-2010, 0.11% for fiscal
year 2010-2011, 0.22% for fiscal year 2013-2014, and 2.4% for
fiscal year 2015-2016.  The judgment also specifies the salary
amounts that were to be the bases for payments to class members for
each of the specified fiscal years and states that the Plaintiffs
are entitled to payments and benefits based on those salary amounts
as well as interest at 10% per annum on unpaid sums from the dates
on which such sums vested until they are paid.  Following entry of
the judgment, the trial court awarded the Plaintiffs their attorney
fees.

The Defendants appealed from the judgment and the award of attorney
fees, and the Court in a previous opinion affirmed both the
judgment and the fee award.  The remittitur was issued on June 14,
2017.

Following issuance of the remittitur, the Defendants refused the
Plaintiff's request to pay unpaid salaries and benefits in
accordance with the amounts set forth in the judgment; and on June
19, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a motion for an order enforcing the
judgment.  The trial court granted the motion and issued an
enforcement order on July 28, 2017.  The appeal followed.

The Defendants raise the following contentions on appeal: (i) the
trial court lacked authority to order payment of back wages and
benefits in a declaratory relief action in which no claim for
damages was asserted; (ii) the trial court lacked authority to
order monetary payments when enforcing a judgment that included no
monetary relief; (iii) the trial court improperly denied the
Defendants the opportunity to litigate the statute of limitations
and other affirmative defenses; (iv) the Government Code provides
that the class members may only seek monetary relief against the
Defendants by filing and adjudicating individual petitions for writ
mandate; and (v) the 10% per annum interest rate specified in the
judgment is unlawful.

Judge Chavez rejects the Defendants' contention that the trial
court lacked authority to order monetary payments when enforcing
the declaratory judgment.  The trial court's retention of
jurisdiction to enforce the terms of that declaratory judgment
included the authority to enforce the Plaintiffs' entitlement to
payments and benefits.

Contrary to what they contend, the Judge finds that the Defendants
were not denied the opportunity to litigate the statute of
limitations or other affirmative defenses8 that might bar some
class members' claims for unpaid salaries.  The Defendants did not
argue during class certification proceedings that individualized
issues concerning the statute of limitations or any other
affirmative defense precluded individual class members from
adjudicating their entitlement to past salary increases or
benefits, nor did they seek to decertify the class on the basis of
any such individualized issues.  Nothing in the record indicates
that the trial court precluded defendants from doing so.

As to the Defendants' contention that under Government Code section
965.7, the class members can seek monetary relief against the state
only by filing individual petitions for writ of mandate and
separately adjudicating their entitlement to past salary increases,
the Judge holds that Government Code section 965.7 does not require
each of the Plaintiffs to obtain unpaid salaries and benefits by
bringing individual petitions for writ of mandate.

Finally, the Judge's opinion in the prior appeal affirmed the
judgment in its entirety, including the 10% per annum interest
rate.  Moreover, the Defendants forfeited the issue by failing to
raise in the trial court any argument concerning the impact of
subdivision (f) of Government Code section 68203 at the time the
declaratory judgment was entered, or in opposing the Plaintiff's
motion for an order enforcing the judgment.  She therefore does not
address the issue.

For these reasons, Judge Chavez affirmed the order enforcing the
judgment, including the provision for pre and post judgment
interest thereon at the rate of 10% per annum from the date on
which the additional payment should have been paid to the actual
date of payment.  The Plaintiff is awarded his costs on appeal.

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

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, Raoul D. Kennedy --
raoul.kennedy@skadden.com -- Jack P. Dicanio --
jack.dicanio@skadden.com -- and William J. Casey --
william.casey@skadden.com -- for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Julie Weng-Gutierrez, Assistant
Attorney General, Jennifer M. Kim and Jonathan E. Rich, Deputy
Attorneys General for Defendants and Appellants.

CARPACCIO INC: Underpays Food Runners & Servers, Lopez Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeysson D. Lopez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Carpaccio, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 75031546 (Fla. Cir., Miami-Dade Cty., July 16, 2018) is an
action against the Defendant to recover unpaid overtime and minimum
wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mr. Lopez was employed by the Defendant as a bus boy, food runner,
and server from the year 2004 to September 2017.

Carpaccio Inc., is Florida Profit corporation, having its main
place of business in Miami-Dade County. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CELGENE CORP: Settlement in Principle Reached in JCAR015 Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Celgene 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 parties in JCAR015
related suit agreed to a settlement in principle of the class
action for which the parties will be seeking court approval.

In July 2016, two putative securities class action complaints (the
Veljanoski Complaint and the Wan Complaint) were filed against Juno
and its chief executive officer, Hans E. Bishop, in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington.

On September 7, 2016, an additional putative securities class
action complaint (the Paradisco Complaint and, together with the
Velianoski Complaint and the Wan Complaint, the Complaints) was
filed against Juno, Mr. Bishop, and its chief financial officer,
Steve Harr, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington. The Complaints generally allege material
misrepresentations and omissions in public statements regarding
patient deaths in Juno's Phase II clinical trial of JCAR015 as well
as, violations by all named defendants of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act.

On October 7, 2016, the Complaints were consolidated into a single
action. On December 12, 2016, the court-appointed lead plaintiff
and a named plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint
(Consolidated Complaint), which includes claims against Juno, Mr.
Bishop, Dr. Harr, and Juno's chief medical officer, Dr. Mark J.
Gilbert (the Defendants). The Consolidated Complaint includes
allegations similar to those in the previous Complaints, as well as
additional allegations regarding purported material
misrepresentations and omissions in public statements after July 7,
2016 regarding the safety of JCAR015.

The parties mediated on May 9, 2018, following which the parties
agreed to a settlement in principle of the class action for which
the parties will be seeking court approval.

Celgene said "The settlement amount was not materially different
than the amount we had previously accrued for this matter."

Celgene Corporation, a biopharmaceutical company, engages in the
discovery, development, and commercialization of therapies for the
treatment of cancer and inflammatory diseases worldwide. The
company was founded in 1980 and is headquartered in Summit, New
Jersey.


CHSPSC LLC: 6th Circuit Appeal Filed in Sutton FLSA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Stephen Sutton filed an appeal from a court ruling in his
lawsuit styled Stephen Sutton v. CHSPSC, LLC, et al., Case No.
1:16-cv-01318, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Tennessee at Jackson.

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The appellate case is captioned as Stephen Sutton v. CHSPSC, LLC,
et al., Case No. 18-5790, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Sixth Circuit.

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

   -- Appellant brief is due on September 10, 2018; and

   -- Appellee brief is due on October 10, 2018.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant STEPHEN SUTTON, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Laura Ann Elizabeth Bailey, Esq.
          CRONE & MCEVOY PLC
          5583 Murray Road, Suite 120
          Memphis, TN 38119
          Telephone: (901) 737-7740
          E-mail: lbailey@thecmfirm.com

Defendants-Appellees CHSPSC, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company, f/k/a Community Health Systems Professional Services
Corporation, a/k/a ) Dyersburg Ambulatory Corp., fka Community
Health Systems Professional Services Corporation, aka Dyersburg
Ambulatory Corp.; KNOXVILLE HMA HOLDINGS, LLC, a Tennessee limited
liability company, d/b/a Tennova Healthcare, LLC, a/k/a Dyersburg
Ambulatory Corp,, dba Tennova Healthcare, LLC, aka Dyersburg
Ambulatory Corp.; DYERSBURG HOSPITAL CORPORATION, a Tennessee
Corporation, a/k/a Tennova Healthcare - Dyersburg Regional,
Dyersburg Regional Medical Center, and Ambulance Service of
Dyersburg; and AMBULANCE SERVICES OF DYERSBURG, INC., a Tennessee
Corporation fka Dyersburg Regional EMS, dba Tennova EMS, are
represented by:

          Charles J. Mataya, Esq.
          BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS
          1600 Division Street, Suite 700
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Telephone: (615) 244-2582
          E-mail: cmataya@babc.com



COMMUNITY BANK: Parshall Seeks to Block Sale to CVB Financial
-------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Parshall, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Community Bank, Charles E. Cook, Matthew
Denmark, Kyle R. Jones, Lyle R. Knight, Robert J. Kushner, Marshall
V. Laitsch, Charles D. Mccluer, David R. Misch, Craig H. Stewart
and Kristen D. Stovesand, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-04821 (C.D.
Cal., May 31, 2018), seeks to enjoin Defendants and all persons
acting in concert with them from proceeding with, consummating or
closing the acquisition of Community Bank by CVB Financial Corp.,
or rescinding it in the event defendants consummate the merger.

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

Under the proposed transaction, Community Bank's shareholders will
receive fixed consideration consisting of 9.4595 shares of Parent
common stock and $56.00 per share in cash for each share of
Community Bank common stock they own.

However, says the complaint, the merger documents omitted material
information regarding CVB Financial and Community Bank's financial
projections, as well as the valuation analyses performed by D.A.
Davidson & Co. Said disclosure of projected financial information
is material because it provides stockholders with a basis to
project the future financial performance of a company, and allows
stockholders to better understand the financial analyses in support
of its fairness opinion.

Community Bank is an independent and family-owned Southern
California regional community bank, offering full-service
commercial and retail banking services primarily in Southern
California for small and medium-sized businesses, professionals and
retail customers located in Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino,
and Riverside Counties. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Schumacher, Esq.
      RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
      155 Jackson Street, #1903
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 855-8995
      Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
      Email: ms@rl-legal.com

             - and -

      RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
      300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220
      Wilmington, DE 19803
      Tel: (302) 295-5310
      Facsimile: (302) 654-7530


CONSUMERS ENERGY: Still Defends Gas Index Price Reporting Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Consumers Energy Company 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 continues to
defend itself in the Gas Index Price Reporting Litigation.

CMS Energy, along with CMS MST, CMS Field Services, Cantera Natural
Gas, Inc., and Cantera Gas Company, were named as defendants in
four class action lawsuits and one individual lawsuit arising as a
result of alleged inaccurate natural gas price reporting to
publications that report trade information. Allegations include
price-fixing conspiracies, restraint of trade, and artificial
inflation of natural gas retail prices in Kansas, Missouri, and
Wisconsin.

In 2016, CMS Energy entities reached a settlement with the
plaintiffs in the Kansas and Missouri class action cases for an
amount that was not material to CMS Energy. In August 2017, the
federal district court approved the settlement. Plaintiffs are
making claims for the following: treble damages, full consideration
damages, exemplary damages, costs, interest, and/or attorneys'
fees.

After removal to federal court, all of the cases were transferred
to a single federal district court pursuant to the multidistrict
litigation process. In 2010 and 2011, all claims against CMS Energy
defendants were dismissed by the district court based on FERC
preemption. In 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit reversed the district court decision. The appellate court
found that FERC preemption does not apply under the facts of these
cases.

The appellate court affirmed the district court's denial of leave
to amend to add federal antitrust claims. The matter was appealed
to the U.S. Supreme Court, which in 2015 upheld the Ninth Circuit's
decision. The cases were remanded back to the federal district
court.

In 2016, the federal district court granted the defendants' motion
for summary judgment in the individual lawsuit filed in Kansas
based on a release in a prior settlement involving similar
allegations; the order of summary judgment was subsequently
appealed. In March 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit reversed the lower court's ruling and remanded the case
back to the federal district court.

In March 2017, the federal district court denied plaintiffs' motion
for class certification in the two pending class action cases. The
plaintiffs appealed that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit, which has accepted the matter for hearing.

In June 2017, an unaffiliated company that is also a defendant in
these cases filed for bankruptcy, which could increase the risk of
loss to CMS Energy.

Consumers Energy said "These cases involve complex facts, a large
number of similarly situated defendants with different factual
positions, and multiple jurisdictions. Presently, any estimate of
liability would be highly speculative; the amount of CMS Energy's
reasonably possible loss would be based on widely varying models
previously untested in this context. If the outcome after appeals
is unfavorable, these cases could negatively affect CMS Energy's
liquidity, financial condition, and results of operations."

Consumers Energy Company operates as an electric and gas utility in
Michigan. The company operates Electric Utility and Gas Utility
segments. The company was founded in 1886 and is based in Jackson,
Michigan. Consumers Energy is a subsidiary of CMS Energy
Corporation.


CONTRACT CALLERS: Certification of Class Sought in Voeks Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Voeks moves the Court to certify the class described in the
complaint of the lawsuit styled JULIE VOEKS, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. CONTRACT CALLERS INC.
and JH PORTFOLIO DEBT EQUITIES LLC, Case No. 2:18-cv-01017-NJ (E.D.
Wisc.), and further asks that the Court both stay the motion for
class certification and to grant the Plaintiff (and the Defendants)
relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules
and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the
Motion.

Dicta in the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v.
Gomez, left open the possibility that a defendant facing a class
action complaint could moot a class representative's case by
depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of the
plaintiff's individual claim with the court and having the court
enter judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to the filing of a
class certification motion, the Plaintiff asserts, citing
Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016).

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,
the Plaintiff tells the Court, citing Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco,
Inc., No. 16-3574, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10839 *9-10 (7th Cir. June
20, 2017).  The Plaintiff asserts that one defendant has attempted
a similar tactic by sending a certified check to the proposed class
representative. Bonin v. CBS Radio, Inc., No. 16-cv-674-CNC (E.D.
Wis.); see also Severns v. Eastern Account Systems of Connecticut,
Inc., Case No. 15-cv-1168, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23164 (E.D. Wis.
Feb. 24, 2016).

The Plaintiff is obligated to move for class certification to
protect the interests of the putative class, the Plaintiff
contends.

As the Motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when
short motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended
motion is filed, the Plaintiff asserts.

The Plaintiff also asks to be appointed as class representative,
and for the appointment of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, as class
counsel.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, 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


CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Proceedings in Woodward Suit Stayed
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. William E. Duffin grants the Plaintiff's motion to stay
further proceedings in the lawsuit captioned WILLIAM WOODWARD,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING INC., Case No. 2:18-cv-01015-WED (E.D.
Wisc.).

The parties are relieved from the automatic briefing schedule set
forth in Civil Local Rule 7(b) and (c), according to the Order.
Moreover, for administrative purposes, Judge Duffin states, it is
necessary that the Clerk of Court terminate the Plaintiff's motion
for class certification.  However, Judge Duffin adds, the Motion
will be regarded as pending to serve its protective purpose under
Damasco.

On July 3, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a class action complaint.  At
the same time, the Plaintiff filed what the Court commonly refers
to as a "protective" motion for class certification.

Judge Duffin notes that in Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d
891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011), the court suggested that class-action
plaintiffs "move to certify the class at the same time that they
file their complaint."  "The pendency of that motion protects a
putative class from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs."

Because parties are generally unprepared to proceed with a motion
for class certification at the beginning of case, the Damasco court
suggested that the parties "ask the district court to delay its
ruling to provide time for additional discovery or investigation."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, 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


COPPER THROAT: Guerrero Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
Florentino Venega Guerrero, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Copper Throat Corp. and Warakorn
Siritipakul, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-04835 (S.D. N.Y., May 31,
2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New York Labor Law, including
applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and
costs.

Defendants own, operate, or control a Thai restaurant, located at
123 Ludlow Street, New York, NY 10002 under the name "Copper
Throat" where Plaintiff was employed as a delivery worker.

According to the Plaintiff, he worked for Defendants in excess of
40 hours per week, without appropriate overtime compensation for
the hours worked. Defendants also failed to maintain accurate
recordkeeping of the hours worked and repeatedly failed to pay
Plaintiff wages on a timely basis. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CORECIVIC OF TENNESSEE: Class of Scabies-Infested Inmates Certified
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, WENDY SNEAD and EDWARD MOREDOCK, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CORECIVIC
OF TENNESSEE, LLC, f/k/a CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA,
Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-0949 (M.D. Tenn.), Judge Aleta A.
Trauger of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee, Nashville Division, granted in part and denied in part
the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification.

The original Class Action Complaint initiating the lawsuit was
filed by Snead on June 16, 2017.  Named Plaintiffs Snead and
Moredock filed the First Amended Class Action Complaint on Oct. 27,
2017.  The Amended Complaint asserts claims against the Defendant,
under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, based on the Defendant's alleged
deliberate indifference to the serious medical needs of current and
former inmates while they were incarcerated at the Metro-Davidson
County Detention Facility ("MDCDF") in Davidson County, Tennessee,
a facility operated by CoreCivic, in violation of the inmates'
rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United
States Constitution.

Based on the factual allegations set forth in the Amended
Complaint, the Plaintiffs assert three causes of action under 42
U.S.C. Section 1983: (1) a claim based on the Defendant's
deliberate indifference to the Plaintiffs' and putative class
members' serious medical needs, in violation of the Eighth and/or
Fourteenth Amendment (depending upon the inmates' status as
pretrial detainees or prisoners); (2) a claim based on the inmates'
exposure to, and the Defendant's failure to protect them from, a
state-created danger, in violation of their rights under the Due
Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; (3) a deliberate
indifference claim under the Eighth and/or Fourteenth Amendment,
based on theDdefendant's failure to train medical staff to address
inmates' obvious need to access adequate medical care and
medication or to recognize outbreaks of contagious conditions
including scabies, among other matters.

The Plaintiffs seek to certify three subclasses, defined in their
Motion for Class Certification as follows:

     i. The Scabies Class: All current and former inmates who had a
skin rash consistent with a scabies infestation who were denied
treatment, or whose delayed treatment by the Defendant caused the
inmate's condition to worsen, since Oct. 1, 2016.

     ii. The Denied Prescriptions Class: All current and former
inmates who were prescribed medication that was not administered as
prescribed, or whose prescribed plan of treatment was interrupted
or delayed by the Defendant, since Oct. 1, 2016.

     iii. The Denied Medical Attention Class: All current and
former inmates who requested, but were denied medical attention or
treatment since Oct. 1, 2016.

In support of their bid to bring a class action, among other
things, the Plaintiffs assert that (i) the Defendant has acted or
refused to act in a manner that applies generally to the class,
such that the claims for damages and injunctive relief on behalf of
a class as a whole are appropriate; and (ii) the Plaintiffs have
been injured by the Defendant's actions in the same way as the
other members of the proposed class.

For relief, they seek monetary, compensatory, and punitive damages,
as well as equitable relief in the form of a permanent injunction
enjoining the Defendant, its agents, and employees from continuing
to violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S.
Constitution and to immediately cease intimidating, threatening,
and retaliating against inmates for demanding medical care for
their serious medical needs and to immediately provide adequate
oral and topical medication sufficient to fully treat all those
diagnosed with scabies, and that the Defendant be required to
provide a full medical staff adequate to meet the needs of those
infested with scabies and capable of dispensing medication and
monitoring their treatment until completion.

On Sept. 25, 2017, the case was consolidated for all purposes with
John Doe v. CoreCivic of Tennessee, LLC, No. 3:17-cv-00958, also
pending in the Court, in which the plaintiff purported to bring
suit asserting claims on behalf of a putative class defined as
inmates and former inmates at MDCDF who contracted scabies and were
denied adequate medical attention by the Defendant.  John Doe, like
Snead and Moredock, had already been released from incarceration by
the time he filed his class action.  A First Amended Class Action
Complaint was filed on Oct. 27, 2017, but it did not include John
Doe as a "named" plaintiff.

The Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Class Certification on Dec.
20, 2017.  The motion proposes named Plaintiffs Snead and Moredock
as the representatives for all three subclasses and asserts that
the proposed class and subclasses meet the numerosity, commonality,
and typicality requirements of Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure; that Snead and Moredock are adequate class
representatives; and that a class should be certified under Rule
23(b)(1), (b)(2) and (b)(3).

They filed a Supplemental Memorandum along with a Notice of Filing,
to which are attached excerpts from Snead's and Moredock's
depositions, along with the affidavits of seven putative class
members and one former CoreCivic nurse, and the Declaration of the
Plaintiffs' attorney Bryant Kroll, to which are attached two
grievances that were filed by a current CoreCivic nurse.

CoreCivic has filed a Memorandum of Law in Opposition to
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, arguing that none of
the proposed subclasses meets the requirements for certification
under Rule 23(a) or (b).  The Plaintiffs filed a Reply in further
support of their certification motion.

Judge Trauger granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs'
Motion for Class Certification.  She denied certification of the
"Denied Prescriptions" and "Denied Medical Attention" Subclasses
and denied certification of any class under Rule 23(b)(1) or
(b)(2), because the named Plaintiffs lack standing to bring claims
for injunctive or declaratory relief.  She granted the motion
insofar as it conditionally certifies a class defined as all former
inmates of MDCDF who are not currently incarcerated and who, while
still incarcerated at MDCDF, had a skin rash consistent with a
scabies infestation and who were denied treatment, or whose delayed
treatment caused the condition to worsen, since Oct. 1, 2016.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 27, 2018 Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/cgb07q from Leagle.com.

Wendy Snead & Edward Moredock, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Bryant B.
Kroll -- bkroll@wgaryblackburn.com -- The Blackburn Firm, PLLC,
Jeffery S. Roberts -- Jeff@middletninjury.com -- Jeffrey S. Roberts
and Associates, PLC, R. Joshua McKee -- rjm@rjmckeelaw.com -- The
McKee Law Firm & W. Gary Blackburn -- gblackburn@wgaryblackburn.com
-- The Blackburn Firm, PLLC.

CoreCivic of Tennessee, LLC, formerly known as, Defendant,
represented by Erin Palmer Polly -- erin.polly@butlersnow.com --
Butler Snow LLP.

CoreCivic of Tennessee, LLC, formerly known as Corrections
Corporation of America, Defendant, represented by Jason W. Callen
-- jason.callen@butlersnow.com -- Butler Snow LLP & Joseph F.
Welborn, III -- joe.welborn@butlersnow.com -- Butler Snow LLP.

CREDIT PROTECTION: Thibodeaux Action Disputes Collection Letter
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Thibodeaux, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Credit Protection Association,
L.P. and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00469 (M.D.
N.C., May 31, 2018), seeks damages, attorneys' fees and such other
relief for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Defendant was tasked to collect a consumer debt Thibodeaux owes
Spectrum (formerly Bright House Networks) for telecommunication
services. On or around June 5, 2017 the Plaintiff received a
collection letter from Defendant that states "This account has been
reported to the national credit reporting agencies and can stay on
your account for up to seven years" despite the fact that the said
debt can only be reported on a Plaintiff's credit report for seven
years from the date of default. Thibodeaux's account was in default
well before June 5, 2017. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Asa C. Edwards, Esq.
     4801 Glenwood Ave., Suite 310
     Raleigh, NC 27612
     Tel: (919) 526-0450
     Fax: (919) 882-8763
     Email: aedwards@maginnislaw.com

            - and -

     Yaakov Saks, Esq.
     YAAKOV SAKS
     Stein Saks, PLLC
     285 Passaic Street
     Hackensack, NJ 07601
     Tel: (201) 282-6500
     Fax: (201) 282-6501
     Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com


CTA PIZZA: James Call Files Suit to Recover Proper Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
James Call, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v.
CTA Pizza, Inc., Donald L. Smith, Jr., and Paula J. Smith, Case No.
2:18-cv-00696 (S.D. Ohio, July 17, 2018), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to compensate with minimum wages required by
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff works for Defendants as a pizza delivery driver at
their Gallipolis, Ohio location.

The Defendants operate Domino's Pizza franchises in Ohio and West
Virginia [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew Biller, Esq.
      Andrew Kimble, Esq.
      Markovits, Stock & DeMarco, LLC
      3825 Edwards Road, Suite 650
      Cincinnati, OH 45209
      Tel: (513) 651-3700
      Fax: (513) 665-0219
      E-mail: abiller@msdlegal.com
              akimble@msdlegal.com


CUISINART INC: Wicklund Injured by Lid Defect, Seeks Damages
------------------------------------------------------------
Shelly Wicklund, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Cuisinart, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
18-cv-01284 (D. Conn., August 2, 2018), seeks restitution and
injunctive relief as a result of being scalded by hot chili from
her allegedly exploding Cuisinart pressure cooker, and requiring
Cuisinart to issue corrective actions.

Wicklund purchased the Cuisinart Model Number CPC-600 and claims
that the defective lid locking mechanism gives users a false sense
of safety since it does appear to lock.  However, she was able to
remove the lid and suffered severe injuries when the scalding hot
contents inside exploded out onto her, says the Plaintiff.

Cuisinart, Inc. -- www.cuisinart.com -- manufactures culinary
appliances, cookware, and kitchen accessories.

Wicklund is represented by:

      Marisa A. Bellair, Esq.
      LYNCH, TRAUB, KEEFE & ERRANTE
      52 Trumbull St., PO Box 1612
      New Haven, CT 06506
      Tel: (203) 787-0275
      Email: mbellair@ltke.com

DARP INC: Court Narrows Claims in M. Fochtman's Slavery Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Timothy L. Brooks of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Arkansas, Fayetteville Division, granted in part and
denied in part the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the case, MARK
FOCHTMAN; CORBY SHUMATE; MICHAEL SPEARS; ANDREW DANIEL; FABIAN
AGUILAR; and SLOAN SIMMS Individually, and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. DARP, INC.; HENDREN PLASTICS,
INC.; and JOHN DOES 1-29, Defendants, Case No. 5:18-CV-5047 (W.D.
Ark.).

The case is a putative class action, originally filed in Benton
County, Arkansas Circuit Court on Oct. 23, 2017, and removed to the
Court on Nov. 6, 2017, as Case Number 5:17-CV-05228, Mark Fochtman
and Shane O'Neal v. CAAIR, Inc., Simmons Foods, Inc., DARP, Inc.,
and Hendren Plastics, Inc. ("Fochtman I").  The Court found
jurisdiction is proper under the Class Action Fairness Act, and
denied the Defendants' motions to remand on Feb. 27, 2018.  The
instant case was severed from Fochtman I on Feb. 27, 2018.

The Plaintiffs filed the instant Complaint on March 9, 2018, and
alleged violations of the Minimum Wage Act of the State of Arkansas
("AMWA") (Counts I and II), the Slavery Clause of the Arkansas
Constitution (Count III), and the Arkansas Human Trafficking Act of
2013 (Count IV).  The claims arise from the Plaintiffs' drug-court
ordered participation in DARP's substance abuse recovery program,
where DARP required them to work in Defendant Hendren's plastics
plant.

DARP filed a Motion to Dismiss all counts pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (Doc. 13), and Hendren filed a Motion
to Dismiss pursuant to Rules 12(b)(6) and (7).  Regarding the
alleged AMWA violations in Counts I and II, both Defendants DARP
and Hendren argue that the Plaintiffs fail to state a claim because
no employee-employer relationship existed.  They assert that the
Plaintiffs did not expect to receive compensation for their labor
because they were criminal defendants who voluntarily and knowingly
chose to participate in DARP where work was an essential program
component.  In the alternative, Hendren argues that it did not
violate the AMWA because it paid DARP directly for the hours the
Plaintiffs worked, including overtime.

Regarding the allegations of slavery/involuntary servitude and
human trafficking in Counts III and IV, first, both Defendants DARP
and Hendren argue that the Plaintiffs fail to state valid claims
because they entered DARP voluntarily, and they were free to leave
the program at any time.  Second, they also similarly argue that if
the Plaintiffs received any alleged threats of incarceration while
living at DARP and working for Hendren, such were permissible
reminders about the possible future consequences of quitting the
program.  Third, both the Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs have
not alleged sufficient facts to show that DARP or its agents made
statements that constitute coercion, duress, or menace and rise to
the level of slavery/involuntary servitude.  Fourth, they both
argue that the Plaintiffs participated in DARP as part of the
punishment for a crime they had committed, and the Arkansas
Constitution's Slavery Clause expressly exempts criminal punishment
from its proscription on slavery/involuntary servitude.

Hendren offers three additional arguments regarding the
slavery/involuntary servitude and human trafficking allegations.
First, Hendren argues that the Arkansas Constitution does not
provide for a private cause of action to remedy a violation of the
Slavery Clause.  Next, Hendren argues that the Complaint should be
dismissed because the States of Arkansas and Oklahoma are
indispensable parties under Rule 19, and sovereign immunity
prevents their joinder.  Finally, it argues that the
slavery/involuntary servitude and human trafficking claims should
be dismissed because they are impermissible collateral attacks on
sentences.

Judge Brooks concludes that the Plaintiffs have sufficiently
alleged that the economic reality of their relationships to the
Defendants was one in which they expected at least in-kind
compensation for their work and, thus, could be classified as
employees under the AMWA.  The Plaintiffs claim they were provided
with food, shelter, and other benefits and, thus, plausibly worked
for the Defendants in contemplation of compensation.  The
Defendants' request to dismiss the wage and hour causes of action
under the AMWA in Counts I and II will, therefore, be denied.

In evaluating the facts in Count III of the Complaint, the Judge
finds that the Plaintiffs have not sufficiently alleged a plausible
claim of involuntary servitude or slavery.  First, the Complaint
implies that Defendants had the power to have the Plaintiffs
incarcerated immediately if they left DARP, and this is
implausible.  Second, regardless of whether the Plaintiffs were
court-ordered to DARP from pre- or post-adjudication programs, due
process requires the state to provide notice and a hearing about
any allegations prompting involuntary discharge from a drug-court
program before taking further action.  Finally, even if they faced
the choice between working for the Defendants or going to prison,
such a painful choice is not considered involuntary servitude under
the law.  For all of these reasons, Count III for
slavery/involuntary servitude will be dismissed without prejudice.

The Judge has evaluated the facts in the Complaint and concludes
that the Plaintiffs have not sufficiently alleged a plausible claim
of human trafficking under the AHTA.  First, they've made no
allegations of threats of physical injury or restraint, nor have
they alleged the taking of any tangible personal or real property.
Second, the alleged threats of coercion and compulsion again seem
so highly attenuated as to be implausible.  For all of these
reasons, Count IV will be dismissed without prejudice.

Finally, in evaluating Hendren's argument that the States of
Arkansas and Oklahoma are required and indispensable parties, the
Judge finds that the issue in the case can be resolved by the
current parties, and meaningful relief against the Defendants is
available, including injunctive, declaratory, and monetary relief,
without the states' participation.  Second, Arkansas and Oklahoma
will not be prejudiced by their non-participation in the
litigation.  Nowhere in the instant case does an element of a claim
require a showing that a state drug court's referral to DARP was
improper.  Finally, Hendren's argument that Arkansas and Oklahoma
have a vested interest in the outcome of the case due to the
possible effects that this Court's rulings could have on the drug
courts' referral options is insufficient to justify joinder.

For the reasons he explained, Judge Brooks granted in part and
denied in par Defendants DARP and Hendren's Motions to Dismiss as
follows: (1) the Defendants' Motions to Dismiss Counts I (Failure
to Pay Minimum Wage) and II (Failure to Pay Overtime) are denied;
and (2) the Defendants Motions to Dismiss Counts III
(Slavery/Involuntary Servitude) and IV (Arkansas Human Trafficking
Act) are granted, and Counts III and IV are dismissed without
prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 27, 2018 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/UU6ruf from Leagle.com.

Mark Fochtman, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Corby Shumate, individually, and on behalf of all others,
Michael Spears, individually and on behalf of all others, Andrew
Daniel, individually and on behalf of all others, Fabian Aguilar,
individually and on behalf of all others & Sloan Simms,
individually and on behalf of all others, Plaintiffs, represented
by Jerry D. Garner, Holleman and Associates P.A., John Holleman --
jholleman@johnholleman.net -- Holleman & Associate P.A. & Timothy
A. Steadman, Holleman & Associates, P.A.

DARP, Inc., Defendant, represented by William B. Putman, Putman Law
Office.

Hendren Plastics, Inc., Defendant, represented by Laurence M.
McCredy, Reece Moore Pendergraft LLP & Timothy Chad Hutchinson,
Reece Moore Pendergraft LLP.

DCT INDUSTRIAL: Faces Putative Class Suits over Prologis Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
DCT Industrial Trust Inc. and DCT Industrial Operating Partnership
LP disclosed in their 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 they are facing putative class action
lawsuits related to the proposed merger with Prologis, Inc.

On April 29, 2018, the Company and the Operating Partnership
entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with Prologis, Inc.
("Prologis") and Prologis, L.P. ("PLDOP"), pursuant to which the
Company will be merged with and into Prologis, and the Operating
Partnership will be merged into PLDOP.  The merger consideration
will be approximately US$8.4 billion in a stock-for-stock
transaction, including the assumption of debt.  Under the terms of
the Merger Agreement, DCT stockholders and OP Unitholders will
receive 1.02 Prologis shares and limited partnership interests in
PLDOP, respectively, for each DCT share or OP Unit they own.

On July 2, 2018, DCT, the Operating Partnership, the DCT board of
directors, Prologis, and PLDOP were sued in a putative class action
lawsuit, the Rosenblatt Action, filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Colorado, in connection with DCT's
proposed merger with Prologis and the related Form S-4.

On July 10, 2018, DCT and the DCT board of directors were sued in
another putative class action lawsuit, the Bushansky Action, also
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado, and also in connection with DCT's proposed merger with
Prologis and the related Form S-4.

On July 13, 2018, DCT, the Operating Partnership, the DCT board of
directors, Prologis, and PLDOP were sued in another a putative
class action lawsuit, the Aiken Action, filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Maryland, in connection with
DCT's proposed merger with Prologis and the related Form S-4.

The complaints in the Rosenblatt, Bushansky and Aiken Actions each
allege that DCT and the DCT board of directors violated federal
securities laws by omitting from the Form S-4, and/or
misrepresenting in the Form S-4, material information, rendering
the Form S-4 materially deficient.

Plaintiffs in each of these Actions seek, among other things, (i)
to enjoin the transaction (or rescind it to the extent it is
completed), and (ii) attorneys' fees and costs in connection with
these lawsuits.

The Company said, "If additional similar complaints are filed,
absent new or different allegations that are material, neither DCT
nor Prologis will necessarily announce such additional filings."

DCT Industrial is a leading logistics real estate company
specializing in the ownership, development, acquisition, leasing
and management of bulk-distribution and light-industrial properties
in high-demand distribution markets in the United States.  DCT's
actively-managed portfolio is strategically located near population
centers and well-positioned to take advantage of market dynamics.


DIAMOND RESORTS: Gonzales Suit Disputes Overtime Pay Computation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Gonzalez and Jeffrey Hughes, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Diamond Resorts
International Marketing, Inc., Diamond Resorts International, Inc.,
Diamond Resorts Corporation and West Maui Resorts Partners, L.P.,
Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00979, (D. Nev., May 29, 2018), seeks
all overtime compensation, due under the Hawaii Wage and Hour Law,
liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs
and expenses of this action, together with reasonable attorney's
fees and such other and further relief under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Defendants own and/or manage over 100 ownership resorts, selling
ownership interests in their resort properties to the general
public. Plaintiffs worked as non-exempt Sales Representatives who
worked on-site at one or more of Defendants' resorts.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs frequently worked more
than forty hours in a workweek, but were not properly paid overtime
because regular rate of pay was not computed based on their entire
compensation for a given workweek, but instead excluded their
commission and/or bonus earnings. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael N. Feder, Esq.
      DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC
      8363 West Sunset Road, Suite 200
      Las Vegas, NV 89113
      Telephone: (702) 550-4440
      Facsimile: (844) 670-6009
      Email: MFeder@dickinson-wright.com

             - and -

      Martin D. Holmes, Esq.
      Peter F. Klett, Esq.
      Fifth Third Center, Suite 800
      424 Church Street
      Nashville, TN 37219
      Telephone: (615) 244-6538
      Facsimile: (844) 670-6009
      Email: mdholmes@dickinsonwright.com
             pklett@dickinsonwright.com


DISH NETWORK: Appeal from Krakauer Suit Judgment Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of DISH Network Corporation's subsidiary in the
"Krakauer" suit is still pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Fourth Circuit, 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.

For example, a portion of the alleged telemarketing violations by
an independent third-party retailer at issue in the FTC Action are
also the subject of a certified class action filed against DISH
Network L.L.C. in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina (the "Krakauer Action").

Following a five-day trial, on January 19, 2017, a jury in a
certified class action filed against DISH Network L.L.C. in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of North
Carolina (the "Krakauer Action") found that the independent
third-party retailer was acting as DISH Network L.L.C.'s agent when
it made the 51,119 calls at issue in that case, and that class
members are eligible to recover US$400 in damages for each call
made in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

On March 7, 2017, DISH Network L.L.C. filed motions with the Court
for judgment as a matter of law and, in the alternative, for a new
trial, which the Court denied on May 16, 2017.  On May 22, 2017,
the Court ruled that the violations were willful and knowing, and
trebled the damages award to US$1,200 for each call made in
violation of TCPA.  On April 5, 2018, the Court entered a US$61
million judgment in favor of the class.  On May 4, 2018, DISH
Network L.L.C. filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court
of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

DISH Network said, "During the second quarter 2017, we recorded
US$41 million of "Litigation expense" related to the Krakauer
Action on our Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations and
Comprehensive Income (Loss).  We recorded US$20 million of
"Litigation expense" related to the Krakauer Action during the
fourth quarter 2016.  Our total accrual related to the Krakauer
Action at June 30, 2018 was US$61 million and is included in "Other
accrued expenses" on our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.  We
intend to vigorously defend these cases.  We cannot predict with
any degree of certainty the outcome of these suits."

DISH Network Corporation operates satellite television programming
and technology services in the United States.  It offers HD/DVR
technology; international channels; Internet and phone services;
and DISH Anywhere, an online video site that allows users to watch
TV shows, movies, and clips on computer.  The company is based in
Englewood, Colorado.


DISTINCTIVE MAINTENANCE: Tanooli Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Haroon Tanooli, on behalf of himself and all other Plaintiffs
similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiff, v. Distinctive
Maintenance Company Inc., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-04689, (S.D.
N.Y., May 28, 2018), seeks maximum liquidated damages for late
overtime wages and non-payment of minimum wages, recovery of
compensation for not receiving notices and statements including not
being paid on a weekly basis, and costs and attorneys' fees
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, New York Minimum Wage Act
and New York Labor Law.

Distinctive Maintenance was engaged in the business of providing
building maintenance and repair services. Tanooli was employed by
Defendants as a maintenance worker/porter at Hotel Q, multi-story
hotel located at 76-01 Queens Blvd, Elmhurst, NY 11373 from in or
around December 2014 to April 19, 2018. He worked approximately
45-56 hours a week without overtime pay. Plaintiff also worked a
spread of hours of more than ten hours a day during his employment
but was not paid an extra hour of pay each such day, says the
complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Abdul K. Hassan, Esq.
     ABDUL HASSAN LAW GROUP, PLLC
     215-28 Hillside Avenue
     Queens Village, NY 11427
     Tel: (718) 740-1000
     Fax: (718) 355-9668
     Email: abdul@abdulhassan.com


DOWDUPONT INC: Subsidiary Defends 38 Lawsuits over PFOA Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
DowDuPont Inc.'s subsidiary, E. I. du Pont de Nemours ("DuPont"),
is defending itself against a total of 38 lawsuits related to
alleged personal injury due to exposure to PFOA (collectively,
perfluorooctanoic acids and its salts, including the ammonium
salt), 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.  Specifically, about 35 lawsuits were filed against
DuPont in West Virginia and Ohio at June 30, 2018, and three
lawsuits are pending in federal court in New York.  

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.
A settlement was reached in 2004 that binds approximately 80,000
residents, (the "Leach Settlement").  In addition to paying US$23
million to plaintiff's attorneys for fees and expenses and US$70
million to fund a community health project, DuPont is obligated to
fund up to US$235 million for a medical monitoring program for
eligible class members and to pay administrative costs and fees
associated with the program.  Since the establishment in 2012 of an
escrow account to fund medical monitoring as required by the
settlement agreement, approximately US$2 million has been
contributed to the account and approximately US$1 million has been
disbursed from the account.  DuPont also must continue to provide
water treatment designed to reduce the level of PFOA in water to
six area water districts, including the Little Hocking Water
Association, and private well users.  While it is probable that
DuPont will incur liabilities related to funding the medical
monitoring program and providing water treatment, DuPont does not
expect any such liabilities to be material.

Under the Leach Settlement, DuPont funded a series of health
studies which were completed in October 2012 by an independent
science panel of experts (the "C8 Science Panel").  The C8 Science
Panel found probable links, as defined in the Leach Settlement,
between exposure to PFOA and pregnancy-induced hypertension,
including preeclampsia; kidney cancer; testicular cancer; thyroid
disease; ulcerative colitis; and diagnosed high cholesterol.

Leach class members may pursue personal injury claims against
DuPont only for the six human diseases for which the C8 Science
Panel determined a probable link exists.  Following the Leach
Settlement, approximately 3,550 lawsuits alleging personal injury
claims were filed in various federal and state courts in Ohio and
West Virginia.  These lawsuits were consolidated in multi-district
litigation ("MDL") in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio.

In the first quarter of 2017, the MDL was settled for US$671
million in cash (the "MDL Settlement"), half of which was paid by
Chemours and half paid by DuPont.  At December 31, 2017, all
payments under the settlement agreement were made by both
companies.  DuPont's payment was not subject to indemnification or
reimbursement by Chemours.  In exchange for that payment, DuPont
and Chemours are receiving releases 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.  All of the MDL
plaintiffs participated and resolved their claims within the MDL
Settlement.

The MDL Settlement did not resolve claims of plaintiffs who did not
have claims in the MDL or whose claims are based on diseases first
diagnosed after February 11, 2017.  At June 30, 2018, about 35
lawsuits alleging personal injury, including kidney and testicular
cancer, from exposure to PFOA in drinking water had been filed
against DuPont in West Virginia and Ohio.

In addition, three lawsuits are pending in federal court in New
York on behalf of five individuals who are residents of Hoosick
Falls, New York.  The plaintiffs claim personal injuries, including
kidney cancer, thyroid disease and ulcerative colitis, from alleged
exposure to PFOA discharged into the air and water from nearby
manufacturing facilities owned and operated by defendant third
parties.  Plaintiffs claim that PFOA used at the facilities was
purchased from or manufactured by DuPont and co-defendant, 3M
Company.

DowDuPont Inc., through its subsidiaries, engages in agriculture,
materials science, and specialty products businesses worldwide.
The Company was founded in 1897 and is headquartered in Midland,
Michigan.


DOWDUPONT INC: Unit Faces Consolidated Lawsuit over PFC Discharge
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DowDuPont Inc.'s subsidiary, E. I. du Pont de Nemours ("DuPont"),
is facing a consolidated purported class action related to alleged
discharges of perfluorinated chemicals and compounds ("PFCs") at
the Fayetteville Works facility, 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.

At June 30, 2018, several actions are pending in federal court
against Chemours and DuPont.  These actions have been consolidated
into a single purported class action, on behalf of putative classes
of property owners and residents in areas near or who draw drinking
water from the Cape Fear River.  These actions relate to the
alleged discharge of certain PFCs into the river from the
operations and wastewater treatment at the Fayetteville Works
facility and seek various relief including medical monitoring,
property damages and injunctive relief.  Separate actions filed by
the various North Carolina water authorities including Cape Fear
Public Utility Authority and Brunswick County, North Carolina, have
been consolidated into one action for purposes of litigation and
seek actual and punitive damages as well as injunctive relief.  In
addition, an action remains pending in North Carolina state court
on behalf of about 100 plaintiffs who own property near the
Fayetteville Works facility.  The plaintiffs seek damages for
nuisance allegedly caused by releases of certain PFCs from the
site.

Management believes the probability of loss with respect to these
actions is remote.

DuPont has an indemnification claim against Chemours with respect
to current and future inquiries and claims, including lawsuits,
related to the foregoing.  At June 30, 2018, Chemours is defending
and indemnifying DuPont in the pending civil actions.

DowDuPont Inc., through its subsidiaries, engages in agriculture,
materials science, and specialty products businesses worldwide.
The Company was founded in 1897 and is headquartered in Midland,
Michigan.


EAGLE CAPITAL: Gonzalez Files Suit to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Carlos Gonzalez, and other similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiff(s), v. Eagle Capital Investment Corp. and Patrick Aguila
a/k/a Patricio Aguila, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-22128, (S.D.
Fla., May 30, 2018), seeks unpaid overtime compensation, as well as
an additional amount as liquidated damages, costs and reasonable
attorneys' fees under the provisions of Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff was employed as a maintenance person, working in excess
of 40 hours per week without overtime compensation, notes the
complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


EDISON INTERNATIONAL: San Onofre OII Dismissal Order under Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Edison International 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 plaintiffs appealed
the order of dismissal in the San Onofre OII related suit.

In July 2015, a purported securities class action lawsuit was filed
in federal court against Edison International, its then Chief
Executive Officer and its then Chief Financial Officer. The
complaint was later amended to include SCE's former President as a
defendant.

The lawsuit alleges that the defendants violated the securities
laws by failing to disclose that Edison International had ex parte
contacts with CPUC decision-makers regarding the San Onofre OII
that were either unreported or more extensive than initially
reported.

The initial complaint purports to be filed on behalf of a class of
persons who acquired Edison International common stock between
March 21, 2014 and June 24, 2015 (the "Class Period"). In September
2016, the federal court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the
complaint, with an opportunity for plaintiff to amend the
complaint.

Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint in October 2016, which
the federal court dismissed again with an opportunity for the
plaintiff to amend the complaint. Plaintiff filed a third amended
complaint in May 2017.

In March 2018, the federal court dismissed the third amended
complaint with prejudice and entered judgment in defendants' favor.
Plaintiffs' have appealed the dismissal.

Edison International, through its subsidiaries, engages in the
generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity in the
United States. It generates electricity through hydroelectric,
diesel/liquid petroleum gas, natural gas, nuclear, and photovoltaic
sources. Edison International was founded in 1886 and is based in
Rosemead, California.


EDISON INTERNATIONAL: Still Defends 401(k) Savings Plan Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Edison International 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 continues to
defend a purported class action suit involving the Edison 401(k)
Savings Plan.

In November 2015, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
federal court against Edison International, its then Chief
Executive Officer and its Treasurer by an Edison International
employee, alleging claims under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act. The complaint purports to be filed on behalf of a
class of Edison International employees who were participants in
the Edison 401(k) Savings Plan and invested in the Edison
International Stock Fund between March 27, 2014 and June 24, 2015.


The complaint alleges that defendants breached their fiduciary
duties because they knew or should have known that investment in
the Edison International Stock Fund was imprudent because the price
of Edison International common stock was artificially inflated due
to Edison International's alleged failure to disclose certain ex
parte communications with CPUC decision-makers related to the San
Onofre OII.

In July 2016, the federal court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss the lawsuit with an opportunity for the plaintiff to amend
her complaint. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint in July 2016,
that dismissed Edison International as a named defendant and the
remaining defendants filed a motion to dismiss in August 2016. In
June 2017, the federal court again granted defendants' motion to
dismiss the lawsuit with an opportunity for the plaintiff to amend
her complaint. Plaintiff filed another amended complaint in July
2017.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint and, in
May 2018, the federal court again granted defendants' motion to
dismiss the lawsuit with an opportunity for the plaintiff to amend
her complaint.

Plaintiff elected not to amend her complaint and will have an
opportunity to file an appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals after the lower court enters a final judgment.

Edison International, through its subsidiaries, engages in the
generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity in the
United States. It generates electricity through hydroelectric,
diesel/liquid petroleum gas, natural gas, nuclear, and photovoltaic
sources. Edison International was founded in 1886 and is based in
Rosemead, California.


EL POLLO LOCO: Appeals Class Status Order in "Turocy, et al." Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc., among other defendants, is seeking
appellate review of a portion of the Court's July 3, 2018 class
certification order in the consolidated case of Daniel Turocy, Ron
Huston, et al., according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 27, 2018.

Daniel Turocy, et al. v. El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc., et al. (Case
No. 8:15-cv-01343) was filed in the United States District Court
for the Central District of California on August 24, 2015, and Ron
Huston, et al. v. El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc., et al. (Case No.
8:15-cv-01710) was filed in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California on October 22, 2015.  The two
lawsuits have been consolidated, with co-lead plaintiffs and class
counsel.

A consolidated complaint was filed on January 29, 2016, on behalf
of co-lead plaintiffs and others similarly situated, alleging
violations of federal securities laws in connection with Holdings
common stock purchased or otherwise acquired and the purchase of
call options or the sale of put options, between May 1, 2015 and
August 13, 2015 (the "Class Period").

The named defendants are Holdings; Stephen J. Sather, Laurance
Roberts, and Edward J. Valle (collectively, the "Individual
Defendants"); and Trimaran Pollo Partners, LLC., Trimaran Capital
Partners, and Freeman Spogli & Co. (collectively, the "Controlling
Shareholder Defendants").

Among other things, Plaintiffs allege that, in 2014 and early 2015,
Holdings suffered losses due to rising labor costs in California
and, in an attempt to mitigate the effects of such rising costs,
removed a US$5 value option from the Company's menu, which resulted
in a decrease in traffic from value-conscious consumers.
Plaintiffs further allege that during the Class Period, Holdings
and the Individual Defendants made a series of materially false and
misleading statements that concealed the effect that these factors
were having on store sales growth, resulting in Holdings stock
continuing to be traded at artificially inflated prices.  As a
result, Plaintiffs and other members of the putative class
allegedly suffered damages in connection with their purchase of
Holdings' stock during the Class Period.  In addition, Plaintiffs
allege that the Individual Defendants and Controlling Shareholder
Defendants had direct involvement in, and responsibility over, the
operations of Holdings, and are presumed to have had, among other
things, the power to control or influence the transactions giving
rise to the alleged securities law violations.  In both cases,
Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages, as well as costs
and expenses (including attorneys' fees).

On July 25, 2016, the Court issued an order granting, without
prejudice, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss plaintiff's complaint for
failure to state a claim.  Plaintiffs were granted leave to amend
their complaint, and filed an amended complaint on August 22,
2016.

Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint, and on March 20,
2017, the Court dismissed the amended complaint and granted
Plaintiffs leave to file another amended complaint.

Plaintiffs filed another amended complaint on April 17, 2017.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on or
about May 17, 2017.  The Court denied Defendants' motion to dismiss
the third amended complaint on August 4, 2017.  On December 8,
2017, Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification and on July
3, 2018, the Court granted Plaintiffs' motion and certified a class
as to all of Plaintiffs' claims.

Defendants are currently seeking appellate review of a portion of
the Court's July 3, 2018 class certification order.  Defendants
intend to continue to defend against the claims asserted.

El Pollo Loco is a differentiated and growing restaurant concept
that specializes in fire-grilling citrus-marinated chicken and
operates in the limited service restaurant ("LSR") segment.


EL POLLO LOCO: Class of Stockholders Certified in Turocy Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. David O. Carter grants the Plaintiff's Motion to Certify
Class in the lawsuit styled DANIEL TUROCY, et al. v. EL POLLO LOCO
HOLDINGS, INC., et al., Case No. 8:15-cv-01343-DOC-KES (C.D.
Cal.).

The Court certifies this class as to the Plaintiffs' three claims
under Sections 10(b), 20(a) and 20A of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934:

     All persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
     El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc. ("El Pollo Loco" or the
     "Company") common stock or exchange-traded call options, or
     who sold exchange-traded El Pollo Loco put options (the
     "Securities"), between May 15, 2015 and August 13, 2015,
     inclusive (the "Class Period"), and were damaged thereby.
     Excluded from the Class are Defendants, present or former
     executive officers of El Pollo Loco and their immediate
     family members (as defined in 17 C.F.R. Section229.404,
     Instructions (1)(a)(iii) and (1)(b)(ii)).

Judge Carter appoints Peter Kim, Richard J. Levy, Sammy Tanner, and
Ron Huston as Class Representatives, and Robbins Geller and Rosen
as Class Counsel.  The Court denies the Defendants' Motion to
Strike, grants the Defendants' Request to File a Sur-Reply, and
grants the Plaintiffs' Request to File a Sur-Sur-Reply.

El Pollo Loco is a restaurant chain primarily based in California
that specializes in Mexican-style grilled chicken, among other food
offerings.  The case arises from allegations that between May and
August 2015, El Pollo Loco -- and certain of its directors,
officers, and shareholders -- fraudulently misstated the cause of
declining sales trends in order to improve the market perception of
El Pollo Loco's value.  The case also arises from allegations that
insiders sold about $130 million in El Pollo Loco stock at
fraud-inflated prices on May 19, 2015, during that same time
period, taking advantage of non-public information to obtain
millions of dollars in insider trading profits.


EL POLLO LOCO: Court Certifies 2 Class of Plaintiffs in "Olvera"
----------------------------------------------------------------
El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc. 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 27, 2018, that the court "recently"
certified two class of plaintiffs in the class action initiated by
Elliott Olvera. Specifically, one class encompasses restaurant
employees who were not provided proper rest breaks because they
were not allowed to leave the premises during their breaks and the
other class encompasses restaurant employees who were required to
wait at the restaurant after they finished working for the night
until the manager set the alarm for safety purposes.

On or about February 24, 2014, a former employee filed a class
action in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of
Orange, under the caption Elliott Olvera, et al v. El Pollo Loco,
Inc., et al (Case No. 30-2014-00707367-CU-OE-CXC) on behalf of all
putative class members (all hourly employees from 2010 to the
present) alleging certain violations of California labor laws,
including failure to pay overtime compensation, failure to provide
meal periods and rest breaks, and failure to provide itemized wage
statements.

The putative lead plaintiff's requested remedies include
compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive relief, disgorgement
of profits, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.  No specific
amount of damages sought was specified in the complaint.

The parties executed a Stipulation of Class Settlement and Release
which the court refused to approve on the grounds that it did not
provide sufficient compensation for the putative class members.
Further settlement discussions were not successful.

El Pollo Loco is a differentiated and growing restaurant concept
that specializes in fire-grilling citrus-marinated chicken and
operates in the limited service restaurant ("LSR") segment.


ENBRIDGE ENERGY: Mesirov Replaces Brinckerhoff in Delaware Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Enbridge Energy Management, L.L.C. 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 plaintiff Peter
Brinckerhoff has been dismissed as a named Plaintiff in a class
action filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.
Plaintiff Judy Mesirov filed a Fourth Amended Complaint, which is
substantially the same as the Third Amended Complaint except that
it substitutes Judy Mesirov in place of Peter Brinckerhoff as the
named Plaintiff.  Trial for the fourth amended complaint remains
scheduled for the second quarter of 2019.

On July 20, 2015, plaintiff Peter Brinckerhoff (the Plaintiff),
individually and as trustee of the Peter R. Brinckerhoff Trust,
filed a Verified Class Action and Derivative Complaint in the Court
of Chancery of the State of Delaware against the General Partner,
Enbridge, Enbridge Energy Partner, LP., Enbridge Pipelines (Alberta
Clipper) L.L.C., Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership, the Company,
and the following individuals: Jeffrey A. Connelly, Rebecca B.
Roberts, Dan A. Westbrook, J. Richard Bird, J. Herbert England, C.
Gregory Harper, D. Guy Jarvis, Mark A. Maki, and John K. Whelen,
(collectively, the Director Defendants).  The initial Complaint
asserted both class action claims on behalf of holders of the
Partnership's Class A Common Units, as well as derivative claims
brought on behalf of the Partnership.  The Plaintiff's claims arose
out of the January 2, 2015 repurchase by the Partnership of the
General Partner's 66.67% interest in the pipeline that runs from
the Canadian international border near Neche, North Dakota to
Superior, Wisconsin on the Partnership's Lakehead System (Alberta
Clipper Pipeline), known as the 2015 Transaction.  First, the
Plaintiff alleged that the 2015 Transaction improperly amended
without Public Unitholder consent the Sixth Amended and Restated
Agreement of Limited Partnership (the LPA) so as to allocate to the
Public Unitholders gross income that should have been allocated to
the General Partner (the Special Tax Allocation).  Second, the
Plaintiff alleged that the Partnership paid an unfair price for the
General Partner's 66.67% interest in the Alberta Clipper Pipeline
such that the 2015 Transaction breached the LPA because it was not
fair and reasonable to the Partnership.  The initial Complaint
asserted claims for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of the
covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of residual
fiduciary duties, tortious interference, aiding and abetting, and
rescission and reformation.

On April 29, 2016, the Court of Chancery granted Enbridge's and the
Director Defendants' motion to dismiss and dismissed the case in
its entirety.  On May 26, 2016 the Plaintiff appealed that
dismissal to the Delaware Supreme Court.  On March 20, 2017, the
Delaware Supreme Court reversed in part and affirmed in part the
ruling of the Court of Chancery.  Specifically, the Delaware
Supreme Court affirmed that the enactment of the Special Tax
Allocation did not breach the LPA, but reversed on the question of
whether the Plaintiff had adequately alleged that the price the
Partnership paid in the 2015 Transaction, including the Special Tax
Allocation component, was fair and reasonable to the Partnership.
On November 15, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Verified Second Amended
Complaint (the Second Amended Complaint).  The Second Amended
Complaint added Piper Jaffray & Co. as successor to Simmons &
Company International (Simmons) as a direct Defendant.  Simmons
acted as the financial advisor to the Company's Special Committee
in the 2015 Transaction.  The Second Amended Complaint also revised
many of the allegations against Enbridge and the Director
Defendants.  On December 18, 2017, all Defendants except Simmons
filed their brief in support of their motion to dismiss the Second
Amended Complaint.  On January 19, 2018, Simmons filed its brief in
support of its motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint.

On February 28, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File a
Verified Third Amended Complaint and a Motion to Intervene on
behalf of a proposed new plaintiff, Judy Mesirov (subsequently
amended). On March 23, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Verified Third
Amended Complaint and a Motion for Voluntary Dismissal of
Brinckerhoff. On April 3, 2018, all Defendants filed their briefs
in support of their motions to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint.
Plaintiff Brinckerhoff has now been dismissed as a named Plaintiff.
Plaintiff Mesirov filed a Fourth Amended Complaint, which is
substantially the same as the Third Amended Complaint except that
it substitutes Judy Mesirov in place of Peter Brinckerhoff as the
named Plaintiff. The parties have agreed that a ruling on the
motions to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint will be binding as
to the now-active Fourth Amended Complaint. Oral argument on the
motions to dismiss was held on May 30, 2018. The parties are
currently in discovery, with trial currently scheduled for the
second quarter of 2019.

Enbridge Energy Management, L.L.C. is a limited partner of Enbridge
Energy Partners, L.P., (the Partnership), through its ownership of
i-units, a special class of the Partnership's limited partner
interests.


ENHANCED RECOVERY: Kola Sues Over Illegal Collection
----------------------------------------------------
Age Kola, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
consumers, Plaintiff, v. Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC and John
Does l-25, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-06949 (S.D. N.Y., August 2,
2018), seeks redress for violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

Enhanced Recovery Company -- www.ercbpo.com -- operates a call
center that caters to collections. [BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


ERIE INDEMNITY: 3rd Cir. Denies Petition for Rehearing in "Beltz"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Erie Indemnity Company 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 U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit has denied plaintiffs' petition for
rehearing of their appeal.

On February 6, 2013, a lawsuit was filed in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, captioned
Erie Insurance Exchange, an unincorporated association, by members
Patricia R. Beltz, Joseph S. Sullivan and Anita Sullivan, and
Patricia R. Beltz, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situate v. Richard L. Stover; J. Ralph Borneman, Jr.; Terrence W.
Cavanaugh; Jonathan Hirt Hagen; Susan Hirt Hagen; Thomas B. Hagen;
C. Scott Hartz; Claude C. Lilly, III; Lucian L. Morrison; Thomas W.
Palmer; Martin P. Sheffield; Elizabeth H. Vorsheck; and Robert C.
Wilburn (the "Beltz" lawsuit), by alleged policyholders of Exchange
who are also the plaintiffs in the Sullivan lawsuit. The
individuals named as defendants in the Beltz lawsuit were the
then-current Directors of Indemnity.

As subsequently amended, the Beltz lawsuit asserts many of the same
allegations and claims for monetary relief as in the Sullivan
lawsuit. Plaintiffs purport to sue on behalf of all policyholders
of Exchange, or, alternatively, on behalf of Exchange itself.
Indemnity filed a motion to intervene as a Party Defendant in the
Beltz lawsuit in July 2013, and the Directors filed a motion to
dismiss the lawsuit in August 2013.

On February 10, 2014, the court entered an order granting
Indemnity's motion to intervene and permitting Indemnity to join
the Directors' motion to dismiss; granting in part the Directors'
motion to dismiss; referring the matter to the Department to decide
any and all issues within its jurisdiction; denying all other
relief sought in the Directors' motion as moot; and dismissing the
case without prejudice.

To avoid duplicative proceedings and expedite the Department's
review, the Parties stipulated that only the Sullivan action would
proceed before the Department and any final and non-appealable
determinations made by the Department in the Sullivan action will
be applied to the Beltz action.

On March 7, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Indemnity filed a
motion to dismiss the appeal on March 26, 2014. On November 17,
2014, the Third Circuit deferred ruling on Indemnity's motion to
dismiss the appeal and instructed the parties to address that
motion, as well as the merits of Plaintiffs' appeal, in the
parties' briefing. Briefing was completed on April 2, 2015.

In light of the Department's April 29, 2015 decision in Sullivan,
the Parties then jointly requested that the Beltz appeal be
voluntarily dismissed as moot on June 5, 2015. The Third Circuit
did not rule on the Parties' request for dismissal and instead held
oral argument as scheduled on June 8, 2015. On July 16, 2015, the
Third Circuit issued an opinion and judgment dismissing the appeal.
The Third Circuit found that it lacked appellate jurisdiction over
the appeal, because the District Court's February 10, 2014 order
referring the matter to the Department was not a final, appealable
order.

On July 8, 2016, the Beltz plaintiffs filed a new action labeled as
a "Verified Derivative And Class Action Complaint" in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. The
action is captioned Patricia R. Beltz, Joseph S. Sullivan, and
Anita Sullivan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, and derivatively on behalf of Nominal Defendant Erie
Insurance Exchange v. Erie Indemnity Company; Kaj Ahlmann; John T.
Baily; Samuel P. Black, III; J. Ralph Borneman, Jr.; Terrence W.
Cavanaugh; Wilson C. Cooney; LuAnn Datesh; Patricia A. Goldman;
Jonathan Hirt Hagen; Thomas B. Hagen; C. Scott Hartz; Samuel P.
Katz; Gwendolyn King; Claude C. Lilly, III; Martin J. Lippert;
George R. Lucore; Jeffrey A. Ludrof; Edmund J. Mehl; Henry N.
Nassau; Thomas W. Palmer; Martin P. Sheffield; Seth E. Schofield;
Richard L. Stover; Jan R. Van Gorder; Elizabeth A. Hirt Vorsheck;
Harry H. Weil; and Robert C. Wilburn (the "Beltz II" lawsuit). The
individual defendants are all present or former Directors of
Indemnity (the "Directors").

The allegations of the Beltz II lawsuit arise from the same
fundamental, underlying claims as the Sullivan and prior Beltz
litigation, i.e., that Indemnity improperly retained Service
Charges and Added Service Charges. The Beltz II lawsuit alleges
that the retention of the Service Charges and Added Service Charges
was improper because, for among other reasons, that retention
constituted a breach of the Subscriber's Agreement and an Implied
Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing by Indemnity, breaches of
fiduciary duty by Indemnity and the other defendants, conversion by
Indemnity, and unjust enrichment by defendants Jonathan Hirt Hagen,
Thomas B. Hagen, and Elizabeth A. Hirt Vorsheck, at the expense of
Exchange.

The Beltz II lawsuit requests, among other things, that a judgment
be entered against the Defendants certifying the action as a class
action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;
declaring Plaintiffs as representatives of the Class and
Plaintiffs' counsel as counsel for the Class; declaring the conduct
alleged as unlawful, including, but not limited to, Defendants'
retention of the Service Charges and Added Service Charges;
enjoining Defendants from continuing to retain the Service Charges
and Added Service Charges; and awarding compensatory and punitive
damages and interest.

On September 23, 2016, Indemnity filed a motion to dismiss the
Beltz II lawsuit. On September 30, 2016, the Directors filed their
own motions to dismiss the Beltz II lawsuit. On July 17, 2017, the
Court granted Indemnity's and the Directors’ motions to dismiss
the Beltz II lawsuit, dismissing the case in its entirety.

The Court ruled that "the Subscriber's Agreement does not govern
the separate and additional charges at issue in the Complaint" and,
therefore, dismissed the breach of contract claim against Indemnity
for failure to state a claim.  The Court also ruled that the
remaining claims, including the claims for breach of fiduciary duty
against Indemnity and the Directors, are barred by the applicable
statutes of limitation or fail to state legally cognizable claims.
On August 14, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

On May 10, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit affirmed the District Court's dismissal of the Beltz II
lawsuit. On May 24, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a petition seeking
rehearing of their appeal before the Third Circuit. The Third
Circuit denied that petition on June 14, 2018.

Erie Indemnity Company operates as a managing attorney-in-fact for
the subscribers at the Erie Insurance Exchange in the United
States. The company provides sales, underwriting, and policy
issuance services for the policyholders on behalf of the Erie
Insurance Exchange. Erie Indemnity Company was founded in 1925 and
is based in Erie, Pennsylvania.


EVENTBRITE INC: Wu ADA Suit Says Website not Blind-friendly
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kathy Wu, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Eventbrite, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
18-cv-04688, (S.D. N.Y., May 28, 2018), seeks preliminary and
permanent injunction, compensatory, statutory and punitive damages
and fines, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs and
expenses of this action together with reasonable attorneys' and
expert fees and such other and further relief under the Americans
with Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights Law and New York
City Human Rights Law.

Defendant offers the commercial website www.eventbrite.com which
allows consumers to find information about live events, purchase
tickets, create an event in the State of New York and throughout
the United States and the ability to participate other social
interactive experiences and promotions and other important
information. Plaintiff is legally blind and claims that Defendant's
website cannot be accessed by the visually-impaired. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
      Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
      GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
      150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
      New York, NY 10003
      Tel: (212) 228-9795
      Fax: (212) 982-6284
      Email: nyjg@aol.com
             danalgottlieb@aol.com


FACEBOOK INC: Still Defends Class Suits Related to Data Misuse
--------------------------------------------------------------
Facebook Inc. 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 continues to
defend multiple putative class action suits in connection with the
misuse of certain data by a developer.

Facebook said "we are currently the subject of multiple putative
class action suits in connection with the misuse of certain data by
a developer that shared such data with third parties in violation
of our terms and policies and related matters. We believe these
lawsuits are without merit and are vigorously defending them."

Any negative outcome from any such lawsuits could result in
payments of substantial monetary damages or fines, or undesirable
changes to the company's products or business practices, and
accordingly the company's business, financial condition, or results
of operations could be materially and adversely affected. Although
the results of such lawsuits and claims cannot be predicted with
certainty, Facebook do not believe that the final outcome of those
matters relating to its products that Facebook currently face will
have a material adverse effect on its business, financial
condition, or results of operations.

Facebook, Inc. provides various products to connect and share
through mobile devices, personal computers, and other surfaces
worldwide. Facebook, Inc. was founded in 2004 and is headquartered
in Menlo Park, California.


FARMLAND MUTUAL: Court Narrows Claims in S. Mejia's Wage Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SCARLETTE MEJIA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FARMLAND MUTUAL INSURANCE
COMPANY, an Iowa corporation; and NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE
COMPANY, an Ohio Corporation, Defendants, Case No.
2:17-cv-00570-TLN-KJN (E.D. Cal.), Judge Troy L. Nunley of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California granted in
part and denied in part the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and
Strike Plaintiff's Class Allegation.

The Plaintiff alleges she was jointly employed by the Defendants
from approximately August 2004 until Nov. 18, 2016, as a commercial
underwriter.  According to her, the Defendants stated the incorrect
entity name and address on her paystubs.  The Plaintiff alleges the
name "Farmland Mutual Insurance Co." and the address of "One
Nationwide Plaza 1-01-401, Columbus, OH 4215" is stated on the
paystubs.  She alleges that Farmland's entity name and address
registered with the California Secretary of State is "Farmland
Mutual Insurance Company" and "100 Locust Street, Des Moines, IA
50391" respectively.

The Plaintiff alleges the Defendants intentionally and knowingly
failed to provide an accurate and complete itemized statement
showing the requirements set forth in California Labor Code Section
226(a) because the Defendants did not provide the correct name or
address of the Plaintiff's employer.

Furthermore, she alleges that she suffered injury as a result of
(1) the Defendants' failure to provide a wage statement, and (2)
the Defendants' failure to provide accurate and complete
information as required by any one or more of items (1) to (9),
inclusive, of California Labor Code Section 226(a).  The Plaintiff
also alleges she cannot promptly and easily determine from the wage
statement alone the name and address of the employer.

The Plaintiff seeks to represent a purported statewide class of
employees who worked for the Defendants at any time from Feb. 3,
2016, to the present date who were issued defective paystubs by the
Defendants.

The Plaintiff alleged to the Labor Commissioner that the Defendants
violated California Labor Code Section 226 (Failure to Issue
Accurate Wage Statements).  She received authorization on behalf of
the Labor Commissioner to assess civil penalties against Defendants
under the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA").  The Plaintiff
seeks civil penalties for this violation pursuant to Labor Code
Section 2699(f)(2).  She seeks these civil penalties on behalf of
herself and all other former and current employees of Defendants
pursuant to Labor Code Sections 2699(a) and 2699.3.

The matter is before the Court pursuant to the Defendants' Motion
to Dismiss and Strike Plaintiff's Class Allegations.  The
Defendants argue the Court should dismiss both causes of action
because Labor Code Section 226(a) does not require the name and
address on wage statements to match the name and address registered
with the California Secretary of State.  Additionally, they argue
the Court should strike Plaintiff's class allegations.  The
Plaintiff opposes the motion.  

The Defendants also ask the Court to take judicial notice of a copy
of the Plaintiff's wage statement and a copy of a minute order from
the Superior Court of California in Beach v. Volt Information
Sciences, Inc., Case No. 30-2014-00743759-CU-OE-CXC.  As the
Defendants did not object to the Plaintiff's Request for Judicial
Notice, Judge Nunley will take Judicial Notice of all exhibits
therein.  Similarly, as the Plaintiff did not object to the
Defendants' Supplemental Request for Judicial Notice, he granted
the Defendants' Supplemental Request for Judicial Notice.

After carefully considering the parties' briefing, Judge Nunley
granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' Motion.  He
finds that the Plaintiff's allegations fail to state a claim as a
matter of law, as the name on the wage statement need not match the
name listed with the California Secretary of State.  He also finds
that allowing leave to amend would be futile because the Court
holds the Defendants' provision of the name "Farmland Mutual
Insurance Co." did not violate Section 226 as a matter of law.
Accordingly, he granted without leave to amend the Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's claim for an intentional and knowing
failure to provide accurate wage statements in violation of Labor
Code Section 226(a)(8) insofar as the claim relates to the employer
name stated on the Plaintiff's paystub.

Although the Plaintiff's FAC fails to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted, the Judge finds that the Plaintiff may be
able to amend her complaint to allege that the address provided by
the Defendants does not conform to the plain meaning of "address."
He therefore granted with leave to amend the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiff's First Cause of Action for an intentional and
knowing violation of Labor Code Section 226(a)(8) insofar as it
relates to the address provided on the Plaintiff's paystub.

As to the Plaintiff's second cause of action under the PAGA, the
Judge granted without leave to amend the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss the Plaintiff's PAGA claim for an intentional and knowing
violation of Labor Code Section 226 with respect to the name
provided on the Plaintiff's wage statement.  He granted with leave
to amend the Plaintiff's PAGA claim with respect to the address
provided on her wage statement.

Finally, the Judge concludes that the Defendants' brief discussion
of a lower evidentiary standard and differing penalties fails to
show how the class allegations are redundant, immaterial, and
impertinent.  Therefore, he declined to strike class allegations at
this early stage in the proceedings.

The Plaintiff is afforded 30 days from the date the Order is filed
to file her Second Amended Complaint.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 26, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/CbZ9sD from Leagle.com.

Scarlette Mejia, Plaintiff, represented by Galen T. Shimoda --
attorney@shimodalaw.com -- Shimoda Law Corp. & Justin Paul
Rodriguez -- justinatlaw@yahoo.com -- Shimoda Law Corp.

Farmland Mutual Insurance Company & Nationwide Mutual Insurance
Company, Defendants, represented by Barbara Allyn Blackburn --
bblackburn@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson & Britney Noelle Torres
-- btorres@littler.com – Littler Mendelson, P.C..

FENIX PARTS: Count I in A. Beezley's Securities Suit Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, AMANDA BEEZLEY, Individually, and on Behalf of All
Other Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. FENIX PARTS, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-7896 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Charles Ronald
Norgle of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, granted the Underwriter Defendants'
motion to dismiss Count I of the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint.

Beezley, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, brings the action against Defendants Fenix, Kent
Robertson Scott Pettit, BMO Capital Markets Corp., Stifel, Nicolaus
& Co., Inc., BB&T Capital Markets, and Barrington Research
Associates, Inc., for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Sections 11 and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933.

This is a putative federal securities class action.  The Plaintiffs
are all persons and entities who purchased shares of Fenix
securities: (1) in Fenix's initial public offering on May 15, 2015;
and/or (2) on the public market between May 15, 2015 and June 28,
017.

Fenix is incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in Westchester,
Illinois.  Robertson was the CEO and director of the Company and
Pettit was the Chief Financial Officer of Fenix.  The Underwriter
Defendants (BMO Capital, Stifel, BB&T, and Barrington Research)
served as underwriters of the Company's IPO -- each received an
underwriting discount plus reimbursement for reasonable
out-of-pocket expenses.

The Plaintiff alleges that in order to raise investor interest in
the IPO, Robertson and Pettit misrepresented to potential investors
that Fenix would acquire an additional 10 to 15 companies in the
next two years, one to three per quarter.  To help acquire 10 to 15
companies and continue as a going concern, Fenix entered into an
agreement with BMO Harris Bank N.A., for a proposed $35 million
senior secured credit facility.  The Plaintiff alleges that the
value of Fenix's inventory significantly affected Fenix's ability
to withdraw under the Credit Facility.

Fenix's offering document and registration statement reported that
as of Dec. 31, 2014, the consolidated inventories were valued at
$42,190,000 and the goodwill was valued at $58,879,000.  Fenix
allegedly performed goodwill impairment tests annually during the
fourth quarter and between annual tests.

The Plaintiff alleges that Fenix did not have adequate internal
controls or procedures to prepare, document, or review areas of
significant judgments and accounting estimates, including: purchase
accounting; contingent consideration; potential goodwill
impairment; and inventory valuation.  She argues that as a result
of Fenix's lack of adequate internal controls and procedures, it
was unable to make an accurate inventory valuation.  The Plaintiff
argues that such inability is evidenced by Fenix's disclosure of
$14.88 million loss of value in its inventories within a year of
the registration statement.  Furthermore, despite the alleged
substantial decrease in inventory value, Fenix stated that its
goodwill value had increased $24.792 million to $83.671 million
over the same time period.

Subsequently, the Plaintiff alleges that the SEC began an
investigation into Fenix's change of auditors, the recent goodwill
impairment charge, the effectiveness of its internal control over
financial reporting, and its inventory valuation methodology.  She
alleges that these events result a violation of Fenix's Credit
Facility which created substantial doubt to Fenix's ability to
continue as a going concern and on June 29, 2017, Fenix was
delisted from NASDAQ.

The Plaintiff filed her Amended Complaint Aug. 28, 2017, naming the
Underwriter Defendants as defendants under Count I.  The
Underwriter Defendants now move to dismiss the Plaintiff's claim,
arguing that the claim is barred by the applicable statute of
limitations.

Based on the reasoning provided by the majority and Justice Scalia
in Merck & Co. v. Reynolds, Judge Norgle finds that the Supreme
Court did not intend to extend the actual notice discovery rule to
claims arising under the Securities Act.  Accordingly, he follows
well established Seventh Circuit precedent and uses the inquiry
notice standard to determine when the statute of limitations began
to run.  Inquiry notice means as soon as the plaintiff discovers
facts that while not constituting a violation create enough
suspicion of one to induce a diligent person to investigate further
and by doing so discover it.

The Judge also finds that despite multiple admissions by the
Plaintiff that Fenix's SEC filings and conference calls began to
reveal problems with the projections from the registration
statement as early as March 2016, the Plaintiff failed to file her
Amended Complaint naming the Underwriter Defendants until Aug. 28,
2017.  Under an objective reasonable diligence standard, the only
reasonable inference from the Plaintiff's allegations is that she
had inquiry notice on or before Aug. 28, 2016.  Accordingly, the
Judge will grant the Underwriter Defendants' motion to dismiss
because the statute of limitations had run on the Plaintiff's
claim.

In sum, the Plaintiff alleges that she continually discovered facts
from as early as March 2016 to Aug. 28, 2016, that would have led a
reasonable person to investigate whether she might have a claim.
Thus, the Complaint shows that the Plaintiff had inquiry notice of
the alleged misrepresentations and omissions prior to Aug. 28,
2016.  Accordingly, Judge Norgle granted the Underwriter
Defendants' motion to dismiss.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 26, 2018 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/O7dXjk from Leagle.com.

Amanda Beezley, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Erica Lauren Stone --
estone@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., Ex Kano S. Sams,
II -- esams@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Robert
Vincent Prongay -- rprongay@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay &
Murray LLP, pro hac vice & LAURENCE M. ROSEN --
lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, PA.

Thomas Weeks, Douglas Barnard & Keith B. White, Plaintiffs,
represented by Ex Kano S. Sams, II, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP,
James E. Cecchi -- JCecchi@carellabyrne.com -- Carella Byrne Cecchi
Olstein Brody & Agnesso, P.C., Robert Vincent Prongay, Glancy
Prongay & Murray LLP, pro hac vice, Adam M. Apton -- aapton@zlk.com
-- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, pro hac vice, Adam Christopher McCall --
amccall@zlk.com -- Levi & Korsinsky LLP, pro hac vice, Andrew
Charles Murphy -- acm@ditommasolaw.com -- DiTommaso Lubin, P.C.,
Nicholas Porritt -- nporritt@zlk.com -- Levi & Korsinsky Llp, pro
hac vice, Patrick Doyle Austermuehle --
paustermuehle@ditommasolaw.com -- DiTommaso Lubin, P.C., Peter
Scott Lubin -- psl@ditommasolaw.com -- DiTommaso Lubin
Austermuehle, Vincent Louis DiTommaso -- vdt@ditommasolaw.com --
DiTommaso Lubin, P.C. & EDUARD KORSINSKY -- ek@zlk.com -- LEVI &
KORSINSKY LLP.

Manny Paulo, Plaintiff, represented by Ex Kano S. Sams, II, Glancy
Prongay & Murray LLP, LAURENCE M. ROSEN, THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, PA &
Robert Vincent Prongay, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, pro hac vice.

Fenix Parts, Inc., Kent Robertson & Scott Pettit, Defendants,
represented by Michael J. Diver -- michael.diver@kattenlaw.com --
Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, Michael James Lohnes --
michael.lohnes@kattenlaw.com -- Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP & Eric
Thomas Werlinger -- eric.werlinger@kattenlaw.com -- Katten Muchin
Rosenman LLP, pro hac vice.

BMO Capital Markets Corp., Stifel, Nicolaus & Company,
Incorporated, BB&T Capital Markets & Barrington Research
Associates, Inc., Defendants, represented by Amanda B. Protess --
aprotess@goodwinlaw.com -- Goodwin Procter LLP, pro hac vice, Brian
E. Pastuszenski -- bpastuszenski@goodwinlaw.com -- Goodwin Procter
Llp, pro hac vice, Ezekiel L. Hill -- ehill@goodwinlaw.com --
Goodwin Procter LLP, pro hac vice, Howard L. Teplinsky --
hteplinsky@lgattorneys.com -- Levin Ginsburg & Inez H.
Friedman-boyce -- ifriedmanboyce@goodwinlaw.com -- Goodwin Procter
Llp, pro hac vice.

FIVE GUYS: Oct. 2 Filing Deadline of "Lusk" Class Certification Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JEREMY R. LUSK, on behalf of himself, all others
similarly situated, and the general public, Plaintiff, v. FIVE GUYS
ENTERPRISES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; ENCORE
FGBF, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1-100,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-CV-00762-AWI-EPG (E.D. Cal.),
Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of California, Unlimited Jurisdiction, has
entered a stipulated order extending the class certification motion
deadlines.

On May 2, 2017, the Plaintiff filed putative class action in the
Kings Superior Court alleging the Defendant's various violations of
the Labor Code and the Fair Credit Reporting Act.  

On June 2, 2017, the Defendants removed the action to the Court.

The Court ordered the following briefing schedule for the
Plaintiff's anticipated Motion for Class Certification: Motion for
Class Certification on Aug. 3, 2018, the Defendant's Opposition to
Motion for Class Certification on Sept. 3, 2018, the Plaintiff's
Reply to Opposition to Motion for Class Certification on Sept. 18,
2018, and the hearing on the Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification is not set.

Since January of 2018, the Plaintiff has engaged in extensive
discovery, serving the Defendants with two sets of Interrogatories,
Request for Production of Documents and Request for Admission.

On April 25, 2018, the Defendants took the Plaintiff's deposition.
On May 17, 2018, they served the Plaintiff with two sets of
Interrogatories, Request for Production of Documents and Request
for Admission.

The Parties previously agreed to participate in private mediation.
They've met and conferred and agreed to attend private mediation
with Deborah Crandall Saxe of JAMS.  Due to the availability of Ms.
Saxe as well as various conflicts among the Parties, the first
available mediation date that works for Ms. Saxe and the Parties is
Aug. 22, 2018.

The Parties have scheduled and confirmed Aug. 22, 2018 for the
mediation with Ms. Saxe.  They've met and conferred and agree that
it would be in the interest of justice and preservation of time and
resources for the Parties and the Court to complete mediation
before the Plaintiff files his motion for class certification.

In light of the foregoing, the Parties have agreed to enter into a
Stipulation that will seek an Order to extend the deadlines for the
anticipated briefing schedule for motion for class certification.
They've agreed that, except as otherwise stated, nothing in the
Stipulation will operate as a waiver of any rights they may have in
the action.

Therefore, the Parties, through their respective counsel,
stipulated and Magistrate Judge Grosjean granted, to extend the
class certification motion deadlines as follows:

     a. Last Day to File Class Certification Motion - From Aug. 3,
2018 to Oct. 2, 2018

     b. Last Day to File Opposition to Class Certification Motion -
Sept. 3, 2018 to Nov. 2, 2018

     c. Last Day to File Reply in support of Class Certification
Motion -  Sept. 18, 2018 to Nov. 19, 2018

     d. Hearing on Class Certification Motion - (Currently Not Set)
A Date Most Convenient for the Court

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

Jeremy R Lusk, on behalf of himself, all other similarly situated
and the general public, Plaintiff, represented by Chaim Shaun
Setareh -- shaun@setarehlaw.com -- Law Offices of Shaun Setareh &
Howard Scott Leviant -- scott@setarehlaw.com -- Setareh Law Group.

Five Guys Enterprises LLC, a Delaware limited liability company &
Encore FGBF, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendants,
represented by Kevin V. Koligian -- kkoligian@littler.com --
Littler Mendelson, P.C..

FLOWERS FOODS: Distributors' Suit Seek Unpaid Wages, Damages
------------------------------------------------------------
Gregory Lee Martin, Anthony Wayne Edmonds, Gary Rudolph and Richard
Lewis Reece, Jr., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated Plaintiffs, v. Flowers Foods, Inc. and Flowers
Baking Co. of Jamestown, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00468
(M.D. N.C., May 31, 2018), seeks unpaid wages at overtime rates,
penalties, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs and such other and further legal and
equitable relief under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants distribute bakery and snack food products to retail
customers using a centralized network of communication,
distribution and warehousing facilities. Plaintiffs worked as
distributors for the Defendants, delivering products to customers,
distributors, stocking the products on store shelves and assembling
promotional displays. They were allegedly misclassified as
independent contractors thus denied the rights, obligations,
privileges and benefits owed to them as employees. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Christopher R. Strianese, Esq.
      Tamara L. Huckert, Esq.
      STRIANESE, PLLC
      401 North Tryon St., 10th Fl.
      Charlotte, NC 28202
      Tel. (704) 998-2577
      Fax. (704) 998-5301
      Email: chris@strilaw.com
             tamara@strilaw.com

            - and -

      Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
      James L. Holt, Jr., Esq.
      J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
      Paula R. Jackson, Esq.
      JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT
      262 German Oak Drive
      Memphis, TN 38018
      Tel: (901) 754-8001
      Fax: (901) 759-1745
      Email: gjackson@jsyc.com
             jholt@jsyc.com
             rbryant@jsyc.com
             pjackson@jsyc.com

             - and -

      Michael L. Weinman, Esq.
      WEINMAN THOMAS LAW FIRM
      112 S. Liberty Street, Suite 321
      P.O. Box 266
      Jackson, TN 38302
      Tel: (731) 423-5565
      Email: mike@weinmanthomas.com


FOULKE MGMT: Dismissal Order in J. Stollsteimer's Suit Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOHN C. STOLLSTEIMER and CHERYL R. STOLLSTEIMER,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. FOULKE MANAGEMENT CORP., d/b/a FOULKE
MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, d/b/a CHERRY HILL DODGE CHYRSLER JEEP,
d/b/a CHERRY HILL TRIPLEX, Defendant-Respondent, Case No.
A-1182-17T3 (N.J. Super. App. Div.), the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Appellate Division, affirmed the Oct. 2, 2017 order
dismissing the complaint and compelling arbitration.

On Feb. 19, 2014, the Plaintiffs purchased a new motor vehicle from
the Defendant.  In purchasing the car, they signed a Motor Vehicle
Retail Order Agreement ("MVRO"), which included a description of
the vehicle and the price.  They also signed a retail installment
sales contract ("RISC") and an arbitration agreement.  The MVRO
contained an integration clause, stating any attachments included
all terms and conditions.  The arbitration agreement was attached
to the MVRO.

Over a year after purchasing the vehicle, the Plaintiffs
experienced trouble with the car.  They attempted to have the car
repaired.  When the issues with the vehicle were not remedied, the
Plaintiffs filed a complaint on June 16, 2016.

In the complaint, the Plaintiffs alleged the Defendant violated the
Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act ("TCCWNA"),
N.J.S.A. 56:12-14 to-18.  They also sought class certification.

On Aug. 3, 2016, the Defendant moved to dismiss the Plaintiffs'
complaint and compel arbitration in accordance with the arbitration
agreement.  The Plaintiffs opposed the motion.

On Sept. 20, 2016, the motion judge entered an order enforcing the
arbitration agreement.  The Plaintiffs appealed.  Because that
order was entered without oral argument and without any statement
of reasons, the Court reversed.  It remanded the matter, requesting
the motion judge provide findings of fact and conclusions of law in
accordance with Rule 1:7-4(a).

After hearing oral argument, the motion judge granted the
Defendant's motion to dismiss and compelled the Plaintiffs to
arbitrate their claims.  The judge issued a nine-page written
statement of reasons in support of his Oct. 2, 2017 order.

In the statement of reasons appended to the order, the judge found
the MVRO, the RISC, and the arbitration agreements were a single,
integrated contract.  The judge noted the MVRO established the
price of the vehicle, the RISC confirmed the payment agreement
between plaintiffs and defendant, and the arbitration agreement
governed dispute resolution pertaining to the agreement as a whole.
In addition, the judge determined all three documents were signed
on Feb. ry 19, 2014, the date that the Plaintiffs purchased the
vehicle.  Further, the judge found the MVRO, the RISC, and the
arbitration agreements refer to and acknowledge the existence of
the other documents.

On appeal, the Plaintiffs contend the motion judge erred because:
(1) the arbitration agreement conflicted with the MVRO and the
RISC; (2) the arbitration agreement was void for lack of
consideration; (3) the arbitration clause failed to satisfy the
requirements of Atalese; (4) the arbitration clause was
unenforceable as to class action litigation; (5) there were
material fact disputes concerning the parties' agreement to
arbitrate; and (6) the motion judge failed to consider defendant's
application as a motion for summary judgment in accordance with
Rule 4:46, as opposed to a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule
4:6-2.

The Court first considers whether the three sales documents signed
by the Plaintiffs formed a single, integrated contract.  In
reviewing the challenged documents, it agrees with the motion judge
that all three documents were executed at the same time and related
to the same subject-matter: the Plaintiffs' purchase of the
vehicle.  Moreover, the arbitration agreement, attached to the
MVRO, explains and amplifies the MVRO.  The MVRO expressly includes
"any attachments."  Therefore, the RISC is incorporated by
reference into the MVRO.  Thus, the Court concurs that the MVRO,
RISC, and arbitration agreement signed by the Plaintiffs constitute
a single, integrated contract.

The Court next considers whether the arbitration agreement is
enforceable.  It finds that the arbitration agreement and the
provisions referring to arbitration in the other sales documents
were clear and unambiguous so as to be enforceable.  Having
concluded the sales documents signed by the Plaintiffs form a
single, integrated contract and having determined that the
arbitration provisions are enforceable, it holds it needs not
resolve the Plaintiffs' arguments regarding the statute of
limitations or whether they agreed to forego the right to pursue a
class action, because the parties expressly delegated the authority
to decide such issues to the arbitrator.  

The Court next examines the Plaintiffs' argument that the motion
judge failed to treat the Defendant's motion as a motion for
summary judgment and there were material factual disputes that
precluded summary judgment in the case.  In reviewing the record,
it finds that the judge treated the Defendant's motion as a motion
for summary judgment.  The judge gave the Plaintiffs an additional
opportunity on remand to present evidence of genuinely disputed
material facts.  While the Plaintiffs raised legal arguments
related to the sales contracts, they failed to set forth any
disputed facts.  The Court holds the motion judge properly
considered the undisputed facts in rendering his decision to
dismiss the complaint and compel arbitration.

Accordingly, the Court affirmed.

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

Paul N. DePetris argued the cause for appellants (Paul N. DePetris
and Lewis G. Adler -- lewisadler@verizon.net -- of counsel and on
the briefs).

Laura D. Ruccolo, argued the cause for respondent (Capehart &
Scatchard, PA, attorneys; Laura D. Ruccolo, on the brief).

FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Connecticut Securities Suit Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------
Frontier Communications Corporation is facing consolidated class
action complaint in Connecticut over alleged violations of the
Securities Exchange Act, 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 April 30, 2018, an amended consolidated class action complaint
was filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Connecticut on behalf of certain purported stockholders against
Frontier, certain of its current and former directors and officers
and the underwriters of certain Frontier securities offerings.

The complaint is brought on behalf of all persons who (1) acquired
Frontier common stock between February 6, 2015 and February 28,
2018, inclusive, and/or (2) acquired Frontier common stock or
Mandatory Convertible Preferred Stock either in or traceable to
Frontier's offerings of common and preferred stock conducted on or
about June 2, 2015 and June 8, 2015.

The complaint asserts, among other things, violations of Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
"Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933,
as amended, in connection with certain disclosures relating to the
2016 acquisition of properties in California, Texas, and Florida
with Verizon (CTF Acquisition), wherein Frontier assumed the CAF
Phase II support and related obligations that Verizon had
previously accepted with regard to California and Texas.

The complaint seeks, among other things, damages and equitable and
injunctive relief.

The Company said, "We dispute the allegations in the complaint
described above and intend to vigorously defend against such
claims.  Given that this matter is in the early stages of
litigation, we are unable to estimate a reasonably possible range
of loss, if any, that may result from this matter."

Frontier Communications Corporation provides communications
services to residential, business, and wholesale customers in the
United States.  The Company was formerly known as Citizens
Communications Company and changed its name to Frontier
Communications Corporation in July 2008.  Frontier Communications
Corporation was founded in 1927 and is based in Norwalk,
Connecticut.


FUNKO INC: Court Denies A. Parikh's Bid for Lead Plaintiff
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SATYANARAYANA KANUGONDA, Individually and On Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. FUNKO, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. C18-812RSM (W.D. Wash.), Judge Ricardo S.
Martinez of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington, Seattle, (i) denied A. Parikh's Motion for Appointment
as Lead Plaintiff and Approval of Choice of Counsel; and (ii)
struck as moot Carl Berkelhammer's motion for leave to file a
motion for appointment as the lead Plaintiff.

The action, filed on April 2, 2018, arises from Funko's Nov. 1,
2017 initial public offering ("IPO").  The Plaintiff contends that
Funko's Form S-1, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, contained untrue statements of fact and omissions with
regards to Funko's profits and growth, insulation from adverse
industry, sales, and earnings trends, and materially misleading
statements regarding Funko's business, operations, and prospects.

Funko's stock was initially valued at $12 per share during the IPO.
After the untrue statements of fact and omissions came to light,
Funko's stock plummeted to $6 per share on Dec. 21, 2017, resulting
in significant losses and damages for the Plaintiff and other
similarly situated Class members.  The Plaintiff asserts claims
under Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.

The matter comes before the Court on A. Parikh's Motion.  Purported
class member and interested party Berkelhammer has filed a motion
for leave to file a motion for appointment as the lead Plaintiff
and has opposed A. Parikh's Motion.

Judge Martinez finds that the Funko and A. Parikh have not
established that they will be prejudiced by providing proper notice
of the action and the opportunity for the class members to seek
appointment as the lead Plaintiff.  First, the lawsuit is in its
infancy and the Defendants have not yet been served.  Second, the
lack of a lead Plaintiff does not leave the lawsuit to flounder
without direction as the Plaintiff can continue to provide
direction as necessary.  Third, even if A. Parikh had been
appointed the lead Plaintiff, the passing of the 60 day period does
not cement his status.  Thus, Funko and A. Parikh will be put in no
worse position by being required to comply with the statutory
notice period prior to seeking appointment as the lead Plaintiff.
Conversely, the PSLRA's intent to appoint the most adequate
plaintiff will be furthered.

As for Berkelhammer's filings, the Judge finds that Mr.
Berkelhammer, a non-party, has never sought to intervene in the
matter pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24.  While the
PSLRA does anticipate non-parties filing motions seeking lead
plaintiff status, those motions are not akin to motions to
intervene.

Nevertheless, the Court has an independent obligation to consider
the issue Mr. Berkelhammer raised -- whether notice in the case
complied with the PSLRA requirements.  The Judge says he does not
need to consider Mr. Berkelhammer's filings to determine whether
notice was sufficient.  Accordingly, he will strike's Mr.
Berkelhammer's motion for leave to file a motion for appointment as
the lead Plaintiff as moot.  Should the Plaintiff reissue proper
notice, Mr. Berkelhammer may seek the lead Plaintiff status at the
appropriate time.

Having reviewed A. Parikh's Motion, along with the remainder of the
record, Judge Martinex (i) denied the Motion of A. Parikh for
Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and Approval of Choice of Counsel;
and (ii) struck as moot the Motion of Carl Berkelhammer for Leave
to File a Motion for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and Approval of
Choice of Counsel, or Alternatively to Set a Briefing Schedule for
Lead Plaintiff Motions.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 27, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/wjf4fA from Leagle.com.

Satyanarayana Kanugonda, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Phillip C. Kim --
pkim@rosenlegal.com -- THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, PA, pro hac vice,
Spencer Hall, Jr. -- shall@hallgeorge.com -- HALL & GEORGE PLLC &
Colin M. George -- cgeorge@hallgeorge.com -- HALL & GEORGE PLLC.

GAMESTOP CORP: Horton Sues Over Illegal Personal Info Disclosure
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Jeremy Horton, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Gamestop Corp., D/B/A Game
Informer, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00596, (W.D. Mich., May 29,
2018), seeks an award of actual damages, including disgorgement and
restitution, or $5,000.00, whichever is greater, restitution and
all other forms of equitable monetary relief, prejudgment interest
on all amounts awarded and reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses
for violation of Michigan's Video Rental Privacy Act.

GameStop is a video game, consumer electronics, and wireless
services retailer. It allegedly sold personal reading information
to numerous third-party marketing, list-rental and data-mining
companies between May 29, 2015 and July 30, 2016, without its
subscribers' written consent. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Wedad Ibrahim, Esq.
     LYNGKLIP & ASSOCIATES
     CONSUMER LAW CENTER, PLC
     24500 Northwestern Highway, Ste. 206
     Southfield, MI 48075
     Tel: (248) 208-8864
     Email: WedadI@MichiganConsumerLaw.Com

            - and -

     Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
     David W. Hall, Esq.
     HEDIN HALL LLP
     1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 900
     Miami, FL 33131
     Tel: (305) 357-2107
     Fax: (305) 200-8801
     Email: fhedin@hedinhall.com
            dhall@hedinhall.com


GENOCEA BIOSCIENCES: Sept. 25 Hearing for Bid to Drop Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Oral argument on a motion to dismiss the putative class suit in
Massachusetts has been scheduled for September 25, 2018, according
to Genocea Biosciences, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2018.

On October 31, 2017, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the District of Massachusetts, naming the Company, Chief Executive
Officer William D. Clark, and Chief Financial Officer Jonathan
Poole as defendants.  The complaint alleges violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 in connection with
disclosures made in and subsequent to the Company's Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2017, filed
with the SEC on May 5, 2017, and the Company's announcement of a
strategic shift to immuno-oncology on September 25, 2017.  The
plaintiff sought to represent a class of shareholders who purchased
or otherwise acquired the Company's securities between May 5, 2017
and September 25, 2017.  The complaint sought unspecified damages
and costs.

On November 3, 2017, another purported Company shareholder filed a
substantially identical complaint in the District of
Massachusetts.

On December 15, 2017, a purported Company shareholder filed a third
complaint in the District of Massachusetts, substantially the same
as the previous two, but alleging a class period beginning on
August 4, 2016 and ending on September 25, 2017.  The District of
Massachusetts designated all three complaints as related, and
entered an order in each action recognizing that the defendants are
not obligated to respond to the initial complaint filed in any of
the three actions.  Per the procedures set forth by federal
securities laws, applications for appointment of lead plaintiff(s)
and lead counsel in the three actions were due to the Court on
January 2, 2018.  Three applications for lead plaintiff and lead
counsel were submitted to the Court on that date; one of the three
movants subsequently withdrew their application.  The Court held a
hearing on the two remaining motions for lead plaintiff(s) and lead
counsel on January 31, 2018.

The Court consolidated the three actions into one case, under the
docket number Civil Action No. 17-cv-12137-PBS, U.S. District Court
(Mass.), and took the motions for lead plaintiff(s) and counsel
under advisement.  Counsel for both lead plaintiff movants told the
Court that they intended to file an amended complaint in the
consolidated action, if appointed.

On February 12, 2018, the Court appointed the Genocea Investor
Group (a group of five purported shareholders) as lead plaintiff,
and appointed Scott+Scott LLP, Levi & Korsinsky LLP, and Block &
Leviton LLP as lead counsel.

On February 20, 2018, the court entered an order establishing a
schedule for the lead plaintiffs' amended complaint, and for a
motion to dismiss and corresponding briefing in response, with the
following deadlines: filing of an amended complaint by the lead
plaintiffs and counsel due March 29, 2018; filing of an answer or
motion to dismiss by defendants on May 14, 2018; filing of any
opposition by plaintiffs to a motion to dismiss on June 28, 2018;
and filing of any reply by defendants in support of a motion to
dismiss on July 30, 2018.

On March 29, 2018, counsel for the lead plaintiff filed an amended
complaint in the District of Massachusetts that alleges the same
causes of action and seeks the same relief as the original
complaints.  The amended complaint adds Seth V. Hetherington,
former Chief Medical Officer, to the original named defendants.
The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on May 14, 2018.

Plaintiffs filed an opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss on
June 28, 2018, as well as a motion to strike exhibits referenced in
defendants' motion to dismiss, on June 29, 2018.  The Company and
the other named defendants filed a reply brief to plaintiffs'
opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss, and an opposition
brief to plaintiffs' motion to strike, on July 30, 2018.

Oral argument on the motion to dismiss has been scheduled for
September 25, 2018.

Genocea Biosciences, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, discovers
and develops novel cancer vaccines.  The company uses its
proprietary discovery platform AnTigen Lead Acquisition System to
design immunotherapies and vaccines that act through T cell immune
responses. Its lead product candidate is GEN-003, an
investigational immunotherapy that is in Phase III trial for the
treatment of genital herpes infections.  Genocea Biosciences, Inc.
was founded in 2006 and is headquartered in Cambridge,
Massachusetts.


GENPACT SERVICES: Hoffman Disputes Vague Collection Letter
----------------------------------------------------------
Kimberly A. Hoffman, Denis Graziano and Jaime Rapuzzi, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Genpact Services
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-04371, (E.D. N.Y., August 2, 2018),
seeks damages and declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to the
Fair Debt Collections Practices Act.

Plaintiffs claim they each received collection notices from
Genpact, a collection agency, that failed to accurately state their
debt balances. [BN]

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.


GNC HOLDINGS INC: Continues to Defend Pa. Workweek Related Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
GNC Holdings, Inc. 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 continues to
defend Pennsylvania Fluctuating Workweek related suit.

On September 18, 2013, Tawny Chevalier and Andrew Hiller commenced
a class action in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania. Plaintiff asserted a claim against the Company for a
purported violation of the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act ("PMWA"),
challenging the Company's utilization of the "fluctuating workweek"
method to calculate overtime compensation, on behalf of all
employees who worked for the Company in Pennsylvania and who were
paid according to the fluctuating workweek method.

In October 2014, the Court entered an order holding that the use of
the fluctuating workweek method violated the PMWA.

In September 2016, the Court entered judgment in favor of
Plaintiffs and the class in an immaterial amount, which has been
recorded as a charge in the accompanying Consolidated Financial
Statements.

Plaintiffs subsequently filed a petition for an award of attorney's
fees, costs and incentive payment. The court awarded an immaterial
amount in legal fees. The Company appealed from the adverse
judgment and the award of attorney's fees.

On December 22, 2017, the Pennsylvania Superior Court held that the
Company correctly determined the "regular rate" by dividing weekly
compensation by all hours worked (rather than 40), but held that
the regular rate must be multiplied by 1.5 (rather than 0.5) to
determine the amount of overtime owed. Taking accumulated interest
into account, the net result of the Superior Court's decision was
to reduce the Company's liability by an immaterial amount, which
has been reflected in the accompanying Consolidated Financial
Statements.

The Company filed a petition for appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme
Court on January 22, 2018. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court accepted
the Company's petition for appeal on July 16, 2018 and has issued a
briefing schedule to the parties.

GNC Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
specialty retailer of health, wellness, and performance products.
It operates through three segments: U.S. and Canada, International,
and Manufacturing/Wholesale. The company was founded in 1935 and is
headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.


GNC HOLDINGS: Court  Narrows Class Claims in Naranjo Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
GNC Holdings, Inc. 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 court granted in
part and denied in part the company's motion for decertification.

On February 29, 2012, former Senior Store Manager, Elizabeth
Naranjo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, sued General Nutrition Corporation in the Superior Court
of the State of California for the County of Alameda. The class
action complaint contains eight causes of action, alleging, among
other matters, meal, rest break and overtime violations for which
indeterminate money damages for wages, penalties, interest, and
legal fees are sought.

In June 2018, the Court granted in part and denied in part the
Company's Motion for Decertification. As of June 30, 2018, an
immaterial liability has been accrued in the accompanying financial
statements.

The Company intends to vigorously defend against the remaining
class action claims asserted in this action, and to seek
decertification as to some or all of the claims following
additional discovery. It is expected that the trial will occur in
2019.

GNC Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
specialty retailer of health, wellness, and performance products.
It operates through three segments: U.S. and Canada, International,
and Manufacturing/Wholesale. The company was founded in 1935 and is
headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Awaits 2nd Cir. Ruling on Gender Pay Disparity Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. 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 the Defendants'
petition with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals seeking
interlocutory review of the district court's March 30, 2018
certification decision in a class suit related to gender pay
inequality matters is still pending.

On September 15, 2010, a putative class action was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by three
female former employees.  The complaint, as subsequently amended,
alleges that Group Inc. and Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.) have
systematically discriminated against female employees in respect of
compensation, promotion and performance evaluations.  The complaint
alleges a class consisting of all female employees employed at
specified levels in specified areas by Group Inc. and GS&Co. since
July 2002, and asserts claims under federal and New York City
discrimination laws.  The complaint seeks class action status,
injunctive relief and unspecified amounts of compensatory, punitive
and other damages.

On July 17, 2012, the district court issued a decision granting in
part Group Inc.'s and GS&Co.'s motion to strike certain of
plaintiffs' class allegations on the ground that plaintiffs lacked
standing to pursue certain equitable remedies and denying Group
Inc.'s and GS&Co.'s motion to strike plaintiffs' class allegations
in their entirety as premature.

On March 21, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
held that arbitration should be compelled with one of the named
plaintiffs, who as a managing director was a party to an
arbitration agreement with the firm.

On March 10, 2015, the magistrate judge to whom the district judge
assigned the remaining plaintiffs' May 2014 motion for class
certification recommended that the motion be denied in all
respects.

On August 3, 2015, the magistrate judge granted the plaintiffs'
motion to intervene two female individuals, one of whom was
employed by the firm as of September 2010 and the other of whom
ceased to be an employee of the firm subsequent to the magistrate
judge's decision.

On March 30, 2018, the district court certified a damages class as
to the plaintiffs' disparate impact and treatment claims.  On April
13, 2018, defendants filed a petition with the Second Circuit Court
of Appeals seeking interlocutory review of the district court's
certification decision.

Based in New York, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (NYSE:GS) is a
bank holding company.  It is also an investment banking, securities
and investment management firm that provides services to clients
that include corporations, financial institutions, governments and
high-net-worth individuals.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Nix Commodities-Related Suit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. 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 Defendants' motion
to dismiss the third consolidated amended complaint in the
Commodities-Related Litigation is still pending.

Goldman Sachs International (GSI) is among the defendants named in
putative class actions relating to trading in platinum and
palladium, filed beginning on November 25, 2014 and most recently
amended on May 15, 2017, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.  The amended complaint generally
alleges that the defendants violated federal antitrust laws and the
Commodity Exchange Act in connection with an alleged conspiracy to
manipulate a benchmark for physical platinum and palladium prices
and seek declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as treble
damages in an unspecified amount.  Defendants moved to dismiss the
third consolidated amended complaint on July 21, 2017.

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

Based in New York, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (NYSE:GS) is a
bank holding company.  It is also an investment banking, securities
and investment management firm that provides services to clients
that include corporations, financial institutions, governments and
high-net-worth individuals.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Bids to Drop Adeptus Health Class Actions Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, 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 motions to dismiss lawsuits
related to Adeptus Health are still pending.

Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.) is among the underwriters named as
defendants in several putative securities class actions, filed
beginning in October 2016 and consolidated in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Texas.  In addition to the
underwriters, the defendants include certain past and present
directors and officers of Adeptus Health Inc. (Adeptus), as well as
Adeptus' sponsor.

As to the underwriters, the consolidated amended complaint, filed
on November 21, 2017, relates to the US$124 million June 2014
initial public offering, the US$154 million May 2015 secondary
equity offering, the US$411 million July 2015 secondary equity
offering, and the US$175 million June 2016 secondary equity
offering.

GS&Co. underwrote 1.69 million shares of common stock in the June
2014 initial public offering representing an aggregate offering
price of approximately US$37 million, 962,378 shares of common
stock in the May 2015 offering representing an aggregate offering
price of approximately US$61 million, 1.76 million shares of common
stock in the July 2015 offering representing an aggregate offering
price of approximately US$184 million, and all the shares of common
stock in the June 2016 offering representing an aggregate offering
price of approximately US$175 million.

On April 19, 2017, Adeptus filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.  The
defendants filed motions to dismiss on February 5, 2018.

Based in New York, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (NYSE:GS) is a
bank holding company.  It is also an investment banking, securities
and investment management firm that provides services to clients
that include corporations, financial institutions, governments and
high-net-worth individuals.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Bids to Drop Securities Lending Suits Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. 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 motions to dismiss
the class action and individual action related to securities
lending practices remain pending.

Group Inc. and Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.) are among the
defendants named in a putative antitrust class action and an
individual action relating to securities lending practices filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
beginning in August 2017.  The complaints generally assert claims
under federal antitrust law and state common law in connection with
an alleged conspiracy among the defendants to preclude the
development of electronic platforms for securities lending
transactions.  The individual complaint also asserts claims for
tortious interference with business relations and under state trade
practices law.  The complaints seek declaratory and injunctive
relief, as well as treble damages and restitution in unspecified
amounts.  Group Inc. was voluntarily dismissed from the putative
class action on January 26, 2018.  Defendants moved to dismiss the
class action complaint on January 26, 2018 and the individual
action on June 1, 2018.

Based in New York, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (NYSE:GS) is a
bank holding company.  It is also an investment banking, securities
and investment management firm that provides services to clients
that include corporations, financial institutions, governments and
high-net-worth individuals.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Bids to Drop U.S. Treasury Securities Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said 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 the Defendants moved to
dismiss the U.S. Treasury Securities Litigation on February 23,
2018.  No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC
report.

Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.) is among the primary dealers named
as defendants in several putative class actions relating to the
market for U.S. Treasury securities, filed beginning in July 2015
and consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.  GS&Co. is also among the primary dealers
named as defendants in a similar individual action filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on August
25, 2017.

The consolidated class action complaint, filed on December 29,
2017, generally alleges that the defendants violated antitrust laws
in connection with an alleged conspiracy to manipulate the
when-issued market and auctions for U.S. Treasury securities and
that certain defendants, including GS&Co., colluded to preclude
trading of U.S. Treasury securities on electronic trading platforms
in order to impede competition in the bidding process.

The individual action alleges a similar conspiracy regarding
manipulation of the when-issued market and auctions, as well as
related futures and options in violation of the Commodity Exchange
Act.

The complaints seek declaratory and injunctive relief, treble
damages in an unspecified amount and restitution.  Defendants moved
to dismiss on February 23, 2018.

Based in New York, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (NYSE:GS) is a
bank holding company.  It is also an investment banking, securities
and investment management firm that provides services to clients
that include corporations, financial institutions, governments and
high-net-worth individuals.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Interest Rate Swap Antitrust Actions Still Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, 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 the Interest Rate Swap Antitrust
Litigation is still ongoing.

Group Inc., Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.), Goldman Sachs
International (GSI), GS Bank USA and Goldman Sachs Financial
Markets, L.P. (GSFM) are among the defendants named in a putative
antitrust class action relating to the trading of interest rate
swaps, filed in November 2015 and consolidated in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

The same Goldman Sachs entities also are among the defendants named
in two antitrust actions relating to the trading of interest rate
swaps filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York beginning in April 2016 by three operators of swap
execution facilities and certain of their affiliates.

These actions have been consolidated for pretrial proceedings.

The complaints generally assert claims under federal antitrust law
and state common law in connection with an alleged conspiracy among
the defendants to preclude exchange trading of interest rate swaps.
The complaints in the individual actions also assert claims under
state antitrust law.  The complaints seek declaratory and
injunctive relief, as well as treble damages in an unspecified
amount.

Defendants moved to dismiss the class and one of the individual
actions on January 20, 2017.  On July 28, 2017, the district court
issued a decision dismissing the state common law claims asserted
by the plaintiffs in the individual action and otherwise limiting
the antitrust claims in both actions and the state common law claim
in the putative class action to the period from 2013 to 2016.

On May 30, 2018, plaintiffs in the putative class action filed a
third consolidated amended complaint.  Defendants moved to dismiss
the second individual action on July 19, 2018.

Based in New York, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (NYSE:GS) is a
bank holding company.  It is also an investment banking, securities
and investment management firm that provides services to clients
that include corporations, financial institutions, governments and
high-net-worth individuals.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Lawsuit over 2012-2014 Securities Sales Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. 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 the Cobalt
International Energy Securities Litigation is still ongoing.

Cobalt International Energy, Inc. (Cobalt), certain of its officers
and directors (including employees of affiliates of Group Inc. who
served as directors of Cobalt), affiliates of shareholders of
Cobalt (including Group Inc.) and the underwriters (including
Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.)) for certain offerings of Cobalt's
securities are defendants in a putative securities class action
filed on November 30, 2014 in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas.  The second consolidated amended
complaint, filed on March 15, 2017, relates to a US$1.67 billion
February 2012 offering of Cobalt common stock, a US$1.38 billion
December 2012 offering of Cobalt's convertible notes, a US$1.00
billion January 2013 offering of Cobalt's common stock, a US$1.33
billion May 2013 offering of Cobalt's common stock, and a US$1.30
billion May 2014 offering of Cobalt's convertible notes.

The consolidated amended complaint alleges that, among others,
Group Inc. and GS&Co. are liable as controlling persons with
respect to all five offerings, and that the shareholder affiliates
(including Group Inc.) are liable for the sale of Cobalt common
stock on the basis of inside information.  The consolidated amended
complaint also seeks damages from GS&Co. in connection with its
acting as an underwriter of 16,594,500 shares of common stock
representing an aggregate offering price of approximately US$465
million, US$690 million principal amount of convertible notes, and
approximately US$508 million principal amount of convertible notes
in the February 2012, December 2012 and May 2014 offerings,
respectively, for an aggregate offering price of approximately
US$1.66 billion.

On January 19, 2016, the court granted, with leave to replead, the
underwriter defendants' motions to dismiss as to claims by
plaintiffs who purchased Cobalt securities after April 30, 2013,
but denied the motions to dismiss in all other respects.  On June
15, 2017, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification and denied certain of the shareholder affiliates'
motions (including Group Inc.) to dismiss the claim alleging sales
based on inside information.  On August 4, 2017, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted defendants' petition for
interlocutory review of the class certification order.  On August
23, 2017, the district court denied the defendants' motion for
reconsideration of certain aspects of the class certification
order.  The district court and the Fifth Circuit denied defendants'
request to stay discovery pending resolution of the Fifth Circuit
proceeding.  On December 14, 2017, Cobalt filed for Chapter 11
bankruptcy.

Cobalt, certain of its officers and directors (including employees
of affiliates of Group Inc. who served as directors of Cobalt),
certain shareholders of Cobalt (including funds affiliated with
Group Inc.), and affiliates of these shareholders (including Group
Inc.) are defendants in putative shareholder derivative actions
filed on May 6, 2016 and November 29, 2016 in Texas District Court,
Harris County.  As to the director and officer defendants
(including employees of affiliates of Group Inc. who served as
directors of Cobalt), the petitions generally allege that they
breached their fiduciary duties under state law by making
materially false and misleading statements concerning Cobalt.  As
to the shareholder defendants and their affiliates (including Group
Inc. and several affiliated funds), the original petition also
alleges that they breached their fiduciary duties by selling Cobalt
securities in the common stock offerings on the basis of inside
information.  The petitions seek, among other things, unspecified
monetary damages and disgorgement of proceeds from the sale of
Cobalt common stock.  Cobalt's Chapter 11 plan, which became
effective on April 10, 2018, releases the derivative claims against
Group Inc. and its affiliated funds.

Based in New York, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (NYSE:GS) is a
bank holding company.  It is also an investment banking, securities
and investment management firm that provides services to clients
that include corporations, financial institutions, governments and
high-net-worth individuals.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Lawsuit over Sale of Valeant Shares Still Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.) and Goldman Sachs Canada Inc. (GS
Canada) continues to defend themselves in a putative class action
related to Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc., according
to The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2018.

Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.) and Goldman Sachs Canada Inc. (GS
Canada) are among the underwriters and initial purchasers named as
defendants in a putative class action filed on March 2, 2016 in the
Superior Court of Quebec, Canada.  In addition to the underwriters
and initial purchasers, the defendants include Valeant
Pharmaceuticals International, Inc., certain directors and officers
of Valeant and Valeant's auditor.

As to GS&Co. and GS Canada, the complaint relates to the June 2013
public offering of US$2.3 billion of common stock, the June 2013
Rule 144A offering of US$3.2 billion principal amount of senior
notes, and the November 2013 Rule 144A offering of US$900 million
principal amount of senior notes.  The complaint asserts claims
under the Quebec Securities Act and the Civil Code of Quebec.

On August 29, 2017, the court certified a class that includes only
non-U.S. purchasers in the offerings.  Defendants' motion for leave
to appeal the certification was denied on November 30, 2017.

GS&Co. and GS Canada, as sole underwriters, sold 5,334,897 shares
of common stock in the June 2013 offering to non-U.S. purchasers
representing an aggregate offering price of approximately US$453
million and, as initial purchasers, had a proportional share of
sales to non-U.S. purchasers of approximately CAD14.2 million in
principal amount of senior notes in the June 2013 and November 2013
Rule 144A offerings.

Based in New York, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (NYSE:GS) is a
bank holding company.  It is also an investment banking, securities
and investment management firm that provides services to clients
that include corporations, financial institutions, governments and
high-net-worth individuals.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Must Defend Calif. Suit over Snap IPO
----------------------------------------------------
Defendants' motions to dismiss the federal court action related to
Snap Inc. were denied on June 7, 2018, according to The Goldman
Sachs Group, 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.

Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.) is among the underwriters named as
defendants in putative securities class actions pending in
California Superior Court, County of Los Angeles and the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California beginning in
May 2017, relating to Snap Inc.'s US$3.91 billion March 2017
initial public offering.  In addition to the underwriters, the
defendants include Snap Inc. and certain of its officers and
directors.

GS&Co. underwrote 57,040,000 shares of common stock representing an
aggregate offering price of approximately US$970 million.
Defendants' motions to dismiss the federal court action were denied
on June 7, 2018.

Based in New York, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (NYSE:GS) is a
bank holding company.  It is also an investment banking, securities
and investment management firm that provides services to clients
that include corporations, financial institutions, governments and
high-net-worth individuals.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Plaintiffs in SunEdison Lawsuit Seek Class Status
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, 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 plaintiffs in the class action
related to SunEdison, Inc., has sought class certification.

Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.) is among the underwriters named as
defendants in several putative class actions and individual actions
filed beginning in March 2016 relating to the August 2015 public
offering of US$650 million of SunEdison, Inc. convertible preferred
stock.  The defendants also include certain of SunEdison's
directors and officers.

On April 21, 2016, SunEdison filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.  The
pending cases were transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York and on March 17, 2017, plaintiffs in
the putative class action filed a consolidated amended complaint.

GS&Co., as underwriter, sold 138,890 shares of SunEdison
convertible preferred stock in the offering, representing an
aggregate offering price of approximately US$139 million.

On March 6, 2018, the defendants' motion to dismiss in the class
action was granted in part and denied in part, and on June 13,
2018, plaintiffs in the class action moved for class
certification.

On April 10, 2018 and April 17, 2018, certain plaintiffs in the
individual actions filed amended complaints.

Based in New York, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (NYSE:GS) is a
bank holding company.  It is also an investment banking, securities
and investment management firm that provides services to clients
that include corporations, financial institutions, governments and
high-net-worth individuals.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Still Faces Currencies-Related Litigation in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. continues to face a class action
lawsuit by indirect purchasers of foreign exchange instruments,
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.  The Court previously granted the defendants'
motion to dismiss the case on March 15, 2018, but the plaintiffs
moved for leave to replead on April 5, 2018.

Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.) and Group Inc. are among the
defendants named in putative class actions filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York beginning in
September 2016 on behalf of putative indirect purchasers of foreign
exchange instruments.

The consolidated amended complaint, filed on June 30, 2017,
generally alleges a conspiracy to manipulate the foreign currency
exchange markets and asserts claims under federal and state
antitrust laws and state consumer protection laws and seeks
injunctive relief, as well as treble damages in an unspecified
amount.

On March 15, 2018, the Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss,
and the plaintiffs moved for leave to replead on April 5, 2018.

Based in New York, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (NYSE:GS) is a
bank holding company.  It is also an investment banking, securities
and investment management firm that provides services to clients
that include corporations, financial institutions, governments and
high-net-worth individuals.


GOPRO INC: 2018 Shareholder Class Complaints Underway
-----------------------------------------------------
GoPro, Inc. has yet to respond to the consolidated amended
complaint in a purported shareholder class action lawsuits
initially filed in 2018, 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.

The Company said, "Beginning on January 9, 2018, the first of four
purported shareholder class action lawsuits (the "2018 Shareholder
Class Action") were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California against the Company, Mr. Woodman,
and Mr. McGee.  Similar complaints were filed on January 11, 2018
and January 24, 2018.  On April 20, 2018, the court consolidated
the four cases and appointed lead plaintiff and lead counsel.  On
June 18, 2018, plaintiffs filed their Consolidated Amended
Complaint (the "Complaint").  The Complaint purports to bring suit
on behalf of shareholders who purchased the Company's publicly
traded securities between November 2, 2017 and January 5, 2018.
The Complaint adds Mr. Prober, GoPro's former COO, as a defendant
(together with GoPro, Mr. Woodman and Mr. McGee ("Defendants"), and
purports to allege that Defendants made false and misleading
statements about the Company's business, operations and prospects
in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the "1934 Act"), asserts claims under Section 20A of
the 1934 Act against Mr. Woodman and Mr. McGee, and seeks
unspecified compensatory damages, fees and costs.  The time for
Defendants to respond to the Complaint has not yet passed."

GoPro, Inc. makes mountable and wearable cameras, drones and
accessories. The Company's products are sold globally through
retailers, wholesale distributors and on the Company's website.
The Company's global corporate headquarters are located in San
Mateo, California.


GOPRO INC: Shareholder Lawsuit in N.D. Calif. Still Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
GoPro, Inc. is still facing a purported shareholder class action
lawsuit originally filed in November 2016 with a second amended
complaint filed in August 2017, 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.

The Company said, "On November 16, 2016, a purported shareholder
class action lawsuit (the "2016 Shareholder Class Action") was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California against the Company and Mr. Woodman, our Chairman and
CEO, Brian McGee, our CFO, and Anthony Bates, our former President
("Defendants").  The complaint purports to bring suit on behalf of
shareholders who purchased the Company's publicly traded securities
between September 19, 2016 and November 4, 2016.  The complaint
purports to allege that Defendants made false and misleading
statements about the Company's business, operations and prospects
in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, and seeks unspecified compensatory damages, fees and
costs.  On February 6, 2017, the court appointed lead plaintiff and
lead counsel.  On March 14, 2017, the lead plaintiff filed an
amended complaint against the Company and certain of its officers
("GoPro Defendants") on behalf of shareholders who purchased the
Company's publicly traded securities between September 19, 2016 and
November 8, 2016.  On April 13, 2017, the GoPro Defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint.  On July 26, 2017, the
court denied that motion and directed plaintiff to amend its
complaint to add all defendants the plaintiff intended to sue.  On
August 4, 2017, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, which
Defendants answered on September 8, 2017."

GoPro, Inc. makes mountable and wearable cameras, drones and
accessories. The Company's products are sold globally through
retailers, wholesale distributors and on the Company's website.
The Company's global corporate headquarters are located in San
Mateo, California.


HAMILTON COUNTY, OH: Court Approves Settlement of Inmates' Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SAMUEL ROBINSON, ET AL. Plaintiffs, v. HAMILTON COUNTY
SHERIFF JIM NEIL, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-652 (S.D. Ohio),
Judge Susan J. Dlott of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio, Western Division, granted the proposed class
settlement.

In June 2017, the number of inmates in the Hamilton County Justice
Center spiked to 1,611 inmates.  The current sheriff, Neil, was
forced to house inmates on temporary beds, more commonly called
"boats," in the two gymnasiums in the Hamilton County Justice
Center.  This caused security and safety concerns, difficulty in
locating inmates for distribution of medication and provision of
medical care, difficulty with the provision of toilet facilities,
and inadequate telephone access to inmates.  About the same time,
following the closure of the Queens Gate Correctional Facility, the
Ohio courts had found some of the adopted release policies violated
Ohio law.

Major Ketteman, the director of jail operations in the Hamilton
County Justice Center, authored a letter on June 14, 2017,
declaring an emergency under Ohio law and articulated the
overcrowding issues outlined.  Major Ketteman documented a cascade
of consequences caused by overcrowding that the Plaintiffs contend
violate class members rights as protected by the Eighth Amendment
to the constitution.  This declaration of emergency allowed Sheriff
Neil to directly draw funds from the Hamilton County Auditor
without an appropriation by the Hamilton County Board of County
Commissioners, to pay for housing inmates in jail facilities
located in other Ohio counties.

In September 2017, inmate Robinson filed a grievance, complaining
that he had a medical condition preventing him from using a boat.
This led to a class action complaint being filed on Sept. 28, 2017,
asserting, inter alia, that overcrowding at HCJC was causing class
members to suffer conditions of confinement that violated their
right not to be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment as
protected by the Eighth Amendment to the United States
Constitution.  Two amended complaints adding named inmates and
alleging the same unconstitutional conditions were filed
thereafter.  Sheriff Neil filed an Answer on Jan. 10, 2018 and
opposed the class certification.  The Parties disputed whether
unconstitutional conditions of confinement, similar to those
outlined in the Ketteman Memorandum, continued after suit was
filed, prompting an agreement to mediate.

The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Litkovitz for the sole
purpose of conducting a settlement conference on Dec. 5, 2017.
After numerous conferences with Magistrate Judge Litkovitz and
meetings between counsel for Inmate Robinson and Sheriff Neil, a
proposed settlement was agreed upon by the counsel for the parties.
On May 11, 2018, the Court certified the Class, preliminarily
approved the Class settlement, ordered notice to be sent to the
class members, and set a hearing on fairness, reasonableness, and
adequacy of the proposed settlement.

During the time period between the Ketteman Memorandum of June 14,
2017 and the Parties agreeing upon the Proposed Settlement
Agreement numerous changes took place in the physical make up and
the operational procedures used in the Hamilton County Justice
Center.

The Class consists of all current and future inmates in the
Hamilton County Justice Center during the time period the
settlement is effective. There are two parts of the Class.  First,
"Population Inmates" are those who have had an initial appearance
before a judge who are held pending trial or held serving a
sentence.  Population inmates are held for longer periods of time
that may span several months.  The second part of the class is
"Detention Inmates", who are inmates that have not appeared before
a judge and may only be held for 48 hours.

The result of the negotiations described resolved the issues as
follows:

     (a) No Population Inmate may be assigned to a boat for more
than five consecutive days in a month.

     (b) The use of boats for Population Inmates is limited to 4 in
each 16-cell pod and 6 in each 24-bed pod.  No boats may be used in
the Mental Health Unit or Medical Unit.

     (c) The classification system will be used for Population
Inmates both in cells and on boats.

     (d) The problem with limiting inmates in the Hamilton County
Justice System to a fixed number is that the classification system
dictates how many single cell placements are required.  In order to
maximize use of the Hamilton County Justice Center and to protect
the inmates from overcrowding, the parties agreed that the
classification system will be used to control population.  When the
population requires that the boats be used in excess of use formula
set out in items (a) and (b), the sheriff is required to take
immediate remedial action set out in item (e).

     (e) The sheriff, should the limit be reached, shall: (1) send
additional inmates to jail facilities in other Ohio counties; (2)
utilize the pretrial release program without the limitations set by
the bond imposed by the Municipal or Common Pleas Courts; (3) do
both remedies (1) and (2); or (4) stop admitting inmates into the
Hamilton County Justice Center and seek further relief from the
Court.

     (f) The sheriff is authorized to continue utilizing his seven
release policies, including those that may violate Ohio law.

     (g) The county administrator agreed to provide the amount of
$30,000 to hire an expert for the Court, Dr. Austin, to make
recommendations concerning the classification system and the
current release policies.

     (h) The Hamilton County Board of County Commissioners is
planning to authorize conversion of administrative space into
additional housing for inmates within the Hamilton County Justice
Center. Therefore, the length of this agreement is limited to two
years, so that the effect of the conversion of administrative space
to housing space on overcrowding can be evaluated and the need to
continue this order determined.

     (i) The medical care provider, NaphCare, already screened all
incoming inmates for medical issues and whether they have an
impairment that prevents the inmate from climbing stairs. NaphCare
agreed to extend the screening process to determine whether an
incoming inmate had a physical impairment preventing a boat
assignment.  If such impairment exists, the inmate will not be
assigned to a Boat.

The Notice of the Class Settlement was broadcast on the in-house
Hamilton County Justice Center television for all inmates starting
at 1500 hours on May 15, 2018, and ran through May 16, 2018, at
1500 hours.  If the settlement is approved by the Court, a second
notice of the rights of the inmates and terms of the settlement
will be posted in the Hamilton County Justice Center in various
pods and distributed to inmates along with other Hamilton County
Justice Center Information.

There is no monetary award to the Class members or Class
representatives.  Plaintiff Robinson was awarded $5,000 as
compensation on Count II of the Complaint, an individual cause of
action.  The parties agree that the statuary pay rate for attorneys
involved in prison litigation is $210 per hour.  The parties
further agreed that the totals calculated below are fair,
reasonable, and adequate:
Marc Mezibov has 10.5 hours = $2,205.  Michael O'Hara has 113 hours
plus $23.60 in expenses = $23,0753.60.  Robert Newman has 230.10
hours = $48,321.

Based upon the consideration of thesefindings, Judge Dlott
concludes that the proposed settlement of the above captioned case
is fair, reasonable, and adequate.  She adopted the proposed
settlement, and it binds Sheriff Neil and the Class members.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 27, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/4d7KKO from Leagle.com.

Samuel Robinson, on behalf of himself and a class of others
similarly situated, Markalo Harris, on behalf of himself and a
class of others similarly situated, Eric Buig, on behalf of himself
and a class of others similarly situated, Jason Robinson, on behalf
of himself and a class of others similarly situated, Gregory
Wilson, on behalf of himself and a class of others similarly
situated, Dontonyio Spruill, on behalf of himself and a class of
others similarly situated, Demetrious Ruff, on behalf of himself
and a class of others similarly situated, Brandon Eubank, on behalf
of himself and a class of others similarly situated, William
Dabney, on behalf of himself and a class of others similarly
situated, Matthew Louthan, on behalf of himself and a class of
others similarly situated, Robert Feller, on behalf of himself and
a class of others similarly situated, Robert Lyles, on behalf of
himself and a class of others similarly situated, Mike Maxwell, on
behalf of himself and a class of others similarly situated, Shawn
Harrison, on behalf of himself and a class of others similarly
situated, Demarco Jenkins, on behalf of himself and a class of
others similarly situated, Cecil Johnson, on behalf of himself and
a class of others similarly situated, Nathan Bainum, on behalf of
himself and a class of others similarly situated, Thomas Diehl, on
behalf of himself and a class of others similarly situated, Mark
Cordell, on behalf of himself and a class of others similarly
situated, Brandon Dilts, on behalf of himself and a class of others
similarly situated, William Hughes, on behalf of himself and a
class of others similarly situated, Mark Whitson, on behalf of
himself and a class of others similarly situated, Michael Walls, on
behalf of himself and a class of others similarly situated, Derrick
Jackson, on behalf of himself and a class of others similarly
situated, Daveno Brown, on behalf of himself and a class of others
similarly situated, Ireese Kennedy, on behalf of himself and a
class of others similarly situated, Aaron Bemmes, on behalf of
himself and a class of others similarly situated, Robert Miller, on
behalf of himself and a class of others similarly situated, Daniel
Johnson, on behalf of himself and a class of others similarly
situated, Michael Miller, on behalf of himself and a class of
others similarly situated, Joseph McClure, on behalf of himself and
a class of others similarly situated & Nicholas Simmons, on behalf
of himself and a class of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
represented by Marc David Mezibov, Mezibov Butler, Michael Jay
O'Hara -- mohara@oharataylor.com -- O'Hara, Taylor, Sloan & Cassidy
& Robert Brand Newman, Newman & Meeks Co LPA.

Sheriff Jim Neil, individually and In his capacity as Sheriff of
Hamilton County Ohio, Defendant, represented by Mark Carl Vollman,
Hamilton County Prosecutor's Office, Christian Joseph Schaefer,
Hamilton County Prosecutor, James Warren Harper, Hamilton County
Prosecuting Attorney, Jay R. Wampler, Hamilton County Prosecutor's
Office, Jerome A. Kunkel, Hamilton County Prosecutor's Office &
Pamela J. Sears, Hamilton County Prosecutor.

HANOVER INSURANCE: Settlement in Principle Reached in Durand Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc. 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 parties in the
Durand Litigation have reached a settlement in principle on major
terms, which is subject to agreement on certain other terms,
written documentation, and Court approval.

On March 12, 2007, a putative class action suit captioned Jennifer
A. Durand v. The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc., and The Allmerica
Financial Cash Balance Pension Plan, was filed in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Kentucky.  The named
plaintiff, a former employee of the Company's former life insurance
and annuity business who received a lump sum distribution from the
Company's Cash Balance Plan (the "Plan") at or about the time of
her separation from the company, claims that she and others
similarly situated did not receive the appropriate lump sum
distribution because in computing the lump sum, the Company and the
Plan understated the accrued benefit in the calculation.  The
plaintiff claims that the Plan underpaid her distributions and
those of similarly situated participants by failing to pay an
additional so-called "whipsaw" amount reflecting the present value
of an estimate of future interest credits from the date of the lump
sum distribution to each participant's retirement age of 65
("whipsaw claim").

The plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint adding two new named
plaintiffs and additional claims on December 11, 2009.  Two of the
three new claims set forth in the Amended Complaint were dismissed
by the District Court, which action was upheld in November 2015 by
the U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.  The District Court,
however, did allow to stand the portion of the Amended Complaint
which set forth claims against the Company for breach of fiduciary
duty and failure to meet notice requirements arising under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") from the
various interest crediting and lump sum distribution matters of
which plaintiffs complain, but only as to plaintiffs' "whipsaw"
claim that remained in the case.  On December 17, 2013, the Court
entered an order certifying a class to bring "whipsaw" and related
breach of fiduciary duty claims consisting of all persons who
received a lump sum distribution between March 1, 1997 and December
31, 2003.  The Company filed a summary judgment motion, prior to
the decision on the appeal, that was based on the statute of
limitations and seeks to dismiss the subclass of plaintiffs who
received lump sum distributions prior to March 13, 2002.  This
summary judgment motion has been stayed pending additional
discovery.

On November 2, 2017, plaintiffs filed a motion conceding that the
statutory "whipsaw" claims, but not the breach of fiduciary duty or
failure to meet ERISA notice requirement claims, of participants
who received lump sum distributions prior to March 13, 2002 are
time-barred.  Consequently, on February 16, 2018, the Court entered
an order limiting the claims of those participants to alleged
violations of ERISA's disclosure requirements and breaches of
fiduciary duty.  After the Court denied plaintiffs' motion for
reconsideration of the Court's February 16, 2018 order, the parties
entered into settlement discussions and have reached a settlement
in principle on major terms, which is subject to agreement on
certain other terms, written documentation, and Court approval.

The Company said, "Provided the parties are able to finalize such
settlement on substantially the terms agreed upon in principle and
obtain the necessary court approval, we do not believe the
resulting settlement amount will be material to the Company's
financial position or have a material effect on its results of
operations."

The Hanover Insurance Company, Inc. offers personal and commercial
property and casualty insurance services for individuals, families,
and businesses. Its personal insurance coverage includes umbrella
and personal liability, home, auto, insurance for valuables, and
watercraft and toys insurance. The company is based in Worcester,
Massachusetts.


HAYNES TRUCKING: Certification of Truck Drivers' Class Upheld
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Kentucky reversed the judgment of the Court of
Appeals reversing the District Court's Order granting Plaintiffs'
Motion for Class Certification in the case captioned MELVIN
HENSLEY, DANNY LAINHART, JAMES D. FETTERS, WILLIAM ABNEY, AND
CHARLES BUSSELL ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, Appellants, v. HAYNES TRUCKING, LLC; AND L-M ASPHALT
PARTNERS, LTD, D/B/A ATS CONSTRUCTION AND HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE
CO., Appellees, No. 2016-SC-000180-DG (Ky.).

A group of plaintiffs, claiming for themselves and for others
similarly situated, brought the action in the trial court for
backpay and statutory damages under Kentucky's prevailing-wage law,
Kentucky Revised Statute (KRS) 337.505-550; and the trial court
granted their motion to certify it as a class action under Kentucky
Rule of Civil Procedure (CR) 23.

The trial court's Findings of Fact included:

   1. The Plaintiffs filed a Class Action Complaint alleging
violations of Kentucky prevailing wage law and breach of contract
against the Defendants.

   2. The class is definite, and members are ascertainable. With at
least 139 members, and perhaps many more, the class is so numerous
that joinder of all members is impracticable.

   3. There are questions of law and fact common to the class.
Specifically, all liability issues are common to the class,
including whether the defendants were required to pay prevailing
wages to truck drivers for the time spent on the site of public
works projects.

   4. The claims of the representative parties are typical of the
claims of the class.

   5. The representative parties will fairly and adequately protect
the interests of the class. In their depositions they have shown an
appreciation of the issues in this case. Furthermore, they have
come forward to speak on behalf of current employees who may fear
repercussions, including loss of their employment, should they come
forward individually. This additional fact enhances their ability
to represent the class.

   6. The questions of law and fact common to the members of the
class predominate over any questions affecting only individual
members. All legal issues are common and predominate.

7. Counsel for the Plaintiffs . . . are sufficiently experienced
and qualified to serve as class counsel, and have demonstrated
their knowledge of the law, procedure, and the requisite ability to
fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class.

Haynes and ATS filed a timely joint notice of appeal from the
class-certification order, and Hartford filed a separate notice of
appeal of the same order. At the Court of Appeals, Haynes, ATS, and
Hartford argued that the trial court lacked subject-matter
jurisdiction to rule on class certification and that Hensley had
not satisfied the legal requirements for certification under CR 23.
A panel of the Court of Appeals concluded that Hensley had fallen
short in establishing the prerequisites of CR 23 to support a class
action, commonality, and, therefore, vacated the trial court's
order and remanded the case to the trial court for decertification
of the class. In a separate concurring opinion, the judge posited
that KRS 337.550(2) does not permit class action suits at all.

General Rules of Law for Class-Action Certification

In Kentucky, a party must fulfill the prerequisites of CR 23.01 and
23.02 to be able to maintain a class action. CR 23.01 states:

     "Subject to CR 23.02, one or more members of a class may sue
or be sued as representative parties on behalf of all only if (a)
the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is
impracticable, (b) there are questions of law or fact common to the
class, (c) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are
typical of the claims or defenses of the class, and (d) the
representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the
interests of the class."

The trial court did not abuse its discretion when certifying the
class

The Court of Appeals attacked-as the appellees now similarly
attack-the trial court's order in several ways. First, they suggest
that the trial court failed to conduct a probe behind the pleadings
or a rigorous analysis when conducting its class-certification
analysis, and as a result, they have questioned the evidentiary
support for class certification. Second, they question compliance
with some of the CR 23.01 class certification requirements,
specifically, numerosity, commonality, and typicality. Third, they
attack the trial court's CR 23.02(c) finding of satisfaction of the
predominance and superiority requirements. Lastly, they question
the class definition for lack of ascertainability of the class and
for other reasons.

Probe behind the pleadings, rigorous analysis and evidentiary
support

The trial court allowed discovery of additional information beyond
what the pleadings stated and conducted extensive hearings that
touched both indirectly and directly on the class-certification
issue. The trial court also allowed the parties to brief and orally
argue the issues, in addition to considering the submission of
numerous exhibits.

The trial court's written order and oral findings are admittedly
minimal. But a trial court's brevity, in and of itself, does not
make its ruling arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair, or unsupported by
sound legal principles. The trial court heard extensive argument
and reviewed volumes of testimony and exhibits before deciding.

The Court are not persuaded that the trial court abused its
discretion in the way it considered its findings nor in the way the
findings were stated. And while we find no abuse of discretion by
the trial court in this instance, we do hasten to emphasize the
preference for a class-certification order in which the trial court
explains itself beyond conclusory statements with limited written
support.

CR 23.01 Findings.

The parties' argument that differences in each purported class
member's liability analysis preclude the satisfaction of
commonality would be more well taken if they articulated how the
analysis differs among preclude the satisfaction of commonality
would be more well taken if they articulated how the analysis
differs among class members. Haynes, ATS, and Hartford seem to
argue, in one respect, that the legal analysis for finding
liability on the payment of prevailing wage is different for each
purported class member. But these parties have not shown why this
is the case.

For example, the parties did not argue that some truck drivers fall
under a different statutory analysis than other truck drivers. The
parties' simple conclusory allegation that a different legal
analysis is needed to evaluate each truck driver's claim is
insufficient to prove an abuse of discretion on the part of the
trial court in certifying a class.

In general, the record shows the trial court adequately grasped the
potential differences among class members and how they may affect
this case in further proceedings. The Court cannot say at this
stage of the case that these differences destroy the commonality
prong.
The trial court also correctly found typicality to be satisfied. As
stated, the claims of the drivers are all based on the same legal
theory that the law affords truck drivers on public-works projects
the right to the prevailing wage. Additionally, the truck drivers'
claims arise from the same event, practice, or course of conduct
that gives rise to the claims of other class members  all purported
class members were employed by Haynes, were not paid the prevailing
wage, and were truck drivers performing the various activities
described in the class definition. The Court fail to see how any
reasonable trial court would not find typicality to be satisfied in
this case based on those facts.

Nothing about the trial court's CR 23.01 findings can be labeled as
an abuse of discretion.
CR 23.02 findings

The lower court also fails to see how a class action in this case
would not be superior to other available methods for the fair and
efficient adjudication of the controversy. Allowing this case to
proceed as a class action consolidates all claims by former Haynes
truck drivers into a single case, which benefits both sides. The
truck drivers do not have to bring individualized claims for
essentially the same relief, based on a common nucleus of operative
facts and on the same legal theory, while Haynes, ATS, and Hartford
can organize their defense to contest all claims against them in
one litigation.

Even if the state Supreme Court were to agree with Haynes, ATS, and
Hartford that the CR 23.02(c) requirements cannot be satisfied in
this case, the trial court also found satisfaction of the CR
23.02(a) requirements. On the question of whether the CR 23.02
requirements have been satisfied, the trial court need only find
the requirements of either (a), (b), or (c) are satisfied to
proceed with class certification. Neither the Court of Appeals nor
the parties attacked the trial court's findings that the
requirements of CR 23.02(a) have been satisfied. As such, no matter
our determination of the propriety of the trial court's finding of
satisfaction of CR 23.02(c), the trial court found CR 23.02(a) to
have been satisfied, which was all that was necessary to proceed
with its class certification determination. And this finding has
not been challenged.

Class Definition

Hartford alleged that the class definition was an improper
fail-safe definition, as the Sixth Circuit has articulated. But
Hartford misunderstands what a fail-safe class is. The Sixth
Circuit in Randleman, Randleman v. Fidelity Nat. Title Ins. Co.,
646 F.3d 347 (6th Cir. 2011), found an abuse of discretion in the
trial court's initial class definition, which included all persons
who were entitled to receive a certain insurance rate. Defining the
class in such way was improper because it shields the putative
class members from receiving an adverse judgment. Either the class
members win or, by virtue of losing, they are not in the class and,
therefore, not bound by the judgment.

A full-text copy of the state Supreme Court's June 14, 2018 Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/yaaz44bq from Leagle.com.

William R. Garmer , Jerome Park Prather Garmer and Prather, PLLC,
Brent Caldwell , Caldwell Law Firm, PLLC, Bryce Caldwell, Counsel
for Appellants.

Robert E. Maclin III -- remaclin@mmlk.com -- Jon Allen Woodall --
jwoodall@mmlk.com -- Brendan Reynolds Yates -- byates@mmlk.com --
Masten Childers III , McBrayer, McGinnis, Leslie & Kirkland, PLLC,
Counsel for Appellees: Haynes Trucking, LLC; and L-M Asphalt
Partners, Ltd, D/B/A ATS Construction.

La Toi D. Mayo -- lmayo@littler.com -- J. Andrew Inman --
jinman@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.S.C., Susan C. Sears,
Counsel for Appellee: Hartford Insurance Co.

HUB GROUP: Claims in Robles Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
---------------------------------------------------------
Hub Group, Inc. 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 in the case filed by
Salvador Robles, the Court stated on July 2, 2018 that the
dismissal of the claims of all purported class members who signed
settlement agreements was with prejudice.

On January 25, 2013, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of California (Sacramento Division)
by Salvador Robles against our subsidiary Hub Group Trucking, Inc
("HGT").  The action is brought on behalf of a class comprised of
present and former California-based truck drivers for HGT who were
classified as independent contractors, from January 2009 to August
2014.  It alleges HGT has misclassified such drivers as independent
contractors and that such drivers were employees.  It asserts
various violations of the California Labor Code and claims that HGT
has engaged in unfair competition practices.  The complaint seeks,
among other things, declaratory and injunctive relief, monetary
damages and attorney's fees.  In May 2013, the complaint was
amended to add similar claims based on Mr. Robles' status as an
employed company driver.  These additional claims are only on
behalf of Mr. Robles and not a putative class.  

The Company believes that the California independent contractor
truck drivers were properly classified as independent contractors
at all times.  Nevertheless, because lawsuits are expensive,
time-consuming and could interrupt our business operations, HGT
decided to make settlement offers to individual drivers with
respect to the claims alleged in this lawsuit, without admitting
liability.  As of June 30, 2018, 96% of the California drivers have
accepted the settlement offers.  In late 2014, HGT decided to
convert its model from independent contractors to employee drivers
in California (the "Conversion").  In early 2016, HGT closed its
operations in Southern California.

On April 3, 2015, the Robles case was transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Tennessee (Western
Division) in Memphis.  In May 2015, the plaintiffs in the Robles
case filed a Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") which names 334
current and former Hub Group Trucking drivers as "interested
putative class members."  In addition to reasserting their existing
claims, the SAC includes claims post-Conversion, added two new
plaintiffs and seeks a judicial declaration that the settlement
agreements are unenforceable.  In June 2015, Hub Group Trucking
filed a motion to dismiss the SAC and on July 19, 2016, Hub Group
Trucking's motion to dismiss was granted in part, and denied in
part, by the District Court.  The motion to dismiss was granted for
the claims of all purported class members who have signed
settlement agreements and on plaintiffs' claims based on quantum
merit and it was denied with respect to federal preemption and
choice of law.  On August 11, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a motion to
clarify whether the Court's dismissal of the claims of all
purported class members who signed settlement agreements was with
or without prejudice and, if the dismissal was with prejudice,
Plaintiffs moved the Court to revise and reconsider the order.  On
July 2, 2018, the Court denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Clarification or Reconsideration and stated that the dismissal of
the claims of all purported class members who signed settlement
agreements was with prejudice.  

Hub Group, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that was incorporated on
March 8, 1995. The company is one of North America's leading
asset-light freight transportation management companies. The
company offers comprehensive intermodal, truck brokerage and
logistics services.


HUNTER WARFIELD: $21K Deal in FDCPA Suit Has Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JUSTINE McMULLEN, an individual, on behalf of herself
and those similarly situated; Plaintiffs, v. HUNTER WARFIELD OF NEW
ENGLAND, INC., a Florida corporation, Defendant, Case No.
2:16-cv-01646 (D. Nev.), Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Nevada granted granted the
Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and
Certification of Settlement Class, granted in part the Motion for
an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Costs.

McMullen brought the instant action against the Defendant for
alleged violations of the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act ("FDCPA").  On Sept. 8, 2017, the Preliminary Approval Orde
regarding the class action settlement was entered which, among
other things, conditionally certified a class as defined in the
Complaint for settlement purposes only and directed notice of the
Settlement to the Class.  The parties now move jointly for final
approval of their class action Settlement.

Having reviewed all papers submitted on the matter, her reasons,
and her findings and conclusions on the record, Judge Dorsey
granted final certification to the Class for settlement.  She
certified the Settlement Class defined as all Nevada residents who
(i) on or after July 13, 2015 through May 10, 2017 (ii) were sent a
collection letter in the form of Exhibit 1, attached to the First
Amended Complaint, from Defendant Hunter Warfield (iii) which was
not returned as undeliverable by the U.S. Post Office (iv) in an
attempt to recover an alleged obligation incurred for personal,
family, or household purposes.

The Judge designated McMullen as the Class Representative; and O.
Randolph Bragg of Horwitz, Horwitz & Associates, LTD. and Keren E.
Gesund of Gesund & Pailet, LLC as the Class Counsel.

The Named Plaintiffs, each member of the Class, and each of the
Releasing Persons' claims are dismissed with prejudice as to the
Released Parties.  The Named Plaintiffs' individual claims against
the Defendant are dismissed with prejudice.

The Defendant will pay $21,000 to the Class pursuant to the terms
of the Settlement Agreement, i.e. -- $41.01 to each of the 512
Class Members.  It will pay for the cost of class notice,
preparation and distribution of checks to the class members, claims
administration, etc.

The Judge awarded $839.10 in costs plus $44,208.40 in attorneys'
fees (which reflects an across-the-board 20% reduction from the
requested amount), for a total fees-and-costs award of $45,047.50.
The Plaintiffs has filed a motion for an award of $56,099.60 in
fees and costs.  She also awarded the Plaintiff $4,000, $1,000 in
statutory damages plus a class-representative incentive award of
$3,000, to be paid directly by the Defendant.

She approved Legal Aid Center of Southern Nevada, a 501(c)(3)
non-profit organization as the recipient of the cy pres award for
any monies remaining from the $21,000 settlement fund that are
unclaimed, including all monies from the checks from the settlement
fund that are not cashed within 90 days of their issuance date.
This cy pres award must be used for consumer representation and/or
education.

And because these rulings leave no further action to be taken by
the Court, Judge Dorseu approved the Class Action Settlement and
directed the parties to carry out the terms of the Settlement
Agreement.  The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in
favor of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant in the amount of
$44,208.40 in attorneys' fees and $839.10 in costs, for a total
judgment of $45,047.50 and close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 26, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/QPyGO5 from Leagle.com.

Justine McMullen, Plaintiff, represented by O. Randolph Bragg,
Horwitz, Horwitz & Associates, pro hac vice & Keren E. Gesund --
keren@gp-nola.com -- Gesund & Pailet, LLC.

Hunter Warfield of New England, Inc., Defendant, represented by
David J. Kaminski -- kaminskid@cmtlaw.com -- Carlson & Messer, pro
hac vice, Kurt R. Bonds -- kbonds@alversontaylor.com -- Alverson
Taylor Mortensen, et al, Tamar Gabriel -- cmt@cmtlaw.com -- Carlson
& Messer, pro hac vice & Trevor Waite -- twaite@alversontaylor.com
-- Alverson Taylor Mortensen & Sander.

IC SYSTEM: Delgado Seeks Certification of Class Under FDCPA
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled TERESA DELGADO, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. I.C. SYSTEM,
INC., Case No. 1:17-cv-01366 (N.D. Ill.), asks the Court to certify
that the claims set forth in her complaint may proceed on behalf of
a class defined as:

     (1) all persons with addresses in the State of Illinois (2)
     from whom Defendant attempted to collect a delinquent
     consumer debt; (3) upon which Defendants sent a form letter
     substantially similar to that of Plaintiff's Exhibit C;
     which (4) is the initial communication with the person; and
     which (5) states that the alleged debtor had thirty (30)
     days after the receipt of the Letter to exercise several
     rights, including the right to dispute the debt; and which
     (6) also states that the dispute must be in writing, unless
     the alleged debtor lives in New Jersey, Delaware, or
     Pennsylvania.

The putative class action lawsuit is brought against the Defendant
for alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant violated the FDCPA when
ICS used false, deceptive and misleading representations and unfair
or unconscionable means in an attempt to collect a debt.  She
asserts that while making a settlement offer the Defendant stated
that negative credit reporting may begin, when in fact the alleged
debt had already been reported to the credit bureaus.

Ms. Delgado also asks the Court to certify the Class in this matter
and that briefing as to class certification be stayed pending
discovery as to class issues.  She further asks the Court to name
her as class representative, to appoint her lawyers as counsel for
the class and to allow her to file a memorandum in support of the
Motion after taking class discovery.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Wood, Esq.
          Celetha Chatman, Esq.
          COMMUNITY LAWYERS GROUP, LTD.
          73 W. Monroe Street, Suite 514
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 757-1880
          Facsimile: (312) 476-1362
          E-mail: mwood@communitylawyersgroup.com
                  cchatman@communitylawyersgroup.com


ILG INC: Faces Hohman Class Suit over Marriott Vacations Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
ILG, Inc. is facing a class action complaint filed by Dina A.
Hohman related to the Company's merger agreement with Marriott
Vacations Worldwide Corporation, according to ILG's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018.

On April 30, 2018, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger ("Merger Agreement"), with Marriott Vacations Worldwide
Corporation ("Marriott Vacations"), Ignite Holdco, Inc. and Ignite
Holdco Subsidiary, Inc. (two of the Company's wholly owned
subsidiaries), and Volt Merger Sub, Inc.  and Volt Merger Sub, LLC
(two wholly owned subsidiaries of Marriott Vacations), pursuant to
which Marriott Vacations will acquire ILG in a series of
transactions (the "Combination Transactions") and ILG stockholders
will receive US$14.75 in cash (without interest) and 0.165 shares
of common stock of Marriott Vacations for each share of ILG common
stock held by such stockholder.  This will result in ILG
stockholders owning approximately 43% of Marriott Vacations
following the merger transactions.

On July 31, 2018, a class action complaint challenging the
Combination Transactions was filed on behalf of an alleged
stockholder of ILG in the District Court for the District of
Delaware, captioned Dina A. Hohman v. ILG, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:18-cv-01126.  The complaint names ILG and ILG's directors as
defendants.  The complaint alleges that (i) ILG and ILG's directors
issued a false and misleading registration statement in violation
of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated
thereunder and (ii) ILG's directors violated Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act by allegedly exercising control over ILG while issuing
a false and misleading registration statement.  The complaint seeks
an injunction preventing the defendants from consummating the
Combination Transactions and attorneys' fees and costs, as well as
other remedies.  ILG believes that the claims asserted in this
matter are without merit.

ILG, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides professional
vacation services in the United States and internationally.  The
company operates in two segments, Vacation Ownership (VO), and
Exchange and Rental.  The Company was formerly known as Interval
Leisure Group, Inc. and changed its name to ILG, Inc. in October
2016.  ILG, Inc. was founded in 1976 and is headquartered in Miami,
Florida.


ILG INC: Still Awaiting Court Ruling on Bid to Drop Mass Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
ILG, Inc. said 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 the federal court in the Southern
District of New York has "not yet rendered any decision" on the
motion to dismiss the complaint, as amended, in a mass action
related to the Fifth and Fifty-Fifth Residence Club.

On December 5, 2016, individuals and entities who own or owned 107
fractional interests of a total of 372 interests created in the
Fifth and Fifty-Fifth Residence Club located within The St.  Regis,
New York (the "Club") filed suit against ILG, certain of the
Company's subsidiaries, Marriott International Inc. ("Marriott")
and certain of its subsidiaries including Starwood.  The case is
filed as a mass action in federal court in the Southern District of
New York, not as a class action.

In response to the Company's request to file a motion to dismiss,
the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on March 6, 2017.
Plaintiffs principally challenge the sale of less than all
interests offered in the fractional offering plan, the amendment of
the plan to include additional units, and the rental of unsold
fractional interests by the plan's sponsor, claiming that alleged
acts by the Company and the other defendants breached the relevant
agreements and harmed the value of plaintiffs' fractional
interests.  The relief sought includes, among other things,
compensatory damages, rescission, disgorgement, attorneys' fees,
and pre- and post-judgment interest.

The Company said, "We filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint on April 21, 2017.  The court has not yet rendered any
decision on the motion.  Fact discovery is complete and expert
discovery is proceeding.  We dispute the material allegations in
the amended complaint and intend to defend against the action
vigorously.  Given the early stages of the action and the inherent
uncertainties of litigation, we cannot estimate a range of the
potential liability, if any, at this time."

ILG, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides professional
vacation services in the United States and internationally.  The
company operates in two segments, Vacation Ownership (VO), and
Exchange and Rental.  The Company was formerly known as Interval
Leisure Group, Inc. and changed its name to ILG, Inc. in October
2016.  ILG, Inc. was founded in 1976 and is headquartered in Miami,
Florida.


IMPERVA INC: Settlement in Principle Reached in Calif. Class Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Imperva, 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 the Company recorded an accrual of US$2.4
million for the six months period ended June 30, 2018 to cover the
settlement of two related class action lawsuits in California.

On August 25, 2017, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company and others, alleging that current, former and
prospective employees are entitled to monetary damages for
violations of the notice provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting
Act and similar California laws governing background checks.  The
lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court for San Mateo County and on
September 29, 2017, the Company removed the action to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.  On
November 6, 2017, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the action.
On April 9, 2018, the court granted the motion, dismissing several
claims with prejudice and giving plaintiff thirty days to file an
amended complaint with regards to the remaining claims.  The
plaintiff filed an amended complaint on May 10, 2018 with only one
claim under the Fair Credit Reporting Act and no claims under the
similar California laws.

On August 25, 2017, the same plaintiff filed a second purported
class action lawsuit against the Company and others in the Superior
Court for San Mateo County, alleging, among other claims, violation
of California wage and hour, overtime, meal break and rest break
rules and regulations, failure to provide for proper expense
reimbursements, failure to maintain accurate and complete payroll
records, failure to pay commissions and unfair business practices,
and seeking unspecified monetary damages, injunctive relief and
attorneys' fees.  The Company filed an answer to the complaint on
September 29, 2017.  On November 3, 2017, the plaintiff amended his
complaint to assert an additional representative Private Attorney
General Act (PAGA) claim against the Company.  On December 6, 2017,
the Company filed an answer to the amended complaint.

In June 2018, through formal mediation, the parties reached an
agreement in principle to settle both actions.  The Company
recorded an accrual of US$2.4 million included under other current
and accrued liabilities for the six months period ended June 30,
2018 to cover the settlement of both class action lawsuits.  Both
settlements remain subject to the approval of the respective courts
in which the actions were brought, among other conditions, and will
not be funded until the courts issue final approvals of the
settlements.

Imperva, Inc. engages in the development, market, sale, and support
of cyber security solutions that protect business critical data and
applications in the cloud or on premises worldwide.  The company
was founded in 2002 and is headquartered in Redwood Shores,
California.


INVUITY INC: Paciga Securities Class Lawsuit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Invuity, Inc. continues to defend itself against a stockholder
class action titled Paciga v. Invuity, Inc., et al., 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.

The Company said, "On February 27, 2017, a purported stockholder
class action titled Paciga v. Invuity, Inc., et al., Case No.
3:17‑cv‑01005, was filed in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California against us, our Chief
Executive Officer, and our Chief Financial Officer.  The complaint
alleges that the defendants made false or misleading statements to
investors regarding our business prospects.  The complaint purports
to assert claims for violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act of 1934, and SEC Rule 10b‑5 on behalf of a purported
class consisting of all purchasers of our common stock between July
19, 2016 and November 3, 2016, and seeks unspecified compensatory
damages, attorney fees and costs, and other relief."

On May 30, 2017, the Court appointed Mike Paciga as lead plaintiff.
The lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on July 31, 2017.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on September 14, 2017, and the
lead plaintiff filed his opposition to the motion on October 30,
2017.  Defendants filed a reply brief on December 4, 2017.

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

The Company said, "We intend to defend the litigation vigorously.
Based on information currently available, we have determined that
the amount of any possible loss or range of possible loss is not
reasonably estimable."

Invuity, Inc. is a medical technology company focused on developing
and marketing advanced surgical devices to improve the ability of
physicians to perform minimal access surgery through smaller and
hidden incisions. The company is based in San Francisco,
California.


JACOB TRANSPORTATION: Settlement in R. Greene's Suit Has Prelim OK
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ROBERT GREENE, THOMAS SCHEMKES, and GREGORY GREEN on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly Member situated,
Plaintiffs, v. JACOB TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, LLC, a Nevada
Corporation, doing business as Executive Las Vegas; JAMES
JIMMERSON, an individual, CAROL JIMMERSON, an individual, and Does
1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
2:09-CV-00466-GMN-CWH, Consolidated with Case No.
2:11-CV-00355-JAD-NJK (D. Nev.), Judge Gloria M. Navarro of the
U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada granted the
Application for Preliminary Approval of a Class Action Settlement.

The Judge approved, as to form and content, the Notice of Pendency
of Class Action, Proposed Class Action Settlement, and Hearing Date
for Court Approval, and the Claim Form.  She also approved the
procedure for the Class Members to participate in, to opt out of
and to object to, the Settlement as set forth in the Notice of
Pendency of Class Action.

Judge Navarro directed the mailing of the Notice of Pendency of
Class Action and Proposed Settlement, and the Claim Forms by first
class mail to the Class Members in accordance with the
Implementation Schedule set forth.

The Settlement Class is preliminarily certified for settlement
purposes only.

The Judge confirmed Plaintiffs Greene, Schemkes, and Green as the
Class Representatives; and Thierman Buck, LLP as the Class Counsel.
She confirmed Simpluris as the Claims Administrator.

The following Implementation Schedule for further proceedings is
ordered:

     a. Deadline for the Defendants to Submit Class Member
Information to Claims - July 6, 2018, by 5:00 p.m. [10 calendar
days after Order granting Administrator Preliminary Approval]

     b. Deadline for Claims Administrator to Mail the Notice and
the Claim Form - July 10, 2018 [14 calendar days after Order
granting to Class Members Preliminary Approval]

     c. Deadline for Class Members to Postmark Claim Forms - Aug.
9, 2018 [30 calendar days after initial mailing of the Notice and
Claim Form to Class Members]

     d. Deadline for Class Members to Postmark Requests for
Exclusions - Aug. 9, 2018 [30 calendar days after initial mailing
of the Notice and Claim Form to Class Members]

     e. Deadline for Receipt by Court and Counsel of any Objections
to Settlement - Aug. 9, 2018 [30 calendar days after initial
mailing of the Notice and Claim Form to Class Members]

     f. Deadline for Class Counsel to file Motion for Final
Approval of Settlement, Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Enhancement
Award - Sept. 10, 2018 [7 calendar days before Final Approval
Hearing]

     g. Deadline for Class Counsel to File Declaration from Claims
Administrator of Due Diligence and Proof of Mailing - Sept. 10,
2018 [7 calendar days before Final Approval Hearing]  

     h. Final Fairness Hearing & Final Approval - Sept. 17, 2018 at
2:30 p.m. at Courtroom 7D

     i. Deadline for Defendants to Fund Settlement Account
maintained by Claims Administrator - Sept. 22, 2018 [5 calendar
days after Effective Date]

     j. Deadline for Claims Administrator to wire the Attorneys'
Fees and Costs to Class Counsel (if Settlement is Effective) - Oct.
1, 2018 [5 calendar days after transfer of Defendants Fund to
Settlement Account)

     k. Deadline for Claims Administrator to mail the Awards to
Class Representatives (if Settlement is Effective) -  Oct. 2, 2018
[10 days after Settlement Awards to Class Defendants Fund Members
and the Enhancement Settlement Account]

     l. Claims Administrator to File Proof of Payment of Settlement
Awards, Attorneys' Fees and Costs, Enhancement Awards, (if
Settlement is Effective) - Dec. 17, 2018 [90 calendar days after
Effective Date]

A full-text copy of the Court's June 26, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/h9Ld79 from Leagle.com.

Robert Greene, Gregory Green & Thomas Schemkes, Plaintiffs,
represented by Mark R. Thierman -- mark@thiermanbuck.com --
Thierman Buck, LLP, Jason J. Kuller -- jason@kullerlaw.com --
Kuller Law PC, Joshua D. Buck -- josh@thiermanbuck.com -- Thierman
Buck, LLP, Joshua R. Hendrickson, Thierman Buck, LLC & Leah Lin
Jones -- leah@thiermanbuck.com  -- Thierman Buck, LLP.

Carol Jimmerson & Jacob Transportation Services, LLC, doing
business as Executive Las Vegas, Defendants, represented by James
J. Jimmerson -- jjj@jimmersonlawfirm.com -- Jimmerson Hansen, P.C.

James Jimmerson, Defendant, pro se.

Jacob Transportation Services, LLC, Consol Counter Claimant,
represented by Ikenna K. Odunze, Jimmerson Hansen, PC & James J.
Jimmerson, Jimmerson Hansen, P.C.

Thomas Thatcher Schemkes, Consol Counter Defendant, represented by
Jason J. Kuller, Kuller Law PC, Joshua D. Buck, Thierman Buck, LLP
& Mark R. Thierman, Thierman Buck, LLP.

JAMES MAYER: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Barry Says
---------------------------------------------------
Peter Barry, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Law Office of James A. Mayer, Defendant,
Case No. 2:18-cv-11667-CCC-MF (D.N.J., July 16, 2018) seeks to stop
the Defendant's practice of sending prerecorded messages to the
Plaintiff's cellular telephone without her prior express written
consent.

Law Office of James A. Mayer is an entity operating as a law office
in Westwood, New Jersey. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ross H. Schmierer, Esq.
          DeNITTIS OSEFCHEN PRINCE, P.C.
          525 Route 73 North, Suite 410
          Marlton, NJ 08053
          Telephone: (856) 797-9951
          E-mail: rschmierer@denittislaw.com


JONATHAN KLEIN: Lundi Sues Over Illegal Credit Collection
---------------------------------------------------------
Ricardo Lundi, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Law Office of Jonathan Klein, Defendant,
Case No. 18-cv-04373 (E.D. N.Y., August 2, 2018), seeks redress for
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act for alleged
illegal collection over a consumer credit.

The Law Office of Jonathan Klein is a law firm that provides
customized account receivables management services. [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

JP MORGAN: $285K in Attys' Fees Awarded in M. Loeza's Wage Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARY LOEZA et al., Plaintiffs, v. JP MORGAN CHASE BANK
NA, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:13-cv-00095-L-BGS (S.D. Cal.),
Judge M. James Lorenz of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California granted in part and denied in part the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Approval of Attorneys' Fees and Costs and
Plaintiffs' Service Enhancements.

In this wages and hours action, the Court has approved a class
action settlement.  Pending before the Court is the Plaintiffs'
Motion for Approval of Attorneys' Fees and Costs and Plaintiffs'
Service Enhancements.  The Defendants did not file an opposition.
Although the class members received notice of the terms of the
settlement, including attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, costs,
and the Plaintiffs' service enhancements, none have objected.

The class counsel seeks $285,000 in attorneys' fees.  The class
Counsel seeks attorneys' fees of $285,000, based on 30% of the
common fund of $950,000, and a lodestar of approximately $741,000.
The settlement agreement allows for this amount without objection
from the Defendant, and the request was noticed to the class.  

The class counsel also requests $22,018.21 in costs, including
filing fees, depositions, expert and mediation fees, and travel
expenses.  This less than the $35,000 provided for in the
Settlement Agreement and noticed to the class members.

The named Plaintiffs request service enhancement awards in addition
to their individual settlement payments.  Plaintiff Angie Reveles
initially sought $5,000, but subsequently increased her request to
$10,000.  Plaintiff Loeza seeks $15,000.  The Settlement Agreement
provides for a payment of $15,000 to Loeza and $5,000 to Reveles,
and the same was noticed to the class.

Judge Lorenz finds that a total of 1,575 hours were billed to the
case for a total of amount of $741,435.50.  Upon review of the time
records and the Court's docket sheet for the case, the number of
hours billed is reasonable, given that the case settled after
discovery and a highly contested summary judgment motion.  The
average hourly rate for the entire action is approximately $471,
which is reasonable in the context of the case.  Lastly, he finds
that awarding 30% of the common fund is also reasonable in light of
the lodestar.

Upon review of the costs and expenses documented in itemized
billing sheets, and in light of the stage of the litigation when
the case settled, the Judge holds that all requested costs and
litigation expenses will be approved as reasonable.

Finally, the Judge agrees that the Plaintiffs should receive
enhancement awards.  However, because the average class member
settlement amount is approximately $708, the requested amounts of
$15,000 and $10,000, respectively, in addition to each of the
Plaintiff's settlement amount, is excessive.  He finds that $5,000
and $3,000, respectively, adequately compensate Loeza and Reveles
for their time, effort and risk.

Accordingly, Judge Lorenz granted in part and denied in part the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Approval of Attorneys' Fees and Costs and
Plaintiffs' Service Enhancements.  He granted the request for the
class counsel's fees, costs and litigation expenses is granted.
The class counsel will recover from the settlement the sum of
$285,000 for their fees and $22,018.21 for their costs and
litigation expenses.  He granted the Plaintiffs' request for
enhancement awards to the extent that Loeza is awarded $5,000 and
Reveles is awarded $3,000 from the settlement.  In all other
respects, he denied the motion.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 27, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/j78Hcq from Leagle.com.

Mary Loeza, an individual, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated & Angie Reveles, an individual, on behalf of
themselves, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
represented by David R. Markham -- dmarkham@markham-law.com -- The
Markham Law Firm, Janine R. Menhennet -- janinerm@sbcglobal.net --
Cohelan Khoury & Singer, Maggie K. Realin , The Markham Law Firm,
Peggy J. Reali -- preali@realilaw.com -- The Markham Law Firm &
Richard E. Quintilone, II -- req@quintlaw.com  -- Quintilone &
Associates.

JP Morgan Chase Bank NA, an unknown business entity, Defendant,
represented by John Spivey Battenfeld --
john.battenfeld@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis and Bockius & John
D. Hayashi -- john.hayashi@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius, LLP.

LAMB WESTON: Kennard Sues Over Under-filled Snack Product
---------------------------------------------------------
Angela Kennard, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Lamb Weston Holdings, Inc. and Does 1
through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-04665 (N.D. Cal.,
August 2, 2018), seeks damages, injunctive relief and any other
available legal or equitable remedies for violation of California's
Consumer Legal Remedies Act and the Fair Packaging and Labeling
Act.

Kennard purchased Defendant's Alexia Sweet Potato fries with Sea
Salt product several times during 2017 and 2018 in Daly City,
California. She alleges that the container had more than 50% empty
space, or slack-fill.

Lamb Weston sells potato products in over 100 countries around the
world.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
     PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS - A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
     4100 Newport Place, Ste. 800
     Newport Beach, CA 92660
     Tel: (949) 706-6464
     Fax: (949) 706-6469
     Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com

LANDMARK CREDIT: $950K Deal in Overdraft Fees Suit Has Prelim OK
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DANELL BEHRENS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. LANDMARK CREDIT UNION and
DOES 1-100, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-101-jdp (W.D. Wis.), Judge
James D. Peterson of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Wisconsin graned Behrens' unopposed motion seeking
preliminary approval for the parties' proposed class action
settlement.

Behrens filed a proposed class action alleging that the Defendants,
charged LCU members overdraft fees in violation of Regulation E of
the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ("ETFA") and LCU's own overdraft
program contract.  LCU is a Wisconsin-based credit union.  During
the six-year period prior to the filing of the suit, Behrens and
the proposed class members all had checking accounts with LCU.

Behrens alleges that LCU wrongfully charged its customers overdraft
fees.  An overdraft fee is charged to an account when there are not
sufficient funds in an account to cover a transaction.  LCU used
the available balance method to assess its overdraft fees.  The
available balance reflects only the money not subject to a hold due
to pending transactions.  Thus, the available balance in an account
may be less than the actual balance.  So by using the available
balance method, LCU may assess an overdraft fee even when a
customer's actual balance shows enough money to cover a
transaction.

Behrens claims that this practice violates the terms of the
contracts governing LCU's overdraft program, and that it violates
Regulation E of the EFTA, because LCU failed to properly disclose
its overdraft policy to customers.

Behrens brings her claims on behalf of herself and the entire
class, which is composed of two subclasses.  The first, the
"Sufficient Funds" subclass, is tied to the breach of contract
claim and is defined as those members of the Defendant who were
assessed an Overdraft Fee between Feb. 9, 2011 and Feb. 28, 2017 on
any type of payment transaction and at the time such fee was
assessed, the member had sufficient money in his or her ledger
balance to cover the transaction that resulted in the fee.  The
second, the "Regulation E" subclass, is tied to the ETFA claim and
is defined as "those members of Defendant who were assessed an
Overdraft Fee for an ATM or non-recurring debit card payment
transaction for the first time between Feb. 9, 2016 and Feb. 28,
2017.

Now before the Court is Behrens's unopposed motion seeking
preliminary approval for the parties' proposed class action
settlement.  In her motion, he seeks conditional certification of
the class, approval of a proposed notice plan, appointment of a
claims administrator, and a hearing date for the final approval of
the settlement.

Behrens summarizes the relevant settlement terms in her brief:

     i. LCU will pay $950,000 into a settlement fund;

     ii. LCU will change its overdraft assessment policy so that it
charges overdraft fees using the available balance method.  This
will save class members an estimated $385,000 per year;

     iii. LCU will waive $88,082 in assessed, but uncollected,
overdraft fees;

     iv. A claims administrator will administer the disbursement of
the settlement fund in accordance with the process outlined in
detail in the settlement agreement;

     v. No class member will be eligible to recover more than the
amount actually charged as an overdraft fee;

     vi. Any residual funds will not revert to LCU. Instead, they
will be allocated to a cy pres recipient;

     vii. A service payment of $10,000 may be requested by the
Named Plaintiff, Danell Behrens;

     viii. Any class member will be given an opportunity to opt out
by mailing an exclusion letter by the Bar Date;

     ix. The Plaintiff's counsel will petition the court for
attorney's fees and costs from the settlement fund.

The settlement agreement caps recovery at 70% of the charged
overdraft fee.  This cap, in conjunction with a 10-claim limit for
members of the Regulation E subclass, is designed to prevent the
claims of the Regulation E subclass members from overwhelming the
claims of the Sufficient Funds subclass.  Finally, the agreement
lays out the process for notifying the class, getting final
approval of the settlement, and administering it.

The settlement agreement provides that class counsel will seek
attorney fees and costs, to be paid from the settlement fund.  The
class counsel states that they will seek 25% of the value of the
settlement.  This equals $355,770.50, which is 37.4% of the
settlement fund.

Behrens also moves the Court to approve a proposed notice, and to
appoint Garden City Group, LLC, as the claims administrator.

Judge Peterson granted the Plaintiff's unopposed motion for
preliminary approval of class action settlement and her unopposed
motion for approval of claims administrator.  He appointed Danell
Behrens as the class representative; Richard McCune of McCune
Wright Arevalo, LLP, and Taras Kick of the Kick Law Firm, APC, as
the class counsel; and Garden City Group, LLC as the claims
administrator.

The notice attached to the settlement agreement is approved.  Per
the settlement agreement, Garden City Group, LLC, will send the
notice to the class within 20 days of the date of the Order.  The
class counsel will file a petition for approval of attorney fees
and costs no later than Aug. 9, 2018.  The class counsel will file
any supplemental brief in support of final approval of the
settlement agreement or in response to any objections to the
petition for attorney fees and costs no later than Aug. 23, 2018.
The telephonic final fairness hearing is scheduled for Aug. 30,
2018 at 9:00 a.m.  The counsel for the Plaintiff is responsible for
initiating the conference call.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 26, 2018 Opinion & Order is
available at https://is.gd/0Jw2mh from Leagle.com.

Danell Behrens, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas P. Dehler --
Doug.Dehler@wilaw.com -- O'Neil, Cannon, Hollman, DeJong & Laing
S.C., Laura Jean Lavey -- Laura.Lavey@wilaw.com -- O'Neil, Cannon,
Hollman, DeJong & Laing S.C., Taras Kick -- Taras@kicklawfirm.com
-- The Kick Law Firm & Richard Dale McCune, Jr. --
rdm@mccunewright.com -- McCune Wright Arevalo, LLP.

Landmark Credit Union, Defendant, represented by Stuart M. Richter
-- stuart.richter@kattenlaw.com -- Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP,
Andrew J. Demko -- andrew.demko@kattenlaw.com -- Katten Muchin
Rosenman LLP, Paul A. Grammatico -- paul.grammatico@kattenlaw.com
-- Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP & William Warren Ehrke --
wehrke@crivellocarlson.com -- Crivello Carlson, S.C..

LEE COUNTY, FL: Court Dismisses H. Gonzalez's Prisoners Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Sheri Polster Chappell of the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers Division, dismissed the
case, HECTOR GONZALEZ, Plaintiff, v. LAYRON J. GAITHER, Defendant,
Case No. 2:18-cv-366-FtM-99CM (M.D. Fla.).

On May 23, 2018, the Court issued an Opinion and Order dismissing
without prejudice a purported class action complaint initiated by
seven pretrial detainees held in the Lee County Jail for failing to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted to each pro se
Plaintiff filing a separate amended complaint and motion to proceed
in forma pauperis in their own action.  The deadline to file an
amended pleading and motion to proceed in forma pauperis has
expired and no Amended Complaint or motion has been filed.

Accordingly, the Judge dismissed the case and directed the Clerk to
enter judgment accordingly, terminate all deadlines and close the
case.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 27, 2018 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/qooye8 from Leagle.com.

Hector Gonzalez, Plaintiff, pro se.

LJM PARTNERS: Faces Shlifka Suit Over Growth Fund Collapse
----------------------------------------------------------
JAY J. SHLIFKA and DENISE B. SHLIFKA, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated v. LJM PARTNERS, LTD., Case No.
2018CH09614 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., July 31, 2018), is brought
on behalf of all persons, other than the Defendant, who invested in
the LJM Preservation and Growth Fund, L.P., as of February 6,
2018.

LJM Partners, Ltd., is an Illinois corporation and is registered as
a commodity pool operator and a commodity trading advisor.  LJM is
the general partner of the now-defunct LJM Preservation and Growth
Fund, L.P.  LJM, as the general partner of the Preservation and
Growth Fund, implements and manages the trading strategy for the
Partnership.

The case arises from a stunningly rapid collapse of the Partnership
wherein investors lost virtually their entire investment in what
was billed as a "Preservation and Growth" Fund -- 81% of the value
of investors' capital accounts was wiped out -- in just two days,
notes the complaint.  As a result, LJM placed the Partnership in
liquidation and the Partnership has ceased all trading activity.

LJM marketed the Preservation and Growth Fund as a conservative
investment opportunity to preserve capital and pursue moderate
growth with minimal correlation to the U.S. equity market, the
Plaintiffs note.  Contrary to the statements in the offering
materials, the Preservation and Growth Fund had no investment or
market position to adequately preserve capital and mitigate risk in
the face of this minimal market volatility, the Plaintiffs
argue.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC
          70 W. Madison St., Suite 1400
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 984-0000
          E-mail: malmstrom@whafh.com

               - and -

          Matthew M. Guiney, Esq.
          Demet Basar, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 545-4600
          Facsimile: (212) 545-4653
          E-mail: guiney@whafh.com
                  basar@whafh.com



M CULINARY CONCEPTS: Alejandro Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Miguel Angel Valdez Alejandro, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. M. Culinary Concepts, Novel
Foods Inc., A.M. Catering Solutions, Inc., Amichai Melamed and
Samar Sajjad, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-04839 (S.D. N.Y., May 31,
2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New York Labor Law, including
applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and
costs.

Defendants own, operate, or control a Middle Eastern and
Mediterranean restaurant, located at 62 W 22nd St, New York, NY
10010 under the name "Bite" where Plaintiff was employed as a
delivery worker.

The complaint says the Plaintiff worked for Defendants in excess of
40 hours per week, without appropriate overtime compensation for
the hours worked. Defendants also failed to maintain accurate
recordkeeping of the hours worked and repeatedly failed to pay
Plaintiff wages on a timely basis. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MACERICH COMPANY: Murphy Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site
--------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES MURPHY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. THE MACERICH COMPANY d/b/a KINGS PLAZA, Case No.
1:18-cv-06871-ALC (S.D.N.Y., July 31, 2018), is a civil rights
action against the Defendant for its alleged failure to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its Web site --
http://www.kingsplazaonline.com/-- to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people.

The Macerich Company is a Maryland Corporation doing business in
New York.  The Defendant is a mall operator that operates Kings
Plaza mall, as well as the Kings Plaza Web site.  The Defendant
operates Kings Plaza mall in Brooklyn, New York.[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


MACTANZ INC: Snider Moves to Certify Class of Servers Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned Matthew Snider,
Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated under
29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) v. MACTANZ, Inc. d/b/a Mac and Bob's
Restaurant, Case No. 7:18-cv-00233-EKD (W.D. Va.), files with the
Court his motion for expedited conditional certification of
collective action and judicially-supervised notice under Section
216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mr. Snider asks the Court to conditionally certify the class and
authorize his counsel to send his proposed notices to this group of
individuals:

     All current and former employees who worked for Defendant as
     servers, waiters, or waitresses at any time during the three
     (3) years preceding the filing of this lawsuit and were paid
     a direct cash wage of less than $7.25 per hour.

The Plaintiff filed this action against the Defendant seeking
payment of unpaid wages under the FLSA.  He alleges that the
Defendant violated the FLSA by requiring him and his fellow servers
to contribute tips to a tip pool in which non-tipped
back-of-the-house employees, such as the dishwashers and food
runners, received a portion of the tips, invalidating the tip
pool.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Drew N. Herrmann, Esq.
          HERRMANN LAW, PLLC
          801 Cherry St., Suite 2365
          Fort Worth, TX 76102
          Telephone: (817) 479-9229
          Facsimile: (817) 260-0801
          E-mail: drew@herrmannlaw.com

               - and -

          William C. Tucker, Esq.
          TUCKER LAW FIRM, PLC
          690 Berkmar Circle
          Charlottesville, VA 22901
          Telephone: (434) 978-0100
          Facsimile: (434) 978-0101
          E-mail: bill.tucker@tuckerlawplc.com


MASTER JANITORIAL: Retina Associates Sues Over Illegal Faxed Ads
----------------------------------------------------------------
Retina Associates Medical Group, Inc. on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Master Janitorial Service,
Inc., Jay Kumar Rao, and Lisa Rao, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00941,
(C.D. Cal., May 31, 2018), seeks an injunction requiring Defendants
to cease all unsolicited telephone calling activities and an award
of statutory damages together with costs and reasonable attorneys'
fees pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Defendants operate as "Master Janitorial Service." They placed
unsolicited fax advertisements without obtaining prior express
consent, says the Plaintiff. [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


METROPOLITAN TRANSIT: Randle Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hubert Randle, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris
County, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-01770 (S.D. Tex., May 30, 2018),
seeks overtime pay at the correct overtime rate, liquidated
damages, all costs and attorneys' fees incurred prosecuting this
claim, prejudgment interest and all further relief under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Defendant misclassified their Metrolift drivers as independent
contractors instead of as employees, thus denying them overtime
pay, notes the complaint.

Metrolift is a division of Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris
County. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Taft L. Foley, II, Esq.
      THE FOLEY LAW FIRM
      3003 South Loop West, Suite 108
      Houston, TX 77054
      Phone: (832) 778-8182
      Facsimile: (832) 778-8353
      Email: Taft.Foley@thefoleylawfirm.com


MIAMI-DADE EXPRESSWAY: Class Cert. in Axle Toll Suit Affirmed
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Miami-Dade Expressway Authority and Javier Rodriguez,
P.E., etc., Appellants, v. Tropical Trailer Leasing, L.L.C., et
al., Appellees, Case No. 3D16-2851 (Fla. App.), Judge Vance E.
Salter of the District Court of Appeal of Florida for the Third
District affirmed the trial court's order granting the Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.

The Defendants/Appellants ("MDX"), appeal an order granting a
motion for class certification by Tropical Trailer, and eight
co-Plaintiffs.  The Plaintiffs are in the business of leasing
trailers.  The trailers are not self-propelled, and the Plaintiffs
do not own the tractor trucks needed to transport the trailers.
They lease the trailers to third parties, who in turn hire the
owners of tractor trucks to tow the leased trailers.  Many times
the tractor truck owners hire independent drivers for a particular
haul or group of hauls.

Implemented in 2010, MDX uses an electronic transponder system to
charge the motor vehicles and drivers on its roads a toll based on
the number of axles on the vehicle.  If the tractor truck contains
a working electronic transponder device ("SunPass transponder"),
the entire toll amount for a five-axle vehicle (three axles for the
tractor and two for the trailer) is automatically deducted from the
SunPass transponder account of the tractor truck's owner.  If the
vehicle has no SunPass transponder, then the MDX toll system relies
on a video "Toll by Plate" system, capturing an image of the
vehicle's rear tag.  In such cases, MDX charges the entire per-axle
toll to the rear tag's registered owner.

This practice led MDX to charge the Plaintiffs a full five-axle
toll.  The Plaintiffs alleged that, starting in 2013, some MDX
systems had the capability to photograph the front tag belonging to
the driver, but MDX made no consistent effort to identify the
driver of the motorized vehicle.  The Plaintiffs asserted that MDX
had no authority to impose a toll on their tractor-towed,
non-motorized trailers before a 2012 amendment to the statutory
definition of "motor vehicle," and thereafter, no authority to
impose a toll on the trailers for the separately-owned and operated
tractor trucks pulling the trailers.

The Plaintiffs sued MDX for declaratory, injunctive and monetary
relief based on allegations that MDX's toll collection practices,
through its video tolling and "Toll by Plate" system, had
unlawfully charged the Plaintiffs tolls on occasions where third
parties were towing their trailers. The Plaintiffs argued that a
trailer owner is not the owner of the "motor vehicle" incurring the
toll.  They sought to certify a class of all trailer owners who
were charged a toll by MDX because the driver of the motorized
tractor truck did not pay the toll incurred by the truck.

The operative Second Amended Class Action Complaint asserted that
many of the tractor truck drivers tow the trailers on MDX roads
without paying tolls.  These drivers allegedly smudge or obscure
the tractor plate to avoid MDX detection.  The Plaintiffs argued
that Florida statutes make a driver ultimately responsible for the
entire unpaid toll, not the trailer owner.  As a result, the
Plaintiffs have been paying most of the violations even though the
tolls are unlawful.

The complaint also sought clarification of the trailer owners'
liability for tolls after a 2012 statutory amendment.  Prior to
July 1, 2012, the Plaintiffs allege that MDX had no authority to
assess tolls against Tropical Trailer's non-self-propelled
vehicles.  As the trailers were not self-propelled, they could not
be assessed any toll under the pre-2012 statute.

The Plaintiffs moved for class certification.  After the hearing,
the trial court granted the motion for class certification.  The
court found that the elements of numerosity, commonality,
typicality, and adequacy, under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure
1.220(a), were established.  The trial court also found that Rule
1.220(b)(2) was satisfied.

The trial court defined two subclasses, rather than the four
proposed by the Plaintiffs, dividing the class members into those
affected before, and those affected after, the July 1, 2012,
legislative amendment: (1) the owners of all trailers towed on MDX
roadways for which MDX used the toll by plate method of toll
imposition from Oct. 14, 2010, through June 30, 2012; and (2) the
owners of all trailers on MDX roadways for which MDX used the toll
by plate method of toll imposition since July 1, 2012.

MDX appealed the order granting class certification.

Judge Salter holds that the class certification motion was
thoroughly briefed and argued by experienced counsel on both sides.
The evidentiary hearing, though shorter than many, included
competent, substantial evidence establishing the elements required
for certification.  The very nature of the claim --
allegedly-improper toll charges on heavily-traveled expressways
with tens of thousands of pertinent billings -- supports the
adjudication of the claims as a class action.  No single trailer
owner could cost-effectively maintain such an action, seeking
reimbursement for a series of charges of a few dollars per "Toll by
Plate" billing.

The Judge holds that the trial court was both diligent and vigilant
(reforming the class definitions, for example) in assessing the
required elements.

For these reasons, the Judge affirmed the order and findings in all
respects.  Certification order affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 27, 2018 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/SVyUr5 from Leagle.com.

Johnson, Anselmo, Murdoch, Burke, Piper & Hochman and Jonathan H.
Railey -- Railey@jambg.com -- Michael R. Piper -- Piper@jambg.com
-- and Christopher J. Stearns -- Stearns@jambg.com -- (Fort
Lauderdale), for appellants.

Akerman LLP and A. Rodger Traynor, Jr. --
rodger.traynor@akerman.com -- and Lawrence D. Silverman --
lawrence.silverman@akerman.com -- for appellees.

MICROSOFT CORP: Antitrust Class Lawsuit in Canada Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2018, for the
fiscal year ended June 30, 2018, that the Canadian courts "will
likely reach a decision on approval in September 2018" in the
antitrust class action proceeding in British Columbia.

Antitrust and unfair competition class action lawsuits were filed
against the Company in British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec,
Canada.  All three have been certified on behalf of Canadian
indirect purchasers who acquired licenses for Microsoft operating
system software and/or productivity application software between
1998 and 2010.

The trial of the British Columbia action commenced in May 2016.
Following a mediation, the parties agreed to a global settlement of
all three Canadian actions, and have submitted the proposed
settlement agreement to the courts in all three jurisdictions for
approval.  The courts will likely reach a decision on approval in
September 2018.

Microsoft Corporation, a technology company, develops, licenses,
and supports software products, services, and devices worldwide.
The Company markets and distributes its products through original
equipment manufacturers (OEM), distributors, and resellers, as well
as through online and Microsoft retail stores.  Microsoft
Corporation was founded in 1975 and is headquartered in Redmond,
Washington.


MICROSOFT CORP: Canadian Cell Phone Class Action Remains Dormant
----------------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft Corporation said in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June
30, 2018, that a Canadian cell phone class action has been dormant
for more than three years.

Subsidiary Microsoft Mobile Oy, along with other handset
manufacturers and network operators, is a defendant in a 2013 class
action lawsuit filed in the Supreme Court of British Columbia by a
purported class of Canadians who have used cellular phones for at
least 1,600 hours, including a subclass of users with brain tumors,
alleging adverse health effects from cellular phone use.  Microsoft
was served with the complaint in June 2014 and has been substituted
for the Nokia defendants.  The litigation has been dormant for more
than three years.

Microsoft Corporation, a technology company, develops, licenses,
and supports software products, services, and devices worldwide.
The Company markets and distributes its products through original
equipment manufacturers (OEM), distributors, and resellers, as well
as through online and Microsoft retail stores.  Microsoft
Corporation was founded in 1975 and is headquartered in Redmond,
Washington.


MISSISSIPPI COUNTY, AR: Bryan Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------
Brandon Bryan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Mississippi County, Arkansas, Case No. 3:18-cv-00130
(E.D. Ark., July 17, 2018), is brought against the Defendant for
violations of the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.

The Plaintiff, Brandon Bryan, is an individual and resident of
Mississippi County. He was employed by the Defendant as a Deputy
Sheriff from approximately March 21, 2011 until July 9, 2018.

The Defendant, Mississippi County, Arkansas, operates the
Mississippi County Sheriff's Department where Plaintiff was
employed within the three years prior to the filing of this
Complaint as a Deputy Sheriff. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MRI INT'L: Insurance Policies Liquidation in "Takiguchi" Ordered
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, HIGE 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 regarding the liquidation of life
insurance policies and payment of funds pursuant to the 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 surrender and
liquidate certain life insurance policies and pay the surrender
value to the Plaintiffs 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 life insurance
policies will be surrendered by the Suzuki Defendant and
liquidated, with the entire surrender proceeds wire transferred to
the Court appointed claims administrator, Heffler Claims Group to
be held in a qualified settlement fund:

     1. Pacific Guardian Life Policy No. 0007225184 owned by Keiko
Suzuki;

     2. New York Life Policy No. 46-908-188 owned by Suzuki
Enterprises, Inc.; and

     3. New York Life Policy No. 38-164-436 owned by Junzo Suzuki.

As of June 22, 2018, the Court's preliminary injunction order
freezing the assets of the Suzuki Defendants is permanently lifted
and vacated.

Therefore, the Parties stipulated and Judge McKibben granted that:


     1. Pacific Guardian Life is ordered to process the surrender
of Policy No. 0007225184 owned by Keiko Suzuki, and transfer the
entire surrender value of Policy No. 0007225184 to the qualified
settlement account designated by Heffler Claims Group;

     2.  New York Life is ordered to process the surrender of
Policy No. 46-908-188 owned by Suzuki Enterprises, Inc. and
transfer the entire surrender value of Policy No. 46-908-188 to the
qualified settlement account designated by Heffler Claims Group;

     3. New York Life is ordered to process the surrender of Policy
No. 46-908-188 owned by Suzuki Enterprises, Inc. and transfer the
entire surrender value of Policy No. 46-908-188 to the qualified
settlement account designated by Heffler Claims Group; and

     4. The Suzuki Defendants are ordered to reasonably cooperate
with the Plaintiffs and the life insurance policy issuers as
necessary in effectuating the surrender of the above policies.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 22, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/inlcv6 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.

MTGE INVESTMENT: Faces 4 Civil Actions over Annaly Merger Accord
----------------------------------------------------------------
MTGE Investment Corp. still defends itself against four civil
actions, three of which are putative class actions, related to the
Company's merger agreement with Annaly Capital Management, Inc.,
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.

Subsequent to the public announcement of the proposed acquisition
of the Company by Annaly, four civil actions were filed challenging
the adequacy of the disclosures disseminated in connection with the
proposed transaction.

On May 25, 2018, Jeroen Van Poeck, a purported stockholder of the
Company, commenced an action in the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland against the Company, certain of the
Company's current directors, Annaly and Purchaser.

On May 25, 2018, Giampaolo Dell'Acqua, a purported stockholder of
the Company, commenced a putative class action in the United States
District Court for the District of Maryland against MTGE, certain
of the Company's current and former directors named therein, Annaly
and Purchaser.

On May 30, 2018, Anthony Franchi, a purported stockholder of MTGE,
commenced a putative class action in the United States District
Court for the District of Maryland against the Company, certain of
the Company's current directors named therein, Annaly and
Purchaser.

On May 31, 2018, Gary Meyer, a purported stockholder of the
Company, commenced a putative class action in the United States
District Court for the District of Maryland against MTGE and
certain of the Company's current and former directors named
therein.

The complaints assert claims under Sections 14(d), 14(e) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 challenging the adequacy of
the public disclosures made concerning the proposed transaction.
The plaintiffs seek, among other things, an injunction preventing
consummation of the proposed transaction, rescission of the
proposed transaction or rescissory damages in the event it is
consummated, an accounting by defendants for all damages caused to
the plaintiff and, where applicable, the putative class, and the
award of attorneys' fees and expenses.

The Company said, "Although the outcomes of these cases cannot be
predicted with certainty, we do not believe that these cases have
merit or will result in a material liability, and, as of June 30,
2018, we did not accrue a loss contingency related to these
matters."

MTGE Investment Corp. operates as a real estate investment trust
(REIT) in the United States.  The Company was formerly known as
American Capital Mortgage Investment Corp. and changed its name to
MTGE Investment Corp. in September 2016.  MTGE Investment Corp. was
incorporated in 2011 and is headquartered in Bethesda, Maryland.


MTGE INVESTMENT: Meyer Suit Seeks to Halt Sale to Annaly
--------------------------------------------------------
Gary Meyer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. MTGE Investment Corp., Gary D. Kain, Julia
L. Coronado, Robert M. Couch, Randy E. Dobbs, Defendant, Case No.
18-cv-01576, (D. Md., May 31, 2018), seeks to enjoin defendants and
all persons acting in concert with them from proceeding with,
consummating or closing the acquisition of MTGE by Annaly Capital
Management, Inc. through its wholly owned subsidiary, Mountain
Merger Sub Corporation, or rescinding it in the event defendants
consummate the merger.

Rescissory damages, costs of this action, including reasonable
allowance for plaintiff's attorneys' and experts' fees and such
other and further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
are also sought by Plaintiffs.

Mountain Merger Sub will purchase all of MTGE's issued and
outstanding shares of common stock for either $9.82 in cash and
0.9519 shares of Annaly common stock or $19.65 in cash or 1.9037
shares of Annaly common stock.

The complaint says the Solicitation/Recommendation Statement filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission lacks the valuation
analyses performed by the Defendant's financial advisor, Barclays
Capital Inc. in support of its fairness opinion, and failed to
indicate the conflicts of interest faced by Barclays.

MTGE is a hybrid mortgage real estate investment trust that invests
in agency mortgage-backed securities, non-agency mortgage
investments and other real estate-related assets, including skilled
nursing and senior living facilities operated by third parties.

Annaly is a mortgage real estate investment trust that owns a
portfolio of real estate related investments. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
      Miles D. Schreiner, Esq.
      MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
      The Empire State Building
      350 Fifth Avenue, 59th Floor
      New York, NY 10118
      Telephone: (212) 971-1341
      Email: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
             mschreiner@monteverdelaw.com

             - and -

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


MVP WORKFORCE: Smith Alleges Discrimination in Job Placements
-------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Smith, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated
laborers, Plaintiff, v. MVP Workforce, LLC d/b/a Workforce, Twin
Staffing, Inc. and The Segerdahl Corp., Defendants, Case No.
18-cv-03718, (N.D. Ill., May 29, 2018), seeks damages under Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Civil Rights Act of 1866 for
discrimination against African-American laborers.

MVP Workforce is a temporary staffing agency that assigns temporary
laborers in its labor pool to its third party client companies for
a fee. Smith sought work assignments from Workforce's Cicero,
Illinois Branch Office. Twin Staffing is an alter ego of Workforce
and/or joint employer of temporary laborers assigned from the
Workforce Cicero Office. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher J. Williams, Esq.
      Alvar Ayala, Esq.
      WORKERS' LAW OFFICE, PC
      53 W. Jackson Blvd, Suite 701
      Chicago, IL 60604
      Tel: (312) 795-9121
      Email: cwilliams@wagetheftlaw.com
             aayala@wagetheftlaw.com


NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Awaiting Court's Okay of "Jordan" Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nationstar Mortgage Holdings Inc. is awaiting approval of a
settlement of a class action proceeding under the caption Laura
Zamora Jordan v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, 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.

The Company is a defendant in a class action proceeding originally
filed in state court in March 2012, and then removed to the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington under
the caption Laura Zamora Jordan v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC.  The
suit was filed on behalf of a class of Washington borrowers and
challenges property preservation measures the Company took, as loan
servicer, after the borrowers defaulted and the Company's vendors
determined that the borrowers had vacated or abandoned their
properties.

The case raises claims for (i) common law trespass, (ii) statutory
trespass, and (iii) violation of Washington's Consumer Protection
Act, and seeks recovery of actual, statutory, and treble damages,
as well as attorneys' fees and litigation costs.

On July 25, 2018, the Company entered into a settlement agreement
to resolve this matter.  The parties are currently seeking approval
of the settlement from the court.  The Company is pursuing
reimbursement of the settlement payment from the owners of the
loans it serviced, but there can be no assurance that the Company
would prevail with any claims for reimbursement.

Nationstar Mortgage Holdings Inc. provides servicing, origination,
and transaction based services primarily to single-family
residences in the United States.  It operates in three segments:
Servicing, Originations, and Xome.  The Company was founded in 1994
and is headquartered in Coppell, Texas.


NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Still Defends Class Suit over Telephone Calls
------------------------------------------------------------------
Nationstar Mortgage Holdings Inc. still defends itself against a
class action proceeding related to alleged improperly recorded
telephone calls, 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.

The Company is a defendant in a proceeding filed on October 23,
2015 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California under the caption Alfred Zaklit and Jessy Zaklit,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Nationstar Mortgage LLC et al. The plaintiff alleges that the
Company improperly recorded telephone calls without the knowledge
or consent of borrowers in violation of the California Penal Code.

The court, on July 24, 2017, certified a class comprised of
California borrowers who, from October 2014 to May 2016,
participated in outbound telephone conversations with the Company's
employees who recorded the conversations without first informing
the borrowers that the conversations were being recorded.  The
class seeks statutory damages and attorney's fees.  The Company
believes it has meritorious defenses and will continue to
vigorously defend itself in this matter.

Nationstar Mortgage Holdings Inc. provides servicing, origination,
and transaction based services primarily to single-family
residences in the United States.  It operates in three segments:
Servicing, Originations, and Xome.  The Company was founded in 1994
and is headquartered in Coppell, Texas.


NATURE'S BEST: Arbitration Ruling in Drivers' Suit Reversed
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHRISTOPHER WISE, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; NATURE'S BEST, LLC et al., Real
Parties in Interest, Case No. B287534 (Cal. App.), the Court of
Appeals of California for the Second District, Division Five,
directed the respondent court to vacate its Nov. 15, 2017 order
granting the motion to compel arbitration, and issue a new order
denying the motion.

An employee filed a petition for a writ of mandate, contending the
respondent court erred when it granted his employers' motion to
compel arbitration of his claims.  On Feb. 8, 2017, the Plaintiff
filed a class action complaint against the Company for: (1) failure
to pay hourly and overtime wages and failure to pay overtime; (2)
failure to provide meal periods or compensation in lieu thereof;
(3) failure to provide rest periods or compensation in lieu
thereof; (4) knowing and intentional failure to comply with
itemized wage statements; (5) violations of unfair competition law;
and (6) violation of the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004
("PAGA").

On June 9, 2017, the Company moved to compel arbitration of the
Plaintiff's claims pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement
("CBA").  The Plaintiff opposed the motion.  The court held a
hearing on Aug. 10, 2017, and Sept. 20, 2017.  On Nov. 15, 2017,
the respondent court issued a written ruling, granting the
Company's motion to compel arbitration.  The court stayed the PAGA
cause of action pending completion of the arbitration process.

The court stated that assuming the clear and unmistakable waiver
requirement applies to any (or all) of the Plaintiff's claims, it
finds that the Side Letter constitutes a clear and unmistakable
waiver of the right to sue for overtime, meal breaks and rest
breaks in court.

As an alternative holding, the court concluded that the Plaintiff's
claims arose from the CBA rather than the Labor Code.  Accordingly,
the general presumption favoring arbitration, rather than a
requirement that a waiver to a judicial forum for statutory claims
be clear and unmistakable, applied to the Plaintiff's case.

The court explained that based on the CBA, which included an
appendix of wage rates, the Plaintiff and other drivers earn well
in excess of 30 more than the State minimum wage.  Accordingly, all
of the requirements for the CBA meal break exemption under section
512, subdivisions (e), (f) 4 are met.  Therefore, the Plaintiff's
claims for overtime and meal breaks derive from the CBA, and not
from violations of statute because the Labor Code provisions on
overtime and meal breaks do not apply to the Pplaintiff].  Although
the Court does not decide the merits of the Defendants' exemption
defense, the court finds it must consider the terms of the CBA when
deciding the gateway issue of arbitrability of the Plaintiff's
claims.

The Plaintiff timely filed a petition for writ of mandate in the
Court, challenging the respondent court's order granting the motion
to compel arbitration.

The Appellate Court disagrees with the Company's position that the
clear and unmistakable standard only applies to statutory
discrimination claims, and not to statutory wage and hour claims.
Two recent cases have found that the clear and unmistakable
standard applies to statutory wage and hour claims (Cortez v. Doty
Bros. Equipment Company and Vasserman v. Henry Mayo Newhall
Memorial Hospital), and no case has held to the contrary.  

It finds that Article 28, like the arbitration clause in Vasserman,
does not include any reference to the Labor Code or any other state
or federal statutes; and does not include any agreement to submit
statutory causes of action to arbitration.  Therefore, it cannot be
reasonably read to include an explicitly stated, clear and
unmistakable waiver of a judicial forum for employees' statutory
claims.

It further finds that the Side Letter provided that disputes over
meal breaks, rest breaks, wages and overtime, are subject to final
and binding arbitration under the grievance procedure of the
Agreement.  The Side Letter expressly defined "Agreement" as the
current CBA.  Giving appropriate significance to the words "under
the grievance procedure of the Agreement," the Court concludes the
Side Letter incorporated the grievance procedure set forth in
Article 28.  The grievance procedure permitted, but did not
require, arbitration.  That disputes over meal breaks, rest breaks,
wages, and overtime were "subject" to the permissive arbitration
procedure described in Article 28, did not require the Plaintiff to
submit such disputes to arbitration.

For these reasons, the Court concludes, based on its de novo review
of the CBA and Side Letter, that neither included a clear and
unmistakable waiver of the Plaintiff's right to a judicial forum
for his statutory claims.

The Judge let a peremptory writ of mandate issue directing the
respondent court to vacate its Nov. 15, 2017 order granting the
motion to compel arbitration, and issue a new order denying the
motion.  Wise will recover his costs in the proceeding.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 26, 2018 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/8kAHy0 from Leagle.com.

Harris & Ruble, Alan Harris -- HarrisA@harrisandruble.com -- David
Garrett -- dgarrett@harrisandruble.com -- Min Ji Gal --
mgal@harrisandruble.com -- for Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.

Ballard Rosenberg Golper & Savitt, John B. Golper --
jgolper@brgslaw.com -- Jeffrey P. Fuchsman ---
jfuchsman@brgslaw.com -- and John J. Manier -- jmanier@brgslaw.com
-- for Real Parties in Interest.

NAVIENT CORP: Bid to Drop Lord Abbett Funds Suit Underway
---------------------------------------------------------
Navient Corporation is awaiting the Court's ruling of a motion to
dismiss the consolidated class action with Lord Abbett Funds as the
lead plaintiff, 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.

During the first quarter of 2016, Navient Corporation, certain
Navient officers and directors, and the underwriters of certain
Navient securities offerings were sued in three putative securities
class action lawsuits filed on behalf of certain investors in
Navient stock or Navient unsecured debt.  These three cases, which
were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware,
were consolidated by the District Court, with Lord Abbett Funds
appointed as Lead Plaintiff.

The caption of the consolidated case is Lord Abbett Affiliated
Fund, Inc., et al. v. Navient Corporation, et al. The plaintiffs
filed their amended and consolidated complaint in September 2016.
In September 2017, the Court granted the Navient defendants' motion
and dismissed the complaint in its entirety with leave to amend.

The plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint with the court in
November 2017.  The Navient defendants deny the allegations and
intend to vigorously defend against the allegation in this lawsuit
and filed a motion to dismiss in January 2018.

Navient is a leading provider of asset management and business
processing solutions for education, healthcare, and government
clients at the federal, state, and local levels. The company is
based in Wilmington, Delaware.


NAVIENT CORP: Bid to Nix Consolidated "Pope" Suit Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Navient Corporation is still awaiting the court's decision on their
motion to dismiss the consolidated securities class action pending
in U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, 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.

Two putative class actions have been filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey captioned Eli Pope v. Navient
Corporation, John F. Remondi, Somsak Chivavibul and Christian Lown,
and Melvin Gross v. Navient Corporation, John F. Remondi, Somsak
Chivavibul and Christian M. Lown, both of which allege violations
of the federal securities laws under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Company said, "These cases were consolidated by the Court in
February 2018, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint in April 2018 and the Company filed its Motion to Dismiss
in June 2018.  The Company has denied the allegations and intends
to vigorously defend itself."

Navient is a leading provider of asset management and business
processing solutions for education, healthcare, and government
clients at the federal, state, and local levels. The company is
based in Wilmington, Delaware.


NETGEAR INC: Klebba Response to Bid to Dismiss Suit Due Aug. 20
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Klebba's opposition to NETGEAR, Inc.'s Motion to Compel
Arbitration and a Motion to Dismiss is due on August 20, 2018, and
the Company's reply is due on September 5, 2018, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended July 1, 2018.

On May 24, 2018, Ryan Klebba filed a purported class-action
complaint in the District Court for the Western District of Texas.
The complaint alleges that the Arlo Baby Product fails to perform
as advertised and the Company did not release a tablet as promised,
thereby decreasing the value of the Arlo Baby monitor.

On July 23, 2018, the Company answered the complaint by filing a
Motion to Compel Arbitration and a Motion to Dismiss.  The
plaintiff's opposition is due on August 20, 2018, and the Company's
reply is due on September 5, 2018.

It is too early to reasonably estimate any financial impact to the
Company resulting from this litigation matter.

NETGEAR, Inc. designs, develops, and markets networking and
Internet connected products for consumers, businesses, and service
providers.  The company operates in three segments: Arlo, Connected
Home, and Small and Medium Business.  NETGEAR, Inc. was founded in
1996 and is headquartered in San Jose, California.


NETGEAR INC: Sassine Voluntarily Drops Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
NETGEAR, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended July 1, 2018, that on June 21, 2018, Michel
Sassine voluntarily dismissed her potential class action suit
without prejudice.

On March 23, 2018, the Company was sued in the Northern District of
California.  The plaintiff, Michel Sassine, purportedly represents
a nationwide class of customers that were injured when the
Company's ReadyCLOUD service allegedly had a service incident in
March 2017 that deleted data that certain customers had stored on
ReadyNAS storage devices.  The complaint alleges that the Company:
(a) failed to appropriately notify customers or take steps that
would allow recovery of lost data, (b) violated Unfair Competition
Laws, (c) breached its warranties, and (d) breached its contracts
with customers.

The Company was served with the complaint on April 3, 2018,
received an extension to answer and has not yet answered the
complaint.

NETGEAR, Inc. designs, develops, and markets networking and
Internet connected products for consumers, businesses, and service
providers.  The company operates in three segments: Arlo, Connected
Home, and Small and Medium Business.  NETGEAR, Inc. was founded in
1996 and is headquartered in San Jose, California.


NETGEAR INC: Still Faces Fischer Suit over WiFi Range Extenders
---------------------------------------------------------------
NETGEAR, Inc. continues to defend itself against a purported class
lawsuit filed by Rob Fischer, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended July 1, 2018.

On June 4, 2018, Plaintiff Rob Fischer filed a purported
class-action complaint in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Ill,
alleging the Company's Range Extender does not extend the range of
a consumer's WiFi network as shown in a diagram in a data sheet.

It is too early to reasonably estimate any financial impact to the
Company resulting from this litigation matter.

NETGEAR, Inc. designs, develops, and markets networking and
Internet connected products for consumers, businesses, and service
providers.  The company operates in three segments: Arlo, Connected
Home, and Small and Medium Business.  NETGEAR, Inc. was founded in
1996 and is headquartered in San Jose, California.


NEW YORK: Filing of 2nd Amended Suit vs. NYPD Partly OK'd
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case, EDREWEENE RAYMOND, ADHYL POLANCO, PEDRO SERRANO, SANDY
GONZALEZ, RITCHIE BAEZ, JULIO DIAZ, FELICIA WHITELY, ROMAN GORIS,
DERICK WALLER, KAREEM ABDULLAH, OLAYOKUN OLAGOKE, and WIDMARC
PIERRE, individually and on behalf of a class of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, MAYOR OF
THE CITY OF NEW YORK BILL DE BLASIO, in his individual and official
capacity, FORMER POLICE COMMISSIONER WILLIAM J. BRATTON, in his
individual capacity, POLICE COMMISSIONER JAMES P. O'NEILL, in his
individual and official capacity, NYPD CHIEF OF DEPARTMENT CARLOS
GOMEZ, in his individual and official capacity, and BUREAU CHIEF
NYPD COMMANDING OFFICER OF PATROL SERVICES TERENCE MONAHAN, in his
official capacity, Defendants, Case No. 15-CV-06885-LTS (S.D.
N.Y.), Judge Laura Taylor Swain of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York granted in part and denied in part
the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a Second Amended
Complaint.

The Plaintiffs brought the civil rights action, individually and on
behalf of a putative class of all others similarly situated,
pursuant to New York Labor Law Section 215-a; the New York State
Human Rights Law ("NYSHRL"), New York Executive Law Sections 290,
296; the New York City Human Rights Law ("NYCHRL"); and New York
State Constitution Article 1, Section 8, against the Defendants.

In a 17-count Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs claimed that the
NYPD maintains illegal arrest and citation quotas that are focused
disproportionately on areas in which minorities reside, that
minority officers are pressured to meet the quotas, and that
minority officers suffer adverse and retaliatory employment actions
when they refuse to enforce or complain about the quotas as
discriminatory.  
On March 6, 2017, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order
granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint,
and permitting the Plaintiffs to move for leave to file a Second
Amended Complaint as to the claims, and requests for relief
asserted in the Amended Complaint's Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth,
Eighth, Tenth, Twelfth, Fourteenth, and Seventeenth Causes of
Action.  Those claims were for preliminary and permanent injunctive
relief, and alleged violations of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, New
York State and New York City Human Rights Laws, and of the First
Amendment to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. Section
1983 based on alleged retaliation.

On April 7, 2017, the Plaintiffs moved for leave to file a SAC,
appending their Proposed SAC to their motion papers.  In the
Proposed SAC, the Plaintiffs seek to assert claims against the
City, Mayor de Blasio, Former Commissioner Bratton, Commissioner
O'Neill, Inspector and Former Commanding Officer of the 40th
Precinct Christopher McCormack, Deputy Inspector and former
Commanding Officer of Transit District 32 Constantin Tsachas, First
Deputy Commissioner Benjamin Tucker, and Deputy Commissioner,
Department Advocate Kevin S. Richardson ("Proposed Defendants") for
employment discrimination based on race, pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
Section 1983 and the New York State and New York City Human Rights
Laws; and violations of the First Amendment rights of Plaintiffs
Raymond, Polanco, Serrano, Waller, and Gonzalez, pursuant to 42
U.S.C. Section 1983, seeking damages and injunctive and declaratory
relief.

Judge Swain granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs'
motion.  The Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a SAC is granted
as to (i) Raymond's federal discrimination claims relating to his
punishment for submitting a late vacation request and for failing
to meet quotas, as against Proposed Individual Defendant Tsachas
only; (ii) Gonzalez' and Baez' federal discrimination claims
relating to negative performance evaluations and placement on PMP,
as against Proposed Individual Defendant McCormack only; (iii)
Serrano's federal discrimination claim relating to his negative
2012 performance rating, as against Proposed Individual Defendant
McCormack only; and (iv) Gonzalez' and Serrano's claims of
retaliation for complaining of discrimination, as against proposed
Individual Defendant McCormack only.

She also granted the Plaintiffs' motion as to their NYSHRL and
NYCHRL claims that parallel the federal claims that are permitted
to be asserted in the SAC.  The Plaintiffs' motion for leave to
file a further amended complaint with respect to First Amendment
retaliation claims is granted as to (i) Raymond's claim against
Proposed Individual Defendant Tsachas based on the 2015 performance
evaluation, promotion denial and punitive posting actions that
followed the Nov. 22, 2014, meeting with the Platoon Commander;
(ii) Gonzalez' First Amendment retaliation claim, to the extent he
alleges retaliatory conduct from May to November 2015, against the
City and Proposed Individual Defendants McCormack, O'Neill and
Bratton; and (iii) Serrano's First Amendment retaliation claim
against Proposed Individual Defendant McCormack. The motion is
denied as to the remainder of the Proposed SAC.

Judge Swain directed the Plaintiffs to file a Proposed SAC
consistent with her Opinion and Order no later than 14 days from
the date of the Opinion and Order, or July 11, 2018.  The case will
be referred to the designated magistrate judge for general pretrial
management, and the Plaintiffs' counsel are directed to contact
that judge's chambers promptly to schedule an initial conference.
The July 10, 2018, pretrial conference is adjourned sine die in
light of the referral.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 27, 2018 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/pYZOtE from Leagle.com.

Edreweene Raymond, individually, and on behalf of a class of all
others similarly situated, Adhyl Polanco, individually, and on
behalf of a class of all others similarly situated, Pedro Serrano,
individually, and on behalf of a class of all others similarly
situated, Sandy Gonzalez, individually, and on behalf of a class of
all others similarly situated, Ritchie Baez, individually, and on
behalf of a class of all others similarly situated, Julio Diaz,
individually, and on behalf of a class of all others similarly
situated, Felicia Whitely, individually, and on behalf of a class
of all others similarly situated, Roman Goris, individually, and on
behalf of a class of all others similarly situated, Derick Waller,
individually, and on behalf of a class of all others similarly
situated, Kareem Abdullah, individually, and on behalf of a class
of all others similarly situated, Olayokun Olagoke, individually,
and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated & Widmarc
Pierre, individually, and on behalf of a class of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Chukwuemeka Nwokoro,
Nwokoro & Associates, P.C.

City of New York, Mayor of the City of New York Bill deBlasio, in
his individual and official capacity, Police Commissioner William
J. Bratton, in his individual and official capacity, NYPD Chief of
Department James P. O'Neill, in his individual and official
capacity & Bureau Chief NYPD Commanding Officer of Patrol Services
Carlos M Gomez, in his individual and official capacity,
Defendants, represented by Kathleen Marie Comfrey, NYC Law
Department, Office of the Corporation Counsel & Yuval Rubinstein,
New York City Law Department.

NORTH CAROLINA: Drivers File Suit v. DMV Over License Revocation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Seti Johnson and Sharee Smoot, on behalf of themselves and those
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Torre Jessup, in his official
capacity as Commissioner of the North Carolina Division of Motor
Vehicles, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00467, (M.D. N.C., May 30,
2018), seeks an injunction enjoining the North Carolina Division of
Motor Vehicles from revoking any driver's license for non-payment,
an injunction mandating the DMV to lift license revocations
previously entered and to restore the licenses of individuals that
were revoked for non-payment under the Fourteenth Amendment to the
U.S. Constitution.

Plaintiffs' drivers' licenses were revoked due to non-payment of
traffic tickets. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher A. Brook, Esq.
      Cristina Becker, Esq.
      Sneha Shah, Esq.
      AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF NORTH CAROLINA
      LEGAL FOUNDATION
      P.O. Box 28004
      Raleigh, NC 27611
      Tel: (919) 834-3466
      Email: cbrook@acluofnc.org
             cbecker@acluofnc.org
             sshah@acluofnc.org

             - and -

      Nusrat J. Choudhury, Esq.
      R. Orion Danjuma, Esq.
      AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
      125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Tel: (212) 519-7876, (212) 549-2563
      Email: nchoudhury@aclu.org
             odanjuma@aclu.org

             - and -

      Kristi L. Graunke, Esq.
      Emily C.R. Early, Esq.
      SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER
      150 E. Ponce de Leon Ave., Ste. 340
      Decatur, GA 30030
      Tel: (404) 221-4036
      Email: kristi.graunke@splcenter.org
             emily.early@splcenter.org

             - and -

      Samuel Brooke, Esq.
      Danielle Davis, Esq.
      SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER
      400 Washington Avenue
      Montgomery, AL 36104
      Tel: (334) 956-8200
      Fax: (334) 956-8481
      Email: samuel.brooke@splcenter.org
             danielle.davis@splcenter.org

             - and -

      Laura Holland, Esq.
      SOUTHERN COALITION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE
      1415 W. NC Hwy 54, Suite 101
      Durham, NC 27707
      Tel: (919) 323-3380 ext. 161
      Fax: (919) 323-3942
      Email: lauraholland@southerncoalition.org


NORTH SHORE BAKING: Bakers File Suit to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Sanchez and Jose Angel Garcia, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. North Shore Baking Corp.
and Tehiya Benezra, individually, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-03750
(N.D. Ill., May 29, 2018), seeks overtime pay at the correct
overtime rate, liquidated damages, all costs and attorneys' fees
incurred prosecuting this claim, prejudgment interest and all
further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act, City of Chicago
Minimum Wage Ordinance and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

Plaintiffs worked for North Shore as bakers. They claim overtime
wages due for all time worked in excess of forty hours in
individual work weeks.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
      Maureen A. Salas, Esq.
      Sarah J. Arendt, Esq.
      WERMAN SALAS P.C.
      77 West Washington, Suite 1402
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Tel: (312) 419-1008
      Email: dwerman@flsalaw.com
             msalas@flsalaw.com
             sarendt@flsalaw.com


OANDA CORP: Suit Over Excessive Forex Spreads Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------
Judge Saliann Scarpulla of the New York State Supreme Court granted
the Defendant's motion to dismiss the case, MUKENGESHAYI KALEMBA,
Plaintiff, v. OANDA CORPORATION, Defendant, Docket No. 656647/2017,
Motion Seq. No. 001 (N.Y. Sup.).

Oanda operates one of the country's largest online platform for
transactions in foreign currency exchange, which is called the
FXTrade System.  It has purportedly continuously represented on its
website and in its sales and marketing materials that it offers low
and competitive exchange rates, does not charge commissions or
account maintenance fees, offers transparent pricing, and will make
historical pricing data available to its customers.

Oanda's marketing frequently touted that it had consistently
competitive spreads compared to the rest of the Forex market, with
no commissions or account fees.  Kalemba alleges that, based on
these representations, he and the members of the putative class
created Oanda trading accounts through which they placed buy and
sell Forex transactions, and Oanda charged a spread as well as
additional fees on these transactions.

Before creating a trading account with Oanda, Kalemba entered into
Oanda's form FXTrade Customer Agreement, which was in effect from
approximately July 2005 until March 2016.  In or around March 2016,
Kalemba entered into another FXTrade Customer Agreement, which is
currently in effect.  Beyond the specific provisions governing the
mechanics of buy and sell orders, Oanda's customers, including
Kalemba, made and agreed to several more general representations in
the Agreements.

After becoming a customer of Oanda, Kalemba alleges that he
discovered that many of what he believed to be Oanda's
representations in its advertising materials are false or
misleading in two ways.  First, despite Oanda's claim that it
offered low and consistently competitive spreads, Oanda's spreads
are purportedly excessive, not competitive, and some of the highest
among Forex brokers. Second, Oanda effectively charges commissions
on trades under the pretense of charging interest on each trade.
In March 2017, Oanda changed its pricing model to include the
spread itself and a fixed commission per trade.

On Oct. 31, 2017, Kalemba commenced this action by filing a
verified class action complaint.  In the complaint, Kalemba asserts
causes of action for: violation of the Martin Act (General Business
Law Sections 349, 350); breach of contract; fraud; negligent
misrepresentation; equitable accounting; and unjust enrichment.

Oanda now moves to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211.

Judge Scarpulla finds that although the complaint does allege that
Oanda's pricing was not transparent, the complaint does not allege
that Oanda's lack of transparency constitutes a breach of the
Agreements.  However, at oral arguments, Kalemba's counsel
clarified that it was not possible for Kalemba to determine the
rate at which he was charged interest on trades, in violation of
Oanda's duty under the contract to make such a rate and calculation
available on its website.  While this allegation may support a
cause of action for breach of contract, it is not sufficiently set
forth in the complaint.  Accordingly, while that branch of Oanda's
motion to dismiss the second cause of action for breach of contract
is granted, the Judge will grant Kalemba leave to replead the
breach of contract cause of action for the reasons stated on the
record at oral argument, court tr dated 4/4/18 at 27:10-28:4,
29:21-30:7.

Kalemba's fraud claim is fundamentally flawed in several respects,
the Judge finds.  First, the allegations supporting the fraud claim
are duplicative of Kalemba's breach of contract allegations.  These
allegations are almost identical to those supporting Kalemba's
breach of contract claim.  Additionally, because the complaint
alleges the same measure of damages for both claims, Kalemba can
recover all damages under a contract measure of damages, which
renders his fraud claim duplicative of the breach of contract
claim.

To the extent that Kalemba claims that Oanda's advertising
materials were collateral to the contract or misrepresentations of
present facts regarding Oanda's practices, the Judge finds that
Kalemba fails to plead this claim with the requisite particularity.
Other than identifying a single press release dated Jan. 8, 2008,
Kalemba makes only vague and conclusory allegations regarding
Oanda's advertising materials.  The complaint is devoid of
allegations regarding when Kalemba received or viewed Oanda's
advertising materials, when these misrepresentations were made, and
who made any such misrepresentation, and is thus insufficient.
Accordingly, that branch of Oanda's motion to dismiss the third
cause of action for fraud will be granted.  The Judge has
considered the remaining arguments of the parties and finds them to
be unavailing.

For these reasons, Judge Scarpulla granted the Defendant's motion
to dismiss the complaint.  Kalemba is granted leave to serve and
file an amended complaint so as to replead the second cause of
action for breach of contract within 20 days after service on the
Plaintiff's attorney of a copy of this order with notice of entry.

In the event that Kalemba fails to serve and file an amended
complaint in conformity with the Order within such time, leave to
replead will be deemed denied, and the Clerk of the Court, upon
service upon him (60 Centre Street, Room 141B) of a copy of the
Order with notice of entry and an affirmation/affidavit by Oanda's
counsel attesting to such non-compliance, is directed to enter
judgment dismissing the entire action, with prejudice, and with
costs and disbursements to the Defendant as taxed by the Clerk.

Such service upon the Clerk of the Court will be made in accordance
with the procedures set forth in the Protocol on Courthouse and
County Clerk Procedures for Electronically Filed Cases.  The Order
constitutes the decision and order of the Court.

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

OCLARO INC: Franchi Challenges Lumentum Merger Deal
---------------------------------------------------
Adam Franchi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, plaintiff, v. Oclaro, Inc., Marissa Peterson, Edward
Collins, Greg Dougherty, Kendall Cowan, Denise Haylor, Ian Small,
Bill Smith, Joel A. Smith III, Lumentum Holdings Inc., Prota Merger
Sub, Inc. and Prota Merger, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00817
(D. Del., May 30, 2018), seeks to enjoin defendants and all persons
acting in concert with them from proceeding with, consummating or
closing the merger of Oclaro Inc. and Lumentum Holdings Inc., or
rescinding it in the event defendants consummate the merger.

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

Oclaro stockholders stand to receive $5.60 in cash and 0.0636
shares of Lumentum common stock for each share of Oclaro stock they
own, a transaction valued at $9.99 per share of Oclaro or $1.8
billion in the aggregate.

The Merger Consideration appears inadequate in light of the
company's recent financial performance and prospects for future
growth, notes the complaint. It represents an approximate 9%
discount to the Company's 52-week high despite having reported
triple-digit EBITDA growth and exponential Net Income growth for
the past two years, it adds.

Oclaro manufactures and markets optical components, modules, and
subsystems used in telecommunications, data communications,
aerospace, consumer optics and semiconductors.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

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


OCLARO INC: Ryan Files Suit Over Proposed Lumentum Merger
---------------------------------------------------------
Walter Ryan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, plaintiff, v. Oclaro, Inc., Edward Collins, Denise
Haylor, William L. Smith, Greg Dougherty, Marissa Peterson, Ian
Small, Kendall Cowan and Joel A. Smith III, Defendants, Case No.
18-cv-03174 (N.D. Cal., May 29, 2018), seeks to enjoin defendants
and all persons acting in concert with them from proceeding with,
consummating or closing the merger of Oclaro Inc. and Lumentum
Holdings Inc., or rescinding it in the event defendants consummate
the merger.

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

Oclaro stockholders stand to receive $5.60 in cash and 0.0636
shares of Lumentum common stock for each share of Oclaro stock they
own, a transaction valued at $9.99 per share of Oclaro or $1.8
billion in the aggregate.

The complaint says the Merger Consideration appears inadequate in
light of the company's recent financial performance and prospects
for future growth. It represents an approximate 9% discount to the
Company's 52-week high despite having reported triple-digit EBITDA
growth and exponential Net Income growth for the past two years,
adds the Plaintiff.

Oclaro manufactures and markets optical components, modules, and
subsystems used in telecommunications, data communications,
aerospace, consumer optics and semiconductors.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Benjamin Heikali, Esq.
      FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
      10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1470
      Los Angeles, CA 90024
      Telephone: (424) 256-2884
      Facsimile: (424) 256-2885
      E-mail: bheikali@faruqilaw.com


OMNICELL INC: Status Conference in Mazya Lawsuit Set for Oct. 4
---------------------------------------------------------------
Omnicell, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2018, that the Company's obligation to respond to the
complaint in the "Yana Mazya" suit has been held in abeyance until
further determination by the court.

On June 6, 2018, a class-action lawsuit was filed against a
customer of the Company, the customer's parent company and two
vendors of medication dispensing systems, one of which is the
Company, in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery
Division, captioned Yana Mazya, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Northwestern Lake Forest Hospital,
Northwestern Memorial Healthcare, Omnicell, Inc. and Becton
Dickinson, Case No. 2018-CH-07161.

The complaint seeks class certification, monetary damages in the
form of statutory damages for willful and/or reckless or, in the
alternative, negligent violation of the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act ("BIPA"), and certain declaratory,
injunctive, and other relief based on causes of action directed to
allegations of violation of BIPA and of negligence by the
defendants.  The complaint was served on the Company on June 15,
2018.

Counsel for the proposed class filed a motion to certify the class;
the court continued the motion and scheduled a status conference
for October 4, 2018.

Omnicell said, "The Company's obligation to respond to the
complaint has been held in abeyance until further determination by
the court.  The Company intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously."

Omnicell, Inc. provides automation and business analytics software
solutions for medication and supply management in healthcare
worldwide.  The Company operates through two segments, Automation
and Analytics, and Medication Adherence.  The Company was formerly
known as Omnicell Technologies, Inc. and changed its name to
Omnicell, Inc. in 2001. Omnicell, Inc. was founded in 1992 and is
headquartered in Mountain View, California.


ONEMAIN HOLDINGS: Securities Class Action in New York Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
OneMain Holdings, Inc. continues to face a federal securities class
action lawsuit in New York, 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 10, 2017, a putative class action lawsuit, Galestan v.
OneMain Holdings, Inc., et al., was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York, naming as defendants
the Company and two of its officers.  The lawsuit alleges
violations of the Exchange Act for allegedly making materially
misleading statements and/or omitting material information
concerning alleged integration issues after the OneMain Acquisition
in November 2015, and was filed on behalf of a putative class of
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common
stock between February 25, 2016 and November 7, 2016.  The
complaint seeks an award of unspecified compensatory damages, an
award of interest, reasonable attorney's fees, expert fees and
other costs, and equitable relief as the court may deem just and
proper.

On March 23, 2017, the court appointed a lead plaintiff for the
putative class and approved the lead plaintiff's selection of
counsel.

The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on June 13, 2017
challenging statements regarding the Company's projections of
future financial performance and certain statements regarding
integration after the OneMain Acquisition.

On September 29, 2017, pursuant to the Court's Individual Rules and
Practices, the Company sought permission to file a motion to
dismiss the amended complaint.

OneMain Holdings said, "The Company believes that the allegations
specified in the amended complaint are without merit, and intends
to vigorously defend against the claims.  As the lawsuit is in the
preliminary stages, the Company is unable to estimate a reasonably
possible range of loss, if any, that may result from the lawsuit."

OneMain is a provider of responsible personal loan products,
primarily to non-prime customers.


ONESPAN INC: Still Defends Putative Class Lawsuit in N.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------------------------
OneSpan Inc. (formerly VASCO Data Security International, Inc.)
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 the court has not yet issued a decision
on the defendants' motion to dismiss the "Bunk" complaint, which
was initially filed as the case Linda J. Rossbach v. Vasco Data
Security International, Inc., et al.

On July 28, 2015 a putative class action complaint was filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
captioned Linda J. Rossbach v. Vasco Data Security International,
Inc., et al., case number 1:15‑cv‑06605, naming the Company and
certain of its current and former executive officers as defendants
and alleging violations under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended.

The suit was purportedly filed on behalf of a putative class of
investors who purchased securities of the Company between April 28,
2015 and July 28, 2015, and seeks to recover damages allegedly
caused by the defendants' alleged violations of the federal
securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b‑5
promulgated thereunder.

The complaint seeks certification as a class action and unspecified
compensatory damages plus interest and attorneys' fees.  Pursuant
to a September 1, 2015 scheduling order entered by the court, the
lead plaintiff, once appointed, will have sixty days to file an
amended complaint or notify the defendants that the lead plaintiff
intends to rely on the current complaint.

On January 30, 2017, the appointed lead plaintiff filed an amended
complaint in which the allegations regarding OFAC related matters
were dropped and replaced with allegations regarding public
disclosures made by the defendants in April 2015 as compared to
public statements made in July 2015, generally regarding the
strength of the Company's business and its future prospects.  This
case is now referred to by the name of the new lead plaintiff,
Bunk.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Bunk complaint on
March 31, 2017.  A decision from the court on such motion has not
been issued to date.

OneSpan said, "Although the ultimate outcome of litigation cannot
be predicted with certainty, the Company believes that this lawsuit
is without merit and intends to defend against the action
vigorously.  OneSpan is indemnifying its officers and directors for
this matter."

OneSpan Inc. (formerly VASCO Data Security International, Inc.)
designs, develops and markets digital solutions for identity,
security, and business productivity that protect and facilitate
electronic transactions, via mobile and connected devices. The
company is based in Chicago, Illinois.


PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Bid to Dismiss Sgarlata Suit Underway
------------------------------------------------------
PayPal Holdings, Inc. 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 a motion to dismiss has
been filed in the case entitled, Sgarlata v. PayPal Holdings, Inc.,
et al.

In November 2017, the company announced that it had suspended the
operations of TIO Networks ("TIO") as part of an ongoing
investigation of security vulnerabilities of the TIO platform. On
December 1, 2017, the company announced that it had identified
evidence of unauthorized access to TIO's network, including
locations that stored personal information of some of TIO's
customers and customers of TIO billers and the potential compromise
of personally identifiable information for approximately 1.6
million customers.

PayPal Holdings said "We have received a number of governmental
inquiries, including from state attorneys general, and we may be
subject to additional governmental inquiries and investigations in
the future."

In addition, on December 6, 2017, a putative class action lawsuit
captioned Sgarlata v. PayPal Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No.
3:17-cv-06956 was filed in the Court against the Company, its Chief
Executive Officer, its Chief Financial Officer and Hamed Shahbazi,
the former chief executive officer of TIO (the "Defendants")
alleging violations of federal securities laws. Specifically, the
lawsuit alleges that Defendants made false or misleading statements
or failed to disclose that TIO's data security program was
inadequate to safeguard the personally identifiable information of
its users, those vulnerabilities threatened continued operation of
TIO's platform, the Company's revenues derived from TIO services
were thus unsustainable, and consequently, the Company overstated
the benefits of the TIO acquisition, and, as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.

The plaintiff who initiated the lawsuit sought to represent a class
of shareholders who acquired shares of the Company's common stock
between February 14, 2017 through December 1, 2017 and sought
damages and attorneys' fees, among other relief. On March 16, 2018,
the Court appointed two new plaintiffs, not the original plaintiff
who filed the case, as interim co-lead plaintiffs in the case and
appointed two law firms as interim co-lead counsel.

Pursuant to stipulations entered into by the parties to the case,
the Court issued orders on March 30 and April 6, 2018 providing for
the publication by interim co-lead counsel of an amended notice
under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act given the
anticipated amendment of the complaint to include an amended class
definition that includes individuals who purchased options to
purchase our common stock between February 14, 2017 through
December 1, 2017, the filing of an amended complaint by co-lead
plaintiffs within seventy-five days of the March 30, 2018 order,
and a briefing schedule on the Defendants’ anticipated motions to
dismiss the amended complaint.

On June 13, 2018, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which
named TIO Networks ULC, TIO Networks USA, Inc., and John Kunze (the
Company's Vice President, Global Consumer Products and Xoom) as
additional defendants. The amended complaint is purportedly brought
on behalf of all persons other than the Defendants who acquired the
Company's securities between November 10, 2017 and December 1,
2017. The amended complaint alleges that the Company's and TIO's
November 10, 2017 announcement of the suspension of TIO's
operations was false and misleading because the announcement only
disclosed security vulnerabilities on TIO's platform, rather than
an actual security breach that Defendants were allegedly aware of
at the time of the announcement. Defendants' filed their motion to
dismiss the amended complaint on July 13, 2018.

PayPal Holdings said "We may be subject to additional litigation
relating to TIO's data security platform or the suspension of TIO's
operations in the future."

PayPal Holdings, Inc. operates as a technology platform company
that enables digital and mobile payments on behalf of consumers and
merchants worldwide. Its payment solutions include PayPal, PayPal
Credit, Braintree, Venmo, Xoom, and Paydiant products. PayPal
Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1998 and is headquartered in San
Jose, California.


POAH COMMUNITIES: Tenants Demand Whereabouts of Security Deposit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Cross and Kendra Turner, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Poah Communities, Inc.,
and Poah Greenwood Park Preservation Associates, L.P., Defendants,
Case No. 2018-CH-06776 (Ill. Cir., May 29, 2018), seeks declaratory
and ancillary injunctive relief and corrective measures to lease
premises, costs, interest on the judgment, reasonable attorney's
fees and any other relief for violation of the Chicago Residential
Landlord and Tenant Ordinance Municipal Code.

Plaintiffs are tenants renting unit C at the Building at 4711 S.
Ellis on or about February 14, 2014 managed by Poah. Poah failed to
disclose in writing on the Lease signed by its tenants, the name
and address of the financial institution where tenant security
deposits were deposited. Poah also failed to give written notices
to their tenants the name and address of the new financial
institution where tenant security deposits would be deposited,
within 14 days of the transfer of those tenants' security deposits
from one financial institution to another during the pendency of
rental agreements. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark Silverman, Esq.
      MARK SILVERMAN LAW OFFICE LTD.
      225 W. Washington Suite 2200
      Chicago, IL 60606
      Tel: (312) 775-1015
      Fax: (312) 256-2055

             - and -

      TOOLE LAW OFFICE, LLC
      1525 East 53rd St. Suite 535
      Chicago, IL 60615
      Tel: (773) 684-5730
      Fax: (773) 684-1681


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Garcia Appeals D.N.J. Ruling to 3rd Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Rufino D. Garcia filed an appeal from a court ruling in
his lawsuit entitled Garcia v. Portfolio Recovery Associates LLC,
Case No. 1-15-cv-03685, in the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
brought pursuant to the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act.  The
Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has a policy, pattern or
practice of filing collections lawsuits without intent to prove its
claims.  The Plaintiff also contends that PRA violates the FDCPA's
prohibitions by using false representations or deceptive means to
collect or attempt to collect alleged debts, and using unfair or
unconscionable means in connection with the collection of alleged
debts.

The appellate case is captioned as Garcia v. Portfolio Recovery
Associates LLC, Case No. 18-2692, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant RUFINO D. GARCIA, on behalf of himself and
those similarly situated, is represented by:

          Peter Colonna-Romano, Esq.
          BEREZOFSKY LAW GROUP
          210 Lake Drive East
          Woodland Falls Corporate Park, Suite 101
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08002
          Telephone: (856) 667-0500

               - and -

          Christopher Markos, Esq.
          WILLIAMS CUKER & BEREZOFSKY
          1515 Market Street, Suite 1300
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 557-0099
          E-mail: cmarkos@wcblegal.com

Defendant-Appellee PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES LLC is represented
by:

          Amanda L. Genovese, Esq.
          TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP
          875 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 704-6000
          E-mail: amanda.genovese@troutmansanders.com


POST HOLDINGS: Unit Settles Indirect Buyers' Antitrust Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Post Holdings, Inc. 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 in the class action for
alleged violations of antitrust laws related to the production and
sale of egg products, subsidiary Michael Foods, Inc. settled all
claims asserted against it by indirect purchaser plaintiffs on
confidential terms.

In late 2008 and early 2009, some 22 class action lawsuits were
filed in various federal courts against Michael Foods, Inc.
("Michael Foods"), a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, and
some 20 other defendants (producers of shell eggs and egg products,
and egg industry organizations), alleging violations of federal and
state antitrust laws in connection with the production and sale of
shell eggs and egg products, and seeking unspecified damages.  All
cases were transferred to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for
coordinated and/or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

The case involved three types of plaintiffs: (1) a nationwide class
of direct purchasers of shell eggs ("direct purchaser class"); (2)
individual companies (primarily large grocery chains and food
companies that purchase considerable quantities of eggs) that opted
out of various settlements and filed their own complaints related
to their purchases of shell eggs and egg products ("opt-out
plaintiffs"); and (3) indirect purchasers of shell eggs ("indirect
purchaser plaintiffs").

In December 2016, Michael Foods settled all claims asserted against
it by the direct purchaser class for a payment of US$75.0 million,
which was approved by the district court on December 21, 2017.

Michael Foods settled all claims asserted against it by opt-out
plaintiffs related to shell egg purchases on confidential terms on
January 19, 2017.

In June 2018, Michael Foods settled all claims asserted against it
by indirect purchaser plaintiffs on confidential terms.  Michael
Foods has at all times denied liability in this matter, and no
settlement contains any admission of liability by Michael Foods.

Michael Foods remains a defendant only with respect to claims that
seek damages based on purchases of egg products by opt-out
plaintiffs.  The district court had granted summary judgment
precluding any claims for egg products purchases by opt-out
plaintiffs, but the Third Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and
remanded these claims for further pre-trial proceedings.
Defendants have sought leave to file a motion for summary judgment
dismissing these claims and a decision is pending.

The Company said, "Although the likelihood of a material adverse
outcome in the egg antitrust litigation has been significantly
reduced as a result of the Michael Foods settlements, the remaining
portion of the case could still result in a material adverse
outcome.  At this time, however, the Company does not believe it is
possible to estimate any loss in connection with this remaining
portion of the egg antitrust litigation.  Accordingly, the Company
cannot predict what impact, if any, this remaining matter and any
results from such matter could have on the Company's future results
of operations or cash flows."

Post Holdings, Inc. operates as a consumer packaged goods holding
company in the United States and internationally.  It was founded
in 1895 and is headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri.


PQ NEW YORK: Murphy Files ADA Suit v. Cafe Chain
-------------------------------------------------
JAMES MURPHY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. PQ NEW YORK, INC. d/b/a LE PAIN QUOTIDIEN, Case No.
1:18-cv-06878-PAE (S.D.N.Y., July 31, 2018), accuses the Defendant
of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act by failing to
design, construct, maintain, and operate its Web site --
http://www.lepainquotidien.com/-- to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people.

PQ New York, Inc., is a Delaware Corporation doing business in New
York.  The Defendant is a cafe chain that operates Le Pain
Quotidien cafes, as well as the Le Pain Quotidien Web site.  The
Defendant's Web site provides consumers with access to an array of
goods and services, including cafe locations and hours, the ability
to browse the menu, order food online, and related goods and
services available both in cafes and online.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
          300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
          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



PROTHENA CORPORATION: Granite Point Sues over Drop in Share Price
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GRANITE POINT CAPITAL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. PROTHENA CORPORATION PLC.; GENE
G. KINNEY; TRAN B. NGUYEN; and SARAH NOONBERG, Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-06425 (S.D.N.Y., July 16, 2018) alleges violation of the
Securities and Exchange Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants are a development-stage
biotechnology company. On October 15, 2015 and April 20, 2018, the
Defendants' principal asset was NEOD001, a monoclonal antibody
designed to treat amyloid light chain amyloidosis ("AL
amyloidosis") which is a debilitating disease that can lead to
organ failure and death.

The Defendants cited the "best response" results of their ongoing
Phase 1/2 clinical study of NEOD001 as evidence that the drug was
effective, while withholding relevant trial data showing that
NEOD001 was not an effective treatment for AL amyloidosis. In
addition, Defendants made misleading comparisons of NEOD001's "best
response" rates against prior studies that measured sustained
responses after a specified period of time, and falsely told
investors that their ongoing Phase 1/2 study provided a strong
basis for late-stage Phase 2b and Phase 3 studies of NEOD001.
However, the full Phase 1/2 study data demonstrated that NEOD001
was not an effective treatment for AL amyloidosis and did not
provide an adequate basis for the late-stage Phase 2b and Phase 3
studies.

On April 23, 2018, before the market opened, the Defendants stunned
investors by announcing that it was ending all development of
NEOD001 after data from its Phase 2b PRONTO trial showed that
NEOD001 failed to reach either its primary or secondary endpoints,
and was substantially less effective than a placebo. On this news,
the price of the Defendants' stock fell from $36.84 per share on
April 20, 2018, the prior trading day, to close at $11.50 per share
on April 23, 2018, a drop of 69%.

Prothena Corporation plc, a late-stage clinical biotechnology
company, focuses on the discovery, development, and
commercialization of novel immunotherapies for the treatment of
diseases in the neuroscience and orphan categories. Prothena
Corporation plc was incorporated in 2012 and is headquartered in
Dun Laoghaire, Ireland. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher J. Keller, Esq.
          Eric J. Belfi, Esq.
          Francis P. McConville, Esq.
          David J. Schwartz, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 907-0700
          Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
          E-mail: ckeller@labaton.com
                  ebelfi@labaton.com
                  fmcconville@labaton.com
                  dschwartz@labaton.com


RATCHFORD LAW: Walch Class Suit Asserts FDCPA Breach
----------------------------------------------------
SUSAN WALCH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. RATCHFORD LAW GROUP, PC, Case No. 3:18-cv-30125 (D. Mass., July
31, 2018), accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act by failing to meaningfully convey to the
Plaintiff that unless she disputes the validity of an alleged debt,
or any portion thereof, within 30 days after receipt of the initial
communication, the debt will be assumed valid by the Defendant.

Ratchford Law is an entity engaged, by use of the mails and
telephone, in the business of attempting to collect a "debt" from
the Plaintiff.  The Defendant is a "debt collector" as defined by
the FDCPA.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel Ruggiero, Esq.
          THOMPSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, PLLC
          275 Grove Street, Suite 2-400
          Newton, MA 02466
          Telephone: (339) 237-0343
          Facsimile: (866) 317-2674
          E-mail: DRuggiero@ThompsonConsumerLaw.com



RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE: Muszytowski Moves to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Muszytowski moves the Court to certify the class described
in the complaint of the lawsuit titled ANTHONY MUSZYTOWSKI,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT LLC, Case No. 2:18-cv-01018-PP
(E.D. Wisc.), and further asks that the Court both stay the motion
for class certification and to grant the Plaintiff (and the
Defendant) relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing
schedules and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed
with the Motion.

Dicta in the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v.
Gomez, left open the possibility that a defendant facing a class
action complaint could moot a class representative's case by
depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of the
plaintiff's individual claim with the court and having the court
enter judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to the filing of a
class certification motion, the Plaintiff asserts, citing
Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016).

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,
the Plaintiff tells the Court, citing Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco,
Inc., No. 16-3574, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10839 *9-10 (7th Cir. June
20, 2017).  The Plaintiff asserts that one defendant has attempted
a similar tactic by sending a certified check to the proposed class
representative. Bonin v. CBS Radio, Inc., No. 16-cv-674-CNC (E.D.
Wis.); see also Severns v. Eastern Account Systems of Connecticut,
Inc., Case No. 15-cv-1168, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23164 (E.D. Wis.
Feb. 24, 2016).

The Plaintiff is obligated to move for class certification to
protect the interests of the putative class, the Plaintiff
contends.

As the Motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when
short motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended
motion is filed, the Plaintiff asserts.

The Plaintiff also asks to be appointed as class representative,
and for the appointment of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, as class
counsel.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, 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


ROSENDIN ELECTRIC: J. Lopez's Labor Suit Remanded to State Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Fernando M. Olguin of the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California remanded the case, JACOB LOPEZ, Plaintiff,
v. ROSENDIN ELECTRIC, INC., Defendant, Case No. CV 18-5074 FMO
(JEMx) (C.D. Cal.), to the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles.

On April 17, 2018, Lopez filed a Class Action Complaint in the Los
Angeles County Superior Court against Rosendin.  The Complaint
asserts 10 claims for relief under California law: (1) violation of
California Labor Code Sections 510 and 1198 (unpaid overtime); (2)
violation of California Labor Code Sections 226.7 and 512(a)
(unpaid meal period premiums); (3) violation of California Labor
Code Section 226.7 (unpaid rest period premiums); (4) violation of
California Labor Code Sections 1194, 1197, and 1197.1 (unpaid
minimum wages); (5) violation of California Labor Code Sections 201
and 202 (final wages not timely paid); (6) violation of California
Labor Code Section 204 (wages not timely paid during employment);
(7) violation of California Labor Code Section 226(a)
(non-compliant wage statements); (8) violation of California Labor
Code Section 1174(d) (failure to keep requisite payroll records;
(9) violation of California Labor Code Sections 2800 and 2802
(unreimbursed business expenses); and (10) violation of California
Business & Professions Code Sections 17200, et seq.

On June 4, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint
("FAC") alleging five claims: (1) violation of California Labor
Code Section 226.7 (unpaid rest period premiums); (2) violation of
California Labor Code Sections 201 and 202 (final wages not timely
paid); (3) violation of California Labor Code Section 226(a)
(non-compliant wage statements); (4) violation of California Labor
Code Sections 2800 and 2802 (unreimbursed business expenses); and
(5) violation of California Business & Professions Code Sections
17200, et seq.

On June 7, 2018, the Defendant removed the action to the Court on
grounds of federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section 1331 and Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act
("LMRA").  It contends that the Court has original jurisdiction
over claims in the action arising under federal law.  It asserts
that the claims in the Plaintiff's FAC cannot be resolved without
reference to the collective bargaining agreement which governs the
terms and conditions of the Plaintiff's former employment with
Rosendin.

Having reviewed and considered the pleadings and all the materials
submitted by the Defendant, Judge Olguin remanded the action to
state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  He finds that
the Defendant has not identified any disputed terms in the CBA or
any terms complex enough to require interpretation rather than mere
application.  The Defendant merely points to CBA provisions that
may be relevant to the litigation, but which are neither disputed
by the parties nor complex enough to require interpretation as
opposed to simple application.  As a result, the Plaintiff's action
is not preempted by Section 301 of the LMRA.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 26, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/bvt2CD from Leagle.com.

Jacob Lopez, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Edwin
Aiwazian -- edwin@lfjpc.com -- Lawyers for Justice PC & Elizabeth
Parker-Fawley -- elizabeth@lfjpc.com -- Lawyers for Justice PC.

Rosendin Electric, Inc., a California corporation, Defendant,
represented by Mark J. Payne -- MPayne@rutan.com -- Rutan and
Tucker LLP.

S1 SECURITY GROUP: Suarez Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------
Orlando Suarez and other similarly-situated individuals, Plaintiff,
v. S1 Security Group Inc. and Rolando E. Palma, individually,
Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-22111, (S.D. Fla., May 28, 2018), seeks
to recover from Defendants minimum and overtime wages, liquidated
damages, costs and reasonable attorney's fees under the provisions
of Fair Labor Standards Act.

S1 Security provides security services for business, residential
communities, construction sites and executive body guard services.
It employed Sandoval as a non-exempt security employee from August
31, 2015 to May 6, 2018. In many weeks, Suarez worked more than 40
hours per week but was never was properly compensated for overtime
hours worked. Plaintiff was misclassified as an independent
contractor, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Show Cause Order in "Kerkorian" Suit Entered
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PAUL KERKORIAN, an individual, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SAMSUNG
ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New Jersey corporation, and DOES 1
through 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00870-DAD-SKO
(E.D. Cal.), Judge Dale E. Drozd of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California ordered the Plaintiff to show cause
as to why the case should not be dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction.

The Plaintiff filed the putative class action on June 22, 2018,
alleging various state law causes of action on behalf of a putative
class of consumers who purchased POWERbot robotic vacuum cleaners
from the Defendant.  His sole jurisdictional allegation is that the
Court has jurisdiction over the Defendants named because such
Defendants do business within the State of California.

Judge Drozd holds that such a jurisdictional allegation is facially
deficient.  He explains that the two most common bases for federal
subject matter jurisdiction are cases that are based on federal law
-- commonly known as "federal question" jurisdiction -- and cases
between parties of diverse citizenship that involve more than
$75,000 in damages -- commonly known as "diversity" jurisdiction.
Additionally, because this is a putative class action, it is
possible the Plaintiff intended to invoke the Court's jurisdiction
under the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"), which provides the
federal courts with jurisdiction over class actions in which the
parties have minimal diversity and there is more than $5 million in
dispute, exclusive of interest and costs.

The complaint, however, identifies no statutory basis for this
court's jurisdiction.  A statement that the Defendants do business
within the State of California, while possibly relevant to the
question of personal jurisdiction, provides no basis for the
Court's subject matter jurisdiction.

Given the foregoing, Judge Drozd ordered the Plaintiff to show
cause as to why the case should not be dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction.  he Plaintiff may discharge the Order to show cause
by identifying a statutory basis for jurisdiction and identifying
the factual allegations in the complaint that support
jurisdiction.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 26, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/e2vbLJ from Leagle.com.

Paul Kerkorian, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher E. Nichols --
CNichols@WBLawGroup.com -- Webb Law Group, APC & Lenden Franklin
Webb -- LWebb@WBLawGroup.com -- Webb Law Group, APC.

SCHOOL REFORM COMMISSION: Taxpayers Seek to Rescind Contract
------------------------------------------------------------
John M. Weathers, Richard A. Didio and David A. Taylor,
individually and on behalf of all other taxpayers similarly
situated v. The School Reform Commission and The New Teacher
Project, Defendant, Case No. 180503241, (Pa. Comm. Pleas, May 30,
2018), seeks to enjoin and vacate the contract award at issue and
from performing under same; to order the School District to
undertake a new procurement process that complies in full with the
requirements of the request for proposal at issue and the
Procurement Manual; and such other equitable relief pursuant to
Request for Proposal 567 dated November 9, 2017.

The School District issued Request for Proposal 567 which solicited
proposals for a professional services contract involving
job-embedded coaching and professional development facilitation
support for first and second-year principals in the School
District. Plaintiff are taxpayers who believe that the School
District's evaluation of proposals failed to identify the vendor
whose proposal provides the best value. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Justin C. Danilewitz, Esq.
     Albert F. Moran, Esq.
     SAUL EWING ARNSTEIN & LEHR LLP
     Centre Square West
     1500 Market Street, 38th Floor
     Philadelphia, PA 19102-2186
     Tel: (215) 972-1977


SEATTLE GENETICS: Cascadian Acquisition-Related Suits Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Seattle Genetics, Inc. 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 all four class action
suits related to Cascadian Therapeutics, Inc.'s acquisition have
been voluntarily dismissed with prejudice.

Between February 13, 2018 and February 16, 2018, four purported
stockholders of Cascadian filed separate putative class action
lawsuits and an individual complaint in the United States District
Court for the District of Delaware and the United States District
Court for the Western District of Washington against Cascadian and
former members of its then-separate board of directors and the
company.

The cases filed in Delaware were Kim v. Cascadian Therapeutics,
Inc., et al., and Palazzo v. Cascadian Therapeutics, Inc., et al.

The cases filed in Washington were Jaso v. Cascadian Therapeutics,
Inc., et al., and Bensimon v. Cascadian Therapeutics, Inc., et al.


The plaintiffs alleged violations of Sections 14(d) and 14(e) of
the Exchange Act, Rule 14d-9(d) promulgated under Section 14(d) of
the Exchange Act, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act in
connection with the Schedule 14D-9 filed by Cascadian with the SEC
on February 8, 2018 in relation to the Cascadian Acquisition.

The Bensimon complaint alleged that the Cascadian board breached
its fiduciary duties of care, loyalty and good faith by entering
into the Cascadian Acquisition and allegedly failing to take steps
to maximize Cascadian's value. All four complaints alleged that the
Schedule 14D-9 omitted material information, ostensibly rendering
the Schedule 14D-9 materially incomplete. The complaints sought,
among other things, to enjoin the Cascadian Acquisition and/or
damages.

On March 8, 2018, plaintiffs in the Kim, Palazzo and Bensimon
cases, or the KPB Group, filed a motion in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Delaware seeking the award of reasonable
attorneys' fees and expenses as a result of the alleged benefit
provided to Cascadian shareholders from the supplemental
disclosures Cascadian made following the filing of their purported
class actions. Cascadian entered into settlement and release
agreements with the Jaso plaintiff and the KPB Group on May 21 and
22, 2018, respectively. All four cases have been voluntarily
dismissed with prejudice.

Seattle Genetics, Inc., a biotechnology company, focuses on the
development and commercialization of targeted therapies for the
treatment of cancer worldwide. Seattle Genetics, Inc. was founded
in 1998 and is headquartered in Bothell, Washington.


SEATTLE GENETICS: Court Dismisses CD33A Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Seattle Genetics, Inc. 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 Court in CD33A class
action suit granted the company's motion to dismiss with prejudice
and entered a final judgment and order dismissing all claims
against all defendants.

On January 10, 2017, a purported securities class action lawsuit
was commenced in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Washington, or the Court, naming as defendants the
company and certain of its officers, or the CD33A Class Action.

A consolidated amended complaint was filed on June 6, 2017,
following the court's appointment of a lead plaintiff and its
approval of lead plaintiff's counsel.

The lawsuit alleged material misrepresentations and omissions in
public statements regarding the company's business, operational and
compliance policies, violations by all named defendants of Section
10(b) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, as well as
violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint
sought compensatory damages of an undisclosed amount.

The plaintiff alleged, among other things, that the company made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that
SGN-CD33A presents a significant risk of fatal hepatotoxicity and
that the company had therefore overstated the viability of
SGN-CD33A as a treatment for acute myeloid leukemia, AML.

On May 24, 2018, the Court granted the company's motion to dismiss
with prejudice and entered a final judgment and order dismissing
all claims against all defendants.

Seattle Genetics, Inc., a biotechnology company, focuses on the
development and commercialization of targeted therapies for the
treatment of cancer worldwide. Seattle Genetics, Inc. was founded
in 1998 and is headquartered in Bothell, Washington.


SEMPER SOLARIS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Anthony Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOSHUA ANTHONY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SEMPER SOLARIS CONSTRUCTION, INC.; and DOES
1 through 100, Defendants, Case No. 37-2018-00035320-CU-OE-CTL
(Cal. Super., San Diego Cty., July 16, 2018) is an action against
the Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum
wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods.

Mr. Anthony was employed by the Defendants as inspection
representative from August 2015 to May 16, 2018.

Semper Solaris Construction, Inc. own and operate a business
selling and installing solar-powered systems for homes and
businesses in San Diego, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SIRIUS XM: Still Defend "Buchanan" Suit over Robocalls
------------------------------------------------------
Sirius XM Holdings 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 continues to
defend itself in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act Suit filed by
Thomas Buchanan.

On March 13, 2017, Thomas Buchanan, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, filed a class action complaint
against the company in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. The plaintiff in this
action alleges that the company violated the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act of 1991 (the "TCPA") by, among other things, making
telephone solicitations to persons on the National Do-Not-Call
registry, a database established to allow consumers to exclude
themselves from telemarketing calls unless they consent to receive
the calls in a signed, written agreement, and making calls to
consumers in violation of our internal Do-Not-Call registry.

The plaintiff is seeking various forms of relief, including
statutory damages of five hundred dollars for each violation of the
TCPA or, in the alternative, treble damages of up to fifteen
hundred dollars for each knowing and willful violation of the TCPA
and a permanent injunction prohibiting us from making, or having
made, any calls to land lines that are listed on the National
Do-Not-Call registry or our internal Do-Not-Call registry.

Sirius XM Holdings said "We believe we have substantial defenses to
the claims asserted in this action, and we intend to defend this
action vigorously."

Sirius XM Holdings Inc. provides satellite radio services in the
United States. The company broadcasts music plus sports,
entertainment, comedy, talk, news, traffic, and weather programs,
including various music genres ranging from rock, pop and hip-hop
to country, dance, jazz, Latin, and classical; live play-by-play
sports from principal leagues and colleges; multitude of talk and
entertainment channels for various audiences; national,
international, and financial news; and limited run channels. The
company was founded in 1990 and is headquartered in New York, New
York. Sirius XM Holdings Inc. is a subsidiary of Liberty Media
Corporation.


SOLSTICE MARKETING: Faces Wu Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Solstice Marketing
Concepts LLC. The case is captioned as Kathy Wu, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Solstice
Marketing Concepts LLC; Solstice Marketing Corporation; and Safilo
USA, Inc, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-06409-ER (S.D.N.Y., July 16,
2018). The lawsuit alleges violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act. The case is assigned to Judge Edgardo Ramos and
referred to Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron.

Solstice Marketing Concepts, LLC operates as a retailer of luxury,
designer, and sport performance sunglasses for men and women. The
company is based in New York, New York. It has store locations in
the United States and Canada. Solstice Marketing Concepts, LLC
operates as a subsidiary of Safilo Group S.p.A. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dana Lauren Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (917) 796-7437
          Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
          E-mail: danalgottlieb@aol.com


SPACE NK USA LLC: Olsen Says Website not Blind-friendly
-------------------------------------------------------
Thomas J. Olsen, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Space NK USA LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 18-cv-04694, (S.D. N.Y., May 28, 2018), seeks preliminary and
permanent injunction, compensatory, statutory and punitive damages
and fines, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs and
expenses of this action together with reasonable attorneys' and
expert fees and such other and further relief under the Americans
with Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights Law and New York
City Human Rights Law.

Space NK owns and operates stores throughout the United States,
including a location at 31 Prince Street, New York, New York and
within Bloomingdales' department stores located in New York. It
sells, at these locations, skin care products, makeup, haircare
fragrances and similar items. It also provides a website,
www.spacenk.com which allows all consumers to access the facilities
and services that it offers about its retail stores. Olsen browsed
and intended to make avail of their services. Plaintiff is legally
blind and claims that Defendant's website cannot be accessed by the
visually-impaired. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq.
      Christopher H. Lowe, Esq.
      LIPSKY LOWE LLP
      630 Third Avenue, Fifth Floor
      New York, NY 10017-6705
      Tel: (212) 392-4772
      Fax: (212) 444-1030
      Email: doug@lipskylowe.com
             chris@lipskylowe.com


SSC KERRVILLE: Fails to Pay OT Wages to RNs & LVNs, Passmore Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ROSARIO PASSMORE and BRENDA L. CHAFTON, f/k/a BRENDA AGBEYE,
Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. SSC
KERRVILLE HILLTOP VILLAGE OPERATING COMPANY LLC; SSC KERRVILLE
EDGEWATER OPERATING COMPANY, LLC; SSC KERRVILLE ALPINE TERRACE
OPERATING COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 5:18-cv-00782 (W.D. Tex., July 31,
2018), alleges that the Defendants have violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act by failing and refusing to pay their Registered
Nurses and Licensed Vocational Nurses at time-and-one-half the
regular rates of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours
within a workweek.

Headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia, SSC Kerrville Hilltop Village
Operating Company LLC, SSC Kerrville Edgewater Operating Company
LLC and SSC Kerrville Alpine Terrace Operating Company LLC are
foreign limited liability companies that are currently authorized
to do business in Texas, and are doing business in Texas.

The Defendants operate short-term and long-term health care
facilities in and around Kerr County, Texas.  The Defendants
provide health care services, primarily to seniors, including
skilled nursing care, physical therapy (short-term and long-term),
occupational therapy (short-term and long-term), speech therapy
(short-term and long-term), wound care, hospice care, and respite
care.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Edmond S. Moreland, Jr., Esq.
          MORELAND LAW FIRM, P.C.
          700 West Summit Drive
          Wimberley, TX 78676
          Telephone: (512) 782-0567
          Facsimile: (512) 782-0605
          E-mail: edmond@morelandlaw.com

               - and -

          Daniel A. Verrett, Esq.
          MORELAND LAW FIRM, P.C.
          The Commissioners House at Heritage Square
          2901 Bee Cave Road, Box L
          Austin, TX 78746
          Telephone: (512) 782-0567
          Facsimile: (512) 782-0605
          E-mail: daniel@morelandlaw.com



STRAND BOOK: Murphy Wants Web Site Accessible to Visually-impaired
------------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES MURPHY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. STRAND BOOK STORE, INC., Case No. 1:18-cv-06881-GHW
(S.D.N.Y., July 31, 2018), seeks a permanent injunction to cause a
change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that its Web site -- http://www.strandbooks.com/--
will become and remain accessible to the Plaintiff and other blind
and visually-impaired consumers.

Strand Book Store, Inc., is a New York Corporation doing business
in New York.  The Company is a book and gift retailer that operates
STRAND BOOKS Stores, as well as the STRAND BOOKS 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



SUPER MICRO: Consolidated Securities Suit Filing Due Sept. 24
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LOGAN HESSEFORT, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. SUPER MICRO COMPUTER,
INC., et al., Defendants, Lead Case No. 3:18-cv-00838-JST (N.D.
Cal.), Judge Jon S. Tigar of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California has entered a stipulated order
regarding the filing of the consolidated complaint by the Lead
Plaintiff, the Defendants' response thereto, and continuing the
initial case management conference.

On Feb. 8, 2018, two class action complaints were filed against the
Company, Charles Liang, and Howard Hideshima: (1) Hessefort v.
Super Micro Computer, Inc. No 3:18-cv-838, and (2) United Union of
Roofers, Waterproofers & Allied Workers Local Union No. 8 WBPA Fund
v. Super Micro Computer, Inc., No. 3:18-cv-850-JST.

The Complaints allege claims under the federal securities laws,
regarding among other matters the Company's failure to timely file
its 2017 Annual Report on Form 10-K and other financial statements
in light of an internal investigation into revenue recognition,
that are subject to the procedural requirements of the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, including those set forth
in 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4.

On April 9, 2018, New York Hotel Trades Council & Hotel Association
of New York City, Inc. Pension Fund moved for an order: (1)
consolidating the related actions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
42(a); (2) appointing the Pension Fund as the lead Plaintiff; and
(3) approving the Pension Fund's selection of Robbins Geller Rudman
& Dowd LLP as the lead counsel.

On May 8, 2018, the Court found United Union of Roofers,
Waterproofers & Allied Workers Local Union No. 8 WBPA Fund v. Super
Micro Computer, Inc., No. 3:18-cv-850 to be related to Hessefort v.
Super Micro Computer, Inc., No 3:18-cv-838 (ECF No. 41).

On May 9, 2018, the Clerk issued notice that the Initial Case
Management Conference set for May 24, 2018, was continued to Aug.
29, 2018, and that a Joint Case Management Statement was due by
5:00 p.m. on Aug. 20, 2018.

On May 25, 2018, the Court appointed the Pension Fund as the lead
Plaintiff, approved its selection of Robbins Geller as the lead
counsel, and consolidated Hessefort v. Super Micro Computer, Inc.,
No 3:18-cv-838 and United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers & Allied
Workers Local Union No. 8 WBPA Fund v. Super Micro Computer, Inc.,
No. 3:18-cv-850. ECF No. 46.

The Company has not yet filed its SEC Form 10-K for Fiscal Year
2017, or its Forms 10-Q for the quarters ended Sept. 30, 2017, Dec.
31, 2017, or March 31, 2018.

On May 10, 2018, Super Micro Computer, Inc. issued a press release
stating that the Nasdaq Hearings Panel of The Nasdaq Stock Market
has granted the Company's request to continue its listing on Nasdaq
through Aug. 24, 2018, subject to the condition that the Company
becomes current with its U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
filings by that date.

Because the Company's anticipated SEC filings (or potential
delisting) are expected by the lead Plaintiff to bear directly on
its allegations and likely will be incorporated into a consolidated
complaint, the parties propose a schedule, subject to the Court's
approval, that allows time for the lead Plaintiff to assess the
content of the Company's delinquent filings with the SEC before
filing the consolidated complaint, as well as the continuance of
the Initial Case Management Conference (and related Joint Case
Management Statement).  The proposed schedule would help avoid the
unnecessary expenditure of judicial resources or effort by the
Court or the parties.

The Defendants intend to file a motion to dismiss, which would
trigger a stay of discovery under the Reform Act.  Therefore the
parties stipulated and Judge Tigar granted as follows:

     1. The Defendants waive service of the summons and Complaint
and accept service of the Complaint as of the date of the
Stipulation;

     2. The lead Plaintiff will file and serve a consolidated
complaint no later than Sept. 24, 2018;

     3. The Defendants will file and serve any answer or other
response within 45 days of service of the consolidated complaint;

     4. The lead Plaintiff will file and serve any opposition to
the Defendants' motion to dismiss within 45 days of service of the
motion to dismiss;

     5. The Defendants will file and serve any reply brief in
support of the motion to dismiss within 30 days of service of any
opposition brief; and

     6. The Initial Case Management Conference, currently scheduled
for Aug. 29, 2018 at 2:00 p.m., is adjourned to such other date and
time as the Court will order.  Until the date of such Case
Management Conference, the stay of discovery will remain in place,
subject to the parties' right to seek to lift the stay.

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

Logan Hessefort, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jennifer Pafiti --
jpafiti@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, J. Alexander Hood, II --
ahood@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice & Jeremy A.
Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac
vice.

New York Hotel Trades Council & Hotel Association of New York City,
Inc. Pension Fund, Movant, represented by Tricia Lynn McCormick --
TriciaM@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Daniel
Jacob Pfefferbaum -- dpfefferbaum@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP & Shawn A. Williams -- shawnw@rgrdlaw.com --
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Bristol County Retirement System, Movant, represented by K.C.
Maxwell -- kmaxwell@bgrfirm.com -- Maxwell Law PC.

Qiong Shen, Movant, represented by Laurence M. Rosen --
lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.

Oklahoma Police Pension and Retirement System, Movant, represented
by Richard Martin Heimann -- rheimann@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein, Katherine Collinge Lubin -- klubin@lchb.com --
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP & Lester Rene Hooker --
lhooker@saxenawhite.com -- Saxena White P.A..

SUPERRUAY CORP: Fails to Pay OT to Cooks, Basurto Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE LUIS ANGEL BASURTO and HUGO NERI DE JESUS, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SUPERRUAY CORP.
D/B/A LARB UBOL; NIRUN NOREE; RATCHANEE SUMPATBOON A.K.A POODAM;
and KHAO DOE, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-06368 (S.D.N.Y., July
13, 2018) is an action against the Defendants to recover unpaid
minimum, overtime wages,  pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as cook.  Mr.
Basurto was employed from September 2014 to June 19, 2018, and Mr.
Neri de Jesus on February 2018 to June 19, 2018.

Superruay Corp. a company engaged in the restaurant business. It
owns, operates, or controls a Thai restaurant, located at 480 9th
Ave, New York, NY 10018 under the name "Larb Ubol". [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


SUPERVALU INC: Summary Judgment, Class Cert. Bids Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Supervalu Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 16, 2018, that the company still awaits
for the court ruling on its motion for summary judgment and Daubert
motion and on plaintiff's motion for class certification.

In December 2008, a class action complaint was filed in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin against
the company alleging that a 2003 transaction between Supervalu and
C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc. ("C&S") was a conspiracy to restrain
trade and allocate markets. In the 2003 transaction, the company
purchased certain assets of the Fleming Corporation as part of
Fleming Corporation's bankruptcy proceedings and sold certain of
its assets to C&S that were located in New England.

Three other retailers filed similar complaints in other
jurisdictions and the cases were consolidated and are proceeding in
the United States District Court in Minnesota.

The complaints alleged that the conspiracy was concealed and
continued through the use of non-compete and non-solicitation
agreements and the closing down of the distribution facilities that
the company and C&S purchased from each other.

Plaintiffs are divided into Midwest plaintiffs and a New England
plaintiff and are seeking monetary damages, injunctive relief and
attorney's fees.

On June 19, 2015, the District Court Magistrate Judge entered an
order that decided a number of matters including granting Midwest
plaintiffs' request to seek class certification for certain Midwest
distribution centers and denying New England plaintiff's request to
add an additional New England plaintiff and denying plaintiff's
request to seek class certification for a group of New England
retailers.

In September 2015, the New England plaintiff appealed to the 8th
Circuit the denial of the request to add an additional New England
plaintiff and to seek class certification for a group of New
England retailers and the hearing before the 8th Circuit occurred
on May 17, 2016. On September 7, 2016, the District Court granted
Midwest plaintiffs' motion to certify five Midwest distribution
center classes, only one of which sued the company (the
non-arbitration Champaign distribution center class).

On March 1, 2017, the 8th Circuit denied the New England
plaintiff's appeals seeking to join an additional New England
plaintiff and the appeal seeking the ability to move for class
certification of a smaller New England class.

Supervalu Inc. said, "At a mediation on May 25, 2017, we reached a
settlement with the non-arbitration Champaign distribution center
class, which is the one Midwest class suing us. We and the Midwest
plaintiffs entered into a settlement agreement and the court
granted final approval of the settlement on November 17, 2017. The
material terms of the settlement include: (1) denial of wrongdoing
and liability by us; (2) release of all Midwest plaintiffs’
claims against us related to the allegations and transactions at
issue in the litigation that were raised or could have been raised
by the non-arbitration Champaign distribution center class; and (3)
payment by us of $9. There is no contribution between us and C&S,
and C&S did not settle the claims alleged against it and on April
19, 2018, a jury returned a verdict in favor of C&S determining
that there was no conspiracy between Supervalu and C&S to restrain
trade."

The New England plaintiff is not a party to the settlement and is
pursuing its individual claims and potential class action claims
against us, which at this time are determined as remote. On
February 15, 2018, the company filed a summary judgment and Daubert
motion and the New England plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification. The hearing on the motions occurred on May 16, 2018,
and we are waiting for a decision.

Supervalu Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
grocery wholesaler and retailer in the United States and
internationally. It operates through two segments, Wholesale and
Retail. The company was founded in 1871 and is headquartered in
Eden Prairie, Minnesota.


TAKING CARE: Gipson Action Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------------
Linda Gipson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Taking Care Of Our Seniors, Inc. (d/b/a
TKOOS) and Beverly L. Davis, individually, Defendants, Case No.
18-cv-03745, (N.D. Ill., May 29, 2018), seeks recovery of overtime
pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum
Wage Law for failure to pay Plaintiff and other caregivers owed
overtime wages for time worked in excess of forty hours per
workweek.

Defendants provide personal caregiving services to elderly
individuals in their homes. Gipson worked multiple, consecutive
24-hour shifts in the homes of Defendants' clients. During the
24-hour shifts, Defendants automatically deducted eight hours for
sleep time and three hours for meal and break time regardless of
whether these were availed of or not, notes the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
      Maureen A. Salas, Esq.
      Sarah J. Arendt, Esq.
      WERMAN SALAS P.C.
      77 West Washington, Suite 1402
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Tel: (312) 419-1008
      Email: dwerman@flsalaw.com
             msalas@flsalaw.com
             sarendt@flsalaw.com


THREE SONZ: Branum Suit Seeks Payment of OT, Minimum Wage
---------------------------------------------------------
Betty J. Branum, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Three Sonz LLC, Three Sonz II LLC, Three Sonz III LLC,
Three Sonz IV LLC, Adnan Beydoun and Jane Doe Beydoun, Case No.
2:18-cv-02247 (D. Ariz., July 17, 2018), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime and minimum wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff worked as a cashier/customer service representatives
for the Defendants. The Plaintiff was a full-time, non-exempt
employee who worked for Defendant Three Sonz II LLC at Defendants'
Ellsworth location at 1208 South Ellsworth Road Mesa, AZ 85209 from
approximately October 2017 through approximately January 2018.

The Defendants own and operate as Three Sonz, an enterprise located
in Maricopa County, Arizona. The Defendants operate gas station
companies whose primary marketplace offering is selling automobile
fuel and various retail items. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TUMINO'S TOWING: Jurisdictional Discovery Ordered in "Kiley" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Re: D.E. 10, Plaintiff's Motion to Remand Kiley, v.
Tumino's Towing, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 2:18-cv-3165 (JMV)
(SCM) (D. N.J.), Magistrate Judge Steven C. Mannion of the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey ordered the parties
to produce limited jurisdictional discovery to determine what
percentage of the putative class members are domiciled in New
Jersey.

Mr. Kiley instituted the putative class action to recover damages
and injunctive relief for Tumino's Towing allegedly unlawful and
predatory towing practices.  His individual claims arise out of a
nonconsensual tow of his vehicle that Tumino's Towing performed
from a location in Ridgefield Park, New Jersey on Feb. 15, 2017.
The complaint alleges that certain of the fees and charges that
Tumino's Towing required Mr. Kiley to pay were unlawful under
various New Jersey state consumer protection laws.

Mr. Kiley seeks to certify a class of similarly situated customers
whose vehicles were nonconsensually towed by Tumino's Towing
throughout New Jersey during a six year period prior to Jan. 31,
2018, the date Mr. Kiley filed his complaint in the Union County
Superior Court.  The complaint does not set forth the citizenship
of the proposed class members but includes each person whose
vehicle was non-consensually towed by Defendants from a location in
New Jersey, not as a result of an accident, during the relevant
time period.  Tumino's Towing estimates, based on towing records
and invoices, that since 2012 they have performed approximately
13,000 such tows.

On March 5, 2018, Tumino's Towing removed the action on the ground
that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the case under
the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA").  Tumino's Towing alleges
that the case qualifies for CAFA jurisdiction because it is a class
action in which the class has more than 100 members and the matter
in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $5 million exclusive of
interest and costs, and any member of the class of the Plaintiffs
is a citizen of a State different from any Defendant.

Mr. Kiley does not contest that the case qualifies for federal
subject matter jurisdiction under CAFA but filed a Motion to Remand
on April 4, 2018 on the ground that remand is required under CAFA's
mandatory "Home State" exception or proper under the discretionary
"Home State" exception.

Based on the minimal information before the Court with regard to
the proposed class members' citizenship, Magistrate Judge Mannion
finds that Mr. Kiley has not shown that an exception to CAFA
jurisdiction applies.  However, because Mr. Kiley's claims
regarding the citizenship of the proposed class members do not
appear to be clearly frivolous, and because he finds that more
information regarding citizenship will assist the Court in
determining whether remand is proper, the Magistrate Judge will Mr.
Kiley's request for jurisdictional discovery.

Tumino's Towing possesses ample information regarding the
citizenship of the putative class members which will allow the
Court to determine whether either of the aforementioned CAFA
exceptions apply.  Therefore, the Magistrate Judge ordered limited
jurisdictional discovery to allow Mr. Kiley to determine what
percentage of the putative class members are domiciled in New
Jersey.  The parties will meet and confer and submit a proposed
jurisdictional discovery plan by July 11, 2018.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 27, 2018 Letter Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/q73LeO from Leagle.com.

SEAN KILEY, On behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, represented by ANDREW R. WOLF -- awolf@wolflawfirm.net
-- The Wolf Law Firm, LLC, MARK A. FISHER --
MFisher@wolflawfirm.net -- THE WOLF LAW FIRM, LLC & MATTHEW SCOTT
OORBEEK -- moorbeek@genovaburns.com -- Genova Burns, LLC.

TUMINO'S TOWING, INC. & JOHN TUMINO, Defendants, represented by
CAROLINE ELEANORE OKS -- coks@gibbonslaw.com -- GIBBONS PC &
MICHAEL R. MCDONALD -- mmcdonald@gibbonslaw.com -- GIBBONS, PC.

ULTA BEAUTY: Levi & Korsinsky to Lead in Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BARBARA CHANDLER, Plaintiff, v. ULTA BEAUTY, INC., et
al., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-1577 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Robert M.
Dow, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, (i) granted Lehigh County Employees
Retirement Fund's motion to withdraw, and struck its motion for
appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of selection of the lead
counsel; (ii) granted Hurlbut Group's motion to for leave to file a
sur-reply; (iii) granted Lawrence Banker, Cynthia Busse, Danny
Hurlbut, Marlene Hurlbut's motion for appointment as the lead
Plaintiffs, and approved their selection of Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
as the lead counsel and Salas Wang, LLC as the liaison counsel; and
(iv) denied the remaining motions for appointment as the lead
Plaintiff.

This is a securities class action against Ult, Mary N. Dillon, and
Scott M. Settersten.  Ulta  operates a chain of beauty stores that
offers cosmetics, fragrance, skin and hair care products, and salon
services to customers throughout the United States.  Dillon served
at all relevant times as the Company's CEO and Director.
Settersten served at all relevant times as the Company's Chief
Financial Officer, Treasurer and Assistant Secretary.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (i) the Company
was engaged in the widespread practice of repackaging returned
cosmetics and re-shelving them alongside unblemished products to
sell at full retail price; and (ii) that as a result of the
foregoing, Ulta's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On Feb. 9, 2018, media outlets reported that a consumer class
action had been filed against the Company, alleging that the
Company engaged in the 'widespread and surreptitious' practice of
repacking returned cosmetics and re-shelving them alongside
unblemished products to sell at full price.  The price of Ulta's
stock fell following the news.  

On Feb. 23, 2018, CBS News published a story reporting on
statements made by at least one former Ulta employee indicating
that Ulta store managers pressured the Company's employees to clean
and resell used products.  The price of Ulta's stock fell further
following the news.

On March 2, 2018, Chandler filed the securities class action on
behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Ulta
securities between March 30, 2016 and Feb. 23, 2018, both days
inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by the Defendants'
alleged violations of federal securities laws.

Four movants sought appointment as the lead Plaintiff and the lead
counsel in the matter: (1) Daniel Hurlbut, Marlene Hurlbut, Cynthia
Busse, and Lawrence Banker ("Hurlbut Group"); (2) Asha Ullah, Ahmad
Ullah, and Dr. Vaijinath Chakote ("Ullah Group"); (3) Iron Workers
Local 580; and (4) Lehigh County Employees Retirement Fund.

Lehigh County Employees Retirement Fund filed a motion to
withdrawal its motion for appointment as the lead Plaintiff and
approval of selection of the lead counsel.  Accordingly, Lehigh
County Employees Retirement Fund's motion to withdraw is granted
and its motion for appointment as the lead Plaintiff and approval
of selection of the lead counsel is stricken.

Judge Dow finds that the remaining movants have all recognized that
the Hurlbut Group had more than $180,000 in losses.  The parties
have submitted a number of loss calculations for the other movants,
ranging from $49,331.78 to $58,598 for IW 580 and ranging from
$8,954.00 to $25,398.10 for the Ullah Group.  The Judge therefore
concludes that the Hurlbut Group has the greatest financial
interest in the relief sought by the class.

The Hurlbut Group also meets the adequacy requirement in Rule
23(a).  There is no indication that the Hurlbut Group's claims
conflict with those of the class.  Given the Hurlbut Group's
alleged losses, it has a substantial interest in the outcome of
this case.  Finally, the Hurlbut Group is represented by competent,
experienced counsel.  Because the Hurlbut Group satisfies all the
criteria of 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I), it is
presumed the "most adequate plaintiff" under the PSLRA.

Because no party has rebutted the Hurlbut Group's presumptive lead
Plaintiff status, Judge Dow granted the Hurlbut Group's motion for
appointment as the lead Plaintiff.

The Hurlbut Group has selected Levi & Korsinsky, LLP as lead the
counsel and Salas Wang, LLC as the liaison counsel.  No party has
challenged the Hurlbut Group's choice of counsel.  Given the
extensive experience of these firms in the area of securities law,
the Judge approved them as the counsel in the case.
  The case is set for further status on July 17, 2018 at 10:00
a.m.

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

Barbara Chandler, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Patrick Vincent
Dahlstrom -- pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, J. Alexander
Hood, II -- ahood@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz Llp, Louis Carey Ludwig
-- lcludwig@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP & Jeremy Alan Lieberman --
jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP.

Ulta Beauty, Inc., Mary N. Dillon & Scott M. Settersten,
Defendants, represented by Craig Christopher Martin --
cmartin@jenner.com -- Jenner & Block LLP, Howard Steven Suskin --
hsuskin@jenner.com -- Jenner & Block LLP, Matt D. Basil --
mbasil@jenner.com -- Jenner & Block LLP & Paul Benjamin Rietema --
prietema@jenner.com -- Jenner & Block Llp.

Ulta Investor Group, Movant, represented by Jeffrey Michael Salas
-- jsalas@salaswang.com -- Salas Wang LLC.

Danny Hurlbut, Marlene Hurlbut & Cynthia Busse, Movants,
represented by Jeffrey Michael Salas, Salas Wang LLC & Shannon
Hopkins -- shopkins@zlk.com -- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, pro hac
vice.

Lawrence Banker, Movant, represented by Gregory Potrepka --
gpotrepka@zlk.com -- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, pro hac vice, Jeffrey
Michael Salas, Salas Wang LLC & Shannon Hopkins, Levi & Korsinsky,
LLP, pro hac vice.

Lehigh County Employees Retirement Fund, Movant, represented by
Danielle S. Myers -- danim@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd Llp.

Asha Ullah, Ahmad Ullah & Vaijinath Chakote, Movants, represented
by Charles H. Linehan -- clinehan@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay &
Murray LLP, pro hac vice, John Scott Monical -- jmonical@LKSU.com
-- Lawrence, Kamin, Saunders & Uhlenhop, Lesley F. Portnoy --
lportnoy@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, pro hac
vice, Marielise Fraioli -- mfraioli@LKSU.com -- Lawrence Kamin
Saunders & Uhlenhop, LLC, Mitchell Benjamin Goldberg, Lawrence,
Kamin, Saunders & Uhlenhop, Peter E. Cooper --
pcooper@lawrencekaminlaw.com -- Lawrence, Kamin, Saunders &
Uhlenhop & Robert Vincent Prongay -- rprongay@glancylaw.com --
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, pro hac vice.

UNITED STATES: NY Court Certifies Class of UAC
----------------------------------------------
In the case, L.V.M., a minor, by and through his next friend EDITH
ESMERALDA MEJIA DE GALINDO, on his own behalf and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs/Petitioners, v. SCOTT LLOYD,
Director, Office of Refugee Resettlement; JONATHAN WHITE, Deputy
Director, Office of Refugee Resettlement; STEVEN WAGNER, Acting
Assistant Secretary for the Administration for Children and
Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; ALEX AZAR,
Secretary, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; ELCY
VALDEZ, Federal Field Specialist, Office of Refugee Resettlement;
JEREMY KOHOMBAN, President and Chief Executive Officer, Children's
Village, Defendants/Respondents, Case No. 18 Civ. 1453 (PAC) (S.D.
N.Y.), Judge Paul A. Crotty of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York (i) denied the Defendants' motion to
dismiss the Complaint; (ii) granted the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification; and (iii) granted in part and denied in part
the Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction.

The lawsuit is about how the U.S. Government treats unaccompanied
alien children ("UAC").  Generally, when UAC are apprehended by an
agency of the Federal Government, such as Immigration and Customs
Enforcement ("ICE"), the agency must transfer custody of the UAC to
the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Refugee
Resettlement ("ORR") within 72 hours.  ORR is then responsible for
the care and custody of the UAC, until they are reunited with a
family member or placed with other individuals or entities, while
removal proceedings go forward in immigration courts.

When UAC come into ORR's custody, ORR places UAC into one of three
types of state licensed, ORR-funded, caretaker facilities: (1)
secure facility; (2) staff-secure facility; and (3) shelter care
facility.  A secure facility has the most restrictive custodial
condition and it is in many ways akin to juvenile jails; a
staff-secure facility is less restrictive than a secure facility,
but movement within it is substantially controlled; and a shelter
care facility is the least restrictive custodial setting. These
facilities are supposed to provide UAC with housing, education,
health, and case management services.

The Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008
("TVPRA") mandates that ORR "promptly" place UAC in the least
restrictive setting that is in the best interests of the child.
Prompt placement of the child is critical to minimize the
deleterious impact (anxiety, depression, and/or cognitive change)
of detention.  There is no dispute that the longer the detention,
the greater the impact.

The lawsuit challenges the ORR's newly revised process for placing
UAC in the most appropriate setting at the earliest possible
opportunity.  In mid-2017, the then-newly appointed director of
ORR, Scott Lloyd, added a director review step to the UAC release
process, requiring his personal approval of release decisions
involving UAC who are housed in a staff-secure facility or have
ever been housed in a staff-secure or secure facility.  

The Plaintiffs claim that the director review step adds
unjustifiable delays to the UAC release process and violates the
administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), TVPRA, and Due Process Clause
of the Fifth Amendment.  Lead Plaintiff L.V.M., who is an UAC,
brings the action on behalf of himself and those similarly situated
against Scott Lloyd, Jonathan White, Steven Wagner, Alex Azar, and
Ely Valdez ("Defendants") who are federal officers and employees of
ORR, seeking injunctive relief and declaratory judgment, as well as
habeas relief.

To be clear, the lawsuit challenges only the ORR's process for
promptly placing UAC in the most appropriate setting.

The Plaintiffs move for class certification and a preliminary
injunction; the Defendants move to dismiss.

The Plaintiffs seek to certify the class of all children who are or
will be in the custody of ORR in New York State and who are
currently housed in a staff-secure facility or have ever been
housed in a staff-secure or secure facility.

With the Court's leave, the parties completed expedited discovery.
On June 7, 2018, the Court heard oral argument on each of the
motions.

Judge Crotty (i) denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss; granted
the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification; and (iii) granted
in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary
injunction.  

The Judge finds that not only have the Plaintiffs pleaded plausible
statutory and constitutional violations, but they have also
adequately demonstrated irreparable injury and the likelihood of
success on numerous claims.  For example, the APA guards against
agency actions instituted based on personal preference of
decisionmakers.  According to evidence before the Court, Lloyd's
director review policy was instituted within hours of Lloyd's
appointment as the director of ORR, with no record demonstrating
the need for a change.  Apparently, the change was based on
unidentified news reports about criminal activities involving
immigrant minors.  

Expedited discovery has not yielded any record showing a
consideration of relevant law, agency documents, or the impact on
UAC.  This is at the zenith of impermissible agency actions.  This
unlawful agency action keeps the Plaintiffs -- the very subjects
that ORR is statutorily mandated to protect -- from reuniting with
their sponsors for at the very least 35 more days (and likely more
than that) in a process which already takes too long.

The Judge holds that the Court cannot turn a blind eye tothe
Plaintiffs' suffering and irreparable injury.  He directed the ORR
to vacate the director review policy, as reflected in ORR Guide:
Children Entering the United States Unaccompanied as revised on
June 12, 2017, until further order of the Court.  The Clerk of the
Court is directed to close the pending motions at ECF 2, 41, and
61.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 27, 2018 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/PPe3Rw from Leagle.com.

L.V.M., a minor, by and through his next friend Edith Esmeralda
Mejia De Galindo, on his own behalf and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Petitioner, represented by Paige Austin, New
York Civil Liberties Union, Aadhithi Padmanabhan, New York Civil
Liberties Union, Robert Andrew Hodgson, New York Civil Liberties
Union, Scout Katherine Katovich, New York Civil Liberties Union &
Christopher T. Dunn, New York Civil Liberties Union.

Scott Lloyd, Director, Office Refugee Resettlement, Jonathan White,
Deputy Director, Office of Refugee Resettlement, Steven Wagner,
Acting Assistant Secretary for the Administration for Children and
Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Alex Azar,
Secretary, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services & Elcy
Valdez, Federal Field Specialist, Office of Refugee Resettlement,
Respondents, represented by Michael James Byars, U.S. Attorney's
Office & Natasha Waglow Teleanu, United States Attorney's Office.

UNITED STATES: Pars Challenges Ban on Muslims From Five Countries
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PARS EQUALITY CENTER; ONEAMERICA; PAMELA WHITEHALL RAGHEBI; AFSHIN
RAGHEBI; ZEINAB MOHAMED HASSAN; SIRAJI ETHA SIRAJI; MALAYEEN AHMED;
REZA AZIMI; YAHYA GHALEB; MITRA HANNANI; NICHOLAS HANOUT; HOSSEIN
ZAMANI HOSSEINABADI; HODA MEHRABI MOHAMMADABADI; JOHN DOES #1-3;
and JANE DOE #1 v. MIKE POMPEO; KIRSTJEN NIELSEN; KEVIN K.
MCALEENAN; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
STATE; and U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, Case No.
2:18-cv-01122-BHS (W.D. Wash., July 31, 2018), is a purported class
action challenging the Defendants' implementation of the waiver
provision of Presidential Proclamation No. 9645, "Enhancing Vetting
Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry into the
United States By Terrorists or other Public-Safety Threats."

The Proclamation indefinitely bans millions of nationals of five
Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States.  For
many thousands of individuals and families indefinitely separated
by the President's ban, the Proclamation's waiver provision has, as
a practical matter, amounted to nothing more than an empty promise
-- in the words of Justice Breyer, merely "window dressing,"
according to the complaint.

Mike Pompeo is the Secretary of State and has responsibility for
overseeing enforcement and implementation of the Proclamation,
including the Proclamation's waiver provision, by all Department of
State staff.  Kirstjen Nielsen is the Secretary of Homeland
Security and has responsibility for overseeing enforcement and
implementation of the Proclamation, including the Proclamation's
waiver provision, by all Department of Homeland Security staff.

Kevin K. McAleenan is the Commissioner of the Customs and Border
Protection and has responsibility for overseeing enforcement and
implementation of the Proclamation, including the Proclamation's
waiver provision, by all Customs and Border Protection staff.

U.S. Department of Homeland Security is a cabinet-level department
of the United States federal government.  DHS' components include
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS"), Customs and
Border Protection ("CBP"), and Immigration and Customs Enforcement
("ICE").  U.S. Department of State is a cabinet-level department of
the United States federal government.  DOS is responsible for the
issuance of immigrant and nonimmigrant visas abroad.

Customs and Border Protection is a federal law enforcement agency
within DHS.  CBP's responsibilities include inspecting and
admitting immigrants and nonimmigrant arriving with U.S. visas at
international points of entry, including airports and land
borders.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Darin Sands, Esq.
          Dustin O'Quinn, Esq.
          Jessica Walder, Esq.
          Aaron Fickes, Esq.
          LANE POWELL, PC
          1420 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4200
          P.O. Box 91302
          Seattle, WA 98111-9402
          Telephone: (206) 223-7000
          Facsimile: (206) 223-7107
          E-mail: sandsd@lanepowell.com
                  oquinnd@lanepowell.com
                  walderj@lanepowell.com
                  fickesa@lanepowell.com

               - and -

          Esther H. Sung, Esq.
          Jana Whalley, Esq.
          Joshua Stehlik, Esq.
          Melissa S. Keaney, Esq.
          Nicholas Espiritu, Esq.
          NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER
          3450 Wilshire Blvd. #108-62
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 639-3900
          E-mail: sung@nilc.org
                  whalley@nilc.org
                  stehlik@nilc.org
                  keaney@nilc.org
                  espiritu@nilc.org

               - and -

          Babak G. Yousefzadeh, Esq.
          IRANIAN AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION
          5185 MacArthur Blvd. NW, Suite 624
          Washington, DC 20016
          Telephone: (415) 774-3191
          E-mail: President@iaba.us

               - and -

          John A. Freedman, Esq.
          ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
          601 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20001-3743
          Telephone: (202) 942-5000
          E-mail: john.freedman@arnoldporter.com

               - and -

          Brittney Rezaei, Esq.
          Zahra A. Billoo, Esq.
          COUNCIL ON AMERICAN-ISLAMIC RELATIONS, CALIFORNIA
          3160 De La Cruz Blvd., Suite 110
          Santa Clara, CA 95054
          Telephone: (408) 986-9874
          E-mail: brezaei@cair.com
                  zbilloo@cair.com

               - and -

          Elica S. Vafaie, Esq.
          Christina Sinha, Esq.
          ADVANCING JUSTICE - ASIAN LAW CAUCUS
          55 Columbus Ave.
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 848-7711
          E-mail: elicav@advancingjustice-alc.org
                  christinas@advancingjustice-alc.org



UNITED STATES: Retirees File Suit Over Pension Reduction
--------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM KING, ANTHONY GUGLIUZZA, and STEPHEN DARDZINSKI, on behalf
of themselves and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated
v. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No. 1:18-cv-01115-NBF (Fed.
Cl., July 31, 2018), seeks a finding that the Defendant has taken
and illegally exacted the property of the Plaintiffs and members of
the proposed class.

This is a case about whether the federal government may authorize a
fund with more than a billion dollars in it to cut vested pensions
retroactively, overturning the rules that had governed the
Plaintiffs' pensions for decades, according to the complaint.  The
lawsuit seeks to establish that the government, by authorizing
those cuts, engaged in an uncompensated taking of the Plaintiffs'
property -- their money.

The Plaintiffs contend that they and all members of the proposed
class and had their vested pensions cut beginning on October 1,
2017, and for nearly all of the Plaintiffs, the cut was massive: a
29% reduction, each month, for the rest of their lives.  The
Plaintiffs' pension fund is a multiemployer plan called the New
York State Teamsters Conference Pension & Retirement Fund.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Noah A. Messing, Esq.
          MESSING & SPECTOR LLP
          333 E. 43rd St., Lobby 1
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 960-3720
          E-mail: nm@messingspector.com



UNIVERSAL FIDELITY: Class Certification Sought in "O'Boyle" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anne O'Boyle moves the Court to certify the class described in the
complaint of her lawsuit entitled ANNE O'BOYLE, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. UNIVERSAL FIDELITY
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Case No. 2:18-cv-01016-JPS (E.D. Wisc.), and
further asks that the Court both stay the motion for class
certification and to grant the Plaintiff (and the Defendant) relief
from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules and
requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the
Motion.

Dicta in the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v.
Gomez, left open the possibility that a defendant facing a class
action complaint could moot a class representative's case by
depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of the
plaintiff's individual claim with the court and having the court
enter judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to the filing of a
class certification motion, Ms. O'Boyle asserts, citing
Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016).

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,
the Plaintiff tells the Court, citing Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco,
Inc., No. 16-3574, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10839 *9-10 (7th Cir. June
20, 2017).  Ms. O'Boyle argues that one defendant has attempted a
similar tactic by sending a certified check to the proposed class
representative. Bonin v. CBS Radio, Inc., No. 16-cv-674-CNC (E.D.
Wis.); see also Severns v. Eastern Account Systems of Connecticut,
Inc., Case No. 15-cv-1168, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23164 (E.D. Wis.
Feb. 24, 2016).

Ms. O'Boyle contends that she is obligated to move for class
certification to protect the interests of the putative class.

As the Motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when
short motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended
motion is filed, Ms. O'Boyle asserts.

Ms. O'Boyle also asks to be appointed as class representative, and
for the appointment of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, as class counsel.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, 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


US BANK NA: McGovern Sues Over Excessive Bank Fees
--------------------------------------------------
Reyna McGovern, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. U.S. Bank, N.A., Defendant, Case
No. 18-cv-01794 (S.D. Cal., August 2, 2018), seeks redress for
breach of contract with respect Out-Of-Network ATM, Overdraft
Fees.

McGovern alleges that the bank charged her a fee when using an
out-of-network ATM to withdraw money from a U.S. Bank account after
checking its balance. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

       Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
       CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP
       1350 Columbia Street, Suite 603
       San Diego, CA 92101
       Tel: (619) 762-1910
       Fax: (619) 756-6991
       Email: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com


VICTORY FOR YOUTH: Quinones Seeks Unpaid Wages, Damages
-------------------------------------------------------
Carlota J. Quinones and other similarly-situated individuals,
Plaintiff, v. Victory For Youth, Inc. and Rolando Gonzalez,
individually, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-22129 (S.D. Fla.,
May 30, 2018), seeks to recover from Defendants minimum and
overtime wages, liquidated damages, costs and reasonable attorney's
fees under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Victory for Youth is a human welfare organization dedicated to
promotion of employment for people with disabilities providing them
with on-the job training. Defendant provides other social services
dedicated to poor and disadvantaged individuals. Quinones worked
for the Defendant as an event coordinator. She worked more than 40
hours per week but was never properly compensated for overtime
hours worked, says the complaint. Plaintiff was misclassified as an
independent contractor. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


VIKING GROUP: Faces Jackson Suit Over Defective Fire Sprinklers
---------------------------------------------------------------
GAYL JACKSON and TAMMY FOSTER, Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. VIKING GROUP, INC., THE VIKING
CORPORATION and SUPPLY NETWORK, INC. d/b/a VIKING SUPPLYNET, Case
No. 8:18-cv-02356 (D. Md., July 31, 2018), is brought on behalf of
those who owned or rented residences with Viking VK457 fire
sprinklers, which allegedly suffer from manufacturing and design
defect that causes them to activate without a fire.

Instead of protecting consumers and their homes from the dangers of
fire as advertised, the Defect causes significant damage to
consumers' homes and personal property, the Plaintiffs allege.

Viking Group, Inc., is a Michigan for-profit corporation, that
operates as a holding company and is located in Grand Rapids,
Michigan.  Viking Group publicizes itself as "lead[ing] the
industry in quality and innovation because fire protection is all"
that it does, and its singular focus is "to support and enhance the
efforts of independent fire sprinkler contractors."  Viking Group
further claims that, "[w]ith 50 company-owned locations worldwide,
and a global network of independent distribution partners, Viking's
products and services are available when and where you need them."

The Viking Corporation is a Michigan for-profit corporation that is
a large manufacturer of fire-suppression systems and is in
Hastings, Michigan.  Supply Network, Inc., doing business as Viking
SupplyNet, is a Michigan for-profit corporation that "distributes
the largest selection of sprinkler system components to customers
in over 70 countries," and is located in Hastings, Michigan.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James P. Ulwick, Esq.
          KRAMON & GRAHAM, P.A.
          One South Street, Suite 2600
          Baltimore, MD 21202
          Telephone: (410) 752-6030
          Facsimile: (410) 539-1269
          E-mail: julwick@kg-law.com

               - and -

          Joseph G. Sauder, Esq.
          Matthew D. Schelkopf, Esq.
          Joseph B. Kenney, Esq.
          SAUDER SCHELKOPF LLC
          555 Lancaster Avenue
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Telephone: (888) 711-9975
          E-mail: jgs@sstriallawyers.com
                  mds@sstriallawyers.com
                  jbk@sstriallawyers.com


VISHARA VIDEO: Silva Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Premium
------------------------------------------------------
Atige Silva, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Vishara Video, Inc. and Ananda Dharmasena,
Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-04822 (S.D. N.Y., May 31, 2018), seeks
to recover unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 and New York Labor Law, including applicable
liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

Defendants own, operate, or control a video store, located at 797
8th Ave, New York, NY 10019 under the name "Vishara Video" where
Plaintiffs were employed as a sales associate.

The complaint says Plaintiffs worked for Defendants in excess of 40
hours per week, without appropriate overtime compensation for the
hours that they worked. Moreover, Defendants failed to maintain
accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and repeatedly failed to
pay Plaintiffs wages on a timely basis. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WAUPACA FOUNDRY: Garrett Labor Suit Transferred to E.D. Wisconsin
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Hoy Garrett, Jr. and Lucas Shoultz, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, v. Waupaca Foundry,
Inc., successor to ThyssenKrupp Waupaca, Inc. Defendant, Case No.
3:17-cv-00140, (S.D. Ind., September 5, 2017), was transferred to
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin on August 2, 2018, under Case No. 18-cv-01186.

Waupaca employed Plaintiffs as foundry workers at its Tell City,
Indiana plant. They seek to recover unpaid wages, unpaid overtime
wages, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees, and declaratory
relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. [BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      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 -

      Kyle Frederick Biesecker, Esq.
      BIESECKER DUTKANYCH & MACER, LLC
      411 Main Street
      Evansville, IN 47708
      Tel: (812) 424-1000
      Fax: (812) 424-1005
      Email: kfb@bdlegal.com

             - and -

      T. Joseph Snodgrass, Esq.
      LARSON KING LLP
      2800 Wells Fargo Pl.
      30 E 7th St.
      St Paul, MN 55101
      Tel: (651) 312-6510
      Fax: (651) 312-6618
      Email: jsnodgrass@larsonking.com

             - and -

      Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
      J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
      James L. Holt, Jr., Esq.
      Paula R. Jackson, Esq.
      JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT
      262 German Oak Drive
      Cordova, TN 38018
      Tel: (901) 754-8001
      Fax: (901) 754-8524
      Email: rbryant@jsyc.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 D. Bess, 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
             mdbess@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

             - and -

      Patrick A. Shoulders, Esq.
      Wm Michael Schiff, Esq.
      ZIEMER STAYMAN WEITZEL & SHOULDERS
      PO Box 916
      Evansville, IN 47706
      Tel: (812) 424-7575
      Fax: (812) 421-5089
      Email: pshoulders@zsws.com
             MSchiff@zsws.com

WAUPACA FOUNDRY: Sarrell Labor Suit Transferred to E.D. Wisconsin
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Michael Sarrell and William Shadwick, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. Waupaca
Foundry, Inc., successor to ThyssenKrupp Waupaca, Inc. Defendant,
Case No. 1:17-cv-00056, (E.D. Tenn., February 28, 2017), was
transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Wisconsin on August 2, 2018, under Case No.
18-cv-01192.

Waupaca employed Plaintiffs as foundry workers at its Etowah,
Tennessee facility. They seek to recover unpaid wages, unpaid
overtime wages, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees, and
declaratory relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. [BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
      J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
      James L. Holt, Jr., Esq.
      Paula R. Jackson, Esq.
      JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT
      262 German Oak Drive
      Cordova, TN 38018
      Tel: (901) 754-8001
      Fax: (901) 754-8524
      Email: rbryant@jsyc.com

Waupaca Foundry is represented by:

      Benjamin A. Kaplan, Esq.
      Joseph Louis Olson, Esq.
      Lee M. Seese, Esq.
      Mitchell W. Quick, Esq.
      Paul E. Benson, Esq.
      Michael D. Bess, 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: jlolson@michaelbest.com
             lmseese@michaelbest.com
             mwquick@michaelbest.com
             pebenson@michaelbest.com
             mdbess@michaelbest.com
             bakaplan@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

WELLS FARGO: RMBS Investors' New York Class Suit Still Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. continues to face a class action complaint
by a group of institutional investors, according to GS Mortgage
Securities Trust 2014-GC24's Form 10-K/A filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2018, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2017.

On June 18, 2014, a group of institutional investors filed a civil
complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York
County, against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. ("Wells Fargo Bank") in its
capacity as trustee under 276 residential mortgage backed
securities ("RMBS") trusts, which was later amended on July 18,
2014, to increase the number of trusts to 284 RMBS trusts.  On
November 24, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a motion to voluntarily
dismiss the state court action without prejudice.  That same day, a
group of institutional investors filed a putative class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York (the "District Court") against Wells Fargo
Bank, alleging claims against the bank in its capacity as trustee
for 274 RMBS trusts (the "Federal Court Complaint").  In December
2014, the plaintiffs' motion to voluntarily dismiss their original
state court action was granted.

As with the prior state court action, the Federal Court Complaint
is one of six similar complaints filed contemporaneously against
RMBS trustees (Deutsche Bank, Citibank, HSBC, Bank of New York
Mellon and US Bank) by a group of institutional investor
plaintiffs.

The Federal Court Complaint against Wells Fargo Bank alleges that
the trustee caused losses to investors and asserts causes of action
based upon, among other things, the trustee's alleged failure to:
(i) notify and enforce repurchase obligations of mortgage loan
sellers for purported breaches of representations and warranties,
(ii) notify investors of alleged events of default, and (iii) abide
by appropriate standards of care following alleged events of
default.  Relief sought includes money damages in an unspecified
amount, reimbursement of expenses, and equitable relief.  Other
cases alleging similar causes of action have been filed against
Wells Fargo Bank and other trustees in the District Court by RMBS
investors in these and other transactions, and these cases against
Wells Fargo Bank are proceeding before the same District Court
judge.

A similar complaint was also filed May 27, 2016 in New York state
court by a different plaintiff investor.  On January 19, 2016, an
order was entered in connection with the Federal Court Complaint in
which the District Court declined to exercise jurisdiction over 261
trusts at issue in the Federal Court Complaint; the District Court
also allowed plaintiffs to file amended complaints as to the
remaining, non-dismissed trusts, if they so chose, and three
amended complaints have been filed.  On December 17, 2016, the
investor plaintiffs in the 261 trusts dismissed from the Federal
Court Complaint filed a new complaint in New York state court (the
"State Court Complaint").

In September 2017, Royal Park Investments SA/NV ("Royal Park"), one
of the plaintiffs in the District Court cases against Wells Fargo
Bank, filed a putative class action complaint relating to two
trusts seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and money damages
based on Wells Fargo Bank's indemnification from trust funds for
legal fees and expenses Wells Fargo Bank incurs or has incurred in
defending the District Court case filed by Royal Park.

The Company said, "With respect to the foregoing litigations, Wells
Fargo Bank believes plaintiffs' claims are without merit and
intends to contest the claims vigorously, but there can be no
assurances as to the outcome of the litigations or the possible
impact of the litigations on Wells Fargo Bank or the RMBS trusts."

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. is the Certificate Administrator for GS
Mortgage Securities Trust 2014-GC24.


WORLEY CLAIMS: Rosell Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Elaine Rosell, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Worley Claims Services, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 18-cv-00280, (W.D. N.C., May 29, 2018), seeks to recover
overtime compensation, damages, equitable and other relief
available under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Worley provides insurance claims services throughout the United
States where Rosell worked as a file examiner. She has not received
overtime pay at one and one-half the regular rate for hours
rendered in excess of 40 per week, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Eric Spengler, Esq.
     SPENGLER & AGANS, PLLC
     1713 East Blvd., Suite B
     Charlotte, NC 28203
     Tel: (704) 910-5469
     Fax: (704) 246-4189
     Email: eric@spengleraganslaw.com


YAHOO INC: Summary Judgment in B. Domiguez's TCPA Suit Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BILL H. DOMINGUEZ, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, Appellant, v. YAHOO, INC., Case No. 17-1243 (3d
Cir.), Judge Jane Richards Roth of the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court's grant of summary
judgment in favor of Yahoo.

Dominguez sued Yahoo, alleging that Yahoo violated the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") by sending him thousands of
unsolicited text messages.  

Dominguez purchased a cell phone with a reassigned telephone
number.  The prior owner of the number had subscribed to Yahoo's
Email SMS Service, through which a user would receive a text
message each time an email was sent to the user's Yahoo email
account.  Because the prior owner of the number never canceled the
subscription, Dominguez received a text message from Yahoo every
time the prior owner received an email.  In an attempt to turn off
the notifications, Dominguez pursued various courses of action, all
of which proved unsuccessful.  Ultimately, Dominguez received
approximately 27,800 text messages from Yahoo over the course of 17
months.  Dominguez then filed a putative class action alleging that
Yahoo had violated the TCPA.   

The District Court first granted summary judgment in favor of Yahoo
in 2014 after concluding that the undisputed evidence demonstrated
that the Email SMS Service did not have the capacity to store or
produce telephone numbers using a random or sequential number
generator.  In 2015, while Dominguez's appeal of that decision was
pending, the FCC issued a declaratory ruling and order (the 2015
Declaratory Ruling), which concluded that "the capacity of an
autodialer is not limited to its current configuration but also
includes its potential functionalities.

In light of this intervening ruling from the FCC, the Appellate
Court vacated the District Court's judgment and remanded the case
for further consideration.  On remand, Dominguez amended his
complaint to allege that the Email SMS Service had the potential
capacity to place autodialed calls.  Yahoo again moved for summary
judgment, and both parties submitted expert reports addressing the
Email SMS Service's latent or potential capacity.

The District Court granted Yahoo's motion to exclude Dominguez's
expert reports and once again granted summary judgment in favor of
Yahoo.  As relevant to the present appeal, the court concluded that
(1) the 2015 Declaratory Ruling should not apply in the case under
principles of retroactivity; (2) under the applicable "present
capacity" standard, the Email SMS Service did not qualify as an
autodialer; (3) in the alternative, even if the 2015 Declaratory
Ruling were applicable in the case, Dominguez had not presented any
evidence that the Email SMS Service had the latent or potential
capacity to generate random numbers because Dominguez's expert
reports did not satisfy the standard for admissibility under
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc.; and (4) even if Dominguez's
expert reports were admissible, Dominguez had failed to provide
evidence that the Email SMS Service was capable of both generating
random and sequential numbers and dialing those numbers.  Dominguez
appealed.

While theappeal was pending, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit issued its opinion in ACA
International v. FCC, a case involving consolidated challenges to
the FCC's 2015 Declaratory Ruling.  The D.C. Circuit held that the
FCC had exceeded its authority by interpreting the term "capacity"
to include any latent or potential capacity and described the FCC's
approach as utterly unreasonable in the breadth of its regulatory
inclusion.  In particular, the D.C. Circuit took issue with the
fact that a straightforward reading of the FCC's ruling invites the
conclusion that all smartphones are autodialers.  This was so
because, as the FCC had conceded, any ordinary smartphone could
achieve autodialer functionality by simply downloading a
random-number-generating app.  The D.C. Circuit therefore set aside
the FCC's 2015 Declaratory Ruling.

Judge Roth explains that the decision in ACA International has
narrowed the scope of the appeal.  In light of the D.C. Circuit's
holding, she interpretes the statutory definition of an autodialer
as the Court did prior to the issuance of 2015 Declaratory Ruling.
Dominguez can no longer rely on his argument that the Email SMS
Service had the latent or potential capacity to function as
autodialer.  The only remaining question, then, is whether
Dominguez provided evidence to show that the Email SMS Service had
the present capacity to function as autodialer.

She finds that Dominguez cannot point to any evidence that creates
a genuine dispute of fact as to whether the Email SMS Service had
the present capacity to function as an autodialer by generating
random or sequential telephone numbers and dialing those numbers.
On the contrary, the record indicates that the Email SMS Service
sent messages only to numbers that had been individually and
manually inputted into its system by a user.  There can be little
doubt that Dominguez suffered great annoyance as a result of the
unwanted text messages.  But those messages were sent precisely
because the prior owner of Dominguez's telephone number had
affirmatively opted to receive them, not because of random number
generation.  The TCPA's prohibition on autodialers is therefore not
the proper means of redress.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 26, 2018 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/QiG0c3 from Leagle.com.

Gerald E. Arth, Esq. -- garth@foxrothschild.com -- Abraham C.
Reich, Esq. -- areich@foxrothschild.com -- Robert S. Tintner, Esq.
-- rtintner@foxrothschild.com -- Fox Rothschild, 2000 Market
Street, 20th Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19103.

James A. Francis, Esq. -- jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com -- David A.
Searles, Esq. -- dsearles@consumerlawfirm.com -- John Soumilas,
Esq. -- jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com -- Francis & Mailman, 100
South Broad Street, Land Title Building, 19th Floor, Philadelphia,
PA 19110, Counsel for Appellant.

Ian C. Ballon, Esq. -- Ballon@gtlaw.com, Lori Chang, Esq. --
Chang@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig, 1840 Century Park East, Suite
1900, Los Angeles, CA 90067.

Brian T. Feeney, Esq. -- Feeney@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig,
2001 Market Street, 2700 Two Commerce Square, Philadelphia, PA
19103, Counsel for Appellee.


                            *********

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 ***