CAR_Public/180822.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, August 22, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 168

                            Headlines

3M CO: 70 Suits Related to Aqueous Film Forming Foam Underway
3M CO: Obtains Favorable Jury Verdict in Bair Hugger Suit
A&R LOGISTICS: Tuff Sues over Background Checks
A+ STUDENT: Faces McBride Suit in Eastern Dist. of Virginia
ACTION FINANCIAL: Faces Joseph Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York

AFNI INC: Faces Hallmon Suit in Eastern District of California
ALPHA RECOVERY: Faces Gracius Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
AMERICAN CORADIUS: Catherina Faust Sues in E.D. New York
AMERICAN CORADIUS: Faces Mezzo Suit in District of New Jersey
AMERICAN CORADIUS: Slater Sues over Debt Collections Practices

APPLIED MEDICAL: Burris Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
ARC MANAGEMENT: Faces Gonzalez Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
ARCADIA RECOVERY: Faces Wade Suit in Eastern District of New York
ARSTRAT LLC: Faces Baez Suit in Eastern District of New York
BARKBOX INC: Faces Kiler Suit in Eastern District of New York

BHC SERVICES: Jalissa Green Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
BIG CITY: N.Y. App. Div. Affirms Dismissal of T. Maddicks' Suit
BNR THE BRIDGE: Hernandez Suit Moved to Western Dist. of Michigan
BRYANT HEATING: Vullings Says Evolution System Furnace Defective
CARELINK INC: Court Conditionally Certifies Workers' Class

CHARISSE & CHRISTINE: Rosario Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
CHESAPEAKE OPERATING: Nichols Appeals 10th Cir. Ruling
CHICAGO ATHLETIC: Gramelspacher Sues over Gym Membership Program
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Awaits Court OK on Bid to Drop Kelley Suit
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Credit Unions' Consolidated Suit Ongoing

CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Gordon and Lawson/Conard Suits Underway
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Ong's Bid to File 3rd Amended Complaint Pending
CLEVELAND INTEGRITY: Kole Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
COAST TO COAST: Faces Gandy Suit in Northern Dist. of Georgia
COCA-COLA CO: Ct. Denies Class Certification in Gold Peak Tea Suit

COLGATE PALMOLIVE: ERISA Class Action Underway in New York
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Appeal in Gibson Class Action Pending
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Awaiting Approval of Mounce Case Settlement
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Bid to Dismiss Zwick Partners Suit Denied
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Petition for Writ of Certiorari Still Pending

CONSTELLATION ENERGY: Court Dismisses M. Coda's Overcharging Suit
COVANCE INC: Daniel Bloomquist Wage-and-Hour Action Underway
COVANCE MARKET: Sealock Suit Wins Conditional Class Certification
CSC SERVICEWORKS: Faces MJM Visions' Suit in E.D. New York
CUBESMART LP: Court Approves New Jersey Case Settlement

DENKA PERFORMANCE: Court Dismisses Chloroprene Emissions Suit
DEVONWOOD CORP: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage Rate, Zhanpiessova Says
DOLGEN LLC: E. Fielding's ERISA Claim Must Go to Arbitration
DOMINION ENERGY: Appeals Order in Metzler Asset Suit to 4th Cir.
ECLINICAL WORKS: Fails to Secure Healthcare Records, Tot Claims

EDISON BALLROOM: Faces Bishop Suit in S.D. New York
EXPEDIA GROUP: Bid to Compel Arbitration Granted in Orbitz Suit
EXPEDIA GROUP: Buckeye Tree et al. File Renewed Class Cert. Motion
FIFTH THIRD: Seldomridge Sues for Service-to-Solutions Staff Wages
FINANCE SYSTEM: Faces Sandri Suit in E.D. Wisconsin

FIRST HAWAIIAN: Unit Still Defends Overdraft Fee-Related Suit
FIRST SOLAR: Smilovits Class Action Still Ongoing
FLARE ENERGY: Saunders Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA
FRANKLIN RESOURCES: Fernandez-Cryer Consolidated Suit Ongoing
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Bid to Dismiss 401(k) Plan Suit Underway

GENERAL ELECTRIC: Securities Suit Filed in New York State Court
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Sjunde AP-Fonden Class Suit in New York Ongoing
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Davis Suit in Northern District of Alabama
HALIBURTON ENERGY: Court Grants Arbitration in Wage & Hour Suit
HALLIBURTON CO: Bid to Dismiss Amended Magruder Class Suit Pending

INTEL CORP: At Least 49 Class Suits Filed over PC Security Flaws
INTEL CORP: McAfee Shareholders Seek to Amend Complaint
JB HUNT: Continues to Defend California-Based Drivers' Suits
JM SMUCKER: Faces Robinson Suit for Deceptive Marketing
KAPSTONE PAPER: Rosenblatt Balks at Merger Deal with Westrock

KLEENMARK SERVICES: Class Deal in H. Marroquin's Suit Has Final OK
KOHL'S CORPORATION: Urias Suit Asserts TCPA Violation
LABORATORY CORP: Appeal in Patty Davis Suit Still Pending
LABORATORY CORP: Bid to Dismiss Sequenom Shareholders Suit Pending
LABORATORY CORP: Consolidation of Bouffard & Anderson Cases Sought

LABORATORY CORP: Cunningham Class Action Underway
LABORATORY CORP: Settlement in Principle Reached in Sandusky Suit
LABORATORY CORP: Still Defends Maria Gonzalez Class Action
LANSING TRADE: Budicak Files Antitrust Class Action in Illinois
LIBERTY MUTUAL: Richelson Suit Moved to Northern District of Ohio

LOS ANGELES, CA: Certification of Vehicle Owners Class Sought
LOS ANGELES, CA: Vandenberg Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA
LOS LUNAS: Must Produce Info on Non-Jackson Class Members
MAGELLAN HEALTH: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss M. Deakin's FLSA Suit
MALDEN TOWERS: Hsueh Sues over Tenants' Security Deposits

MARK PROPCO: Cedric Bishop Sues Mark Hotel in S.D. New York
MASTERCARD INC: Accrues $947M Liability in Interchange Fees Suit
MASTERCARD INC: Class Cert. Bid Nixed in Shift Fraud Liability Case
MASTERCARD INC: Complaints on ATM Surcharge Rule Still Ongoing
MASTERCARD INC: Florida Court Shelves Junk Fax Suit

MASTERCARD INC: Still Awaits Court OK on Canadian POS Case Accord
MATHERNE HOLDINGS: Gerstenhaber Seeks to Certify Class
MDL 2741: King et al. vs Monsanto Consolidated in N.D. Calif.
MDL 2827: Donahoe Suit over iPhone Performance Moved to N.D. Calif.
METROPOLITAN PAINTING: Galeano Suit to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA

MICROSOFT CORP: Certification in Sex Discrimination Suit Denied
MINNESOTA: 8th Cir. Affirms Ruling in Suit Over METO
NORDSTROM INC: Miller Files Suit for Invasion of Privacy
NORTH CAROLINA HEALTH: Hawkins Class Cert. Bid Granted in Part
NRI USA: Seeks 9th Circuit Review of Decision in Garcia Suit

OCWEN FINANCIAL: Still Defends McWhorter Class Action
OCWEN FINANCIAL: TCPA Class Action in Illinois Underway
ONONDAGA COUNTY, NY: Denial of Class Certification Reversed
PAPA JOHN'S: Burnham Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
PHILIP MORRIS: 11 Smoking & Health Class Suits as of July 24

PHILIP MORRIS: Affiliate Continues to Defend Ringer Suit in Israel
PHILIP MORRIS: Appeals in Smoker Health Defense Suit Still Pending
PHILIP MORRIS: Continues to Defend "Bourassa" Class Suit in Canada
PHILIP MORRIS: No Actions Taken in "Jacklin" Class Action
PHILIP MORRIS: Preliminary Motions in Adams Suit Still Pending

PHILIP MORRIS: Unit Continues to Defend Blais Suit in Canada
PHILIP MORRIS: Unit Still Defends Brazil Public Prosecutor's Suit
PHILIP MORRIS: Unit Still Defends Letourneau Suit in Canada
PLAZA SERVICES: Faces Forbes Suit in Eastern District of Virginia
POLAR TECH: Cameron Sues over Collection of Biometric Data

PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Summary Judgment OK'd in FDCPA Suit
PORTLAND GENERAL: Appeal in Trojan Class Action Still Pending
PROFESSIONAL MEDICAL: Sanders Settlement Class Okayed
PROSPECT CHARTERCARE: Faces Suit Over Retirement Plan Mismanagement
RAYMOURS FURNITURE: E. Manopla's Suit Moved to N.D.N.Y.

RECHNITZ CORE: Faces Roan Suit for Underfunding Nursing Facility
REGIONAL MEDICAL: Sued by Sandusky for Sending Unsolicited Faxes
RESEARCH TRIANGLE: Faces Souders Suit Alleging TCPA Violation
RESEARCH TRIANGLE: Souders Files Suit for Invasion of Privacy
RICHANI RESTAURANT: Coleman Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages

ROYALTON 44: Cedric Bishop Sues Royalton Hotel in New York
RS&H INC: Jones Appeals M.D. Florida Ruling to 11th Circuit
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Tobin Sues over Design Defect of LED TVs
SANTANDER CONSUMER: Court Denies Bids to Intervene in Speedpay Suit
SANYO ENERGY: Sells Defective Photovoltaic Modules, Dickert Says

SH GROUP: Faces Cedric Bishop Suit in New York Southern District
SMITH TRANSPORT: Jerome Ratliff Sues over Background Checks
SQUARETRADE INC: Swinton Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
STAR CAREER: Final Judgment in NJCFA Suit Partly Reversed
STATE UNIVERSITY: Court Narrows Claims in Sex Discrimination Suit

STUDENT HELP: Bontrager Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
SURVEY SAMPLING: Zozula Class Suit Asserts TCPA Breach
SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Michael Kincaid's TCPA Suit Concluded
THORLO INC: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Marett Says
TOLL GLOBAL: 9th Circuit Appeal Filed in Marquez Class Suit

TRANSNATIONAL FOODS: Young Files Suit Asserting Deceptive Marketing
TURN-KEY SOLUTIONS: Martinez Sues to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Ct. to Review Ruling on Lyft Drivers' UCL Claim
UNITED STATES: Court Denies Final OK of Settlement in FAMs' Suit
UNITED STATES: Federal Circuit Appeal Filed in Charleston Suit

VAN RU CREDIT: Norton Files Placeholder Class Certification Bid
VEECO INSTRUMENTS: Iron Workers Fund Files Securities Suit in Ca.
WAL-MART STORES: Move to Deny Managers Class Certification Junked
WECONNECT INC: 7th Cir. Affirms Arbitration Denial in Worker's Suit
WELSPUN PIPES: Vines and Lewis Seek Overtime Pay under FLSA

WOMEN'S NATIONAL: Faces Bishop Suit in Southern Dist. of New York

                            *********

3M CO: 70 Suits Related to Aqueous Film Forming Foam Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------
3M 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 is facing 70 putative class
action and other lawsuits in connection to its Aqueous Film Forming
Foam products.

3M manufactured and marketed Aqueous Film Forming Foam  (AFFF) for
use in firefighting at airports and military bases from
approximately 1963 to 2000. As of June 30, 2018, 70 putative class
action and other lawsuits have been filed against 3M and other
defendants in various state and federal courts in Colorado,
Delaware, Florida, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, and
Washington where current or former airports or military bases are
or were located.

In these cases, plaintiffs typically allege that certain PFAS used
in AFFF contaminated the soil and groundwater where AFFF was used
and seek damages for loss of use and enjoyment of properties,
diminished property values, investigation costs, remediation costs,
and in some cases, funds for medical monitoring. Several companies
have been sued along with 3M, including Ansul Co. (acquired by
Tyco, Inc.), Angus Fire, Buckeye Fire Protection Co., Chemguard,
National Foam, Inc., and United Technologies Corp.

3M Company operates as a diversified technology company worldwide.
The company was founded in 1902 and is headquartered in St. Paul,
Minnesota.


3M CO: Obtains Favorable Jury Verdict in Bair Hugger Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
3M 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 a jury has returned a unanimous verdict
in 3M's favor finding that the Bair Hugger(TM) patient warming
system was not defective and was not the cause of a plaintiff's
injury.

As of June 30, 2018, the Company is a named defendant in lawsuits
involving approximately 4,626 plaintiffs (compared to approximately
4,270 plaintiffs at December 31, 2017), most of which are pending
in federal court in Minnesota, in which the plaintiffs claim they
underwent various joint arthroplasty, cardiovascular, and other
surgeries and later developed surgical site infections due to the
use of the Bair Hugger(TM) patient warming system (the Bair
Hugger(TM) product line was acquired by 3M as part of the 2010
acquisition of Arizant, Inc., a leading manufacturer of patient
warming solutions designed to prevent hypothermia and maintain
normal body temperature in surgical settings).

The complaints seek damages and other relief based on theories of
strict liability, negligence, breach of express and implied
warranties, failure to warn, design and manufacturing defect,
fraudulent and/or negligent misrepresentation/concealment, unjust
enrichment, and violations of various state consumer fraud,
deceptive or unlawful trade practices and/or false advertising
acts.

One case, from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Tennessee is a putative nationwide class action. The U.S. Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) granted the plaintiffs'
motion to transfer and consolidate all cases pending in federal
courts to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota to
be managed in a multi-district proceeding during the pre-trial
phase of the litigation.

In 2017, the U.S. District Court and the Minnesota state courts
denied the plaintiffs' motions to amend their complaints to add
claims for punitive damages. At a joint hearing before the U.S.
District Court and the Minnesota State court, on the parties'
motion to exclude each other's experts, and 3M's motion for summary
judgment with respect to general causation, the federal court did
not exclude the plaintiffs' experts and denied 3M's motion for
summary judgment on general causation.

In January 2018, the state court, in hearing the same arguments,
excluded plaintiffs' experts and granted 3M's motion for summary
judgment on general causation, dismissing all 61 cases pending
before the state court in Minnesota. Plaintiffs have appealed that
ruling and the state court's punitive damages ruling.

In April 2018, the federal court partially granted 3M's motion for
summary judgment in the first bellwether case, leaving for trial a
claim for strict liability based upon design defect. The court
dismissed the plaintiff's claims for negligence, failure to warn,
and common law and statutory fraud.

In the trial of the first bellwether case in May 2018, the jury
returned a unanimous verdict in 3M's favor finding that the Bair
Hugger(TM) patient warming system was not defective and was not the
cause of the plaintiff's injury.

3M Company operates as a diversified technology company worldwide.
The company was founded in 1902 and is headquartered in St. Paul,
Minnesota.


A&R LOGISTICS: Tuff Sues over Background Checks
-----------------------------------------------
JEROME RA TUFF JR., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. A&R LOGISTICS, INC., an
Illinois corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2018CH10034 (Ill.
Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., Aug. 7, 2018), alleges that Defendant has
continually failed to follow reasonable procedures to ensure that
Plaintiff and the Class members are provided with their statutorily
mandated right to the information contained in their consumer
reports.

According to the complaint, A&R is a self-proclaimed leader in the
trucking and transportation industry. Seeking to expand its fleet,
A&R encourages consumers to apply for driving positions by visiting
its website and completing an online application.  As part of its
hiring process, A&R pulls applicants' background reports from
HireRight, LLC -- a leading pre-employment screening provider -- to
identify, among other things, their names, social security numbers,
dates of birth, previous employers, work records, and trucking
accident or incident histories.  Using the information contained in
these reports, A&R then decides whether to continue the hiring
process or not.

Given the impact that these reports have on an individual's access
to employment, Congress enacted the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15
U.S.C. sections 1681, et seq., specifically to protect consumers
from the ill effects of erroneous credit reporting and provide them
with a means of ensuring that the information being distributed
about them is accurate, appropriate, and updated.

As a result of Defendant's conduct described herein and its knowing
and willful violations of 15 U.S.C. section 1681b(b)(3)(B),
Plaintiff and the Class have suffered harm, including information
injury, violation of privacy, and unfairly being denied access to
employment.

A&R Logistics, Inc., doing business as A&R Transport, Inc.,
provides dry bulk transportation, warehousing and packaging,
distribution, and third-party logistics solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam C. York, Esq.
          Michael Aschenbrener, Esq.
          KAMBERLAW LLC
          220 N Green St
          Chicago, IL 60607
          Telephone: (212) 920 3072
          Facsimile: (212) 202 6364
          E-mail: ayork@kamberlaw.com
                  asch@kamberlaw.com


A+ STUDENT: Faces McBride Suit in Eastern Dist. of Virginia
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against A+ Student Staffing,
Inc. The case is captioned as Robert A. McBride, Individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. A+
Student Staffing, Inc. and ETC Institute, the Defendants, Case No.
2:18-cv-00424-RAJ-DEM (E.D. Va., Aug. 7, 2018). The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Raymond A. Jackson.

A+ Student Staffing is a staffing agency that places college
students in part-time office jobs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew Joseph Guzzo, Esq.
          Kristi Cahoon Kelly
          KELLY & CRANDALL PLC
          3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202
          Fairfax, VA 22030
          Telephone: (703) 424 7576
          Facsimile: (703) 591 0167
          E-mail: aguzzo@kellyandcrandall.com
                  kkelly@kellyandcrandall.com

               - and -

          Craig Carley Marchiando, Esq.
          Elizabeth W. Hanes, Esq.
          Leonard Anthony Bennett, Esq.
          CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES
          763 J Clyde Morris Boulevard, Suite 1A
          Newport News, VA 23601
          Telephone: (757) 930 3660
          Facsimile: (757) 930 3662
          E-mail: craig@clalegal.com
                  elizabeth@clalegal.com
                  lenbennett@clalegal.com


ACTION FINANCIAL: Faces Joseph Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Action Financial
Services, LLC.  The case is captioned as Judeline S. Joseph,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Action Financial Services, LLC, the Defendant, Case
No. 1:18-cv-04457 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 7, 2018).

AFS has been providing professional debt collection services since
2009.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AFNI INC: Faces Hallmon Suit in Eastern District of California
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Afni, Inc. The case
is captioned as Sonja Hallmon, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Afni, Inc. and John
Does 1-25, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-at-00566 (E.D. Cal., Aug.
7, 2018).

The Defendant offers channel strategies and customer lifecycle
solutions to connect with their customers for many reasons.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Aaron Stieglitz, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN A. STIEGLITZ
          11845 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 800
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (323) 979 2063
          Facsimile: (323) 488 6748
          E-mail: jonathan.a.stieglitz@gmail.com


ALPHA RECOVERY: Faces Gracius Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alpha Recovery Corp.
The case is captioned as Cassandra Gracius, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Alpha
Recovery Corp. and Bureaus Investment Group Portfolio No. 15, LLC,
the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-04454 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 7, 2018).

Alpha Recovery Corp is a debt collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AMERICAN CORADIUS: Catherina Faust Sues in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Coradius
International, LLC. The case is captioned as Catherina Faust
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. American Coradius International, LLC, the Defendant,
Case No. 1:18-cv-04453 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 7, 2018).

American Coradius International LLC is a full service financial
service agency representing banks and finance companies on a
national level.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AMERICAN CORADIUS: Faces Mezzo Suit in District of New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Coradius
International, LLC. The case is captioned as ANTHONY MEZZO,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the
Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN CORADIUS INTERNATIONAL, LLC, the Defendant,
Case No. 3:18-cv-12562 (D.N.J., Aug. 8, 2018).

American Coradius is a full service financial service agency
representing banks and finance companies on a national level.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd D. Muhlstock, Esq.
          BAKER SANDERS LLC
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 741 4799
          E-mail: ECF@MuhlstockLaw.com


AMERICAN CORADIUS: Slater Sues over Debt Collections Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
Anesha Slater, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. American Coradius International LLC,
and John Does l-25, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-04432
(E.D.N.Y., Aug. 6, 2018), seeks to recover damages and declaratory
and injunctive relief under the Fair Debt
Collections Practices Act.

According to the complaint, some time prior to March 29, 2018, an
obligation was allegedly incurred to "Comenity Capital Bank". The
obligation arose out of a transaction in which money, property,
insurance or services, which are the subject of the transaction,
are primarily for personal, family or household purposes. The
alleged obligation is a "debt" as defined by 15 U.S.C. section
1692a(5). The Defendant collects and attempts to collect debts
incurred or alleged to have been incurred for personal, family or
household purposes on behalf of creditors using the United States
Postal Services, telephone and internet.

On or about March 29, 2018, Defendant sent the Plaintiff a
collection letter. The letter fails to indicate whether the
"Creditor" refers to Plaintiff's creditor. The body of Defendant's
letter open by stating, "We are writing to you regarding your
PayPal Credit account. The servicer of PayPal Credit accounts is
Bill Me Later." The letter continues, "This letter will serve as
confirmation that American Coradius International LLC is will to
accept $1,536.77 to resolve [this] account for less than the full
balance on the above referenced account. This offer requires that
American Coradius International LLC receives your fund in the
amount of $1,536.77 on [or before] 04-13-18." Defendant's March 29,
2018 letter fails to clearly identify the Plaintiff's current
creditor. Defendant's March 29, 2018 is confusing on its face as to
the identity of the party to whom the debt is owed.

American Coradius is a full service financial service agency
representing banks and finance companies on a national level.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


APPLIED MEDICAL: Burris Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
---------------------------------------------------
Kalvin Burris, individually and other similarly-situated employees
v. Applied Medical Technology, Inc., Case No. 1:18-cv-01689 (N.D.
Ohio, July 20, 2018), is brought against the Defendant for
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum
Faire Wage Standards Act.

The Plaintiff worked as a manufacturing employee for the Defendant
between July 2016 and October 2016.

The Defendant designs and manufactures enteral feeding devices and
surgical products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
      Lori M. Griffin, Esq.
      Chastity L. Christy, Esq.
      THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
      920 Rockefeller Building
      614 W. Superior Avenue
      Cleveland, OH 44113
      Tel: (216) 696-5000
      Fax: (216) 696-7005
      E-mail: lori@lazzarolawfirm.com
              chastity@lazzarolawfirm.com
              anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com


ARC MANAGEMENT: Faces Gonzalez Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action has been filed against ARC Management Group, LLC.
The case is captioned as Brandon Gonzalez, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ARC
Management Group, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-04458
(E.D.N.Y., Aug. 7, 2018).

ARC Management is a full service pre-legal and legal commercial and
consumer collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


ARCADIA RECOVERY: Faces Wade Suit in Eastern District of New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Arcadia Recovery
Bureau, LLC.  The case is captioned as Gerron Wade individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Arcadia Recovery Bureau, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-04472
(E.D.N.Y., Aug. 8, 2018).

Arcadia Recovery provides accounts receivable management solutions
to organizations for bridging the gap between services rendered and
payments received.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ARSTRAT LLC: Faces Baez Suit in Eastern District of New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ARStrat, LLC. The
case is captioned as Karina Baez, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ARStrat, LLC, the
Defendant Case No. 1:18-cv-04435 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 6, 2018).

ARstrat provides pre-litigation and account litigation services for
successful resolutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


BARKBOX INC: Faces Kiler Suit in Eastern District of New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Barkbox, Inc.  The
case is captioned as Marion Kiler, Individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons, the
Plaintiff, v. Barkbox, Inc., also known as: Bark & Co., the
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-04424 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 6, 2018).

BarkBox Inc. provides a monthly subscription service for dog
owners.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


BHC SERVICES: Jalissa Green Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------
JALISSA GREEN, the Plaintiff, v. BHC SERVICES, INC., the Defendant,
Case No. 1:18-cv-01805 (N.D. Ohio, Aug. 6, 2018), challenges the
Defendant's policies and practices that violate the Fair Labor
Standards Act and Ohio's overtime compensation statute.

According to the complaint, the Defendant unlawfully failed to pay
all overtime compensation due to its home healthcare workers
including Plaintiff, the Potential Opt-Ins and the Ohio Class.
Specifically, and among other things, Defendant failed to pay
Plaintiff, the Potential Opt-Ins and the Ohio Class any
compensation for the time spent traveling during the work day, in
violation of federal law.  The Defendant knew, or showed reckless
disregard for whether, Plaintiff, the Potential Opt-Ins, and the
Ohio Class was entitled to overtime pay under state and/or federal
law.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
          Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER LLC
          7266 Portage St. NW, Suite D
          Massillon, OH 44646
          Telephone: (330) 470 4428
          Facsimile: (330) 754 1430
          E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com
                  sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com


BIG CITY: N.Y. App. Div. Affirms Dismissal of T. Maddicks' Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First
Department, affirmed the Supreme Court, New York County's order
granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case captioned THERESA
MADDICKS, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BIG CITY PROPERTIES,
LLC, ET AL., Defendants, BIG CITY REALTY MANAGEMENT, LLC, ET AL.,
Defendants-Respondents, 6315, 656345/16 (N.Y. App. Div.).

The Defendants moved to dismiss the claims against 145 Pineapple
LLC, 2363 ACP Pineapple LLC, 513 Yellow Apple LLC, 603-607 West
139th BCR LLC, 3660 Broadway BCR LLC, 559 West 156 BCR LLC, 605-607
West 141 BCR LLC, and 580 St. Nicholas BCR LLC on the ground that
the plaintiffs had made no allegations of wrongdoing against those
defendants.  The court sua sponte dismissed the claims against Big
City Realty Management and the other defendants based on an
argument not raised by the defendants.

The Court does not, in any way, prejudge arguments that have not
been fully briefed on this appeal, e.g., that 545 Edgecombe BCR
does not own 545 Edgecombe Avenue, or that the plaintiffs have not
actually pleaded conspiracy or aiding and abetting. Moreover, it
appears from the record that defendant 3660 Broadway BCR, LLC owns
one of the buildings named in the plaintiffs' complaint. 3660
Broadway's reinstatement is without prejudice to any claims it may
raise, later in this litigation, about this ownership issue.

A full-text copy of the N.Y. App. Div.'s July 26, 2018 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y8xu34eg from Leagle.com.

Newman Ferrara LLP , New York ( Roger A. Sachar, Jr. –
rsachar@nfllp.com - of the bar of the State of Missouri, admitted
pro hac vice, of counsel), for appellants.

Koss & Schonfeld, LLP, New York ( Simcha D. Schonfeld –
sds@kandsllp.com - of counsel), for respondents.


BNR THE BRIDGE: Hernandez Suit Moved to Western Dist. of Michigan
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled JUAQUIN C. HERNANDEZ, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. BNR THE
BRIDGE, LLC, and BOBBY RISHER, individually, jointly and severally,
the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-12361, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, to the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan (Southern
Division 1), The Western District of Michigan Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 1:18-cv-00875-PLM-RSK to the proceeding. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Paul L. Maloney.

This lawsuit is brought on behalf of individuals who were employed
by the Defendants BNR The Bridge, LLC and its owner Bobby Risher
and arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Michigan
Workforce Opportunity Wage Act, and the common law of the State of
Michigan.

According to the complaint, during Plaintiffs' employment,
Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff and similarly situated
workers their proper wages, overtime pay, and at times failed to
pay any wages at all and failed make payments as promised, failed
to ensure sufficient funds in payroll accounts, and unjustly
enriched themselves at the expense of their workers.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

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

               - and -

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


BRYANT HEATING: Vullings Says Evolution System Furnace Defective
----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHELLE W. VULLINGS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. BRYANT HEATING AND COOLING
SYSTEMS, CARRIER CORPORATION, and UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION,
the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-03317 (E.D. Pa., Aug. 6, 2018),
alleges that Defendants made false, misleading and deceptive
representations, including advertising, marketing, promotions,
sales materials, owner's manual materials, safety materials,
express and implied warranties, and press statements and releases
that the Defendants provided to its customers, consumers and users
of the Bryant (TM) Evolution System Plus 90i.

According to the complaint, Michelle W. Vullings purchased a Bryant
(TM) Evolution System Plus 90i because she was led to believe it
was one of the most reliable furnaces available in the United
States.  What Vullings, other purchasers of this furnace, and
current homeowners with this furnace could not have known is that
the Bryant (TM) Evolution System Plus 90i in fact contained
defective control boards that led to the malfunction of the system
and its failure to operate requiring costly replacements and
repairs throughout the limited life of the System. The control
boards had defects, including but not limited to, soldering points
that failed prematurely and caused error codes and the shutdown of
the system.  The units were defectively designed, manufactured with
faulty and malfunctioning control boards, and were not advertised
accurately.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brent F. Vullings, Esq.
          VULLINGS LAW GROUP, LLC
          3953 Ridge Pike Suite 102
          Collegeville, PA 19426
          Telephone: (610) 489 6060
          Facsimile: (610) 489 1997


CARELINK INC: Court Conditionally Certifies Workers' Class
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York granted Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Certification in
the case captioned YVONNE DOWNIE, Plaintiff, v. CARELINK, INC., et
al., Defendants, No. 16-CV-5868 (JPO)(S.D.N.Y.).

The Plaintiff moves for conditional certification of a collective
action under Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
for her overtime claims, and for certification of several New
York-law classes under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.

Two employment policies lie at the crux of Downie's suit: (1) the
Defendants' alleged failure to pay their employees overtime at time
and one-half their regular rates, as required by the U.S.
Department of Labor's regulations governing home health aides; and
(2) the Defendants' policy of deducting eight hours for sleep and
three hours for meal breaks from their employees' 24-hour shifts,
amounting to a net compensation of thirteen hours of pay per
24-hour shift.

The Plaintiff seeks to certify a FLSA collective of health aides
employed by Carelink who were not paid adequate overtime
compensation between January 1, 2015, and October 14, 2015.  

The Plaintiff also seeks to certify five Rule 23 classes of health
aides under New York state law:

   (1) employees who were not paid proper overtime compensation
under the NYLL;

   (2) employees who were paid for only 13 hours out of their
24-hour shifts;

   (3) employees who were not paid a spread-of-hours premium;

   (4) employees who did not receive accurate notices as required
by New York's Wage Theft Prevention Act; and

   (5) employees who were not paid minimum wages under New York's
Wage Parity Act.

FLSA Overtime Collective Action

On September 14, 2015, DOL publicly stated that it would not bring
enforcement actions against employers for violations of the
regulation until 30 days after the date the Court of Appeals issues
a mandate making its opinion in Home Care Ass'n of Am. v. Weil, 76
F.Supp.3d 138, 147-48 (D.D.C. 2014) effective.  On October 27,
2015, DOL released another statement, identifying November 12,
2015, as the last day of the non-enforcement policy.

Therefore, the Plaintiff has satisfied her minimal evidentiary
burden to establish that the Defendants had a common policy of not
paying overtime to home health aides who worked more than 40 hours
per week and that she is similarly situated to other aides who were
not paid overtime. In addition to the Plaintiff's own declaration
and the payroll evidence she submitted both of which show that
Carelink employees were not paid one and one-half times their
regular rate for hours over 40 per week, Defendant Bailey also
admitted that Carelink did not start paying the proper overtime
rate until after October 2015.

New York Class of Employees Who Were Not Paid Overtime

In addition to her collective action for overtime under FLSA, the
Plaintiff moves to certify a class of employees who were not paid
overtime, as required by the NYLL, after January 1, 2015.

Rule 23(a) Factors

The Plaintiff has adequately established numerosity. She alleges,
and the Defendants do not contest, that the Defendants employed at
least 40 similar home health aides during the relevant time period
and subjected them to the same overtime compensation policy. These
uncontroverted allegations are sufficient to satisfy the numerosity
requirement.  

The second and third Rule 23(a) factors, commonality and
typicality, are likewise satisfied. The commonality requirement is
met if plaintiffs' grievances share a common question of law or of
fact.

Courts have occasionally found plaintiffs to be inadequate in light
of serious credibility issues and inconsistencies going to the
heart of their claims, but courts will not find a representative
inadequate unless such attacks on her credibility are so sharp as
to jeopardize the interests of absent class members. The Defendants
do not identify any case where a mere failure to recall certain
relevant facts justified a finding of inadequacy, especially where,
as here, those facts were not critical to the claims. In contrast,
Downie's inability to recall certain facts at her deposition does
not impugn her credibility in any meaningful way, is not so
material that it renders her inadequate to represent the proposed
class and does not "jeopardize the interests of the class in any
way."

The Court concludes that the adequacy requirement is met here.

Rule 23(b)(3) Factors

Because the Plaintiff seeks certification under Rule 23(b)(3), she
must also establish (1) that questions of law or fact common to
class members predominate and (2) that a class action is superior
to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating
the controversy.

Here, both Rule 23(b)(3) requirements are satisfied: the main legal
issue whether the defendants violated New York state law by not
paying time and one half the regular rate for overtime hours, is
subject to generalized proof and a class action is the superior
method for resolution because a one-time resolution as to
defendants' liability for overtime in the challenged period will be
efficient for all parties.

New York Class of Employees Paid for Thirteen Hours out of Their
24-hour Live-in Shifts

The Plaintiff seeks to certify a Rule 23 class action of aides who
worked 24-hour shifts as Carelink employees since July 21, 2010.

The Court concludes that Carelink was permitted under New York law
to deduct eleven hours for sleep and meal breaks from its
employees' 24-hour shifts, amounting to thirteen compensable hours
per shift, assuming that the employees actually took such breaks to
sleep and eat. There is no need to further belabor matters with a
discussion of the requirements under Rule 23. Because an aide must
be paid for the full 24 hours only if she does not receive
appropriate meal and sleep breaks, individualized and not common
questions predominate and class action is not the superior method
of adjudication.

The Plaintiff's motion to certify a class of aides who were paid
only thirteen hours per each 24-hour shift is denied.

New York Spread-of-Hours Class

The Plaintiff seeks to certify a class of employees based on
violations of New York's spread-of-hours law, which provides that
employees shall receive one hour's pay at the basic minimum hourly
wage rate, in addition to the minimum wage required by New York's
minimum wage law for any day in which the spread of hours exceeds
10 hours.

The Plaintiff does not offer any response to the Defendants'
argument about her eligibility for a spread-of-hours premium based
on her above-minimum wage. Perhaps this is because the Plaintiff's
spread-of-hours theory is contingent on her argument that she was
entitled to be paid for the full 24 hours of each shift, rather
than the thirteen hours for which she was generally compensated.

The Court denies class certification on this issue.

New York Wage Theft Protection Act Class

The Plaintiff next seeks certification of a class of employees who
worked 24-hour shifts and were not given accurate wage notices
under New York's Wage Theft Prevention Act (WTPA).

To the extent the Defendants actually failed to provide accurate
WTPA notices to their employees, the Plaintiff's claim would not be
typical. She admits that she received a WTPA notice shortly after
she started working. As the Defendants correctly argue, although
the WTPA required them to provide their employees a notice (1) at
the time of hiring, and (2) on or before February first of each
subsequent year of the employee's employment, the statute provides
a private right of action to enforce only the former requirement.
Because the Defendants provided Downie with her initial WTPA
notice, her claim would not be typical of those employees who have
a private right of action to enforce their rights to receive such
an initial notice.

Again, the Plaintiff does not meaningfully respond to either of
these points. The Court again assumes that this is because she
believes the Defendants' failure to pay her automatically for all
24 hours per 24-hour shift rendered her WTPA notice inaccurate.

Because the premise of that argument has already been rejected,
certification is denied on this claim as well.

New York Wage Parity Act Class

The Plaintiff asserts that she did not get benefits equal to the
$14.09 Wage Parity Act minimum wage and the Defendants have not
shown proof of payment of the Wage Parity Act benefits. But the
Plaintiff, not the Defendants, has the burden to adduce evidence in
support of her motion for class certification and none of the
evidence the Plaintiff has submitted supports her contention that
the Defendants had a policy to violate the Wage Parity Act. To the
contrary, Downie's paystubs and payroll evidence demonstrate that
the Defendants were complying with the Wage Parity Act's
requirement to pay aides at least $10 per hour.  

The Court concludes that the Plaintiff has not provided sufficient
evidence that Defendants failed to comply with the Wage Parity Act,
and denies certification on this claim.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification
of a collective action under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) is granted.

The Plaintiff's motion for class certification under Rule 23 is
granted in part: The court certifies a New York state Rule 23(b)(3)
class of employees who were not paid time and one-half overtime
after January 1, 2015. The Court denies certification as to all
other proposed classes.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 26, 2018 Opinion and
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ycvcczbb from
Leagle.com.

Yvonne Downie, Plaintiff, represented by William Coudert Rand, Law
Office of William Coudert, and Carelink, Inc., Defendant,
represented by David Ellis Prager -- dprager@bsk.com -- Bond,
Schoeneck & King, PLLC, Kimberly Brooke Mandel, Ruskin Moscou
Faltischek, P.C., Michael Patrick Collins -- mcollins@bsk.com --
Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC & Tyler Thomas Hendry --
thendry@bsk.com -- Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC.

John Does #1-10, Defendant, represented by David Ellis Prager,
Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC.

Ena Bailey, Defendant, represented by David Ellis Prager, Bond,
Schoeneck & King, PLLC,Michael Patrick Collins, Bond, Schoeneck &
King, PLLC & Tyler Thomas Hendry, Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC.

CHARISSE & CHRISTINE: Rosario Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
ANGEL B. ROSARIO, the Plaintiff, v. CHARISSE & CHRISTINE
ENTERPRISES, LTD. d/b/a C-TOWN SUPERMARKETS, and JUAN MARTE, PACO
DOE and JOE DOE individually, the Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-07020 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 6, 2018), seeks injunctive and
declaratory relief against Defendants for their unlawful actions,
compensation for their failure to pay overtime wages, and
liquidated damages, compensatory damages, pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the collective class
work or have worked as delivery drivers, cashiers, cooks, unloaders
and loaders, and butchers at C-Town Supermarkets, located in Bronx,
New York owned by Juan Marte and managed by Paco Doe and Joe Doe.
As part of its regular business practice, Defendants have
intentionally, willfully and repeatedly harmed Plaintiff and the
FLSA Collective by engaging in a pattern and/or policy of violating
the FLSA. This policy includes, inter alia, the following: failing
to pay employees the applicable minimum wage rate for all time
worked up to 40 hours per week; failing to pay employees the
applicable overtime rate for all time worked in excess of 40 hours
per week; and failing to furnish employees with wage notices as
required by the NYLL.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jacob Aronauer, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JACOB ARONAUER
          225 Broadway, 3rd floor
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 323 6980
          Facsimile: (212) 233 9238
          E-mail: jaronauer@aronauerlaw.com


CHESAPEAKE OPERATING: Nichols Appeals 10th Cir. Ruling
------------------------------------------------------
Bill G. Nichols has filed a petition for writ of certiorari with
the U.S. Supreme Court in connection with his lawsuit against
Chesapeake Operating, LLC, et al., asking the high court to review
a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

The Supreme Court case is captioned as, Bill G. Nichols,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the
Petitioner vs. Chesapeake Operating, LLC, et al., the Defendant,
Case No. 18-168 (U.S.).[BN]

In the Tenth Circuit case, BILL G. NICHOLS, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.
CHESAPEAKE OPERATING, LLC; CHESAPEAKE EXPLORATION, LLC,
Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 18-6006 (10th Cir.), Judge Carlos F.
Lucero of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit, affirmed the
district court's order denying his motion to abstain, and remand
the caseto state court.

Nichols is a royalty owner in Oklahoma natural gas wells owned in
part or operated by Chesapeake.  In August 2016, he sued Chesapeake
in Oklahoma state court for underpayment or non-payment of
royalties.

He sought class certification of certain "Oklahoma Residents,"
which he defined using a four-part test: Persons to whom, from Jan.
1, 2015 to the date suit was filed, (a) Chesapeake mailed or sent
each monthly royalty check on an Oklahoma well to an Oklahoma
address (including direct deposit); (b) Chesapeake mailed or sent a
1099 for both 2014 and 2015 to an Oklahoma address; (c) the
Settlement Administrator in Fitzgerald Farms, LLC v. Chesapeake
Operating, Inc., Case No. CJ-10-38, Beaver County, Oklahoma mailed
or sent a distribution check and 1099 to an Oklahoma address; and
(d) except for charitable institutions, were not subject to the
Oklahoma Withholding Tax for Nonresidents on royalties paid in 2014
to the date suit was filed.

Chesapeake removed the case to federal court based on the Class
Action Fairness Act ("CAFA").  Nichols soon filed a motion arguing
that CAFA's home-state exception required the district court to
remand the case to state court.

Nichols proffered evidence to show that at least two-thirds of the
proposed class members shared Chesapeake's Oklahoma citizenship,
including the declaration of statistician Joseph Kadane, Ph.D., who
randomly selected 100 royalty owners from a spreadsheet containing
28,929 unique records of royalty owners paid from Oklahoma wells
and who have an Oklahoma address.  Of the 100 royalty owners
comprising Kadane's sample, there were 13 trusts, 7 entities, and
80 individuals.

The district court was not persuaded, finding three significant
flaws in the evidence.  First the district court noted that neither
the survey data nor the skip-trace investigation provided
information as to the citizenship of trust beneficiaries or
trustees -- important components of a trust's citizenship.  Second,
the district court found that a number of individuals identified as
Oklahoma citizens were actually deceased, with no information
provided as to heirs' citizenship.  Finally, the district court
found that Nichols' counsel had an "insufficient basis" for
determining that some members of the random sample were Oklahoma
citizens.  Accordingly, the district court denied
Nichols' motion to abstain and remand, finding he had not shown the
applicability of CAFA's home-state exception by a preponderance of
the evidence.

In his Tenth Circuit appeal, Nichols contends that a rebuttable
presumption of citizenship arises from his allegation that the
proposed class members are Oklahoma residents.  And because
Chesapeake did not offer evidence that more than one-third of the
proposed class members are not Oklahoma residents, Nichols says,
the district court was required to abstain.

Judge Lucero finds that the Court's non-precedential decision in
Reece, and the other circuits that reject the applicability of a
rebuttable presumption of citizenship in the context of a CAFA
exception invoked based on the mere allegation of residence.  There
is a strong preference that interstate class actions should be
heard in a federal court if properly removed by any defendant.
Further, an individual's residence is not equivalent to his
domicile and it is domicile that is relevant for determining
citizenship.  Congress no doubt meant to incorporate the
established meaning of these terms, into the CAFA exceptions
premised on "citizenship."  He therefore turns to the evidence
Nichols submitted to show that two-thirds or more of the proposed
Plaintiff class members were Oklahoma citizens.

Judge Lucero acknowledges the significant effort Nichols employed
to show that at least two-thirds of the class members shared
Chesapeake's Oklahoma citizenship.  But he notes that the need for
this evidence was of Nichols' own making: he chose to define the
class in terms of residence rather than citizenship.  By defining
the class in terms of residence, Nichols saddled himself with an
evidentiary burden, one which he sought to meet through admittedly
imperfect evidence.  In particular, Kadane reached his conclusion
that two-thirds or more of the class members are Oklahoma citizens
by extrapolating from a flawed sample.

Given the clear-error standard of review, the Judge says he must
affirm the district court's conclusion that Nichols failed to prove
at least two-thirds of the proposed Plaintiff class members were
Oklahoma citizens by a preponderance of the evidence.  The district
court, therefore, properly determined that CAFA's home-state
exception to exercising jurisdiction did not apply.  Accordingly,
Judge Lucero affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 7, 2018 Order and Judgment is
available at https://is.gd/PDxWWW from Leagle.com.

The Petitioner is represented by:

          Kevin Johnson Miller, Esq.
          Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick, P.L.L.C.
          1615 M Street, NW Suite 400
          Washington, DC 20036
          E-mail: kmiller@kellogghansen.com


CHICAGO ATHLETIC: Gramelspacher Sues over Gym Membership Program
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARY GRACE GRAMELSPACHER, individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. CHICAGO ATHLETIC
CLUBS, LLC, an Illinois limited liability company, the Defendant,
Case No. 2018CH09997 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Aug. 7, 2018), seeks to
recover damages and injunctive relief caused by Defendant's
violation the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade Practices
Act, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing.

According to the complaint, the Defendant owns and operates several
athletic clubs or gyms throughout the Chicago area and surrounding
suburbs.  Since at least 2015, Defendant has been offering
individuals with a gym membership at the Chicago Athletic Club a
loyalty rewards program entitled the "CAC Rewards Program" as an
added incentive to said members' gym contracts.  The CAC Rewards
Program incentivized each member to accrue "points" by completing
various "tasks": which members could then use to purchase goods and
services at Defendant's facilities.

In July 2018, Defendant abruptly and without prior warning to its
gym membership terminated the CAC Rewards Program, rendering all
points void and leaving Plaintiff and all other putative Class
members no opportunity to redeem the points they had accrued by
participating in the loyalty program through their completion of
tasks.  As a result of the sudden cancellation of the CAC Rewards
Program, Defendant beached its contracts with its members, engaged
in unfair business practices, and caused Plaintiff and the putative
Class damages in the form of lost time, financial damages accrued
through purchasing services, and other harms.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William P.N. Kingston Esq.
          McGuire Law, P.C.
          55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Floor City
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 893-7002


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Awaits Court OK on Bid to Drop Kelley Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2018, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the company is
awaiting a court ruling on its motion to dismiss the class action
complaint filed by Elizabeth Kelley.

On July 20, 2017, Elizabeth Kelley filed a complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of a
purported class of purchasers of shares of the company's common
stock between February 5, 2016 and July 19, 2017, with claims and
factual allegations similar to the Ong complaint, based primarily
on media reports regarding illnesses associated with a Chipotle
restaurant in Sterling, Virginia.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
February 12, 2018, and a ruling on the motion remains pending.

                          *     *     *

A status conference is set for Sept. 21 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom
C203 before Magistrate Judge Scott T. Varholak.  Parties may appear
by phone by initiating a conference call among themselves first and
then contacting the court at (303) 335-2365 at the scheduled date
and time, according to a docket entry in the case.

Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
operates Chipotle Mexican Grill restaurants. The company was
founded in 1993 and is based in Denver, Colorado.


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Credit Unions' Consolidated Suit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2018, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the Bellwether
Community Credit Union and Alcoa Community Credit Union cases have
been consolidated and will proceed as a single action.

On May 4, 2017, Bellwether Community Credit Union filed a purported
class action complaint in the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado alleging that the company negligently failed
to provide adequate security to protect the payment card
information of customers of the plaintiffs and those of other
similarly situated credit unions, banks and other financial
institutions alleged to be part of the putative class, causing
those institutions to suffer financial losses.

Chipotle Mexican Grill said "The complaint also claims we were
negligent per se based on alleged violations of Section 5 of the
Federal Trade Commission Act and similar state laws."  

The plaintiff seeks monetary damages, injunctive relief and
attorneys' fees.  

On May 26, 2017, Alcoa Community Credit Union filed a purported
class action complaint in the U. S. District Court for the District
of Colorado making substantially the same allegations as the
Bellwether complaint and seeking substantially the same relief.

The Bellwether and Alcoa cases have been consolidated and will
proceed as a single action.

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

Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
operates Chipotle Mexican Grill restaurants. The company was
founded in 1993 and is based in Denver, Colorado.

CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Gordon and Lawson/Conard Suits Underway
---------------------------------------------------------
Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2018, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the Gordon and
Lawson/Conard cases have been consolidated and will proceed as a
single action.

On June 9, 2017, Todd Gordon filed a purported class action
complaint in the U. S. District Court for the District of Colorado
alleging that the company negligently failed to provide adequate
security to protect the payment card information of the plaintiff
and other similarly situated customers alleged to be part of the
putative class, causing some customers to suffer alleged injuries
and others to be at risk of possible future injuries.

Chipotle Mexican Grill said "The complaint also claims we were
negligent per se based on alleged violations of Section 5 of the
Federal Trade Commission Act and similar state laws, and also
alleges breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of
the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act."

Additionally, on August 21, 2017, Greg Lawson and Judy Conard filed
a purported class action complaint in the U. S. District Court for
the District of Colorado making allegations substantially similar
to those in the Gordon complaint, and stating substantially similar
claims as well as claims under the Colorado Consumer Protection
Act.

The Gordon and Lawson/Conard cases have been consolidated and will
proceed as a single action.

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

Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
operates Chipotle Mexican Grill restaurants. The company was
founded in 1993 and is based in Denver, Colorado.


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Ong's Bid to File 3rd Amended Complaint Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2018, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that a ruling on
plaintiffs' motion for relief from judgment and for leave to file a
third amended complaint in the class action suit filed by Susie
Ong, remains pending.

On January 8, 2016, Susie Ong filed a complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of a
purported class of purchasers of shares of the company's common
stock between February 4, 2015 and January 5, 2016. The complaint
purports to state claims against the company, each of the co-chief
executive officers serving during the claimed class period and the
chief financial officer under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and related rules, based on our alleged failure during
the claimed class period to disclose material information about our
quality controls and safeguards in relation to consumer and
employee health.

The complaint asserts that those failures and related public
statements were false and misleading and that, as a result, the
market price of the company's stock was artificially inflated
during the claimed class period. The complaint seeks damages on
behalf of the purported class in an unspecified amount, interest,
and an award of reasonable attorneys' fees, expert fees and other
costs.

On March 8, 2017, the court granted the company's motion to dismiss
the complaint, with leave to amend. The plaintiff filed an amended
complaint on April 7, 2017. On March 22, 2018, the court granted
the company's motion to dismiss, with prejudice. On April 20, 2018,
the plaintiffs filed a motion for relief from the judgment and
seeking leave to file a third amended complaint, and a ruling on
the motion remains pending.

Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
operates Chipotle Mexican Grill restaurants. The company was
founded in 1993 and is based in Denver, Colorado.


CLEVELAND INTEGRITY: Kole Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------
DAVID KOLE, on Behalf of Himself and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. CLEVELAND INTEGRITY SERVICES,
INC., the Defendant, Case No. 5:18-cv-01803 (N.D. Ohio, Aug. 6,
2018), seeks to recover overtime compensation under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant required David Koleto
work more than 40 hours in a workweek without overtime
compensation.  The Defendant misclassified Plaintiff and other
similarly situated workers throughout the United States as exempt
from overtime under the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. section 201, et seq.

The Defendant is a staffing company.  It staffs inspectors to
various projects. [BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and Class Members:

          Chris P. Wido, Esq.
          THE SPITZ LAW FIRM, LLC
          25200 Chagrin Road, Suite 200
          Beachwood, OH 44122
          Telephone: (216) 291 4744
          Facsimile: (216) 291 5744
          E-mail: chris.wido@spitzlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Beatriz Sosa-Morris, Esq.
          John Neuman, Esq.
          SOSA-MORRIS NEUMAN, PLLC
          5612 Chaucer Drive
          Houston, TX 77005
          Telephone: (281) 885 8844
          Facsimile: (281) 885 8813
          E-mail: BSosaMorris@smnlawfirm.com
                  JNeuman@smnlawfirm.com


COAST TO COAST: Faces Gandy Suit in Northern Dist. of Georgia
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Coast to Coast
Financial Solutions, Inc. The case is captioned as Nakia Gandy
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Coast to Coast Financial Solutions, Inc. and John
Does 1 – 25, the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-00085-TCB-RGV (N.D.
Ga., Aug. 7, 2018). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Timothy
C. Batten, Sr.

Coast To Coast Financial Solutions is a full-service, first-and
third-party receivables management company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Braxton Mason, Esq.
          Mason Law Group, LLC – GA
          1100 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 200
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 920 8040
          Facsimile: (404) 920 8039
          E-mail: jmason@atlshowbizlaw.com


COCA-COLA CO: Ct. Denies Class Certification in Gold Peak Tea Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana denied Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification in the
case captioned PAM FRADELLA, Plaintiff, v. THE COCA-COLA COMPANY,
ET AL. SECTION: "E", Defendants, Civil Action No. 17-9622 (E.D.
La.).

The Plaintiff filed suit in the 24th Judicial District Court for
the Parish of Jefferson, State of Louisiana against the Coca-Cola
Defendants, alleging she became ill after consuming a Gold Peak Tea
containing mold or some other deleterious substance.  The Plaintiff
brings this action on behalf of a class defined as:

     All Louisiana residents who, any time from September 1, 2016
to present, purchased a bottle of Gold Peak Teat of any flavor and
any size, that contained visible mold or some other visible
deleterious substance, and suffered economic loss.

To certify a class, Rule 23(a)(1) requires a plaintiff to show the
class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.
To demonstrate numerosity, Plaintiffs must establish that joinder
is impracticable through some evidence or reasonable estimate of
the number of purported class members.

The Plaintiff argues this case should proceed as a class action
based on the known fact that millions of bottles of Gold Peak Tea
have been sold in Louisiana in just the last two years and that,
therefore, it can be inferred that thousands of people have
identical complaints. She contends that further discovery will
reveal that numerous Louisiana consumers have purchased bottles of
Gold Peak tea containing mold, and have similar claims.

Certification is proper only if the trial court is satisfied, after
a rigorous analysis, that the prerequisites of Rule 23(a) have been
satisfied. As part of the Court's rigorous analysis, a party
seeking class certification must be prepared to prove that there
are in fact sufficiently numerous parties. Ultimately, the
Plaintiff's inability to point to any person, other than herself,
who fits within her proposed class definition demonstrates the
numerosity requirement is not met in this case. The mere allegation
that the class is too numerous to make joinder practicable, by
itself, is not sufficient to meet this prerequisite. The Court
finds the numerosity requirement is not met in this case.  

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 26, 2018 Order and
Reasons is available at https://tinyurl.com/yaevtyf7 from
Leagle.com.

Pam Fradella, Plaintiff, represented by John D. Sileo , John D.
Sileo, Attorney at Law, Casey William Moll, Law Office of John D.
Sileo, LLC, Craig Stephen Sossaman --sossamanlaw@bellsouth.net --
Law Offices of Craig S. Sossaman, John Paul Massicot, Law Office of
John Paul Massicot, LLC, & Michael Waite Collins , Collins Law
Firm.

Coca-Cola Company & Coca-Cola Refreshments USA, Inc., Defendants,
represented by Quentin F. Urquhart, Jr. -- qurquhurt@irwinllc.com
-- Irwin Fritchie Urquhart & Moore, LLC & Elizabeth R.R. Showalter
-- lshowalter@irwinllc.com -- Irwin Fritchie Urquhart & Moore,
LLC.

Coca-Cola Bottling Company United, Inc. & Coca-Cola Bottling
Company United-Gulf Coast, LLC, Defendants, represented by Matthew
W. Bailey -- mbailey@irwinllc.com -- Irwin Fritchie Urquhart &
Moore, LLC, Gretchen F. Richards -- grichards@irwinllc.com -- Irwin
Fritchie Urquhart & Moore, LLC & Kelly Juneau Rookard --
kjuneau@irwinllc.com -- Irwin Fritchie Urquhart & Moore, LLC.

COLGATE PALMOLIVE: ERISA Class Action Underway in New York
----------------------------------------------------------
Colgate-Palmolive Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the company continues to
defend a putative class action suit related to residual annuity
payments in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York.

In June 2016, a putative class action claiming that residual
annuity payments made to certain participants in the
Colgate-Palmolive Company Employees' Retirement Income Plan (the
"Plan") did not comply with the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act was filed against the Plan, the Company and certain individuals
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York.

This action has been certified as a class action. The relief sought
includes recalculation of benefits, pre- and post-judgment interest
and attorneys' fees.

The Company is contesting this action vigorously.

Colgate-Palmolive Company said "Since the amount of any potential
loss from this case currently cannot be reasonably estimated, the
range of reasonably possible losses in excess of accrued
liabilities disclosed above does not include any amount relating to
the case."

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

Colgate-Palmolive Company, together with its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells consumer products worldwide. It operates
through two segments, Oral, Personal and Home Care; and Pet
Nutrition. Colgate-Palmolive Company was founded in 1806 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Appeal in Gibson Class Action Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
Community Health Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2018, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the company's appeal
in the case entitled, Gibson v. Byrd Regional Medical Center, is
pending.

The case is a purported class action lawsuit filed in the 30th
Judicial District Court for the State of Louisiana and served on
August 3, 2016, claiming the company's affiliated Leesville,
Louisiana hospital violated payor contracts by allegedly improperly
asserting hospital liens against third-party tortfeasors and
seeking class certifications for any similarly situated plaintiffs.


The court has certified a class and denied the company's motion for
summary judgment.

Community Health Systems said "We have appealed both rulings to the
Louisiana Third Circuit Court of Appeals. That appeal is pending.
We believe these claims are without merit and will vigorously
defend the case."

Community Health Systems, Inc. operates assisted living facilities.
It provides community based geriatric programs aimed at increasing
the physical and psycho-social health of older adults. Community
Health Systems, Inc. was founded in 1956 and is based in Orange
Beach, Alabama.


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Awaiting Approval of Mounce Case Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Community Health Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2018, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the company is
awaiting the trial court's approval of the settlement in the case,
Mounce v. CHSPSC, LLC, et al.

The case is a purported class action lawsuit filed in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas and
served on July 29, 2015, claiming the company's affiliated Arkansas
hospitals violated payor contracts by allegedly improperly
asserting hospital liens against third-party tortfeasors and
seeking class certifications for any similarly situated plaintiffs
at any affiliated Arkansas hospital. The court has certified a
class.

Community Health Systems said "We have reached a tentative
settlement with plaintiffs in this case. We are awaiting the trial
court's approval of the settlement."

                          *     *     *

A Class Settlement Approval Hearing has been reset for Sept. 7 at
9:30 a.m. in Fayetteville -- 5th flr (Rm 509) before Honorable
Timothy L. Brooks.

Community Health Systems, Inc. operates assisted living facilities.
It provides community based geriatric programs aimed at increasing
the physical and psycho-social health of older adults. Community
Health Systems, Inc. was founded in 1956 and is based in Orange
Beach, Alabama.


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Bid to Dismiss Zwick Partners Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------
Community Health Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2018, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that a Tennessee district
court overseeing the case entitled, Zwick Partners, LP and Aparna
Rao, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Quorum Health Corporation, Community Health Systems, Inc., Wayne T.
Smith, W. Larry Cash, Thomas D. Miller, and Michael J. Culotta, has
denied all defendants' motions to dismiss.

The purported class action lawsuit previously filed in the United
States District Court, Middle District of Tennessee was amended on
April 17, 2017 to include Community Health Systems, Inc., Wayne T.
Smith and W. Larry Cash as additional defendants.

The plaintiffs seek to represent a class of QHC shareholders and
allege that the failure to record a goodwill and long-lived asset
impairment charge against QHC at the time of the spin-off of QHC
violated federal securities laws.  The District Court denied all
defendants' motions to dismiss on April 20, 2018.

Community Health Systems said, "We believe the claims are without
merit and will vigorously defend the case."

Community Health Systems, Inc. operates assisted living facilities.
It provides community based geriatric programs aimed at increasing
the physical and psycho-social health of older adults. Community
Health Systems, Inc. was founded in 1956 and is based in Orange
Beach, Alabama.


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Petition for Writ of Certiorari Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Community Health Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2018, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the petition for
writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court and the
renewed partial motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit before the
the district court are still pending.

Three purported class action cases have been filed in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee; namely,
Norfolk County Retirement System v. Community Health Systems, Inc.,
et al., filed May 9, 2011; De Zheng v. Community Health Systems,
Inc., et al., filed May 12, 2011; and Minneapolis Firefighters
Relief Association v. Community Health Systems, Inc., et al., filed
June 21, 2011.

All three seek class certification on behalf of purchasers of the
company's common stock between July 27, 2006 and April 11, 2011 and
allege that misleading statements resulted in artificially inflated
prices for the Company's common stock.

In December 2011, the cases were consolidated for pretrial purposes
and NYC Funds and its counsel were selected as lead plaintiffs/lead
plaintiffs' counsel. In lieu of ruling on the company's motion to
dismiss, the court permitted the plaintiffs to file a first amended
consolidated class action complaint which was filed on October 5,
2015. The company's motion to dismiss was filed on November 4, 2015
and oral argument took place on April 11, 2016. The company's
motion to dismiss was granted on June 16, 2016 and on June 27,
2016, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Sixth Circuit
Court of Appeals. The matter was heard on May 3, 2017.

On December 13, 2017, the Sixth Circuit reversed the trial court's
dismissal of the case and remanded it to the District Court. The
company filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the United
States Supreme Court on April 18, 2018 seeking review of the Sixth
Circuit's decision.

The company also filed a renewed partial motion to dismiss on
February 9, 2018 in the District Court. The petition and partial
motion to dismiss are pending.

Community Health Systems said, "We believe this consolidated matter
is without merit and will vigorously defend this case."

Community Health Systems, Inc. operates assisted living facilities.
It provides community based geriatric programs aimed at increasing
the physical and psycho-social health of older adults. Community
Health Systems, Inc. was founded in 1956 and is based in Orange
Beach, Alabama.


CONSTELLATION ENERGY: Court Dismisses M. Coda's Overcharging Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge John Michael Vazquez of the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss
the case, MICHAEL CODA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plainttff v. CONSTELLATION ENERGY POWER CHOICE,
LLC, Defendant, Civil Action No. 17-3437 (JMV) (MF) (D. N.J.).

In this putative class action, the Plaintiff alleges that Defendant
overcharged him for electricity.  Coda alleges that Defendant
charged him too much for electricity in violation of the parties'
contract.  The contract promised a fixed rate for 12 months
followed by a variable rate unless the Plaintiff opted for another
fixed-rate agreement or canceled.

In 1999, New Jersey restructured the electric utility industry,
allowing consumers more options in their energy providers.
Constellation is an energy service company ("ESCO") that supplies
power to residents in New Jersey.  It offered the Plaintiff a
12-month fixed rate for electricity, at a rate of $0.0999 per
kilowatt hour (kWh), which he accepted in late 2011.

The Plaintiff's contract stated that after the initial 12-month
period, the Defendant would continue to charge the Plaintiff a
"Variable Monthly Rate" based upon such factors as electricity
market pricing, transmission costs, utility charges and other
market related factors.  He also had the option of cancelling the
Agreement after the first year or seeking another fixed-rate
agreement.  The Agreement stated that the Defendant offers several
different rate plans for buying electricity which may be higher or
lower than Public Service Enterprise Group ("PSE&G")'s posted
rate.

The Plaintiff was a Constellation customer from Dec. 13, 2011 to
Jan. 14, 2016.  After the initial year of service, the Plaintiff
alleges that the variable rate always exceeded his initial fixed
rate, and was significantly higher than PSE&G rate every month from
August 2013 through January 2016.  The Plaintiff describes this as
a "classic bait-and-switch" scheme.  He states that Constellation
instead charged "unconscionably high" prices after the first year
based on factors a reasonable consumer would not predict.

The putative class in the Complaint is defined as all Constellation
customers who paid Constellation's variable rate for electricity at
any time between May 15, 2011 and the present.

The Complaint lists three counts: (1) violation of the New Jersey
Consumer Fraud Act ("CFA"); (2) breach of contract; and (3) breach
of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.  The
Plaintiff filed the Complaint on May 17, 2017.  The Defendant filed
the instant motion on July 14, 2017, which the Plaintiff opposed.

Judge Vazquez finds that the Complaint does not plausibly plead
that Defendant breached the Agreement, much less sufficiently
assert substantial aggravating circumstances, which is necessary to
proceed on a claim under the CFA.  The case is akin to Urbino,
Faistl, and Windley -- where the express language of contract
permitted consideration of non-exhaustive factors.  Unlike
Melville, there was no representation that the Plaintiff would pay
less in comparison to their local energy suppliers.  Moreover,
unlike Vitale, there is no allegation here that the Defendant knew
it would have to charge much higher prices during certain times of
year.  For the foregoing reasons, Count I is dismissed because it
is not plausibly pled.

The Judge also finds that the Plaintiff has not plausibly plead a
breach of the Agreement.  As with the CFA claim, the Judge does not
agree that "market conditions" means wholesale costs and competing
rates.  As in Hamlen, the Plaintiffs attempt to use wholesale
prices as the overriding factor to support its breach of contract
claim is not viable because the Variable-Rate Factors are not so
limited.  Additionally, the Agreement does not guarantee savings or
competitive pricing, although the Plaintiff now attempts to read
competitive pricing into the contract.  For the foregoing reasons,
Count II is dismissed.

Finally, the Judge finds that the Plaintiff has failed to plausibly
allege bad faith, instead relying on vague and conclusory
allegations.  However, the claim is closer than Count One and Two
because the Complaint does allege that the Defendant's rates were
higher than PSE&G's for over two years (assuming that PSE&G is an
appropriate comparison, which the Defendant contests).  However,
unlike Hamlen, the Plaintiff does not allege that the Defendant
charged a higher rate than PSE&G every month or that its rates were
sometimes double those of PSE&G.  Thus, Count Three is also
dismissed.

For the reasons he stated, Judge Vazquez granted the Defendant's
motion, and dismissed the Complaint without prejudice.  The
Plaintiff is granted leave to file an Amended Complaint.  The
Plaintiff has 30days to file an Amended Complaint, if he so
chooses, consistent with the Opinion.  If he fails to file an
Amended Complaint, the dismissal will be with prejudice.  An
appropriate Order accompanies the Opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 29, 2018 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/ocfKJv from Leagle.com.

MICHAEL CODA, Individually and on behalf all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by MATTHEW ROSS MENDELSOHN --
mmendelsohn@mskf.net -- MAZIE SLATER KATZ & FREEMAN LLC.

CONSTELLATION ENERGY POWER CHOICE, LLC., Defendant, represented by
ELIZABETH J. SHER -- esher@daypitney.com -- DAY PITNEY LLP & NAJU
RAJNI LATHIA -- nlathia@daypitney.com -- DAY PITNEY LLP.


COVANCE INC: Daniel Bloomquist Wage-and-Hour Action Underway
------------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July
27, 2018, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the
company continues to defend itself in a class action suit entitled,
Daniel L. Bloomquist v. Covance Inc., et al.

On August 3, 2016, the Company was served with a putative class
action lawsuit, Daniel L. Bloomquist v. Covance Inc., et al., filed
in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego. The
complaint alleges that Covance Inc. violated the California Labor
Code and California Business & Professions Code by failing to
provide overtime wages, failing to provide meal and rest periods,
failing to pay for all hours worked, failing to pay for all wages
owed upon termination, and failing to provide accurate itemized
wage statements to Clinical Research Associates and Senior Clinical
Research Associates employed by Covance in California.

The lawsuit seeks monetary damages, civil penalties, injunctive
relief, and recovery of attorney's fees and costs.

On October 13, 2016, the case was removed to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California. On May 3, 2017, the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
remanded the case back to the Superior Court. The Company will
vigorously defend the lawsuit.

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

Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings operates as an
independent clinical laboratory company worldwide. It operates
through two segments, LabCorp Diagnostics and Covance Drug
Development. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings was founded
in 1971 and is headquartered in Burlington, North Carolina.


COVANCE MARKET: Sealock Suit Wins Conditional Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July
27, 2018, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the
court has granted plaintiff's motion for conditional certification
of a collective action in the case, John Sealock, et al. v. Covance
Market Access Services, Inc.

On September 7, 2017, the Company was served with a putative class
action lawsuit, John Sealock, et al. v. Covance Market Access
Services, Inc., filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

The complaint alleges that Covance Market Access Services, Inc.
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York labor laws by
failing to provide overtime wages, failing to pay for all hours
worked, and failing to provide accurate wage statements. The
lawsuit seeks monetary damages, civil penalties, injunctive relief,
and recovery of attorney's fees and costs.

In November 2017, the Company filed a Motion to Strike Class
Allegations, which was denied. In December 2017, the Plaintiff
filed a Motion for Conditional Certification of a Collective
Action, which was granted in May 2018. The Company will vigorously
defend the lawsuit.

Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings operates as an
independent clinical laboratory company worldwide. It operates
through two segments, LabCorp Diagnostics and Covance Drug
Development. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings was founded
in 1971 and is headquartered in Burlington, North Carolina.


CSC SERVICEWORKS: Faces MJM Visions' Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CSC Serviceworks,
Inc.  The case is captioned as MJM Visions, LLC individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CSC
Serviceworks, Inc., a Delaware corporation, the Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-04452-ILG-JO (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 7, 2018). The case is assigned
to Judge I. Leo Glasser.

CSC ServiceWorks is the leading provider of home and commercial
laundry solutions as well as tire inflation and vacuum vending
services at stores and gas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          350 North Lasalle Street, 14th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589 6370
          Facsimile: (312) 589 6378
          E-mail: brichman@edelson.com


CUBESMART LP: Court Approves New Jersey Case Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------
CubeSmart, L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the court granted final
approval of the settlement of a class action lawsuit filed in the
Federal District Court of New Jersey.

On July 13, 2015, a putative class action was filed against the
Company in the Federal District Court of New Jersey seeking to
obtain declaratory, injunctive and monetary relief for a class of
New Jersey consumers based upon alleged violations by the Company
of the New Jersey Truth in Customer Contract, Warranty and Notice
Act and the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.  

On April 19, 2018, the court granted final approval of a settlement
for the class action. The settlement and associated expenses, which
were previously reserved for, did not have a material impact on the
Company's consolidated financial position or results of
operations.

CubeSmart, L.P., a real estate company, is engaged in the
acquisition, development, ownership, operation, and management of
self-storage facilities in the United States. CubeSmart, L.P.
operates as a subsidiary of CubeSmart.


DENKA PERFORMANCE: Court Dismisses Chloroprene Emissions Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana granted Defendant Denka Performance Elastomer LLC's
Motion to Dismiss the case captioned ROBERT TAYLOR, JR., ET AL., v.
DENKA PERFORMANCE ELASTOMER LLC, ET AL. SECTION "F," Civil Action
No. 17-7668, No. c/w 18-5739 (E.D. La.).

It is alleged that as early as 1988 DuPont knew of the deleterious
effects of exposure to chloroprene emissions and that DPE had the
same knowledge of such harms when it bought the Pontchartrain Works
facility. It is alleged that both DuPont and Denka Performance
Elastomer LLC (DPE) concealed from the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
(LDEQ) their knowledge regarding chloroprene's harmful effects. In
2010, the EPA classified chloroprene as a likely human carcinogen.

The plaintiffs allege that DuPont has emitted chloroprene for many
years at levels resulting in concentrations many times the upper
limit of acceptable risk, and DPE continues to do so. The
plaintiffs advance Louisiana state law causes of action for
nuisance, trespass, negligence, and strict liability.

They seek injunctive relief in the form of abatement of chloroprene
releases such that the concentration of chloroprene does not exceed
the 0.2 ug/m3 threshold; damages for deprivation of enjoyment of
occupancy of property; punitive damages; and additional damages
including medical monitoring to the extent personal injury claims
become mature.

The defendants now move to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction or failure to state a claim.

The plaintiffs' own allegations against DuPont are self-defeating.
The plaintiffs concede that their claims arise from continuing
active releases; in this lawsuit they do not seek to recover money
damages for personal injuries contributed to by past chloroprene
emissions. It is alleged that the source of the chloroprene
emissions that the plaintiffs seek to enjoin is the neoprene
production facility at the Pontchartrain Works; DuPont sold the
facility and neoprene business to Denka on November 1, 2015; Denka
has owned and operated the facility since then; it is Denka and its
neoprene business that is subject to comprehensive regulations and
permit requirements related to the neoprene production operations
that the plaintiffs seek to enjoin; Denka is working with the LDEQ
to reduce emissions; Denka has entered into an Administrative Order
on Consent with state regulators.

The plaintiffs offer no basis for this Court to plausibly infer
that any injunctive relief that could be granted enjoining DuPont
would have the effect of abating chloroprene emissions from a
facility it no longer owns nor operates. Because the injunctive
relief the plaintiffs seek from DuPont would not abate emissions,
it would not redress their injury.

Accordingly, the plaintiffs have failed to carry their burden to
show that they have standing to pursue an injunction against
DuPont.

Denka moves to dismiss for failure to state a claim the plaintiffs'
causes of action for nuisance, trespass, negligence, strict
liability, as well as the plaintiffs' demand for punitive damages.


The plaintiffs first allege that the chloroprene emissions violate
the defendants' obligations of vicinage, found in Louisiana Civil
Code articles 667-669. The Louisiana Supreme Court has observed:

These obligations of vicinage are legal servitudes imposed on the
owner of property. These provisions embody a balancing of rights
and obligations associated with the ownership of immovables. As a
general rule, the landowner is free to exercise his rights of
ownership in any manner he sees fit. He may even use his property
which occasion some inconvenience to his neighbor. However, his
extensive rights do not allow him to do real damage to his
neighbor.

The plaintiffs allege that the chloroprene emissions are a nuisance
within the meaning of Louisiana Civil Code articles 667-669. They
allege that the emissions from Denka's plant have deprived them of
enjoyment of their property, and at paragraph 56, state that
chloroprene emissions are sufficient to cause physical discomfort
and annoyance to Plaintiffs, who must confine themselves indoors to
escape the excess concentrations of chloroprene emissions, and
those emissions cause a nuisance.

The plaintiffs do not suggest what about the emissions makes them
remain indoors or how they are aware of the emissions.15 They
merely recite and intone generic and formulaic conclusions. Another
point of deficiency is the absence of any individualized
allegations regarding each plaintiff's experience. Nevertheless,
because the plaintiffs may indeed be able to cure these wholly
defective allegations and because injunctive relief to abate an
airborne nuisance could be plausible, the Court again provides the
plaintiffs with fourteen days to amend their deficient allegations
by adding some factual content specific to each plaintiff.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants' operation of the PWF
caused excess levels of chloroprene to encroach upon the property
where they live or are otherwise occupants and that the actual
physical invasion is continuing.

The Louisiana Civil Code recognizes the tort of trespass under
article 2315. A trespass occurs when there is an unlawful physical
invasion of the property or possession of another.

The plaintiffs fail to offer any legal support or factual
allegations indicating that they might plausibly recover on a
trespass theory having only alleged transient airborne emissions,
especially where, as here, they disclaim any property damage or
impact whatsoever. There is no allegation by the plaintiffs that
their properties have been impacted by the chloroprene emissions.
The plaintiffs have failed to allege any facts that, if proved,
would entitle them to relief under a trespass theory of recover.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants have a duty to protect
the plaintiffs and their property from the effects of excessive
chloroprene emissions, that defendants breached this duty knowing
the hazardous nature of the excess emissions, that defendants
failed to act reasonably to prevent excess emissions, failed to
warn or disclose to plaintiffs, the EPA, that LDEQ, or government
or community members.

Here, the plaintiffs not only fail to allege that they have
suffered harm or damages, they disclaim physical injury damages
because they do not dispute that they cannot prove a causal link
between chloroprene emissions exposure and personal injury. The
plaintiffs' allegations that chloroprene emissions have caused
mutagenic metabolites to reside in their bodies is entirely
speculative and insufficient to support a negligence claim in which
injunctive relief to the exclusion of damages is sought.

The plaintiffs allege that the operation of the PWF including all
units that emit chloroprene exceeding the 0.2 ug/m3 threshold is
the cause-in-fact for Plaintiffs' damages; that the defects in
operation of the PWF caused the plaintiffs to be exposed to an
unreasonable risk of harm; and the defendants knew of the
unreasonable risks; and the defendants should be enjoined from any
emissions of chloroprene that will result in further exposure to
excess chloroprene emissions.

This focus on the operation of the PWF undermines any attempt to
claim that a ruin, vice, or defect caused the plaintiffs harm.

The plaintiffs counter that their allegations must be read in the
context of the EPA materials including an inspection report that
revealed ruin and vice in the equipment itself, in the form of
leaking valves and open-ended lines and the lack of appropriate
emission controls on various components of the chloroprene
facility. Even if the plaintiffs sufficiently alleged facts
indicating a flaw or condition of relative permanence inherent in
the PWF equipment, the plaintiffs' strict or custodial liability
claim fails the plausibility test for the same reason as their
negligence claim: in this lawsuit, they disclaim that they can
prove that chloroprene emissions have caused personal injury
damages. The plaintiffs' attempt to proceed under a strict
liability theory of recovery therefore appears to be another
immature tort claim that is not yet ripe.

Accordingly, Denka's Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) motion is granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 29, 2018 Order and
Reasons is available at https://tinyurl.com/yb3mfn2v from
Leagle.com.

Robert Taylor, Jr., individually and as representative of all those
similarly situated, Kershell Bailey, individually and as
representative of all those similarly situated, Shondrell P.
Campbell, individually and as representative of all those similarly
situated, Gloria Dumas, individually and as representative of all
those similarly situated, Annette Houston, individually and as
representative of all those similarly situated, Rogers Jackson,
individually and as representative of all those similarly situated,
Michael Perkins, individually and as representative of all those
similarly situated, Allen Schnyder, Jr., individually and as
representative of all those similarly situated, Larry Sorapuru,
Sr., individually and as representative of all those similarly
situated, Robert Taylor, III, individually and o/b/o his Minor
Daughter, N.T. and as representative of all those similarly
situated, Janell Emery, Originally named Janelle Emory & Kellie
Tabb, Orginally named Kelli Tabb, Plaintiffs, represented by Hugh
Palmer Lambert -- hlambert@thelambertfirm.com -- Lambert Firm,
APLC, Cayce Christian Peterson -- cpeterson@thelambertfirm.com --
Lambert Firm, APLC, Darryl Jude Tschirn, Law Office of Darryl J.
Tschirn, Eberhard D. Garrison -- egarrison@jonesswanson.com --
Jones, Swanson, Huddell & Garrison, LLC, Gladstone N. Jones, III --
gjones@jonesswanson.com -- Jones, Swanson, Huddell & Garrison, LLC,
Harvey Sylvanous Bartlett, III, Jones, Swanson, Huddell & Garrison,
LLC, John J. Cummings, III, Cummings & Cummings, PLC, Joseph M.
Bruno, Bruno & Bruno, Kevin Earl Huddell --
khuddell@jonesswanson.com -- Jones, Swanson, Huddell & Garrison,
LLC, Lindsay E. Reeves -- lreeves@jonesswanson.com -- Jones,
Swanson, Huddell & Garrison, LLC, Lynn E. Swanson --
lswanson@jonesswanson.com -- Jones, Swanson, Huddell & Garrison,
LLC, Morgan M. Embleton, The Lambert Firm & Randal Leroy Gaines,
Randal L.Gaines Law Office.

Denka Performance Elastomer LLC, Defendant, represented by James
Conner Percy -- jpercy@joneswalker.com -- Jones Walker, Brett S.
Venn -- bvenn@joneswalker.com -- Jones Walker, Justin J. Marocco --
jmarocco@joneswalker.com -- Jones Walker, Michael A. Chernekoff --
mchernekoff@joneswalker.com -- Jones Walker & Michael R. Rhea --
mrhea@joneswalker.com -- Jones Walker.

DEVONWOOD CORP: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage Rate, Zhanpiessova Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DINARA ZHANPIESSOVA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. DEVONWOOD CORPORATION, LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 516028/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Aug. 7, 2018),
seeks to recover minimum wages, overtime compensation, and other
damages for Plaintiff and her similarly situated co-workers,
consisting of servers, server assistants, bartenders, bussers,
barbacks, food runners, and other similarly situated non-managerial
employees, who work or have worked at Public Kitchen located at 215
Chrystie Street, New York, New York 10002.

According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to provide
Plaintiff and other Tipped Workers with proper notification of the
tipped minimum wage rate or tip credit provisions of the New York
Labor Law or the Fair Labor Standards Act, or of their intent to
apply a tip credit to Plaintiffs and other Tipped Workers' wages.

Devonwood Investors LLC is a real estate investment firm. The firm
seeks to invest in undervalued real estate property in the office,
hotel, and retail sectors. Devonwood Investors LLC was founded in
1997 and is based in the United States.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Carolyn D. Richmond, Esq.
          Glenn S. Grindlinger, Esq.
          FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP
          101 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10178
          Telephone: (212) 905 2305
          E-mail: crichmond@foxrothschild.com
                  ggrindlinger@foxrothschild.com


DOLGEN LLC: E. Fielding's ERISA Claim Must Go to Arbitration
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia, Richmond Division, granted Dollar General's Motion to
Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings in the case captioned
ELLEANA FIELDING, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. DOLGEN, LLC t/a DOLGENCORP, LLC, and
BLUECROSS BLUESHIELD OF TENNESSEE, INC., Defendants, Civil Action
No. 3:17-CV-561 (E.D. Va.).

The plaintiff, Elleana Fielding, claims that her former employer,
Dolgen, LLC (Dollar General), violated the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA) by failing to pay managers overtime and retaliating against
her for filing this suit.  Fielding also claims that the defendants
violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) by
failing to inform her of her right to continued health insurance.

Courts must compel arbitration if the moving party demonstrates (1)
the existence of a dispute between the parties, (2) a written
agreement that includes an arbitration provision which purports to
cover the dispute, (3) the relationship of the transaction, which
is evidenced by the agreement, to interstate or foreign commerce,
and (4) the failure to arbitrate the dispute.

The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA)affords employee the right
to organize unions and bargain collectively, but the Supreme Court
recently explained that it does not mention class or collective
action procedures and does not provide a right to collective
action. Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, Nos. 16-285, 16-300, 16-307,
2018 WL 2292444, at *9 (May 21, 2018).
The Agreement is therefore legal and enforceable under the FAA.

Although Fielding agreed to arbitrate certain disputes with Dollar
General, the Agreement exempts claims for ERISA benefits from
arbitration. Fielding makes a blanket assertion for ERISA benefits,
but does not raise any facts or legal authority to support her
claim. A claim for ERISA benefits implicates (1) a right to
coverage, (2) an impermissible denial of benefits, or (3) a
clarification of future rights.

Based on the Court's interpretation of the complaint, Fielding does
not state a claim for any benefits, but instead seeks statutory
penalties. Under ERISA, a plan administrator who violates the
notification requirement must pay the beneficiary a statutory
penalty in the amount of up to $100 a day from the date of such
failure or refusal, and the court may in its discretion order such
other relief as it deems proper.

Other relief includes medical expenses, minus deductibles and
premiums, following a failure to notify. Fielding seeks medical
expenses incurred based on the defendants' failure to notify her of
her right to continued coverage, but does not highlight any other
specific benefits to which she is entitled. Fielding therefore
fails to show a claim for benefits, and the Court interprets the
Agreement to cover her ERISA claim. Indeed, any doubts concerning
the scope of arbitrable issues should be resolved in favor of
arbitration.

Accordingly, the Court rules that the ERISA claim against Dollar
General, therefore, must go to arbitration.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 21, 2018 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yamvtchq from Leagle.com.

Elleana Fielding, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by James Richard Theuer, James R.
Theuer, PLLC.

Dolgen, LLC, trading as Dolgencorp, LLC, Defendant, represented by
Joel Steven Allen -- sarah.allen@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis &
Bockius LLP, pro hac vice, Melissa M. Hensley--
mhensley@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, pro hac vice, Sara
Beth Hall -- sbhall@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, pro hac
vice & Summer Laine Speight -- sspeight@mcguirewoods.com --
McGuireWoods LLP.

BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee, Defendant, represented by Edwin
Ford Stephens -- estephens@cblaw.com -- Christian & Barton LLP.


DOMINION ENERGY: Appeals Order in Metzler Asset Suit to 4th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Dominion Energy, Inc., and Sedona Corp. filed an appeal
from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled Dominion Energy, Inc., et
al. v. Metzler Asset Management GmbH, et al., Case No.
3:18-cv-00505-MBS, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
South Carolina at Columbia.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
was filed on February 21, 2018.

Dominion Energy produces and transports energy in the United
States.

The appellate case is captioned as Dominion Energy, Inc., et al. v.
Metzler Asset Management GmbH, et al., Case No. 18-310, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Respondents METZLER ASSET MANAGEMENT GMBH, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, and JOSEPH HEINZ, on
behalf of himself and all other similarly situated, are represented
by:

          Lawrence P. Eagel, Esq.
          Melissa A. Fortunato, Esq.
          BRAGAR, WEXLER & EAGEL, PC
          885 3rd Avenue
          New York, NY 10022-0000
          Telephone: (212) 308-5858
          E-mail: eagel@bespc.com
                  fortunato@bespc.com

               - and -

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

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

          Andrew A. Mathias, Esq.
          William Walter Wilkins, Esq.
          Burl F. Williams, Esq.
          NEXSEN PRUET
          55 East Camperdown Way
          P. O. Box 10648
          Greenville, SC 29603
          Telephone: (864) 282-1195
          Facsimile: (864) 477-2698
          E-mail: amathias@nexsenpruet.com
                  bwilkins@nexsenpruet.com
                  bwilliams@nexsenpruet.com

               - and -

          Brian Emory Pumphrey, Esq.
          Brian David Schmalzbach, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS, LLP
          800 East Canal Street
          P. O. Box 3916
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 775-4745
          Facsimile: (804) 698-2304
          E-mail: bpumphrey@mcguirewoods.com
                  bschmalzbach@mcguirewoods.com


ECLINICAL WORKS: Fails to Secure Healthcare Records, Tot Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
KRISTINA TOT, as Administratrix of the Estate of STJEPAN TOT and
RANDY STERN, as Executor of the Estate of ANNETTE MONACHELLI, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. eCLINICAL WORKS, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability
Company, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-11658 (D. Mass., Aug. 6,
2018), alleges ECW failed to provide, secure and safeguard the
healthcare records of the patients of those healthcare providers,
in violation of its duty to those patients.

According to the complaint, the accuracy and reliability of those
records are central to the health and well-being of every such
patient. Every healthcare patient rightfully expects that the
integrity of their healthcare records be maintained, i.e., that
they are accurate, and further, that their audit logs ensure that
any changes or modifications to those records are accurately
captured. ECW has violated its duty to those patients by marketing
and selling software used by those patients' healthcare providers
that failed to maintain the accuracy and integrity of patients'
EHRs. ECW misrepresented to the federal government that its
software protected the accuracy and integrity of patients' records
when it did not (the subject of a qui tam proceeding that the
federal government concluded against ECW last year), falsely
obtaining certification from the federal government for its
software and allowing it to market and sell it to healthcare
providers. As a result, the medical records of millions of patients
have been compromised. Patients cannot rely on those records, to
their harm. In marketing and selling its EHR software to healthcare
providers throughout the United States, ECW falsely represented to
healthcare providers, its certifying bodies and the federal
government that its software complied with the requirements for
certification. ECW's software was unable to satisfy certain
certification criteria relating to the accuracy and reliability of
patient records.

The Defendant is a leading cloud-based Electronic Health Records
vendor in the U.S. used by hospitals, doctors, health groups and
other healthcare and medical providers.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class:

          Patrick M. Groulx, Esq.
          ISENBERG GROULX, LLC
          368 West Broadway, Suite 2
          Boston, MA 02127
          Telephone: (857) 880 7889
          Facsimile: (617) 249 1981
          E-mail: patrick@i-gllc.com

               - and -

          Gordon Price Diefenbach, Esq.
          DIEFENBACH, PLLC
          888 Seventh Avenue, 6th Floor
          New York, NY 10106
          Telephone: (212) 981 2233
          Facsimile: (646) 867 -1150
          E-mail: gordon@diefenbachlaw.com

               - and -

          Steven E. Armstrong, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF
          STEVEN E. ARMSTRONG, PLLC
          26 Broadway, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (646) 708 3658
          Facsimile: (212) 344 7285
          E-mail: sarmstrong@armstrongpllc.com

               - and -

          David M. Given, Esq.
          PHILLIPS, ERLEWINE, GIVEN & CARLIN LLP
          39 Mesa Street, Suite 201
          San Francisco, CA 94129
          Telephone: (415) 398 0900
          Facsimile: (415) 398 0911
          E-mail: dmg@phillaw.com


EDISON BALLROOM: Faces Bishop Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Edison Ballroom LLC.
The case is captioned as Cedric Bishop on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Edison Ballroom LLC,
the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-07065 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 6, 2018).

Edison Ballroom is elegant private event space in the heart of
Times Square, New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
          COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
          300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Telephone: (917) 299 6612
          Facsimile: (929) 575 4195
          E-mail: joseph@cml.legal


EXPEDIA GROUP: Bid to Compel Arbitration Granted in Orbitz Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Expedia Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that on June 6, 2018, a court
has granted defendants' motion to compel arbitration and stayed the
case pending completion of individual arbitration in the Orbitz
Data Breach Putative Class Action.

Expedia Group, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as an
online travel company in the United States and internationally. It
operates through Core OTA, Trivago, HomeAway, and Egencia segments.
Expedia Group, Inc. was founded in 1996 and is headquartered in
Bellevue, Washington.


EXPEDIA GROUP: Buckeye Tree et al. File Renewed Class Cert. Motion
------------------------------------------------------------------
A Renewed Motion for Class Certification was filed August 17 by
Plaintiffs 2020 O Street Corporation, Inc., Buckeye Tree Lodge and
Sequoia Village Inn, LLC, in their lawsuit against Expedia, Inc. et
al.

A hearing on the Motion is set for Oct. 25 at 10:00 a.m. in San
Francisco, Courtroom 04, 17th Floor before Judge Vince Chhabria.
Responses are due by Aug. 31.  Replies are due by Sept. 7.

Expedia Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that on May 17, 2018, the
court denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification and set a
deadline of Aug. 17 for plaintiffs to file a renewed motion.

The cases are:

     -- Buckeye Tree Lodge and Sequoia Village Inn, LLC v. Expedia,
Inc. et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-04721 (N.D. Cal., Aug. 17, 2016);
and

     -- 2020 O Street Mansion Corporation, Inc. v. Expedia, Inc. et
al., Case No. 3:17-cv-01186 (N.D. Cal., March 7, 2017).

Expedia Group, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as an
online travel company in the United States and internationally. It
operates through Core OTA, Trivago, HomeAway, and Egencia segments.
Expedia Group, Inc. was founded in 1996 and is headquartered in
Bellevue, Washington.


FIFTH THIRD: Seldomridge Sues for Service-to-Solutions Staff Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER SELDOMRIDGE, the Plaintiff, v. FIFTH THIRD BANK, the
Defendant, Case No. Case: 1:18-cv-00553-SJD (S.D. Ohio, Aug. 6,
2018), alleges that the Defendant's practices and policies of not
paying its hourly, non-exempt employees, including Plaintiff and
other similarly-situated employees, for all hours worked, is in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Michigan Wage Act.

The Defendant operates customer service call centers.  At all times
material to this Complaint, Plaintiff worked as a Service to
Solutions employee in Defendant's Grand Rapids, Michigan call
center. The Plaintiff and other similarly situated Service to
Solutions employees were classified by Defendant as non-exempt
employees. The Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees
routinely worked 40 or more hours per workweek. The Plaintiff and
other similarly situated employees were paid on an hourly basis.

Fifth Third Bank is a national bank headquartered in Cincinnati,
Ohio at Fifth Third Center.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
          Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
          Nilges Draher LLC
          7266 Portage Street, N.W., Suite D
          Massillon, OH 44646
          Telephone: (330) 470 4428
          Facsimile: (330) 754 1430
          E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com
                  sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com


FINANCE SYSTEM: Faces Sandri Suit in E.D. Wisconsin
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Finance System of
Green Bay Inc.  The case is captioned as Dorean A. Sandri,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff v. Finance System of Green Bay Inc. and John Does, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01208 (E.D. Wisc., Aug. 6, 2018).

Finance System of Green Bay, Inc. offers collection solutions for
multiple industries.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew T Thomasson, Esq.
          STERN THOMASSON LLP
          150 Morris Ave-2nd Fl
          Springfield, NJ 07081
          Telephone: (973) 379 7500
          Facsimile: (973) 532 5868
          E-mail: andrew@sternthomasson.com


FIRST HAWAIIAN: Unit Still Defends Overdraft Fee-Related Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
First Hawaiian, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the company's subsidiary
First Hawaiian Bank (FHB) continues to defend itself from a class
action suit, filed by a bank customer.

On January 27, 2017, a purported class action lawsuit was filed by
a Bank customer alleging that FHB improperly charges an overdraft
fee in circumstances where an account had sufficient funds to cover
the transaction at the time the transaction is authorized but not
at the time the transaction is presented for payment, and that this
practice constitutes an unjust and deceptive trade practice and a
breach of contract.

The lawsuit further alleged that FHB's practice of assessing a
one-time continuous negative balance overdraft fee on accounts
remaining in a negative balance for a seven-day period constitutes
a usurious interest charge and an unfair and deceptive trade
practice.

On July 23, 2018, the plaintiff amended the complaint to drop the
usury claim related to FHB's practice of assessing a one-time
continuous negative balance overdraft fee, but added additional
claims alleging (1) that FHB "prematurely deducts" its own bank
fees from accounts causing additional overdraft and insufficient
funds fees; (2) that FHB assesses continuing overdraft notification
fees on overdraft balances composed of only FHB's fees; and (3)
that FHB improperly assesses paper statement fees when consumers
elect to receive electronic statements.

Plaintiff appears to assert claims for breach of contract, unfair
and deceptive practices, conversion and unjust enrichment based on
each of these theories.

This lawsuit is similar to lawsuits filed against other financial
institutions pertaining to available balance overdraft fee
disclosures and continuing negative balance overdraft fees. Because
of the many questions of fact and law that may arise in the future,
the outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this point.

Based on information available to the Company at present, the
Company cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential loss, if
any, for this action because, among other things, its potential
liability depends on whether a class is certified and, if so, the
composition and size of any such class, the applicable time period
at issue, as well as an assessment of the appropriate measure of
damages if the Company were to be found liable. Accordingly, the
Company has not recognized any liability associated with this
action. Management disputes any wrongdoing and the case is being
vigorously defended.

First Hawaiian, Inc. operates as a bank holding company for First
Hawaiian Bank that provides a range of banking services to consumer
and commercial customers in the United States. It operates through
Retail Banking and Commercial Banking segments. The company was
founded in 1858 and is headquartered in Honolulu, Hawaii. First
Hawaiian, Inc. is a subsidiary of BancWest Corporation.


FIRST SOLAR: Smilovits Class Action Still Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------
First Solar, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the company continues to
defend itself in a class action suit entitled, Smilovits v. First
Solar, Inc., et al.

On March 15, 2012, a purported class action lawsuit titled
Smilovits v. First Solar, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:12-cv-00555-DGC,
was filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Arizona (hereafter "Arizona District Court") against the Company
and certain of its current and former directors and officers.

The complaint was filed on behalf of persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the Company's publicly traded securities between
April 30, 2008 and February 28, 2012 (the "Class Action"). The
complaint generally alleges that the defendants violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making
false and misleading statements regarding the Company's financial
performance and prospects.

The action includes claims for damages, including interest, and an
award of reasonable costs and attorneys' fees to the putative
class.

The Company believes it has meritorious defenses and will
vigorously defend this action.

On July 23, 2012, the Arizona District Court issued an order
appointing as lead plaintiffs in the Class Action the Mineworkers'
Pension Scheme and British Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme
(collectively, the "Pension Schemes"). The Pension Schemes filed an
amended complaint on August 17, 2012, which contains similar
allegations and seeks similar relief as the original complaint.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on September 14, 2012.

On December 17, 2012, the court denied defendants' motion to
dismiss. On October 8, 2013, the Arizona District Court granted the
Pension Schemes' motion for class certification, and certified a
class comprised of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
publicly traded securities of the Company between April 30, 2008
and February 28, 2012 and were damaged thereby, excluding
defendants and certain related parties. Merits discovery closed on
February 27, 2015.

Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on March 27, 2015.
On August 11, 2015, the Arizona District Court granted defendants'
motion in part and denied it in part, and certified an issue for
immediate appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (the "Ninth
Circuit").

First Solar filed a petition for interlocutory appeal with the
Ninth Circuit, and that petition was granted on November 18, 2015.
On May 20, 2016, the Pension Schemes moved to vacate the order
granting the petition, dismiss the appeal, and stay the merits
briefing schedule. On December 13, 2016, the Ninth Circuit denied
the Pension Schemes' motion. On January 31, 2018, the Ninth Circuit
issued an opinion affirming the Arizona District Court's order
denying in part defendants' motion for summary judgment.

On March 16, 2018, First Solar filed a petition for panel rehearing
or rehearing en banc with the Ninth Circuit. On May 7, 2018, the
Ninth Circuit denied defendants' petition. The case is now pending
in the Arizona District Court.

First Solar, Inc. provides photovoltaic solar energy solutions in
the United States and internationally. It operates through two
segments, Components and Systems. First Solar, Inc. was founded in
1999 and is headquartered in Tempe, Arizona.


FLARE ENERGY: Saunders Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------
JEREMY SAUNDERS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. FLARE ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 5:18-cv-00810 (W.D. Tex., Aug. 6, 2018),
alleges that Defendant's conduct violates the Fair Labor Standards
Act, which requires non-exempt employees to be compensated for all
hours in excess of 40 in a workweek at one and one-half times their
regular rate.

According to the complaint, the Defendant required Plaintiff to
work more than 40 hours in a work week as a flowback operator. The
Plaintiff is a former employee of Defendant who performed work
related to oil and gas wells serviced by Defendant. The Defendant
misclassified Plaintiff as an exempt employee and paid him a salary
plus a day rate without overtime. Defendant also misclassifies
other flowback operators and similar employees as exempt employees
across the country and likewise denied them their proper overtime
compensation.

Defendant provides oil and gas well monitoring services to energy
companies nationwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FRANKLIN RESOURCES: Fernandez-Cryer Consolidated Suit Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Franklin Resources, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the company continues to
defend the consolidated Fernandez and Cryer action.

On July 28, 2016, a former employee filed a class action lawsuit
captioned Cryer v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et al. in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California
against Franklin, the Franklin Templeton 401(k) Retirement Plan
("Plan") Investment Committee ("Investment Committee"), and unnamed
Investment Committee members. The plaintiff asserts a claim for
breach of fiduciary duty under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act ("ERISA"), alleging that the defendants selected
mutual funds sponsored and managed by the Company (the "Funds") as
investment options for the Plan when allegedly lower-cost and
better performing non-proprietary investment vehicles were
available.

The plaintiff also claims that the total Plan costs, inclusive of
investment management and administrative fees, are excessive. The
plaintiff alleges that Plan losses exceed $79.0 million and seeks,
among other things, damages, disgorgement, rescission of the Plan's
investments in the Funds, attorneys' fees and costs, and pre- and
post-judgment interest.

On November 2, 2017, a second former employee, represented by the
same law firm, filed another class action lawsuit relating to the
Plan in the same court, captioned Fernandez v. Franklin Resources,
Inc., et al. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on February
6, 2018, naming the same defendants as those named in the Cryer
action, as well as the Franklin Board of Directors, the Plan
Administrative Committee, individual current and former Franklin
directors, and individual current and former Investment Committee
members.

The plaintiff in this second lawsuit asserts the same ERISA breach
of fiduciary duty claim asserted in the Cryer action, as well as
claims for alleged prohibited transactions by virtue of the Plan's
investments in the Funds and for an alleged failure to monitor the
performance of the Investment Committee. The plaintiff alleges that
Plan losses exceed $60.0 million and seeks the same relief sought
in the Cryer action.

On April 6, 2018, the court consolidated the Fernandez action with
the existing Cryer action.

Management strongly believes that the claims asserted in the
litigation are without merit. The fact discovery phase in the
consolidated action is closed and the parties are currently in the
expert discovery phase. Franklin is defending against the
consolidated action vigorously.

Franklin cannot at this time predict the eventual outcome of the
litigation or whether it will have a material negative impact on
the Company, or reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of
loss that may arise from any negative outcome.

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

Franklin Resources, Inc. is a publicly owned asset management
holding company. Through its subsidiaries, the firm provides its
services to individuals, institutions, pension plans, trusts, and
partnerships. Franklin Resources, Inc. was founded in 1947 and is
based in San Mateo, California with an additional office in
Hyderabad, India.


GENERAL ELECTRIC: Bid to Dismiss 401(k) Plan Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------------------
General Electric Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the company is seeking
dismissal on behalf of all defendants of a California class action
lawsuit.

On September 27, 2017, three individual plaintiffs filed a putative
class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California with claims regarding the oversight of GE's
401(k) plan (the GE RSP). From October 30 to November 15, 2017,
three similar class action suits were filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts. All four actions have been
consolidated into a single action in the District of
Massachusetts.

The consolidated complaint names as defendants GE, GE Asset
Management, current and former GE and GE Asset Management employees
who served on fiduciary bodies responsible for overseeing the GE
RSP during the class period and current and former members of GE's
Board of Directors.

Like similar lawsuits that have been brought against other
companies in recent years, this action alleges that the defendants
breached their fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) in their oversight of the GE
RSP, principally by retaining five proprietary funds that
plaintiffs allege were underperforming as investment options for
plan participants and charging higher management fees than some
alternative funds.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages on behalf of a class of GE
RSP participants and beneficiaries from October 30, 2011 through
the date of any judgment. In April, GE filed a motion to dismiss on
behalf of all defendants.

General Electric Company operates as a digital industrial company
worldwide. It operates through Power, Renewable Energy, Oil & Gas,
Aviation, Healthcare, Transportation, Lighting, and Capital
segments. General Electric Company was founded in 1892 and is
headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts.


GENERAL ELECTRIC: Securities Suit Filed in New York State Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
General Electric Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the company is facing a
putative class action suit filed in New York.

In July 2018, a putative class action was filed in New York state
court naming as defendants GE, Jeffrey R. Immelt, Jeffrey S.
Bornstein, Jan R. Hauser, John L. Flannery, Douglas A. Warner III
and KPMG. It alleges violations of Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 based on alleged misstatements related to
insurance reserves and performance of GE's business segments in GE
Stock Direct Plan registration statements and documents
incorporated therein by reference and seeks damages on behalf of
shareowners who acquired GE stock between July 20, 2015 and July
19, 2018 through the GE Stock Direct Plan.

General Electric Company operates as a digital industrial company
worldwide. It operates through Power, Renewable Energy, Oil & Gas,
Aviation, Healthcare, Transportation, Lighting, and Capital
segments. General Electric Company was founded in 1892 and is
headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts.


GENERAL ELECTRIC: Sjunde AP-Fonden Class Suit in New York Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
General Electric Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the company continues to
defend a consolidated class action suit entitled Hachem v. GE et
al.

Since November 2017, several putative class actions under the
federal securities laws have been filed against GE and certain
affiliated individuals. All of those actions filed to date have
been consolidated into a single action currently pending in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Hachem
v. GE et al.).

In May 2018, the court appointed Sjunde AP-Fonden (AP7) as Lead
Plaintiff and Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP as Lead Counsel
for the consolidated shareholder actions. In July 2018, AP7 filed
the Third Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint naming as
defendants GE, Jeffrey R. Immelt, Jeffrey S. Bornstein, Jamie S.
Miller, Keith S. Sherin, Jan R. Hauser and Richard A. Laxer.

It alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 related to insurance reserves
and accounting for long-term service agreements and seeks damages
on behalf of shareowners who acquired GE stock between February 27,
2013 and January 23, 2018.

General Electric Company operates as a digital industrial company
worldwide. It operates through Power, Renewable Energy, Oil & Gas,
Aviation, Healthcare, Transportation, Lighting, and Capital
segments. General Electric Company was founded in 1892 and is
headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts.


GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Davis Suit in Northern District of Alabama
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against General Motors
Company Inc.  The case is captioned as Robert Davis, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
General Motors Company Inc., General Motors Holdings LLC, and
General Motors LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 5:18-cv-01239-MHH
(N.D. Ala., Aug. 6, 2018).  The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge
Madeline Hughes Haikala.

General Motors Company, commonly referred to as General Motors, is
an American multinational corporation headquartered in Detroit that
designs, manufactures, markets, and distributes vehicles and
vehicle parts, and sells financial services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric J Artrip, Esq.
          MASTANDO & ARTRIP LLC
          301 Washington Street, Suite 302
          Huntsville, AL 35801
          Telephone: (256) 532 2222
          Facsimile: (256) 513 7489
          E-mail: artrip@mastandoartrip.com


HALIBURTON ENERGY: Court Grants Arbitration in Wage & Hour Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California granted Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration in the
case captioned LUIS GUERRERO, an individual on behalf of himself,
all others similarly situated and on behalf of the general public,
Plaintiff, ARBITRATION v. HALIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES, INC., a
corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, No.
1:16-cv-01300-LJO-JLT (E.D. Cal.).

The Defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration of the
Plaintiff's claims, arguing that the Plaintiff's claims were
covered by several valid and binding arbitration agreements that he
signed in connection with his employment.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant in a position titled
Entry Level Operator Assistant I. The Plaintiff alleges, on behalf
of himself and others similarly situated, that HESI engaged in
unlawful employment practices, including underpaying workers,
failing to pay overtime, and failing to give employees meal
periods.

Waiver

The Plaintiff argues that the Defendant waived its right to enforce
the arbitration agreements here by failing to compel arbitration
from the filing of the case in July of 2016 until filing this
motion in May of 2017.

Whether HESI Had Knowledge Of Its Right To Compel Arbitration

As to the first factor, the Defendant does not dispute that it had
knowledge of its right to compel arbitration from the inception of
this litigation. Indeed, the Defendant stated its intent to reserve
its right to compel arbitration in motions to dismiss filed in
September and December of 2016, as well as in its answer to the
Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint filed in March of 2017, and
the parties' joint scheduling report filed in April of 2017. The
first factor is met.

Whether HESI Took Actions Inconsistent With The Right To Arbitrate

With respect to the second factor, the Plaintiff argues that the
Defendant's decision to remove the case to federal court and to
litigate the matter in federal court for months prior to moving to
compel arbitration is inconsistent with the Defendant's right to
arbitrate. The Defendant counters that filing pre-discovery
dispositive motions prior to moving to compel arbitration is not
inconsistent with its right to compel arbitration. The Defendant
relies on several Ninth Circuit cases in support of its position
that the mere filing of pre-trial motions is not a waiver of the
right to compel arbitration under the FAA.  

However, these cases are inapposite. In Global Securities &
Communications, Inc. v. AT & T, the court determined that AT & T's
pre-trial motions were not inconsistent with its right to compel
arbitration.  However, the court's analysis rested heavily on the
fact that AT & T was not aware of its right to arbitrate until
after the pre-trial motions were filed, and it filed its motion to
compel before answering the complaint and "promptly after learning
of the arbitration clause in the agreements, approximately four
months after [plaintiff] filed its complaint.

Here, the Defendant was well aware of its right to seek arbitration
when it opted to litigate this case.

Whether The Delay Has Prejudiced Guerrero

The Plaintiff asserts that he and the putative class were
prejudiced by the Defendant's ten-month delay in filing its motion
to compel arbitration. The Plaintiff argues that he has expended
considerable resources opposing the Defendant's motions to dismiss
and strike, preparing and propounding discovery, preparing and
serving initial disclosures, and attending and participating in a
scheduling conference before the Court.

Here, the Plaintiff asserts in conclusory fashion that he has been
prejudiced because he has been forced to expend time and resources
litigating this action. However, the parties have not conducted
extensive discovery in this case. Indeed, the Plaintiff has
expounded discovery requests, which the Court does not hold against
the Defendant's effort to arbitrate, but the Defendant apparently
has not propounded any discovery. Likewise, the Court has not
reached the merits of this case in its rulings to date.

Class Action Waiver

The Plaintiff argued that the class action waiver contained in the
arbitration agreement, which required the Plaintiff to arbitrate
his claims on an individual basis only, was invalid under the Ninth
Circuit's decision in Morris v. Ernst & Young, LLP, 834 F.3d 975
(9th Cir. 2016).

In Morris, the Ninth Circuit held that class action waivers in
employment arbitration agreements violated sections 7 and 8 of the
National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) which prohibit employer
interference with the right of employees to engage in concerted
activity. On May 21, 2018, the Supreme Court reversed the Ninth
Circuit's decision in Morris in Epic, 138 S.Ct. 1612 (2018), which
held that an arbitration agreement in which an employee agrees to
arbitrate claims against an employer on an individual rather than
on a class or collective basis, is enforceable and does not violate
the NLRA. In light of the recent decision in Epic, the Plaintiff's
argument that the class action waiver violates the NLRA is without
merit.

Unconscionability

The Plaintiff argues that the arbitration agreements are
unenforceable because they are both procedurally and substantively
unconscionable. The Plaintiff asserts that the arbitration
agreements at issue here are procedurally unconscionable because:
(1) they are adhesion contracts that gave the Plaintiff no
opportunity to negotiate the terms or to opt-out, and (2) they
failed to attach the applicable arbitration rules. In terms of
substantive unconscionability, the Plaintiff states only that the
agreements are unlawful because they contain unlawful waivers of
the Plaintiff's right to bring collective and representative
actions and are therefore unlawful and unenforceable under the
NLRA, FAA and California law.

The Supreme Court explicitly rejected the argument that class
action waivers render an arbitration agreement unlawful or
unenforceable under the NLRA or FAA.As for California law, the
California Supreme Court has recognized that under the United
States Supreme Court's decision in AT & T Mobility LLC v.
Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (2011), the FAA pre- empts prior
California law holding that class action waivers in employment
arbitration agreements contrary to public policy.  

Therefore, the class action waiver is not unenforceable on state
law grounds either.
The motion to compel arbitration is granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 26, 2018 Memorandum
Decision and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yayrxmey
from Leagle.com.

Luis Guerrero, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated
and on behalf of the general public, Plaintiff, represented by
David Thomas Mara -- dmara@turleylawfirm.com -- The Turley & Mara
Law Firm, APLC, Jamie Kathryn Serb, Turley & Mara Law Firm, APLC,
Jessica Renee Corrales, Turley Law Firm, APLC, Jill Marie Vecchi,
Turley & Mara Law Firm, APLC, Katharine McCall, Turley Law Firm &
William Turley, Turley & Mara Law Firm, APLC.

Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by Amy
Elaine Beverlin -- abeverlin@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP,
Sabrina Alexis Beldner -- sbeldner@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuire
Woods LLP, Sylvia Jihae Kim -- skim@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuire
Woods, LLP & Matthew C. Kane -- mkane@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuire
Woods LLP.


HALLIBURTON CO: Bid to Dismiss Amended Magruder Class Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Halliburton Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the company's motion to
dismiss the Magruder v. Halliburton Co., et. al., remains pending.

Halliburton said, "Commencing in June 2002, a number of class
action lawsuits were filed against us in federal court alleging
violations of the federal securities laws arising out of our change
in accounting for revenue on long-term construction projects, our
1998 acquisition of Dresser Industries, Inc. and our reserves for
asbestos liability exposure. In December 2016, we reached an
agreement to settle these lawsuits and in July 2017, the district
court issued final approval of the settlement."

The settlement resolves all pending cases other than Magruder v.
Halliburton Co., et. al. (the Magruder case). The allegations arise
out of the same general events described, but for a later class
period, December 8, 2001 to May 28, 2002.  There has been limited
activity in the Magruder case.

In March 2009, the company's motion to dismiss was granted, with
leave to replead. In March 2012, plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint and in May 2012, the company filed a motion to dismiss.
That motion was granted in May 2018, with leave to replead some of
the claims.

An amended complaint was filed in June 2018 and the company filed
another motion to dismiss which remains pending.

Halliburton said, "We cannot predict the outcome or consequences of
this case, which we intend to vigorously defend."

Halliburton Company provides a range of services and products to
oil and natural gas companies worldwide. The company's Completion
and Production segment offers production enhancement services,
including stimulation and sand control services; and cementing
services, such as bonding the well, well casing, and casing
equipment. Halliburton Company was founded in 1919 and is based in
Houston, Texas.


INTEL CORP: At Least 49 Class Suits Filed over PC Security Flaws
----------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the company is facing
class action lawsuits related to security vulnerabilities.

In June 2017, a Google research team notified the company and other
companies that it had identified security vulnerabilities (now
commonly referred to as "Spectre" and "Meltdown") that affect many
types of microprocessors, including the company's products. As is
standard when findings like these are presented, the company worked
together with other companies in the industry to verify the
research and develop and validate software and firmware updates for
impacted technologies.

On January 3, 2018, information on the security vulnerabilities was
publicly reported, before software and firmware updates to address
the vulnerabilities were made widely available. Numerous lawsuits
have been filed against Intel and, in certain cases, the company'a
executives and directors, in U.S. federal and state courts and in
certain courts in other countries relating to the Spectre and
Meltdown security vulnerabilities.

As of July 25, 2018, 46 consumer class action lawsuits and three
securities class action lawsuits have been filed. The consumer
class action plaintiffs, who purport to represent various classes
of end users of the company's products, generally claim to have
been harmed by Intel's actions and/or omissions in connection with
the security vulnerabilities and assert a variety of common law and
statutory claims seeking monetary damages and equitable relief.

Of the consumer class action lawsuits, 42 have been filed in the
United States, two in Canada, and two in Israel.

In April 2018, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation ordered the U.S. consumer class action lawsuits
consolidated for pretrial proceedings in the United States District
Court for the District of Oregon. The lead securities class action
plaintiffs, who purport to represent classes of acquirers of Intel
stock between October 27, 2017 and January 9, 2018, generally
allege that Intel and certain officers violated securities laws by
making statements about Intel's products that were revealed to be
false or misleading by the disclosure of the security
vulnerabilities.

The securities class actions are pending in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California. Additional
lawsuits and claims may be asserted on behalf of customers and
shareholders seeking monetary damages or other related relief.

Intel said, "We dispute the claims and intends to defend the
lawsuits vigorously. Given the procedural posture and the nature of
these cases, including that the proceedings are in the early
stages, that alleged damages have not been specified, that
uncertainty exists as to the likelihood of a class or classes being
certified or the ultimate size of any class or classes if
certified, and that there are significant factual and legal issues
to be resolved, we are unable to make a reasonable estimate of the
potential loss or range of losses, if any, that might arise from
these matters."

Intel Corporation designs, manufactures, and sells computer,
networking, data storage, and communication platforms worldwide.
The company operates through Client Computing Group, Data Center
Group, Internet of Things Group, Non-Volatile Memory Solutions
Group, Programmable Solutions Group, and All Other segments. The
company was founded in 1968 and is based in Santa Clara,
California.


INTEL CORP: McAfee Shareholders Seek to Amend Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------
Intel Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that a hearing is set for
September on plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend a class action
complaint by McAfee, Inc. shareholders.

On August 19, 2010, the company announced that it had agreed to
acquire all of the common stock of McAfee, Inc. (McAfee) for $48.00
per share. Four McAfee shareholders filed putative class-action
lawsuits in Santa Clara County, California Superior Court
challenging the proposed transaction. The cases were ordered
consolidated in September 2010.

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that named former McAfee
board members, McAfee, and Intel as defendants, and alleged that
the McAfee board members breached their fiduciary duties and that
McAfee and Intel aided and abetted those breaches of duty.

The complaint requested rescission of the merger agreement, such
other equitable relief as the court may deem proper, and an award
of damages in an unspecified amount. In June 2012, the plaintiffs'
damages expert asserted that the value of a McAfee share for the
purposes of assessing damages should be $62.08.

In January 2012, the court certified the action as a class action,
appointed the Central Pension Laborers' Fund to act as the class
representative, and scheduled trial to begin in January 2013. In
March 2012, defendants filed a petition with the California Court
of Appeal for a writ of mandate to reverse the class certification
order; the petition was denied in June 2012.

In March 2012, at defendants' request, the court held that
plaintiffs were not entitled to a jury trial and ordered a bench
trial. In April 2012, plaintiffs filed a petition with the
California Court of Appeal for a writ of mandate to reverse that
order, which the court of appeal denied in July 2012. In August
2012, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial
court granted that motion in November 2012, and entered final
judgment in the case in February 2013.

In April 2013, plaintiffs appealed the final judgment. The
California Court of Appeal heard oral argument in October 2017, and
in November 2017, affirmed the judgment as to McAfee's nine outside
directors, reversed the judgment as to former McAfee director and
chief executive officer David DeWalt, Intel, and McAfee, and
affirmed the trial court's ruling that the plaintiffs are not
entitled to a jury trial.

At a June 2018 case management conference following remand, the
Superior Court set an October hearing date for any additional
summary judgment motions that may be filed, and set trial to begin
in December 2018.  Plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion for leave
to amend the complaint which is set for hearing in September 2018.


Intel said, "Because the resolution of pretrial motions may
materially impact the scope and nature of the proceeding, and
because of uncertainties regarding theories that may be asserted at
trial following the appellate court's remand of only certain claims
in the proceeding and the extent of Intel's responsibility, if any,
with respect to such claims, we are unable to make a reasonable
estimate of the potential loss or range of losses, if any, arising
from this matter. We dispute the class-action claims and intend to
continue to defend the lawsuit vigorously."

Intel Corporation designs, manufactures, and sells computer,
networking, data storage, and communication platforms worldwide.
The company operates through Client Computing Group, Data Center
Group, Internet of Things Group, Non-Volatile Memory Solutions
Group, Programmable Solutions Group, and All Other segments. The
company was founded in 1968 and is based in Santa Clara,
California.


JB HUNT: Continues to Defend California-Based Drivers' Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the company continues to
defend the California-based drivers' class action lawsuits.

The company is a defendant in certain class-action lawsuits in
which the plaintiffs are current and former California-based
drivers who allege claims for unpaid wages, failure to provide meal
and rest periods, and other items.

During the first half of 2014, the District Court in the lead
class-action granted judgment in the company's favor with regard to
all claims. The plaintiffs appealed the case to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

In July 2017, the Ninth Circuit issued a Memorandum decision
vacating the judgment in the company's favor and remanding the case
to the District Court for further proceedings. The Ninth Circuit
denied the company's Petition for Rehearing En Banc in November
2017.

The company filed a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari in the
Supreme Court of the United States seeking review of the Ninth
Circuit's decision, but the Supreme Court denied the Petition in
June 2018. The case is pending before the United States District
Court for the Central District of California.

Plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment on their
claims on June 11, 2018. On July 23, 2018 the Court entered an
Order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs' motion for
partial summary judgment. The Court granted partial summary
judgment on the issue of whether the company's activity-based
compensation system violates California law concluding that it does
to the extent the company's system fails to separately compensate
drivers for rest breaks and other nonproductive time.

However, the Court declined to enter summary judgment as to the
company's liability on any of Plaintiffs' claims. The company also
filed motions for partial summary judgment and to decertify the
class on July 2, 2018.

The Court has not yet entered an Order deciding the company's
motions. The case is currently scheduled to begin trial in the
third quarter of 2018. The overlapping claims in the other lawsuits
remain stayed pending final resolution of the appellate process or
a final decision in the lead class-action case.

J.B. Hunt Transport said "We cannot reasonably estimate at this
time the possible loss or range of loss, if any, that may arise
from these lawsuits, however, in 2017, we recorded a $10 million
reserve representing an amount we deem acceptable for the
settlement of these claims."

J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc. offers truckload freight and intermodal
transportation services, logistics management, dry van, and
e-business. The company was founded in 1969 and is based in Lowell,
Arkansas. The company has operations in the United States, Canada,
and Mexico. J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of
JB Hunt Transport Services Inc.


JM SMUCKER: Faces Robinson Suit for Deceptive Marketing
-------------------------------------------------------
SHELLY ROBINSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. THE J.M. SMUCKER COMPANY, an Ohio corporation; and DOES
1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 3:18-cv-04654-DMR (N.D. Cal.,
August 2, 2018), seeks to enjoin the Defendant's alleged ongoing
deception of consumers by misrepresenting its "Crisco 100% Extra
Virgin Olive Oil No-Stick Spray."

The J.M. Smucker Company is an Ohio corporation with its principal
place of business located in Orrville, Ohio.  The true names and
capacities of the Doe Defendants are currently unknown to the
Plaintiff.

The Defendant manufactures, markets, and sells olive oil labeled as
"Crisco 100% Extra Virgin Olive Oil No-Stick Spray."

In reality, the Plaintiff alleges, extensive clinical testing
conducted by a leading laboratory conclusively establishes that
Crisco EVOO is not Extra Virgin Olive Oil.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
         PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
         4100 Newport Place Drive, Suite 800
         Newport Beach, CA 92660
         Telephone: (949) 706-6464
         Facsimile: (949) 706-6469
         E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com


KAPSTONE PAPER: Rosenblatt Balks at Merger Deal with Westrock
-------------------------------------------------------------
JORDAN ROSENBLATT, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. KAPSTONE PAPER AND PACKAGING
CORPORATION, ROGER W. STONE, MATTHEW KAPLAN, ROBERT J. BAHASH, JOHN
M. CHAPMAN, PAULA H. J. CHOLMONDELEY, JONATHON R. FURER, DAVID G.
GABRIEL, BRIAN GAMACHE, MATTHEW H. PAULL, MAURICE S. REZNIK, and
DAVID P. STORCH, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01190-UNA (D.
Del., Aug. 6, 2018), seeks to enjoin Defendants and all persons
acting in concert with them from proceeding with, consummating, or
closing a proposed merger transaction, and in the event Defendants
consummate the Proposed Transaction, rescinding it and setting it
aside or awarding rescissory damages.

This action stems from a proposed transaction announced on January
29, 2018, pursuant to which KapStone Paper and Packaging
Corporation will be acquired by Westrock Company and its
wholly-owned subsidiary, Whiskey Holdco, Inc. On January 28, 2018,
KapStone's Board of Directors caused the Company to enter into an
agreement and plan of merger with Westrock. Pursuant to the terms
of the Merger Agreement, if the Proposed Transaction is approved by
KapStone's shareholders and completed, KapStone's stockholders will
receive $35.00 in cash or 0.4981 shares of Holdco common stock for
each share of the KapStone common stock they hold.

On August 1, 2018, defendants filed a proxy statement with the
United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with
the Proposed Transaction. The Proxy Statement, which scheduled a
stockholder vote on the Proposed Transaction for September 6, 2018,
omits material information with respect to the Proposed
Transaction, which renders the Proxy Statement false and
misleading. Accordingly, plaintiff alleges herein that defendants
violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 in connection with the Proxy Statement.

KapStone Paper and Packaging is an American pulp and paper company
based in Northbrook, Illinois. The company has kraft paper
manufacturing facilities in Roanoke Rapids, NC, Cowpens, SC, North
Charleston.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


KLEENMARK SERVICES: Class Deal in H. Marroquin's Suit Has Final OK
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Wisconsin granted Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Final Approval
of the Collective and Class Settlement in the case captioned HELEN
MARROQUIN, Individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. KLEENMARK SERVICES CORP., Defendant, No.
17-cv-426-jdp (W.D. Wis.).

The court held a final fairness hearing in this collective and
class action under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Wisconsin law.
Plaintiff Helen Marroquin appeared by counsel, David Zoeller.
Defendant KleenMark Services Corp. appeared by counsel, Robert
Driscoll. For the reasons stated during the hearing and in the
order preliminarily approving the settlement, the court finds that
the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate.  

Accordingly, Plaintiff Helen Marroquin's unopposed motion for final
approval of the collective and class action settlement is granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 21, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y8pbsv93 from Leagle.com.

Helen Marroquin, Individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Caitlin Marie Madden --
cmadden@hq-law.com -- Hawks Quindel, S.C. & David C. Zoeller --
dzoeller@hq-law.com -- Hawks Quindel, S.C.

KleenMark Services Corp., Defendant, represented by Robert S.
Driscoll -- rdriscoll@reinhartlaw.com -- Reinhart Boerner Van
Deuren s.c.

KOHL'S CORPORATION: Urias Suit Asserts TCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------
GABRIELA URIAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. KOHL'S CORPORATION, Case No. 0:18-cv-61800-RNS (S.D.
Fla., August 2, 2018), accuses the Defendant of violating the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

To harvest the cellular phone numbers of potential customers, the
Defendant advertises single-use coupons to those who text message
the Defendant with a keyword (e.g. "SAVE"), Ms. Urias tells the
Court.  Without their consent, upon receipt of a coupon request,
the Defendant automatically opts consumers into its text messaging
campaigns, she alleges.

Kohl's is a Wisconsin Corporation with its principal office located
in Menomonee Falls, Wisconsin.  The Defendant is an American
department store retail chain.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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



LABORATORY CORP: Appeal in Patty Davis Suit Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July
27, 2018, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the
appeal made by the plaintiff in the case entitled, Patty Davis v.
Laboratory Corporation of America, et al., to the Florida Second
District Court of Appeal is still pending.

On August 31, 2015, the Company was served with a putative class
action lawsuit, Patty Davis v. Laboratory Corporation of America,
et al., filed in the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial
Circuit for Hillsborough County, Florida.

The complaint alleges that the Company violated the Florida
Consumer Collection Practices Act by billing patients who were
collecting benefits under the Workers' Compensation Statutes. The
lawsuit seeks injunctive relief and actual and statutory damages,
as well as recovery of attorney's fees and legal expenses.

In April 2017, the Circuit Court granted the Company's Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings. The Plaintiff has appealed the Circuit
Court's ruling to the Florida Second District Court of Appeal. The
Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit.

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

Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings operates as an
independent clinical laboratory company worldwide. It operates
through two segments, LabCorp Diagnostics and Covance Drug
Development. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings was founded
in 1971 and is headquartered in Burlington, North Carolina.


LABORATORY CORP: Bid to Dismiss Sequenom Shareholders Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July
27, 2018, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the
defendants motion to dismiss in the case, In re Sequenom, Inc.
Shareholder Litig., remains pending.

Prior to the Company's acquisition of Sequenom, Inc. (Sequenom)
between August 15, 2016, and August 24, 2016, six putative
class-action lawsuits were filed on behalf of purported Sequenom
stockholders (captioned Malkoff v. Sequenom, Inc., et al., No.
16-cv-02054- JAH-BLM, Gupta v. Sequenom, Inc., et al., No.
16-cv-02084-JAH-KSC, Fruchter v. Sequenom, Inc., et al., No.
16-cv-02101- WQH-KSC, Asiatrade Development Ltd. v. Sequenom, Inc.,
et al., No. 16-cv-02113-AJB-JMA, Nunes v. Sequenom, Inc., et al.,
No. 16-cv-02128-AJB-MDD, and Cusumano v. Sequenom, Inc., et al.,
No. 16-cv-02134-LAB-JMA) in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California challenging the acquisition
transaction.

The complaints asserted claims against Sequenom and members of its
Board of Directors (the Individual Defendants). The Nunes action
also named the Company and Savoy Acquisition Corp. (Savoy), a
wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, as defendants.

The complaints alleged that the defendants violated Sections 14(e),
14(d)(4) and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by failing
to disclose certain allegedly material information.

In addition, the complaints in the Malkoff action, Asiatrade
action, and the Cusumano action alleged that the Individual
Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to Sequenom
shareholders. The actions sought, among other things, injunctive
relief enjoining the merger.

On August 30, 2016, the parties entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) in each of the above-referenced actions. On
September 6, 2016, the Court entered an order consolidating for all
pre-trial purposes the six individual actions under the caption In
re Sequenom, Inc. Shareholder Litig., Lead Case No.
16-cv-02054-JAH-BLM, and designating the complaint from the Malkoff
action as the operative complaint for the consolidated action.

On November 11, 2016, two competing motions were filed by two
separate stockholders (James Reilly and Shikha Gupta) seeking
appointment as lead plaintiff under the terms of the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. On June 7, 2017, the
Court entered an order declaring Mr. Reilly as the lead plaintiff
and approving Mr. Reilly's selection of lead counsel. The parties
agree that the MOU has been terminated.

The Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint
on July 24, 2017, and the Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss,
which remains pending. The Company will vigorously defend the
lawsuit.

Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings operates as an
independent clinical laboratory company worldwide. It operates
through two segments, LabCorp Diagnostics and Covance Drug
Development. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings was founded
in 1971 and is headquartered in Burlington, North Carolina.


LABORATORY CORP: Consolidation of Bouffard & Anderson Cases Sought
------------------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July
27, 2018, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the
plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint,
which would consolidate the Victoria Bouffard, et al. v. Laboratory
Corporation of America Holdings and Sheryl Anderson, et al. v.
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings actions if granted.

On March 10, 2017, the Company was served with a putative class
action lawsuit, Victoria Bouffard, et al. v. Laboratory Corporation
of America Holdings, filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of North Carolina.  The complaint alleges that the
Company's patient list prices unlawfully exceed the rates
negotiated for the same services with private and public health
insurers in violation of various state consumer protection laws.
The lawsuit also alleges breach of implied contract or
quasi-contract, unjust enrichment, and fraud. The lawsuit seeks
statutory, exemplary, and punitive damages, injunctive relief, and
recovery of attorney's fees and costs.

In May 2017, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs'
Complaint and Strike Class Allegations; this motion was granted in
March 2018 without prejudice.

On October 10, 2017, a second putative class action lawsuit, Sheryl
Anderson, et al. v. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North
Carolina.  The complaint contains similar allegations and seeks
similar relief to the Bouffard complaint, and adds additional
counts regarding state consumer protection laws.

On May 11, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file an
amended complaint, which would consolidate the Bouffard and
Anderson actions if granted.

The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuits.

Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings operates as an
independent clinical laboratory company worldwide. It operates
through two segments, LabCorp Diagnostics and Covance Drug
Development. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings was founded
in 1971 and is headquartered in Burlington, North Carolina.


LABORATORY CORP: Cunningham Class Action Underway
-------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July
27, 2018, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the
company continues to defend itself in a class action suit entitled,
Craig Cunningham, et al. v. Laboratory Corporation of America
Holdings d/b/a LabCorp.

On April 2, 2018, the Company was served with a putative class
action lawsuit, Craig Cunningham, et al. v. Laboratory Corporation
of America Holdings d/b/a LabCorp, filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of North Carolina. The lawsuit alleges that
the Company violated the TCPA by contacting Plaintiff at least
twice on his cell phone without his prior consent using a
prerecorded or artificial voice.

The lawsuit seeks actual damages for each violation, subject to
trebling under the TCPA, and injunctive relief.

The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit.

Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings operates as an
independent clinical laboratory company worldwide. It operates
through two segments, LabCorp Diagnostics and Covance Drug
Development. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings was founded
in 1971 and is headquartered in Burlington, North Carolina.


LABORATORY CORP: Settlement in Principle Reached in Sandusky Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July
27, 2018, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the
parties in Sandusky Wellness Center, LLC, et al. v. MEDTOX
Scientific, Inc., et al., have reached a settlement in principle,
which will require Court approval.

On August 24, 2012, the Company was served with a putative class
action lawsuit, Sandusky Wellness Center, LLC, et al. v. MEDTOX
Scientific, Inc., et al., filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota. The lawsuit alleges that on or about
February 21, 2012, the defendants violated the U.S. Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by sending unsolicited facsimiles to
Plaintiff and more than 39 other recipients without the recipients'
prior express invitation or permission. The lawsuit seeks the
greater of actual damages or the sum of $0.0005 for each violation,
subject to trebling under the TCPA, and injunctive relief.

In September of 2014, Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification
was denied. In January of 2015, the Company's Motion for Summary
Judgment on the remaining individual claim was granted. Plaintiff
filed a notice of appeal. On May 3, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Eighth Circuit issued its decision and order reversing the
District Court's denial of class certification. The Eighth Circuit
remanded the matter for further proceedings.

On December 7, 2016, the District Court granted the Plaintiff's
renewed Motion for Class Certification. The parties have reached a
settlement in principle, which will require Court approval.

Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings operates as an
independent clinical laboratory company worldwide. It operates
through two segments, LabCorp Diagnostics and Covance Drug
Development. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings was founded
in 1971 and is headquartered in Burlington, North Carolina.


LABORATORY CORP: Still Defends Maria Gonzalez Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July
27, 2018, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that
company continues to defend itself in a putative class action suit
entitled, Maria T. Gonzalez, et al. v. Examination Management
Services, Inc. and Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings.

On August 1, 2017, the Company was served with a putative class
action lawsuit, Maria T. Gonzalez, et al. v. Examination Management
Services, Inc. and Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings,
filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California.

The complaint alleges that the Company misclassified phlebotomists
as independent contractors through an arrangement with the
co-Defendant temporary staffing agency. The complaint further
alleges that the Company violated the California Labor Code and
California Business and Professions Code by failing to pay minimum
wage, failing to pay for all hours worked, failing to pay for all
wages owed upon termination, and failing to provide accurate
itemized wage statements.

The lawsuit seeks monetary damages, civil penalties, injunctive
relief, and recovery of attorney's fees and costs.

The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit.

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

Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings operates as an
independent clinical laboratory company worldwide. It operates
through two segments, LabCorp Diagnostics and Covance Drug
Development. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings was founded
in 1971 and is headquartered in Burlington, North Carolina.


LANSING TRADE: Budicak Files Antitrust Class Action in Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------
Budicak, Inc., on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated v. Lansing Trade Group, LLC, and John Does Nos. 1-6, Case
No. 1:18-cv-04966 (N.D. Ill., July 20, 2018), is brought against
the Defendants for violation of the Commodity Exchange Act, the
Sherman Antitrust Act and the common law.

The action arises from Defendants' alleged unlawful and intentional
manipulation of wheat futures and options contracts traded on the
Chicago Board of Trade from at least February 1, 2015 through March
31, 2015.

The Plaintiff Budicak, Inc. is an Illinois corporation with its
principal place of business in Oak Brook, Illinois.

The Defendant Lansing Trade Group, LLC is a Delaware limited
liability company, with principal place of business in Overland
Park, Kansas and offices and facilities all over the United States,
that acts as a commodity merchandising firm, largely focused on
buying, handling, storing, and selling physical grain, including
wheat. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anthony F. Fata, Esq.
      Jennifer W. Sprengel, Esq.
      Brian P. O'Connell, Esq.
      CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER &
      SPRENGEL LLP
      150 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 3000
      Chicago, IL 60606
      Tel: (312) 782-4880


LIBERTY MUTUAL: Richelson Suit Moved to Northern District of Ohio
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Murray Richelson, Individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, the Defendant, Case No.
18-cv-01042, was removed from the Lake County, Ohio Common Pleas,
to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
(Cleveland) on Aug. 6, 2018. The Northern District of Ohio Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-01801-PAG to the proceeding. The
case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Patricia A. Gaughan.

Liberty Mutual is an American diversified global insurer, and the
fourth-largest property and casualty insurer in the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James A. DeRoche, Esq.
          Stuart I. Garson, Esq.
          GARSON JOHNSON
          1600 Midland Bldg.
          101 Prospect Avenue, W
          Cleveland, OH 44115
          Telephone: (216) 696 9330
          Facsimile: (216) 696 8558
          E-mail: jderoche@garson.com
                  garson@garson.com

               - and -

          Patrick J. Perotti, Esq.
          DWORKEN & BERNSTEIN-PAINESVILLE
          60 South Park Place
          Painesville, OH 44077
          Telephone: (440) 352 3391
          Facsimile: (440) 352 3469
          E-mail: pperotti@dworkenlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Dustin M. Dow, Esq.
          Keesha N. Warmsby, Esq.
          Rodger L. Eckelberry, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER-CLEVELAND
          127 Public Square, Ste. 2000
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Telephone: (216) 861 7098
          Facsimile: (216) 696 0740
          E-mail: ddow@bakerlaw.com
                  kwarmsby@bakerlaw.com
                  reckelberry@bakerlaw.com


LOS ANGELES, CA: Certification of Vehicle Owners Class Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned LEONARDO GONZALEZ-TZITA, an individual,
ESTEBAN DIEGO ESTEBAN, an individual, SIDONIO LOMELI, and
individual and all as class representatives, the Plaintiff, vs.
CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al., the Defendants, Case No.
2:16-cv-00194-FMO-E (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court
on September 20, 2018, for an order:

   1. certifying a class defined as:

      "all registered vehicle owners whose vehicles were seized
      and impounded by the City of Los Angeles at any time from
      January 11, 2014, through February 15, 2017, under the
      authority of Cal. Veh. Code section 21100.4"; and

   2. preliminarily approving Class Action Settlement Agreement
      and related forms.

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Donald W. Cook, Esq.
          ATTORNEY AT LAW
          3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2910
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 252 9444
          Facsimile: (213) 252 0091
          E-mail: manncook@earthlink.net


LOS ANGELES, CA: Vandenberg Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
PIETER VANDENBERG, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
individuals v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Case No. 5:18-cv-01625 (C.D.
Cal., August 2, 2018), is brought pursuant to the provisions of the
Fair Labor Standards Act to recover alleged unpaid overtime and
other compensation.

The action arises from the Defendant's failure to include all
statutorily required forms of compensation in the "regular rate"
used to calculate overtime compensation for Plaintiff and all
similarly situated individuals, Mr. Vandenberg alleges.

The County of Los Angeles is a political subdivision of the state
of California, and employed the Plaintiff.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dieter C. Dammeier, Esq.
          DAMMEIER LAW FIRM
          9431 Haven Avenue, Suite 232
          Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
          Telephone: (909) 240-9525
          Facsimile: (909) 912-1901
          E-mail: Dieter@DammeierLaw.com

               - and -

          David E. Mastagni, Esq.
          Isaac S. Stevens, Esq.
          Ace T. Tate, Esq.
          Ian B. Sangster, Esq.
          MASTAGNI HOLSTEDT
          A Professional Corporation
          1912 "I" Street
          Sacramento, CA 95811
          Telephone: (916) 446-4692
          Facsimile: (916) 446-2857
          E-mail: davidm@mastagni.com
                  istevens@mastagni.com
                  atate@mastagni.com
                  isangster@mastagni.com


LOS LUNAS: Must Produce Info on Non-Jackson Class Members
---------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico
granted Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Production of documents in the
case captioned WALTER STEPHEN JACKSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. LOS
LUNAS CENTER FOR PERSONS with DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES, et al.,
Defendants, ARC of NEW MEXICO, Intervenors, MARY TERRAZAS, et al.,
Intervenors pro se, CIV No. 87-0839JP/KBM (D.N.M.).

In 1990, the Honorable James A. Parker, in the case Jackson v. Fort
Stanton Hosp. & Training Sch., 757 F.Supp. 1243, 1299 (D.N.M.
1990), rev'd in part, 964 F.2d 980(10th Cir. 1992), expressly found
that the Defendants' failure to accommodate the severely
handicapped in existing community programs while serving less
severely handicapped peers is unreasonable and discriminatory.

This finding came in his conclusions of law section regarding
statutory discrimination claims brought pursuant to Section 504 of
the Rehabilitation Act. Judge Parker further found that where
reasonable accommodations in community programs can be made,
defendants' failure to integrate severely handicapped residents
into community programs which presently serve less severely
handicapped residents violates Section 504. He additionally
concluded that Defendants were violating class members' substantive
due process rights.

It is against this backdrop that this Court now addresses the
discovery dispute at hand in preparation for the trial on the
remanded issues that Judge Parker will hold next Spring.  
The Plaintiffs seek production of certain information and data
about non-Jackson class members to which the Defendants have
objected.

The Plaintiffs contend that they require information about
non-class members to demonstrate a continuing violation of Section
504 under the theory that the State's policies and practices
discriminate against the more severely disabled while accommodating
the needs of the less severely disabled.

The Defendants counter that a showing of disparate impact is not
the applicable standard for a Section 504 claim; rather, the
Defendants argue that meaningful access to services forms the
proper inquiry for such a claim by class members.

Thus, the Defendants maintain, information regarding services
provided to non-class members is simply irrelevant.

As to each of the categories of information sought as to non-class
members, the Court will balance the relevance asserted by the
Plaintiffs (as to alleged disparate impacts in the delivery of
services and/or the showing of a durable remedy after court
oversight is terminated) against the asserted burdens of production
cited by the Defendants.

DHI Incident Management Database on Abuse, Neglect, and
Exploitation (ANE)

With the caveat as to the validity of assuming non-class members
truly represent a lesser disabled population, the Court finds that
the information is discoverable for analysis of disparate impact
and the durability of the system as a whole to address ANE issues.
The Court is unpersuaded by the Defendants' argument that it would
be unduly burdensome to produce the database as it exists. Any
confidentiality issues can be addressed by the entry of a
protective order, and would not require the State to expend its
resources redacting information.

DHI Quality Management Database on Provider Quality Review

The Court finds that this information may be relevant in analyzing
alleged disparity in the provision of services among individuals
with varying levels of severity of disability. For instance, a
remedy in place for the Jackson class members that is unavailable
for non-class members may inform as to the system-wide durability
of the remedies provided by the Defendants. The Court will order
production of the database pursuant to a confidentiality order.

Databases relating to Employment Support

The Plaintiffs reference a DVR Database, DDSD databases on day and
employment service, and other databases regarding Strike Force,
SELN or wage and hour reports, and characterize the information as
essential in demonstrating disparity in service depending on the
severity level of disability. Unlike the previous databases for
which discovery is ordered, the Court has no firm understanding of
what databases truly exist in this area and is less able to
articulate their relevance or ascertain the burden in finding and
producing the requested data.

Therefore, the Court, if needed, will meet with counsel, who will
bring their staff members with the technical expertise to better
inform the discovery decision-making process to assure
proportionality.

DDSD Database on Aspiration

The Plaintiffs say they need this information to ascertain the
status of aspiration risk management for class members.  Clearly,
this goes to the substantive due process issues related to
healthcare and meaningful access to services. The relevance of
non-class member information, however, is not as obvious. It is
certainly not obvious to the Court that the factors affecting the
level of risk for aspiration pneumonia can easily correlate to
generalized categories of severe or less severe developmental
disability.

Thus, the Court orders disclosure of this information as to Jackson
class members only.

DDSD Database on General Events Reporting (GER)

The GER database in Therap tracks injuries and incidents, and DDSD
mandates that Providers enter that information. With the same
caveat, the Court finds the information including both class
members and non-class members potentially relevant and
discoverable. Moreover, it appears that the Defendants can produce
this database pursuant to an agreed upon protective confidentiality
order without undue burden.

DOH Databases on Supports Intensity Scale (SIS)

Despite their position that this information is irrelevant, the
Defendants indicate that they will comply with my previous oral
order to produce the SIS group data. As the Court explained when it
conferred, the Court believe this information will be of assistance
to both sides in helping Judge Parker to assess the validity of any
comparison data derived from production of the non-class member
information.

DDSD Database on Therap

The maintenance of consistent, complete and up-to-date medical
records of Jackson class members has been a concern for the Court
for decades in assuring their health and safety. The Plaintiffs
want any Therap audit reports as to non-class members' medical
records regarding the accuracy, timeliness and completeness of
those records for comparison purposes.   

If such a Therap audit exists, Defendants are to produce it
pursuant to a protective confidentiality order.

Medicaid and DDSD Databases on Durable Medical Equipment

The Plaintiffs relate that in the past, the Jackson Coordinating
Committee received periodic reports from DOH's Clinical Services
Bureau regarding gasps in therapy services and from Specialty
Services regarding delays in providing equipment and services.

If such spreadsheets or reports have been prepared regarding
non-class members, the Defendants will provide that information to
the Plaintiffs for their assessment of any differences relating to
severity level of disability.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 26, 2018 Memorandum
Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yb8jw3ao from
Leagle.com.

Walter Stephen Jackson, by his parents and next friends, Walter and
Helen Jackson, Steve Nunez, by his guardian and next friend, Mary
Kathryn Reed, Mildred Tsosie, by her next friend, Polly Arango,
Mary Katherine Nowak, by her next friend, James W. Ellis, Esquire,
Lillian Willmon, by her next friend, Arthur Grumblatt, Andra
Martinez, by her next friend, Paula Duvall, Clinton Heath, by his
next friend, Belva Heath, Shawn Heath, by next friend, Belva Heath,
Richard Stanfield, by his father and next friend, The Reverend
Clyde Stanfield, Joseph Gonzales, by his mother and next friend,
Charlotte Gonzales, Sean McHenry, by his next friend, Robert
Desiderio, Esquire, Alfred Shirley, by his next friend, Frederick
Hart, Esquire, James Fritche, by his next friend, Sally Dehon,
Roseann Crockett, by her next friend, Robert McNeill, Esquire,
Andre Armenta, by his mother and next friend, Loretta Armenta,
Kelli Van Curen, by her parents and next friends, Ted and Sallie
Van Curen, Lacey Walker, by her mother and next friend, Sandra
Walker, Kim Lautenschlager, by her mother and next friend, Dale
Lautenschlager, William Thomas, by his parents and next friends,
James and Elizabeth Thomas; on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated & Developmentally Disabled New Mexicans, Inc,
Supporters of, on behalf of its members, Plaintiffs, represented by
Ann Tilford McCartney -- asims98891@aol.com -- Cathy Costanzo --
ccostanzo@cpr−ma.org -- Center for Public Representation, Nancy
Koenigsberg -- nkoenigsberg@drnm.org -- Disability Rights New
Mexico, Peter Cubra -- pcubra@qwestoffice.net -- Law Office of
Peter Cubra, Philip B. Davis -- phil@davislawnm.com -- Philip B.
Davis, Attorney at Law,Steven Schwartz -- sschwartz@cpr−ma.org --
Center for Public Representation & Tim Gardner -- tgardner@drnm.org
-- Protection & Advocacy System.

Fort Stanton Hospital and Training School, All State Defendants as
listed on manual docket, Los Lunas Center for Persons with
Developmental Disabilities & Jack Callaghan, New Mexico Department
of Health, Secretary of, Defendants, represented by Jerry A. Walz ,
Walz and Associates.

New Mexico Human Services Department, Defendant, represented by
Paul R. Ritzma & Jerry A. Walz, Walz and Associates.

ARC of New Mexico, Intervenor, represented by Maureen A. Sanders ,
Sanders & Westbrook, PC.

MAGELLAN HEALTH: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss M. Deakin's FLSA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico
denied Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Class Action
Allegations in Her First Amended Complaint in the case captioned
MAUREEN DEAKIN, AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff, v.
MAGELLAN HEALTH, INC., MAGELLAN HEALTHCARE, INC., MAGELLAN HEALTH
SERVICES OF NEW MEXICO INC., MERIT BEHAVIORAL CORPORATION, &
MAGELLAN HSRC, INC., Defendants, No. 17-CV-0773-WJ-KK (D.N.M.).

Plaintiff Maureen Deakin is suing the Defendants to recover unpaid
overtime wages that she alleges the Defendants failed to pay her
and other employees in accordance with the federal and state law.

The relevant portion of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
requires that employees who work more than forty hours in a week
are compensated at a rate of at least than one and one-half times
the employee's regular hourly wage.

The district court will deny a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6) motion to dismiss if the complaint contains sufficient
factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that
is plausible on its face.

The Defendants rely on the district courts' dismissals of the
plaintiff's collective action claims in Cooper and Flores, but
those cases are distinguishable because the parameters of the
classes were overly broad, such that they did not provide fair
notice to the defendants of the class members.

In Cooper  v. Coil Chem, LLC, No. CIV-16-473-D, 2016 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 169884, at *11-12 (W.D.), the proposed class consisted of all
individuals employed by Coil Chem, LLC in the past 3 years who were
paid a salary and a job bonus.  In Flores v. Act Event Servs.,
Inc., 55 F.Supp.3d 928, 940 (N.D. Tex. 2014), the complaint alleged
that Named Plaintiffs seek to represent a nationwide class of all
persons who worked or work for the Defendants and who were/are
subject to Defendants' unlawful pay practices and policies at any
point from three years prior to the filing of the instant matter to
the present.
  
Comparatively, the Plaintiff here provides job descriptions,
including specific job titles and duties, for her proposed class.
She asserts that the job duties of class members include Data
Collection, Data Entry, Care Utilization, Plan Education, Care
Coordination, or other similar duties related to care management or
utilization review. Members of the proposed class must have been
employed for at least one week by the Defendants over the past
three years, been paid on a salary basis by the Defendants, and
been engaged in nonsupervisory work. The Plaintiff excludes the job
titles Military and Family Life Counselor and Military and Family
Life Advocate.  

The Court finds that the Plaintiff has sufficiently defined the
class with these specific criteria so as to provide the Defendants
with fair notice of the putative class.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 21, 2018 Memorandum
Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7y5vtqg
from Leagle.com.

Maureen Deakin, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
represented by Jack L. Siegel -- jack@siegellawgroup.biz -- Siegel
Law Group PLLC, Travis Andrew Gasper, Lee & Braziel, LLP & J. Derek
Braziel, Lee & Braziel LLP.

Magellan Health, Inc., Magellan Healthcare, Inc., Magellan Health
Services of New Mexico, Inc., Merit Behavioral Care Corporation &
Magellan HSRC, Inc., Defendants, represented by Mark D. Temple --
mtemple@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith LLP, Randy S. Bartell --
abartell@montand.com -- Montgomery & Andrews, P.A. & Paige T.
Bennett -- pbennett@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith, LLP, pro hac vice.

MALDEN TOWERS: Hsueh Sues over Tenants' Security Deposits
---------------------------------------------------------
CHIH-PEI HSUEH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. MALDEN TOWERS REALTY CORP., and
CARABETTA MANAGEMENT CO., the Defendants, Case No. 18-22-64 (Mass.
Super. Ct., Aug. 7, 2018), seeks to recover damages of three times
the security deposit and the statutory interest to which Plaintiff
is entitled for the security deposit, (both of which are
non-discretionary statutory damages under the Security Deposit
Law), as well as costs and reasonable attorneys' fees.

The Plaintiff brings this action in order to stop Defendants'
unlawful practices of failing to properly withhold and/or promptly
return residential tenants' security deposits in violation of G.L.
c. 186, section l5B.  Defendants fail to return tenants' security
deposits within the required 30-day deadline imposed by the
Security Deposit Law or pay the interest required by that
statute.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jo Gardner, Esq.
          Gardner & Rosenberg, P.C.
          One State St., Fourth Floor
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: (617) 390 7570
          E-mail: josh@gardnerrosenberg.com

               - and -

          Edward Rice, Esq.
          45 Pierce Street
          Malden, MA 02148
          Telephone: (617) 475 0909
          E-mail: ed@edricelaw.com

               - and –

          Christopher Saccardi, Esq.
          58 Day St., 441538
          Somerville, MA 02144
          Telephone: (617) 500 3198
          E-mail: chris@attorneysaccardi.com


MARK PROPCO: Cedric Bishop Sues Mark Hotel in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mark Propco LLC.  The
case is captioned as Cedric Bishop on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Mark Propco LLC doing
business as: The Mark Hotel, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-07067
(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 6, 2018).[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
          COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
          300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Telephone: (917) 299 6612
          Facsimile: (929) 575 4195
          E-mail: joseph@cml.legal


MASTERCARD INC: Accrues $947M Liability in Interchange Fees Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mastercard 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 has an
accrued a liability of $947 million as a reserve for both the
merchant class litigation and the filed and anticipated opt-out
merchant cases.

In June 2005, the first of a series of complaints were filed on
behalf of merchants (the majority of the complaints were styled as
class actions, although a few complaints were filed on behalf of
individual merchant plaintiffs) against Mastercard International,
Visa U.S.A., Inc., Visa International Service Association and a
number of financial institutions.

Taken together, the claims in the complaints were generally brought
under both Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, which prohibit
monopolization and attempts or conspiracies to monopolize a
particular industry, and some of these complaints contain unfair
competition law claims under state law.

The complaints allege, among other things, that Mastercard, Visa,
and certain financial institutions conspired to set the price of
interchange fees, enacted point of sale acceptance rules (including
the no surcharge rule) in violation of antitrust laws and engaged
in unlawful tying and bundling of certain products and services.
The cases were consolidated for pre-trial proceedings in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York in MDL No.
1720. The plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint
that seeks treble damages.

In July 2006, the group of purported merchant class plaintiffs
filed a supplemental complaint alleging that Mastercard's initial
public offering of its Class A Common Stock in May 2006 (the "IPO")
and certain purported agreements entered into between Mastercard
and financial institutions in connection with the IPO: (1) violate
U.S. antitrust laws and (2) constituted a fraudulent conveyance
because the financial institutions allegedly attempted to release,
without adequate consideration, Mastercard's right to assess them
for Mastercard's litigation liabilities. The class plaintiffs
sought treble damages and injunctive relief including, but not
limited to, an order reversing and unwinding the IPO.

In February 2011, Mastercard and Mastercard International entered
into each of: (1) an omnibus judgment sharing and settlement
sharing agreement with Visa Inc., Visa U.S.A. Inc. and Visa
International Service Association and a number of financial
institutions; and (2) a Mastercard settlement and judgment sharing
agreement with a number of financial institutions. The agreements
provide for the apportionment of certain costs and liabilities
which Mastercard, the Visa parties and the financial institutions
may incur, jointly and/or severally, in the event of an adverse
judgment or settlement of one or all of the cases in the merchant
litigations.  

Among a number of scenarios addressed by the agreements, in the
event of a global settlement involving the Visa parties, the
financial institutions and Mastercard, Mastercard would pay 12% of
the monetary portion of the settlement. In the event of a
settlement involving only Mastercard and the financial institutions
with respect to their issuance of Mastercard cards, Mastercard
would pay 36% of the monetary portion of such settlement.

In October 2012, the parties entered into a definitive settlement
agreement with respect to the merchant class litigation (including
with respect to the claims related to the IPO) and the defendants
separately entered into a settlement agreement with the individual
merchant plaintiffs. The settlements included cash payments that
were apportioned among the defendants pursuant to the omnibus
judgment sharing and settlement sharing agreement described above.


Mastercard also agreed to provide class members with a short-term
reduction in default credit interchange rates and to modify certain
of its business practices, including its "no surcharge" rule.

The court granted final approval of the settlement in December
2013, and objectors to the settlement appealed that decision to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. In June 2016, the
court of appeals vacated the class action certification, reversed
the settlement approval and sent the case back to the district
court for further proceedings. The court of appeals' ruling was
based primarily on whether the merchants were adequately
represented by counsel in the settlement. As a result of the
appellate court ruling, the district court divided the merchants'
claims into two separate classes -- monetary damages claims (the
"Damages Class") and claims seeking changes to business practices
(the "Rules Relief Class").

The court appointed separate counsel for each class.

Prior to the reversal of the settlement approval, merchants
representing slightly more than 25% of the Mastercard and Visa
purchase volume over the relevant period chose to opt out of the
class settlement. Mastercard had anticipated that most of the
larger merchants who opted out of the settlement would initiate
separate actions seeking to recover damages, and over 30 opt-out
complaints have been filed on behalf of numerous merchants in
various jurisdictions.

Mastercard has executed settlement agreements with a number of
opt-out merchants. Mastercard believes these settlement agreements
are not impacted by the ruling of the court of appeals. The
defendants have consolidated all of these matters (except for one
state court action) in front of the same federal district court
that approved the merchant class settlement.

In July 2014, the district court denied the defendants' motion to
dismiss the opt-out merchant complaints for failure to state a
claim.

In June 2018, the parties to the Damages Class litigation reached
an agreement in principle to resolve the Damages Class claims. The
parties are now negotiating the terms of a formal class settlement
agreement, which Mastercard anticipates will be finalized and
executed during the third quarter of 2018 and which would be
subject to court approval.

As a result of the agreement in principle with the Damages Class,
Mastercard increased its reserve during the second quarter of 2018
by $210 million for both the merchant class litigation and the
filed and anticipated opt-out merchant cases. Neither the agreement
in principle nor any potential settlement agreement relates to, or
will relate to, the Rules Relief Class claims.

As of June 30, 2018, Mastercard had accrued a liability of $947
million as a reserve for both the merchant class litigation and the
filed and anticipated opt-out merchant cases. As of June 30, 2018
and December 31, 2017, Mastercard had $549 million and $546
million, respectively, in a qualified cash settlement fund related
to the merchant class litigation and classified as restricted cash
on its consolidated balance sheet.

Mastercard believes the reserve for both the merchant class
litigation and the filed and anticipated opt-out merchants
represents its best estimate of its probable liabilities in these
matters at June 30, 2018. The portion of the accrued liability
relating to both the opt-out merchants and the merchant class
litigation settlement does not represent an estimate of a loss, if
any, if the matters were litigated to a final outcome. Mastercard
cannot estimate the potential liability if that were to occur.

Mastercard Incorporated, a technology company, provides transaction
processing and other payment-related products and services in the
United States and internationally. The company was founded in 1966
and is headquartered in Purchase, New York.


MASTERCARD INC: Class Cert. Bid Nixed in Shift Fraud Liability Case
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Mastercard 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 district court
handling the shift fraud liability litigation has denied the
plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

In March 2016, a proposed U.S. merchant class action complaint was
filed in federal court in California alleging that Mastercard,
Visa, American Express and Discover (the "Network Defendants"),
EMVCo, and a number of issuing banks (the "Bank Defendants")
engaged in a conspiracy to shift fraud liability for card present
transactions from issuing banks to merchants not yet in compliance
with the standards for EMV chip cards in the United States (the
"EMV Liability Shift"), in violation of the Sherman Act and
California law.  

Plaintiffs allege damages equal to the value of all chargebacks for
which class members became liable as a result of the EMV Liability
Shift on October 1, 2015. The plaintiffs seek treble damages,
attorney's fees and costs and an injunction against future
violations of governing law, and the defendants have filed a motion
to dismiss.

In September 2016, the court denied the Network Defendants' motion
to dismiss the complaint, but granted such a motion for EMVCo and
the Bank Defendants. In May 2017, the court transferred the case to
New York so that discovery could be coordinated with the U.S.
merchant class interchange litigation described above.

In March 2018, the district court denied the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification, while permitting them to re-file.

Mastercard Incorporated, a technology company, provides transaction
processing and other payment-related products and services in the
United States and internationally. The company was founded in 1966
and is headquartered in Purchase, New York.


MASTERCARD INC: Complaints on ATM Surcharge Rule Still Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mastercard 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 a class action lawsuit related to ATM Surcharge Fees.

In October 2011, a trade association of independent Automated
Teller Machine ("ATM") operators and 13 independent ATM operators
filed a complaint styled as a class action lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia against both Mastercard
and Visa (the "ATM Operators Complaint").

Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of non-bank operators of ATM
terminals that operate in the United States with the discretion to
determine the price of the ATM access fee for the terminals they
operate. Plaintiffs allege that Mastercard and Visa have violated
Section 1 of the Sherman Act by imposing rules that require ATM
operators to charge non-discriminatory ATM surcharges for
transactions processed over Mastercard's and Visa's respective
networks that are not greater than the surcharge for transactions
over other networks accepted at the same ATM.  

Plaintiffs seek both injunctive and monetary relief equal to treble
the damages they claim to have sustained as a result of the alleged
violations and their costs of suit, including attorneys' fees.
Plaintiffs have not quantified their damages although they allege
that they expect damages to be in the tens of millions of dollars.
Subsequently, multiple related complaints were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia alleging both federal
antitrust and multiple state unfair competition, consumer
protection and common law claims against Mastercard and Visa on
behalf of putative classes of users of ATM services (the "ATM
Consumer Complaints").

The claims in these actions largely mirror the allegations made in
the ATM Operators Complaint, although these complaints seek damages
on behalf of consumers of ATM services who pay allegedly inflated
ATM fees at both bank and non-bank ATM operators as a result of the
defendants' ATM rules. Plaintiffs seek both injunctive and monetary
relief equal to treble the damages they claim to have sustained as
a result of the alleged violations and their costs of suit,
including attorneys' fees. Plaintiffs have not quantified their
damages although they allege that they expect damages to be in the
tens of millions of dollars.

In January 2012, the plaintiffs in the ATM Operators Complaint and
the ATM Consumer Complaints filed amended class action complaints
that largely mirror their prior complaints. In February 2013, the
district court granted Mastercard's motion to dismiss the
complaints for failure to state a claim. On appeal, the Court of
Appeals reversed the district court's order in August 2015 and sent
the case back for further proceedings.

Mastercard Incorporated, a technology company, provides transaction
processing and other payment-related products and services in the
United States and internationally. The company was founded in 1966
and is headquartered in Purchase, New York.


MASTERCARD INC: Florida Court Shelves Junk Fax Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Mastercard 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 Florida court has
granted Mastercard's motion to stay proceedings in a class action
lawsuit until the Federal Communications Commission makes a
decision on the application of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act ("TCPA") to online fax services.

Mastercard is a defendant in a TCPA class action pending in
Florida. The plaintiffs are individuals and businesses who allege
that approximately 381,000 unsolicited faxes were sent to them
advertising a Mastercard co-brand card issued by First Arkansas
Bank ("FAB").

The TCPA provides for uncapped statutory damages of $500 per fax.
Mastercard has asserted various defenses to the claims, and has
notified FAB of an indemnity claim that it has (which FAB has
disputed).

In June 2018, the court granted Mastercard's motion to stay the
proceedings until the FCC makes a decision on the application of
the TCPA to online fax services.

Mastercard Incorporated, a technology company, provides transaction
processing and other payment-related products and services in the
United States and internationally. The company was founded in 1966
and is headquartered in Purchase, New York.


MASTERCARD INC: Still Awaits Court OK on Canadian POS Case Accord
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mastercard 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 class
settlement agreement to resolve all of the Canadian class action
litigation related to  point-of-sale (POS) acceptance rules is
still subject to court approval in each applicable province.

In December 2010, a proposed class action complaint was commenced
against Mastercard in Quebec on behalf of Canadian merchants. The
suit essentially repeated the allegations and arguments of a
previously filed application by the Canadian Competition Bureau to
the Canadian Competition Tribunal (dismissed in Mastercard's favor)
concerning certain Mastercard rules related to point-of-sale
acceptance, including the "honor all cards" and "no surcharge"
rules.

The Quebec suit sought compensatory and punitive damages in
unspecified amounts, as well as injunctive relief. In the first
half of 2011, additional purported class action lawsuits were
commenced in British Columbia and Ontario against Mastercard, Visa
and a number of large Canadian financial institutions. The British
Columbia suit sought compensatory damages in unspecified amounts,
and the Ontario suit sought compensatory damages of $5 billion on
the basis of alleged conspiracy and various alleged breaches of the
Canadian Competition Act.

Additional purported class action complaints were commenced in
Saskatchewan and Alberta with claims that largely mirror those in
the other suits.

In June 2017, Mastercard entered into a class settlement agreement
to resolve all of the Canadian class action litigation. The
settlement, which is subject to court approval in each applicable
province, requires Mastercard to make a cash payment and modify its
"no surcharge" rule.

During the first quarter of 2017, the Company recorded a provision
for litigation of $15 million related to this matter.

Mastercard Incorporated, a technology company, provides transaction
processing and other payment-related products and services in the
United States and internationally. The company was founded in 1966
and is headquartered in Purchase, New York.


MATHERNE HOLDINGS: Gerstenhaber Seeks to Certify Class
------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled SHARON GERSTENHABER, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs.
MATHERNE HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware corporation, the Defendant,
Case No. 0:18-cv-61213-WPD (S.D. Fla.), the Hon Judge William P.
Dimtriouleas entered order:

   1. certifying a class of:

      "all persons within the United States who, within the four
      years prior to the filing of the Complaint; were sent
      a text message; from Defendant or anyone on Defendant's
      behalf; to said person's cellular telephone number; using
      the same equipment, or type of equipment, used to text
      Plaintiff's cellular telephone; without the recipient's
      prior express consent"

   2. certifying Sharone Gerstenhaber as representative of the
      Class;

   3. certifying Hiraldo P.A. and IJH Law as Class Counsel;

   4. directing class counsel to propose the method and form of
      class notice within 90 days; and

   5. directing Clerk to send via U.S. mail a copy of this Order
      to Defendant Matherne Holdings, Inc.


MDL 2741: King et al. vs Monsanto Consolidated in N.D. Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES O. KING, III, and CARA M. KING, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-00416, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky
to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
(San Francisco) on Aug. 6, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 3:18-cv-04690-VC to the proceeding.

This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiffs as a direct
and proximate result of Defendant negligent and wrongful conduct in
connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the
active ingredient glyphosate.

The King case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re: Roundup
Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on October
3, 2016. These actions share common factual questions arising out
of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, particularly its
active ingredient, glyphosate, causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.
Plaintiffs each allege that they or their decedents developed
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over the course of
several or more years. Plaintiffs also allege that the use of
glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients, in particular the
surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), renders Roundup
even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues concerning
general causation, the background science, and regulatory history
will be common to all actions. In its October 3, 2016 Order, the
MDL Panel found that the actions in this MDL involve common
questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District
of California will serve the convenience of the parties and
witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this
litigation. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery;
prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings (including with respect to
discovery, privilege, and Daubert motion practice); and conserve
the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary.
Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead
case is 3:16-md-02741-VC.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MDL 2827: Donahoe Suit over iPhone Performance Moved to N.D. Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Carter Donahoe, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Apple, Inc., the Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-00763, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California (San Jose) on Aug. 7, 2018.  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:18-cv-04691-EJD to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Edward J.
Davila.

The Donahoe case is being consolidated with MDL 2827 in re: Apple
Inc. Device Performance Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of
the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on
April 4, 2018.

According to the MDL Panel, these actions share factual questions
arising from allegations that Apple included code in updates to its
mobile operating system (iOS) that significantly reduced the
performance of older-model iPhones. Plaintiffs also allege that
Apple misrepresented the nature of the iOS updates and failed to
adequately disclose to iPhone owners the impact the iOS updates
would have on the performance of their iPhones. Discovery regarding
the engineering of the iPhone and the iOS updates likely will be
technical and complex. The Plaintiffs assert similar causes of
action for false advertising, alleged unfair business practices,
trespass to chattels, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment.
Moreover, plaintiffs bring these actions on behalf of overlapping
putative classes of iPhone owners.

The MDL Panel says centralization will eliminate duplicative
discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with
respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the
parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. The Northern District of
California is an appropriate transferee district for this
litigation. This district has a strong connection to these cases.
Apple is headquartered within, and the critical events and
decisions underlying plaintiffs' claims occurred in, the Northern
District of California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James S. Wertheim, Esq.
          24700 Chagrin Blvd., Ste. 309
          Beachwood, OH 44122
          Telephone: (216) 225 6663
          E-mail: wertheimjim@gmail.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Laurie A. Witek, Esq.
          Patrick M. Hagan, Esq.
          DINSMORE & SHOHL-CINCINNATI
          1900 Chemed Center
          255 East Fifth Street
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 977 8200
          Facsimile: (513) 977 8141
          E-mail: laurie.witek@dinsmore.com
                  patrick.hagan@dinsmore.com


METROPOLITAN PAINTING: Galeano Suit to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS GALEANO, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. METROPOLITAN PAINTING & CONTRACTING CO., INC. (D/B/A
METROPOLITAN PAINTING & CONTRACTING), KENNETH KOHLER, ROBERT
KOHLER, and TONY DOE, Case No. 2:18-cv-04391 (E.D.N.Y., August 2,
2018), seeks to recover alleged unpaid overtime wages pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law.

Metropolitan Painting & Contracting Co., Inc., is a domestic
corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of
New York and maintains its principal place of business in Mineola,
New York.  The Individual Defendants serve or served as owners,
managers, principals or agents of the Defendant Corporation and,
through this corporate entity, operate or operated the construction
corporation as a joint or unified enterprise.

The Defendants own, operate, or control a contracting company,
located at 121 East Jericho Turnpike, in Mineola, New York, under
the name "Metropolitan Painting & Contracting."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MICROSOFT CORP: Certification in Sex Discrimination Suit Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington, Seattle, denied Plaintiffs Katherine Moussouris and
Holly Muenchow's motion for class certification in the case
captioned KATHERINE MOUSSOURIS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MICROSOFT
CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. C15-1483JLR (W.D. Wash.).

This second amended complaint asserted that Microsoft
systematically undervalued female technical employees in this
process because female employees received, on average, lower
rankings despite equal or better performance.

Commonality

Rule 23(a)(2) requires a plaintiff to show that there are questions
of law or fact common to the class. The requirements of commonality
have been construed permissively not all questions of fact and law
need to be common.  However, because any competently crafted class
complaint literally raises common questions not every common
question suffices.

The Plaintiffs' theory and arguments surrounding commonality have
shifted. In their briefing, the Plaintiffs make no distinction
between their pay and promotion claims, arguing that Microsoft's
common but unvalidated criteria set of common procedures and the
final approval by just four EVPs cabined the discretion that lower
managers exercised in both pay and promotion determinations.   

During oral argument, however, the Plaintiffs presented a new
theory that suggested different analyses for pay and promotion:
They maintained that the use of Stock Levels removed discretion for
pay determinations whereas the common criteria and procedures
cabined discretion for promotion determinations. It is
inappropriate to present a new argument at oral argument and deny
the court and opposing counsel a chance to review the merits of
such an argument.

Nonetheless, the court considers all of the Plaintiffs' arguments
and addresses the Plaintiffs' disparate impact and disparate
treatment claims in turn.

Disparate Impact Commonality

To establish a prima facie case of disparate impact, plaintiffs
must: (1) show a significant disparate impact on a protected class
or group (2) identify the specific employment practices at issue
and (3) show a causal relationship between the challenged practices
and the disparate impact.

Law Governing Disparate Impact Commonality

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes directly addressed the issue of
commonality in a Title VII gender discrimination case that
challenged the discretion exercised by individual supervisors over
pay and promotion matters. 564 U.S. at 344-45. The Dukes plaintiffs
alleged that local managers' discretion over pay and promotions was
exercised disproportionately in favor of men, leading to an
unlawful disparate impact on female employees.

The Plaintiffs' theory of commonality was that Wal-Mart's "strong
and uniform corporate culture' permits bias against women to infect
the discretionary decision-making of each one of Wal-Mart's
thousands of managers thereby making every woman at the company the
victim of one common discriminatory practice."

Because demonstrating the invalidity of one manager's discretion
will do nothing to demonstrate the invalidity of another's, a party
basing commonality on such a system of discretion will be unable to
show that all the employees' Title VII claims will in fact depend
on the answers to common questions.

But Dukes did not entirely foreclose the ability to establish
commonality when the employer operates under a policy allowing
discretion. Plaintiffs challenging a system of discretion must
identify a common mode of exercising discretion that pervades the
entire company.

In other words, when plaintiffs wish to challenge numerous
employment decisions at once, they must point to some glue holding
the alleged reasons for all those decisions together. Otherwise, it
would be quite unbelievable that all managers would exercise their
discretion in a common way without some common direction.

The Court determined that both the plaintiffs' aggregated
statistical evidence and anecdotal evidence fell well short of
indicating a common direction from upper management, and thus, the
plaintiffs failed to demonstrate the existence of common issues.

Application to Plaintiffs' Disparate Impact Claims

As evident from the survey, whether commonality exists in a system
of discretion is a holistic inquiry that is highly dependent on the
facts before the court. Applying the law on commonality to the case
at hand, the court concludes that the Plaintiffs have not shown
that their disparate impact claims depend upon a common
contention.

At oral argument, the Plaintiffs attempted to distance themselves
from the system of discretion they describe in their briefing,
arguing for the first time that the use of Stock Levels dictated an
employee's pay, leaving no room for discretionary decision-making.
Put differently, the Plaintiffs argued that after the managers
submit their performance ratings which the Plaintiffs concede
involve discretion the employee's Stock Level mandates a certain
pay with no discretion involved. But this attempt to divorce pay
determinations from discretion is unavailing. It is true that peers
were grouped, and thus compared, to others in similar Stock Levels,
but within those groups, managers still exercised discretion in
comparing peers, resulting in various pay determinations. The
Plaintiffs point to no evidence, and the court is not aware of any
in the record, that an employee's Stock Level eliminates discretion
because the Stock Level unequivocally determines one's pay.

Of course, the fact that the Plaintiffs' challenge centers on
discretion does not foreclose commonality. But the Plaintiffs must
show that there is some common mode of exercising discretion that
pervades the entire company and ties the alleged reasons for all
those individual decisions together. The Plaintiffs broadly assert
that Microsoft uses common criteria in a uniform Calibration
Process but offer little analysis beyond labeling certain processes
and criteria as common. Considering the size of the purported
class, the Calibration Process's role as a mere framework, the
subjective criteria set by Microsoft, and the lack of upper
management involvement, the court concludes that Plaintiffs fail to
identify a specific employment practice supplying a common question
sufficient to certify a class.

The Plaintiffs challenge Microsoft's policy of allowing discretion
by lower-level managers but have not identified a common mode of
exercising discretion that pervades the entire company. As in
Dukes, without some common direction, it is quite unbelievable that
all Microsoft managers supervising over 8,600 putative class
members would exercise their discretion in a common way.

Thus, the Plaintiffs are in the same position as the Dukes
plaintiffs: challenging a practice of delegating discretion to
local managers, which the Supreme Court specifically held was not a
specific employment practice supplying a common question sufficient
to certify a class.

Because the Plaintiffs provide no convincing evidence of some glue
holding together the reasons behind the numerous employment
decisions they challenge, they have not established a common answer
to the question why was the Court disfavored.

Accordingly, the court concludes that commonality is lacking for
the Plaintiffs' disparate impact claims.

Typicality

The Plaintiffs' proffered declarations illustrate the many
differences among individual class members' challenges. For
instance, Ms. Dove may challenge the forced comparison process in
calibration meetings, because someone had to receive zero rewards,
and that someone became her because of her gender. Ms. Dove's
discrimination claim, then, would center on those calibration
meetings, the managers present, and the specific peer group to
which she was compared. Ms. Boeh, on the other hand, would
challenge her manager's initial recommendation or lack thereof when
the manager did not want to waste' a promotion" on her after her
return from maternity leave.

Thus, Ms. Boeh's discrimination claim would not concern the forced
comparison in calibration meetings but instead, the initial
recommendation process and the specific manager who refused to
recommend her for a promotion. Both claims may well have merit, but
the very nature of these claims that is, the conduct that injured
these declarants differs from that of the Plaintiffs' claims and
from each other.

The conduct in the Plaintiffs' action necessarily differs from the
conduct that caused other class members' injuries in this system of
unrestrained discretion. Given the discretion-based system, the
individualized inquiry will vary for each plaintiff, foreclosing
any contention that the named plaintiffs' claims are typical. Thus,
the court concludes that Plaintiffs have also failed to establish
typicality.

Adequacy

Rule 23(a)(4) requires Plaintiffs to demonstrate that they will
fairly and adequately protect the interests of their class. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 23(a)(4). To determine adequacy, the court must resolve two
questions: (1) do the named plaintiffs and their counsel have any
conflicts of interest with other class members and (2) will the
named plaintiffs and their counsel prosecute the action vigorously
on behalf of the class?

Microsoft does not dispute the second issue that the Plaintiffs and
counsel will prosecute the action vigorously nor is the court aware
of any reason to doubt the Plaintiffs and their counsel on this
point. Microsoft instead argues that adequacy is lacking because
the proposed class presents irreconcilable conflicts of interest.
Specifically, Microsoft maintains that because the proposed class
consists of females employees who participated as managers in the
Calibration Process the very process being challenged Plaintiffs
must impugn the input of thousands of class members who
participated in calibration.
  
The court agrees.

Although there is no per se rule regarding adequacy where a class
includes employees at different levels of an employment hierarchy
the concern about classes that involve both supervisors and
rank-and-file workers can be a valid one in some circumstances.
Courts have not only held that supervisors may not be appropriate
representatives of their subordinates but have also extended that
logic to prevent a subordinate from representing a supervisor.

In summary, after careful review, the court finds that the
Plaintiffs have failed to carry their burden of satisfying the Rule
23(a) prerequisites. First, the Plaintiffs have not demonstrated a
common question to be resolved on behalf of the putative class.
Additionally, the Plaintiffs have failed to establish that the
Plaintiffs' claims are typical of those of the class members or
that the Plaintiffs are adequate representatives of absent class
members.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 25, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y7peuf4k from Leagle.com.

Michelle Peterson, Special Master, pro se.

Katherine Moussouris, on behalf of herself and a class of those
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Adam T. Klein --
atk@outtengolden.com -- OUTTEN & GOLDEN, LLP, pro hac vice, Anne B.
Shaver -- ashaver@lchb.com -- LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN,
pro hac vice, Daniel Stromberg -- dstromberg@outtengolden.com --
OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP, pro hac vice, Kelly M. Dermody --
kdermody@lchb.com -- LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, pro hac
vice, Michael C. Danna, OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP, pro hac vice, Michael
Levin-Gesundheit, LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, pro hac vice,
Michelle Lamy, LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, pro hac vice,
Ossai Miazad, OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP, pro hac vice, Pamela Disney,
OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP, pro hac vice, Paul W. Mollica, OUTTEN & GOLDEN
LLP, pro hac vice, Rachel Bien, OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP, pro hac vice,
Rachel J. Geman, LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, pro hac vice,
Tiseme Zegeye, LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, pro hac vice,
Michael C. Subit, FRANK FREED SUBIT & THOMAS & Sharon M. Lee,
LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP.

Holly Muenchow & Dana Piermarini, Plaintiffs, represented by Adam
T. Klein, OUTTEN & GOLDEN, LLP, pro hac vice, Anne B. Shaver, LIEFF
CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, pro hac vice, Daniel Stromberg,
OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP, pro hac vice, Kelly M. Dermody, LIEFF CABRASER
HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, pro hac vice, Michael C. Danna, OUTTEN &
GOLDEN LLP, pro hac vice, Michelle Lamy, LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN &
BERNSTEIN, pro hac vice, Ossai Miazad, OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP, pro hac
vice, Pamela Disney, OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP, pro hac vice, Paul W.
Mollica, OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP, pro hac vice, Rachel Bien, OUTTEN &
GOLDEN LLP, pro hac vice, Rachel J. Geman, LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN &
BERNSTEIN, pro hac vice, Tiseme Zegeye, LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN &
BERNSTEIN, pro hac vice, Michael C. Subit, FRANK FREED SUBIT &
THOMAS & Sharon M. Lee, LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP.

Microsoft Corporation, Defendant, represented by Allison Riechert
Giese -- agiese@orrick.com -- ORRICK HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE, pro
hac vice, Jessica R. Perry -- jperry@orrick.com -- ORRICK
HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE, pro hac vice, Jill L. Rosenberg --
jrosenberg@orrick.com -- ORRICK HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE, pro hac
vice, Joseph Liburt -- jliburt@orrick.com -- ORRICK HERRINGTON &
SUTCLIFFE, pro hac vice, Kathryn Grzenczyk Mantoan --
kmantoan@orrick.com -- ORRICK,HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP, pro hac
vice, Lynne C. Hermle -- lchermle@orrick.com -- ORRICK HERRINGTON &
SUTCLIFFE, pro hac vice, Marc R. Shapiro -- mrshapiro@orrick.com --
ORRICK HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE, pro hac vice, Megan M. Lawson --
megan.lawson@orrick.com -- ORRICK HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE, pro hac
vice, Wendy Butler Curtis, ORRICK HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE, pro hac
vice & Mark Steven Parris -- mparris@orrick.com -- ORRICK
HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP.

MINNESOTA: 8th Cir. Affirms Ruling in Suit Over METO
----------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, affirmed the
judgment of the District Court retaining jurisdiction to enforce
the stipulated class action settlement agreement in the case
captioned James Jensen; Lorie Jensen, as parents, guardians and
next friends of Bradley J. Jensen and others similarly situated;
James Brinker; Darren Allen, as parents, guardians and next friends
of Thomas M. Allbrink and others similarly situated; Elizabeth
Jacobs, as parent, guardian and next friend of Jason R. Jacobs and
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Minnesota
Department of Human Services, an agency of the State of Minnesota,
Defendant-Appellant, Director, Minnesota Extended Treatment
Options, a program of the Minnesota Department of Human Services,
an agency of the State of Minnesota; Clinical Director, the
Minnesota Extended Treatment Options, a program of the Minnesota
Department of Human Services, an agency of the State of Minnesota;
Douglas Bratvold, individually, and as Director of the Minnesota
Extended Treatment Options, a program of the Minnesota Department
of Human Services, an agency of the State of Minnesota; Scott
TenNapel, individually, and as Clinical Director of the Minnesota
Extended Treatment Options, a program of the Minnesota Department
of Human Services, an agency of the State of Minnesota, Defendants,
State of Minnesota, Defendant-Appellant, No. 17-2653 (8th Cir.).

The Minnesota Department of Human Services (MDHS) appeals from a
post-judgment order of the district court concluding that the court
retained jurisdiction to enforce the stipulated class action
settlement agreement.

The Jensen class civilly committed individuals, their next friends,
and others similarly situated filed suit in federal district court
in Minnesota. Their claims were based on the abusive, inhumane,
cruel and improper use of seclusion and mechanical restraints
routinely imposed upon patients of the Minnesota Extended Treatment
Options program (METO).

MDHS for the first time raised an objection to the district court's
continuing jurisdiction. According to MDHS, the court's
jurisdiction had ceased as of December 4, 2014. The parties briefed
the issue, and, on June 28, 2017, the district court entered an
order concluding it retained jurisdiction.

The district court found that the jurisdictional provision in the
Agreement was ambiguous, but looked to extrinsic evidence to
conclude that the parties intended to grant the court jurisdiction
for as long as it deemed just and equitable.

Contractual Ambiguity

Under Minnesota law, a contract is ambiguous if the language used
is reasonably susceptible of more than one meaning.

The Jensen class bases its interpretation on the use of the words
receiving and resolving to link the two purposes for which the
district court had jurisdiction for the initial two-year period.

The subsequent portion of the sentence or as the Court deems just
and equitable in contrast, does not begin with a gerund and thus
cannot be one of the purposes subject to the two-year limit.  To
assert otherwise is to say that the court had jurisdiction for the
purpose of as the Court deems just and equitable, a nonsensical
grammatical construction. Had the parties intended the
interpretation that MDHS advocates, they would have used a third
gerund, such as acting before the phrase as the Court deems just
and equitable.

The Jensen class also asserts that given the complex nature of the
parties' obligations under the Agreement, inclusion of a specific
procedure for extending jurisdiction for one additional year, as
well as a fall-back clause for the court to retain jurisdiction as
it deems "just and equitable, was a logical choice.

Both parties' readings are reasonable but imperfect interpretations
of the jurisdictional provision. And as the district court stated,
neither party's interpretation makes complete grammatical sense. In
short, we agree with the district court that the jurisdictional
provision in the Agreement is reasonably susceptible to more than
one reading; it is ambiguous.

Extrinsic Evidence

Once a court concludes that a contract is ambiguous, construction
then becomes a question of fact unless extrinsic evidence is
conclusive as to the intent of the parties.

The attorney for the Jensen class who originally negotiated the
Agreement submitted a sworn affidavit. He stated that, at the time
of negotiation, he understood that the jurisdictional provision
allowed the district court to retain jurisdiction in the event of
non-compliance or delay on the part of MDHS. The recognize that
this evidence only serves to show the understanding of one party at
the time of contracting, but it supports the reasonable inference
drawn from the repeated conduct of the parties that all sides
understood the district court to have the authority to extend its
jurisdiction as it deemed just and equitable.

MDHS presents no alternative extrinsic evidence to support its
reading of the agreement. MDHS points only to the district court's
July 17, 2012, Order, arguing that there, the district court
adopted its interpretation. But a fair reading of the district
court's language in this order is that it was merely reciting the
language of the Agreement language that is only now in dispute. To
the extent this order is extrinsic evidence, it fails to support
MDHS's interpretation.

The Court concludes that, while the jurisdictional provision of the
Agreement is ambiguous on its face, the extrinsic evidence shows
that this provision permits the district court to extend its
jurisdiction as it deems just and equitable. The Court affirms.

A full-text copy of the Eighth Circuit's July 26, 2018 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y7nl3ve8 from Leagle.com.

Mark R. Azman, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Shamus Patrick O'Meara, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Scott Hiromi Ikeda, for Defendant-Appellant.

Scott Hiromi Ikeda, for Defendant.

Samuel Orbovich -- sorbovich@fredlaw.com -- for Defendant.

Christopher A. Stafford -- cstafford@fredlaw.com -- for Defendant.

Anthony R. Noss, for Defendant-Appellant.

Aaron Edward Winter, for Defendant-Appellant.


NORDSTROM INC: Miller Files Suit for Invasion of Privacy
--------------------------------------------------------
DANA MILLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. NORDSTROM INC., Case No. 0:18-cv-61796-FAM (S.D. Fla.,
August 2, 2018), alleges that the Defendant violated the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act by engaging in unsolicited telemarketing
directed towards prospective customers with no regard for their
privacy rights.

Nordstrom Inc. is a Washington Corporation with its principal
office located in Seattle, Washington.  The Defendant directs,
markets, and provides business activities throughout the state of
Florida.

The Defendant is an American-based chain of department stores.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NORTH CAROLINA HEALTH: Hawkins Class Cert. Bid Granted in Part
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled MARCIA ELENA QUINTEROS HAWKINS, ALICIA
FRANKLIN, VANESSA LACHOWSKI, AND KYANNA SHIPP, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
MANDY COHEN, in her official capacity as Secretary of the North
Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, the Defendant,
Case No. 5:17-CV-581-FL (E.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Louise W.
Flanagan entered an order on August 9, 2018:

   1. granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs' motion to
      certify classes of:

      Class One:

      "all individuals whose Medicaid coverage was or is based
      upon a nondisability category, and whose Medicaid coverage
      was, is, or will be interrupted or terminated, effective
      January 1, 2014 or later, by Defendant Secretary of the
      North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, or
      any of her employees, contractors, agents, or assigns,
      without first making an individualized determination of
      continued Medicaid eligibility under a disability-based
      category"; and

      Class Two:

      "all individuals whose Medicaid coverage was or is based
      upon a disability category, and whose Medicaid coverage
      was, is, or will be terminated or interrupted, effective
      January 1, 2016 or later, by Defendant Secretary of DHHS,
      or any of her employees, contractors, agents, or assigns,
      without first sending the beneficiary at least 10-day prior
      written notice of the termination of Medicaid that
      describes the specific reasons for the termination, the
      specific regulation supporting the termination, and the
      right to a pre-termination hearing"; and

   2. granting in part and denying in part Defendant's motion to
      dismiss, and Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction.

The Court said, "Within 30 days of the date of this order,
plaintiffs are directed to file a form of proposed notice and
method of notice to class members for Class One and Class Two. The
Defendant is directed to file a response thereto, within 15 days of
the filing of any proposed notice by plaintiffs. Because the
injunction determined by the court is not based upon specific
language requested by either party, and it implicates a variety of
administrative considerations, the details of which have not been
briefed by the parties, the court stays implementation of the
injunction for 60 days from the date of this order. During that
time, within 30 days of the date of this order, both parties may,
but are not required to, file an alternative proposal for
accomplishing the purpose of the injunctive 45 relief. Within 15
days of such submission(s), if any, a party may file a response
to the other party's proposal, if any. Thereupon the court will
make such further ruling as is warranted to implement or modify its
injunction order."


NRI USA: Seeks 9th Circuit Review of Decision in Garcia Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant NRI USA, LLC, filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit titled Alejandra Garcia v. NRI USA, LLC, Case No.
2:17-cv-08355-ODW-GJS, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, Los Angeles.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 19, 2018, the
District Court denied the Motion to Dismiss the State Law Claims in
the case.

The Plaintiff began working for the Defendants in a warehouse
facility in Los Angeles, California.  The Plaintiff filed a
complaint in Los Angeles Superior Court against NRI alleging
illegal payment policies and practices and seeking civil penalties
under California's Private Attorney General Act.

The Plaintiff asserts two bases for the District Court's
subject-matter jurisdiction.  First, the Plaintiff alleges that the
jurisdictional requirements of the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA)
are met because the proposed class numbers at least 100 persons,
the Plaintiff is a citizen of a state different than at least one
of the Defendants, and the amount in controversy exceeds
$5,000,000.  The Plaintiff also alleges that the District Court has
original federal-question jurisdiction over the Fair Labor
Standards Act claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1331 and
supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims.

The Defendants argue that the District Court does not have
jurisdiction of the state-law claims under CAFA, so the only
remaining basis for jurisdiction of the state-law claims is
supplemental jurisdiction.

The appellate case is captioned as Alejandra Garcia v. NRI USA,
LLC, Case No. 18-56052, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Appellant NRI USA, LLC's opening brief is due on October 1,
      2018;

   -- Appellee Alejandra Garcia's answering brief is due on
      November 1, 2018; and

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

Plaintiff-Appellee ALEJANDRA GARCIA, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Joshua D. Boxer, Esq.
          THE MILLS LAW FIRM
          880 Las Gallinas Avenue, Suite Two
          San Rafael, CA 94903
          Telephone: (415) 455-1326
          E-mail: jboxer@maternlawgroup.com

               - and -

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

Defendant-Appellant NRI USA, LLC, a California limited liability
company, is represented by:

          David G. Hagopian, Esq.
          Garrett Voorhees Jensen, Esq.
          Jeffrey L. Sikkema, Esq.
          CAROTHERS DISANTE & FREUDENBERGER LLP
          2600 Michelson Drive
          Irvine, CA 92612
          Telephone: (949) 622-1661
          E-mail: dhagopian@cdlitigation.com
                  gjensen@cdflaborlaw.com
                  jsikkema@cdflitigation.com


OCWEN FINANCIAL: Still Defends McWhorter Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Ocwen Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the company continues to
defend itself in a putative class action lawsuit entitled,
McWhorter et al. v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 2:15-cv-01831 (N.D.
Ala.).

In 2014, plaintiffs filed a putative class action against Ocwen in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Alabama, alleging that Ocwen violated the FDCPA by charging
borrowers a convenience fee for making certain loan payments. The
plaintiffs are seeking statutory damages under the FDCPA,
compensatory damages and injunctive relief.

The presiding court previously ruled on Ocwen's motions to dismiss,
and Ocwen answered the operative complaint. Ocwen subsequently
entered into an agreement in principle to resolve this matter, and
the presiding court is considering motions to approve the
settlement.

While Ocwen believes that it has sound legal and factual defenses,
Ocwen has agreed to this settlement in principle in order to avoid
the uncertain outcome of litigation and the additional expense and
demands on the time of its senior management that such litigation
would involve.

Ocwen Financial said, "There can be no assurance that the court
will finally approve the settlement. In the event the settlement is
not finally approved, the litigation would continue, and we would
vigorously defend the allegations made against Ocwen. Our accrual
with respect to this matter is included in the $54.3 million legal
and regulatory accrual referenced above. We cannot currently
estimate the amount, if any, of reasonably possible loss above the
amount accrued."

Ocwen Financial Corporation, a financial services holding company,
originates and services loans in the United States, the United
States Virgin Islands, India, and Philippines. Ocwen Financial
Corporation was founded in 1988 and is headquartered in West Palm
Beach, Florida.


OCWEN FINANCIAL: TCPA Class Action in Illinois Underway
-------------------------------------------------------
Ocwen Financial 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 consolidated TCPA
class action in the Northern District of Illinois is still
ongoing.

Ocwen has been named in putative class actions and individual
actions related to its compliance with the TCPA. Generally,
plaintiffs in these actions allege that Ocwen knowingly and
willfully violated the TCPA by using an automated telephone dialing
system to call class members' cell phones without their consent.

On July 28, 2017, Ocwen entered into an agreement in principle to
resolve two such putative class actions, which have been
consolidated in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois.

See Snyder v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 1:14-cv-08461-MFK (N.D.
Ill.); Beecroft v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 1:16-cv-08677-MFK
(N.D. Ill.).

Subject to final approval by the court, the settlement will include
the establishment of a settlement fund to be distributed to
impacted borrowers that submit claims for settlement benefits
pursuant to a claims administration process.

While Ocwen believes that it has sound legal and factual defenses,
Ocwen agreed to this settlement in principle in order to avoid the
uncertain outcome of litigation and the additional expense and
demands on the time of its senior management that such litigation
would involve.

Ocwen said "The court has preliminarily approved the settlement and
we have paid the settlement amount into an escrow account held by
the settlement administrator. However, there can be no assurance
that the court will finally approve the settlement. In the event
the settlement is not finally approved, the litigation would
continue, and we would vigorously defend the allegations made
against Ocwen. Additional lawsuits may be filed against us in
relation to these matters. At this time, Ocwen is unable to predict
the outcome of these existing lawsuits or any additional lawsuits
that may be filed, the possible loss or range of loss, if any,
associated with the resolution of such lawsuits or the potential
impact such lawsuits may have on us or our operations. Ocwen
intends to vigorously defend against these lawsuits. If our efforts
to defend these lawsuits are not successful, our business,
financial condition liquidity and results of operations could be
materially and adversely affected."

Ocwen Financial Corporation, a financial services holding company,
originates and services loans in the United States, the United
States Virgin Islands, India, and Philippines. Ocwen Financial
Corporation was founded in 1988 and is headquartered in West Palm
Beach, Florida.


ONONDAGA COUNTY, NY: Denial of Class Certification Reversed
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third
Department, reverses as denied the petitioner's motion for class
certification in the case captioned In the Matter of TRICIA
STEWART, Individually and as the Parent of ZAS et al., and on
Behalf of Similarly Situated Individuals, Respondent-Appellant, v.
SAMUEL D. ROBERTS, as Commissioner of the Office of Temporary and
Disability Assistance, Appellant-Respondent, et al., Respondent,
525064 (N.Y. App. Div.).

In May 2015, the Onondaga County Department of Social Services
denied the petitioner's application for public assistance on the
basis that she had resources in excess of the permitted limit of
$2,000. At the time of her application, petitioner had bank
accounts with a total balance of $248 and owned an automobile with
a fair market value of $12,113. As relevant here, an automobile is
exempt, by statute, from consideration as an available resource, up
to a FMV of $9,300. DSS determined that $2,813 -- the amount by
which the FMV of petitioner's automobile exceeded the $9,300
exemption amount -- was an available resource, and, therefore, that
the petitioner had available resources totaling $3,061. The
Petitioner appealed to the Office of Temporary and Disability
Assistance for a fair hearing, which was held in July 2015. The
Petitioner submitted proof showing that she had financed her
purchase of the automobile, in part, with a loan that was secured
by a lien on the automobile on which the outstanding principal
balance was $13,301, and argued that her automobile should not be
considered an available resource because the outstanding loan
balance exceeded the FMV by $1,188. The Administrative Law Judge
affirmed DSS's denial of benefits.

In November 2015, petitioner commenced this combined CPLR article
78 proceeding and action for declaratory judgment seeking class
certification and to annul OTDA's fair hearing determination and
directing DSS to award her benefits.  After answering, respondent
Commissioner of OTDA moved for summary judgment dismissing the
petition/complaint. The Petitioner cross-moved for summary judgment
on all of her claims for relief and separately moved for class
certification. Upon determining that OTDA's policy regarding
automobile valuation for purposes of determining available
resources violates applicable law, the Supreme Court partially
granted the petitioner's cross motion by annulling OTDA's
determination, and it remitted the matter to OTDA for calculation
of the amount of retroactive benefits due the petitioner. In
addition, the court denied the petitioner's motion for class
certification and the respondent's motion for summary judgment. The
respondent appeals, and the petitioner cross-appeals the denial of
her motion for class certification.

The Court holds that public assistance must be provided only to
individuals who are in need a determination that the statute
provides is based on the extent of their available income or
resources which are not required to be disregarded by other
provisions of this chapter.

The first step in determining the extent to which an applicant's
automobile is an available resource is to determine the extent of
the available exemption based on the FMV of the automobile. If the
automobile has a FMV of less than the amount specified by statute,
the inquiry ends; in such cases, the automobile is exempt
regardless of whether it is encumbered by a loan.

However, where, as here, the FMV of the vehicle exceeds the
specified maximum exemption, a second determination must be made
regarding the extent to which the excess FMV constitutes an
available resource. In that regard, it is instructive that the
amount of real and personal property, including liquid assets, that
can be reserved for each public assistance household must not be in
excess of $2,000 equity value. Only the net amount that could be
received upon the sale of an asset that is encumbered by an
outstanding loan balance, i.e., the FMV less the outstanding loan
balance, could be available to eliminate or reduce an applicant's
need for public assistance.

The arbitrary nature of OTDA's contrary position is aptly
illustrated in this case, where the sale of the vehicle would not
have generated any resources that petitioner could have used to
meet her own support needs. Indeed, based on the automobile's FMV,
she would not have received enough upon its sale to pay the entire
outstanding loan balance. For these reasons, the Court concludes
that Supreme Court properly held that the extent to which the FMV
of an automobile that exceeds the exempt amount is an available
resource must be determined based on the applicant's equity
interest therein, and that OTDA's contrary interpretation was
irrational and unreasonable.

Accordingly, the Court orders that the judgment is modified, on the
law, without costs, by reversing so much thereof as denied the
petitioner's motion for class certification; matter remitted to the
Supreme Court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this
Court's decision; and, as so modified, affirmed.

A full-text copy of the N.Y. App. Div.'s June 21, 2018 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ya6x4gfw from Leagle.com.
Barbara D. Underwood , Attorney General, Albany ( Laura Etlinger of
counsel), for appellant-respondent.
Susan C. Antos  - santos@empirejustice.org -- Empire Justice
Center, Albany, and Julie B. Morse , Legal Services of Central New
York, Syracuse, 472 South Salina Street. Suite, 300 Syracuse, NY
13202,  for respondent-appellant.

PAPA JOHN'S: Burnham Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
Austin Burnham, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons v. Papa John's Paducah, LLC, and Robert Workman, Case No.
5:18-cv-00112 (W.D. Ky., July 20, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid
minimum and overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff worked as a delivery driver for the Defendants.

The Defendants operate numerous Papa John's Pizza franchise stores
in Kentucky. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David O'Brien Suetholz, Esq.
      BRANSTETTER, STRANCH
      & JENNINGS, PLLC
      515 Park Avenue
      Louisville, KY 40208
      Tel: (502) 636-4333
      E-mail: davids@bsjfirm.com


PHILIP MORRIS: 11 Smoking & Health Class Suits as of July 24
------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International 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 as of July 24, 2018,
there were a number of smoking and health cases pending against the
company, its subsidiaries or indemnitees, as follows:

     * 65 cases brought by individual plaintiffs in Argentina (35),
Brazil (10), Canada (4), Chile (7), Costa Rica (1), Italy (3), the
Philippines (1), Poland (2), Turkey (1) and Scotland (1), compared
with 68 such cases on July 25, 2017, and 65 cases on July 22, 2016;
and

     * 11 cases brought on behalf of classes of individual
plaintiffs in Brazil (2) and Canada (9), compared with 11 such
cases on July 25, 2017 and 11 such cases on July 22, 2016.

These cases primarily allege personal injury and are brought by
individual plaintiffs or on behalf of a class or purported class of
individual plaintiffs. Plaintiffs' allegations of liability in
these cases are based on various theories of recovery, including
negligence, gross negligence, strict liability, fraud,
misrepresentation, design defect, failure to warn, breach of
express and implied warranties, violations of deceptive trade
practice laws and consumer protection statutes.

Plaintiffs in these cases seek various forms of relief, including
compensatory and other damages, and injunctive and equitable
relief.

Defenses raised in these cases include licit activity, failure to
state a claim, lack of defect, lack of proximate cause, assumption
of the risk, contributory negligence, and statute of limitations.

Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells cigarettes, other tobacco products, and
other nicotine-containing products. Philip Morris International
Inc. was incorporated in 1987 and is headquartered in New York, New
York.


PHILIP MORRIS: Affiliate Continues to Defend Ringer Suit in Israel
------------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International 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
affiliate in Israel continues to defend a purported class action
suit entitled Aharon Ringer v. Philip Morris Ltd. and Globrands
Ltd.

An individual plaintiff filed the purported class action, Aharon
Ringer v. Philip Morris Ltd. and Globrands Ltd., on July 18, 2017,
in the Central District Court of Israel.

Philip Morris said "Our Israeli affiliate and an Israeli importer
and distributor for other multinational tobacco companies are
defendants."

Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of smokers in Israel who have
purchased cigarettes imported by defendants since July 18, 2010.
Plaintiff estimates the class size to be 7,000,000 smokers.
Plaintiff alleges that defendants misled consumers by not
disclosing sufficient information about carbon monoxide, tar, and
nicotine yields of, and tobacco contained in, the imported
cigarettes.

Plaintiff seeks various forms of relief, including an order for
defendants to label cigarette packs in accordance with plaintiff's
demands, and damages for misleading consumers, breach of autonomy
and unjust enrichment.

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

Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells cigarettes, other tobacco products, and
other nicotine-containing products. Philip Morris International
Inc. was incorporated in 1987 and is headquartered in New York, New
York.


PHILIP MORRIS: Appeals in Smoker Health Defense Suit Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International 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 en banc appeal
by the plaintiff to Brazil's Supreme Court of Justice and the
defendants' constitutional appeal to the Federal Supreme Tribunal
on the basis that plaintiff did not have standing to bring the
lawsuit are still pending.

Philip Morris said, "The Smoker Health Defense Association (ADESF)
v. Souza Cruz, S.A. and Philip Morris Marketing, S.A., Nineteenth
Lower Civil Court of the Central Courts of the Judiciary District
of Sao Paulo, Brazil, filed July 25, 1995, our subsidiary and
another member of the industry are defendants."

The plaintiff, a consumer organization, is seeking damages for all
addicted smokers and former smokers, and injunctive relief. In
2004, the trial court found defendants liable without hearing
evidence and awarded "moral damages" of R$1,000 (approximately
$265) per smoker per full year of smoking plus interest at the rate
of 1% per month, as of the date of the ruling. The court did not
award actual damages, which were to be assessed in the second phase
of the case. The size of the class was not estimated.

Defendants appealed to the Sao Paulo Court of Appeals, which
annulled the ruling in November 2008, finding that the trial court
had inappropriately ruled without hearing evidence and returned the
case to the trial court for further proceedings. In May 2011, the
trial court dismissed the claim. In February 2015, the appellate
court unanimously dismissed plaintiff's appeal.

In September 2015, plaintiff appealed to the Superior Court of
Justice. In February 2017, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
of Justice denied plaintiff's appeal. In March 2017, plaintiff
filed an en banc appeal to the Supreme Court of Justice. In
addition, the defendants filed a constitutional appeal to the
Federal Supreme Tribunal on the basis that plaintiff did not have
standing to bring the lawsuit. Both appeals are still pending.

Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells cigarettes, other tobacco products, and
other nicotine-containing products. Philip Morris International
Inc. was incorporated in 1987 and is headquartered in New York, New
York.


PHILIP MORRIS: Continues to Defend "Bourassa" Class Suit in Canada
------------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International 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,
together with its subsidiaries and indemnities, continues to defend
a class action suit in Canada entitled, Bourassa v. Imperial
Tobacco Canada Limited, et al.

In a class action pending in Canada, Bourassa v. Imperial Tobacco
Canada Limited, et al., Supreme Court, British Columbia, Canada,
filed June 25, 2010, the company, its subsidiaries, and its
indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the industry
are defendants. The plaintiff, the heir to a deceased smoker,
alleges that the decedent was addicted to tobacco products and
suffered from emphysema resulting from the use of tobacco
products.

She is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a
proposed class comprised of all smokers who were alive on June 12,
2007, and who suffered from chronic respiratory diseases allegedly
caused by smoking, their estates, dependents and family members,
plus disgorgement of revenues earned by the defendants from January
1, 1954, to the date the claim was filed. In December 2014,
plaintiff filed an amended statement of claim.

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

Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells cigarettes, other tobacco products, and
other nicotine-containing products. Philip Morris International
Inc. was incorporated in 1987 and is headquartered in New York, New
York.


PHILIP MORRIS: No Actions Taken in "Jacklin" Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International 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 Jacklin's counsel
has indicated that he does not intend to take any action in this
case in the near future.

In a class action pending in Canada, Suzanne Jacklin v. Canadian
Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., Ontario Superior Court of
Justice, filed June 20, 2012, the company, its subsidiaries, and
its indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the
industry are defendants.

The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges her own addiction to
tobacco products and COPD resulting from the use of tobacco
products. She is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on
behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers who have smoked
a minimum of 25,000 cigarettes and have allegedly suffered, or
suffer, from COPD, heart disease, or cancer, as well as restitution
of profits.

Plaintiff's counsel has indicated that he does not intend to take
any action in this case in the near future.

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

Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells cigarettes, other tobacco products, and
other nicotine-containing products. Philip Morris International
Inc. was incorporated in 1987 and is headquartered in New York, New
York.


PHILIP MORRIS: Preliminary Motions in Adams Suit Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International 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 preliminary motions
in Adams v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., are
pending.

In a class action pending in Canada, Adams v. Canadian Tobacco
Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Queen's Bench, Saskatchewan,
Canada, filed July 10, 2009, the company, its subsidiaries, and its
indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the industry
are defendants.

The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges her own addiction to
tobacco products and COPD resulting from the use of tobacco
products. She is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on
behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers who have smoked
a minimum of 25,000 cigarettes and have allegedly suffered, or
suffer, from COPD, emphysema, heart disease, or cancer, as well as
restitution of profits. Preliminary motions are pending.

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

Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells cigarettes, other tobacco products, and
other nicotine-containing products. Philip Morris International
Inc. was incorporated in 1987 and is headquartered in New York, New
York.


PHILIP MORRIS: Unit Continues to Defend Blais Suit in Canada
------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International 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
subsidiary continues to defend a class action suit in Canada
entitled, Conseil Quebecois Sur Le Tabac Et La Sante and Jean-Yves
Blais v. Imperial Tobacco Ltd., Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. and
JTI Macdonald Corp.

In a class action pending in Canada, Conseil Quebecois Sur Le Tabac
Et La Sante and Jean-Yves Blais v. Imperial Tobacco Ltd., Rothmans,
Benson & Hedges Inc. and JTI Macdonald Corp., Quebec Superior
Court, Canada, filed in November 1998, the company's subsidiary and
other Canadian manufacturers (Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. and
JTI-MacDonald Corp.) are defendants.

The plaintiffs, an anti-smoking organization and an individual
smoker, sought compensatory and punitive damages for each member of
the class who allegedly suffers from certain smoking-related
diseases. The class was certified in 2005. Trial began in March
2012 and concluded in December 2014. The trial court issued its
judgment on May 27, 2015. The trial court found the company's
subsidiary and two other Canadian manufacturers liable and found
that the class members' compensatory damages totaled approximately
CAD 15.5 billion, including pre-judgment interest (approximately
$11.8 billion).

The trial court awarded compensatory damages on a joint and several
liability basis, allocating 20% to the company's subsidiary
(approximately CAD 3.1 billion, including pre-judgment interest
(approximately $2.36 billion)). In addition, the trial court
awarded CAD 90,000 (approximately $68,400) in punitive damages,
allocating CAD 30,000 (approximately $22,400) to the company's
subsidiary and found that defendants violated the Civil Code of
Quebec, the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, and the
Quebec Consumer Protection Act by failing to warn adequately of the
dangers of smoking.

The trial court also found that defendants conspired to prevent
consumers from learning the dangers of smoking. The trial court
further held that these civil faults were a cause of the class
members' diseases. The trial court rejected other grounds of fault
advanced by the class, holding that: (i) the evidence was
insufficient to show that defendants marketed to youth, (ii)
defendants' advertising did not convey false information about the
characteristics of cigarettes, and (iii) defendants did not commit
a fault by using the descriptors light or mild for cigarettes with
a lower tar delivery. The trial court estimated the disease class
at 99,957 members.

The trial court ordered defendants to pay CAD 1 billion
(approximately $760 million) of the compensatory damage award into
a trust within 60 days, CAD 200 million (approximately $152
million) of which is the company's subsidiary’s portion and
ordered briefing on a proposed claims process for the distribution
of damages to individual class members and for payment of
attorneys' fees and legal costs.

In June 2015, the company's subsidiary commenced the appellate
process by filing its inscription of appeal of the trial court's
judgment with the Court of Appeal of Quebec. The company's
subsidiary also filed a motion to cancel the trial court's order
for payment into a trust within 60 days notwithstanding appeal. In
July 2015, the Court of Appeal granted the motion to cancel and
overturned the trial court's ruling that our subsidiary make an
initial payment within 60 days.

In August 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion with the Court of Appeal
seeking an order that defendants place irrevocable letters of
credit totaling CAD 5 billion (approximately $3.8 billion) into
trust, to secure the judgments in both the Letourneau and Blais
cases. Plaintiffs subsequently withdrew their motion for security
against JTI-MacDonald Corp. and proceeded only against the
company's subsidiary and Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd.

In October 2015, the Court of Appeal granted the motion and ordered
the company's subsidiary to furnish security totaling CAD 226
million (approximately $172 million) to cover both the Letourneau
and Blais cases. Such security may take the form of cash into a
court trust or letters of credit, in six equal consecutive
quarterly installments of approximately CAD 37.6 million
(approximately $28.6 million) beginning in December 2015 through
March 2017. The Court of Appeal ordered Imperial Tobacco Canada
Ltd. to furnish security totaling CAD 758 million (approximately
$576 million) in seven equal consecutive quarterly installments of
approximately CAD 108 million (approximately $82.1 million)
beginning in December 2015 through June 2017.

In March 2017, the company's subsidiary made its sixth and final
quarterly installment of security for approximately CAD 37.6
million (approximately $28.6 million) into a court trust. This
payment is included in other assets on the condensed consolidated
balance sheets and in cash used in operating activities in the
condensed consolidated statements of cash flows.

The Court of Appeal ordered that the security is payable upon a
final judgment of the Court of Appeal affirming the trial court's
judgment or upon further order of the Court of Appeal. The Court of
Appeal heard oral arguments on the merits appeal in November 2016.


The company's subsidiary and PMI believe that the findings of
liability and damages were incorrect and should ultimately be set
aside on any one of many grounds, including the following: (i)
holding that defendants violated Quebec law by failing to warn
class members of the risks of smoking even after the court found
that class members knew, or should have known, of the risks, (ii)
finding that plaintiffs were not required to prove that defendants'
alleged misconduct caused injury to each class member in direct
contravention of binding precedent, (iii) creating a factual
presumption, without any evidence from class members or otherwise,
that defendants' alleged misconduct caused all smoking by all class
members, (iv) relying on epidemiological evidence that did not meet
recognized scientific standards, and (v) awarding punitive damages
to punish defendants without proper consideration as to whether
punitive damages were necessary to deter future misconduct.

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

Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells cigarettes, other tobacco products, and
other nicotine-containing products. Philip Morris International
Inc. was incorporated in 1987 and is headquartered in New York, New
York.


PHILIP MORRIS: Unit Still Defends Brazil Public Prosecutor's Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International 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
subsidiary continues to defend itself in a class action suit
initiated by the Public Prosecutor of Sao Paulo, Brazil.

In a class action pending in Brazil, Public Prosecutor of Sao Paulo
v. Philip Morris Brasil Industria e Comercio Ltda., Civil Court of
the City of Sao Paulo, Brazil, filed August 6, 2007, the company's
subsidiary is a defendant.

The plaintiff, the Public Prosecutor of the State of Sao Paulo, is
seeking (i) damages on behalf of all smokers nationwide, former
smokers, and their relatives; (ii) damages on behalf of people
exposed to environmental tobacco smoke nationwide, and their
relatives; and (iii) reimbursement of the health care costs
allegedly incurred for the treatment of tobacco-related diseases by
all Brazilian States and Municipalities, and the Federal District.

In an interim ruling issued in December 2007, the trial court
limited the scope of this claim to the State of Sao Paulo only. In
December 2008, the Seventh Civil Court of Sao Paulo issued a
decision declaring that it lacked jurisdiction because the case
involved issues similar to the ADESF case discussed above and
should be transferred to the Nineteenth Lower Civil Court in Sao
Paulo where the ADESF case is pending. The court further stated
that these cases should be consolidated for the purposes of
judgment.

In April 2010, the Sao Paulo Court of Appeals reversed the Seventh
Civil Court's decision that consolidated the cases, finding that
they are based on different legal claims and are progressing at
different stages of proceedings. This case was returned to the
Seventh Civil Court of Sao Paulo, and our subsidiary filed its
closing arguments in December 2010. In March 2012, the trial court
dismissed the case on the merits.

In January 2014, the Sao Paulo Court of Appeals rejected
plaintiff's appeal and affirmed the trial court decision. In July
2014, plaintiff appealed to the Superior Court of Justice.

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

Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells cigarettes, other tobacco products, and
other nicotine-containing products. Philip Morris International
Inc. was incorporated in 1987 and is headquartered in New York, New
York.


PHILIP MORRIS: Unit Still Defends Letourneau Suit in Canada
-----------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International 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
subsidiary in Canada continues to defend a class action suit
entitled, Cecilia Létourneau v. Imperial Tobacco Ltd., Rothmans,
Benson & Hedges Inc. and JTI Macdonald Corp.

In a class action pending in Canada, Cecilia Létourneau v.
Imperial Tobacco Ltd., Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. and JTI
Macdonald Corp., Quebec Superior Court, Canada, filed in September
1998, the company's subsidiary and other Canadian manufacturers
(Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. and JTI-MacDonald Corp.) are
defendants.

The plaintiff, an individual smoker, sought compensatory and
punitive damages for each member of the class who is deemed
addicted to smoking. The class was certified in 2005. Trial began
in March 2012 and concluded in December 2014. The trial court
issued its judgment on May 27, 2015. The trial court found that the
company's subsidiary and two other Canadian manufacturers liable
and awarded a total of CAD 131 million (approximately $100 million)
in punitive damages, allocating CAD 46 million (approximately $35
million) to the company's subsidiary.

The trial court found that defendants violated the Civil Code of
Quebec, the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, and the
Quebec Consumer Protection Act by failing to warn adequately of the
dangers of smoking. The trial court also found that defendants
conspired to prevent consumers from learning the dangers of
smoking.

The trial court further held that these civil faults were a cause
of the class members' addiction. The trial court rejected other
grounds of fault advanced by the class, holding that: (i) the
evidence was insufficient to show that defendants marketed to
youth, (ii) defendants' advertising did not convey false
information about the characteristics of cigarettes, and (iii)
defendants did not commit a fault by using the descriptors light or
mild for cigarettes with a lower tar delivery.

The trial court estimated the size of the addiction class at
918,000 members but declined to award compensatory damages to the
addiction class because the evidence did not establish the claims
with sufficient accuracy. The trial court ordered defendants to pay
the full punitive damage award into a trust within 60 days and
found that a claims process to allocate the awarded damages to
individual class members would be too expensive and difficult to
administer. The trial court ordered a briefing on the proposed
process for the distribution of sums remaining from the punitive
damage award after payment of attorneys' fees and legal costs.

In June 2015, the company's subsidiary commenced the appellate
process by filing its inscription of appeal of the trial court's
judgment with the Court of Appeal of Quebec. The company's
subsidiary also filed a motion to cancel the trial court's order
for payment into a trust within 60 days notwithstanding appeal. In
July 2015, the Court of Appeal granted the motion to cancel and
overturned the trial court's ruling that the company's subsidiary
make the payment into a trust within 60 days.

In August 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion with the Court of Appeal
seeking security in both the Létourneau case and the Blais case.
In October 2015, the Court of Appeal granted the motion and ordered
the company's subsidiary to furnish security totaling CAD 226
million (approximately $172 million), in the form of cash into a
court trust or letters of credit, in six equal consecutive
quarterly installments of approximately CAD 37.6 million
(approximately $28.6 million) beginning in December 2015 through
March 2017.

The Court of Appeal heard oral arguments on the merits appeal in
November 2016. The company's  subsidiary and PMI believe that the
findings of liability and damages were incorrect and should
ultimately be set aside on any one of many grounds, including the
following: (i) holding that defendants violated Quebec law by
failing to warn class members of the risks of smoking even after
the court found that class members knew, or should have known, of
the risks, (ii) finding that plaintiffs were not required to prove
that defendants' alleged misconduct caused injury to each class
member in direct contravention of binding precedent, (iii) creating
a factual presumption, without any evidence from class members or
otherwise, that defendants’ alleged misconduct caused all smoking
by all class members, (iv) holding that the addiction class
members' claims for punitive damages were not time-barred even
though the case was filed more than three years after a prominent
addiction warning appeared on all packages, and (v) awarding
punitive damages to punish defendants without proper consideration
as to whether punitive damages were necessary to deter future
misconduct.

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

Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells cigarettes, other tobacco products, and
other nicotine-containing products. Philip Morris International
Inc. was incorporated in 1987 and is headquartered in New York, New
York.


PLAZA SERVICES: Faces Forbes Suit in Eastern District of Virginia
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Plaza Services, LLC.
The case is captioned Tiffany Forbes individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Plaza Services,
LLC and John Does 1-25, the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-00531-REP
(E.D. Va., Aug. 6, 2018).  The case is assigned to the Hon.
District Judge Robert E. Payne.

Plaza Services is doing business in asset management industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aryeh Eliezer Stein, Esq.
          MERIDIAN LAW, LLC
          600 Reisterstown Road, Suite 700
          Baltimore, MD 21208
          Telephone: (443) 326 6011
          Facsimile: (410) 653 1061
          E-mail: astein@meridianlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Yaakov Saks, Esq.
          RC Law Group, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282 6500
          Facsimile: (201) 282 6501
          E-mail: ysaks@rclawgroup.com


POLAR TECH: Cameron Sues over Collection of Biometric Data
----------------------------------------------------------
BRENT CAMERON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. POLAR TECH INDUSTRIES, INC., and ADP,
LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 2018CH10001 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty.
Aug. 7, 2018), seeks to redress and curtail Defendants' unlawful
collection, use, storage, and disclosure of Plaintiff's sensitive
biometric data.

According to the complaint, the Defendant Polar Tech is a
manufacturer, supplier, and producer of insulated packaging options
for protecting temperature sensitive items during the shipment
process. Polar Tech is located in Genoa, Illinois.  When Polar Tech
hires an employee, he or she is enrolled in its ADP employee
database. Defendants use the employee database to monitor the time
worked by each of Polar Tech's hourly employees.

While many employers use conventional methods for tracking time
worked (such as ID badge swipes or punch clocks), Polar Tech's
employees are required to have their fingerprints scanned by a
biometric timekeeping device. Biometrics are not relegated to
esoteric corners of commerce.  Many businesses -- as Defendants' --
and financial institutions have incorporated biometric applications
into their workplace in the form of biometric timeclocks, and into
consumer products, including such ubiquitous consumer products as
checking accounts and cell phones.

Unlike ID badges or time cards -- which can be changed or replaced
if stolen or compromised -- fingerprints are unique, permanent
biometric identifiers associated with each employee.  This exposes
Polar Tech employees to serious and irreversible privacy risks. For
example, if a database containing fingerprints or other sensitive,
proprietary biometric data is hacked, breached, or otherwise
exposed -- like in the recent Yahoo, eBay, Equifax, Uber, Home
Depot, MyFitnessPal, Panera, Whole Foods, Chipotle, Omni Hotels &
Resorts, Trump Hotels, and Facebook/Cambridge Analytica data
breaches or misuses -- employees have no means by which to prevent
identity theft, unauthorized tracking or other unlawful or improper
use of this highly personal and private information. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Summary Judgment OK'd in FDCPA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RUFINO D. GARCIA, Plaintiff, v. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY
ASSOCIATES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:15-cv-3685 (NLH/JS) (D.
N.J.), Judge Noel L. Hillman of the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey granted the Defendant's Motion for Summary
Judgment.

The case is a Fair Debt Collections Practices Act ("FDCPA") case
brought under the theory that the Defendant filed a state court
collection lawsuit against Garcia without any intent to prove its
claims.  The Defendant contends the Plaintiff defaulted on a
Citibank, N.A./Sears credit card account, which had a balance of
$6,139.75 at the time of default.  The Plaintiff denies that he
defaulted on the account and that there was any balance on the
account.

The Defendant purchased a portfolio of Citibank, N.A./Sears credit
card accounts, which it contends included the Plaintiff's account.
It contends the Plaintiff's account was assigned to one of its
staff counsel, Thomas Murtha, for review.  The Defendant contends
Murtha determined the Plaintiff's account was suitable for
collection action.  A complaint was filed in the New Jersey
Superior Court, Law Division on June 3, 2014.

After the filing of the state court complaint, the Plaintiff
retained an attorney and filed an answer.  In connection with that
action, the Defendant produced monthly statements from Citibank,
load data, and the affidavit of assignment and sale.  It contends
this information was sufficient to obtain a judgment under New
Jersey law.

The state court trial was originally scheduled for Sept. 8, 2014.
The Plaintiff's lawyer thereafter requested a continuance, causing
the trial to be rescheduled for Oct. 6, 2014.  The Defendant
contends Murtha had another trial scheduled in a different
courthouse on Oct. 6, 2014, which the Plaintiff denies.
Accordingly, it contends Murtha hired a contract attorney from
"Attorneys on Demand" to appear on the trial date and seek a
further continuance.  The Plaintiff denies this contention, arguing
that the Defendant cannot name or identify the contract attorney
hired.

On Oct. 6, 2014, no lawyer or representative for the Defendant
appeared.  The state court action was thereafter dismissed without
prejudice.  According to the Plaintiff, the state court judge
remarked to them that Portfolio hardly ever showed up for trial
dates.  The Defendant contends that, because of the contract
attorney's error, Murtha exercised his discretion and chose not to
re-file the case.

On June 2, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a purported class action,
alleging a violation of the FDCPA.  His Complaint pleads the
Defendant violated the following provisions of the FDCPA: (i) 15
U.S.C. Section 1692e by using false, deceptive, or misleading
representation or means in connection with the collection of
alleged debts; (iii) 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e(5) by threatening to
take action that is not intended to be taken; (iii) 15 U.S.C.
Section 1692e(10) by using false representations or deceptive means
to collect or attempt to collect alleged debts; and (iv) 15 U.S.C.
Section 1692f by using unfair or unconscionable means in connection
with the collection of alleged debts.

In an Aug. 9, 2017 Opinion and Order, the Court denied the
Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification.  Accordingly, all that
remains before the Court are the Plaintiff's individual claims
under the FDCPA.  The Defendant filed its Motion for Summary
Judgment on Oct. 31, 2017.

Preliminarily, Judge Hillman finds the statute on its face confined
to a "threat" of action, not the action itself.  Moreover, he does
not find it reasonable to assume that the filing of a complaint to
collect a debt is tantamount to showing an intention (or threat) to
litigate that claim on the merits.  He also finds similarly that
the filing of a state court collection action, even without the
intention of eventually proving the merits of the action at trial,
does not constitute a "false representation or deceptive means" to
collect the debt, largely for the same reasons he finds no
violation of Section 1692e(5) or (10).

The Judge further finds that the Plaintiff's claim under 15 U.S.C.
Section 1692f must fail as well.  The Plaintiff does not indicate a
particular subsection that was allegedly violated.  Although the
Third Circuit has not yet explicitly addressed the issue, courts in
the circuit have held that conduct that is a violation of another
section of the FDCPA cannot be the basis for a separate claim under
Section 1692f.  Because the conduct that the Plaintiff alleges fits
within another provision of the FDCPA, his Section 1692f claim,
fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Finally, because the list of subsections is non-exhaustive, a debt
collection practice can be a false, deceptive, or misleading
practice in violation of section 1692e even if it does not fall
within any of the subsections.  The Judge does not find the
Defendant's conduct otherwise constitutes a false deceptive or
misleading practice.

Judge Hillman concludes that the Plaintiff has failed to show a
violation of the FDCPA.  He granted the Defendant's Motion for
Summary Judgment.  An appropriate Order will be entered.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 29, 2018 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/e1bh9U from Leagle.com.

RUFINO D. GARCIA, on behalf of himself and those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by CHRISTOPHER MARKOS --
cmarkos@wcblegal.com -- WILLIAMS CUKER BEREZOFSKY & PETER
COLONNA-ROMANO, BEREZOFSKY LAW GROUP, LLC.

PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC, Defendant, represented by
AMANDA LYN GENOVESE -- amanda.genovese@troutmansanders.com --
TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP.


PORTLAND GENERAL: Appeal in Trojan Class Action Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Portland General Electric Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2018,
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the Court of
Appeals for the State of Oregon has yet to issue a decision on
plaintiffs' appeal related to customer class action lawsuits.

In 1993, PGE closed the Trojan nuclear power plant (Trojan) and
sought full recovery of, and a rate of return on, its Trojan costs
in a general rate case filing with the Public Utility Commission of
Oregon.  In 1995, the OPUC issued a general rate order that granted
the Company recovery of, and a rate of return on, 87% of its
remaining investment in Trojan.

Numerous challenges and appeals were subsequently filed in various
state courts on the issue of the OPUC's authority under Oregon law
to grant recovery of, and a return on, the Trojan investment. In
2007, following several appeals by various parties, the Oregon
Court of Appeals issued an opinion that remanded the matter to the
OPUC for reconsideration.

In 2003, in two separate legal proceedings, lawsuits were filed
against PGE on behalf of two classes of electric service customers:
i) Dreyer, Gearhart and Kafoury Bros., LLC v. Portland General
Electric Company, Marion County Circuit Court; and ii) Morgan v.
Portland General Electric Company, Marion County Circuit Court. The
class action lawsuits seek damages totaling $260 million, plus
interest, as a result of the Company's inclusion, in prices charged
to customers, of a return on its investment in Trojan.

In August 2006, the Oregon Supreme Court (OSC) issued a ruling
ordering the abatement of the class action proceedings. The OSC
concluded that the OPUC had primary jurisdiction to determine what,
if any, remedy could be offered to PGE customers, through price
reductions or refunds, for any amount of return on the Trojan
investment that the Company collected in prices.

In 2008, the OPUC issued an order (2008 Order) that required PGE to
provide refunds of $33 million, including interest, which refunds
were completed in 2010. Following appeals, the 2008 Order was
upheld by the Oregon Court of Appeals in 2013 and by the OSC in
2014.

In June 2015, based on a motion filed by PGE, the Marion County
Circuit Court (Circuit Court) lifted the abatement and in July
2015, heard oral argument on the Company's motion for Summary
Judgment. In March 2016, the Circuit Court entered a general
judgment that granted the Company's motion for Summary Judgment and
dismissed all claims by the plaintiffs. In April 2016, the
plaintiffs appealed the Circuit Court dismissal to the Court of
Appeals for the State of Oregon. A Court of Appeals decision
remains pending.

PGE believes that the 2014 OSC decision and the Circuit Court
decisions that followed have reduced the risk of any loss to the
Company beyond the amounts previously recorded and discussed above.
However, because the class actions remain subject to a decision in
the appeal, management believes that it is reasonably possible that
such a loss to the Company could result. As these matters involve
unsettled legal theories and have a broad range of potential
outcomes, sufficient information is currently not available to
determine the amount of any such loss.

Portland General Electric Company, an integrated electric utility
company, engages in the generation, wholesale purchase,
transmission, distribution, and retail sale of electricity in the
state of Oregon. The company was founded in 1930 and is
headquartered in Portland, Oregon.


PROFESSIONAL MEDICAL: Sanders Settlement Class Okayed
-----------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned LINDA SANDERS, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. PROFESSIONAL
MEDICAL MANAGEMENT, INC. d/b/a FINANCIAL RECOVERIES; and JOHN DOES
1-25, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-05634-M (D.N.J.), the Hon.
Judge Mark Falk entered an order on August 8, 2018, certifying a
Class solely for settlement purposes:

   "(a) all natural persons in New Jersey (b) who were sent a
   document to the Complaint which Plaintiff purports violated
   the fair Debt Collection Practices Act on or after July 25,
   2015 and through July 25, 2016. The Class described above
   includes approximately 1,093 persons."

The Court approves the proposed form of notice to the class
members, to be directed to the last known address of the class
members as shown on Defendant's records. Defendants shall cause the
administrator to mail notice to class members on or before, Dec. 5,
2018 (within 30 days after entry of the Preliminary Approval
Order). The administrator will have the notice sent by any form of
bulk mail that provides address forwarding mail to each address. It
will re-mail any notice that is returned with a forwarding address
within five business days. The Court finds that mailing of the
class notice and the other measures specified above to locate and
notify members of the class is the only notice required and that
such notice satisfies the requirements of due process and FED. R.
CIV. P. 23(c)(2)(B). Class members shall have 45 days from the
mailing of class notices to request exclusion or object to the
proposed settlement. If notice is mailed on Sept. 18, 2018, Class
members shall have until October 25, 2018 to request exclusion, or
object to the proposed settlement. Any class member who desires to
exclude him or herself from the action must mail a request for
exclusion to counsel for Defendant and Class Counsel by that date.
Class Counsel shall forward all opt out requests to Counsel for
Defendant. Any class members who wish to object to the settlement
must submit an objection in writing to the Clerk of the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey, and serve
copies of the objection on counsel for Plaintiff and Defendant by
that date. Any objection must include the name and number of the
case and a statement of the reasons why the objector believes that
the Court should find that the proposed settlement is not in the
best interests of the class. Objectors who have filed written
objections to the settlement must also appear at the hearing and be
heard on the fairness of the settlement.


PROSPECT CHARTERCARE: Faces Suit Over Retirement Plan Mismanagement
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Del Sesto, as receiver and administrator of the St. Joseph
Health Services of Rhode Island Retirement Plan, Gail J. Major,
Nancy Zompa, Ralph Bryden, Dorothy Willner, Caroll Short, Donna
Boutelle, and Eugenia Levesque, in their individual capacity and on
behalf of all other plan participants, Plaintiffs v. Prospect
Chartercare, LLC, Chartercare Community Board, St. Joseph Health
Services of Rhode Island, Prospect Chartercare SJHSRI, LLC,
Prospect Chartercare RWMC, LLC, Prospect East Holdings, Inc.,
Prospect Medical Holdings, Inc., Roger Williams Hospital,
Chartercare Foundation, The Rhode Island Community Foundation,
Roman Catholic Bishop of Providence, Diocesan Administration
Corporation, Diocesan Service Corporation, and The Angell Pension
Group, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00328, (D. R.I., June 18,
2018), seeks to enforce benefits promises and damages resulting
from breach of contract in violation of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974.

The case concerns an insolvent defined benefit retirement plan with
over 2,700 participants, consisting of hospital nurses and other
hospital workers who, after many years of dedicated service to
their patients and SJHSRI, learned in August of 2017 that the Plan
had not been adequately funded. The disclosure occurred when the
Plan was placed into receivership by SJHSRI, with the request that
the Rhode Island Superior Court approve a virtually immediate 40%
across-the-board reduction in benefits.

St. Joseph Health Services of Rhode Island Retirement Plan is a
defined benefit retirement plan based in Rhode Island with over
2,700 participants. Chartercare owns and operates health care
facilities in Rhode Island, including but not limited to two
hospitals, Roger Williams Hospital and Our Lady of Fatima Hospital.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Max Wistow, Esq.
      Stephen P. Sheehan, Esq.
      Benjamin Ledsham, Esq.
      WISTOW, SHEEHAN & LOVELEY, PC
      61 Weybosset Street
      Providence, RI 02903
      Tel: (401) 831-2700
      Fax: (401) 272-9752
      Email: mwistow@wistbar.com
             spsheehan@wistbar.com
             bledsham@wistbar.com


RAYMOURS FURNITURE: E. Manopla's Suit Moved to N.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case, EVELYN MANOPLA, individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. RAYMOURS FURNITURE COMPANY,
INC. d/b/a RAYMOUR & FLANIGAN, a division of 1st Source Bank,
Defendant, Civil Action No. 3:17-cv-7649-BRM-LHG (D. N.J.), Judge
Brian R. Martinotti of the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey granted Raymour & Flanigan's Motion to Transfer Venue to
the United States District Court for the Northern District of New
York.

Manopla alleges to have received a series of unwanted automated
text messages from Raymour.  The unsolicited messages were strictly
commercial in nature and provided those who gave Raymour their cell
phone number with updates about upcoming promotions and
sweepstakes.  According to each message, a recipient could stop the
messages by texting "STOPRF" to the number sending the automated
replies.  Manopla contends she properly followed the instructions
to halt the messages, but Raymour continued to send promotional
text messages for the next seven months.

To be considered for a sweepstakes, Raymour was hosting and in
which Manopla participated, customers had to fill out and properly
submit an online form to Raymour.  When Manopla filled out the
online form, she checked off two boxes.  These checked boxes
indicated to Raymour that Manopla agreed to receive automated,
promotional text messages to her cell phone from Raymour, and to be
bound by the Sweepstakes Official Rules.  The Sweepstakes Agreement
could be accessed by two hyperlinks within the online form itself.

Both hyperlinks were featured on the same page.  Each hyperlink, if
clicked, would send the user to the Sweepstakes Agreement, which
contained a forum-selection clause.  The clause states any and all
disputes, claims and causes of action arising out of, or connected
with, the Sweepstakes or any prize awarded will be resolved
individually, without resort to any form of class action, and
exclusively by the appropriate court located in the state of New
York.  Manopla argues she would not have been able to submit her
entry form and would not have been eligible to enter the
Sweepstakes without checking the box indicating that she read and
agreed to the Sweepstakes Agreement.

On Sept. 29, 2017, Manopla filed her class action complaint, and on
Nov. 11, 2017, Raymour filed a Motion to Transfer the case to the
Northern District of New York, based on the forum-selection clause
stated in the Sweepstakes Agreement.  Manopla argues the terms of
the Sweepstakes Agreement were unenforceable, and therefore, the
forum-selection clause cannot be binding on her.

Judge Martinotti finds that the action could have been brought in
the Northern District of New York and may, therefore, be
transferred to that court pursuant to the plain language of 28
U.S.C. Section 1404(a).  It states that a district court may
transfer any civil action to any other district or division where
it might have been brought.

Manopla has failed to show the forum-selection clause is invalid
and that enforcement of the forum-selection clause would be
unreasonable or violate public policy.  She claims the
forum-selection clause is unenforceable because Raymour's website
did not make clear that she was agreeing to an extensive terms of
service requiring, inter alia, Manopla to litigate any grievances
she had against Raymour in a foreign jurisdiction far from home.
The Judge finds this is insufficient to overcome Raymour's Motion
to Transfer based on the forums-election clause.

Finally, the Judge finds that Manopla has not met her burden to
show that Raymour's Sweepstakes Agreement, and the forum-selection
clause found within, demonstrates a strong showing of
unreasonableness.  Because Manopla has not demonstrated, for the
purpose of overcoming the forum-selection clause, that Raymour's
interface hid or concealed the Sweepstakes Agreement terms,
Raymour's Motion to Transfer Venue to the United States District
Court for the Northern District of New York is granted.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 29, 2018 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/roWpEF from Leagle.com.

EVELYN MANOPLA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by YITZCHAK ZELMAN --
Yzelman@MarcusZelman.com -- Marcus Zelman, LLC & ARI HILLEL MARCUS
-- Ari@MarcusZelman.com -- MARCUS ZELMAN LLC.

RAYMOURS FURNITURE COMPANY, INC., doing business as, Defendant,
represented by JASON HARRIS KISLIN -- kislinj@gtlaw.com --
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP & PHILIP R. SELLINGER --
sellingerp@gtlaw.com -- GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP.


RECHNITZ CORE: Faces Roan Suit for Underfunding Nursing Facility
----------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT ROAN, on behalf of himself and similarly situated California
residents v. SHLOMO RECHNITZ; RECHNITZ CORE GP; SOL HEALTHCARE,
LLC; OAKLAND HEALTHCARE & WELLNESS CENTER, LLC; ROCKPORT
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, LLC; and DOES 1 through 250, inclusive,
Case No. RG618915239 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., August 2,
2018), alleges violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act and
the Resident Rights (Health & Safety Code).

Mr. Roan alleges that the Defendants maximize profits from the
operation of their skilled nursing facility by underfunding and
understaffing the Facility, which led to the violation of the
rights of the Plaintiff and the class.

Shlomo Rechnitz is the managing agent and/or controlling owner of
the Corporate Defendants or some other phantom vehicle created and
maintained to hide his total and complete operational control of
the Facility.  He owns in excess of 50% of the Facility and is its
true and actual operator and director.

Oakland Healthcare & Wellness Center, LLC, and the Doe Defendants
provide long-term custodial care as a 24-hour skilled nursing
facility under the fictitious name Oakland Healthcare & Wellness
Center located at 3030 Webster Street, in Oakland, California.

Sol Healthcare, LLC is the Manager of Oakland Health.  Sol's
principal place of business is in Los Angeles, the same address as
Oakland Healthcare.  Rechnitz Core GP is the Manager of Sol, with
all the legal rights and obligations attendant thereto.  Rechnitz's
principal place of business is in Los Angeles, the same address as
Oakland Healthcare.  Rockport Administrative Services, LLC is a
limited liability company with its principal place of business
located in Los Angeles.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Robert S. Arns, Esq.
          Julie C. Erickson, Esq.
          THE ARNS LAW FIRM
          515 Folsom Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 495-7800
          Facsimile: (415) 495-7888
          E-mail: rsa@arnslaw.com
                  jce@arnslaw.com


REGIONAL MEDICAL: Sued by Sandusky for Sending Unsolicited Faxes
----------------------------------------------------------------
SANDUSKY WELLNESS CENTER, LLC, an Ohio limited liability company,
individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly-situated persons v. REGIONAL MEDICAL IMAGING, P.C., a
Michigan professional corporation, Case No. 2:18-cv-12391-BAF-MKM
(E.D. Mich., August 2, 2018), challenges the Defendant's alleged
practice of sending "unsolicited advertisements" by facsimile, in
violation of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act of
1991.

Regional Medical Imaging, P.C., is a Michigan professional
corporation with its principal place of business in Flint,
Michigan.  The Company provides imaging services to physicians and
patients throughout mid-Michigan.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RESEARCH TRIANGLE: Faces Souders Suit Alleging TCPA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
KRISTYNA SOUDERS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. RESEARCH TRIANGLE INSTITUTE, d.b.a. RTI
INTERNATIONAL; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
1:18-at-00560 (E.D. Cal., August 2, 2018), alleges that the
Defendants negligently contacted the Plaintiff on her cellular
telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act,
thereby, causing her to incur unwanted and unnecessary charges and
invading her privacy.

Research Triangle Institute, doing business as RTI International,
operates as a nonprofit institute that provides research,
development, and technical services to governments, businesses,
foundations, universities, and other clients worldwide.  The
Company offers services in the areas of surveys and data
collection, statistics and data science, program design and
implementation, research technologies, drug discovery and
development, and analytical laboratory science; evaluation,
assessment, and analysis; and engineering and technology R&D.  The
true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants sued are currently
unknown to the Plaintiff.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RESEARCH TRIANGLE: Souders Files Suit for Invasion of Privacy
-------------------------------------------------------------
KRISTYNA SOUDERS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. RESEARCH TRIANGLE INSTITUTE, d.b.a. RTI
INTERNATIONAL; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
1:18-cv-01043-DAD-JLT (E.D. Cal., August 2, 2018), accuses the
Defendants of negligently contacting the Plaintiff on her cellular
telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act,
thereby, causing her to incur unwanted and unnecessary charges and
invading her privacy.

Research Triangle Institute, doing business as RTI International,
operates as a nonprofit institute that provides research,
development, and technical services to governments, businesses,
foundations, universities, and other clients worldwide.  The
Company offers services in the areas of surveys and data
collection, statistics and data science, program design and
implementation, research technologies, drug discovery and
development, and analytical laboratory science; evaluation,
assessment, and analysis; and engineering and technology R&D.  The
true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants sued are currently
unknown to the Plaintiff.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RICHANI RESTAURANT: Coleman Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Melonie Coleman, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Richani Restaurant Group, LLC dba Johnny Brusco's New
York Style Pizza, Case No. 2:18-cv-00114 (E.D. Tenn., July 20,
2018), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff Melonie Coleman is a resident of Kingsport, Sullivan
County, Tennessee and was employed by Richani as a server at its
restaurant located in Kingsport, Tennessee from in or around 2008
until June 2017.

The Defendant Richani operates at least three pizza restaurants of
Johnny Brusco's New York Style Pizza in Tennessee. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ROYALTON 44: Cedric Bishop Sues Royalton Hotel in New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Royalton 44 Hotel,
LLC. The case is captioned as Cedric Bishop, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Royalton 44
Hotel, LLC, doing business as: Royalton Hotel NYC, the Defendant,
Case No. 1:18-cv-07066 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 6, 2018), seeks to recover

Royalton owns and operates a 168-room hotel and offers boarding,
lodging and dining services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
          COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
          300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Telephone: (917) 299 6612
          Facsimile: (929) 575 4195
          E-mail: joseph@cml.legal


RS&H INC: Jones Appeals M.D. Florida Ruling to 11th Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Bradley Jones filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit styled Bradley Jones v. RS&H, Inc., Case No.
8:17-cv-00054-SCB-JSS, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida.

The appellate case is captioned as Bradley Jones v. RS&H, Inc.,
Case No. 18-13068, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the District
Court has denied a motion for reconsideration in the age
discrimination lawsuit filed by Mr. Jones, a former employee of the
Florida company.

In her ruling, Judge Susan Bucklew turned away an attempt by at
least 21 former workers of engineering firm RS&H Inc. seeking
class-action status.

On January 6, Mr. Jones, acting on his own behalf and others in a
similar situation, filed suit alleging violation of the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 and The Florida Civil
Rights Act.

In his complaint, Mr. Jones stated that he was told his 2015
termination was part of a reduction in force and that he was one of
23 employees nationwide to be terminated, including seven employees
at the Tampa location.  He alleges that all seven of the employees
terminated at the Tampa location were more than 50 years old.  He
was 53 years old at the time of his termination, the suit states.

Mr. Jones further alleges that RS&H hired young employees and then
terminated the older employees once the younger hires were
trained.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant BRADLEY JONES, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, is represented by:

          Kendra Dawn Presswood, Esq.
          SHANKMAN LEONE, PA
          707 N Franklin St., Suite 500
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 228-1099
          E-mail: kpresswood@shankmanleone.com

Defendant-Appellee RS&H, INC., is represented by:

          Kim Bouchard-Chaimowiz, Esq.
          ROGERS TOWERS, PA
          818 A1A N, Suite 208
          Ponte Vedra Beach, FL 32082
          Telephone: (904) 346-5516
          E-mail: KBouchardC@rtlaw.com

               - and -

          Samuel J. Horovitz, Esq.
          Lori Schon Patterson, Esq.
          ROGERS TOWERS PA
          1301 Riverplace Blvd., Suite 1500
          Jacksonville, FL 32207
          Telephone: (904) 398-3911
          E-mail: shorovitz@rtlaw.com
                  lspatterson@rtlaw.com


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Tobin Sues over Design Defect of LED TVs
-------------------------------------------------------------
EDWARD TOBIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-12473 (D.N.J., Aug. 6, 2018), seeks
relief as a result of Defendant's violation of the Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act, breaches of express and implied warranty, unjust
enrichment, violation of New York's General Business Law, and
fraud.

The case is a class action against Samsung Electronics America,
Inc. for the manufacture and sale of certain Samsung LED
Televisions, all of which suffer from an identical design defect.
The defect manifests itself in the form of overheating, which
results in burning, melting, and in some instances, causing
permanent vertical and/or horizontal lines to appear on the
television screen, as well as other video anomalies, which obscure
the viewing screen and renders the Products unsuitable for their
principal and intended purpose.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has been aware of the
defect since at least 2015. Nevertheless, Defendant continues to
sell the Products to unsuspecting customers upon the affirmative
misrepresentation that the Products are fit for their intended
purpose, perpetrating massive consumer fraud on millions of
consumers.  Defendant's misrepresentations and omissions concerning
the Products render the Products worthless.  Class members thought
they were purchasing safe, quality television sets from a top-tier
manufacturer of electronics.  Instead, class members spent
hundreds, and even thousands of dollars on worthless televisions
sets rendered unusable due to overheating.

Samsung Electronics America, Inc. supplies consumer electronics and
digital products in the United States.[BN]

Attorney for Plaintiff:

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


SANTANDER CONSUMER: Court Denies Bids to Intervene in Speedpay Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, APRIL LINDBLOM, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SANTANDER CONSUMER USA,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:15-cv-00990-BAM (E.D. Cal.), Magistrate
Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California denied the two motions to intervene
filed by proposed intervenors Vicki Blakely, Steven Lawson, Christy
Mitchell, Leslie Williams, James Rolland, Jaynellis Salinas
("Intervenors I") and Kathleen Jones, Kevin Grief, Samuel Carter,
and Annie Bluitt ("Intervenors II") to intervene as the class
representatives.

In March 2007, the Plaintiff purchased a 2006 Jeep Liberty which
she financed with a loan serviced by the Defendant.  At times, she
made payments on the loan by phone or online using Western Union's
Speedpay service.  To do so, the Plaintiff was required to pay a
flat $10.95 fee per transaction to Western Union.  She alleges
Western Union then remitted most of the Speedpay fee it collected
to Santander.  

The Plaintiff challenges the legality of the Speedpay fees retained
by Santander under Section 1692f(1) of the Fair Debt Collections
Practices Act ("RFDCPA"), and in turn, its California counterpart
the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collections Act.

On Oct. 30, 2014, the initial complaint giving rise to the putative
class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama.  That complaint styled Woods v. Santander
Consumer USA Inc., No. 2:14-cv-02104-MHH (N.D. Ala.), accused the
Defendant of illegally charging Speedpay Fees in violation of the
FDCPA.  On Dec. 5, 2014, the initial Plaintiffs amended the
complaint to add Lindblom as a named Plaintiff.  On June 22, 2015,
the Alabama District Court severed the Plaintiff's suit and
transferred the matter to the Court.

Following transfer, the Court ruled on two motions to dismiss and
denied Defendant Santander's motion for judgment on the pleadings.
The Court subsequently entered a scheduling order and the
Plaintiff's suit proceeded to class discovery on June 22, 2016.
After being continued twice, the deadline for fact discovery closed
on Feb. 27, 2017.

On Oct. 13, 2017, the Plaintiff moved to certify a class composed
of all individuals in the state of California, who, during the
applicable limitations period, paid a convenience fee through
Western Union's Speedpay service in connection with any consumer
loan held and/or serviced by Santander.

The Defendant opposed certification in part by challenging the
Plaintiff's adequacy as a class representative.  It argued that the
Plaintiff could not be a member of the defined class because her
claim fell outside of the one-year applicable statute of
limitations period.

At oral argument on Jan. 12, 2018, the Court expressed concern that
the Plaintiff was not a member of the class because she had not
paid the Speedpay fee within the applicable limitations period;
requiring her to rely on equitable tolling to qualify as a member
of the defined class.  The Plaintiff's counsel acknowledged that he
was "struggling to figure out a way" that the Plaintiff could
represent the class given the applicable limitations period.  The
Plaintiff's counsel later responded that due to the Court's
concerns regarding the Plaintiff's class membership, he intended to
file a motion for intervention to name alternative class
representatives.  Accordingly, following the hearing and while the
motion for class certification was under submission, proposed
Intervenors I filed their Motion for Leave to Intervene as the
alternative class representatives.

On Jan. 26, 2018, the Court denied the Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification, finding that Lindblom was not an adequate class
representative and her claims were atypical of the class.  Then,
Intervenors II filed a second motion to intervene as the class
representatives.

In the two pending Motions to Intervene, the 10 Movants seek to
intervene in the litigation to protect their ability to bring their
RFDCPA claim as part of a class action.  In their motion and
attached complaint, they allege that they are individuals residing
throughout California in various counties, including Sacramento,
Los Angeles, Riverside and Alameda.  The Movants further allege
that they each purchased a vehicle through an auto loan that came
to be serviced by the Defendant.  They paid on the loan over the
phone and were charged the Speedpay fee, which Santander
collected.

The Movants seek permissive intervention on grounds that: (1) their
claims share common questions of law and fact with those of
Lindblom; (2) as putative class members, they have a direct
interest in the outcome of the case; and (3) the motion is timely
and will neither delay nor prejudice the adjudication of the
original parties' rights.

The Defendant has filed a response in opposition, arguing that the
Movants' motions are untimely and would prejudice the Defendant if
granted.

In sum, Magistrate Judge McAuliffe finds that the Movants have
failed to meet the threshold requirement of timeliness for
permissive intervention under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
24(b).  A finding of untimeliness is fatal to an application for
intervention.  Accordingly, she declines to exercise its discretion
to grant permissive intervention.  For the reasons she described,
the Magistrate Judge denied the the Motions for permissive
intervention the Movants to intervene.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 29, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/pgR3ZU from Leagle.com.

April Lindblom, Plaintiff, represented by D. Frank Davis --
fdavis@davisnorris.com -- Davis & Norris, LLP, pro hac vice, John
E. Norris -- jnorris@davisnorris.com -- Davis & Norris, LLP, pro
hac vice, Kristan B. Rivers -- krivers@davisnorris.com -- David &
Norris LLP, pro hac vice, Wesley W. Barnett , Davis & Norris, LLP,
pro hac vice & Benjamin P. Tryk -- ben@tryklaw.com -- Tryk Law,
PC.

Santander Consumer USA Inc., Defendant, represented by Chad R.
Fuller -- chad.fuller@troutman.com -- Troutman Sanders LLP, David
S. Reidy -- dreidy@mcguirewoods.com -- McguireWoods LLP, Marc A.
Lackner, Mcguirewoods LLP, R. Frank Springfield --
fspringfield@burr.com -- Burr & Forman, LLP, pro hac vice, Virginia
Bell Flynn -- virginia.flynn@troutman.com -- Troutman Sanders LLP,
pro hac vice, Zachary D. Miller -- zmiller@burr.com -- Burr &
Forman, LLP, pro hac vice & Justin M. Brandt --
justin.brandt@troutman.com -- Troutman Sanders LLP.


SANYO ENERGY: Sells Defective Photovoltaic Modules, Dickert Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
MYRA DICKERT and HOWARD DICKERT, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. SANYO ENERGY (U.S.A.) CORPORATION;
SANYO NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION; PANASONIC CORPORATION OF NORTH
AMERICA; and DOES 1-20, inclusive, Case No. 3:18-cv-04664 (N.D.
Cal., August 2, 2018), arises out of the manufacture and sale of
alleged defective photovoltaic modules manufactured and marketed by
the Defendant from approximately 2001 to 2010.

A defect in a component of the SANYO Panels causes the SANYO Panels
to progressively lose actual power output and to fail, resulting in
power output degradation, the Plaintiffs contend.  They assert that
this defect and power output degradation causes serious safety
risks, including the risk of fire.

SANYO Energy was a Delaware corporation from 1987 until 2009.
SANYO Energy's principal place of business was located in San
Diego, California, from approximately 1997 until sometime during
2008, including the times at which the Plaintiffs' panels were
manufactured and marketed.  SANYO Energy ceased to exist on July 1,
2009, when it was merged into SANYO North America Corporation.

SANYO North America Corporation was a Delaware corporation from
1977 until 2015.  During the entirety of the Class period, SANYO
NA's principal place of business was located in San Diego.  SANYO
NA ceased to exist on April 1, 2015, when it was merged into
Panasonic Corporation of North America.  Prior to April 1, 2015,
SANYO NA was a subsidiary of SANYO Electric Company, Inc.  SANYO
Electric and its subsidiaries became consolidated subsidiaries of
Panasonic Corporation in 2009 and became wholly owned subsidiaries
of Panasonic in 2011.

Panasonic Corporation of North America is a Delaware corporation
with its principal place of business located in Newark, New Jersey,
and is a wholly owned subsidiary of Panasonic Corporation.  The
Plaintiffs are unaware of the true names and capacities of the Doe
Defendants.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David M. Birka-White, Esq.
          BIRKA-WHITE LAW OFFICES
          178 E. Prospect Avenue
          Danville, CA 94526
          Telephone: (925) 362-9999
          Facsimile: (925) 362-9970
          E-mail: dbw@birka-white.com

               - and -

          Steven T. Knuppel, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN T. KNUPPEL
          178 E. Prospect Avenue
          Danville, CA 94526
          Telephone: (925) 362-9999
          Facsimile: (925) 362-9970

               - and -

          John D. Green, Esq.
          FARELLA BRAUN & MARTEL LLP
          235 Montgomery Street, Suite 1700
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 954-4400
          Facsimile: (415) 954-4480
          E-mail: jgreen@fbm.com

               - and -

          Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
          LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN, LLP
          510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215) 592-1500
          Facsimile: (215) 592-4663
          E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com


SH GROUP: Faces Cedric Bishop Suit in New York Southern District
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SH Group Operations
LLC. The case is captioned as Cedric Bishop, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. SH Group
Operations LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-07068 (S.D.N.Y.,
Aug. 6, 2018).

SH Group, an affiliate of global private investment firm Starwood
Capital Group, is a hotel brand management company that operates
Hotels and Baccarat Hotels.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
          COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
          300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Telephone: (917) 299 6612
          Facsimile: (929) 575 4195
          E-mail: joseph@cml.legal


SMITH TRANSPORT: Jerome Ratliff Sues over Background Checks
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jerome Ratliff, Jr., the Plaintiff, v. Smith Transport, Inc.; and
Smith Transport U.S.A., Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 2018CH09979
(Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., Aug. 6, 2018), alleges that Defendants
have continually failed to follow reasonable procedures to ensure
that Plaintiff and the Class Members are provided with their
statutorily mandated rights to the information contained in their
consumer reports, pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

According to the complaint, Smith Transport is a self-proclaimed
leader in the trucking and transportation industry. Seeking to
expand its fleet, Smith encourages consumers to apply for driving
positions by visiting its website and completing an online
application.

As a result of Defendants' conduct and their knowing and willful
violations of 15 U.S. C. section 1681 b(b)(3)(B), the Plaintiff and
the Class have suffered harm, including information injury,
violation of privacy, and unfairly being denied access to
employment.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam C. York, Esq.
          Kamberlaw LLC
          220 N. Green St.
          Chicago, IL 60607
          Telephone: 212 920 3072
          E-mail: ayork@kamberlaw.com
                  masch@kamberlaw.com
                  tdavis@kamberlaw.com


SQUARETRADE INC: Swinton Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled DAVID M. SWINTON, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. SQUARETRADE, INC.,
the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-00144-SMR-SBJ (S.D. Iowa), the
Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:

   a. preliminarily approving the parties' Settlement as fair,
      reasonable, and adequate;

   b. preliminarily certifying an opt-out Settlement Class of:

      "purchasers of certain types of protection plans that
      Defendant sells through Amazon.com."

   c. appointing Harley C. Erbe of Erbe Law Firm and Steven
      Wandro of Wandro & Associates, P.C., as Class Counsel;

   d. appointing David Swinton as the Representative Plaintiff
      for the Settlement Class;

   e. approving issuance of the Class Notice and Claim Form to
      the Class; and

   f. approving schedule of events and setting a final fairness
      hearing.

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Harley C. Erbe, Esq.
          ERBE LAW FIRM
          2501 Grand Avenue
          Des Moines, IO 50312
          Telephone: (515) 281 1460
          Facsimile: (515) 281 1474
          E-mail: erbelawfirm@aol.com

               - and -

          Steven P. Wandro, Esq.
          WANDRO & ASSOCIATES
          2501 Grand Avenue
          Des Moines, IO 50312
          Telephone: (515) 281 1475
          Facsimile: (515) 281 1474
          E-Mail: swandro@2501grand.com


STAR CAREER: Final Judgment in NJCFA Suit Partly Reversed
---------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, affirmed in
part and reversed in part the District Court's Final Judgment in
the case captioned SHIRLEY POLANCO, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff-Respondent/Cross-Appellant, v. STAR CAREER ACADEMY, SC
ACADEMY HOLDINGS, INC. and SC ACADEMY, INC.,
Defendants-Appellants/Cross-Respondents, No. A-3756-15T2 (N.J.
Super. App. Div.).

After an adverse jury verdict, defendants Star Career Academy, SC
Academy Holdings Inc. and SC Academy, Inc., appeal from the final
judgment and several pre- and post-trial orders.

This class action alleges violations of the New Jersey Consumer
Fraud Act (Act).

Star claims:

Point I

The Trial Court's Refusal To Interpret The Surgical Technology Law
On Summary Judgment Was Reversible Error.

Point II

The Trial Court Committed Reversible Error By Precluding Star From
Presenting Evidence To Show That Plaintiff Had Not Established The
Elements Of The Njcfa Claim That She Was Asserting On Behalf Of The
Class.

A. It Was Reversible Error To Preclude Star From Presenting Jobs
Evidence And Reasons For Unemployment Evidence To Show That
Plaintiff Had Not Proven Her NJCFA Claim.

B. It Was Reversible Error To Preclude Star From Presenting Value
Evidence To Show That Plaintiff Had Not Proven Her NJCFA Claim.

Point Iii The Trial Court Committed Reversible Error By Refusing To
Decertify A Class Even Though Common Issues Did Not Predominate
Over Individual Ones.

Star argues in its first point that the court twice erred in
refusing to grant its motions for summary judgment and, more
specifically, to interpret the ST law in its favor.

In ruling on a summary judgment motion, a trial court must consider
whether the competent evidential materials presented, when viewed
in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, are sufficient
to permit a rational factfinder to resolve the alleged disputed
issue in favor of the non-moving party.

The Court concludes that an individual seeking an education from a
for-profit school like Star has the inherent right to know, prior
to enrollment, that the school does not hold both programmatic and
institutional credentials if for no other reason than to give
students the choice to attend another institution that possesses
both accreditations. Students who attend Star and similar
vocational institutions are primarily interested in obtaining a
degree to advance their professional careers and increase their
earning potential.

That Star was not programmatically credentialed, giving plaintiff
all reasonable inferences from the summary judgment record,
influenced certain potential employers of Star graduates. In light
of these concerns, it is not unreasonable to conclude that a
student deciding to enroll at Star, if informed that it did not
have programmatic approval, would elect to enroll elsewhere and
thus we cannot ignore that Star's potential and capacity to mislead
plaintiff on this point is of material concern.  

Also, while the record contains allegations of multiple
misrepresentations made by Star to certain class members unrelated
to its programmatic accreditation which affects the propriety of
class certification, as discussed in Section III  based on just
these genuine and material factual questions, summary judgment was
appropriately denied.

Star also argues that the court improperly certified the class
because common issues did not predominate over individual ones.

While the Court acknowledge the court divided the class into the
aforementioned sub-groups to analyze the total paid by the class in
relation to the differing circumstances of certain class members,
in its view that segregation nevertheless demonstrates the
significant individualized issues related to the nexus between
Star's misrepresentations and the class members' damages. And,
although the class members' damage calculations may differ, our
concerns relate to the fact that the class, as evidenced by the
sub-groups, cannot demonstrate economic loss on a common basis.

While the Court finds that the class must be decertified, its
decision should not be interpreted to conclude that a class is not
an appropriate vehicle to address Star's purported
misrepresentations and omissions surrounding the ST law for those
who have paid tuition fees or other ascertainable losses. Such a
class action may further the goals of judicial economy,
cost-effectiveness, convenience, and consistent treatment of class
members, However, any certified class must satisfy the relevant
Rules governing class actions. That simply did not occur here.

Star also argues that the court committed reversible error by
precluding it from introducing evidence at trial related to: jobs
that class members held jobs evidence; efforts of class members to
get positions; and the value of the Star diploma to members of the
class.

The Plaintiff successfully thwarted the introduction of this
evidence by maintaining that its damages theory was based on the
class members' loss of tuition not lost wages or other job related
damages and therefore the case was fundamentally different than the
damages sought in Harnish or Markerdowne. But a party's stated
theory of a case cannot serve as the basis to preclude an adverse
party from introducing evidence to defend a claim, particularly
when the evidence has the tendency in reason "to prove or disprove
any fact of consequence to the determination of the action.

Here, the excluded evidence related to materiality, causation and
ascertainable loss. The Court acknowledges a trial court's
authority under N.J.R.E. 403 to exclude otherwise relevant
evidence. However, the Court's review of the trial record leads it
to conclude that the preclusion of the value, jobs, and reasons for
unemployment evidence resulted in a manifest denial of justice.

Accordingly, the final judgment is affirmed in part, reversed and
vacated in part and remanded for trial proceedings consistent with
this opinion.

A full-text copy of the N.J. App. Div.'s July 29, 2018 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yag9awo6 from Leagle.com.

David Jay -- jayd@gtlaw.com -- argued the cause for
appellants/cross-respondents (Greenberg Traurig, LLP, attorneys;
David Jay, Jason H. Kislin -- kislinj@gtlaw.com -- and Paige S.
Nestel -- nestelp@gtlaw.com -- on the brief).

Patricia V. Pierce -- p.pierce@gpfflaw.com -- and Thomas More
Marrone -- tom@moremarrone.com -- argued the cause for
respondent/cross-appellant (Greenblatt Pierce Funt & Flores, LLC,
and MoreMarrone, LLC, attorneys; Patricia V. Pierce and Thomas More
Marrone, on the brief).

Joseph B. Schmit -- jschmit@phillipslytle.com -- (Phillips Lytle,
LLP) of the New York bar, admitted pro hac vice, argued the cause
for intervenor Summer Street Capital Partners, LLC (John R. Altieri
and Joseph B. Schmit, attorneys; Joseph B. Schmit, of counsel; John
R. Altieri , on the brief).

STATE UNIVERSITY: Court Narrows Claims in Sex Discrimination Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of New
York granted in part and denied in part Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss the case captioned ISIDORA PEJOVIC, CHAEE BEAN KANG, ALBA
SALA HUERTA, and CHASSIDY KING, individually and on behalf of all
those similarly situated, and GORDON GRAHAM, Plaintiffs, v. STATE
UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK AT ALBANY, and MARK BENSON, Defendants, No.
1:17-CV-1092 (TJM/DTS)(N.D.N.Y.).

Plaintiffs Isidora Petrovic, Chaee Bean Kang, Alba Sala Huerta, and
Chassidy King, who are former women's tennis players at the State
University of New York (SUNY) at Albany, and their former coach,
Gordon Graham, brought this action to redress alleged
discrimination by Defendants SUNY Albany and SUNY Albany's Athletic
Director, Mark Benson.

Graham's Title IX Claims against Defendants

Plaintiff Graham alleges the Defendant violated his rights under
Title IX by terminating the women's tennis team. The Defendants
argue that Graham has failed to state a claim under Title IX
because the Complaint does not allege that Graham faced
discrimination because of hissex, but only because of the sex of
his players.

The Court does not read this case to be one where Graham asserts a
claim based on injuries faced only by others. The Court takes
Graham's claim to be that he, too, suffered gender discrimination
because of the cancellation of the women's tennis program. Graham's
argument is that he was a victim of SUNY Albany's sex
discrimination, which cost him his job coaching women. At least one
court in this Circuit has addressed the issue of whether a male
coach can bring a Title IX discrimination claim on his own behalf
arising out of Title IX violations affecting a women's sports
program.   

The Plaintiff was the head coach of the women's basketball team at
Forham University. He alleged disparate treatment and impact
because of allegedly inferior resources and opportunities" provided
to the women's basketball team. The court concluded that
gender-based employment discrimination by educational programs
receiving federal financial support comes within the prohibition of
Title IX.  The Defendant sought dismissal, arguing in part that
plaintiff's Title IX claim is premised not on plaintiff's gender,
but on the gender of the students he coached.

The court rejected that argument, noting that the prohibition of
discrimination 'on the basis of sex' is broad enough to encompass a
prohibition of discrimination against plaintiff on the basis of the
sex of the players whom he coached.

The Court is persuaded by the reasoning in the Morris case. Title
IX is aimed at preventing sex discrimination at federally supported
institutions. Title IX provides a private right of action for
discrimination. The Plaintiff alleges sex discrimination and injury
thereby. At least at this stage in the litigation, the Court must
reject the Defendants' argument that the Plaintiff has not alleged
sex discrimination that injured him. By the Defendants' logic,
Graham could only have a claim if he were a woman coaching women.
Ruling that way would constrict the definition of on the basis of
sex unnecessarily.

As such, the motion will be granted with respect to any retaliation
claim that Graham may raise, but will be denied with respect to his
Title IX discrimination claim.

Section 1983 Age-Discrimination Claim

Plaintiff Graham also asserts a claim of age discrimination against
Defendant Benson under 42 USC Section 1983. As a preliminary
matter, the Defendants argue that Graham cannot maintain a Section
1983 age-discrimination claim because such a claim could have been
brought under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.

The Court finds that Plaintiff Graham has pled facts sufficient to
make his claim to relief against Defendant Benson under Section
1983 plausible. The Plaintiff alleges that he was sixty-five at the
time of the events in question. He also alleges superior
performance as a tennis coach, having won numerous titles,
including titles at SUNY Albany. The Defendant did not renew
Graham's contract, and he alleges that the circumstances warranted
such renewal.

As to whether the circumstances permit at least a limited inference
of discriminatory intent, the Court finds the allegations
sufficient in this respect as well. The Plaintiff alleges that
Benson asked Graham how old he was when he announced termination of
the tennis team and told others at the meeting that Graham was
close to retirement. Benson also told a former SUNY Albany tennis
player who questioned the decision to terminate the team that
Graham could 'retire if he wants to, since he was old enough.  At
this point in the litigation, such allegations are sufficient to
create an inference that Benson's motivation in terminating the
Plaintiff was his age.

The motion will be denied in this respect.

New York Human Rights Law/Declaratory Judgment

The Defendants next contend that Plaintiff Graham's claim against
SUNY Albany under the New York Human Rights Law is barred on
sovereign immunity grounds. In any case, they insist, the Plaintiff
has failed to state a claim in this respect. The Defendants also
argue that Count V of the Complaint, which seeks a declaratory
judgment that SUNY Albany breached the Stipulation, should be
dismissed. The Plaintiffs have notified the Court that they intend
to abandon these Counts.

The Court will therefore grant the motion as unopposed with respect
to Counts IV and V of the Complaint.

The Court will grant the Defendants' motion to dismiss, in part and
deny the motion in part, as follows:

1. The motion is granted with respect to:

   a. Any claim by Plaintiff Graham for Title IX retaliation;

   b. the Plaintiffs' Section 1983 claims against Defendant Benson
in his official capacity;

   c. the Plaintiffs' claims brought pursuant to the New York Human
Rights Law;

   d. the Plaintiffs' claims for declaratory judgment;

   e. the Plaintiffs' claims for punitive damages under Title IX;
and

   f. the Plaintiffs' claims for punitive damages against Defendant
Benson in his official capacity and against SUNY Albany under
Section 1983.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 26, 2018 Decision and
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7krtssx from
Leagle.com.

Isidora Pejovic, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Chae Bean Kang, individually and on behalf of all those
similarly situated, Alba Sala Huerta, individually and on behalf of
all those similarly situated, Chassidy King, individually and on
behalf of all those similarly situated & Gordon Graham, Plaintiffs,
represented by Bernays T. Barclay -- buz.barclay@rimonlaw.com --
Rimon, P.C.

State University of New York at Albany & Mark Benson, Defendants,
represented by Mark G. Mitchell, New York State Attorney General.

STUDENT HELP: Bontrager Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
---------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Bontrager, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Student Help Center, LLC, and Does 1 through
10, Case No. 2:18-cv-06295 (C.D. Calif., July 20, 2018), seeks
damages and injunctive relief pursuant to the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

The Plaintiff is a natural person and citizen and resident of the
State of California.

The Defendant is a social media company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SURVEY SAMPLING: Zozula Class Suit Asserts TCPA Breach
------------------------------------------------------
ERICA ZOZULA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SURVEY SAMPLING INTERNATIONAL, LLC, and DOES 1 through
10, inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 3:18-cv-04667 (N.D. Cal.,
August 2, 2018), accuses the Defendants of negligently, knowingly
and willfully contacting the Plaintiff on her cellular telephone in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, specifically,
the "automatic telephone dialing system" and "artificial or
prerecorded voice" provisions.

Survey Sampling International, LLC, is a data research company.
The true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants are currently
unknown to the Plaintiff.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Michael Kincaid's TCPA Suit Concluded
----------------------------------------------------------
Synchrony Financial said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the case Michael W.
Kincaid, DDS et al. v. Synchrony Financial, has been dismissed.

The Company was a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit
alleging claims under the TCPA relating to facsimiles.

In Michael W. Kincaid, DDS et al. v. Synchrony Financial, plaintiff
alleged that the Company violated the TCPA by sending fax
advertisements without consent and without required notices, and
sought up to $1,500 for each violation.

The amount of damages sought in the aggregate was unspecified. The
original complaint was filed in U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on January 20, 2016. On August 11,
2016, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss based on
the lack of personal jurisdiction. On August 15, 2016, the
plaintiff re-filed the case in the Southern District of Ohio.

On or about May 2, 2018, the case was dismissed with prejudice
pursuant to an individual settlement between the Company and the
representative plaintiff.

Synchrony Financial operates as a consumer financial services
company in the United States. The company offers private label
credit cards, dual cards, general purpose co-branded credit cards,
and small and medium-sized business credit products; and
promotional financing for consumer purchases, such as private label
credit cards and installment loans. Synchrony Financial was
incorporated in 2003 and is headquartered in Stamford,
Connecticut.


THORLO INC: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Marett Says
--------------------------------------------------------
LUCIA MARETT, Individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. THORLO, INC. a/k/a
Thorlo, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-07032 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 6,
2018), alleges that Thorlo failed to design, construct, maintain,
and operate their website to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually
impaired persons.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff is a visually-impaired
and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to
read website content using his computer. Plaintiff uses the terms
"blind" or "visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual
impairments who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they
have a visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x
200. Some blind people who meet this definition have limited
vision; others have no vision. Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau
report, approximately 8.1 million people in the United States are
visually impaired, including 2.0 million who are blind, and
according to the American Foundation for the Blind's 2015 report,
approximately 400,000 visually impaired persons live in the State
of New York. Defendant is denying blind and visually-impaired
persons throughout the United States with equal access to the goods
and services Thorlo provides to their non-disabled customers
through http//:www.Thorlo.com. Defendants' denial of full and equal
access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and
services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations,
is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

Thorlo.com provides to the public a wide array of the goods,
services, price specials, employment opportunities and other
programs offered by Thorlo. Yet, Thorlo.com contains thousands of
access barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for blind
and visually-impaired customers to use the website.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class:

          Dan Shaked, Esq.
          SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
          44 Court Street, Suite 1217
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Telephone: (917) 373 9128
          Facsimile: (718) 504 7555


TOLL GLOBAL: 9th Circuit Appeal Filed in Marquez Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Carlos Marquez filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit entitled Carlos Marquez v. Toll Global Forwarding USA,
Inc., et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-03054-ODW-AS, in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on August 13, 2018, Judge
Otis D. Wright, II, denied the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand.

Mr. Marquez brought the putative class action against the
Defendants on February 13, 2018, in the Los Angeles Superior Court
alleging seven causes of action: (1) Recovery of Unpaid Minimum
Wage and Overtime; (2) Meal Period Violations; (3) Rest Period
Violations; (4) Unpaid Wages During Employment; (5) Failure to Pay
Wages Due at Separation of Employment; (6) Failure to Issue
Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; and (7) Unfair Business
Practices.

The appellate case is captioned as Carlos Marquez v. Toll Global
Forwarding USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 18-56060, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Appellant Carlos Marquez's opening brief is due on
      October 2, 2018;

   -- Appellees Does, Insperity PEO Services, L.P., TGF
      Management Group Holdco, Inc. and Toll Global Forwarding
      USA, Inc.'s answering brief is due on November 2, 2018; and

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

Plaintiff-Appellant CARLOS MARQUEZ, an individual and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
          MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC
          249 East Ocean Boulevard
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: (562) 590-5550
          E-mail: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net

Defendants-Appellees TOLL GLOBAL FORWARDING USA, INC., a
corporation; TGF MANAGEMENT GROUP HOLDCO, INC., a corporation; and
INSPERITY PEO SERVICES, L.P., Erroneously Sued As Insperity Expense
Management, Inc., are represented by:

          William J. Dritsas, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          560 Mission Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 397-2823
          E-mail: wdritsas@seyfarth.com


TRANSNATIONAL FOODS: Young Files Suit Asserting Deceptive Marketing
-------------------------------------------------------------------
RENEE YOUNG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. TRANSNATIONAL FOODS, INC., a Florida corporation; and
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 3:18-cv-04651-LB (N.D. Cal.,
August 2, 2018), seeks to enjoin the alleged ongoing deception of
consumers by the Defendant, and to recover the money taken by this
unlawful practice.

The Defendant manufactures, markets, and sells olive oil labeled as
"Pampa Extra Virgin Olive Oil" ("Pampa EVOO").  In reality, the
Plaintiff alleges, extensive clinical testing conducted by a
leading laboratory conclusively establishes that Pampa EVOO is not
Extra Virgin Olive Oil.  She contends that she and members of the
proposed class relied on the Defendant's misrepresentations and
would not have paid as much, if at all, for Pampa EVOO but for its
misrepresentations.

Transnational Foods, Inc., is a Florida corporation with its
principal place of business located in Miami, Florida.  The true
names and capacities of the Doe Defendants are currently unknown to
the Plaintiff.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TURN-KEY SOLUTIONS: Martinez Sues to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Martinez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Turn-Key Solutions, Inc., An Arizona Corporation, Case
No. 2:18-cv-02448-BSB (D. Ariz., August 2, 2018), seeks to recover
overtime wages and liquidated damages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Turn-Key Solutions, Inc., is a for-profit corporation whose
corporate headquarters are located in Glendale, Arizona.  Turn-Key
is a privately-held company operating out of Phoenix and Glendale,
Arizona.

Turn-Key provides "customer interaction solutions" at its call
centers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nicholas J. Enoch, Esq.
          Kaitlyn Redfield-Ortiz, Esq.
          Stanley Lubin, Esq.
          LUBIN & ENOCH, P.C.
          349 North Fourth Avenue
          Phoenix, AZ 85003-1505
          Telephone: (602) 234-0008
          Facsimile: (602) 626-3586
          E-mail: nick@lubinandenoch.com
                  kaitlyn@lubinandenoch.com
                  stan@lubinandenoch.com

               - and -

          Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
          Clif Alexander, Esq.
          ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
          819 North Upper Broadway
          Corpus Christi, TX 78401
          Telephone: (361) 452-1279
          Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
          E-mail: austin@a2xlaw.com
                  clif@a2xlaw.com


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Ct. to Review Ruling on Lyft Drivers' UCL Claim
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California granted Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration of the
Court's Order regarding the UCL claim in the case captioned MICHAEL
GONZALES, Plaintiff, v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-02264-JSC (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff Michael Gonzales brings this action on his own behalf and
as a putative class action for Lyft drivers whose electronic
communications and whereabouts were allegedly intercepted,
accessed, monitored, and/or transmitted by the Uber defendants.

The Court granted Uber's motion to dismiss the First Amended
Complaint on all causes of action except the California Unfair
Competition Law (UCL) claim. The Court denied dismissal of the UCL
claim on the grounds that the Plaintiff had sufficiently alleged
UCL statutory standing.
Uber argues the Plaintiff cannot seek restitution under the UCL
because his claim is one for damages, not restitution.

Uber contends that the Plaintiff has not pled that he had an
interest in any money that Uber acquired and thus should be
restored to the Plaintiff.

The Court agrees.

Uber's alleged use of the spyware was a lost profit opportunity for
Lyft, and thus for the Plaintiff, but not a benefit that the
Plaintiff had an ownership interest in. The Plaintiff only alleges
that Uber's use of the spyware decreased the effectiveness of the
Lyft app by decreasing the availability of Lyft drivers which in
turn harmed the Plaintiff and the other class members. This
allegation is one of classic money damages, not restitution.   

The Court finds that the Plaintiff has not alleged Uber falsely
represented itself to and took money from the Plaintiff; instead,
the Plaintiff alleges that Uber's unfair business practice
decreased the effectiveness of the Lyft app which harmed the
Plaintiff, presumably because the Plaintiff received fewer ride
requests.  

Accordingly, Uber's motion for reconsideration is granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 21, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y733q6mg from Leagle.com.

Michael Gonzales, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Caleb Marker --
caleb.marker@zimmreed.com -- Zimmerman Reed LLP, Ling Yue Kuang,
Audet & Partners, LLP, Mark Etheredge Burton, Jr., Audet and
Partners, LLP, Mark Etheredge Burton, Jr., Audet and Partners, LLP
& Michael Andrew McShane, Audet & Partners LLP.

Uber Technologies, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendant,
represented by Patrick Leo Oot, Jr. -- oot@shb.com -- Shook, Hardy
and Bacon, LLP, pro hac vice, Elizabeth Anne Lee -- elee@shb.com --
Shook, Hardy Bacon L.L.P., John K. Sherk, III - jsherk@shb.com --
Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP & Michael Kevin Underhill --
kunderhill@shb.com -- Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP.

Uber USA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company & Raiser-CA, a
Delaware limited liability company, Defendants, represented by
Patrick Leo Oot, Jr. , Shook, Hardy and Bacon, LLP, pro hac vice,
John K. Sherk, III , Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP & Michael Kevin
Underhill , Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP.

UNITED STATES: Court Denies Final OK of Settlement in FAMs' Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California denied the Joint Motion for Final Approval of a
Collection Action Settlement in the case captioned K.H., et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY,
Defendant, Case No. 15-cv-02740-JST (N.D.Cal.).

The Plaintiffs are current and former Field Air Marshalls (FAMs)
employed by the Defendant, the Secretary of the Department of
Homeland Security. All are over forty years of age. The Plaintiffs
allege that the TSA targeted the six Field Offices for closure in
an attempt to drive out older FAMs so that it could in turn 'hire
two young FAMs for every older FAM. The Plaintiffs claim that the
actual process in which TSA designated the Field Offices for
closure was based on age discrimination and designed to rid older
FAMs from its workforce.

The settlement agreement resolves a bona fide dispute concerning
liability under the ADEA.

Fair and Reasonable Settlement Agreement

To determine whether a settlement is fair and reasonable, district
courts implicitly or explicitly consider the factors that are used
to evaluate Rule 23 class action settlements, which include: the
strength of the plaintiffs' case; the risk, expense, complexity,
and likely duration of further litigation; the risk of maintaining
class action status throughout the trial; the amount offered in
settlement; the extent of discovery completed and the stage of the
proceedings; the experience and views of counsel; the presence of a
governmental participant; and the reaction of the class members to
the proposed settlement.

Scope of the Release Provision

Here, the Plaintiffs agree to release Defendant from any and all
obligations, damages, liabilities, actions, causes of actions,
claims and demands of any kind and nature whatsoever, including
claims arising under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29
U.S.C. Section 633a, whether suspected or unsuspected, at law or in
equity, known or unknown, or omitted prior to the date he executes
this Agreement, which arise from or relate to each Plaintiff's
employment with the Defendant and/or the Federal Air Marshal
Service. Courts in this district have rejected similarly broad
provisions in other FLSA actions.  Similarly, the Court concludes
that the scope of the release in this action  which goes far beyond
the ADEA claims at issue is improper. The broad scope of the
release provision precludes settlement approval.

Plaintiff's Range of Recovery

Under the agreement, all class members who have separated from the
Service will be paid a total sum of $1,500, and class members who
remain employed with the Service will receive seven additional days
of leave.  

The Court cannot determine whether the settlement amount is fair or
reasonable, however, until the parties provide an estimate of the
Plaintiffs' range of recovery if they were to prevail on their FLSA
claims. In the analogous class action settlement context, the Court
has more than once denied motions for approval where the plaintiffs
provided no information about the maximum amount that the putative
class members could have recovered if they ultimately prevailed on
the merits of their claims. The Court has acknowledged that a cash
settlement amounting to only a fraction of the potential recovery
does not per se render the settlement inadequate or unfair.
Nonetheless, the Court has also explained that any fraction has a
denominator, and without knowing what it is the Court cannot
balance plaintiffs' expected recovery against the proposed
settlement amount.

Here, the Plaintiffs have not even attempted to provide
hypothetical scenarios, that could produce various expected
recoverable damages to measure against the proposed settlement
amount. Given the lack of information in the Plaintiffs' motion,
the Court cannot determine whether the amount offered in settlement
is adequate.

Attorney's Fees

An attorney is also entitled to recover as part of the award of
attorneys' fees those out-of-pocket expenses that would normally be
charged to a fee paying client. To support an expense award,
plaintiffs should file an itemized list of their expenses by
category and the total amount advanced for each category to permit
a court to assess whether the expenses are reasonable.  

Here, the Plaintiffs do not seek direct reimbursement of their
costs, but they do justify their attorneys' fees request in part on
the ground that counsel for plaintiffs advanced in excess of
$60,000.00 in litigation costs and expenses during the pendency of
the matter. Accordingly, they must submit a list of their expenses,
supported by receipts.

The parties' motion for approval of their collective class action
settlement agreement is denied without prejudice.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 26, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y7rfb4gr from Leagle.com.

K.H., Gary McConaghy, Richard DeVivo, Donna Baxter, Brian Pierog,
Jeffrey Boyer, J. M., W. L. & C. V., on behalf of themselves and
those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Nicholas
Michael Wieczorek, Clark Hill PLLC, Ernest B. Orsatti, Rothman
Gordon, P.C., pro hac vice, Jeremy J. Thompson --
jthompson@clarkhill.com -- Clark Hill PLLC & William Francis Ward,
Rothman Gordon, PC, pro hac vice.

Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Defendant,
represented by Wendy M. Garbers, United States Attorney's Office &
David Alejandro Pereda, United States Attorney's Office Civil
Division.


UNITED STATES: Federal Circuit Appeal Filed in Charleston Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Charleston Area Medical Center, Inc., and CAMC Health
Education And Research Institute, Inc., filed an appeal from a
court ruling in their lawsuit entitled Charleston Area Medical
Ctr., et al. v. US, Case No. 1:17-cv-01528-EDK, in the United
States Court of Federal Claim.

The nature of suit is stated as Tax - Allowance of Interest.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
was filed on October 16, 2017.

The appellate case is captioned as Charleston Area Medical Ctr., et
al. v. US, Case No. 18-2226, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit.

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

   -- Entry of Appearance is due on August 23, 2018;

   -- Certificate of Interest is due on August 23, 2018;

   -- Docketing Statement is due on September 10, 2018; and

   -- Appellant/Petitioner's brief is due on October 9, 2018.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants CHARLESTON AREA MEDICAL CENTER, INC., and
CAMC HEALTH EDUCATION AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE, INC., on behalf of
themselves and all other taxpayers similarly situated, are
represented by:

          Thomas D. Sykes, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS D. SYKES, LLC
          825 S Waukegan Road
          Lake Forest, IL 60045
          Telephone: (847) 604-4928
          Facsimile: (847) 604-4961
          E-mail: tomsykes@sykestaxlaw.com

Defendant-Appellee UNITED STATES is represented by:

          Miranda Bureau, Esq.
          DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          PO Box 26
          Ben Franklin Station
          Washington, DC 20044
          Telephone: (202) 353-9171
          E-mail: miranda.j.bureau@usdoj.gov


VAN RU CREDIT: Norton Files Placeholder Class Certification Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled TROY NORTON, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. VAN RU CREDIT
CORPORATION, the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-01224-PP (E.D. Wisc.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order certifying classes,
appointing Plaintiff as class representative, and appointing Ademi
& O'Reilly, LLP as Class Counsel, and for such other and further
relief as the Court may deem appropriate.

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

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

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          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


VEECO INSTRUMENTS: Iron Workers Fund Files Securities Suit in Ca.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
IRON WORKERS DISTRICT COUNCIL OF NEW ENGLAND PENSION FUND,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
VEECO INSTRUMENTS, INC., et al., Case No. 18CV332463 (Cal. Super.
Ct., Santa Clara Cty., August 2, 2018), is a securities class
action brought on behalf of all persons, who acquired Veeco common
stock pursuant or traceable to the S-4 registration statement and
prospectus issued in connection with the May 2017 merger of Veeco
and Ultratech.

The Plaintiff asserts that the Registration Statement contained
untrue statements of material fact and omitted material facts both
required by governing regulations and necessary to make the
statements made not misleading.  The Plaintiff alleges that the
Defendants failed to disclose, among other things, that Veeco was
already experiencing increased competition, loss of market share,
price pressure, and reduced margins in its critical Chinese
markets.

Veeco is incorporated under the laws of Delaware and conducts
substantial business through its wholly owned subsidiary,
Ultratech, which is headquartered in San Jose, California.  The
Individual Defendants are directors and officers of Veeco.

Veeco designs and manufactures thin film equipment for a wide
variety of electronic devices, including smartphones, hard disk
drives, and semiconductors.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David W. Hall, Esq.
          HEDIN HALL LLP
          Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 766—3534
          Facsimile: (415) 402—0058
          E-mail: dhall@hedinhall.com

               - and -

          Guillaume Buell, Esq.
          THORNTON LAW FIRM LLP
          300 Summer Street, 30th Floor
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 720-1333
          Facsimile: (617) 720-2445
          E-mail: gbuell@tenlaw.com


WAL-MART STORES: Move to Deny Managers Class Certification Junked
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee, Nashville Division, dismissed Defendant's Motion to Deny
Class Certification in the case captioned CHERYL PHIPPS, and SHAWN
GIBBONS, Plaintiffs, v. WAL-MART STORES, INC., Defendant, Case No.
12-01009 (M.D. Tenn.).

In their complaint, the plaintiffs made class allegations,
proposing to certify a class that included past and future female
Wal-Mart retail store employees other than store managers and
pharmacists in Wal-Mart's Region 43.

Here, not only did the plaintiffs seek to certify a class different
from the class in Wal-Mart's motion, but also the plaintiffs
indicated in their second supplemental brief that they have no
objection to filing an amended complaint which excludes reference
to the class claims.  
In its motion to deny class certification, Wal-Mart has not
presented an issue that ought to be decided by this Court,
especially now that the plaintiffs have withdrawn all their class
claims.

Accordingly, the motion to deny class certification is dismissed.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 21, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y8pbsv93 from Leagle.com.

Cheryl Phipps & Shawn Gibbons, On Behalf of Themselves and all
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Brian C.
Corman -- bcorman@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen, Milstein, Sellers &
Toll PLLC, Christine Webber, Cohen, Milstein, Sellers & Toll PLLC,
David W. Garrison -- dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com -- Barrett
Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Jocelyn D. Larkin, Impact Fund,
Joseph M. Sellers -- jsellers@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen, Milstein,
Sellers & Toll, PLLC, Joshua A. Frank -- jfrank@barrettjohnston.com
-- Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Scott P. Tift --
stift@barrettjohnston.com -- Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison,
LLC & Seth Marcus Hyatt -- shyatt@barrettjohnston.com -- Barrett
Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Defendant, represented by Amanda Machin --
amachin@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, Catherine
Conway -- cconway@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP,
Dustin G. May -- dmay@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher,
LLP, J. Graham Matherne -- gmatherne@wyattfirm.com -- Wyatt,
Tarrant & Combs, Mark A. Perry -- mperry@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson,
Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, Michele L. Maryott -- mmaryott@gibsondunn.com
-- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, Olivia Adendorff --
oadendorff@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, Rachel
S. Brass -- rbrass@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP,
Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr. -- tboutrous@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson
Dunn & Crutcher LLP & Zoe A. Klein -- zklein@gibsondunn.com --
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP.

WECONNECT INC: 7th Cir. Affirms Arbitration Denial in Worker's Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, affirmed the
District Court's judgment denying Defendant's Motion to Compel
Arbitration in the case captioned BROOKS GOPLIN,
Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WECONNECT, INCORPORATED,
Defendant-Appellant, No. 18-1193 (7th Cir.).

WeConnect, Inc., asks this Court to reverse the district court for
making a factual mistake.

Brooks Goplin worked for WeConnect, Inc.  When he began his
employment, he signed an arbitration agreement called the AEI
Alternative Entertainment Inc. Open Door Policy and Arbitration
Program.  The agreement referred to an entity named AEI throughout;
it never mentioned We-Connect.

The district court held that WeConnect failed to meet its burden of
demonstrating that it was a party to the arbitration agreement or
otherwise entitled to enforce it. It discounted the affidavit from
the Director of Human Resources as conclusory and noted that
WeConnect's own website indicates that AEI ceased to exist in
September 2016, when it merged with WeConnect Enterprise Solutions
to form We-Connect, Inc. Because the court found that AEI isn't
just another name for WeConnect, it denied WeConnect's motion to
compel arbitration.

WeConnect filed a motion for reconsideration. The district court
denied the motion.

WeConnect's primary complaint is that the district court should not
have taken its website into account in ruling on the Rule 12(b)(3)
motion. According to WeConnect, the district court violated the
rules of judicial notice by relying on information it found in the
course of its own internet research.

WeConnect is incorrect. The website was not the determinative
factor in the district court's decision. WeConnect bore the burden
of establishing its right to enforce the arbitration agreement. It
contended that it could enforce a contract entered by AEI, but the
only evidence it introduced of its relationship to AEI was one
sentence in an affidavit from its Director of Human Resources.  

Contrary to WeConnect's assertion, the district court did not
engage in its own internet research to find the website; Goplin
cited WeConnect's website in his briefing. WeConnect protests that
it did not have the opportunity to put its website language in
context for the court. But it could have done so in its reply
brief; it simply failed to use that opportunity.  
Had WeConnect introduced the strongest evidence of its relationship
with AEI from the get-go, it may well have convinced the district
court that the two names referred to the same entity. But WeConnect
miscalculated and relied on a conclusory sentence in a human
resources affidavit to establish the corporate relationship between
WeConnect and AEI. Based on the evidence it had before it, the
district court's finding was not clearly erroneous.

Accordingly, the decision of the district court is affirmed and the
case is remanded for further proceedings.

A full-text copy of the Seventh Circuit's June 21, 2018 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y9xexj27 from Leagle.com.

Ross William Townsend, for Defendant-Appellant.

David C. Zoeller, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Caitlin M. Madden, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

WELSPUN PIPES: Vines and Lewis Seek Overtime Pay under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY VINES and DOMINIQUE LEWIS, Each Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. WELSPUN PIPES,
INC.; WELSPUN TUBULAR LLC; and WELSPUN USA, the Defendants, Case
No. 4:18-cv-00509-SWW (E.D. Ark., Aug. 7, 2018), seeks declaratory
judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages prejudgment
interest, and costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees, as a
result of Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiffs and other
hourly-paid employees lawful overtime compensation for hours worked
in excess of 40 hours per week, under the Fair Labor Standards Act,
and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.

Defendant operates multiple manufacturing facilities worldwide,
including a facility in Arkansas, and has one corporate
headquarters that centralizes all pay, time and human resource
policies so that they are the same across its facilities.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel Ford, Esq.
          Chris Burks, Esq.
          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          One Financial Center
          650 South Shackleford, Suite 411
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Telephone: (501) 221-0088
          Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
          E-mail: daniel@sanfordlawfirm.com
                  chris@sanfordlawfirm.com
                  josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


WOMEN'S NATIONAL: Faces Bishop Suit in Southern Dist. of New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Women's National
Republican Club, Inc. The case is captioned as Cedric Bishop, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff,
v. Women's National Republican Club, Inc., doing business as: 3
West Club, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-07069 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 6,
2018).

The Women's National Republican Club is the oldest private club for
Republican women in the United States, and was founded by Henrietta
Wells Livermore in 1921.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
          COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
          300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Telephone: (917) 299 6612
          Facsimile: (929) 575 4195
          E-mail: joseph@cml.legal



                            *********

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 ***