CAR_Public/180823.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, August 23, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 169

                            Headlines

7-ELEVEN INC: Munoz Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass
AAA AUTO: Donna Hall Sues over False Vehicle Advertisement
AARON'S INC: Court Dismisses PAGA Claim in Store Manager's Suit
ABM INDUSTRIES: Court Strikes McDonald Class Certification Motion
AK STEEL: Appeal in Antitrust Suit vs. Steel Makers Underway

ALLIANCEONE RECEIVABLES: 9th Cir. Appeal Filed in Syria Class Suit
ALLIED INTERSTATE: Faces Koridze Suit in E.D. New York
ALPHA RECOVERY: Faces Iobidze Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
ALTRA INDUSTRIAL: Levy Sues over Sale-of-Control Deal with Fortive
AMERICAN GYPSUM: Pays $6M to Settle Homebuilders' Suit

ARS NATIONAL: Faces Blecher Suit in Eastern District of New York
ASHLEY FURNITURE: Court Denies Perisic Class Certification Bid
AT&T MOBILITY: Court Certifies Class of California Residents
AT&T: Faces Class Action Over Massive Data Thefts
BANK OF AMERICA: Fails to Pay Escrow Account Interest, Cantero Says

BANK OF NEW YORK: Seeks 2nd Cir. Review of Decision in "Maddox"
BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Smith Suit in Sacramento
BOARDWALK PIPELINE: Case Settlement Hearing Set for Sept. 27
BONNIER CORP: Court Denies Prelim Approval of $3MM Class Settlement
BOOZ ALLEN: Court Dismisses Amended Complaint in "Langley"

BRIXMOR PROPERTY: Cohen & Steers Global Class Action Underway
CAL WEST: Courts Requires Supplemental Info in $1.2MM Settlement
CALIFORNIA: $1MM Attorney's Fees Awarded in Segregated Housing Suit
CANADA: Oct. 31 Opt Out Deadline in Sixties Scoop Settlement
CEMEX CONSTRUCTION: C.D. Cal. Eastern Div. to Hear Grigoryan Suit

CHEMED CORP: Employee Class Suit Against Vitas Unit Ongoing
CIRQUE DU SOLEIL: Averts TCPA Class Action Over Unsolicited Faxes
CLIENT SERVICES: Faces Elenthukh Suit in E.D. New York
CLOSET FACTORY: Faces Matzura Suit in Southern Dist. of New York
CM SEAFOOD: Martinez Seeks Minimum Wages & Overtime under FLSA

CNA FINANCIAL: Settlement of 401 (k) Plan Suit Has Initial Okay
COGINT INC: Bank Appeals E.D.N.Y. Decision to 2nd Circuit
COLLECTO INC: Court Certifies Settlement Class in Diaz Suit
COLUMBUS RESTAURANT: Didoni Seeks to Certify Class of Servers
COMPLYRIGHT INC: Morello Sues over Data Breach

CONCORDE INVESTMENT: Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Suit
CONSUMERS UNITED: Faces Capitol Specialty Suit in Massachusetts
COOK COUNTY, IL: Suit Alleges Detainees Secretly Monitored
CUBAMAX TRAVEL: Poirier Sues over Telemarketing Messages
D & A SERVICES: Faces Heilweil Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York

DEBT RECOVERY: Faces Ward Suit in Eastern District of New York
DNC GAMING: Faces Stacey Mercer Suit in S.D. New York
DOS REALES: Olivera et al. Bid to Certify Settlement Class Denied
EAGLE MATERIALS: Paid Settlement Amount in Direct Purchasers Suit
EDUCATIONAL FINANCIAL: Court Approves $1.1MM Deal in TCPA Suit

ELI LILLY: Strafford Appeals C.D. Calif. Ruling to 9th Circuit
EREDI PISANO: Faces Wu Suit in Southern District of New York
EROS INTERNATIONAL: Second Circuit Appeal Pending
ESA MANAGEMENT: Removes Beasley Suit to C.D. California
ETC INSTITUTE: Surveyors' Suit Remanded to State Court

EXTRA EXPRESS: Underpays Delivery Drivers, Julio Rico Claims
FAMILY DOLLAR: Underpays Store Managers, Castellanos Suit Claims
FATHOM EVENTS: Johnston Appeals W.D. Wash. Decision to 9th Cir.
FCA US: Court Narrows Claims in Defective Wire Harness Suit
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Suit vs. Reliance Trust Company Still Ongoing

FIELD FRESH: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Koh Suit Alleges
FIRSTPOINT INC: Barnhill Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
FORSTER & GARBUS: Bencomo Files Placeholder Class Certification Bid
FPI MANAGEMENT: Faces Pine Manor Suit in Sacramento California
FREDDIE MAC: Notice of Appeal in Jacobs and Hides Suit Pending

FREDDIE MAC: Still Defends Against Ohio Public Employees' Suit
FREDDIE MAC: Suit Over Preferred Stock Purchase Deal Underway
FRESHBEV LLC: NY Court Narrows Claims in Mislabeling Suit
FURNITURE MEDIC: Faces Matzura Suit in Southern Dist. of New York
GENERAL MOTORS: Bohlke Sues over Unwanted Telephone Calls

GLOBAL FRANCHISE: Faces Matzura Suit in Southern Dist. of New York
GOLDEN STATE OVERNIGHT: Underpays Drivers, Stevenson Suit Says
GRAMERCY PROPERTY: Suits over Deal with Blackstone Unit Underway
GRUMA CORP: Court Dismisses J. Maravilla's FLSA Suit
HANDI-HOUSE MFG: Brantley Appeals S.D. Georgia Order to 11th Cir.

HEWLETT PACKARD: Enoh et al. Allege Age & Gender Discrimination
HUTCHISON TREE: Berber Suit Wins Conditional Class Certification
ICHIBAN GROUP: Court Grants Leave to Amend Wage & Hour Complaint
IMPINJ INC: Gainey McKenna Files Securities Class Action
IMPINJ INC: Howard G. Smith Files Securities Class Action

IMPINJ INC: Kessler Topaz Files Securities Fraud Class Action
INFORMATION RESOURCES: Court Conditionally Certifies FLSA Class
INNERWORKINGS INC: Rosen Law Firm Appointed Lead Counsel
J & D TRANSPORTATION: Thomas Suit Wins Class Certification
J E H ENTERPRISES: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, Leung et al. Say

JFK MEDICAL: Mendez et al. Seek to Certify Patients Class
JUNO THERAPEUTICS: Overlength Bid for Prelim Approval of Deal OK'd
KIRKLAND'S STORES: Removes Miles Suit to C.D. California
LEXINGTON INSURANCE: Appeals Order in Franklin Suit to 8th Cir.
LIFE INSURANCE: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Ruling in Walker Suit

LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Continues to Defend Mason Suit in New York
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Continues to Defend Steele Suit in Canada
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Kramer Class Action in California Underway
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Oct. 3 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Trial in Gold Suit Set for Feb. 2019

MARRONE BIO: Bid to Review Prior Order in Securities Suit Junked
MDL 2672: 9th Cir. Affirms Denial of Fleshman's Bid to Intervene
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Morris Plaintiffs May Join "Newman" Deal Process
MIDLAND CREDIT: Bruchhauser Files Placeholder Bid to Certify Class
MILBERG LLP: Laber Files Petitions for Writ in Bobbitt Suit

NCAA: 9th Cir. Affirms Attys' Fees Award in E. O'Bannon's Suit
NEW RESIDENTIAL: Delaware Supreme Court Affirms Case Dismissal
NEW SOUTH WALES: 45 Traders Ready to Join Light Rail Class Action
NEW YORK: Court Approves Settlement in Bullying Class Action
NORTHLAND GROUP: Robinson Appeals D.N.J. Ruling to 3rd Circuit

NUVASIVE INC: Nov. 12 Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set
OSHEAGA: Travis Scott's Tardiness Subject of Possible Class-Action
P.F. CHANG'S: Esry Suit Has Conditional Class Certification
PACIFIC GAS: Changes to Reminder Postcard in Greer Settlement OK'd
PANDORA MEDIA: Sheridan Suits in Cal. and N.J. Still Stayed

PANDORA MEDIA: Still Defends Flo & Eddie Inc. Class Action
PANDORA MEDIA: Suit by Ponderosa Twins Plus One Still Stayed
PETRO RIVER: Appeal in Donelson-Friend Suit Underway
PIER 1 IMPORTS: Court Dismisses MERS' Securities Fraud Suit
PIONEER CREDIT: Henderson Seeks to Certify Two Classes

PIONEER NATURAL: Partial Summary Judgment Bid in ERISA Suit OK'd
PLAIN GREEN: Great Plains Appeals Ruling in "Gibbs" to 4th Cir.
PLAIN GREEN: Seeks 4th Circuit Review of Ruling in "Gibbs" Suit
PMP SUCCESSOR: Thomas May Sues over Background Checks
POPSUGAR INC: Removes O'Brien Suit to N.D. California

PREMIER SECURITY: Underpays Service Technicians, Champ Claims
PROTHENA CORP: Voluntary Dismissal Notice of James Class Action
QUALITY CUSTOM: Underpays Warehouse Workers, Hession Alleges
QUIXOTE VENTURES: Superior Court Appeal Filed in Klein Suit
RECEIVABLE MGMT: Bid to Dismiss P. Maniaci's Suit Denied

RENTOKIL NORTH: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Flores Suit Alleges
RESPOND POWER: 3rd Circuit Appeal Filed in Gillis Class Suit
RESTORATION ROBOTICS: Faces 3 Class Suits in California
RETRIEVAL-MASTERS: Bogacki Files Placeholder Bid to Certify Class
RS&H INC: 11th Cir. Appeal Filed in Jones Case

SANFORD LP: Court Denies Spacone's Bid for Class Certification
SANTANDER CONSUMER: Court Stays V. Blakely's Suit Pending Appeal
SCHENKER INC: Removes Ramos Suit to C.D. California
SDLA COURIER: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Gonzalez Suit Says
SEARS PROTECTION: Objection to R&R on C. Jackman Opinion Overruled

SEVEN-ONE-SEVEN: Bodie Seeks to Certify Florida Class
SEWERAGE & WATER BOARD: Flood Victims File Class-Action
SHIRE PLC: Appeals from Dismissal of ELAPRASE Suits Still Pending
SILVER CROSS HOSPITAL: Diaz Sues over Use of Biometric Data
SINCLAIR BROADCAST: Saxena White Files Securities Class Action

SOURCE RECEIVABLES: Gochet Files Placeholder Bid to Certify Class
SOUTHWEST CREDIT: Faces Chwab Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
SOUTHWEST GAS: Court Stays E. Howard's FLSA Suit
SPREEMO INC: Mauthe Class Certification Bid Denied
STATE FARM: Court Won't Dismiss RICO Claims in M. Hale's Suit

STEINHOFF INT'L: Class Action Lawsuit Filed in South Africa
STRAIGHT PATH: Court Narrows Claims in Stockholders' Suit
SULLIVAN UNIVERSITY: Seeks Review of Judgment in McCann Suit
SYSTEMFORWARD AMERICA: Faces Luc Burbon Suit in New York
TAMKO BUILDING: Ct. Won't Strike Class Claims in Heritage(R) Suit

TARGET CORP: Court Narrows Claims in Makeup Remover Wipes Suit
TEXAS FARM: English et al. Seek to Certify Class of Contractors
TEZOS FOUNDATION: Class Action Suit Will Proceed
TIBET PHARMA: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
TIM ABLES: Stickell Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wage under FLSA

TOMRA METRO: Fails to Pay Overtime Wage, Lawson Says
TONOGA INC: Court Certified 4 Classes in Water Contamination Suit
TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Faces Rukhman Suit in E.D. New York
TRINET GROUP: Appeal in Welgus' Securities Suit Pending
TWITTER INC: Court Grants Bid for Class Cert. in Securities Suit

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Dismissal of Arbitration in Mass. Suit Flipped
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Moves to Arbitrate Data-Breach Class Actions
UMPQUA HOLDINGS: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Amirian Suit Ruling
UNITY COURIER: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ruiz Suit Alleges
US IMMIGRATION: Certification of Cambodian Nationals Class Okayed

VALENTINE & KEBARTAS: Faces Natadze Suit in E.D. New York
VITAL RECOVERY: Faces Qureshi Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
WESBANCO INC: Agreement in Principle Reached in Parshall Suit
XPO LAST MILE: Underpays Drivers, Gonzalez Suit Alleges
ZION OIL: Bragar Eagel Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit

ZION OIL: Peaks Sue over Share Price Drop, Misleading Reports
ZION OIL: Pomerantz Law Announces Filing of Securities Class Action

                            *********

7-ELEVEN INC: Munoz Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass
-----------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Edwardo Munoz, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. 7-Eleven, Inc., a
Texas corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-03893-RGK-AGR
(C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court on September 10,
2018, for an order:

   1. certifying these classes:

      Disclosure Class:

      "all persons in the United States who (1) from a date two
      years prior to the filing of the initial complaint in this
      action to the date notice is sent to the Disclosure Class;
      (2) applied for employment with Defendant; (3) about whom
      Defendant procured a consumer report; and (4) who were
      provided the same form FCRA disclosure and authorization as
      the disclosure and authorization form that Defendant
      provided to Plaintiff"; and

      California Subclass:

      "all members of the Disclosure Class who reside in
      California,"

   2. appointing Plaintiff Munoz as the Class Representative; and

   3. appointing the law firms of Woodrow & Peluso, LLC and Arias
      Sanguinetti Wang & Torrijos, LLP as Class Counsel.

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the alleged Classes:

          Mike Arias, Esq.
          Alfredo Torrijos, Esq.
          ARIAS SANGUINETTI WANG & TORRIJOS, LLP
          6701 Center Drive West, 14th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90045
          Telephone: (310) 844 9696
          Facsimile: (310) 861 0168
          E-mail: mike@asstlawyers.com
                  alfredo@asstlawyers.com

               - and -

          Steven L. Woodrow, Esq.
          Patrick H. Peluso, Esq.
          Taylor T. Smith, Esq.
          WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC
          3900 East Mexico Avenue, Suite 300
          Denver, CO 80210
          Telephone: (720) 213 0675
          Facsimile: (303) 927 0809
          E-mail: swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com
                  ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com
                  tsmith@woodrowpeluso.com


AAA AUTO: Donna Hall Sues over False Vehicle Advertisement
----------------------------------------------------------
DONNA HALL, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, vs. AAA AUTO GROUP INC., the Defendant, Case No.
76275429 (Fla. Cir. Ct., In And For Miami-Dade County, Aug. 10,
2018), seeks to recover damages from AAA Auto as set forth in
Section 501.211, Florida Statutes.

According to the complaint, on or about March 17, 2017, the
Dealership represented to Ms. Hall in an advertisement that the
Vehicle "[d]rives EXCELLENT and as good as new" and then reaffirmed
the representations with Ms. Hall over the phone. These
representations were false. The Dealership knew or should have
known these representations were false at the time they were made.
The Dealership intended that its false representations induce Ms.
Hall to act on them and cause Ms. Hall to buy the Vehicle and enter
into the Sales Contract with the Dealership. Ms. Hall relied on the
Dealership's representations and agreed to purchase the Vehicle and
entered into the Sales Contract with the Dealership as a result of
the representations. As a result of the foregoing fraudulent
representations by the Dealership, Ms. Hall has been damaged.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff & Putative Class Members:

          Roger D. Mason, II, Esq.
          Joseph V. Nemeh, Esq.
          John S. Valenti, Esq.
          ROGER D. MASON, II, P.A.
          West Cypress Street, Suite 105
          Tampa, FL 33607
          Telephone: (813) 304 2131
          E-mail: rmason@flautolawyer.com
                  jnemeh@flautolawyer.com
                  jvalenti@flautolawyer.com
                  admin@flautolawyer.com


AARON'S INC: Court Dismisses PAGA Claim in Store Manager's Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CARLOS AGUIRRE, Plaintiff, v. AARON'S, INC. DBA
AARON'S SALES & LEASE OWNERSHIP, Defendant, Case No.
3:17-cv-00297-L-BLM (S.D. Cal.), Judge M. James Lorenz of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California granted in
part and denied in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim, and to strike an allegation from the
amended complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by Aaron's as a store manager.  He
alleges that Aaron's misclassified him as an exempt employee, and
that, as a result of misclassification, he was not provided meal
and rest periods, paid overtime or hourly wages for all hours
worked, did not receive accurate wage statements, was subject to
forfeiture of vested vacation pay, and was not timely paid his
final wages in violation of the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"), and numerous provisions of the California Labor Code.
Based on these violations, the Plaintiff also alleges violation of
the California Unfair Competition Law ("UCL").

The Plaintiff seeks monetary and declaratory relief on his own
behalf and on behalf of a putative class. In addition, he seeks
civil penalties pursuant to the Private Attorney General Act
("PAGA").

Aaron's motion to dismiss the initial complaint was granted with
leave to amend.  Pending before the Court is its motion to dismiss
and to strike ("MTD") in response to the first amended complaint
("FAC"), mostly on the grounds that the factual allegations are
insufficient.  The Plaintiff opposed, and Aaron's replied.

Judge Lorenz disagrees with Aaron's arguement that the Plaintiff
alleges misclassification without factual support.  He inds that
the Plaintiff's allegation that he spent over half his time engaged
in specific instances of non-exempt work while simultaneously
classified as exempt is sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss.

He also finds that the Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged his
claims for hourly and overtime wages under the FLSA and California
Labor Code Sections 223, 510, 1197, 1197.1, and 1198.  The
Plaintiff identifies the time during which the alleged misconduct
occurred as beginning four years prior to commencement of the
action.  Because the Plaintiff's claims are for unpaid wages, each
pay period during the four years prior to commencing this action
potentially triggered the running of a new limitations period under
both the FLSA and California law.  Accordingly, the expiration of
the statute of limitations is not apparent on the face of the
complaint.

The Plaintiff alleges that meal periods were not offered at all.
Accordingly, teh Judge holds that the Plaintiff does not have to
show when and how Aaron's deprived him of his meal periods, whether
he declined them, and how many he missed.  The Plaintiff adequately
alleges violations of California Labor Code Sections 226.7, 512,
and 1198.

The Plaintiff has also adequately alleges violation of California
Labor Code Sections 226.7, and 1198.  The Plaintiff alleges that
Aaron's did not provide rest periods as a result of
misclassification and is therefore not required more specifically
to show how Aaron's failed to provide them.

The Judge agrees with the Plaintiff that, due to misclassification,
Aaron's forfeited his accrued vacation pay and suffered harm in the
form of lost money or property in violation of California Labor
Code Section 227.3.  The Plaintiff identifies the specific policy
(floating holiday policy) and its basic terms (forfeiture of unused
floating holiday pay), and further alleges he suffered harm as a
result.  Whether the floating holidays could be taken at any time
or only on certain days, or how many holidays the Plaintiff has
forfeited, are questions of fact which need not be resolved at the
pleading stage.  Consequently, the Plaintiff adequately alleges
violation of California Labor Code Section 227.3.

The Judge holds that the Plaintiff adequately alleges that Aaron's
failed to provide accurate written wage statements in violation of
California Labor Code Section 226(a).  He says Aaron's argues only
that it could have provided wage statements separately as hard
copies or through electronic means.  Even if its argument is
accepted at face value, the Plaintiff sufficiently alleges this
claim because any separate statement would be inaccurate for
failure to account for meal periods, rest breaks, vacation pay, and
overtime hours.

Aaron's argues for dismissal of the Plaintiff's claims for failure
to timely pay all final wages and violation of the UCL, because
they are derived from the foregoing wages and hours claims.  As the
Judge has discussed, the Plaintiff's other claims survive the
motion to dismiss.  Accordingly, the derivative claims may
proceed.

Because the Plaintiff does not oppose dismissal of the PAGA claim
because it was "erroneously included," tTo the extent Aaron's
motion to dismiss requests dismissal of the PAGA claim, it is
granted.

Finally, as for the Defendant's motion to strike the allegation
that it failed to comply with the recordkeeping requirement of the
FLSA, the Judge holds that under Rule 12(f), a court may strike
from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant,
immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.  Because the
allegation that the Defendant violated the FLSA recordkeeping
provision does not fall into any of Rule 12(f) categories, he
denied the Defendant's motion to strike.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Lorenz granted Aaron's motion to
dismiss as to the PAGA claim, and denied the motion in all other
respects.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 3, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/xaLcIH from Leagle.com.

Carlos Aguirre, on behalf of himself, all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Chaim Shaun Setareh --
shaun@setarehlaw.com -- Setareh Law Group, & Thomas Alistair Segal
-- thomas@setarehlaw.com -- Setareh Law Group.

Aaron's, Inc., a Georgia corporation, Defendant, represented by
Christian J. Rowley, crowley@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP,
Michael W. Stevens, Seyfarth & Shaw LLP & Tatyana Shmygol --
tshmygol@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP.


ABM INDUSTRIES: Court Strikes McDonald Class Certification Motion
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Curtis McDonald, the Plaintiff, v. ABM
Industries Incorporated, et al., the Defendant, Case No.
1:17-cv-08154 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Robert M. Dow Jr. entered
an order striking Plaintiff's motion for class certification.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on August 14, 2018,
Plaintiff's motion for class certification and motion for summary
judgment and Defendants' motion to dismiss are stricken
without prejudice. The Defendants' motion to stay is also stricken
pursuant to Defendants' notice of withdrawal of motion. On the
Court's own motion, and with the agreement of the parties as stated
on the record, this case is stayed pending the Illinois Supreme
Court's decision in Rosenbach v. Six Flags Entertainment Corp., No.
123186. The parties are directed to file on the docket a joint
status report when the Illinois Supreme Court issues its decision
and to include a copy of the opinion in their filing.


AK STEEL: Appeal in Antitrust Suit vs. Steel Makers Underway
------------------------------------------------------------
AK Steel Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the indirect plaintiffs'
appeal before the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals is still
pending.

On September and October 2008 and again in July 2010, several
companies filed purported class actions in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against nine
steel manufacturers, including the company.

The case numbers for these actions are 08CV5214, 08CV5371,
08CV5468, 08CV5633, 08CV5700, 08CV5942, 08CV6197 and 10CV04236. On
December 28, 2010, another action, case number 32,321, was filed in
state court in the Circuit Court for Cocke County, Tennessee. The
defendants removed the Tennessee case to federal court and in March
2012 it was transferred to the Northern District of Illinois.

The plaintiffs in the various pending actions are companies that
purport to have purchased steel products, directly or indirectly,
from one or more of the defendants and they claim to file the
actions on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased steel
products for delivery or pickup in the United States from any of
the named defendants at any time from at least as early as January
2005. The complaints allege that the defendant steel producers have
conspired in violation of antitrust laws to restrict output and to
fix, raise, stabilize and maintain artificially high prices for
steel products in the United States.

In March 2014, the company reached an agreement with the direct
purchaser plaintiffs to settle the claims asserted against it.
According to that settlement, the company agreed to pay $5.8 to the
plaintiff class of direct purchasers in exchange for the members of
that class to completely release all claims. The company continues
to believe that the claims made against it lacks any merit, but the
company elected to enter the settlement to avoid the ongoing
expense of defending ourselves in this protracted and expensive
antitrust litigation.

The company provided notices of the proposed settlement to members
of the settlement class. After several class members received the
notice, they elected to opt out of the class settlement.

Following a fairness hearing, on October 21, 2014 the Court entered
an order and judgment approving the settlement and dismissing all
of the direct plaintiffs' claims against the company with prejudice
as to the settlement class.

On March 3, 2017, the Court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss the indirect plaintiffs' amended complaint on the grounds
that the plaintiffs lacked antitrust standing. On April 4, 2017,
the indirect plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration and the
defendants filed an opposition to that motion. On July 13, 2017,
the Court denied the indirect plaintiffs' motion for
reconsideration. On September 15, 2017 the indirect plaintiffs
filed a notice of appeal with the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.


AK Steel said "Because we have been unable to determine that a
potential loss in this case for the indirect plaintiffs is probable
or estimable, we have not recorded an accrual for this matter. If
our assumptions used to evaluate a probable or estimable loss for
the indirect plaintiffs prove to be incorrect or change, we may be
required to record a charge for their claims."

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

AK Steel Corporation produces and sells flat-rolled carbon,
stainless, and electrical steel and tubular products and components
primarily for automotive, infrastructure and manufacturing,
construction, and electrical power generation and distribution
markets.  The company was founded in 1989 and is headquartered in
West Chester, Ohio. AK Steel Corporation operates as a subsidiary
of AK Steel Holding Corporation.


ALLIANCEONE RECEIVABLES: 9th Cir. Appeal Filed in Syria Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Dana Syria filed an appeal from a decision in the lawsuit
titled Dana Syria v. AllianceOne Receivables Management, Inc., et
al., Case No. 2:17-cv-01139-TSZ, in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington, Seattle.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, parties have
filed appeals from court rulings in the lawsuit.

The appellate case is captioned as Dana Syria v. AllianceOne
Receivables Management, Inc., et al., Case No. 18-35678, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Appellant Dana Syria's opening brief is due on October 15,
      2018;

   -- Appellees AllianceOne Receivables Management, Inc. and
      Transworld Systems Inc.'s answering brief is due on
      November 13, 2018; and

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

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

          Jason Anderson, Esq.
          Thomas Tyler Santiago, Esq.
          ANDERSON LAW OF KING COUNTY
          787 Maynard Ave. S.
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Telephone: (206) 395-2665
          E-mail: jason@alkc.net
                  tyler@alkc.net

               - and -

          Adam Jared Berger, Esq.
          Lindsay L. Halm, Esq.
          SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER
          810 Third Avenue, Suite 500
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Telephone: (206) 622-8000
          E-mail: berger@sgb-law.com
                  halm@sgb-law.com

Defendant-Appellee ALLIANCEONE RECEIVABLES MANAGEMENT, INC., is
represented by:

          Marc Rosenberg, Esq.
          LEE SMART, P.S., INC.
          1800 One Convention Place
          701 Pike Street
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 624-7990
          E-mail: mr@leesmart.com

Defendant-Appellee TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS INC. is represented by:

          Emily J. Harris, Esq.
          Mallory Lynn Bouchee Satre, Esq.
          CORR CRONIN MICHELSON BAUMGARDNER FOGG & MOORE LLP
          1001 4th Avenue, Suite 3900
          Seattle, WA 98154-1051
          Telephone: (206) 652-8600
          E-mail: eharris@corrcronin.com
                  msatre@corrcronin.com

               - and -

          Damian P. Richard, Esq.
          SESSIONS FISHMAN NATHAN & ISRAEL, LLP
          1545 Hotel Circle South, Suite # 150
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 758-1891
          E-mail: drichard@sessions.legal


ALLIED INTERSTATE: Faces Koridze Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Allied Interstate
LLC. The case is captioned as Khatuna Koridze on behalf of herself
and all other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff, v.
Allied Interstate LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-04520
(E.D.N.Y., Aug. 9, 2018). The case alleges Fair Debt Collection Act
violations.

Allied Interstate is a collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


ALPHA RECOVERY: Faces Iobidze Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alpha Recovery Corp.
The case is captioned as Natela Iobidze on behalf of herself and
all other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff, v. Alpha
Recovery Corp., the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-04521 (E.D.N.Y.,
Aug. 9, 2018). The case alleges Fair Debt Collection Act
violations.

Alpha Recovery is a debt collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ALTRA INDUSTRIAL: Levy Sues over Sale-of-Control Deal with Fortive
------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Levy, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Edmund M. Carpenter, Carl R. Christenson, Lyle G.
Ganske, Margot L. Hoffman, Ph.D., Michael S. Lipscomb, Larry P.
McPherson, Thomas W. Swidarski, James H. Woodward, Jr., Altra
Industrial Motion Corp., and Fortive Corporation, the Defendants,
Case No. 18-1023 (Mass. Super. Ct., Aug. 8, 2018), is a shareholder
class action on behalf of Plaintiff and the other public
stockholders of Altra Industrial Motion Corp. common stock and
against Altra and the members of its board of directors, as well as
Fortive Corporation. The action challenges the conduct of Altra's
directors in causing Altra to sell control of itself to Fortive
pursuant to an agreement entered into on March 7, 2018.  The
lawsuit contends that the parties' Sale of Control Agreement
benefits Altra's management and its Board but is to the detriment
of Plaintiff and Altra's other public shareholders.

Pursuant to the Sale of Control Agreement, Altra will issue 54% of
its shares of common stock to Fortive shareholders plus $1.4
billion cash proceeds and debt reduction in exchange for certain of
Fortive's businesses described by Defendants as the "A&S Business."
Plaintiff challenges the Sale of Control and the related Share
Issuance because each is the product of Altra's directors breaching
their fiduciary duties to Plaintiff and Altra's other public
shareholders.

According to the complaint, to persuade Altra's shareholders to
approve such an unfavorable Sale of Control Agreement and the
highly dilutive Share Issuance, on August 6, 2018 the Individual
Defendants mailed a proxy statement which, among other things,
conceals the conflicts of interest of Defendants' purported
independent financial advisors, Goldman Sachs and KeyBanc Capital
Markets Inc., so as not to discredit their recommendation of the
Sale of Control to Altra's shareholders.

In this regard, while the Proxy Statement touts Goldman Sachs' and
KBCM's respective opinions that the Sale of Control is "fair," it
does not even acknowledge that Goldman Sachs and KBCM are
shareholders of Fortive, holding over $200 million and $44.5
million worth of Fortive's stock respectively at the time each
rendered its fairness opinion on the Sale of Control to Fortive.
Rather, it misleadingly states that Goldman Sachs and KBCM "may"
(or may not) own Fortive shares. Additionally, among other things,
the Defendants have failed to disclose certain financial
projections upon which Goldman Sachs and KBCM relied in creating
their opinion that the Sale of Control is fair to Altra as well as
the back-and-forth negotiations on, among other things, the
consideration being exchanged in the Sale of Control
Agreement.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam M. Stewart, Esq.
          Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP
          Seaport East 2 Seaport Lane
          Boston, MA 02210
          Telephone: (617) 439 3939
          Facsimile: (617) 439 0134
          E-mail: astewart@shulaw.com

               - and -

          Richard B. Brualdi, Esq.
          Gaitri Boodhoo, Esq.
          THE BRUALDI LAW FIRM, P.C.
          29 Broadway, Suite 2400
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 952 0602
          Facsimile: (212) 952 0608


AMERICAN GYPSUM: Pays $6M to Settle Homebuilders' Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Eagle Materials Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that American Gypsum has paid
a total of $6.0 million in cash to settle the claims against it in
a suit initiated by a a group of homebuilders.

In March 2015, a group of homebuilders filed a complaint against
the defendants, including American Gypsum, based upon the same
conduct alleged in the consolidated class action complaints. In
March 2015, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML)
transferred this action to the multidistrict litigation already
pending in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Effective May 8, 2018, American Gypsum and the homebuilder
plaintiffs entered into a settlement agreement (the Homebuilder
Settlement Agreement) to settle all claims made against American
Gypsum. The Homebuilder Settlement Agreement, in which American
Gypsum denies all wrongdoing, includes releases by the homebuilder
plaintiffs of American Gypsum as well as its subsidiaries,
affiliates, and other related parties, for the time period prior to
and including the date of execution of the Homebuilder Settlement
Agreement.

Under the Homebuilder Settlement Agreement, American Gypsum agreed
to pay a total of $6.0 million in cash to settle the claims against
it.

Eagle Materials said, "At March 31, 2018, we accrued the total
amount of this settlement, and this amount was paid in May 2018."

Eagle Materials Inc. makes, distributes, and sells gypsum
wallboard, Portland cement, recycled paperboard, and concrete and
aggregates. Eagle Materials, formerly Centex Construction Products
Inc., was founded in 1963 and is based in Dallas.


ARS NATIONAL: Faces Blecher Suit in Eastern District of New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ARS National
Services, Inc.  The case is captioned as Jamie Blecher on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ARS
National Services, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-04515
(E.D.N.Y., Aug. 9, 2018).  The case alleges Fair Debt Collection
Act violations.

ARS National offers accounts receivable management services.  It
caters to financial services organizations, banks, and credit card
companies.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


ASHLEY FURNITURE: Court Denies Perisic Class Certification Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned SLADJANA PERISIC, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ASHLEY FURNITURE
INDUSTRIES, INC., a Wisconsin corporation, the Defendant, Case No.
8:16-cv-03255-EAK-SPF (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Elizabeth
Kovachevich entered an order on August 13, 2018:

   1. adopting, confirming, and approving Judge Mark Pizzo's
      Report and Recommendation, in all respects and is made
      a part of this order for all purposes;

   2. overruling Plaintiff's objections to Judge Pizza's Report
      and Recommendation; and

   3. denying Plaintiff's motion for class certification.

The Court said, "After careful consideration of the R&R, in
conjunction with a de novo review of Plaintiff's objections and an
independent examination of other relevant portions of the file, the
Court finds that the R&R is well-reasoned and correct, and the
Court accordingly overrules each of Plaintiffs objections. The R&R
is thus adopted by the Court and incorporated into this Order by
reference."

In a separate order dated August 15, Judge Kovachevich directed the
Plaintiff to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction as to Ashley Furniture
Industries.  "It is FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall
administratively close this case pending the Court's determination
of its jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims and terminate all
pending motions," she added.  The Show Cause Responses are due
August 29.


AT&T MOBILITY: Court Certifies Class of California Residents
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned STEVEN MCARDLE, an individual, on behalf
of himself, the general public, and those similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. AT&T MOBILITY LLC; NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS LLC; and
NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS SERVICES, INC., the Defendants, Case No.
4:09-cv-01117-CW (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Claudia Wilken entered
an order on August 13, 2018:

   1. certifying a class of:

      "all California residents who, any time between February
      6, 2005 and January 31, 2009, were charged international
      roaming fees by Defendants for unanswered incoming calls
      to their U.S.-based mobile numbers, except (a) customers
      who received refunds or credits and (b) for the class'
      CLRA claim, any customers who used their cell phones for
      business purposes";

   2. appointing McArdle as class representative and Gutride
       Safier LLP as class counsel;

   3. granting in part and denying in part three motions to seal;
      and

   4. scheduling a case management conference for 2:30 p.m. on
      September 25, 2018.


AT&T: Faces Class Action Over Massive Data Thefts
-------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News, reported that a federal
class action claims AT&T employees are engaging in SIM swap fraud,
"a metastasizing cancer attacking customers and allowing hackers
readily to bypass AT&T security to rob AT&T customers of valuable
personal information and millions of dollars of cryptocurrency."

BANK OF AMERICA: Fails to Pay Escrow Account Interest, Cantero Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ALEX CANTERO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-04157-ENV-RML (E.D.N.Y., July 20, 2018) alleges that the
Defendant failed to pay interest to Plaintiff and the class members
on the funds held in escrow accounts.

According to the complaint, the Defendant like many mortgage
lenders, regularly requires borrowers to maintain escrow accounts
containing sufficient funds to cover payments for property taxes
and insurance on mortgaged properties. Defendant collects the funds
from borrowers in advance, holds the funds in escrow accounts, and
then directly pays property taxes and insurance premiums when they
become due.

In violation of New York State law, the Defendant did not pay
Plaintiff and members of the Class he seeks to represent interest
on amounts paid into these escrow accounts. Instead, Defendant uses
this money to generate "float" income for itself. Money sitting in
an escrow account is the property of the borrower, not the
Defendant.

For this reason, in New York, Defendant is required to pay interest
on amounts in escrow accounts to the true owner of the account and
may not use those amounts solely for its own benefit. Because the
Defendant has ignored this legal obligation, the Plaintiff now
brings this class action to stop this unlawful conduct and to seek
redress for borrowers who did not receive the interest to which
they were entitled.

Bank of America, National Association operates as a bank. The Bank
offers saving and current account, investment and financial
services, online banking, mortgage and non-mortgage loan
facilities, as well as issues credit card and business loans. Bank
of America serves client worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd S. Garber, Esq.
          Bradley F. Silverman, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN BLANKINSHIP
            FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP
          455 Hamilton Avenue, Suite 605
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Telephone: (914) 298-3281
          Facsimile: (914) 908-6709
          E-mail: tgarber@fbfglaw.com
                  bsilverman@fgfglaw.com

               - and –

          Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq.
          GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, L.P.A.
          One West Fourth Street, 18th Floor
          Cincinnati, OH 45202-3604
          Telephone: 513.345.8297
          Facsimile: 513.345.8294
          E-mail: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com


BANK OF NEW YORK: Seeks 2nd Cir. Review of Decision in "Maddox"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., filed an
appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled SANDRA MADDOX and
TOMETTA MADDOX HOLLEY, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST COMPANY,
Case No. 15-cv-1053, in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of New York (Buffalo).

The appellate case is captioned as The Bank of New York Mellon
Trust Company, N.A. v. Maddox, et al., Case No. 18-2311, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Respondents Sandra Maddox and Tometta Maddox Holley, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are
represented by:

          Charles Marshall Delbaum, Esq.
          NATIONAL CONSUMER LAW CENTER
          7 Winthrop Square
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 542-8010
          E-mail: cdelbaum@nclc.org

Defendant-Petitioner The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company,
N.A., is represented by:

          Jonathan M. Robbin, Esq.
          BLANK ROME LLP
          The Chrysler Building
          405 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10174
          Telephone: (212) 885-5196
          E-mail: jrobbin@blankrome.com


BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Smith Suit in Sacramento
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Blizzard
Entertainment Inc.  The case is captioned as Michael Smith,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Blizzard Entertainment Inc., and Does 1-10, Defendant,
Case No. 34-2018-00237322-CU-PO-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty.,
July 23, 2018).

Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. develops and publishes entertainment
software solutions for creating games. Blizzard Entertainment, Inc.
was formerly known as Chaos Studios, Inc. and changed its name to
Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. in May 1994. The company was founded
in 1991 and is based in Irvine, California. Blizzard Entertainment,
Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Activision Blizzard, Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by John R Parker, Jr., Esq.


BOARDWALK PIPELINE: Case Settlement Hearing Set for Sept. 27
------------------------------------------------------------
Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2018, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the court in the
purported class action suit initiated by Tsemach Mishal and Paul
Berger, has scheduled a hearing for September 27, 2018, to consider
approval of the case settlement.

On May 25, 2018, plaintiffs Tsemach Mishal and Paul Berger (on
behalf of themselves and the purported class, Plaintiffs) initiated
a purported class action in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware (the Court) against the following defendants: the
Partnership, Boardwalk GP, Boardwalk GP, LLC and BPHC (together,
Defendants), regarding the potential exercise by Boardwalk GP of
its Purchase Right.

On June 25, 2018, Plaintiffs and Defendants entered into a
Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise and Settlement, subject to
the approval of the Court (the Proposed Settlement). Under the
terms of the Proposed Settlement, the lawsuit would be dismissed,
and related claims against the Defendants would be released by the
Plaintiffs, if BPHC, the sole member of the general partner of
Boardwalk GP, elected to cause Boardwalk GP to exercise the
Purchase Right and gave notice of such election as provided in the
Limited Partnership Agreement within a period specified by the
Proposed Settlement.

On June 29, 2018, Boardwalk GP elected to exercise the Purchase
Right and gave notice within the period specified by the Proposed
Settlement. On July 18, 2018, Boardwalk GP completed the purchase
of the Common Units pursuant to the Purchase Right.

On September 27, 2018, the Court is scheduled to hold a settlement
hearing to determine whether the Proposed Settlement should be
approved and final judgment entered dismissing the action with
prejudice, and extinguishing and releasing the claims as provided
in the Proposed Settlement.

Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP, through its subsidiaries, owns and
operates integrated natural gas and natural gas liquids and other
hydrocarbons (NGLs) pipeline and storage systems in the United
States. The company was founded in 2005 and is headquartered in
Houston, Texas. Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP is a subsidiary of
Boardwalk Pipelines Holding Corp.


BONNIER CORP: Court Denies Prelim Approval of $3MM Class Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan, Southern Division, denied Parties' Joint Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement in the case captioned
REBECCA FRISKE, Plaintiff, v. BONNIER CORPORATION, Defendant, Case
No. 16-12799(E.D. Mich.).

The named plaintiff, Rebecca Friske, brought this action under
Michigan's Video Rental Privacy Act (VRPA), alleging that defendant
Bonnier Corporation, a Delaware corporation that sells
subscriptions to magazines nationwide, sold and disclosed customer
data to third parties in violation of that state law.

In their joint motion the parties propose a settlement consisting
of the following elements, inter alia:

   -- The defendant would establish a settlement fund of
$3,000,000.

   -- Class members would have the option to choose either a cash
distribution amount of approximately $16 or a free one-year
subscription to one of Bonnier's magazines

   -- For each free subscription claimed or automatically received,
Bonnier would receive a credit equal to the cash distribution
amount (~$16), which will be deducted from the settlement fund
Class counsel would receive fees of up to 30% of the settlement
fund, which translates to $900,000.

In deciding whether to approve a class action settlement, the
ultimate issue for the Court is whether the proposed settlement is
fair, adequate and reasonable. Several factors guide the inquiry:
(1) the risk of fraud or collusion; (2) the complexity, expense and
likely duration of the litigation; (3) the amount of discovery
engaged in by the parties; (4) the likelihood of success on the
merits; (5) the opinions of class counsel and class
representatives; (6) the reaction of absent class members; and (7)
the public interest.

The Sixth Circuit has explained that in approving class action
settlements, courts must carefully scrutinize whether the class
representatives and class counsel have met their fiduciary
obligations to protect class interests.

In re Dry Max Pampers Litig., 724 F.3d 713, 718 (6th Cir. 2013),
the Sixth Circuit cautioned that courts evaluating proposed class
settlements must be attentive to terms that may incentivize class
representatives to favor their own interests over those of absent
class members, such as substantial banner awards to named
plaintiffs, preferential treatment of class counsel, and generous
concessions to settling defendants.

In their lastest joint brief, the parties argue that unlike in
Pampers, the proposed award to unnamed class members is tangible
and meaningful. They explain that the settlement provides for two
types of relief a cash payment or free, one-year subscription that
were unavailable prior to settlement negotiations. They note that
even if absent class members fail to submit a claim form, they
still will receive a free one-year subscription to a Bonnier
publication.

But under the proposed settlement in this case unnamed class
members would receive at most approximately $16 or a free
subscription to one of the defendant's magazines. That, perhaps, is
better than nothing. But it is a far cry from the upside an
individual class member might realize if he or she pursued an
individual claim. At the time this lawsuit was filed, the statute
had not been amended to eliminate that $5,000 minimum statutory
damage provision. The complaint in this case was filed on July 29,
2016. The amendment became effective on July 31, 2016. In Perlin v.
Time, Inc., 237 F.Supp.3d 623, 628-29 (E.D. Mich. 2017), the court
held that the VRPA amendment that eliminated the $5,000 statutory
damages provision is not retroactive.

The parties' attempt to justify the proposed award to unnamed class
members falls far short of the demanding standard set forth in
Pampers. Although class members likely suffered no actual damages
and Bonnier's defenses are strong, class counsel has not explained
adequately why the class award in this case is much lower than in
the cases cited in the motion for preliminary approval. Those cases
were misrepresented in their briefing and at the hearing, and the
supplemental brief does little to establish the fairness of the
settlement in light of the gross disparity in the respective awards
to class members and to plaintiff Friske and class counsel.

Moreover, the parties' argument that class counsel's fee is only a
third of what class counsel received in Pampers is not persuasive.
In Pampers, class counsel received an absolute fee award of $2.73
million, whereas here, class counsel is to receive up to 30% of the
fund, which nets out to be approximately $900,000. No legitimate
conclusions can be drawn from this apples-tooranges comparison
advanced by the parties.

In addition, other factors do not favor approval. At the hearing,
counsel represented that there were no interrogatories sent, no
depositions taken, and no other formal discovery conducted.

Neither side took statements from or interviewed absent class
members. There was no formal class discovery; only informal
exchanges of information. The settlement was reached after a
single-day mediation session in New York City, with two or three
follow-up conference calls. The case is not particularly complex,
although, as noted above, the defendant may have potential defenses
against some of the class members. There has been no input, as far
as the Court is aware, from absent class members.

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

Rebecca Friske, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel O. Myers, The Law
Offices of Daniel O. Myers & Gary Lynch -- glynch@carlsonlynch.com
-- Carlson Lynch Sweet & Kilpela, LLP.

Bonnier Corporation, Defendant, represented by Daniel T. Stabile --
DStabile@shutts.com -- Shutts & Bowen LLP, Francis A. Zacherl --
FZacherl@shutts.com -- Shutts Bowen LLP & John J. Gillooly --
jgillooly@garanlucow.com -- Garan Lucow.

BOOZ ALLEN: Court Dismisses Amended Complaint in "Langley"
----------------------------------------------------------
Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Corporation said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July
30, 2018, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the
court in Langley v. Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Corp., dismissed
the amended complaint in its entirety without prejudice.

On June 19, 2017, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia styled Langley v. Booz Allen
Hamilton Holding Corp., No. 17-cv-00696 naming the Company, its
Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial Officer as
defendants purportedly on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's
securities from May 19, 2016 through June 15, 2017.

On September 5, 2017, the court named two lead plaintiffs and on
October 20, 2017, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint. The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
alleging misrepresentations or omissions by the Company purporting
to relate to matters that are the subject of the DOJ investigation.
The plaintiffs seek to recover from the Company and the individual
defendants an unspecified amount of damages.

The Company believes the suit lacks merit and intends to defend
against the lawsuit.

Motions to dismiss were argued on January 12, 2018 and on February
8, 2018, the court dismissed the amended complaint in its entirety
without prejudice.

At this stage of the lawsuit, the Company is not able to reasonably
estimate the expected amount or range of cost or any loss
associated with the lawsuit.

Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Corporation provides management and
technology consulting, engineering, analytics, digital, mission
operations, and cyber solutions to governments, corporations, and
not-for-profit organizations in the United States and
internationally. Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Corporation was
founded in 1914 and is headquartered in McLean, Virginia.


BRIXMOR PROPERTY: Cohen & Steers Global Class Action Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brixmor Property Group Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the company is facing a
class action suit entitled, Cohen & Steers Global Realty Shares,
Inc., et al v. Brixmor Property Group Inc., et al.

Certain institutional investors elected to opt out of the class
action settlement in the Westchester Putnam Counties Heavy &
Highway Laborers Local 60 Benefit Funds suit and accordingly were
not bound by the release and will not receive any of the class
action settlement proceeds. On June 20, 2018, the Company and the
former officers were named as defendants in a complaint filed by
all remaining equity opt out investors in the Supreme Court for the
State of New York in New York County.  

The Complaint, captioned Cohen & Steers Global Realty Shares, Inc.,
et al v. Brixmor Property Group Inc., et al. (Case No.
653091/2018), was filed on behalf of 13 commonly managed investment
funds that opted out of the federal class action settlement, and
asserts fraud claims under New York law.  The claims are based on
the facts described in the Company's February 8, 2016 press release
and Form 8-K.  The Company believes it has valid defenses in this
action and intends to vigorously defend itself.

Brixmor Property Group Inc. and subsidiaries (collectively, "BPG")
is an internally-managed real estate investment trust ("REIT"). The
company is based in New York, New York.


CAL WEST: Courts Requires Supplemental Info in $1.2MM Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California issued an Order requesting Supplemental Information in
the case captioned CARMELA MORA, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CAL WEST AG SERVICES,
INC., et al., Defendants, No. 1:15-cv-01490-LJO-EPG (E.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiff filed this case against the Defendants on September
30, 2015, alleging class action claims and claims brought pursuant
to the California Labor Code Private Attorney General Act (PAGA).
The parties filed a motion for preliminary approval for class
action settlement. Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean issued
Findings and Recommendations (F&Rs) recommending that the
settlement agreement be granted preliminary approval, subject to
certain modifications of the notices provided to class members, and
no party filed objections.  

Despite the lack of objections, the Court has an independent duty
to review settlement agreements in class actions and PAGA cases.
The Court is concerned about the settlement of the PAGA claims. The
settlement agreement purports to settle the PAGA claims, which the
Plaintiff indicates have a verdict value of at least $1 million,
for the sum of $5,000, while the entire case is valued at $1.2
million.

The Court therefore requests that (1) the parties provide proof
that the settlement agreement has been submitted to the California
Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) as required by
California Labor Code Section 2699(l)(2), and (2) obtain a
statement of position from the LWDA regarding the settlement
outcome.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 26, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yclk3ew5 from Leagle.com.

Carmela Mora, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Mario Martinez --
mmartinez@farmworkerlaw.com -- Martinez Aguilasocho & Lynch Aplc,
Eric Sebastian Trabucco -- etrabucco@themmlawfirm.com -- Mallison &
Martinez, Hector Rodriguez Martinez -- hectorm@themmlawfirm.com --
Mallison & Martinez, Joseph Donald Sutton --
JSutton@TheMMLawFirm.com -- Mallison & Martinez, Marco A. Palau --
mpalau@themmlawfirm.com -- Mallison & Martinez & Stanley S.
Mallison -- stanm@mallisonlaw.com -- Mallison & Martinez.

Cal West Ag Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by Anthony Peter
Raimondo -- APR@raimondoassociates.com -- Raimondo & Associates,
Gerardo Hernandez, Jr. -- gvh@raimondoassociates.com -- Raimondo &
Associates & Thomas Elmer Campagne -- tcampagne@campagnelaw.com --
Campagne & Campagne, A Prof. Corp.

Jon Marthedal & Eric Marthedal, Defendants, represented by Thomas
Elmer Campagne, Campagne & Campagne, A Prof. Corp. & Justin Thomas
Campagne, Campagne & Campagne, A Prof. Corp.
Jon Marthedal, Counter Claimant, represented by Justin Thomas
Campagne, Campagne & Campagne, A Prof. Corp.

Cal West Ag Services, Inc., Counter Defendant, represented by
Gerardo Hernandez, Jr., Raimondo & Associates.

Cal West Ag Services, Inc., Counter Claimant, represented by
Anthony Peter Raimondo, Raimondo & Associates & Gerardo Hernandez,
Jr., Raimondo & Associates.

Jon Marthedal, Counter Defendant, represented by Justin Thomas
Campagne, Campagne & Campagne, A Prof. Corp.


CALIFORNIA: $1MM Attorney's Fees Awarded in Segregated Housing Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California granted in part Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorney's Fees
in the case TODD ASHKER, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. MATHEW CATE, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 09-cv-05796-CW (MEJ)(N.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiffs seek $2,881,044.14 in attorneys' fees and costs for
work performed.

This class action litigation arises from the policies and practices
promulgated by the California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation (CDCR) relating to gang validation and management
and use of segregated housing.  After conducting discovery and
engaging in negotiations before the Honorable Nandor J. Vadas, the
parties negotiated a settlement agreement.

The Settlement provides that the Defendants agree to pay the
Plaintiffs' counsel attorneys' fees and costs for work reasonably
performed on this case, including monitoring CDCR's compliance with
this Agreement and enforcing this Agreement, and for work to
recover fees and costs, at the hourly rate set forth under the
Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 1997e(d). Subject
to the provisions under 42 U.S.C. Sections 1988 and 1997e,
Plaintiffs' motion may request an award that includes their expert
fees. On a quarterly basis, Plaintiffs may file motions for
reasonable attorneys' fees accrued in monitoring and enforcing
CDCR's compliance with this Agreement.

But the PLRA alters the lodestar method in prisoner civil rights
cases in three fundamental ways:

First, rather than hours reasonably expended in the litigation,
hours used to determine the fee award are limited to those that are
(1) directly and reasonably incurred in proving an actual violation
of the plaintiff's rights and (2) either proportionately related to
court-ordered relief or directly and reasonably incurred in
enforcing such relief.  

Second, in actions resulting in monetary judgments, the total
amount of the attorney's fees award associated with the monetary
judgment is limited to 150 percent of the judgment. This limitation
does not apply to actions (or parts of actions) resulting in
non-monetary relief.

Third, the hourly rate used as the basis for a fee award is limited
to 150 percent of the hourly rate used for paying appointed counsel
under the Criminal Justice Act (CJA rate).

Lodestar

Reasonableness of Hours

A reasonable' number of hours equals the number of hours which
could reasonably have been billed to a private client. In
determining the appropriate number of hours to be included in a
lodestar calculation, the district court should exclude hours that
are excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary.

Developing Protocols

The Plaintiffs claim 73.5 hours by nine attorneys and 27.6 hours by
four paralegals to develop data/document protocols, a total of
101.1 hours. They seek compensation for another 159.2 hours by
thirteen attorneys and 38.6 hours by three paralegals to develop
communication protocols, for a total of 197.8 hours of work.

In light of counsel's expertise in this type of litigation and
based on this record, the Court cannot conclude that a paying
client would approve a total of 298.9 hours, approximately 12.5
days of work simply to establish protocols for receiving and
processing documents, data, and communications. The Court finds a
paying client at most would pay for half this work. The Court
therefore reduces the amount of time spent on developing
data/document protocols by 50%, or 36.75 attorney hours by nine
attorneys and 13.8 paralegal/legal worker hours. The Court also
reduces the number of hours spent on developing communication
protocols by 50% to 79.6 attorney hours and 19.3 paralegal/legal
worker hours.

Meetings and Internal Discussions

Collaboration and brainstorming are an important aspect of legal
practice. Even the most competent and experienced attorney does not
have all the answers, and therefore attorneys should receive some
compensation for consultations with colleagues. As such, time
billed for internal conferencing is recoverable to the extent it is
reasonably necessary to conducting the litigation. Plaintiffs seek
compensation for time spent on weekly meetings, team
discussion/correspondence and general monitoring, and monitorship
planning. Plaintiffs spent a total of 1,765 hours on these tasks.

Weekly Team Conferences

The Plaintiffs claim 1,220.3 hours for time spent on weekly team
conferences, two long-term strategy videoconferences, work in
preparation thereof, and follow-up work.

Even so, the Plaintiffs do not explain why it was necessary to have
eight attorneys working on client relationships and communications
attend the meetings on a weekly or bimonthly basis. Mr. Miller
declares counsel created sub-groups with lead attorneys for each
sub-group. The Plaintiffs fail to show why the participation of the
two co-leaders of the communications sub-group was insufficient so
as to require the presence of three other attorneys (Ms. Weills,
Ms. DeLair, and Ms. Travis) who only handled communications. Absent
such a showing, the Court finds the hours Plaintiffs claim for
their weekly meetings are duplicative.

The Court therefore deducts a total of 224.7 hours, representing
the time Ms. Weills, Ms. DeLair, and Ms. Travis spent at weekly
meetings (94.8 hours, 49.4 hours, and 76.9 hours, respectively).
The Court finds 979.8 attorney hours and 19.4 paralegal/legal
worker hours are compensable.

Team Correspondence & General Monitoring; Monitorship Planning

Magistrate Judge Conferences

The Plaintiffs claim 950.5 hours for magistrate judge conferences,
which consisted of preparing for and holding monthly meetings and
other conferences with Magistrate Judge Vadas.
First, the Plaintiffs held and seek compensation for weekly
meetings. At 24 of the 46 meetings, counsel prepared for
conferences with Judge Vadas or conducted post-conference follow-up
work.

Second, the Plaintiffs represent magistrate judge conferences also
entailed client communications. However, Plaintiffs separately bill
another 1,053 hours for client communications. Plaintiffs do not
explain how their work on client communications as it relates to
magistrate judge conferences differs from the hours claimed under
the separate category of client communications.

As meeting and conferring and client communications comprise two of
the seven identified tasks, this work represents approximately 28%
of this time entry. The Court accordingly reduces these hours by
28%, or 266.14 hours. Plaintiffs may recover fees for 684.35 hours:
643.46 attorney hours and 40.89 paralegal/legal worker hours.

Travel for Client Meetings

Counsel spent 188.7 hours and a paralegal/legal worker spent 67.7
hours traveling to attend prisoner meetings regarding monitoring
issues, including semi-annual meetings.

It takes 8 hours to drive one-way to Pelican Bay from the Bay Area.
Counsel also traveled to other prisons located a considerable
distance from the Bay Area: Kern Valley State Prison (250 miles),
Calipatria (565 miles), Lancaster (350 miles), Corcoran (230
miles), and recently High Desert (600 miles). As Plaintiffs could
not travel, counsel had no other option but to travel the
considerable distance to meet their clients. The Court therefore
finds these hours are reasonable.

Travel for Hearings/Meetings

The Plaintiffs claim 169.2 attorney hours and 13.3 paralegal/legal
worker hours for time spent traveling to hearings and meetings with
counsel and/or Judge Vadas.

The Plaintiffs do not distinguish how much time counsel spent
traveling to meet with counsel versus traveling to appear before
Judge Vadas. As time spent traveling to meet with counsel is one of
two tasks delineated in this entry, the Court reduces this time by
50%. Plaintiffs may recover fees for 84.6 attorney hours and 6.65
paralegal/legal worker hours.

Preliminary and Final Approval Motions

The record does not suggest the time spent on these motions was
unreasonable or excessive. The Plaintiffs obtained court approval
at both stages. Nothing in the record suggests the hours the
Plaintiffs' counsel spent preparing these motions was unreasonable.
The Court finds Plaintiffs are entitled to compensation for 32.2
and 259.9 hours of work for these tasks.

Post-Settlement Motion Practice

The Plaintiffs claim 576.4 hours researching and drafting
post-Settlement motions: 423.6 attorney and paralegal hours on
three motions to compel or enforce and 152.8 attorney hours on
motions for de novo review.

It is nevertheless counsel's responsibility to weigh the risks and
costs of continued motion practice and to proceed efficiently and
sensibly. Whether the Court could award the relief Plaintiffs
sought in their enforcement motions may not have been apparent when
Plaintiffs filed their motions before Judge Vadas. The same cannot
be said once Judge Vadas denied the motions; at that point, it was
incumbent on Plaintiffs' counsel to carefully consider the nature
of their requested relief, consider Judge Vadas' reasons for
denying such relief, and determine whether seeking de novo review
is a reasonable and cost-efficient next step for which a private
client would have paid.

True, the Settlement Agreement does not require Plaintiffs to win
enforcement motions for counsel's time pursuing those motions to be
compensable. But the fact that Plaintiffs did not prevail on their
motions for de novo review suggests this motion practice was not
entirely reasonable.

For these reasons, the Court finds it appropriate to reduce the
hours spent on de novo motion practice. Plaintiffs do not indicate
how much time was spent on each motion for de novo review. The
Court will therefore reduce the hours spent on de novo motion
practice by 50%. This credits Plaintiffs' counsel with time spent
on the motion for de novo review regarding the prisoners in the
SHU, but discounts hours spent on the motion regarding offense
9(B).

Motion Hearings

The Plaintiffs' counsel spent 30.2 hours preparing for and
attending motion hearings. Plaintiffs may recover fees for this
time. Nothing in the record suggests this time was unreasonable.

Document Analysis

The Plaintiffs' attorneys spent 417.8 hours and paralegals/legal
workers spent 69.9 hours reviewing and analyzing documents and
information from CDCR.

The Settlement requires Defendants to produce to Plaintiffs data
and documentation to monitor the Defendants' compliance with the
terms of this Agreement. The Settlement contains a non-exhaustive
list of fifteen types of documents to be produced, as well as the
frequency of the production. Given the scope of the ongoing
production of documents, the Court finds these hours are
reasonable.

The Plaintiffs have had two opportunities to sufficiently support
their fee request, once when they filed their Motion and another
when they responded to the Court's Order. The Plaintiffs have
largely failed to do so and thus do not meet their burden of
showing all of their claimed hours are reasonable. In several
instances, the Plaintiffs' descriptions of their work appear to
overlap other time entries; as such, the Plaintiffs' submissions do
not permit the Court to conclude that the Plaintiffs have not twice
billed for the same work

The Court grants in part the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees
and Costs. The Court awards the Plaintiffs $1,032,419.52 in
attorneys' fees and $41,219.78 in costs.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 25, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ya9n96k6 from Leagle.com.

Todd Ashker, Plaintiff, represented by Alexandra Azure Wheeler ,
Center for Constitutional Rights, 666 Broadway, 7th Floor, New
York, NY 10012, Anne Marie Cappella -- anne.capella@weil.com --
Weil, Gotshal & Manges Silicon Valley Office, Anne Butterfield
Weills - abweills@gmail.com -- Siegel & Yee, Bambo Obaro –
bamboo.obaro@weil.com -- Weil, Gotshal and Manges, Carmen E. Bremer
- carmen.bremer@bremerlawgroup.com -- Bremer Law Group PLLC, pro
hac vice, Carol Strickman  -- carol@prisonerswithchildren.org --
Legal Services for Prisoner With Children, Charles Francis-Antonio
Carbone , Law Office of Charles Carbone, 16th Street. San
Francisco, CA 94103, .Daniel Mark Siegel , Siegel Yee & Brunner,
475 14th St Ste 500, Oakland, CA 94612-1925, Evan Charles Greenberg
, Coleman & Balogh LLP235 Montgomery Street. Suite 1070. San
Francisco, CA 94104, Jules Lobel , pro hac vice, Marilyn S. McMahon
, Rachel Anne Meeropol , Center for Constitutional Rights, 666
Broadway, 7th Floor, New York, NY 10012, pro hac vice & Samuel Rand
Miller , United Sta.

Danny Troxell, George Ruiz, George Franco, Gabriel Reyes, Richard
Johnson, Paul Redd, Luis Esquivel & Ronnie Dewberry, Plaintiffs,
represented by Alexandra Azure Wheeler , Center for Constitutional
Rights, Anne Marie Cappella , Weil, Gotshal & Manges Silicon Valley
Office, Anne Butterfield Weills , Siegel & Yee, Bambo Obaro , Weil,
Gotshal and Manges, Carmen E. Bremer , Bremer Law Group PLLC, pro
hac vice, Carol Strickman , Legal Services for Prisoner With
Children, Charles Francis-Antonio Carbone , Law Office of Charles
Carbone, Evan Charles Greenberg , Coleman & Balogh LLP, Jules Lobel
, pro hac vice, Marilyn S. McMahon , Rachel Anne Meeropol , Center
for Constitutional Rights, pro hac vice & Samuel Rand Miller ,
United Sta.
Mathew Cate, Secretary, CDCR, Greg Lewis, Warden, Pelican Bay State
Prison, Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Governor of the State of California &
Anthony Chaus, Chief, Office of Correctional Safety, CDCR,
Defendants, represented by Adriano Hrvatin , California Department
of Justice,Christine Marie Ciccotti , California Attorney General's
Office, Jay Craig Russell , Office of the Attorney General, Jillian
Renee O'Brien , California State Attorney General's Office, Loran
Michael Simon , California State Department of Justice Office of
the Attorney General & Martine Noel D'Agostino , CA State Attorney
General's Office.
California Correctional Peace Officers Association, Intervenor,
represented by Phillip A. Murray , Phillip Murray.


CANADA: Oct. 31 Opt Out Deadline in Sixties Scoop Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
The courts have approved a settlement between representatives of
certain survivors of the Sixties Scoop and the Federal Government
of Canada ("Canada") that provides compensation for loss of
cultural identity to certain survivors of the Sixties Scoop. Please
read this notice carefully.

This lawsuit argues that Indian children who were victims of the
Sixties Scoop lost their cultural identity and, as a result,
suffered psychologically, emotionally, spiritually and physically.
They were also deprived of their status, their aboriginal and
treaty rights and monetary benefits to which they were entitled
pursuant to the Indian Act, RSC 1985, c I-5 and related legislation
and policies.

The representatives of certain survivors of the Sixties Scoop and
Canada have agreed to a settlement. By agreeing to the settlement,
the parties avoid the costs and uncertainty of a trial and delays
in obtaining judgment, and certain survivors of the Sixties Scoop
receive the benefits described in the settlement agreement. By
settling this class action, the representatives of certain
survivors of the Sixties Scoop and Canada have also been able to
create a Foundation to enable change and reconciliation.

HOW DO I GET THIS MONEY?

To make a claim for money, you must fill in a Claim Form and send
it to the claims office. Copies of the Claim Form are available
here: sixtiesscoopsettlement.info.

HOW MUCH MONEY WILL I GET?

Your payment will depend on how many Eligible Class Members submit
claims in the settlement. The details are explained in the
settlement agreement. The range of compensation will likely be
$25,000 - $50,000. A copy of the settlement agreement is available
here: sixtiesscoopsettlement.info.

WHAT IF I WANT TO EXCLUDE MYSELF FROM THE SETTLEMENT?

If you want to exclude yourself from the settlement, you must opt
out of the class action by October 31, 2018. If you opt out, you
will not be entitled to any benefits or compensation for the
settlement and your claim against Canada in respect of the Sixties
Scoop will not be released. A copy of the Opt Out Form is available
at sixtiesscoopsettlement.info.

If you have commenced a legal proceeding against Canada relating to
the Sixties Scoop and you do not discontinue it on or before
October 31, 2018, you will be deemed to have opted out of the
settlement.

DO YOU KNOW ANY OTHER SURVIVORS OF THE SIXTIES SCOOP?
Please share this information with them.

This notice was approved by the Federal Court and the Ontario
Superior Court. [GN]


CEMEX CONSTRUCTION: C.D. Cal. Eastern Div. to Hear Grigoryan Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of KAREN GRIGORYAN, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CEMEX
CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS PACIFIC, LLC; CEMEX, INC.; MAX PINA; and
DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, filed a notice to remove the
lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of San Bernardino, (Case No. CIVDS 1723753) to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California on July 20, 2018.

On July 24, 2018, the lawsuit was removed from the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, Western Division, to
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
Eastern Division, and assigned Case No. 5:18-cv-01563 (C.D. Cal.,
July 20, 2018). The case is assigned to Jesus G. Bernal and
referred to Magistrate Judge Kenly Kiya Kato.

Cemex Construction Materials Pacific, LLC is engaged in the
manufacturing and sale of ready mix concrete. The company was
incorporated in 2008 and is based in San Francisco, California.
Cemex Construction Materials Pacific, LLC operates as a subsidiary
of CEMEX, S.A.B. de C.V. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dorothy S. Liu, Esq.
          Emily Jane Leahy, Esq.
          HANSON BRIDGETT LLP
          425 Market Street, 26th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 777-3200
          Facsimile: (415) 541-9366
          E-mail: dliu@hansonbridgett.com
                  ELeahy@hansonbridgett.com


CHEMED CORP: Employee Class Suit Against Vitas Unit Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chemed Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the company's affiliate,
VITAS Healthcare, is facing multiple employee class action suits in
California.

Jordan Seper ("Seper"), a Registered Nurse at VITAS' Inland Empire
program from May 12, 2014 to March 21, 2015, filed a lawsuit in San
Francisco Superior Court on September 26, 2016. She alleged VITAS
Healthcare Corp of CA ("VITAS CA") (1) failed to provide minimum
wage for all hours worked; (2) failed to provide overtime for all
hours worked; (3) failed to provide a second meal period; (4)
failed to provide rest breaks; (5) failed to indemnify for
necessary expenditures; (6) failed to timely pay wages due at time
of separation; and (7) engaged in unfair business practices.

Seper seeks a state-wide class action of current and former
non-exempt employees employed with VITAS in California within the
four years preceding the filing of the lawsuit. She seeks court
determination that this action may be maintained as a class action
for the entire California class and subclasses, designation as
class representative, declaratory relief, injunctive relief,
damages (including wages for regular or overtime hours allegedly
worked but not paid, premium payments for missed meal or rest
periods, and unreimbursed expenses), all applicable penalties
associated with each claim, pre and post-judgment interest, and
attorneys' fees and costs.

Seper served VITAS CA with the lawsuit, Jordan A. Seper on behalf
of herself and others similarly situated v. VITAS Healthcare
Corporation of California, a Delaware corporation; VITAS Healthcare
Corp of CA, a business entity unknown; and DOES 1 to 100,
inclusive; Los Angeles Superior Court Case Number BC 642857 on
October 13, 2016 ("Jordan Seper case").

On November 14, 2016, the Parties filed a Stipulation to transfer
the venue of the lawsuit from San Francisco to Los Angeles. The Los
Angeles Superior Court Complex Division accepted transfer of the
case on December 6, 2016 and stayed the case. On December 16, 2016,
VITAS CA filed its Answer and served written discovery on Seper.

Jiwann Chhina ("Chhina"), hired by VITAS as a Home Health Aide on
February 5, 2002, is currently a Licensed Vocational Nurse for
VITAS' San Diego program. On September 27, 2016, Chhina filed a
lawsuit in San Diego Superior Court, alleging (1) failure to pay
minimum wage for all hours worked; (2) failure to provide overtime
for all hours worked; (3) failure to pay wages for all hours at the
regular rate; (4) failure to provide meal periods; (5) failure to
provide rest breaks; (6) failure to provide complete and accurate
wage statements; (7) failure to pay for all reimbursement expenses;
(8) unfair business practices; and (9) violation of the California
Private Attorneys General Act.  

Chhina seeks to pursue these claims in the form of a state-wide
class action of current and former non-exempt employees employed
with VITAS in California within the four years preceding the filing
of the lawsuit. He seeks court determination that this action may
be maintained as a class action for the entire California class and
subclasses, designation as class representative, declaratory
relief, injunctive relief, damages (including wages for regular or
overtime hours allegedly worked but not paid, premium payments for
missed meal or rest period, and unreimbursed expenses), all
applicable penalties associated with each claim, pre-judgment
interest, and attorneys' fees and costs.  

Chhina served VITAS CA with the lawsuit, Jiwan Chhina v. VITAS
Health Services of California, Inc., a California corporation;
VITAS Healthcare Corporation of California, a Delaware corporation;
VITAS Healthcare Corporation of California, a Delaware corporation
dba VITAS Healthcare Inc.; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive; San Diego
Superior Court Case Number 37-2015-00033978-CU-OE-CTL on November
3, 2016 ("Jiwann Chhina case"). On December 1, 2016, VITAS CA filed
its Answer and served written discovery on Chhina.

On May 19, 2017, Chere Phillips (a Home Health Aide in Sacramento)
and Lady Moore (a former Social Worker in Sacramento) filed a
lawsuit against VITAS CA in Sacramento County Superior Court,
alleging claims for (1) failure to pay all wages due; (2) failure
to authorize and permit rest periods; (3) failure to provide
off-duty meal periods; (4) failure to furnish accurate wage
statements; (5) unreimbursed business expenses; (6) waiting time
penalties; (7) violations of unfair competition law; and (8)
violation of the Private Attorneys General Act.  

The case is captioned: Chere Phillips and Lady Moore v. VITAS
Healthcare Corporation of California, Sacramento County Superior
Court, Case No. 34-2017-0021-2755.

Plaintiffs sought to pursue these claims in the form of a
state-wide class action of current and former non-exempt employees
employed with VITAS CA in California within the four years
preceding the filing of the lawsuit.

Plaintiffs served VITAS with the lawsuit on June 5, 2017.  VITAS CA
timely answered the Complaint generally denying the Plaintiffs’
allegations. The Court has stayed all class discovery in this case
pending resolution of mediation in the Jordan Seper and Jiwann
Chhina cases.

There are currently three other lawsuits against VITAS pending in
the superior courts of other California counties that contain
claims and class periods that substantially overlap with Phillips'
and Moore's claims: the Jordan Seper and Jiwann Chhina cases, and
Williams v. VITAS Healthcare Corporation of California, filed on
May 22, 2017 in Alameda County Superior Court, RG 17853886.

Jazzina Williams' (a Home Health Aide in Sacramento) lawsuit
alleges claims for (1) failure to pay all wages due; (2) failure to
authorize and permit rest periods; (3) failure to provide off-duty
meal periods; (4) failure to furnish accurate wage statements; (5)
unreimbursed business expenses; (6) waiting time penalties; and (7)
violations of the Private Attorneys General Act.  

Williams seeks to pursue these claims in the form of a state-wide
class action of current and former non-exempt employees.  

Plaintiff served VITAS with the lawsuit on May 31, 2017.  VITAS CA
timely answered the Complaint generally denying Plaintiff's
allegations. Williams is pursing discovery of her individual claim
and has agreed to a stay of class discovery pending mediation in
the Jordan Seper and Jiwann Chhina cases.

Defendant filed and served each of Plaintiffs Williams, Phillips,
and Moore with a Notice of Related Cases on July 19, 2017.

Defendant understands that the Jordan Seper and Jiwann Chhina cases
will be effectively consolidated in Los Angeles County Superior
court; Chhina will be dismissed as a separate action and joined
with Seper through the filing of an amended complaint in Seper in
which Chhina is also identified as a named plaintiff.

The Company is not able to reasonably estimate the probability of
loss or range of loss for any of these lawsuits at this time.

Chemed said "The Company intends to defend vigorously against the
allegations in each of the above lawsuits. Regardless of the
outcome of any of the preceding matters, dealing with the various
regulatory agencies and opposing parties can adversely affect us
through defense costs, potential payments, diversion of management
time, and related publicity.  Although the Company intends to
defend them vigorously, there can be no assurance that those suits
will not have a material adverse effect on the Company."

Chemed Corporation provides hospice and palliative care services in
the United States. It operates through two segments, VITAS and
Roto-Rooter. The company was founded in 1970 and is headquartered
in Cincinnati, Ohio.


CIRQUE DU SOLEIL: Averts TCPA Class Action Over Unsolicited Faxes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Eric J. Troutman, writing for TCPAland, reports that in a case that
underscores the extraordinary challenges facing callers navigating
TCPA issues, on Aug. 2 Circue du Soleil narrowly escaped a
certified TCPA class action involving faxes from way back in 2009!

In Practice Mgmt. Support Servs. v. Cirque Du Soleil, No. 14 C
2032, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12963 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 2, 2018) the
Plaintiff had sued the Cirque folks -- known for their high-flying
acts and glamorous Vegas shows -- for the most mundane of offenses:
allegedly sending unsolicated faxes back in 2009 advertising
something called "Saltimbanco." Somewhat remarkably, the case had
actually been certified as a class action back in March of this
year. At that time the Court had determined that the 2009 faxes
were still actionable because a series of class actions had
challenged those same faxes dating back to the year they were sent
(yes, Cirque du Soleil has been quietly dealing with these suits
for nine years) meaning that–in the court's view–the statute of
limitations on claims related to the faxes were tolled and the
claims could move forward. Yikes.

To understand why the court changes its mind–spoiler alert: it
did– you must first understand why the court originally held the
case could move forward in the first place. So the earlier ruling
was based on the old U.S. Supreme Court decision of American Pipe &
Construction Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538, 554 (1974), holding that
the claims of class members are tolled during the pendency of a
class action. The notion being that class members have the right to
rely on the filing of the class action to protect their rights and
need not file individual claims until the class issues are
resolved. Yes, this is a complete fiction–class members by and
large have no idea a class claim has been filed included them–
but this is the flip side to the same legal fiction that animates
the one-way intervention doctrine on display in Bad Reyes. So one
takes the good with the bad I suppose, but I also digress.

In Practice Mgmt., a special case of American Pipe tolling had been
applied. Remember Circue du Soleil has been pursued in a series of
class actions. And although American Pipe (probably) assures an
individual's claims are tolled while a class action is pending, the
circuit courts were split on the issue of whether successive class
actions with tolled claims were possible. The Seventh Circuit Court
of Appeal had permitted successive class tolling, however, which
was the law the Practice Mgmt. court was bound to follow the first
time it passed on the issue.

But look up there! -- some intervening Supreme Court precedent came
to the rescue.  In June, 2018 -- just a few months after the case
was certified -- the U.S. Supreme Court handed down China Agritech,
Inc. v. Resh, 138 S. Ct. 1800 (2018). That case resolved the
successive class action tolling question and
held -- directly -- that American Pipe tolling only applies to
individual claims not to class claims. So the Seventh Circuit had
it wrong!

Freed from the shackles of American Pipe the Practice Mgmt. court
made short work of Plaintiff's class claims. Although the named
Plaintiff may pursue his claims from 2009 based on the tolling
created by the series of lawsuits Cirque du Soleil has been
facing–the court found that the claims of the unnamed class
members have evaporated before the current lawsuit had ever been
filed. Thus the class was decertified and the ancient claims of
class members regarding the long-forgotten faxes were dismissed.
Bravo!

The court also soundly rejected the efforts of Plaintiff's counsel
to evade China Agritech's holding, suggesting that putative class
counsel may have been abusing the system all along:

Allowing the same counsel to litigate three successive class
actions over nine years is exactly the abuse of tolling that China
Agritech seeks to prevent. Just like the third successive class
action that the Supreme Court found untimely in China Agritech,
Practice Management's class claims in this third successive action
are untimely.

So while the court was required to hold its nose and allow the
claim to move forward previously, China Agritech gave it the power
to dismiss the claims outright. And that's just what it did.

Once again, therefore, TCPAland delivers an extremely interesting
result based upon an obscure body of procedural law proving, once
again, that TCPA class litigation is not for the green of horn or
the faint of heart like…say… this trapeze act. [GN]

CLIENT SERVICES: Faces Elenthukh Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Client Services, Inc.
The case is captioned as Alla Elenthukh, on behalf of herself and
all other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff, v. Client
Services, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-04518 (E.D.N.Y.,
Aug. 9, 2018).  The case alleges Fair Debt Collection Act
violations.

Client Services, Inc. operates as a customer relationship
management company that offers a suite of accounts receivable
management and business processing.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CLOSET FACTORY: Faces Matzura Suit in Southern Dist. of New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Closet Factory,
Inc.  The case is captioned as Steven Matzura, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. The Closet
Factory, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-07182 (S.D.N.Y.,
Aug. 9, 2018).  The case alleges Americans with Disabilities Act
violations.

Closet Factory designs, manufactures, and installs custom wooden
closets in the United States.[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


CM SEAFOOD: Martinez Seeks Minimum Wages & Overtime under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOAQUIN MARTINEZ, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. CM SEAFOOD INC., and JIE FENG WU, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-04511 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 9, 2018), seeks
to recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and
attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants continuously employed
Plaintiff to work as a non-exempt laborer for Defendants' seafood
market from on or about September 29, 2017 until on or about July
1, 2018, where his responsibilities included cleaning and filleting
fish.  The work performed by Plaintiff was directly essential to
the business operated by Defendants.  The Defendants knowingly and
willfully failed to pay Plaintiff his lawfully earned minimum wages
and lawfully earned overtime compensation in direct contravention
of the FLSA and New York Labor Law.

C M Seafood operates restaurant.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin Cilenti, Esq.
          Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
          708 Third Avenue - 6th Floor
          CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 209 3933
          Facsimile: (212) 209 7102
          E-mail: info@jcpclaw.com


CNA FINANCIAL: Settlement of 401 (k) Plan Suit Has Initial Okay
---------------------------------------------------------------
CNA Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the court has granted
preliminary approval on the parties' settlement of a class action
lawsuit subject to a fairness hearing.

In September 2016, a class action lawsuit was filed against CCC,
Continental Assurance Company (CAC) (a former subsidiary of CCC),
CNAF, the Investment Committee of the CNA 401(k) Plus Plan (Plan),
The Northern Trust Company and John Does 1-10 (collectively
Defendants) related to the Plan.

The complaint alleges that Defendants breached fiduciary duties to
the Plan and caused prohibited transactions in violation of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 when the Plan's
Fixed Income Fund's annuity contract with CAC was canceled. The
plaintiff alleges he and a proposed class of Plan participants who
had invested in the Fixed Income Fund suffered lower returns in
their Plan investments as a consequence of these alleged violations
and seeks relief on behalf of the putative class. The Plan trustees
have provided notice to their fiduciary coverage insurance
carriers.

The plaintiff, Defendants and the Plan's fiduciary insurance
carriers have agreed on terms to settle this matter and have
executed settlement agreements. The plaintiff and Defendants have
proposed a class settlement for court approval, and the court
granted preliminary approval subject to a fairness hearing.

CNA Financial said "Based on the executed settlement agreements,
management has recorded its best estimate of the Company's probable
loss and does not believe that the ultimate resolution of this
matter will have a material impact on the Company’s results of
operations or financial position."

CNA Financial Corporation provides commercial property and casualty
insurance products primarily in the United States. It operates
through Specialty, Commercial, International, Life & Group, and
Corporate & Other segments. The company was founded in 1853 and is
headquartered in Chicago, Illinois.


COGINT INC: Bank Appeals E.D.N.Y. Decision to 2nd Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Todd C. Bank filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit titled Todd C. Bank v. Cogint, Inc., et al., Case No.
18-cv-3307, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
New York (Brooklyn).

The appellate case is captioned as In Re: Todd C. Bank, Case No.
18-2326, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Petitioner Todd C. Bank, Individually and on Behalf of
all Others Similarly Situated, represents himself:

          Todd C. Bank, Esq.
          TODD C. BANK, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          119-40 Union Turnpike
          Kew Gardens, NY 11415
          Telephone: (718) 520-7125
          Facsimile: (856) 997-9193
          E-mail: tbank@toddbanklaw.com

Defendants-Respondents Cogint, Inc.; Fluent, Inc.; Fluent, LLC; and
Reward Zone USA, LLC, are represented by:

          Neil Asnen, Esq.
          KLEIN MOYNIHAN TURCO LLP
          450 7th Avenue
          New York, NY 10123
          Telephone: (212) 246-0900
          E-mail: nasnen@kleinmoynihan.com


COLLECTO INC: Court Certifies Settlement Class in Diaz Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JACKSON DIAZ, on behalf of himself and those
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. COLLECTO, INC. D/B/A EOS
CCA; US PRELIMINARY APPROVAL ASSET MANAGEMENT, INC.; and JOHN DOES
1 to 10, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-02087-MF (D.N.J.), the
Hon. Mark Falk entered an order:

   1. certifying this action as a class action pursuant to fed.
      R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) and, in accordance with fed. R. Civ. P.
      23(c)(l)(B):

     (a) defines the Settlement Class as:

         "all persons to whom Collecto, Inc. d/b/a EQS CCA mailed
         a written communication to a New Jersey address between
         April 14, 2015 and June, 9 2016, to collect a debt owed
         to US Asset Management Inc., where a QR Code or Barcode
         containing the file number associated with the person's
         debt was visible through the window of the envelope";

     (b) defines the "Class Claims" as those claims arising from
         Collecto's collection letters, seeking to collect debts
         on behalf of US Asset Management Inc., which were mailed
         in a windowed envelope such that a QR Code or Barcode
         containing the file number associated with the Debt was
         visible from the outside of the envelope, and which
         allegedly violate 15 U.S.C. section 1692f(8);

     (c) appoints Plaintiff as the Class Representative;

     (d) appoints Plaintiffs counsel, Andrew I. Thomasson, Philip
         D. Stem, and  Yongmoon Kim as Class Counsel; and

     (e) appoints Heftler Claims Group as the Settlement
         Administrator to administer notice to Class Members and
         the settlement;

   2. approving Parties' proposed Class Notice and directing
      mailing it to the last known address of each Class Member
      as shown in Defendants' business records;

   3. directing Class Members to have until October 15,2018 (66
      days from the date of this Order), to return a claim form,
      seek exclusion from, or object to, the proposed settlement;
      and

   4. directing 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 the Settlement
      Administrator.


COLUMBUS RESTAURANT: Didoni Seeks to Certify Class of Servers
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled ROBERTA DIDONI, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. COLUMBUS RESTAURANT,
LLC d/b/a Columbus Restaurant, a Florida limited liability company,
CRISTIAN AZZARITI, an individual, and PAOLO VANDRA, an individual,
the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-22325-CMA (S.D. Fla.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:

   1. certifying collective-action of the following class of
      similarly situated persons:

      "all persons who worked for Defendants as servers during
      the three years preceding this lawsuit and who were
      required to share their tips with their employer, to pay
      for impermissible business expenses, and were not paid for
      all hours worked, for one or more weeks during the Relevant
      Time Period";

   2. directing Defendants to produce to undersigned counsel
      within 20 days a list containing the names and last known
      addresses of putative 216(b) Class Members who worked for
      Defendants during the last three years; and

   3. authorizing undersigned counsel to send a notice, to all
      individuals whose names appear on the list produced by
      Defendants' counsel.

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Robert W. Brock II, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF LOWELL J. KUVIN
          17 East Flagler Street, Suite 223
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 358 6800
          Facsimile: (305) 358 6808
          E-mail: robert@kuvinlaw.com
                  legal@kuvinlaw.com

Attorneys for Defendant:

          Hector V. Ramirez, Esq.
          E-mail: ramirez@nklegal.com
          LAW OFFICES OF NOLAN KLEIN, P.A.
          Wells Fargo Tower - Suite 1500
          One East Broward Boulevard
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 745 0588
          E-mail: klein@nklegal.com
                  amy@nklegal.com
                  robin@nklegal.com


COMPLYRIGHT INC: Morello Sues over Data Breach
----------------------------------------------
RICHARD MORELLO, JR., individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. COMPLYRIGHT, INC., a Minnesota
corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-01480-RFB-GWF (D.
Nev., Aug. 9, 2018), alleges that ComplyRight failed to implement
and maintain reasonable security measures over computerized
personally identifiable information -- in particular, name,
address, telephone number, email address, and Social Security
number (Personal Information) -- and its failure to provide
expedient notification of the unauthorized acquisition of the
Personal Information.

According to the complaint, on July 13, 2018, ComplyRight sent
letters to Plaintiff and many others around the country informing
them that their name, address, telephone number, email address, and
Social Security number (the Personal Information) were accessed and
viewed by unauthorized individuals while being maintained on
ComplyRight's website (the Data Breach). The letter warned
recipients that "your personal information that was accessed and/or
viewed, may have been downloaded or otherwise acquired by an
unauthorized user." The letter admits that the Data Breach occurred
from April 20, 2018 to May 22, 2018, but it may have gone on much
longer, and it may have exposed more information than enumerated in
the letter.

The letter also explained how ComplyRight came to be in possession
of Plaintiff's sensitive personal information: "Your personal
information was entered onto our website by, or on behalf of, your
employer or payer to prepare tax related forms, for example, Forms
1099 and W-2." As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff's and the
other Class members' Personal Information, and perhaps more
information, is now in the hands of unknown persons who intend to
use it for criminal or nefarious purposes. On information and
belief, the unauthorized persons will sell the Personal Information
to exploit and injure Plaintiff and the other Class members, to
commit identity theft and identity fraud, and commit other acts
injurious and detrimental to Plaintiff and the other Class
members.

ComplyRight, Inc., develops and markets practical, affordable
solutions to help employers streamline administrative tasks and
simplify compliance with federal, state and local labor laws.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David C. O'Mara, Esq.
          THE O'MARA LAW FIRM, P.C.
          311 East Liberty Street
          Reno, NV 89501
          Telephone: (775) 323 1321
          Facsimile: (775) 323 4082

               - and -

          Ben Barnow, Esq.
          Erich P. Schork, Esq.
          Jeffrey D. Blake, Esq.
          Anthony L. Parkhill, Esq.
          BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          One North LaSalle Street, Ste 4600
          Chicago, IL 60606
          E-mail: b.barnow@barnowlaw.cm
                  e.schork@barnowlaw.com
                  j.blake@narnowlaw.com
                  aparkhill@barnowlaw.com

               - and -

          Matt Harman, Esq.
          Eric Fredrickson, Esq.
          HARMAN LAW FIRM
          3414 Peachtree Road, NE Ste 1250
          Atlanta, GA 30326
          Telephone: (404) 554 0777
          E-mail: mharman@harmanlaw.com
                  efredrickson@harmanlaw.com


CONCORDE INVESTMENT: Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Wisconsin dismissed the case captioned SUSAN NIELEN-THOMAS, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
CONCORDE INVESTMENT SERVICES, LLC, FORTUNE FINANCIAL SERVICES,
INC., TD AMERITRADE, INC., WISCONSIN RIVER BANK, and WISCONSIN
INVESTMENT SERVICES, LLC, Defendants, No. 18-cv-229-jdp (W.D.
Wis.).

Several defendants move to dismiss Nielen-Thomas's state-law claims
as barred by the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of
1998 (SLUSA) and and they move to dismiss all of her claims,
including the federal-law claim, for failure to state a claim.

This is a proposed class action in which plaintiff Susan
Nielen-Thomas asserts claims under federal and state law concerning
defendants' alleged involvement in an investment advisor's
fraudulent handling of his customers' investment accounts.
Nielen-Thomas and the unnamed plaintiffs are the defrauded
customers.

SLUSA is the latest legislation addressing how and where private
individuals may bring litigation involving nationally traded
securities.

Nielen-Thomas attempts to plead around this definition by
specifically alleging in her complaint that upon information and
belief, the putative Class consists of at least 35, but no more
than 49 members. Thus, she does not seek damages on behalf of more
than 50 persons and her claims do not fall within subparagraph
(I).

The intent was to exclude individual state private securities
actions from SLUSA's bar, not class actions with 50 or fewer
plaintiffs. Nielen-Thomas attempts to bring claims on behalf of one
or more unnamed parties, so it meets the definition of covered
class action under subparagraph (II).

With the meaning of the statutory language resolved, it's now clear
that the other district court opinions that Nielen-Thomas points to
are inapplicable here. Each opinion states that a plaintiff may
successfully avoid SLUSA by strategically pleading fewer than 51
plaintiffs. But each of those cases involved named plaintiffs, not
a proposed class action with unnamed plaintiffs. In other words,
those cases concerned subparagraph (I), not subparagraph (II).
Under subparagraph (II), any complaint filed as a class action is
automatically barred by SLUSA, provided the other statutory
requirements are fulfilled.

Because SLUSA applies to Nielen-Thomas's class action, the court
must deny her motion to remand, and it must grant defendants'
motion to dismiss her state-law claims. In accordance with Brown,
664 F.3d at 127-29, the dismissal will be with prejudice.

That leaves Nielen-Thomas's single federal-law claim, which alleges
breach of Section 12(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C.
Section 77l(a)(2).

Section 12(2) provides a private right of action against sellers of
securities who make material misstatements or omissions through a
prospectus.

In this case, Nielen-Thomas alleges that Jeffrey Butler, an
investment advisor, bought and sold unsuitable investments in his
clients' brokerage accounts. Specifically, Butler bought and sold
Barclays iPath S&P 500 Short Term Futures, an exchange traded note
linked to stock market volatility futures that was unsuitable for
Nielen-Thomas and Butler's other clients, who were retail
investors.

According to Nielen-Thomas, Butler made an implicit representation
that the investments and investment strategy were suitable and
failed to disclose material facts that were necessary to make the
representations that were made not misleading. Nielen-Thomas
alleges that defendant Wisconsin Investment Services, LLC,
(Butler's company) is directly liable for Butler's acts and that
the remaining defendants (for whom Butler was a registered
representative) are either directly or vicariously liable.

Nielen-Thomas does not allege that Butler was selling securities to
the public his role as an investment advisor is more akin to that
of the public in the framework of the 1933 Act. And the only
prospectus mentioned in Nielen-Thomas's complaint is Barclays's
prospectus. But she does not allege that the prospectus included a
material misstatement or omission—and Butler didn't have any
control over Barclays's prospectus anyway. Because Nielen-Thomas
fails to state a claim under Section 12(2) of the 1933 Act, the
court will dismiss that claim with prejudice. The court need not
reach the merits of the state-law claims because it has dismissed
them under SLUSA, so it will deny defendants' motions to dismiss
the state-law claims under Rule 12(b)(6) as moot.

Accordingly, Defendant Concorde Investment Services, LLC's motion
to dismiss is granted.
Defendant TD Ameritrade, Inc.'s motion to dismiss is denied as
moot. Defendant Fortune Financial Services, Inc.'s motion to
dismiss is denied as moot. The Plaintiff's claims are dismissed
with prejudice.  Defendant Wisconsin River Bank's cross-claims are
dismissed without prejudice.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 26, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y83r95nx from Leagle.com.

Susan Nielen-Thomas, On behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Michael H. Schaalman --
mhs@hallingcayo.com -- Halling & Cayo, SC & Patrick Thomas O'Neill,
Halling & Cayo, SC.

Concorde Investment Services, LLC, Defendant, represented by Marc
Stuart Ehrlich -- mehrlich@reiflawgroup.com -- Reif Law Group, P.C.
& Sarah Anne Zylstra -- szylstra@boardmanclark.com -- Boardman &
Clark LLP.

Fortune Financial Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrew
W. Erlandson -- aerlandson@hurleyburish.com -- Hurley, Burish &
Stanton, S.C., Karl Edwin May -- kmay@khwlaw.com -- Kadish Hinkel
Weibel & Peyton Barkley Engel -- pengel@hurleyburish.com -- Hurley,
Burish and Stanton S.C.

CONSUMERS UNITED: Faces Capitol Specialty Suit in Massachusetts
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Consumers United,
Inc.  The case is captioned as Capitol Specialty Insurance
Corporation, the Plaintiff and Lucienne Brewer, and Timothy
McPherson, Interested Parties, individually and on behalf of all
other person similarly situated, v. Consumers United, Inc., doing
business as: GOJI, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-11681-WGY (D.
Mass., Aug. 9, 2018).  The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge
William G. Young.  The case is involves insurance related
complaint.

Consumers United, Inc. provides insurance products and services. It
company offers advice for car insurance; and compares real
quotes.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony R. Zelle, Esq.
          ZELLE MCDONOUGH & COHEN LLP
          101 Federal Street
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 742 6520
          Facsimile: (617) 973 1562
          E-mail: tzelle@zelmcd.com


COOK COUNTY, IL: Suit Alleges Detainees Secretly Monitored
----------------------------------------------------------
Rosemary Sobol, writing for Chicago Tribune, reports that a
proposed class-action lawsuit alleges that the Cook County
sheriff's office requires its deputies to monitor by video camera
all detainees using bathrooms in holding cells at courthouses.

The suit, filed on August 8 in federal court, said the detainees
are kept in the holding cells while waiting to go to bond court
soon after their arrests.

The suit alleges that hidden cameras give an unobstructed view of
the toilets and that both male and female deputies monitor the
video whether the detainees are men or women.

The suit names Sheriff Tom Dart and Cook County as defendants and
alleges the monitoring violates protections against
unconstitutional search and invasion of privacy.

Cara Smith, Dart's chief policy officer, "vehemently" denied that
hidden or secret cameras are focused on detainees in the toilet
areas of holding cells at courthouses.

"Fixed cameras are present in the holding cells in courthouses as a
critical tool to ensure the safety of staff, the safety of
detainees and transparency of our operations," Smith said in an
emailed statement.

At a news conference, one of the four named plaintiffs said she
learned of the alleged monitoring from a friend whom she identified
as a sheriff's deputy. Michelle Urrutia, 46, said she had been
detained in a holding cell for an appearance on a misdemeanor
traffic charge at the Leighton Criminal Court Building at 26th
Street and California Avenue.

"You know we can see everything in the holding cell, including you
guys using the washroom?" Urrutia said the deputy told her at a
recent party.

Another plaintiff, Elizabeth Alicea, 41, said she spent about 12
hours in the holding cell at the same courthouse following a
shoplifting arrest and used the bathroom a couple of times.

"I was very embarrassed, humiliated and upset," she said.

Attorney Thomas Zimmerman Jr., Esq., questioned the security claims
made by the sheriff, saying the detainees had been searched twice
before being placed in the holding cells.

"People have an expectation of privacy regardless if they're in the
sheriff's custody," he said. "They don't know they're being
monitored."

Zimmerman, who said the women have not seen any video of
themselves, said he will seek to stop sheriff's officials from
discarding any video footage after 30 days.

The suit also seeks to halt the alleged monitoring and compensate
the detainees for "their humiliation and embarrassment."[GN]


CUBAMAX TRAVEL: Poirier Sues over Telemarketing Messages
--------------------------------------------------------
STEPHANE POIRIER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. CUBAMAX TRAVEL INC., a
Florida Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-23240-CMA
(S.D. Fla., Aug. 9, 2018), seeks statutory damages on behalf of
herself and members of the class, and any other available legal or
equitable remedies, pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

The Defendant is an online travel agency that coordinates complete
trips to Cuba for customers.  According to the complaint, to
promote its services, Defendant engages in unsolicited marketing,
harming thousands of consumers in the process. The Plaintiff seeks
injunctive relief to halt Defendant's illegal conduct, which has
resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and
disruption of the daily life of thousands of individuals.

On or about May 21, 2018, the Defendant sent the following
telemarketing text message to Plaintiff's cellular telephone number
ending in 2609. The Defendant's text message was transmitted to
Plaintiff's cellular telephone. The Defendant's text messages
constitute telemarketing because they encouraged the future
purchase or investment in property, goods, or services, i.e.,
selling Plaintiff a vacation to Cuba. The information contained in
the text message advertises Defendant's "especiales de apertura,"
which Defendant sends to promote its business. The phone number
contained in the text message (305) 400-4676 is listed on
Defendants website, wwww.cubamax.com/home, which upon information
and belief is owned and operated by Defendant.

Counsel for Plaintiff and the Class:

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


D & A SERVICES: Faces Heilweil Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against D & A Services, LLC.
The lawsuit is captioned as Laurie A. Heilweil, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. D & A
Services, LLC, also known as: D & A Services, LLC of IL, the
Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-04534-JS-GRB (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 10, 2018).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Joanna Seybert and alleges
Fair Debt Collection Act violations.

D & A Services is a collection agency that services to the consumer
bankcard/retail industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mitchell L. Pashkin, Esq.
          775 Park Avenue, Ste. 255
          Huntington, NY 11743
          Telephone: (631) 335 1107
          E-mail: mpash@verizon.net


DEBT RECOVERY: Faces Ward Suit in Eastern District of New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Debt Recovery
Solutions, LLC.  The case is captioned as Valarie Ward, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Debt Recovery Solutions, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-04509
(E.D.N.Y., Aug. 9, 2018).  The case alleges Fair Debt Collection
Act violations.

Debt Recovery is a debt collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mitchell L. Pashkin, Esq.
          775 Park Avenue, Ste. 255
          Huntington, NY 11743
          Telephone: (631) 335 1107
          E-mail: mpash@verizon.net


DNC GAMING: Faces Stacey Mercer Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against DNC Gaming Management
In Suffolk LLC. The case is captioned as Stacey Mercer,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. DNC Gaming Management In Suffolk LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:18-cv-06539-ER (S.D.N.Y., July 20, 2018). The lawsuit alleges
violation of civil rights. The case is assigned to Judge Edgardo
Ramos.

DNC Gaming Management In Suffolk LLC is a New York corporation
engaged in operating a casino. The Company is incorporated on
January 8, 2014. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nolan Keith Klein, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF NOLAN KLEIN, P.A.
          39 Broadway, Ste. 2250
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (646) 560-3230
          Facsimile: (877) 253-2691
          E-mail: klein@nklegal.com


DOS REALES: Olivera et al. Bid to Certify Settlement Class Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned ANATOLIO PENA OLIVERA and MARIA FERNANDA
MARTINEZ Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. DOS REALES, INC. and ALVARO QUEZADA,
the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-02203-KGS (D. Kan.), the Hon.
Judge Gary Sebelius entered an order on August 9, 2018:

   1. denying Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for conditional
      certification of Settlement Class, Proposed Class Notice,
      and Preliminary Approval of the Proposed Class Settlement
      and Attorney Fees; and

   2. directing Plaintiffs to file a status report informing the
      court how they plan to prosecute this action by August 20,
      2018.

Judge Sebelius held, "Like their previous motion, this motion also
suffers from defects. Plaintiffs' motion seeks Rule 23
certification for state-law claims that do not state a claim for
relief. The proposed settlement raises jurisdictional concerns, and
the motion fails to satisfy any of the requirements for Rule 23
class certification. This case is a 'hybrid" action in which
plaintiffs have asserted both state and federal wage-and-hour
claims. Although the motion fails to specify under which Kansas act
it seeks Rule 23 certification, it does note that the settlement is
for 'overtime' claims.  The court presumes plaintiffs seek
certification for both the [Kansas Minimum Wage and Maximum Hours
Law] and [Kansas Wage Payment Act] claims. However, as the Kansas
Supreme Court has noted, 'the KWPA does not contain any express
provision relating to the payment of overtime, which is typically
pursued under a Fair Labor Standards Act claim.' This district has
consistently construed this statement to mean that the KWPA is not
the proper mechanism for asserting overtime claims under Kansas
law. Rather, the KMWMHL applies to claims for unpaid overtime
wages. But the KMWMHL explicitly excludes from its definition of
'employer' any employer who is subject to the provisions of the
FLSA. The majority of opinions from this district have reached the
conclusion that KWPA and KMWMHL claims for unpaid overtime wages
fail to state a claim against an employer covered by the FLSA. By
asserting FLSA claims against defendants, plaintiffs have alleged
that the FLSA applies to these entities. Therefore, plaintiffs
cannot state a claim under the KWPA and KMWMHL, and Rule 23
certification of a class action must be denied."


EAGLE MATERIALS: Paid Settlement Amount in Direct Purchasers Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Eagle Materials Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the Direct Purchaser
Settlement Agreement was paid in July 2018 after approval by the
District Court.

Since late December 2012, several purported class action lawsuits
were filed in various United States District Courts, including the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Western District of North
Carolina, and the Northern District of Illinois, against the
Company and the Company's subsidiary, American Gypsum Company LLC
(American Gypsum), alleging that the defendant wallboard
manufacturers conspired to fix the price for drywall sold in the
United States in violation of federal antitrust laws, and in some
cases related provisions of state law.  

In addition to American Gypsum, the defendants in these lawsuits
included certain other wallboard manufacturers. These cases were
subsequently transferred and consolidated to the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania for coordinated pretrial proceedings.

The plaintiffs in the consolidated class action complaints asserted
claims on behalf of purported classes of direct purchasers or end
users of wallboard from January 1, 2012 to the present for
unspecified monetary damages (including treble damages) and in some
cases injunctive relief. The Company and American Gypsum denied all
allegations that they conspired to increase the price of drywall
and asserted affirmative defenses to the plaintiffs' claims.

Following completion of the initial discovery, the Company and
remaining co-defendants moved for summary judgment. On February 18,
2016, the court denied the Company's motion for summary judgment.


On August 23, 2017, the court granted the direct purchaser
plaintiffs' motion for class certification and certified a class
consisting of all persons or entities that purchased paper-backed
gypsum wallboard in the United States from January 1, 2012 through
January 31, 2013 directly from American Gypsum, the Company,
Lafarge, New NGC, PABCO, USG, and/or L&W Supply Corporation (which
was a subsidiary of USG Corporation during the class period). In
addition, on August 24, 2017, the court denied the indirect
purchaser's motion for class certification.

On December 29, 2017 American Gypsum and the Company, as well as
New NGC and PABCO, which are not affiliated with the Company,
entered into a settlement agreement (the Direct Purchaser
Settlement Agreement) with counsel representing the direct
purchaser class to settle all claims made against the Company,
American Gypsum, New NGC, and PABCO in the direct purchaser class
action.

The Direct Purchaser Settlement Agreement, in which the Company and
American Gypsum deny all wrongdoing, also includes releases by the
participating class members of the Company and American Gypsum as
well as their subsidiaries, affiliates, and other related parties,
for the time period from January 1, 2012 through the date of
execution of the Direct Purchaser Settlement Agreement.

On January 5, 2018 American Gypsum, New NGC, and PABCO entered into
a settlement agreement (the Indirect Purchaser Settlement
Agreement) with counsel representing the indirect purchaser class
to settle all claims against American Gypsum, New NGC, and PABCO in
the indirect purchaser class action.

The Indirect Purchaser Settlement Agreement is conditioned on final
approval of the District Court. Under the Direct and Indirect
Purchaser Settlement Agreements, the Company and American agreed to
pay a total of approximately $39.1 million in cash to settle the
claims against them.  

Eagle Materials said "These claims were accrued at the time of the
settlements, and during March 2018 we deposited approximately $38.8
million into a qualified settlement fund. The amount accrued under
the Direct Purchaser Settlement Agreement was paid in July 2018
after approval by the District Court."

Eagle Materials Inc. makes, distributes, and sells gypsum
wallboard, Portland cement, recycled paperboard, and concrete and
aggregates. Eagle Materials, formerly Centex Construction Products
Inc., was founded in 1963 and is based in Dallas.


EDUCATIONAL FINANCIAL: Court Approves $1.1MM Deal in TCPA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California granted Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Approval of
Class Action Settlement in the case captioned WINIFRED CABINESS,
Plaintiff, v. EDUCATIONAL FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS, LLC, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-01109-JST (N.D. Cal.).

Cabiness alleges that Defendants Educational Financial Services,
LLC, dba Campus Debt Solutions (CDS); Beta Investment Group, Inc.;
Equity Acquisitions, LLC; Venturetech Solutions, LLC; Debt.Com,
LLC; and Howard Dvorkin are a single business enterprise that
violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by
impermissibly placing calls to the cellular telephones of Cabiness
and the members of the class using an ATDS (automatic telephone
dialing system) or an artificial or pre-recorded voice without
their prior express written consent.

The Ninth Circuit maintains a strong judicial policy that favors
the settlement of class actions. Courts generally employ a two-step
process in evaluating a class action settlement. First, courts make
a preliminary determination concerning the merits of the settlement
and, if the class action has settled prior to class certification,
the propriety of certifying the class. Second, courts must hold a
hearing and make a final determination of whether the settlement is
fair, reasonable, and adequate.

The proposed settlement creates a fund in the amount of
$1,100,000.00 that will be used for cash payments to Settlement
Class Members, the costs of notice and settlement administration
(capped at $125,000), a Court-approved Service Award, and
Court-approved Attorneys' Fees and Costs.

In re Bluetooth, 654 F.3d at 946. Signs of collusion include: (1) a
disproportionate distribution of the settlement fund to counsel;
(2) negotiation of a clear sailing provision and (3) an arrangement
for funds not awarded to revert to defendant rather than to be
added to the settlement fund.

After analyzing the In re Bluetooth factors, and considering that
the Settlement was reached after the parties engaged in motion
practice and participated in a full day of formal mediation, the
Court concludes that the negotiations and agreement were
non-collusive.

Strength of Plaintiffs' Case; Risk, Expense, Complexity, and Likely
Duration of Further Litigation; and Risk of Maintaining Class
Status Throughout Trial

Amount Offered in Settlement

It is well-settled law that a cash settlement amounting to only a
fraction of the potential recovery does not per se render the
settlement inadequate or unfair.

Here, by contrast, somewhere between 81.6% and 96.66% of all class
members are projected to receive a payment. Moreover, the payments
in the cited cases were calculated at the final approval stage, and
those courts granted preliminary approval when the number of
claimants was unknown and the potential recovery per class member
was much lower than the estimated $20.00 in this case.

In evaluating the reasonableness of the Settlement, the Court is
also cognizant of CDS's current wind down status, which may
diminish the value of any future judgment entered at trial.
Considering the settlement as a whole, and given the direct
distribution process and the uncertainty surrounding the central
Defendant, the Settlement amount is reasonable and favors
approval.

Experience and Views of Counsel

Class counsel have extensive experience in litigating class action
and consumer protection cases. That they advocate in favor of this
Settlement weighs in favor of its approval.

Reaction of Class Members to the Proposed Settlement

The Court will wait until the fairness hearing to determine the
reaction of the class members to the Settlement.

Preferential Treatment

Aside from a potential service award, Cabiness will receive the
same relief as all other class members. There is also no evidence
or suggestion that any other class member will receive preferential
treatment under the Settlement. This factor weighs in favor of
approval.

The Presence of Obvious Deficiencies

Finally, the Court has reviewed the Settlement and did not find any
obvious deficiencies. To the extent any objector calls attention to
any such deficiency, the Court will consider it at the fairness
hearing.

Accordingly, Cabiness's motion for preliminary approval of class
action settlement is granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 25, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y7xnsy4k from Leagle.com.

Winifred Cabiness, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Bryan Kemnitzer --
bryan@kbklegal.com -- Kemnitzer, Barron & Krieg, LLP, Sharon Djemal
-- sdjemal@ebclc.org -- East Bay Community Law Center, Elliot Jason
Conn -- elliot@kbklegal.com - Kemnitzer, Barron & Krieg, LLP,
Kristin A. Kemnitzer -- kristin@kbklegal.com -- Kemnitzer, Barron &
Krieg, LLP & Nancy Barron -- kristin@kbklegal.com -- Kemnitzer
Barron & Krieg, LLP.

Educational Financial Solutions, LLC, doing business as Campus Debt
Solutions, Defendant, represented by James Harold Vorhis --
jvorhis@nossaman.com -- Nossaman LLP, Beth-Ann Ellenberg Krimsky --
beth-ann.krimsky@gmlaw.com -- Greenspoon Marder, PA & Jessica
Brooke Alhalel --  jessica.alhalel@gmlaw.com -- Greenspoon Marder,
PA, pro hac vice.


ELI LILLY: Strafford Appeals C.D. Calif. Ruling to 9th Circuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Carol Jacquez, David Matthews Jr. and Melissa Strafford
filed an appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit entitled
Melissa Strafford, et al. v. Eli Lilly and Company, Case No.
2:12-cv-09366-SVW-MAN, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, Los Angeles.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiffs, purporting to represent a class of all persons within
the U.S., who purchased and/or paid for Cymbalta, asserted claims
under the consumer protection statutes of four states, California,
Massachusetts, Missouri, and New York, and sought declaratory,
injunctive, and monetary relief for various alleged economic
injuries arising from discontinuing treatment with Cymbalta.

The appellate case is captioned as Melissa Strafford, et al. v. Eli
Lilly and Company, Case No. 18-56064, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript must be ordered by September 5, 2018;

   -- Transcript is due on October 5, 2018;

   -- Appellants Carol Jacquez, David Matthews Jr. and Melissa
      Strafford's opening brief is due on November 14, 2018;

   -- Appellee Eli Lilly and Company's answering brief is due on
      December 14, 2018;; and

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

Plaintiffs-Appellants MELISSA STRAFFORD, CAROL JACQUEZ and DAVID
MATTHEWS, Jr., on behalf of themselves and all other persons
similarly situated, are represented by:

          Michael Baum, Esq.
          Brent Wisner, Esq.
          BAUM, HEDLUND, ARISTEI & GOLDMAN PLC
          12100 Wilshire Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 820-6215
          E-mail: mbaum@baumhedlundlaw.com
                  rbwisner@baumhedlundlaw.com

Defendant-Appellee ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, an Indiana corporation,
is represented by:

          Michael X. Imbroscio, Esq.
          Phyllis Alene Jones, Esq.
          Mark H. Lynch, Esq.
          Michael Maya, Esq.
          COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
          850 Tenth Street NW
          Washington, DC 20001-4956
          Telephone: (202) 662-6000
          E-mail: mimbroscio@cov.com
                  pajones@cov.com
                  mlynch@cov.com
                  mmaya@cov.com

               - and -

          David E. Stanley, Esq.
          REED SMITH LLP
          355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2900
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 457-8000
          E-mail: dstanley@reedsmith.com


EREDI PISANO: Faces Wu Suit in Southern District of New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Eredi Pisano USA Inc.
The case is captioned as Kathy Wu, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Eredi Pisano USA Inc.,
and Erred Pisano Outlet New York LLC, Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-06530-ALC (S.D.N.Y., July 20, 2018). The lawsuit alleges
violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act. The case is
assigned to Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr.

Eredi Pisano USA Inc. is a New York corporation engaged in the
business of selling gasket tapes, joint sealants, seal strips and
membranes. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dana Lauren Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB& ASSOCIATES
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Telepone: (917) 796-7437
          Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
          E-mail: danalgottlieb@aol.com


EROS INTERNATIONAL: Second Circuit Appeal Pending
-------------------------------------------------
Eros International PLC said in its Form 20-F report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2018, for the
fiscal year ended March 31, 2018, that an appeal is pending in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in connection
with a consolidated securities class action lawsuit.

Beginning on November 13, 2015, the Company was named a defendant
in five substantially similar putative class action lawsuits filed
in federal court in New Jersey and New York by purported
shareholders of the Company. The actions have been consolidated and
a single consolidated action is now pending in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

On April 5, 2016, a lead plaintiff and lead counsel were appointed
in the now consolidated New York action. A single consolidated
complaint was filed on July 14, 2016 and amended on October 10,
2016. The plaintiffs have alleged that the Company and certain
individual defendants -- Kishore Lulla, Jyoti Deshpande, Andrew
Heffernan, and Prem Parameswaran -- have violated the federal
securities laws, specifically Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or the Exchange Act.

The amended consolidated complaint claims are primarily focused on
whether the Company and individual defendants made material
misrepresentations concerning the Company's film library and
materially misstated the usage and functionality of Eros Now, the
company's digital OTT entertainment service.

On September 25, 2017, the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York entered a Memorandum and Order
dismissing a putative securities class action, with prejudice,
against Eros and certain officers and directors. On October 23,
2017, lead plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal, individually and on
behalf of the putative class, to the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit. The appeal does not dispute the District
Court's dismissal, with prejudice, of lead plaintiffs' allegations
relating to the Company's film library. The only remaining claim
pertains to alleged misstatements concerning the usage and
functionality of Eros Now.

Eros International said "Although the Company remains confident
that the Second Circuit will affirm dismissal, there can be no
assurances that we will not become subject to unfavorable interim
or preliminary rulings that prolong the litigation process or that
a favorable outcome will be obtained.

Eros International Plc, together with its subsidiaries,
co-produces, acquires, and distributes Indian films in various
formats worldwide. The company distributes its film content through
various distribution channels, including theatrical, which includes
multiplex chains and stand-alone theaters; television syndication
that comprises satellite television broadcasting, cable television,
and terrestrial television; and digital and ancillary, such as
Internet protocol television, video on demand, music, inflight
entertainment, home video, and Internet channels, as well as Eros
Now online entertainment service. The company was founded in 1977
and is based in Secaucus, New Jersey.


ESA MANAGEMENT: Removes Beasley Suit to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The Defendants in the case of Franisha Beasley, individually, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ESA
Management, LLC, and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants,
filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court Court
of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, (Case No.
BC707902) to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on July 23, 2018, and assigned Case No.
2:18-cv-06340-SJO-E.  The case is assigned to Judge S. James Otero,
and referred to Magistrate Judge Charles F. Eick.

ESA Management, LLC operates and manages hotels under the Extended
Stay America brand name. The company was incorporated in 2013 and
is based in Charlotte, North Carolina. ESA Management, LLC operates
as a subsidiary of Extended Stay America, Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          FarzadRastegar, Esq.
          Amir Seyedfarshi, Esq.
          RASTEGAR LAW GROUP APC
          22760 Hawthorne Boulevard, Suite 200
          Torrance, CA 90505
          Telephone: (310) 961-9600
          Facsimile: (310) 961-9094
          E-mail: farzad@rastegarlawgroup.com
                  amir@rastegarlawgroup.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Ebunoluwa O Olaleye, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON PC
          333 Bush Street 34th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (715) 439-6224
          E-mail: dolaleye@littler.com

               - and –

          Lindbergh Porter , Jr., Esq.
          Mary D Walsh, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON PC
          333 Bush Street, 34th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 433-1940
          Facsimile: (415) 399-8490
          E-mail: lporter@littler.com
                  mdwalsh@littler.com


ETC INSTITUTE: Surveyors' Suit Remanded to State Court
------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California granted Plaintiffs Bruce Williams and Tonya Hennessey's
Motion to Remand the putative class action case captioned BRUCE
WILLIAMS, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. ETC INSTITUTE, et al., Defendants,
Case No. 18-cv-01011-MEJ (N.D. Cal.) to the San Francisco Superior
Court.

The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants as data collectors, also
referred to as surveyors.  While A+ Student Staffing Inc. recruited
Plaintiffs, ETC Institute controlled their employment.  Job
assignments and work communications come from, and surveyors submit
their time sheets to, ETC Institute managers. However, A+ Student's
name appears on wage statements.

The Plaintiffs worked more than six-hour shifts; however, the
Defendants did not provide the Plaintiffs or other surveyors with
rest and meal breaks. The Defendants also did not provide surveyors
with additional compensation when they did not receive such breaks,
particularly when they worked on weekends. The Defendants took no
action to provide meal or rest breaks and in fact stated there was
no time for such breaks.

The Plaintiffs move for remand on the grounds that A+ Student fails
to establish that (1) the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million,
and (2) there are more than 100 class members.

A+ Student offers evidence that, it employed and paid approximately
694 non-exempt employees as data collectors or surveyors in
California.  Mr. Edwards explains that he calculated this figure by
personally reviewing  Plaintiffs argue this figure is arbitrary but
do not explain why that is; nor do they offer evidence challenging
the figure. Indeed, Plaintiffs abandon this argument in Reply and
do not address the Edwards Opposition Declaration.  At this point,
the Court finds A+ Student has established, by a preponderance of
the evidence, that there are more than 100 potential class
members.

The amount in controversy is simply an estimate of the total amount
in dispute, not a prospective assessment of defendant's liability.
A+ Student calculates the amount in controversy to be
$7,215,276.63, exclusive of attorneys' fees.  The Court cannot find
A+ Student shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the
amount in controversy for the Plaintiffs' overtime claim is
$138,391.88.

The Court finds A+ Student fails to show the amount in controversy
exceeds $5 million and therefore fails to establish jurisdiction
under Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) exists. The Court therefore
grants the Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 25, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y7933csl from Leagle.com.

Bruce Williams & Tonya Hennessey, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Rachel E.
Davey -- Rachel@workmanlawpc.com -- Workman Law Firm, PC & Robin
Gibson Workman -- robin@workmanlawpc.com -- Workman Law Firm, PC.

ETC Institute, Defendant, represented by Courtney A. Hasselberg --
Courtney.Hasselberg@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard &
Smith LLP, Brent Coverdale -- bcoverdale@sakg.com -- Scharnhorst
Ast Kennard Griffin, Lisa Bolliger -- lbolliger@sakg.com --
Scharnhorst Ast Kennard Griffin & Vincent Regis Fisher --
vincent.fisher@lewisbrisbois.com  -- LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD &
SMITH LLP.

A+ Student Staffing, Defendant, represented by Tracy Wei Costantino
-- tracy.costantino@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C., Mark
Aaron Shoffner -- mshoffner@bellnunnally.com -- Bell Nunnally &
Martin LLP & Suzetty C. Shen -- Suzetty.Shen@jacksonlewis.com --
Jackson Lewis, P.C..


EXTRA EXPRESS: Underpays Delivery Drivers, Julio Rico Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
JULIO RICO, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EXTRA EXPRESS (CERRITOS) INC.; EXTRA EXPRESS
(LOGISTICS) INC.; EXTRA EXPRESS (INDUSTRY), INC.; DICOM
TRANSPORTATION GROUP, L.P.; EXTRA EXPRESS HOLDINGS, LLC f/k/a DICOM
WEST LLC; ST. GEORGE TRUCKING & WAREHOUSING INC.; ST. GEORGE
WAREHOUSING & TRUCKING CO. OF CALIFORNIA, INC.; and DOES 1-50,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC715057 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles
Cty., July 23, 2018) is an action against the Defendants for
failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and
permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and
reimburse necessary business expenses.

Mr. Rico was employed by the Defendants as delivery driver from
October 2016 to April 2017.

EXTRA Express Cerritos, Inc. offers logistics, transportation,
distribution, and warehousing services. The company was founded in
1982 and is based in Brea, California. As of July 21, 2015, EXTRA
Express Cerritos, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Dicom
Transportation Group, L.P. As of May 9, 2017, EXTRA Express
Cerritos, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of St. George Trucking &
Warehouse Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq.
          David C. Leimbach, Esq.
          Scott L. Gordon, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL
          KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
          2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
          Emeryville, CA 94608
          Telephone: (415) 421-7100
          Facsimile: (415) 421-7105


FAMILY DOLLAR: Underpays Store Managers, Castellanos Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
CESAR V. CASTELLANOS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FAMILY DOLLAR, INC., and DOES 1 to
100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC715055 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., July 23, 2018) is an action against the Defendants
for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for
missed meal and rest periods.

Mr. Castellanos was employed by the Defendants as an assistant
store manager from November 2015 to August 2016, and as store
manager from August 2016 to February 2018.

Family Dollar Stores, Inc. operates a chain of general merchandise
retail discount stores primarily for low- and middle-income
consumers in the United States. The company was founded in 1959 and
is headquartered in Matthews, North Carolina. As of July 6, 2015,
Family Dollar Stores Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Dollar Tree,
Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin T. Barnes, Esq.
          Gregg Lander, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN T. BARNES
          1635 Pontius Avenue, Second Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90025-3361
          Telephone: (323) 549-9100
          Facsimile: (323) 549-0101
          E-mail: Barnes@kbarnes.com


FATHOM EVENTS: Johnston Appeals W.D. Wash. Decision to 9th Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Association of Late Deafened Adults, Jerry Bergman,
Maria C. Childress, Kate Johnston, Dean Olson and Washington State
Communication Access Project filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit styled Kate Johnston, et al. v. FATHOM EVENTS JV, LLC,
et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-00011-MJP, in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Washington, Seattle.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Americans with Disabilities
Act.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on August 20, 2018, the
District Court approved a stipulation extending the deadline for
class certification in the case.

The Plaintiffs will move for a determination under Rule 23(c)(1) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as to whether the case is to
be maintained as a class action on or before 45 days after the
Court rules on the pending dispositive motions.

The appellate case is captioned as Kate Johnston, et al. v. Dean
Olson, et al., Case No. 18-35667, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript must be ordered by September 13, 2018;

   -- Transcript is due on October 15, 2018;

   -- Appellants Association of Late Deafened Adults, Jerry
      Bergman, Maria C. Childress, Kate Johnston, Dean Olson and
      Washington State Communication Access Project's opening
      brief is due on November 23, 2018;

   -- Appellees AMC Entertainment Inc., Cinemark Holdings Inc.
      and Regal Entertainment Group's answering brief is due on
      December 24, 2018; and

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

Plaintiffs-Appellants KATE JOHNSTON; DEAN OLSON; JERRY BERGMAN;
MARIA C. CHILDRESS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated; WASHINGTON STATE COMMUNICATION ACCESS PROJECT,
a Washington corporation; and ASSOCIATION OF LATE DEAFENED ADULTS
are represented by:

          Roger Mulford Townsend, Esq.
          BRESKIN JOHNSON & TOWNSEND PLLC
          1000 Second Avenue
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Telephone: (206) 652-8660
          E-mail: rtownsend@bjtlegal.com

Defendants-Appellees REGAL ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, AMC ENTERTAINMENT
INC. and CINEMARK HOLDINGS INC. are represented by:

          Michael Brett Burns, Esq.
          HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP
          50 California Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 975-3725
          E-mail: mbrettburns@HuntonAK.com

               - and -

          Chris Farias, Esq.
          STOKES LAWRENCE, P.S.
          1420 Fifth Avenue
          Seattle, WA 98101-2393
          Telephone: (206) 626-6000
          E-mail: chris.farias@stokeslaw.com


FCA US: Court Narrows Claims in Defective Wire Harness Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Kansas granted
in part Defendant's Motion to Dismiss all claims under Rule
12(b)(1) for lack of standing and, alternatively, under Rule
12(b)(6) for failing to state a claim in the case captioned RONALD
AND MELODY LAROE, individually, and on behalf of those similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. FCA US, LLC f/k/a CHRYSLER GROUP, LLC, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 17-2487-DDC-JPO (D. Kan.).

The Plaintiffs allege that the defendants acted in concert to
defraud the owners of about 320,000 FCA US-manufactured vehicles in
the United States.  The Plaintiffs allege that the defendants
violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
(RICO) (Count I).  The Plaintiffs also allege that FCA US: violated
the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (MMWA)(Count II); breached the
implied warranty of merchantability under Kan. Stat. (Count III);
and violated the Kansas Consumer Protection Act (KCPA) (Count IV).

The Defendants argue that the plaintiffs' allegations are deficient
for several reasons:

First, both defendants contend that the plaintiffs lack standing
because they do not allege an injury-in-fact.

Second, ZF NA alone argues that the plaintiffs cannot establish
that it is subject to general personal jurisdiction in Kansas, so
the court should dismiss the claims asserted on behalf of
out-of-state putative class members.

Third, both defendants contend that all four Counts of plaintiffs'
Complaint fail to state a plausible claim.

Plaintiffs Lack Standing

The Defendants seek dismissal of all claims under Rule 12(b)(1)
because, they assert, the plaintiffs lack Article III standing.
Article III of the United States Constitution limits federal
courts' jurisdiction to cases and controversies.

Article III standing requires plaintiffs to establish (1) that they
have suffered an 'injury in fact' (2) that the injury is fairly
traceable to the challenged action of the defendant and, (3) that
it is likely that the injury will be redressed by a favorable
decision.

The Defendants argue that the plaintiffs lack standing because they
have failed to allege that they sustained an injury-in-fact. To
plead injury-in-fact, plaintiffs must allege facts that, if true,
would show that they suffered an invasion of a legally protected
interest that is concrete and particularized and actual or
imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.

The Defendants' motion asserts that the Complaint although lengthy
never alleges that these plaintiffs have sustained an actual or
imminent injury. They contend that plaintiffs merely allege the
possibility of a future injury, something that is too conjectural
or contingent to satisfy the standing requirement.

The court agrees with the defendants.

The Plaintiffs' Complaint alleges several theoretical injuries: an
insufficient wire crimp on the wire harness, an unexpected shift to
neutral, or an unexpected shift to fixed-gear limp mode. But
plaintiffs never allege that they have sustained any of these
injuries. The Complaint's relevant allegations can be summarized in
this way: In 2015, the plaintiffs experienced unidentified
problems" with their Cherokee; in 2016, they responded to the
recall notice by having their Cherokee serviced; the servicing
dealership performed a software update, telling the plaintiffs
their Cherokee was fixed at some undisclosed time after the update,
their Cherokee would not start; and a second dealership told the
plaintiffs that the first dealership merely had completed a
software update but had not replaced the wire harness.  

What's missing from the plaintiffs' Complaint is telling. The
Plaintiffs never allege that they have sustained a present
injury-in-fact or even an imminent one that is fairly traceable to
the defendants' actions challenged by the Complaint's claims. To be
sure, the Complaint alleges that the plaintiffs' Cherokee
experienced some unidentified problems. But it never alleges that
these problems whatever they were are fairly traced to one or more
problematic wire crimps. The Plaintiffs also allege that their
Cherokee would not start. But the Complaint never alleges that this
outcome is fairly traced to a wire crimp, the software update, or
any unexpected shifting.

The court concludes that the plaintiffs have failed to plead facts
capable of showing that they have standing to bring this lawsuit.

Accordingly, the court will grant defendant FCA US's Motion to
Dismiss, in part.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 25, 2018 Memorandum
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ybeg3dl5 from
Leagle.com.

Ronald LaRoe, Individually, and on behalf of those similarly
situated & Melody LaRoe, Individually, and on behalf of those
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Ashley Scott
Waddell, Waddell Law Firm LLC, Benjamin C. Fields, Stucky & Fields,
LLC, Bryce B. Bell, Bell Law, LLC, Mark W. Schmitz, Bell Law, LLC,
Rex A. Sharp, Rex A. Sharp, PA, Ryan C. Hudson, Rex A. Sharp, PA &
Scott B. Goodger, Rex A. Sharp, PA.

FCA US LLC, formerly known as Chrysler Group, LLC, Defendant,
represented by Craig S. Laird, Robert A. Kumin, PC, Kathy A.
Wisniewski -- kwisniewski@thompsoncoburn.com -- Thompson Coburn
LLP, pro hac vice, Scottie Sue Kleypas, Robert A. Kumin, PC,
Stephen A. D'Aunoy -- sdaunoy@thompsoncoburn.com -- Thompson Coburn
LLP, pro hac vice &Thomas L. Azar, Jr. -- tazar@thompsoncoburn.com
-- Thompson Coburn LLP, pro hac vice.

ZF North America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Arthur T.
O'Reilly -- Jones Day, pro hac vice, James D. Griffin --
jgriffin@sakg.com -- Scharnhorst Ast Kennard Griffin PC, Lisa M.
Bolliger -- lbolliger@sakg.com -- Scharnhorst Ast Kennard Griffin
PC, Marjorie P. Duffy -- mpduffy@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, pro hac
vice & Stephen J. Cowen  -- scowen@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, pro
hac vice.


FIDELITY NATIONAL: Suit vs. Reliance Trust Company Still Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July
31, 2018, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the
class action lawsuit against Reliance Trust Company, is still
ongoing.

Reliance Trust Company ("Reliance"), the Company's subsidiary, is
named as a defendant in a class action arising out of its provision
of services as the discretionary trustee for a 401(k) Plan (the
"Plan") for one of its customers. Plaintiffs in the action seek
damages and attorneys' fees, as well as equitable relief, on behalf
of Plan participants for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and
prohibited transactions under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974. The action also makes claims against the
Plan's sponsor and record-keeper.

Reliance is vigorously defending the action and believes that it
has meritorious defenses. Pre-trial discovery has now been
completed. Reliance contends that no breaches of fiduciary duty or
prohibited transactions occurred and that the Plan suffered no
damages. Plaintiffs allege damages of approximately $125 million.

Fidelity National said "While we are unable at this time to
estimate more precisely the potential loss or range of loss because
of unresolved questions of fact and law, we believe that the
ultimate resolution of the matter will not have a material impact
on our financial condition. We do not believe a liability for this
action is probable and, therefore, have not recorded a liability
for this action."

Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. operates as a
financial services technology company in the United States and
internationally. It operates through Integrated Financial Solutions
and Global Financial Solutions segments. The company was founded in
1968 and is headquartered in Jacksonville, Florida.


FIELD FRESH: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Koh Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------
ANGELICA KOH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FIELD FRESH FOODS, INC.; and DOES 1 through
50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC715056 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., July 23, 2018) is an action against the Defendants
for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for
missed meal and rest periods.

Ms. Koh was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt hourly
employee in California.

Field Fresh Foods, Inc. produces, processes, and distributes fruits
and vegetables to food services, food manufacturing, and food
retail companies in the United States. The company offers peeled,
sliced, diced, and shredded fruits and vegetables. It also offers
distribution services, including domestic transportation,
fulfillment, specialty transportation, and warehousing cold
storage. The company was founded in 1994 and is based in Gardena,
California. It has a distribution center in Los Angeles,
California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Yeremian, Esq.
          DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
          535 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 705
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 230-8380
          Facsimile: (818) 230-0308


FIRSTPOINT INC: Barnhill Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned LARA BARNHILL, on behalf of herself and
all other similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiffs, v.
FIRSTPOINT, INC. d/b/a FIRSTPOINT INFORMATION RESOURCES and
FIRSTPOINT COLLECTION RESOURCES, INC., the Defendants, Case No.
1:15-CV-00892 (M.D.N.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an
order:

   1. certifying a Settlement Class for the purpose of the
      proposed settlement;

   2. appointing Class Counsel;

   3. preliminarily approving the proposed Class settlement; and

   4. approving the content, form and manner of notice proposed
      to be sent to all members of the Settlement Class.

Counsel for the Plaintiff:

          Gary W. Jackson, Esq.
          Christopher R. Bagley, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JAMES SCOTT FARRIN
          280 S. Mangum Street, Suite 400
          Durham, NC 27701
          Telephone: (919) 226 1913
          Facsimile: (800) 716 7881
          E-mail: gjackson@farrin.com
                  cbagley@farrin.com

               - and -

          Karl S. Gwaltney, Esq.
          Edward H. Maginnis, Esq.
          MAGINNIS LAW, PLLC
          4801 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 310
          Raleigh, NC 27612
          Telephone: (919) 526 0450
          Facsimile: (919) 882 8763
          E-mail: emaginnis@maginnislaw.com
                  kgwaltney@maginnislaw.com


FORSTER & GARBUS: Bencomo Files Placeholder Class Certification Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled MODESTA BENCOMO, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. FORSTER &
GARBUS, LLP, the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-01259-WED (E.D.
Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order certifying
classes, appointing the Plaintiff as class representative, and
appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as Class Counsel, and for such
other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate.

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

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with
the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the
certification motion. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896
(7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First
Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of
that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class
from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs.").

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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


FPI MANAGEMENT: Faces Pine Manor Suit in Sacramento California
--------------------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action lawsuit has been filed against
FPI Management Inc.  The case is captioned as Pine Manor Investors
LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. FPI Management Inc., Defendant, Case No.
34-2018-00237315-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., July 23,
2018).

FPI Management, Inc. provides property management services for
multifamily properties in Alaska, California, Colorado, Idaho,
Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Virginia,
and Washington. The company also provides management and compliance
services for affordable communities that comprise LIHTC, new
construction and acquisition rehab, USDA, bond financed, Section 8,
and HUD insured properties. FPI Management was founded in 1968 and
is based in Folsom, California with locations in Costa Mesa,
California; and Lynnwood, Washington. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by Carolyn H Cottrell, Esq.


FREDDIE MAC: Notice of Appeal in Jacobs and Hides Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2018,
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that plaintiffs in
the case, Jacobs and Hindes vs. FHFA and Treasury, filed a notice
of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

The case was filed on August 17, 2015 as a putative class action
lawsuit purportedly on behalf of a class of holders of preferred
stock or common stock issued by Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae. The case
was also filed as a shareholder derivative lawsuit, purportedly on
behalf of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae as "nominal" defendants.

The complaint alleges, among other items, that the August 2012
amendment to the Purchase Agreement violated applicable state law
and constituted a breach of contract, as well as a breach of
covenants of good faith and fair dealing. Plaintiffs seek equitable
and injunctive relief (including restitution of the monies paid by
Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to Treasury under the net worth sweep
dividend), compensatory damages, attorneys' fees, costs and
expenses.

On November 27, 2017, the Court dismissed the case with prejudice
after defendants filed a motion to dismiss. On December 21, 2017,
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit.

Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation operates in the secondary
mortgage market in the United States. The company purchases
residential mortgage loans originated by lenders, as well as
invests in mortgage loans and mortgage-related securities. Federal
Home Loan Mortgage Corporation was founded in 1970 and is
headquartered in McLean, Virginia.


FREDDIE MAC: Still Defends Against Ohio Public Employees' Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation continues to defend against
the case entitled, Ohio Public Employees Retirement System vs.
Freddie Mac, Syron, et al., according to its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2018, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018.

This putative securities class action lawsuit was filed against
Freddie Mac and certain former officers on January 18, 2008 in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio purportedly
on behalf of a class of purchasers of Freddie Mac stock from August
1, 2006 through November 20, 2007. FHFA later intervened as
Conservator, and the plaintiff amended its complaint on several
occasions.

The plaintiff alleged, among other things, that the defendants
violated federal securities laws by making false and misleading
statements concerning our business, risk management, and the
procedures we put into place to protect the company from problems
in the mortgage industry. The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages
and interest, and reasonable costs and expenses, including attorney
and expert fees.

In October 2013, defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint.
In October 2014, the District Court granted defendants' motions and
dismissed the case in its entirety against all defendants, with
prejudice. In November 2014, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal in
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.  On July 20, 2016,
the Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's dismissal and
remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings.

Federal Home said "At present, it is not possible for us to predict
the probable outcome of this lawsuit or any potential effect on our
business, financial condition, liquidity, or results of operations.
In addition, we are unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss
or range of possible loss in the event of an adverse judgment in
the foregoing matter due to the following factors, among others:
the inherent uncertainty of pre-trial litigation and the fact that
the District Court has not yet ruled upon motions for class
certification or summary judgment. In particular, absent the
certification of a class, the identification of a class period, and
the identification of the alleged statement or statements that
survive dispositive motions, we cannot reasonably estimate any
possible loss or range of possible loss."

Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation operates in the secondary
mortgage market in the United States. The company purchases
residential mortgage loans originated by lenders, as well as
invests in mortgage loans and mortgage-related securities. Federal
Home Loan Mortgage Corporation was founded in 1970 and is
headquartered in McLean, Virginia.


FREDDIE MAC: Suit Over Preferred Stock Purchase Deal Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2018,
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the company
continues to defend itself in the case entitled, In re Fannie
Mae/Freddie Mac Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement Class
Action Litigation.

This case is the result of the consolidation of three putative
class action lawsuits: Cacciapelle and Bareiss vs. Federal National
Mortgage Association, Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation and
FHFA, filed on July 29, 2013; American European Insurance Company
vs. Federal National Mortgage Association, Federal Home Loan
Mortgage Corporation and FHFA, filed on July 30, 2013; and Marneu
Holdings, Co. vs. FHFA, Treasury, Federal National Mortgage
Association and Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, filed on
September 18, 2013. (The Marneu case was also filed as a
shareholder derivative lawsuit.) A consolidated amended complaint
was filed in December 2013.

In the consolidated amended complaint, plaintiffs allege, among
other items, that the August 2012 amendment to the Purchase
Agreement breached Freddie Mac's and Fannie Mae's respective
contracts with the holders of junior preferred stock and common
stock and the covenant of good faith and fair dealing inherent in
such contracts.

Plaintiffs sought unspecified damages, equitable and injunctive
relief, and costs and expenses, including attorney and expert
fees.

The Cacciapelle and American European Insurance Company lawsuits
were filed purportedly on behalf of a class of purchasers of junior
preferred stock issued by Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae who held stock
prior to, and as of, August 17, 2012. The Marneu lawsuit was filed
purportedly on behalf of a class of purchasers of junior preferred
stock and purchasers of common stock issued by Freddie Mac or
Fannie Mae over a not-yet-defined period of time.

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

Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation operates in the secondary
mortgage market in the United States. The company purchases
residential mortgage loans originated by lenders, as well as
invests in mortgage loans and mortgage-related securities. Federal
Home Loan Mortgage Corporation was founded in 1970 and is
headquartered in McLean, Virginia.


FRESHBEV LLC: NY Court Narrows Claims in Mislabeling Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GERARD CAMPBELL, individually on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FRESHBEV LLC, and
WHOLE FOODS MARKET GROUP, INC., Defendants, Case No.
1:16-cv-7119(FB)(ST)(E.D. N.Y.), Judge Frederick Block of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted in part
and denied in part the Defendants move to dismiss Campbell's Third
Amended Complaint ("TAC").

Campbell brings the class action based on diversity jurisdiction
under the Class Action Fairness Act pursuant to New York General
Business Law ("GBL") Sections 349 and 350 and common law fraud,
alleging Defendants Freshbev and Whole Foods sell several juice
products with misleading labels.

The Plaintiff allegedly bought several juices manufactured and sold
by Freshbev at a store operated by Whole Foods, including bottles
of Ripe Craft Juice 12.2 Northeast Blend Cranberry Apple
("Cranberry Apple juice"), Ripe Craft Juice 12 Cranberry
Unsweetened ("Cranberry juice") and Fresh Juice Pineapple for
$4.99, $3.50 and $7.99, respectively.  He claims these prices
represented a premium based on several purported
misrepresentations: (1) that the juices were unpasteurized; (2)
that the juices were cold-pressed; (3) that the juices were fresh;
and (4) that the Cranberry Apple juice had more cranberry juice
than apple juice.

The Defendants move to dismiss Campbell's TAC under Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), (2) and (6), alleging lack of subject
matter and personal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted.  

The Defendants argue that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction
over the Plaintiff's proposed out-of-state class members following
the holding in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Sup. Ct. of Cal., 137
S.Ct. 1773, 1781-82 (2017).  Judge Block finds that the Plaintiff
has not yet brought a motion to certify a nationwide class.  Until
he does so, the issue is not squarely before the Court.  Given the
unsettled nature of the law following Bristol-Myers, he will defer
on this question until the Plaintiff brings a motion for class
certification, if he chooses to do so.

The Defendants argue the Plaintiff lacks standing for injunctive
relief because he now knows the truth about the juice and therefore
cannot be fooled again.  The Judge finds that the parties provide
no Second Circuit cases on point, and the Court's research reveals
only one, Kommer v. Bayer Consumer Health, a division of Bayer AG,
a nonprecedential summary order.  Notwithstanding that it was not
of precedential value, in Kommer, the court found the plaintiff had
no standing for injunctive relief because he claimed he would never
purchase defendant's product again.  Therefore, the plaintiff did
not allege the future injury deemed sufficient in Davidson.

However, plaintiff has not pleaded such an injury. He alleges only
that he has purchased the product in the past and, even in his TAC,
does not plead that he intends or desires to purchase FreshBev's
juices in the future.  Therefore, the Plaintiff has not pleaded
future injury, and his injunctive relief claims are dismissed.

As for the Defendants' 12(b)(6) Motions, the Judge finds that a
reasonable consumer would not mistake the cold-pressed claim to be
a claim that pressure was never applied to the juice products.
Therefore, the claims regarding this statement are dismissed.  

Whether a reasonable consumer would be misled by the term "fresh"
combined with additional language regarding the application of
pressure is a question for the factfinder.  Therefore, the
Plaintiff has successfully stated a claim with regard to this term.


Also, the Defendants' label violates FDA's 21 C.F.R. Section
102.33(b) regulation because it does not list the predominant apple
juice before cranberry.  Nor does it contain the saving caveat
"flavored."  Because it violates FDA labeling requirements, a
reasonable consumer may be misled into believing that Cranberry
Apple juice has more cranberry juice than apple.

Finally, the Judge finds that the Plaintiff has not effectively
pleaded that Whole Foods had anintent to defraud consumers, and his
common law fraud claim is dismissed.  He says the Plaintiff's
argument that Whole Foods is fraudulently misrepresenting the juice
as unpasteurized by failing to put an unpasteurized warning label
on the juice is illogical.  If anything, Whole Foods' decision not
to place an unpastuerized sticker on the product shows it is not
making such a representation.

For these reasons, Judge Block granted in part and denied in part
the Defendant's motion.  The Plaintiff's claim for injunctive
relief is dismissed.  His with respect to the "cold-pressed" labels
and the "unpasteurized" labels on the Cranberry Apple and Pineapple
juices are dismissed.  The Plaintiff's common law fraud claim is
dismissed.  The Plaintiff may pursue his GBL Sections 349 and 350
claims with respect to the "fresh" and "Cranberry Apple" labels and
the "unpasteurized" label on the Cranberry juice.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 3, 2018 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/y43bpn from Leagle.com.

Gerard Campbell, individually and on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Spencer I.
Sheehan -- spencer@spencersheehan.com -- Sheehan & Associates, P.C.
& Joshua Levin-Epstein -- joshual@shiboleth.com -- Levin-Epstein &
Associates.

Freshbev LLC, Defendant, represented by Timothy E. Di Domenico --
didomenicot@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg, Traurig, LLP.

Whole Foods Market, Inc. & Whole Foods Market Group, Inc.,
Defendants, represented by David Eric Sellinger --
sellingerd@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig & Timothy E. Di Domenico
, Greenberg, Traurig, LLP.


FURNITURE MEDIC: Faces Matzura Suit in Southern Dist. of New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Furniture Medic
Limited Partnership. The case is captioned as Steven Matzura, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff,
v. Furniture Medic Limited Partnership, the Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-07180 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 9, 2018). The case alleges Americans
with Disabilities violations.

Furniture Medic, founded in 1992, is the world's largest furniture
repair and wood damage repair and restoration company.[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


GENERAL MOTORS: Bohlke Sues over Unwanted Telephone Calls
---------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT BOHLKE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. GENERAL MOTORS FINANCIAL COMPANY,
INC., and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, the
Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-06831 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 9, 2018), seeks
to recover damages and any other available legal or equitable
remedies resulting from the illegal actions of the Defendant, in
negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully contacting Plaintiff on
Plaintiff's cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act and related regulations, specifically the
National Do-Not-Call provisions, thereby invading Plaintiff's
privacy.

According to the complaint, beginning in or around September of
2017, Defendant contacted Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular
telephone number ending in -9695, in an attempt to solicit
Plaintiff to purchase Defendant's services. The Defendant used an
"automatic telephone dialing system" as defined by 47 U.S.C.
section 227(a)(1) to place its call to Plaintiff seeking to solicit
its services. The Defendant contacted or attempted to contact
Plaintiff from telephone number (949) 272-9307, confirmed to belong
to Defendant. Defendant's calls constituted calls that were not for
emergency purposes as defined by 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(1)(A).

During all relevant times, Defendant did not possess Plaintiff's
"prior express consent" to receive calls using an automatic
telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice on
his cellular telephone pursuant to 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(1)(A).
Further, Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending in -9695 was
added to the National Do-Not-Call Registry on or about July 27,
2003.

Defendant placed multiple calls soliciting its business to
Plaintiff on his cellular telephone ending in -9695 in or around
September 2017. Such calls constitute solicitation calls pursuant
to 47 C.F.R. section 64.1200(c)(2) as they were attempts to promote
or sell Defendant’s services. The Plaintiff received numerous
solicitation calls from Defendant within a 12-month period. The
Plaintiff requested for Defendant to stop calling Plaintiff during
one of the initial calls from Defendant, thus revoking any prior
express consent that had existed and terminating any established
business relationship that had existed, as defined under 16 C.F.R.
310.4(b)(1)(iii)(B). Despite this, Defendant continued to call
Plaintiff in an attempt to solicit its services and in violation of
the National Do-Not-Call provisions of the TCPA.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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


GLOBAL FRANCHISE: Faces Matzura Suit in Southern Dist. of New York
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Global Franchise
Group, LLC.  The case is captioned as Steven Matzura, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Global
Franchise Group, LLC doing business as: Marble Slab, the Defendant,
Case No. 1:18-cv-07185 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 9, 2018). The case alleges
Americans with Disabilities violations.

Global Franchise is a brand acquisition and management firm
headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia, United States. It specializes in
the retail franchising, consumer branded products, and quick
service restaurant franchising industries.[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


GOLDEN STATE OVERNIGHT: Underpays Drivers, Stevenson Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
ALFREDO STEVENSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GOLDEN STATE OVERNIGHT DELIVERY
SERVICE, INC., and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. BC 714175 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., July 20, 2018) is an
action against the Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime
hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods.

Mr. Stevenson was employed by the Defendants as driver.

Golden State Overnight Delivery Service Inc. provides ground and
overnight delivery services in California, and select metropolitan
areas of Nevada, Arizona, and New Mexico. Golden State Overnight
Delivery Service Inc. was founded in 1995 and is based in
Pleasanton, California. As of September 30, 2016, Golden State
Overnight Delivery Service Inc. operates as a subsidiary of General
Logistics Systems B.V. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Solomon E. Gresen, Esq.
          Jack Risemberg, Esq.
          RGLAWYERS LLP
          15910 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1610
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 815-2727
          Facsimile: (818) 818-2737


GRAMERCY PROPERTY: Suits over Deal with Blackstone Unit Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gramercy Property Trust said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the company continues to
defend class action lawsuits related to the proposed transaction
between the Company and affiliates of Blackstone.

Gramercy and its board of trustees are named as defendants in three
pending lawsuits brought by purported Gramercy shareholders
challenging the proposed transaction between the Company and
affiliates of Blackstone: Anderson v. Gramercy Property Trust et
al., No. 1:18-cv-05335-PCK, a purported class action, was filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on June 13, 2018, Franchi v. Gramercy Property Trust et al.,
No. 1:18-cv-01842-ELH, a purported class action, was filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Maryland on June
20, 2018, and Madry v. Gramercy Property Trust et al., No.
1:18-cv-01851-TDC, an individual action, was filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Maryland on June 21,
2018.

The complaints allege, among other things, that the individual
defendants caused the Company to file a materially incomplete and
misleading preliminary proxy statement relating to the proposed
transaction in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act.

The Anderson and Madry complaints seek a variety of equitable and
injunctive relief, including enjoining defendants from consummating
the proposed merger transaction unless and until the Company
provides supplemental disclosures, unspecified damages and, in the
case of the Anderson complaint, rescission of the Merger Agreement
or any of the terms thereof, or rescissory damages.

The Franchi complaint seeks, among other relief, to enjoin
defendants from proceeding with, consummating or closing the
proposed merger transaction, rescission of the merger transaction
or rescissory damages, and dissemination of a supplemental proxy
statement.

All three complaints also seek an award of attorneys' and expert
fees and expenses. The Company believes the lawsuits are without
merit. The Company is unable to predict the outcome of these
matters.

Gramercy Property Trust is a leading global investor and asset
manager of commercial real estate. The Company specializes in
acquiring and managing high quality, income producing commercial
real estate leased to high quality tenants in major markets in the
United States and Europe.


GRUMA CORP: Court Dismisses J. Maravilla's FLSA Suit
----------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Texas, Houston Division, granted Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the
case captioned JESUS MARAVILLA, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. GRUMA CORPORATION, d/b/a
MISSION TORTILLAS, Defendant, Civil Action No. H-18-1309(S.D.
Tex.).

Pending before the court is Defendant's Second Motion to Dismiss
or, in the Alternative, Compel Arbitration.

Plaintiff Jesus Maravilla, on behalf of himself and other similarly
situated individuals, brings this action against defendant Gruma
Corporation, d/b/a Mission Tortilla for failure to pay overtime
wages and failure to maintain accurate records under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA), quantum meruit, and promissory estoppe.

The Defendant argues that because the Plaintiff signed the
Distributor Agreement which requires mandatory arbitration of the
claims and incorporates the JAMS Streamlined Arbitration Rules and
Procedures the court should dismiss this action and compel
individual arbitration.

The Plaintiff responds that the arbitration clause in the
Distributor Agreement is neither valid nor enforceable because the
arbitration clause was written in English, the Plaintiff only
speaks and reads Spanish, and the Defendant did not provide an
alternative version of the arbitration clause in Spanish.

Under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) an arbitration agreement in
a contract evidencing a transaction involving interstate commerce
is valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as
exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.

The Plaintiff does not challenge the formation or existence of the
Distributor Agreement or the arbitration clause in the Distributor
Agreement. Instead he challenges the validity of the arbitration
clause by arguing that it is unconscionable. Unconscionability
based on an inability to understand English is not a contract
formation issue under Texas law. Because The Plaintiff challenges
the validity rather than the formation of the arbitration clause,
the court must consider whether the agreement to arbitrate contains
a valid delegation clause.  

The Defendant argues that the arbitration clause includes a
delegation clause through the incorporation of JAMS. The
arbitration clause states that any and all other claims and causes
of action arising out of or relating to this Agreement shall be
resolved by arbitration through JAMS/Endispute and that all
arbitration proceedings will be governed by the JAMS Streamlined
Arbitration Rules and Procedures (JAMS Streamlined Rules).

Jurisdictional and arbitrability disputes, including disputes over
the formation, existence, validity, interpretation or scope of the
agreement under which Arbitration is sought, and who are proper
Parties to the Arbitration, shall be submitted to and ruled on by
the Arbitrator. The Arbitrator has the authority to determine
jurisdiction and arbitrability issues as a preliminary matter.

Because the arbitration clause expressly incorporates the JAMS
Streamlined Rules, which give the arbitrator the power to determine
arbitrability, the parties have agreed to arbitrate arbitrability,
including disputes about validity. The court must treat the
delegation clause as valid absent any specific challenge to the
delegation clause by Plaintiff. Plaintiff challenges the agreement
to arbitrate as a whole, but does not specifically challenge the
delegation clause. The court therefore concludes that the parties
have agreed to submit any issues of arbitrability to the
arbitrator.

Because the arbitration clause contains a class-action waiver and
because the class-action waiver is enforceable, the court concludes
that the Plaintiff must submit to individual arbitration. The court
will therefore grant the Defendant's Second Motion to Dismiss and
compel Plaintiff to arbitrate this dispute individually.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 26, 2018 Memorandum
Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yao2y4yy from
Leagle.com.

Jesus Maravilla, Plaintiff, represented by Alfonso Kennard, Jr.,
KENNARD RICHARD PC.

Gruma Corporation d/b/a Mission Tortillas, Defendant, represented
by Benjamin Robert Holland -- ben.holland@ogletree.com -- Ogletree
Deakins et al, Elizabeth Ruth Gift -- elizabeth.gift@ogletree.com
-- Ogletree Deakins et al & James R. Staley --
jim.staley@ogletree.com -- Ogletree Deakins et al.


HANDI-HOUSE MFG: Brantley Appeals S.D. Georgia Order to 11th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Leroy Brantley, Jr., Shon Butler, Harold H. Ricks and
Roger Smith filed an appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit
styled Leroy Brantley, Jr., et al. v. Handi-House MFG Co., et al.,
Case No. 6:17-cv-00089-JRH-BKE, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Georgia.

The appellate case is captioned as Leroy Brantley, Jr., et al. v.
Handi-House MFG Co., et al., Case No. 18-90022, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks to recover damages, minimum wages, liquidated damages,
reasonable attorneys' fees and cost resulting from common law usury
and for violation of the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act, Georgia Industrial Loan Act, Georgia Payday Lending Act,
Georgia Minimum Wage Law and Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs are African-American males employed by the Defendant
in various stages of construction and manufacturing of portable
buildings at the Defendant's manufacturing plant located in
Swainsboro, Emanuel County, Georgia.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs were coerced to take
cash loans of $20 cash, allowing the Defendants to withhold their
paychecks and subsequently tender in cash the difference between
that paycheck and $26, rounded in the Defendants' favor.  The
Defendants charge their employees $6 interest for every week-long
loan of $20, they are charging an effective weekly interest rate of
30%.  This brings down their net pay to below mandated minimum wage
rates.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Petitioners LEROY BRANTLEY, JR., HAROLD H. RICKS, ROGER
SMITH and SHON BUTLER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, are represented by:

          Jeffrey Francis Peil, Esq.
          CHARLES T. HUGGINS, JR., P.C.
          7013 Evans Town Center Blvd., Suite 502
          Evans, GA 30809
          Telephone: (706) 210-9063
          Facsimile: (706) 210-9282
          E-mail: jpeil@hugginsfirm.com

Defendants-Respondents HANDI-HOUSE MFG CO. and DONALD FLANDERS are
represented by:

          Larry Evans, Esq.
          Timothy D. Roberts, Esq.
          OLIVER MANER, LLP
          218 W State St.
          PO Box 10186
          Savannah, GA 31401
          Telephone: (912) 236-3311
          E-mail: levans@olivermaner.com
                  troberts@olivermaner.com

               - and -

          Allan Charles Galis, Esq.
          Wade W. Herring, II, Esq.
          HUNTER MACLEAN EXLEY & DUNN, PC
          200 E Saint Julian St.
          PO Box 9848
          Savannah, GA 31412-0048
          Telephone: (912) 236-0261
          E-mail: agalis@HunterMaclean.com
                  wherring@huntermaclean.com


HEWLETT PACKARD: Enoh et al. Allege Age & Gender Discrimination
---------------------------------------------------------------
ENOH I. ENOH; CHRISTOPHER JACKSON; DEREK L. MOBLEY; and WILLIAM
MURREL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. HP INC.; and HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE
COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-03536-MLB-LTW (N.D. Ga., July
23, 2018) alleges that the Defendants are engaged in a policy of
race and age discrimination in hiring, promotions, and lay-offs in
violation of the Civil Rights Act, and the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act.

HP Inc. provides products, technologies, software, solutions, and
services to individual consumers, small- and medium-sized
businesses, and large enterprises, including customers in the
government, health, and education sectors worldwide. It operates
through Personal Systems and Printing segments. The company was
formerly known as Hewlett-Packard Company and changed its name to
HP Inc. in October 2015. HP Inc. was founded in 1939 and is
headquartered in Palo Alto, California. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Roderick T. Cooks, Esq.
          Lee D. Winston, Esq.
          WINSTON COOKS, LLC
          505 20th Street North, Suite 815
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 502-0970
          Facsimile: (205) 278-5876

               - and –

          Alan H. Garber, Esq.
          THE GARBER LAW FIRM, P.C.
          4994 Lower Roswell Road, Suite 14
          Marietta, GA 30068
          Telephone. (678) 560-6685
          Facsimile. (678) 560-5067


HUTCHISON TREE: Berber Suit Wins Conditional Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled ADRIAN BERBER, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. HUTCHISON TREE
SERVICE, NORTHSTAR ENERGY SERVICES, INC., PIEDMONT NATURAL GAS,
INC., and CRAIG HUTCHISON, the Defendants, Case No. 5:15-CV-143-D
(E.D.N.C.), the James C. Dever III entered an order:

   1. granting in part and denying in part plaintiffs motion for
      conditional class certification and court-authorized notice
      concerning plaintiffs FLSA claim and for class
      certification concerning his North Carolina Wage and Hour
      Act, on behalf of:

      "individuals who performed work on Piedmont's gas pipelines
      and right-of-way throughout, at a minimum, various parts of
      North Carolina, whose duties included, but were not limited
      to, tree pruning, tree removal, tree trimming, land
      clearing, and stump grinding for Hutchison Tree Service,
      Craig Hutchison, Northstar Energy Services, Inc., and
      Piedmont Natural Gas, Inc., (collectively "Defendants")
      whom named Plaintiff alleges jointly employed him and all
      of those similarly situated employees, whom paid named
      Plaintiff and all similarly situated employees as lump-sum
      or hourly paid laborers, and whom were suffered or
      permitted to work while not being paid their appropriate
      regular-rate, straight-time, promised rate(s), and overtime
      compensation for all hours worked, at any time from April
       3, 2012, until the termination of the contract, or until
      approximately January, 2015";

   2. directing Hutchison defendants and plaintiff to meet and
      confer concerning future proceedings, the contents of the
      proposed notice, and the class definition and submit a
      proposed schedule no later than August 31, 2018; and

   3. dismissing Defendants Northstar Energy Services, Inc. and
      Piedmont Natural Gas, Inc. as defendants.


ICHIBAN GROUP: Court Grants Leave to Amend Wage & Hour Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of New
York granted Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint
in the case captioned XUE HUI ZHANG, Plaintiff, v. ICHIBAN GROUP,
LLC, et al., Defendants, No. 1:17-CV-148 (MAD/TWD) (N.D.N.Y.).

Presently before the Court are Plaintiff's motion for leave to file
an amended complaint and the Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack
of service.

Ms. Chen worked approximately 72.5 hours per week at the
restaurant. She made a flat salary of $300 per month from November
1, 2009 until December 31, 2013, and a flat salary of $500 per
month from January 1, 2014 until December 31, 2015. Additionally,
Ms. Chen was never provided with any overtime compensation.  

Under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, when a
party may not amend its pleading as of right, a party may amend its
pleading only with the opposing party's written consent or the
court's leave. The court should freely give leave when justice so
requires.

Gui Yong Zhang

The Defendants oppose the addition of G.Y. Zhang as a Plaintiff in
this action, arguing that G.Y. Zhang's federal claims are
time-barred, and that the Court should not exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over his state claims. The Plaintiff concedes that
G.Y. Zhang's claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) are
time-barred, but he asks the Court to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over G.Y. Zhang's state law claims. The Plaintiff
argues that forcing G.Y. Zhang to litigate these issues in state
court would be burdensome and a waste of judicial resources.

Here, the state claims that G.Y. Zhang seeks to add to the
complaint involve various violations of New York State labor laws
by the Defendants. Zhang alleges the same course of conduct by the
Defendants as is alleged with respect to Plaintiff Xue Hui Zhang
and Ms. Chen. Each Plaintiff alleges the systematic denial of
overtime pay, spread time pay, and various other rights. Since the
federal and state claims alleged by Plaintiff Xue Hui Zhang
survive, the interest of judicial economy, convenience, and
fairness weigh in favor of exercising supplemental jurisdiction
over G.Y. Zhang's state law claims. Further, the state claims
alleged by G.Y. Zhang do not raise a novel or complex issue of
state law, nor are there any extraordinary circumstances that would
compel the Court not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.  

Therefore, the motion to amend is granted as to G.Y. Zhang's state
law claims.

Yue Hua Chen

The Defendants do not challenge the sufficiency of Ms. Chen's
allegations. The only argument against the addition of Ms. Chen as
a plaintiff is that different law may apply to her wage claims, but
the Defendants do not present an argument against the addition of
Ms. Chen's other claims. Regardless, the arguments raised by the
Defendants as to the similarity of the law that governs the
Plaintiff's claims would be more appropriate at the class
certification stage.

Accordingly, the motion to amend is granted as to Ms. Chen's
claims.

Counts Nine and Ten

The proposed amended complaint contains two counts that have
previously been dismissed by the Court. Indeed, counts nine and ten
the Plaintiff's claims under 26 U.S.C. Section 7434 and New York
Labor Law Section 162 were dismissed and the Plaintiff was urged
not to include claims in a complaint if there is no factual support
for those claims. The Plaintiff's proposed amended complaint
contains the very same claims that the Plaintiff was admonished for
including in the original complaint, and the Plaintiff does not
address or acknowledge the reasons that those claims were
dismissed. Although the Defendants once again request that the
Court impose sanctions against the Plaintiff's counsel, the Court
declines to do so at this time.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend his
complaint is granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 26, 2018 Memorandum
Decision and Reasons is available at https://tinyurl.com/yd4wc7zl
from Leagle.com.

Xue Hui Zhang, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, represented by John Troy, John Troy & Associates, PLLC &
Aaron B. Schweitzer, Troy Law, PLLC.

Yue Hua Chen & Gui Yong Zhang, Plaintiffs, represented by Aaron B.
Schweitzer, Troy Law, PLLC.

Ichiban Group, LLC, doing business as Ichiban Japenese & Chinese
Restaurant, doing business as Takara, Ichiban Food Services, Inc.,
doing business as Ichiban Japenese & Chinese Restaurant, doing
business as Takara, Chen & Ju, Inc., doing business as Ichiban
Japanese & Chinese Restaurant, doing business as Takara, David L
Ip, Liping Ju & Tyng Quh Ju, Defendants, represented by Matthew J.
Mann , Mann Law Firm, PC & Stephan R. Weiss, Mann Law Firm, PC.

Chen & Ju, Inc., doing business as Ichiban Japanese & Chinese
Restaurant, doing business as Takara, Tyng Quh Ju, Liping Ju,
Ichiban Food Services, Inc., Ichiban Group, LLC, David L Ip, Chwon
Tzu Ju & Shin Shii Ju, Counter Claimants, represented by Matthew J.
Mann, Mann Law Firm, PC & Stephan R. Weiss, Mann Law Firm, PC.

Xue Hui Zhang, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Counter Defendant, represented by John Troy, John Troy &
Associates, PLLC.

IMPINJ INC: Gainey McKenna Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Impinj, Inc. ("Impinj" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: PI) in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on behalf of a class consisting of investors
who purchased or otherwise acquired Impinj securities on the open
market from May 7, 2018 and August 2, 2018, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), seeking to recover compensable damages caused by
Defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Complaint alleges that defendants, during the Class Period,
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) Impinj had engaged in conduct that could lead to
an employee complaint and/or Audit Committee investigation; (2)
Impinj lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (3) as
a result, defendants' statements about Impinj's business,
operations, and prospects, were materially false and/or misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the true details entered the
market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

On August 2, 2018, Impinj revealed that it would postpone the
release of its second quarter 2018 financial results. Impinj also
said that its Audit Committee commenced an independent
investigation regarding a former employee's filed complaint. The
company also stated that it had contacted the Securities and
Exchange Commission ("SEC") to notify them of their independent
investigation. Following this news, Impinj stock dropped $3.02 per
share, or 13.7%, to close at $18.97 on August 3, 2018.

Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares during the
Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the October 9, 2018
lead plaintiff motion deadline.  A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.  If you wish to discuss your rights or
interests regarding this class action, please;

         Contact:
         Thomas J. McKenna, Esq.
         Gregory M. Egleston, Esq.
         Gainey McKenna & Egleston  
         Telephone: (212) 983-1300
         Email: tjmckenna@gme-law.com  
                gegleston@gme-law.com [GN]


IMPINJ INC: Howard G. Smith Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors that purchased
Impinj, Inc. ("Impinj" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: PI) securities
between May 7, 2018 and August 2, 2018, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). Impinj investors have until October 8, 2018 to file a
lead plaintiff motion.

Investors that suffered losses on their Impinj investments are
encouraged to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss
their legal rights in this class action at 888-638-4847 or by email
to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com.

On August 2, 2018, Impinj announced that it was delaying the
release of its second quarter 2018 results. The Company further
disclosed that its Audit Committee commenced an independent
investigation in connection with a complaint filed by a former
employee, and that Impinj contacted the Securities and Exchange
Commission ("SEC") to advise the SEC of the independent
investigation. On this news, Impinj's share price fell $3.02 per
share, or 13.7%, to close at $18.97 per share on August 3, 2018, on
unusually heavy trading volume.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that, throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose: (1) that
the Company had engaged in conduct that could lead to an employee
complaint and/or Audit Committee investigation; (2) that the
Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (3)
that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' statements about
Impinj's business, operations, and prospects, were materially false
and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

If you purchased shares of Impinj during the Class Period, have
information or would like to learn more about these claims, or have
any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or
interests with respect to these matters please;

         Contact:
         Howard G. Smith, Esq.
         Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
         3070 Bristol Pike
         Suite 112, Bensalem
         Pennsylvania 19020
         Telephone: 215-638-4847
         Toll Free: 888-638-4847
         Email: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com [GN]


IMPINJ INC: Kessler Topaz Files Securities Fraud Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, alerts
investors that a securities fraud class action lawsuit has been
filed against Impinj, Inc. (NASDAQ:  PI) ("Impinj") on behalf of
purchasers of Impinj securities between May 7, 2018 and August 2,
2018, inclusive (the "Class Period").

Investors who purchased Impinj securities during the Class Period
may, no later than October 9, 2018, seek to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff representative of the class. For additional information
or to learn how to participate in this action please visit
https://www.ktmc.com/impinj-inc-securities-class-action

According to the complaint, Impinj claims that it is working to
deliver a platform that powers item-to-cloud connectivity, enabling
developers to innovate Internet-of-Things, or IoT, applications.

The Class Period commences on May 7, 2018, when the company issued
a press release entitled "Impinj Announces First Quarter 2018
Financial Results."

The complaint alleges that on August 2, 2018, Impinj announced that
it was delaying the release of its second quarter 2018 results. The
company also disclosed that its Audit Committee commenced an
independent investigation in connection with a complaint filed by a
former employee, and that Impinj contacted the SEC to advise the
SEC of the independent investigation. Impinj further disclosed that
it would "not be in a position" to file its Form 10-Q until after
the Audit Committee completed its investigation.

Following this news, Impinj's share price fell $3.02 per share, or
13.7%, to close at $18.97 per share on August 3, 2018, on heavy
trading volume.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, the defendants
failed to disclose that: (1) the company had engaged in conduct
that could lead to an employee complaint and/or Audit Committee
investigation; (2) the company lacked adequate internal and
financial controls; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, the
defendants' statements about Impinj's business, operations, and
prospects, were materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis.

Impinj investors may, no later than October 9, 2018, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, or other counsel, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.  A lead plaintiff is
a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members in
directing the litigation.  In order to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class
member will adequately represent the class.  Your ability to share
in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.

         James Maro, Jr., Esq.
         Adrienne Bell, Esq.
         Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
         280 King of Prussia Road
         Radnor, PA 19087
         Telephone: (888) 299-7706
                    (610) 667-7706
         Website: www.ktmc.com.
         Email: info@ktmc.com
                abell@ktmc.com
                jmaro@ktmc.com [GN]


INFORMATION RESOURCES: Court Conditionally Certifies FLSA Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California granted in part and denied in part Defendant's Motion
for Conditional Certification in the case captioned IRAM BAKHTIAR,
Plaintiff, v. INFORMATION RESOURCES, INC., Defendant, Case No.
17-cv-04559-JST (N.D. Cal.).

Before the Court is Plaintiff Iram Bakhtiar's motion for
conditional certification under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Bakhtiar and the putative class members were or are employed by IRI
as Client Service Managers, Client Solutions Managers, Client
Service Analysts, Client Service Consultants, and other similar,
non-management positions. Bakhtiar alleges that she and the other
putative class members are and were non-exempt employees under
state and federal wage and hour laws. She contends that they should
have been classified as non-exempt employees and received overtime
pay accordingly.

The Fair Labor Standards Act provides that actions against
employers for violation of its overtime requirements may be brought
in any Federal or State court of competent jurisdiction by any one
or more employees for and in behalf of himself or themselves and
other employees similarly situated.

Bakhtiar asks the Court to (1) conditionally certify this action
for purposes of notice and discovery; (2) order that the Notice of
Collective Action and Consent Form be sent to all putative
collective class members; (3) approve the form, content, and method
of transmission of Plaintiff's proposed Notice of Collective Action
and Consent Form; (4) order Defendants to supplement the Class List
with an Excel (.xls.) document containing contact information for
each putative collective class member within ten days of the filing
of the Order resolving this Motion, including last-known home
address, last-known personal email address, and last-known personal
cell phone; and (5) authorize a sixty-day opt-in period for
putative collective action members to seek to opt into the case.

Bakhtiar moves to conditionally certify the following putative
collective action:

     All persons who are or have been employed by IRI as Client
Service Managers including Client Solutions Managers, Client
Service Consultants, Client Service Analysts, and other similar,
non-management positions, within the United States at any time from
three years prior to the filing of the initial Complaint through
the final disposition of this case.

Notice and Consent Form

Opt-in Period

Bakhtiar requests that potential class members have 60 days to opt
in to the collective action. IRI opposes this request, arguing that
the opt-in deadline should be 30 days because Bakhtiar's counsel
has already been able to contact employees for three months.

IRI provides no authority to support shortening this district's
presumptive opt-in period. At the hearing on this motion, IRI's
counsel suggested that this case is unique because Plaintiff's
counsel has already obtained class members' contact information.
That fact does not make the case unique; the prevailing practice
among courts in the Northern District of California is to allow
pre-certification discovery of putative class members' confidential
contact information subject to a protective order.

Text and Email Communication

Bakhtiar requests to mail, text and email copies of the
Court-approved Notice of Collective Action and Consent Form to the
potential collective action members. IRI opposes the use of text
message and email communication because it is harassing and
intrusively uses a third and fourth form of communication to
inundate employees.

First, the Court fails to find any meaningful distinction between
the risk that an email will be forwarded to an unintended recipient
and the risk that a mailed notice will forwarded to an unintended
recipient. Given the real risk that potential collective action
members have changed their physical addresses and the reality that
many potential collective action members will prefer electronic
communication, providing notice by first class mail and email will
sufficiently assure that potential collective action members
receive actual notice of this case.

Given that the Court is ordering notice by first class mail and
email, the Court will not also order notice by text message. First,
there has been no showing that such notice is necessary in light of
the fact that class members will be receiving two additional forms
of notice. No one argues that there is a similar risk here. Second,
IRI argues that text message notice may force employees to incur
further charges from their cellular phone service provider
depending on their text and/or data plans. Bakhtiar does not
respond to this argument.

Therefore, Bakhtiar's request for text message notice is denied.
Her request for first class mail and email notice is granted.

Second Notice Communication

Bakhtiar also asks to issue a second identical copy of the Notice
of Collective Action and Consent Form to potential collective
action members reminding them of the postmark deadline for the
submission of the Consent Forms unless a putative class action
member indicates or has indicated that they decline communication
regarding this matter. IRI argues that that sending the same letter
twice to the same individuals at the same addresses is unnecessary
and harassing.

Bakhtiar's request to mail and email a second identical copy of the
Notice of Collective Action and Consent Form is granted.

Notice Language

The Plaintiff should make two additional changes to the notice.

First, the second sentence of the introductory portion of the
notice should be amended to read, Please note that the Court has
not ruled on the merits of the lawsuit. The Court has only ruled
that it is important that you be notified of the existence of the
lawsuit so that you can determine whether you wish to join it.

Second, the date by which notice recipients must respond should be
included in both the introduction section and section 4 of the
notice.

Accordingly, Bakhtiar's motion for conditional certification of the
putative FLSA collective action is granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 26, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y8nzrope from Leagle.com.

Iram Bakhtiar, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Bryan Jeffrey Schwartz --
bryan@bryanschwartzlaw.com -- Bryan Schwartz Law & Logan McMillan
Starr -- logan@bryanschwartzlaw.com -- Bryan Schwartz Law.

Information Resources, Inc., Defendant, represented by Fraser Angus
McAlpine -- Fraser.McAlpine@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C.,
Janelle Jad Sahouria -- janelle.sahouria@jacksonlewis.com --
Jackson Lewis P.C., Kevin Lawrence Quan --
Kevin.Quan@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C. &Mitchell F.
Boomer -- Mitchell.Boomer@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C.

INNERWORKINGS INC: Rosen Law Firm Appointed Lead Counsel
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ERROL BROWN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
INNERWORKINGS, INC., ERIC D. BELCHER, RYAN K. SPOHN, JEFFREY P.
PRITCHETT, and CHARLES HODGKINS, Defendants, Case No. SACV
18-00832-CJC(KESx) (C.D. Cal.), Judge Cormac J. Carney granted
Movant Nancy Routhier's motion for her appointment as lead
plaintiff and for appointment of her counsel, The Rosen Law Firm,
P.A., as lead counsel.

Routhier's motion is unopposed.

A copy of the Court's order is available at PacerMonitor.com at
https://is.gd/P9CjYz at no charge.

InnerWorkings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, in May 2018, shortly
following the Company's announcement of its intention to restate
certain historical financial statements, a putative securities
class action complaint was filed against the Company and certain of
its current and former officers and directors.

The action, Errol Brown, et al., v. InnerWorkings, Inc., et al., is
currently pending before the United States District Court for the
Central District of California.  

The complaint alleges claims pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Allegations in the
complaint include that the Company and its current and former
officers and directors made untrue statements or omissions of
material fact by issuing inaccurate financial statements for the
fiscal years ending December 31, 2015, 2016, and 2017, as well as
all interim periods. The putative class seeks an unspecified amount
of monetary damages as well as reimbursement of fees and costs,
including reasonable attorneys' fees, and other costs.

The Company and individual defendants dispute the claims. A motion
for appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel was filed on
July 9, 2018.

Defendants are represented by:

     Julie A Shepard, Esq.
     Elizabeth A Coleman, Esq.
     Howard S Suskin, Esq.
     Jenner and Block LLP
     Tel: 213-239-5100
          312-923-2659
          312-222-9350
     E-mail: jshepard@jenner.com
             ecoleman@jenner.com
             hsuskin@jenner.com

Errol Brown represented by:

     Laurence M Rosen, Esq.
     Rosen Law Firm PA
     Tel: 213-785-2610
     E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com

InnerWorkings, Inc. provides marketing execution solutions in North
America and internationally. The company's software applications
and databases create an integrated solution that stores, analyzes,
and tracks the production capabilities of its supplier network, as
well as detailed pricing data.  The company was founded in 2001 and
is headquartered in Chicago, Illinois.


J & D TRANSPORTATION: Thomas Suit Wins Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled BOBBY THOMAS, the Plaintiff v. J & D
TRANSPORTATION, et al., the Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-02434
(D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Peter G. Sheridan entered an order August
13, 2018:

   1. granting Plaintiff's motion for conditional class
      Certification of similarly situated employees; and

   2. directing Plaintiff to confer with his adversary and draft
      a proposed notice form identifying areas of agreement and
      issues in dispute within 21 days from the date of this
      Order.

The Court said, "Plaintiff has provided ample support for his claim
that employees of Defendant met the requirements of the proposed
class. The Court does not review the appropriateness of the notice
proposed by Plaintiff at this time. However, parties are instructed
to confer with regards to any amendment that might be necessary."


J E H ENTERPRISES: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, Leung et al. Say
---------------------------------------------------------------
MING CHENG, PETER LEUNG, BYRON WONG and XIAO LONG MA, individuals,
on behalf of themselves, and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. J E H ENTERPRISES, INC., a California
Corporation; and Does 1 through 50, Inclusive, the Defendant, Case
No. CGC-18-568768 (Cal. Sup. Ct., Aug. 9, 2018), seeks to recover
unpaid minimum wages under the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to provide all the
legally required off-duty meal breaks to Plaintiffs and the other
California Class Members as required by the applicable Wage Order
and Labor Code. The nature of the work performed by Plaintiffs and
California Class Members did not prevent these employees from being
relieved of all of their duties for the legally required off-duty
meal periods. Defendant's meal period policies and practices were
unlawful because Plaintiffs and other California Class Members were
far too over-booked and overworked to take a timely off-duty 30
minute meal period. As a result of their rigorous work schedules,
Plaintiffs and other California Class Members were often not fully
relieved of duty by Defendant for their meal periods.

JEH Enterprises, Inc. is a licensed and bonded freight shipping and
trucking company running freight hauling business from New Lenox,
Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
          Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq.
          Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq.
          BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW LLP
          Website: www.bamlawca.com
          2255 Calle Clara
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (858) 551 1223
          Facsimile: (858) 551 1232


JFK MEDICAL: Mendez et al. Seek to Certify Patients Class
---------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned SANDRA LOIS MENDEZ, AMY R. BRAZEE, SETH
GATES, and LORI R SINGER f/k/a Lori R. Kogan, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
JFK MEDICAL CENTER LIMITED PARTNERSHIP d/b/a JFK Medical Center,
NPAS, INC., HCA HOLDINGS, INC., PALMS WEST SURGERY CENTER, LTD.
d/b/a Palms West Surgicenter, UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL, LTD. d/b/a
University Hospital & Medical Center, and MIAMI BEACH HEALTHCARE
GROUP, LTD. d/b/a Aventura Hospital and Medical Center, the
Defendants, Case No. 9:17-cv-80866-KAM (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs
ask the Court for an order:

   1. granting Plaintiffs' amended motion for class certification
      of:

      "all other patients (or their legal representatives) who
      were provided treatment covered by PIP benefits at a
      facility within the State of Florida during the applicable
      period and in the future."

This case is about how much hospitals and treatment facilities can
bill and/or collect from patients who are covered under Florida's
Personal Injury Protection Statute Specifically, Plaintiffs contend
that it is unlawful for providers such as Defendants to balance
bill patients who were injured in motor vehicle crashes where the
providers are statutorily bound to accept the amount set forth in
section 627.736(5)(a)1., Fla. Stat., as full payment when they bill
an individual's motor vehicle insurance policy.

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

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

               - and -

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

Attorneys for Defendant:

          Walter J. Tache, Esq.
          Magda C. Rodriguez, Esq.
          TACHE, BRONIS, CHRISTIANSON AND DESCALZO
          150 SE Second Avenue, Suite 600
          Miami, FL 33131
          E-mail: wtache@tachebronis.com
                  mrodriguez@tachebronis.com

               - and -

          John Emmanuel, Esq.
          Ashley Bruce Trehan, Esq.
          BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY, PC
          401 E Jackson Street, Suite 2400
          Tampa, FL 33602
          E-mail: john.emmanuel@bipc.com
                  Ashley.trehan@bipc.com


JUNO THERAPEUTICS: Overlength Bid for Prelim Approval of Deal OK'd
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In re JUNO THERAPEUTICS, INC., Case No. C16-1069 RSM
(W.D. Wash.), Judge Ricardo S. Martinez of the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Washington, Seattle, has entered a
stipulated order regarding the overlength motion for preliminary
approval of the class action settlement.

The Plaintiffs will file a motion for preliminary approval.  Part
of that motion asks preliminary approval of the general settlement
terms.  Another part will request approval of a plan of notice (the
language of the notice and the method of giving it).  And another
part will seek preliminary approval of a plan of distribution.

To present the preliminary approval motion with sufficient detail
to adequately inform the Court and for the Court to determine
preliminarily the fairness of the proposed settlement and all of
its aspects, the parties believe that the Plaintiffs will need 14
pages, which is two pages beyond the usual 12-page limit for
motions of this type.

The parties have stipulated and the Judge granted that the
Plaintiffs may file a preliminary approval motion of up to 14
pages.

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

Man Nguyen, Movant, represented by Clifford A. Cantor.

Gilbert Hoang Nguyen, Movant, represented by Jeremy A. Lieberman --
jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- POMERANATZ LLP, pro hac vice, Joseph
Alexander Hood, II -- ahood@pomlaw.com -- POMERANTZ LLP, pro hac
vice, Leigh Handelman Smollar -- lsmollar@pomlaw.com -- POMERANTZ
LLP, pro hac vice, Omar Jafri -- ojafri@pomlaw.com -- POMERANTZ
LLP, pro hac vice & Clifford A. Cantor.

Goce Veljanoski, Plaintiff, represented by Janissa Ann Strabuk --
jstrabuk@tousley.com -- TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS, Jeffrey C. Block --
jeff@blockesq.com -- BLOCK & LEVITON LLP, pro hac vice, Joel
Fleming -- joel@blockesq.com -- BLOCK & LEVITON LLP, pro hac vice &
Kim D. Stephens -- kstephens@tousley.com -- TOUSLEY BRAIN
STEPHENS.

Liberata Paradisco, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Duncan Calvert Turner
-- duncanturner@badgleymullins.com -- BADGLEY MULLINS TURNER PLLC.

Gilbert Hoang Nguyen, Plaintiff, represented by Patrick V.
Dahlstrom -- pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com -- POMERANTZ LLP, pro hac vice &
Clifford A. Cantor.

Susan Tan, Plaintiff, pro se.

Juno Therapeutics Inc, Hans E Bishop, individually and on behalf of
the marital community, Steven D. Harr & Mark J. Gilbert,
Defendants, represented by Daniel Slifkin -- dslifkin@cravath.com
-- CRAVATH SWAINE & MOORE, pro hac vice, Drew Liming --
dliming@wsgr.com -- WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, pro hac vice,
Ignacio E. Salceda -- Isalcedo@wsgr.com -- WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH
& ROSATI, pro hac vice, Joni Ostler -- jostler@wsgr.com -- WILSON
SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, pro hac vice, Karin A. DeMasi --
kdemasi@cravath.com -- CRAVATH SWAINE & MOORE, pro hac vice, Lauren
M. Rosenberg -- lrosenberg@cravath.com -- CRAVATH SWAINE & MOORE,
pro hac vice, Morgan J. Cohen, CRAVATH SWAINE & MOORE, pro hac
vice, Nina F. Locker -- NLocker@wsgr.com -- WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH
& ROSATI, pro hac vice & Gregory Lewis Watts -- Gwatts@wsgr.com --
WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI.


KIRKLAND'S STORES: Removes Miles Suit to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The Defendants in the case of Ariana Miles, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Kirkland's
Stores Inc., and Does 1 through 100, Defendants, filed a notice to
remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of
California, Riverside County (Case No. RIC 1809784) to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on July 23,
2018, and assigned Case No. 18-cv-01559-CJC-SHK (C.D. Cal., July
23, 2018). The case is assigned to Judge Cormac J. Carney and
referred to Magistrate Judge Shashi H. Kewalramani.

Kirkland's, Inc. operates as a specialty retailer of home decor in
the United States. The company operates its stores under the
Kirkland's, Kirkland's Home, Kirkland's Home Outlet, Kirkland's
Outlet, and The Kirkland Collection names in various off-mall
venues comprising power strip centers, lifestyle centers, outlet
centers, and freestanding locations, as well as enclosed malls. As
of March 16, 2018, it operated 420 stores in 36 states. The company
also sells its products through its kirklands.com Website.
Kirkland's, Inc. was founded in 1966 and is based in Brentwood,
Tennessee. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendants are represented by:

          Clint S Engleson, Esq.
          Tracie L Childs, Esq.
          OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK AND STEWART PC
          4370 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 990
          San Diego, CA 92122
          Telephone: (858) 652-3100
          Facsimile: (858) 652-3101
          E-mail: clint.engleson@ogletree.com
                  tracie.childs@ogletree.com


LEXINGTON INSURANCE: Appeals Order in Franklin Suit to 8th Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Lexington Insurance Company filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit titled Cynthia Franklin v. Lexington
Insurance Company, Case No. 4:18-cv-00322-BP, in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
(assigned Case No. 1816-CV04397) was removed by the Defendant from
the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri, to the District
Court.

Lexington is a surplus lines insurance company wholly owned by AIG.
Lexington is the largest surplus lines insurer based in the U.S.,
and it offers property, casualty, and specialty lines insurance
products.

The appellate case is captioned as Cynthia Franklin v. Lexington
Insurance Company, Case No. 18-8010, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Respondent Cynthia M. Franklin, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          David T. Butsch, Esq.
          Christopher E. Roberts, Esq.
          BUTSCH ROBERTS & ASSOCIATES, LLC
          231 S. Bemiston Avenue, Suite 260
          Clayton, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 863-5700
          E-mail: butsch@butschroberts.com
                  roberts@butschroberts.com

               - and -

          Joe David Jacobson, Esq.
          JACOBSON PRESS, P.C.
          168 N. Meramec Avenue, Suite 150
          Saint Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 899-9789
          E-mail: jacobson@archcitylawyers.com

Defendant-Petitioner Lexington Insurance Company is represented
by:

          Wade P.K. Carr, Esq.
          DENTONS US, LLP
          1100 Twentieth Century Tower II
          4520 Main Street
          Kansas City, MO 64111-0000
          Telephone: (816) 460-2400
          E-mail: wade.carr@dentons.com

               - and -

          Mark L. Hanover, Esq.
          Kristine M. Schanbacher, Esq.
          DENTONS US, LLP
          233 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 5900
          Chicago, IL 60606-6404
          Telephone: (312) 876-8000
          E-mail: mark.hanover@dentons.com
                  kristine.schanbacher@dentons.com


LIFE INSURANCE: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Ruling in Walker Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Life Insurance Company of the Southwest filed an appeal
from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Joyce Walker, et al. v.
Life Insurance Company of the Southwest, Case No.
2:10-cv-09198-JVS-JDE, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, Los Angeles.

The appellate case is captioned as Joyce Walker, et al. v. Life
Insurance Company of the Southwest, Case No. 18-80093, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on August 10, 2018, the
Hon. James V. Selna granted the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.

The Court adopted this class definition:

     All persons who purchased a Provider Policy or Paragon
     Policy from Life Insurance Company of the Southwest that was
     issued between September 24, 2006 and April 27, 2014, who
     resided in California at the time the Policy was issued, and
     who received an illustration on or before the date of policy
     application.

The Plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint alleging that LSW's
practices in connection with the marketing and sale of two of its
life insurance policies, SecurePlus Provider and SecurePlus
Paragon, constitute unlawful and unfair business practices under
the California Unfair Competition Law based on various violations
of California's Illustration Statute.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Respondents JOYCE WALKER, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated; KIM BRUCE HOWLETT, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated; MURIEL SPOONER, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated; TALINE BEDELIAN, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; and OSCAR
GUEVARA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
are represented by:

          Brian P. Brosnahan, Esq.
          KASOWITZ BENSON TORRES LLP
          1633 Broadway, 22nd Floor
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 506-1700
          E-mail: bbrosnahan@kasowitz.com

               - and -

          Daniel Saunders, Esq.
          KASOWITZ BENSON TORRES LLP
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 2000
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (424) 288-7904
          E-mail: dsaunders@kasowitz.com

               - and -

          Craig A. Miller, Esq.
          MILLER & CALHOON
          225 Broadway, Suite 1310
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-9449

Defendant-Petitioner LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE SOUTHWEST, a
Texas corporation, is represented by:

          Andrea J. Robinson, Esq.
          WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
          60 State Street
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: (617) 526-6360
          E-mail: andrea.robinson@wilmerhale.com

               - and -

          Noah A. Levine, Esq.
          WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
          7 World Trade Center
          250 Greenwich Street
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 230-8800
          E-mail: noah.levine@wilmerhale.com

               - and -

          Matthew T. Martens, Esq.
          WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
          1875 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 663-6291
          E-mail: matthew.martens@wilmerhale.com

               - and -

          Jonathan A. Shapiro, Esq.
          BAKER BOTTS LLP
          101 California Street, Suite 3600
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 291-6200
          E-mail: jonathan.shapiro@bakerbotts.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Continues to Defend Mason Suit in New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2018,
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the company
continues to defend a purported class action suit in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, initiated by
Ashleigh Mason.

On or about August 15, 2017, Ashleigh Mason, Dan Morse, Ryan
Carroll and Osagie Ehigie filed a purported class action lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York on behalf of all current and former store managers, store
managers in training, installation sales managers and similarly
situated current and former employees holding comparable positions
but different titles (collectively, the "Putative Class Employees")
alleging that the Company violated the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") and New York Labor Law ("NYLL") by classifying the
Putative Class Employees as exempt.

The alleged violations include failure to pay for overtime work.
The plaintiffs seek certification of the Putative Class Employees
for (i) a collective action covering the period beginning three
years and 115 days prior to the filing of the complaint through the
disposition of this action for the Putative Class Employees
nationwide in connection with FLSA and (ii) a class action covering
the period beginning six years and 115 days prior to the filing of
the complaint through the disposition of this action for members of
the Putative Class Employees who currently are or were employed in
New York in connection with NYLL.

The plaintiffs did not quantify any alleged damages but, in
addition to attorneys' fees and costs, the plaintiffs seek class
certification, unspecified amount for unpaid wages and overtime
wages, liquidated and/or punitive damages, declaratory relief,
restitution, statutory penalties, injunctive relief and other
damages.

The Company disputes the claims and intends to defend the matter
vigorously.

Lumber Liquidators said "Given the uncertainty of litigation, the
preliminary stage of the substantive inquiry and briefing in the
case, and the legal standards that must be met for, among other
things, class certification and success on the merits, the Company
cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss, if
any, that may result from this action and therefore no accrual has
been made related to this. Any such losses could, potentially, have
a material adverse effect, individually or collectively, on the
Company's results of operations, financial condition, and
liquidity."

Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
operates as a multi-channel specialty retailer of hardwood
flooring, and hardwood flooring enhancements and accessories.
Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1994 and is
headquartered in Toano, Virginia.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Continues to Defend Steele Suit in Canada
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2018,
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the company
continues to defend a purported class action suit in Ontario Canada
initiated by Sarah Steele.

On or about April 1, 2015, Sarah Steele ("Steele") filed a
purported class action lawsuit in the Ontario, Canada Superior
Court of Justice against the Company. In the complaint, Steele's
allegations include strict liability, breach of implied warranty of
fitness for a particular purpose, breach of implied warranty of
merchantability, fraud by concealment, civil negligence, negligent
misrepresentation, and breach of implied covenant of good faith and
fair dealing.  

Steele did not quantify any alleged damages in her complaint, but
seeks compensatory damages, punitive, exemplary and aggravated
damages, statutory remedies, attorneys' fees and costs.  

Lumber Liquidators said, "While the Company believes that a loss
associated with the Steele litigation is possible, the Company is
unable to reasonably estimate the amount or range of possible
loss."

Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
operates as a multi-channel specialty retailer of hardwood
flooring, and hardwood flooring enhancements and accessories.
Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1994 and is
headquartered in Toano, Virginia.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Kramer Class Action in California Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2018,
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the class action
suit initiated by Robert J. Kramer in the Superior Court of
California, County of Sacramento, is still ongoing.

On or about November 17, 2017, Robert J. Kramer, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated (collectively, the
"Kramer Plaintiffs") filed a purported class action lawsuit in the
Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento on behalf of all
current and former store managers, all others with similar job
functions and/or titles and all current and former employees
classified as non-exempt or incorrectly classified as exempt and
who worked for the Company in the State of California
(collectively, the "CSM Employees") alleging violation of the
California Labor Code ("CLC") including, among other items, failure
to pay wages and overtime and engaging in unfair business
practices.

The Kramer Plaintiffs seek certification of the CSM Employees for
(i) a class action covering the prior four-year period prior to the
filing of the complaint through the disposition of this action for
the CSM Employees who currently are or were employed in California
(the "California SM Class") in connection with the CLC.

The Kramer Plaintiffs did not quantify any alleged damages but, in
addition to attorneys' fees and costs, the Kramer Plaintiffs seek
class certification for the California SM Class, unspecified amount
for unpaid wages and overtime wages, liquidated and/or punitive
damages, declaratory relief, restitution, statutory penalties,
injunctive relief and other damages.

The Company disputes the Kramer Plaintiffs" claims and intends to
defend the matter vigorously.

Lumber Liquidators said "Given the uncertainty of litigation, the
preliminary stage of the case and the legal standards that must be
met for, among other things, class certification and success on the
merits, the Company cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or
range of loss, if any, that may result from this action and
therefore no accrual has been made related to this. Any such losses
could, potentially, have a material adverse effect, individually or
collectively, on the Company’s results of operations, financial
condition, and liquidity."

Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
operates as a multi-channel specialty retailer of hardwood
flooring, and hardwood flooring enhancements and accessories.
Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1994 and is
headquartered in Toano, Virginia.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Oct. 3 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------
Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2018,
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that a final approval
and fairness hearing is scheduled for October 3, 2018, in the
Formaldehyde MDL and the Abrasion MDL.

Beginning on or about March 3, 2015, numerous purported class
action cases were filed in various U.S. federal district courts and
state courts involving claims of excessive formaldehyde emissions
from the Company's Chinese-manufactured laminate flooring products.
The purported classes consisted of all U.S. consumers that
purchased the relevant products during certain time periods.

Plaintiffs in these cases challenged the Company's labeling of its
products as compliant with the California Air Resources Board
("CARB") Regulation and alleged claims for fraudulent concealment,
breach of warranty, negligent misrepresentation, and violation of
various state consumer protection statutes.

The plaintiffs sought various forms of declaratory and injunctive
relief and unquantified damages, including restitution, actual,
compensatory, consequential, and, in certain cases, punitive
damages, as well as interest, costs, and attorneys' fees incurred
by the plaintiffs and other purported class members in connection
with the alleged claims.

In a series of orders, the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation (the "MDL Panel") transferred and
consolidated the federal cases to the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia (the "Virginia Court").

The consolidated case in the Virginia Court is captioned In re:
Lumber Liquidators Chinese-Manufactured Flooring Products
Marketing, Sales, Practices and Products Liability Litigation (the
"Formaldehyde MDL").

Beginning on or about May 20, 2015, multiple class actions were
filed in the United States District Court for the Central District
of California and other district courts located in the place of
residence of each non-California plaintiffs consisting of U.S.
consumers who purchased the Company's Chinese-manufactured laminate
flooring products challenging certain representations about the
durability and abrasion class ratings of such products.

These plaintiffs asserted claims for fraudulent concealment, breach
of warranty, and violation for various state consumer protection
statutes.

The plaintiffs did not quantify any alleged damages in these cases;
however, in addition to attorneys' fees and costs, they did seek an
order (i) certifying the action as a class action, (ii) adopting
the plaintiffs' class definitions and finding that the plaintiffs
are their proper representatives, (iii) appointing their counsel as
class counsel, (iv) granting injunctive relief to prohibit the
Company from continuing to advertise and/or sell laminate flooring
products with false abrasion class ratings, (v) providing
restitution of all monies the Company received from the plaintiffs
and class members, and (vi) providing damages (actual,
compensatory, and consequential), as well as punitive damages.

On October 3, 2016, the MDL Panel issued an order transferring and
consolidating the abrasion class actions to the Virginia Court. The
consolidated case is captioned In re: Lumber Liquidators
Chinese-Manufactured Laminate Flooring Durability Marketing and
Sales Practices Litigation (the "Abrasion MDL").

On March 15, 2018, the Company entered into a settlement agreement
to jointly settle the Formaldehyde MDL and the Abrasion MDL.  Under
the terms of the settlement agreement, the Company has agreed to
fund $22 million (the "Cash Payment") and provide $14 million in
store-credit vouchers for an aggregate settlement amount of $36
million to settle claims brought on behalf of purchasers of
Chinese-made laminate flooring sold by the Company between January
1, 2009 and May 31, 2015.  The Company may fund the $22 million
through a combination of cash and/or common stock.

On June 16, 2018, the Virginia Court issued an order that, among
other things, granted preliminary approval of the settlement
agreement. Following the preliminary approval and pursuant to the
terms of the settlement agreement, the Company, in June, paid $500
thousand for settlement administration costs, which is part of the
Cash Payment, to the settlement escrow account. A Final Approval
and Fairness Hearing is currently scheduled for October 3, 2018.  

Lumber Liquidators said "There can be no assurance that the
settlement agreement will be approved at the Final Approval and
Fairness Hearing or as to the ultimate outcome of the litigation.
If a final, court-approved settlement is not reached, the Company
will defend the litigation vigorously and believes there are
meritorious defenses and legal standards that must be met for class
certification and success on the merits. To date, insurers have
denied coverage with respect to the Formaldehyde MDL and Abrasion
MDL. The $36 million aggregate settlement amount was accrued in
2017."

In addition to those purchasers who elect to opt out of the above
settlement (the "Opt Outs"), there are a number of individual
claims and lawsuits alleging personal injuries, breach of warranty
claims, or violation of state consumer protection statutes that
remain pending (collectively, the "Remaining Laminate Matters").  

Lumber Liquidators further said "Certain of these Remaining
Laminate Matters were settled in the first and second quarters of
2018. The Company recognized a $1 million charge during the fourth
quarter of 2017, a $250 thousand charge in the first quarter of
2018, and a $2.7 million charge in the second quarter for these
Remaining Laminate Matters. While the Company believes that a
further loss associated with the Opt Outs and Remaining Laminate
Matters is possible, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate
the amount or range of possible loss beyond what has been provided.
Any such losses could, potentially, have a material adverse
effect, individually or collectively, on the Company's results of
operations, financial condition and liquidity."

Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
operates as a multi-channel specialty retailer of hardwood
flooring, and hardwood flooring enhancements and accessories.
Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1994 and is
headquartered in Toano, Virginia.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Trial in Gold Suit Set for Feb. 2019
--------------------------------------------------------
Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2018,
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the trial on the
purported class action suit initiated by Dana Gold is set for
February 2019.

Beginning in 2014, Dana Gold ("Gold") filed a purported class
action lawsuit alleging that certain bamboo flooring that the
Company sells (the "Strand Bamboo Product") is defective (the "Gold
matter"). On February 2, 2018, plaintiffs filed their Fifth Amended
Complaint, and have narrowed it to Strand Bamboo Product sold to
residents of certain states for personal, family, or household
use.

The plaintiffs did not quantify any alleged damages in their
complaint but, in addition to attorneys' fees and costs, the
plaintiffs seek a declaration that the Company's actions violated
the law and that it is financially responsible for notifying all
purported class members, injunctive relief requiring the Company to
replace and/or repair all of the Strand Bamboo Product installed in
structures owned by the purported class members, and a declaration
that the Company must disgorge, for the benefit of the purported
classes, all or part of the profits received from the sale of the
allegedly defective Strand Bamboo Product and/or to make full
restitution to the plaintiffs and the purported class members.

The trial is currently scheduled to begin in February 2019 and,
while no resolution has been achieved, the Company has participated
in court-ordered mediation sessions.

In addition, there are a number of other claims and lawsuits
alleging damages similar to those in the Gold matter. The Company
disputes these and the plaintiffs' claims in the Gold matter and
intends to defend such matters vigorously.

Lumber Liquidators said "Given the uncertainty of litigation, the
preliminary stage of the case, and the legal standards that must be
met for success on the merits, the Company is unable to estimate
the amount of loss, or range of possible loss, at this time that
may result from this action. Accordingly, no accruals have been
made with respect to this matter. Any such losses could,
potentially, have a material adverse effect, individually or
collectively, on the Company's results of operations, financial
condition, and liquidity."

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

Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
operates as a multi-channel specialty retailer of hardwood
flooring, and hardwood flooring enhancements and accessories.
Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1994 and is
headquartered in Toano, Virginia.


MARRONE BIO: Bid to Review Prior Order in Securities Suit Junked
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SPECIAL SITUATIONS FUND III QP, L.P., SPECIAL
SITUATIONS CAYMAN FUND, L.P. and DAVID M. FINEMAN, Individually and
On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. MARRONE
BIO INNOVATIONS, INC., PAMELA G. MARRONE, JAMES B. BOYD, DONALD J.
GLIDEWELL, HECTOR ABSI, ELIN MILLER, RANJEET BHATIA, PAMELA CONTAG,
TIM FOGARTY, LAWRENCE HOUGH, JOSEPH HUDSON, LES LYMAN, RICHARD
ROMINGER, SHAUGN STANLEY, SEAN SHICKEDANZ, and ERNST & YOUNG LLP,
Defendants, Case No. 2:14-cv-2571-MCE-KJN (E.D. Cal.), Judge
Morrison C. England, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California denied Ernst & Young ("EY")'s Motion to
Reconsider or in the Alternative Certify an Interlocutory Appeal.

The Plaintiffs in the consolidated class action charge Marrone Bio,
certain of its officers and directors, and its public auditor, EY,
with violating federal securities laws.  The Plaintiffs allege they
were defrauded of millions of investment dollars based on the
financial reporting fraud of Marrone Bio and Defendant Hector Absi,
its COO and head of sales.  The Plaintiffs reached a settlement
with Marrone Bio and its officers and directors, and final judgment
was entered as to that settlement on Sept. 27, 2016.

EY moved to dismiss the claims against it pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which the Court denied in a Memorandum
and Order filed on March 21, 2017.  EY now moves for
reconsideration of the Court's March 21, 2017 order, based on what
EY claims are material changes in the relevant law as a result of
the Ninth Circuit's May 5, 2017, issuance of its decision in City
of Dearborn Heights Act 345 Police & Fire Retir. Sys. v. Align
Tech., Inc., 856 F.3d 605 (9th Cir. 2017) ("Align").  It also moves
in the alternative to certify an interlocutory appeal.

EY claims that the Ninth Circuit's Align decision changed the
relevant legal landscape such that the Court must reconsider its
March 21, 2017, order denying EY's motion to dismiss for failure to
state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).  According to EY, the
Court should reconsider its decision for two primary reasons:
first, that Align compels the Court to now rule that the Plaintiffs
did not sufficiently plead their claim for relief against EY; and
second, that the Plaintiffs cannot make out a prima facie case as
to EY's liability under Section 11 in any event because the weight
of authority supports the contrary conclusion.  Finally, it
requests that, in the alternative to reconsideration, the Court
certifies that order for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C.
Section 1292.

Judge England holds that Align has no effect on the Court's prior
finding that the Plaintiffs sufficiently pled their claims against
EY.  Therefore, it does not provide an intervening change in the
controlling law that would warrant reconsideration.  The Judge thus
needs not, and does not, address EY's substantive claims revisiting
its previously raised challenges to the sufficiency of the
Plaintiffs' pleadings.  EY's Motion for Reconsideration is
therefore denied on this basis.

The Judge finds that EY has not shown the requisite "clear error"
warranting that the Court grant its Motion For Reconsideration Of
the Prior Order.  He says EY's first argument that the Court relied
on out-of-circuit case law and failed to improperly distinguish
Querub v. Moore Stevens H.K., does not warrant reconsidering the
Court's decision.  EY has done no more than rehash the same case
law it presented in its Motion to Dismiss, but now under the guise
of a Motion for Reconsideration.  It has only demonstrated one of
the many bases for its own disagreement and dissatisfaction with
the Court's order denying its Motion to Dismiss.  Reference to
out-of-circuit district court cases is entirely appropriate and
within the Court's discretion, as is distinguishing the present
case from a nonbinding and legally inapposite Court of Appeals
decision like Querub.  EY's Motion for Reconsideration thus fails
on this basis.

Finally, the Judge holds that EY has not shown the requisite
substantial ground for differences of opinion.  EY points only to
differing district court orders on the issue of whether an
auditor's certification of financial statements can subject it to
Section 11 liability.  In sum, EY contends that the fact that two
district courts have come to opposite conclusions about the
Plaintiffs' certification theory shows that a Section 1292(b)
certification is appropriate.  However, the fact that courts have
already disagreed, is not enough to warrant certifying an
interlocutory appeal, and EY's request is denied.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge England denied EY's Motion for
Reconsideration or in the Alternative to Certify an Interlocutory
Appeal.  A scheduling order will issue shortly.

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

Special Situations Fund III QP, L.P., Special Situations Cayman
Fund, L.P., David M. Fineman, Plaintiffs, represented by Michael
John McGaughey -- mmcgaughey@lowenstein.com -- Lowenstein Sandler
LLP.

Kent Oldham, Plaintiff, represented by Robert S Green, Green &
Noblin, P.C..

Marrone Bio Innovations, Inc., Pamela G. Marrone, James B. Boyd,
Donald J. Glidewell, Elin Miller, Ranjeet Bhatia, Pamela Contag,
Tim Fogarty, Lawrence Hough, Joseph Hudson, Les Lyman, Richard
Rominger, Shaugn Stanley, Sean Schickedanz, Defendants, represented
by Judson Earle Lobdell -- jlobdell@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster
LLP.

Hector Absi, Defendant, represented by John V. McDermott --
jmcdermott@bhfs.com -- Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP, pro
hac vice, Jonathan Charles Sandler -- jsandler@bhfs.com --
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck & Judson Earle Lobdell, Morrison &
Foerster LLP.

Piper Jaffray & Co., Roth Capital Partners, LLC, Jefferies, LLC,
Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Inc., Defendants, represented by
Charlene Sachi Shimada -- charlene.shimada@morganlewis.com --
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP & Lucy Han Wang --
lucy.wang@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP.

Ernst & Young, LLP, Defendant, represented by Elizabeth Dianne Mann
-- emann@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP & Stanley J Parzen --
sparzen@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown and Platt, pro hac vice.

Special Situations Cayman Fund, L.P., Special Situations Fund III
QP, L.P., Movant, represented by Lawrence M. Rolnick --
lrolnick@lowenstein.com -- Lowenstein Sandler LLP, pro hac vice,
Michael John McGaughey -- mmcgaughey@lowenstein.com -- Lowenstein
Sandler LLP, Steven M. Hecht -- shecht@lowenstein.com -- Lowenstein
Sandler LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas E. Redburn, Jr. --
tredburn@lowenstein.com -- Lowenstein Sandler LLP, pro hac vice.

Marrone Investor Group, Movant, represented by Jon A. Tostrud --
jtostrud@tostrudlaw.com -- Tostrud Law Group, P.C..

United States of America, Movant, represented by Todd A. Pickles,
United States Attorney's Office.


MDL 2672: 9th Cir. Affirms Denial of Fleshman's Bid to Intervene
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE VOLKSWAGEN "CLEAN DIESEL" MARKETING, SALES
PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. JASON HILL ET AL.,
Plaintiffs, and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
VOLKSWAGEN, AG; VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.; AUDI, AG; AUDI
OF AMERICA, LLC; PORSCHE CARS NORTH AMERICA, INC.; ROBERT BOSCH
GMBH; ROBERT BOSCH, LLC, Defendants-Appellees, v. RONALD CLARK
FLESHMAN, JR., Proposed Intervenor, Movant-Appellant, Case No.
16-17060 (9th Cir.), Judge Marsha S. Berzon of the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial
of Fleshman's motion to intervene in the federal government's Clean
Air Act suit against Volkswagen.

The government's suit arose from the car manufacturer's
installation in some of its cars of "defeat devices" --
surreptitious pieces of software that allowed VW to cheat on
emissions tests.  Six months after filing suit, the parties reached
a final proposed consent decree, and the government filed it with
the court.  

The consent decree established a program by which VW would buy
back, permit the termination of leases of, or perform modifications
on the emissions systems of all affected vehicles.5 VW would also
pay $2.7 billion into a "mitigation trust" to offset the increased
NOx emissions caused by the affected vehicles, and pay another $2
billion to support public awareness of zeroemissions vehicles.  For
the buyback-lease terminationmodification program, the consent
decree set a participation target of 85% of the affected vehicles;
for each percentage point below 85%, VW had to pay additional funds
into the mitigation trust.

The terms of the class action settlement largely overlapped with
the terms of the consent decree between VW and the government and
also with a separate consent order filed by the Federal Trade
Commission.  Pursuant to 28 C.F.R. Section 50.7(b), notice of the
partial consent decree appeared in the Federal Register on July 6,
2016, and a 30-day public comment period ensued. See Notice of
Lodging of Proposed Partial Consent Decree Under the Clean Air Act,
81 Fed. Reg. 44,051 (July 6, 2016).

While settlement talks were well underway in the cases proceeding
in California, Fleshman filed suit against VW in the Circuit Court
of Campbell County, Virginia.  At the time Fleshman filed suit, he
owned a 2012 model year light diesel Jetta.

Later, when the settlement talks were close to fruition, Fleshman
moved to intervene in the class action, to object to the proposed
Consumer Class Action Settlement Agreement and Release.  The
district court refused to allow the intervention.

Undeterred, Fleshman moved a week later to intervene in the
government's enforcement action. He argued that the consent decree
violated Federal and Virginia law because it did not require
rescission of sale for all affected vehicles; instead, it permitted
vehicle owners and lessees to keep their unmodified vehicles if
they wished. Fleshman also alleged that Virginia's SIP prohibited
the owners of affected vehicles from driving them, so the buyback
should have been mandatory.

The district court denied Fleshman's motion to intervene in the
civil enforcement action.  The court held that the Clean Air Act's
citizen-suit provision permits intervention of right only when the
intervenor seeks to enforce the same "standard, limitation, or
order" as the government does in its action.  Because Fleshman
sought to enforce Virginia's SIP  -- not the same standard,
limitation, or order as the Clean Air Act provisions underlying the
government's complaint -- the Act did not permit him to intervene
as a matter of right.

Shortly thereafter, the district court entered the proposed consent
decree in the government enforcement action.  Fleshman appeals the
denial of his motion to intervene.  Fleshman first argues that he
may intervene in the government's action by grace of the Clean Air
Act's citizensuit provision, Section 7604.  The issue is whether
that provision grants him an "unconditional right" to intervene.
He  argues -- albeit indistinctly -- that he is entitled to
intervene of right under Rule 24(a)(2) to protect his interest in
the proper enforcement of the Clean Air Act and Virginia's SIP.  

Judge Berzon holds that the government's enforcement action did not
bar Fleshman's suit under the diligent prosecution bar, Section
7604(b)(1)(B).  The statutory provisions the United States sued to
enforce -- Section 7522 -- are not standard[s], limitation[s], or
order[s] that would preclude a citizen suit under Section
7604(a)(1).  Even if they were, Fleshman's proposed
complaints-in-intervention demonstrate that he was not seeking to
enforce the provisions of Section 7522 invoked by the government.
For both reasons, Fleshman could have filed his own suit against
Volkswagen or the EPA to enforce Virginia's SIP.  Ergo, he was not
entitled to intervene in the government's action.  And because the
Clean Air Act did not grant Fleshman an "unconditional right to
intervene," he was not entitled to do so under Rule 24(a)(1).

In addition, the Judge holds that Fleshman has no standing for the
relief he seeks that the government does not, and so may not
intervene as of right under Rule 24(a)(2).  Fleshman has myriad
ways to avoid potential liability under the SIP.  His arguments
that the EPA or any state would enforce a SIP against him for
continuing to drive his car are entirely speculative.  There are no
plausible allegations, nor reason to believe from the record, that
the EPA or any state will attempt to subject operators of
unmodified Volkswagen vehicles to liability.  Further, and
critically, Fleshman's potential future liability for driving his
own car does not entitle him to seek, as he does, rescission of all
the sales of the affected cars, including those belonging to
hundreds of thousands of other people.

Judge Berzon concludes that the Clean Air Act did not grant
Fleshman an "unconditional right" to intervene in the government's
suit.  The United States was not seeking to enforce any "standard,
limitation, or order" as those terms are used in the Clean Air Act,
and in any event, Fleshman is seeking to enforce different
purported requirements of the Act.  As the government's action
therefore did not bar Fleshman from suing on his own, he is not
entitled to intervene.  Rule 24(a)(2) is no help to Fleshman,
because he lacks standing to pursue the relief in his complaint.
Accordingly, she affirmed the district court's judgment.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 3, 2018 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/7JfwdU from Leagle.com.

James Ben Feinman (argued), Lynchburg, Virginia, for
Movant-Appellant.

Brian C. Toth -- Brian.Toth@hklaw.com -- (argued), Washington,
D.C., for Defendants-Appellees.

Sharon Nelles -- nelless@sullcrom.com -- (argued), New York, New
York, for Defendants-Appellees.


METROPOLITAN LIFE: Morris Plaintiffs May Join "Newman" Deal Process
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Thomas M. Durkin of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted Linda Morris, Kevin
Morris, and Marsha Donaldson ("Morris Plaintiffs")'s motion to
intervene in the case, MARGERY NEWMAN, and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE CO., Defendant,
Case No. 16 C 3530 (N.D. Ill.), pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 24(b) for purposes of participating in the settlement
process.

Newman, on behalf of all others similarly situated, has sued
MetLife alleging that it breached its long-term care insurance
policy with Newman and committed fraud when it raised Newman's
premiums at age 67 despite selling her a "Reduced-Pay at 65" option
designed to alleviate concerns about premium increases.  On March
22, 2018, the Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded the Court's
dismissal of Newman's lawsuit, holding that Newman had adequately
pleaded her claims.

Shortly before the Seventh Circuit's remand order, on March 12,
2018, the Court held in Practice Mgmt. Support Servs., Inc. v.
Cirque du Soleil, Inc., 301 F.Supp.3d 840, 864 (N.D. Ill. 2018),
that Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, 137
S.Ct. 1773 (2017), prevents federal courts from exercising specific
(as opposed to general) personal jurisdiction over class members
whose claims do not relate to defendants' contacts with the forum
state.  None of the parties disputes that the Court lacks general
personal jurisdiction over MetLife.  And none of them disputes that
unless the Court were to deviate from its interpretation of
Bristol-Myers in Practice Management, the Court lacks specific
personal jurisdiction over the majority of Newman's proposed
nationwide class absent a waiver by MetLife of its personal
jurisdiction defense.

On May 3, 2018, in the wake of Bristol-Myers and Practice
Management, the Morris Plaintiffs filed a nearly identical lawsuit
to the one against MetLife in the Southern District of New York.
Unlike the Court, the Southern District of New York has general
personal jurisdiction over MetLife, a corporation organized in New
York with its principal place of business in New York.  The
Southern District of New York has since stayed the Morris
Plaintiffs' case pending final judgment in the case.  On May 23,
2018, at the parties' request, the Court referred the case to
Magistrate Judge Finnegan to conduct a settlement conference.

Currently before the Court is the Morris Plaintiffs' motion to
intervene in this case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
24(b) for purposes of participating in the settlement process.
Their principal argument in support of intervention is that both
they and other absent class members (i.e., both original and
intervening parties) will be prejudiced in the ongoing settlement
negotiations based on the unusual circumstance resulting from
Bristol-Myers and Practice Management.

Newman opposes the Morris Plaintiffs' motion, arguing that the
parties and absent class members would be better off without the
Morris Plaintiffs' involvement.  MetLife filed a short response to
the Morris Plaintiffs' motion stating that it defers to the Court's
judgment, but does not believe the Morris Plaintiffs' intervention
is necessary or would be productive given the duplicative nature of
the Morris Plaintiffs' claims.

Judge Durkin explains that there is no dispute that the Morris
Plaintiffs' claims share with the case a common question of law or
fact.  The only remaining question is whether the Court in its
discretion finds the Morris Plaintiffs' motion "timely" and
intervention appropriate.

The Morris Plaintiffs argue they had no reason to suspect any
conflict on the part of Newman until the Court's docket entry
reflected that the parties were engaged in settlement discussions
on May 23, 2018.  The Judge finds that the Morris Plaintiffs'
bargaining-power argument persuasive.  He therefore also finds that
they filed their motion promptly after they reasonably suspected
that Newman may not be acting in their best interest.  

Newman makes several additional arguments about the prejudices that
may be suffered and the unusual circumstances at issue.  But the
Judge finds that none of these arguments changes his conclusion
that intervention is timely and appropriate.

First, Newman argues that allowing the Morris Plaintiffs to
intervene will inevitably delay and likely disrupt settlement
negotiations, which will prejudice the original parties.  The Judge
holds that the fact that the Morris Plaintiffs' intervention might
impact settlement discussions based on their legitimate interests
is not a prejudice "attributable to any time delay."

Second, Newman says that denying the Morris Plaintiffs' motion to
intervene will not prejudice them because they can always opt out
of any class settlement and pursue their own individual lawsuits,
or object to the settlement agreement at the preliminary and final
approval stages.  Although these options may protect the interests
of the Morris Plaintiffs themselves, the Judge finds that it does
not protect absent class members from a bad settlement.

Third, Newman raises the question of whether the three Morris
Plaintiffs would be adequate class representatives, explaining that
neither Linda nor Kevin Morris has turned 65 (meaning they may not
yet have damages), and that Donaldson's claim may be time-barred.
But this is not the stage of the case where it is appropriate for
the Court to make merits determinations about potential defenses
MetLife might have against potential class representatives.  At
this stage, the Judge says the question is merely whether the
Morris Plaintiffs' intervention motion for purposes of
participating in settlement discussions is timely and should be
allowed.

Finally, Newman claims the Morris Plaintiffs' counsel is simply
acting on a profiteering motive to share in whatever attorneys'
fees might be contemplated in a nationwide class settlement.  The
Judge recognizes that the Morris Plaintiffs' counsel has acted
opportunistically in the wake of a sea change in the law.  But that
opportunism does not outweigh the legitimate conflict-of-interest
points that the Morris Plaintiffs raise.

On balance, Judge Durkin holds that the Sokaogon Chippewa factors
weigh in favor of finding permissive intervention by Morris
Plaintiffs under Rule 24(b) timely and appropriate.  He therefore
granted the Morris Plaintiffs' motion to intervene and participate
in settlement negotiations.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 3, 2018 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://is.gd/ath7K9 from Leagle.com.

Margery Newman, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
represented by Frank H. Tomlinson -- hilton@tomlawllc.com -- Robert
R. Duncan -- rrd@duncanlawgroup.com -- Duncan Law Group, LLC,
Thomas Cusack Cronin -- tcc@cronincoltd.com -- Cronin & Co., Ltd. &
Gary E. Mason -- gmason@wbmllp.com -- Whitfield Bryson & Mason LLP,
pro hac vice.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Sheldon Eisenberg -- sheldon.eisenberg@dbr.com -- Drinker Biddle &
Reath LLP, pro hac vice, Stephen A. Serfass, Drinker Biddle & Reath
Llp, pro hac vice, Daniel J. Delaney -- daniel.delaney@dbr.com --
Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, Michael D. Rafalko --
michael.rafalko@dbr.com -- Cozen O'Connor, pro hac vice & Terri L.
Ahrens -- terri.ahrens@dbr.com -- Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP.

Linda Morris, Kevin Morris & Marsha Donaldson, Intervenors,
represented by Danielle L. Perry -- perry@wbmllp.com -- Whitfield
Bryson & Mason, LLP, pro hac vice, Gary E. Mason, Whitfield Bryson
& Mason LLP, pro hac vice, Jeffrey S. Goldenberg --
jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com -- Goldenberg Schneider & Groh, Lpa, pro
hac vice & Thomas Arthur Doyle -- ad@wexlerwallace.com -- Wexler
Wallace LLP.


MIDLAND CREDIT: Bruchhauser Files Placeholder Bid to Certify Class
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned HOWARD BRUCHHAUSER, ELIZABETH WOOD, WENDY
UNTERSHINE, and ROBERT FLEENOR, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. MIDLAND CREDIT
MANAGEMENT, INC. and MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC, the Defendants, Case No.
2:18-cv-01260-WED (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an
order certifying classes, appointing the Plaintiffs as class
representatives, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as Class
Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the Court may
deem appropriate.

The Plaintiffs 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 Plaintiffs 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


MILBERG LLP: Laber Files Petitions for Writ in Bobbitt Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Intervenor-Plaintiff Lance Laber files petitions for a writ of
certiorari in the lawsuit titled Lance Laber, Petitioner v. Milberg
LLP, et al., Case No. 18-169, in the Supreme Court of United
States.

Responses are due on September 6, 2018.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 18, 2018, Justice
Anthony Kennedy extended the time to file a petition for a writ of
certiorari from June 20, 2018, to Aug. 6, 2018.

The lower court case is styled PHILIP BOBBITT, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, et al., and LANCE LABER,
Intervenor-Plaintiff-Appellant v. MILBERG LLP, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 13-15812, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The District Court case is titled PHILIP BOBBITT, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, et al., and LANCE
LABER, Intervenor-Plaintiff v. MILBERG LLP, et al., Case No.
4:09-cv-00629-FRZ, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Arizona, Tucson.

In 2001, Milberg, a national law firm specializing in class
actions, filed a lawsuit in Arizona district court against Variable
Annuity Life Insurance Company, Inc. (VALIC), for alleged
securities law violations.  In January 2004, the District Court
certified a class of plaintiffs, a significant accomplishment in
any class action litigation.

The Plaintiffs in the appeal sued Milberg for malpractice for
failing to meet the discovery requirements in the VALIC class
action.  The Plaintiffs named as defendants four law firms as well
as various lawyers, who worked for them.[BN]

Intervenor-Plaintiff-Petitioner Lance Laber is represented by:

          Lawrence Arthur Kasten, Esq.
          LEWIS ROCA ROTHGERBER CHRISTIE LLP
          201 East Washington Street, Suite 1200
          Phoenix, AZ 85004
          Telephone: (602) 262-0228
          E-mail: lkasten@lrrc.com


NCAA: 9th Cir. Affirms Attys' Fees Award in E. O'Bannon's Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, EDWARD C. O'BANNON, Jr., On Behalf of Himself and All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NATIONAL
COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, AKA The NCAA, Defendant-Appellant,
and ELECTRONIC ARTS, INC.; COLLEGIATE LICENSING COMPANY, AKA CLC,
Defendants, Case No. 16-15803 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's award of
attorneys' fees to the Plaintiffs-Appellees, a class of former and
current college football and men's basketball players, under the
Clayton Act.

The district court entered judgment for the Plaintiffs after a
14-day bench trial, holding that the NCAA's rules prohibiting
student-athletes from receiving compensation for the use of their
names, images, and likenesses ("NILs") were an unlawful restraint
of trade under Section 1 of the Sherman Act.  The Appellage Court
affirmed in part and vacated in part.

While the appeal was pending, the Plaintiffs moved for fees and
costs under the Clayton Act, ultimately requesting $44,755,500.23
in fees and $5,201,566.97 in costs.  The request was approved by a
magistrate judge with relatively minor reductions.  After the
issuance of the panel's opinion and supplementary briefing, the
district court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation in
part and awarded the Plaintiffs $40,794,245.89 as reasonable
attorneys' fees and $1,540,195.58 in costs.  The NCAA timely
appealed.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed.  It holds that the district court
entered judgment against the NCAA for violating the Sherman Act and
permanently enjoined it from prohibiting its member schools from
compensating the Plaintiff class for the use of their NILs by
awarding grants-in-aid up to the full cost of attendance.  The
Plaintiffs did not prevail on every issue, but their enforceable
judgment materially altered the legal relationship of the parties
and clearly demonstrates success on a significant issue.  The
prospective injunctive relief obtained in the class action directly
benefits the certified class and can be enforced by the class.  The
Plaintiffs substantially prevailed in their antitrust action
seeking injunctive relief, and accordingly are entitled to
attorneys' fees under Section 26.

The Court's review is for abuse of discretion, and it gives broad
deference to the district court's superior understanding of the
litigation.  The Plaintiffs are entitled to mandatory attorneys'
fees under Section 26.  The district court did not abuse its
discretion in determining that the Plaintiffs' success in achieving
injunctive relief was an excellent result and therefore that their
fee request was a reasonable basis for the award of those fees.

Finally, the Court finds that the district court's detailed opinion
reflects its thorough de novo review of the Plaintiffs' attorneys'
billing records and the NCAA's objections.  The district court
provided numerous examples of billing entries to support and
explain its decisions on all of the objections, and its familiarity
with the records is apparent.  The district court conducted a
careful review of the records and made numerous deductions, in
total reducing the award recommended by the magistrate judge by an
additional $3,628,610.  The district court's award of reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs under the Clayton Act was not an abuse of
discretion.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 29, 2018 Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/66dmLf from Leagle.com.


NEW RESIDENTIAL: Delaware Supreme Court Affirms Case Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
New Residential Investment Corp., said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2018,
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the Delaware
Supreme Court affirmed the Delaware Court of Chancery's prior
dismissals in the class action lawsuit filed by Chester County
Employees' Retirement Fund.

On May 22, 2015, a purported stockholder of the Company, Chester
County Employees' Retirement Fund, filed a class action and
derivative action in the Delaware Court of Chancery purportedly on
behalf of all stockholders and the Company, titled Chester County
Employees' Retirement Fund v. New Residential Investment Corp., et
al., C.A. No. 11058-VCMR. On October 30, 2015, plaintiff filed an
amended complaint (the "Amended Complaint").

The lawsuit names the Company, its directors, its Manager, Fortress
and Fortress Operating Entity I LP as defendants, and alleges
breaches of fiduciary duties by the Company, its directors, its
Manager, Fortress and Fortress Operating Entity I LP in connection
with the HLSS Acquisition. The lawsuit also seeks declaratory
judgment, among other things, as to the applicability of Article
Twelfth of the Company's Certificate of Incorporation and as to the
validity of the release of claims of the Company's stockholders
related to the termination of the HLSS Initial Merger Agreement.
The Amended Complaint seeks declaratory relief, equitable relief
and damages.

On December 11, 2015, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Amended Complaint, which was heard by the court on June 14, 2016.
On October 7, 2016, the court issued an opinion dismissing without
prejudice the breach of fiduciary duty claims and declaratory
judgment claims, except for the claim relating to the applicability
of Article Twelfth. On October 14, 2016, plaintiff moved to reargue
the Court's dismissal opinion, and defendants filed an opposition
to the motion for reargument on October 28, 2016. On December 1,
2016, the court denied the motion for reargument.

Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint (the "Second Amended
Complaint") on February 27, 2017 containing allegations and seeking
relief similar to that in the Amended Complaint. Defendants moved
to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on March 30, 2017. The
court held an oral argument on the motion to dismiss on July 7,
2017, which the court granted in the defendants' favor on October
6, 2017.

On November 2, 2017, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the
Delaware Supreme Court appealing the court's original motion to
dismiss opinion, motion for reargument opinion, and second motion
to dismiss opinion. Oral argument on the appeal was held May 2,
2018. On May 10, 2018, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the
Delaware Court of Chancery's prior dismissals.

New Residential Investment Corp., a real estate investment trust,
focuses on investing in and managing residential mortgage related
assets in the United States. It operates through Servicing Related
Assets, Residential Securities and Loans, and Other Investments
segments. The company was founded in 2011 and is based in New York,
New York.


NEW SOUTH WALES: 45 Traders Ready to Join Light Rail Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Parris, writing for Newcastle Herald, reports that the
organiser of a class action on behalf of Newcastle traders affected
by light rail works says 45 businesses are poised to join the
lawsuit.

Sydney cafe owner and politician Angela Vithoulkas will bring a
team from Mitry Lawyers to Customs House on August 11 to explain
how the legal action against the state government will work and
sign up business owners.

The owners of two Hunter Street businesses, Blue Door cafe and
Frontline Hobbies, said on August 9 that they were committed to the
lawsuit and expected many others to follow them.

Ms Vithoulkas, whose Vivo cafe in George Street is due to close on
August 24 after almost three years of light rail disruption, said
45 Newcastle firms and an unspecified number of residents had
registered their interest online.

"As of August 11 we are launching the class action for Newcastle.
It's the day I have organised the lawyers, the documents, the
businesses," she said.

"The point of this is to spread the word that people can sign up
and be part of this class action any time. There is no risk or cost
to them. I'm not going to make any money out of it. I just
understand the pain of these people."

Blue Door owner Peter James said he had formally joined the
lawsuit.He said turnover at his cafe, which is in Wheeler Place,
had fallen about 40 per cent and forced him to take a 78 per cent
pay cut in the past six to eight months to stay open.

"For me, it's all about the next time the state government wants to
do something like this there should be a consideration for small
business owners," he said. "It's been one of the most difficult
eight months so far that I've had to experience in the 14 years
I've been in business."

He said his turnover had not risen since Hunter Street reopened two
weeks ago.

"They've done a good job, I must say, but as far as increased
turnover, we've still got no parking there."

Frontline Hobbies' Colin Scott said he had received emails from 37
traders who had expressed an interest in joining the legal action
and believed 45 was not an unrealistic number.

Newy Burger Co owner Ben Neil, who was forced to open new premises
in Honeysuckle while Hunter Street was closed, said he would wait
to find out more information about the lawsuit before deciding
whether to join.

Ms Vithoulkhas is a City of Sydney councillor who has formed the
Small Business Party and will campaign for a seat in the Upper
House in the March state election.She is also running a class
action for Sydney traders affected by light rail works.

The state government has set up a rent-relief scheme in Sydney but
has repeatedly refused to compensate Newcastle business owners.   


The Newcastle Herald has reported on the financial woes of many
Newcastle businesses who say their turnover has plummeted since
light rail work began in Hunter and Scott streets in September.

"They don't have the advantage of the 600,000-odd people coming in
and out of the city like we do in Sydney," Ms Vithoulkas said.

"For them, the disaster of the period of the light rail . . . even
though the state government is insisting it's not delayed, and
that's why they won't give them financial assistance, those excuses
do not help these businesses.

"Many of them have closed already. People have had to go and find
jobs elsewhere to work outside the business just to keep the doors
open.

"It's been a long time since they've had anything like a profitable
business. Their families are suffering, their relationships are
suffering, and the saddest part is they may never recover, and we
know this because of the Sydney experience."

She said light rail construction had forced customers to change
their habits, and they would not necessarily return when the
project was finished.

"This is the danger zone. This is why compensation needs to be
addressed at the beginning of a project. Every day we have down
time is a loss.

"And state government refuses to acknowledge that we are suffering
losses from day one. We cannot afford the losses that these
infrastructure projects create, which is anything from 30 to 90 per
cent.

"That was the data from the Gold Coast, from Sydney and Newcastle.
We are all telling the same story and the government is not
listening."[GN]


NEW YORK: Court Approves Settlement in Bullying Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Izzy Kalman, writing for Psychology Today, reports that the
settlement of the two-year-old class action lawsuit against the New
York City Department of Education (DOE) was approved.

The lawsuit represented 23 families that claim their children's
schools weren't doing enough to make bullying stop. I had feared
that a class action lawsuit might result in a humongous payment
that would encourage masses of other parents to sue their schools
for failing to stop bullying, something that could potentially
bankrupt the city. Fortunately, from my limited comprehension of
legal documents, it doesn't seem like the plaintiffs are seeking
monetary damages, only for "declarative and injunctive relief," so
the monetary burden on the taxpayer will be limited to the cost of
the legal proceedings plus whatever extra funding may be required
for implementing the anti-bullying fixes mandated by the
settlement.

Not surprisingly -- and legitimately -- the DOE denied any
wrongdoing, as is typical for defendants in settlements, because
not settling would lead to an even more protracted, expensive legal
battle.  Also, the DOE fought for, and won, protection from any
further class action bullying lawsuits for the period of four
years.

Truth is, the settlement doesn't demand much more from the DOE than
is already required of it. It mostly needs to intensify existing
policies and show that it is doing a better job of complying with
them.

Bad News

The expectation is, of course, that the settlement will lead to
happier parents because New York City schools will finally make
their children safe from bullying. But my conclusion is that this
settlement will do absolutely nothing to improve the bullying
situation in NYC schools. If anything, it will continue to make
matters worse.

There is no reason to think that intensifying and complying with
the current failing policies will make them succeed. The reason I
support the DOE's refusal to admit wrongdoing is not because NYC
schools have perfectly complied with the mandates of the New York
anti-bullying law, but because the anti-bullying mandates are a
mistake. They are unfair assaults against schools, requiring them
to accomplish the impossible. It would be great if anti-bullying
laws could make bullying disappear. In reality, they just make it
easy for parents to sue schools for failing to make bullying
disappear.

A medical doctor will tell you that if you do something that is
destructive to your body as a whole, it is likely to be harmful to
the individual parts as well.

I have been serving as a school psychologist since 1978. I have
learned to view the school as my client. Things that are bad for
the school as a whole are likely to be bad for the individual
members as well. Perhaps the worst thing that ever happened to
schools is anti-bullying laws. They increase suspicion and blame
among students, parents and administrators, intensify bullying,
weaken students emotionally, and waste great amounts of taxpayer
dollars.

In 2010, New York State proudly passed the Dignity for All Students
Act (DASA), considering it to be the best anti-bullying law in the
US. This law was supposed to guarantee all students a right to
"attend school in a safe, welcoming, and caring environment,"
including specifically freedom from "harassment and discrimination
of students by students . . . ." In other words, it promises
students what no one knows how to accomplish. But even worse, the
methods by which schools are required to ensure such an idyllic
environment for students are bound to intensify hostilities.
Investigating, interrogating, notifying parents, judging, punishing
and filing reports with the school district will immediately turn
the most minor incident into a feud among students, families, and
school administrators. As I have been warning for years,
anti-bullying laws are a Catch-22; the harder schools attempt to
comply with them, the worse the bullying problem becomes.

The world's leading bullying researchers, beginning with the
creator of the field, Professor Dan Olweus, have been insisting
that society needs laws against bullying. While these same experts
have been insisting that schools must to use scientifically
validated interventions, the research shows that their own programs
are essentially worthless for creating bully-free schools. How can
anti-bullying laws guarantee bully free schools when the teachings
they are based on don't work? If anything, the reverse is true,
which is why bullying is a growing epidemic that's confounding our
schools.

Every major psychological organization has come out against
zero-tolerance discipline policies in schools, which should include
for bullying. An anti-bullying law is the ultimate in
zero-tolerance. Yet for some strange reason, no psychological
organization to my knowledge has criticized school anti-bullying
laws. When it comes to bullying, psychologists mysteriously abandon
scientific thinking.

My Personal Interest in NYC Schools

I have special feelings for NYC schools. I was born and raised in
the Bronx and have lived the majority of my life in New York City.
I served as a school psychologist for the NYC DOE for 14 years,
between 1988 and 2002. While testing was essentially the only
requirement of the job, I made time to deal with bullying in the
two schools I served, and refined my approach during those years.

I had given numerous well-received professional development
workshops within the DOE on bullying after it became a major area
of concern following the Columbine massacre of 1999. I also
requested my superiors to allow me to deal with bullying on a
larger scale within the DOE, assuring them I would still fulfill my
mandated testing duties. However, my requests were rejected, and in
2002 I resigned from the DOE so that I could devote myself full
time to teaching and producing materials on bullying.

Shortly after New York passed its intensive anti-bullying law,
DASA, I was contacted by a company that provides training courses
to teachers in New York State on complying with education laws.
They wanted me to teach their course for them, which would have
been a great opportunity for me. I had been traveling hectically
giving seminars throughout the U.S. Concentrating on my own state
-- which I love dearly -- would have made life simpler. Plus, by
focusing on one state, the results of my anti-bullying efforts
would be more discernible. If I could make an impact in New York,
the other 49 states might decide to follow. I was exhilarated by
this new opportunity.

Then the training company sent me the anti-bullying syllabus I
would be required to teach. It was like sticking a needle in a
balloon. I told them with great disappointment, "I can't possibly
teach this. It is going to make everything worse." They assured me
that I could also make time to insert my own teachings. My response
was, "How is that going to work? I will spend all day teaching the
intensive NYS syllabus. Then at the end of the training I say,
'What I've taught so far is mandated by law and will make matters
worse. Here, in a few minutes, is what does work.'"

I had to turn them down.

Bullying Has Been Going Up in NYC Schools

What has been the result of DASA? Has it solved the bullying
problem for New York schools? Not at all. Bullying has become an
ongoing source of frustration for the state and city, and no matter
how much money they throw at the problem, it continues to grow. The
current news about the class action settlement comes on the heels
of other news stories informing us that bullying has been rising in
New York City schools.

Bullying Appears to Be on the Upswing.

Two years ago, city schools reported 3,281 substantiated incidents
of bullying, harassment, or intimidating behavior to the state,
according to education department officials. In the first half of
this school year, 1,883 such incidents have been reported -- which
would represent a 15 percent increase over two years and a smaller
3 percent increase compared to last year (assuming the current rate
continues through the rest of the school year).

Why is bullying in NYC schools going up? Shouldn't it be going
down?

For an in-depth understanding of why anti-bullying laws are making
bullying worse, please read my recent article, "The Two 'Fatal
Flaws Lurking in American Leftist Politics.'" The flaws need to be
understood by proponents of the right as well as of the left,
because the idea of anti-bullying laws is so seductive that it is
supported by the entire political spectrum.

The major problem with the bullying psychology, upon which the laws
are based, is that it has erased the distinction between objective
and subjective harm. Acts that cause objective harm legitimately
need to be treated like crimes from which the population is
protected and perpetrators are apprehended, judged, and punished.
This includes acts like rape, theft, murder and arson. The
perpetrator is the one responsible for causing the harm to the
victim. Apprehending and punishing perpetrators discourages further
objective harm and makes society safer.

Acts that cause subjective harm are things like insults, criticism,
and rejection. These are inevitable parts of social life that
everyone faces and needs to learn to deal with. In fact, they are
rights protected by the First Amendment. The degree of suffering is
subjective because it is determined not by the perpetrator but by
the attitude of the victim. Apprehending and punishing perpetrators
of subjective harm does not discourage further subjective harm. It
immediately escalates it, and easily leads to objective harm. That
accounts for the common phenomenon of physical violence among
students occurring after their school got involved prosecuting
complaints of insults.

The best way to deal with subjective harm is not by treating it
like a crime but learning to handle it on one's own -- by
regulating one's emotions and talking directly to talk to those who
hurt us. In other words, the solution is social and emotional
education.

While we tend to think of a bully as a large brute battering a
weaker target just because he can, the truth is that the great
majority of what's called bullying today is subjective harm,
primarily insults, criticism, and rejection. We don't need
anti-bullying laws to criminalize objective harm, because it is
already criminal. These laws attempt to erase subjective harm, and
that is why they are making everything worse.

The NYC Settlement

If you read the settlement, you will see that its demands are
almost entirely about intensifying this approach to bullying
complaints, including increasing the budget for anti-bully
personnel. That is fine for dealing with acts that cause objective
harm. It is disastrous for dealing with subjective harm.

If a couple of years down the road you see that bullying has
continued to be a growing problem in NYC schools, please don't say
I didn't warn you.

So What Should NYC Do?

One intervention the settlement doesn't require is the one that has
the greatest chance of success: teaching kids the social skills for
dealing with bullying on their own, including when to treat it like
a crime that requires intervention of the authorities.

An educational approach to bullying will not only cost the
government (meaning the taxpayer) less money than the current
approach, it will save money. All the personnel that are required
to make this happen are already on the payroll. Counseling
professionals will be able to help more students in less time, and
teaching staff will have more time left for teaching academics
rather than acting like law enforcement officers. The schools will
have less bullying and better education with no additional
expenditure other than for training materials, which can be minimal
thanks to digital data.

If you are in a position of influence in the New York City
Department of Education, I want you to know that even though I no
longer work for you, I still think of you and love you. There is
nothing that will make me happier than helping you conquer the
scourge of bullying -- effectively and economically.[GN]


NORTHLAND GROUP: Robinson Appeals D.N.J. Ruling to 3rd Circuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Imani Robinson filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit styled Robinson v. Northland Group, Inc., Case No.
1-17-cv-12023, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey.

The nature of suit is stated as consumer credit.

The appellate case is captioned as Robinson v. Northland Group,
Inc., Case No. 18-2741, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant IMANI ROBINSON, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
          Benjamin J. Wolf, Esq.
          JONES WOLF & KAPASI LLC
          375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100
          Fairfield, NJ 07004
          Telephone: (973) 227-5900
          E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com
                  bwolf@legaljones.com

Defendant-Appellee NORTHLAND GROUP INC. is represented by:

          Andrew J. Blady, Esq.
          SESSIONS FISHMAN NATHAN & ISRAEL
          2303 Oxfordshire Road
          Furlong, PA 18925
          Telephone: (267) 544-0840
          E-mail: ablady@sessions.legal


NUVASIVE INC: Nov. 12 Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
NuVasive, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that a hearing on the final
approval of the settlement by the court has been scheduled for
November 12, 2018.

On August 28, 2013, a purported securities class action lawsuit was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California naming the Company and certain of its current and former
executive officers for allegedly making false and materially
misleading statements regarding the Company's business and
financial results, specifically relating to the purported improper
submission of false claims to Medicare and Medicaid.

The operative complaint asserts a putative class period stemming
from October 22, 2008 to July 30, 2013. The complaint alleges
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and
seeks unspecified monetary relief, interest, and attorneys' fees.

On February 13, 2014, Brad Mauss, the lead plaintiff in the case,
filed an Amended Class Action Complaint for Violations of the
Federal Securities Laws. The Company answered the complaint on
August 25, 2016, and discovery commenced. The plaintiffs filed
motions for class certification on October 28, 2016 and the
Company's opposition papers were filed on January 9, 2017. On March
22, 2017, the court issued an order granting class certification.

The Company filed a petition to appeal the order granting class
certification with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
(the "Ninth Circuit") on April 5, 2017 and the plaintiffs filed an
opposition to the petition. On August 15, 2017, the Ninth Circuit
denied the Company's petition. The Company filed a motion for
summary judgment on September 8, 2017.

On February 1, 2018, the court entered an order denying the
Company's motion for summary judgment. On February 13, 2018, the
Company entered into a memorandum of understanding with the
plaintiffs to settle the case for $7.9 million. On March 23, 2017,
the parties executed a stipulation of settlement, which was
preliminarily approved by the court on June 11, 2018.

A hearing on the final approval of the settlement by the court has
been scheduled for November 12, 2018.

The Company expects the settlement will be fully funded by
insurance proceeds. The settlement includes the dismissal of all
claims against the Company and the named individuals in the lawsuit
without any liability or wrongdoing attributed to them.

NuVasive said "There can be no assurance that a settlement will be
finalized and approved or as to the ultimate outcome of this
litigation. However, in connection with the proposed settlement and
in accordance with authoritative guidance, the Company has recorded
the loss contingency of $7.9 million as a current litigation
liability and the expected insurance proceeds of $7.9 million as a
current receivable in the Consolidated Balance Sheet as of June 30,
2018 and December 31, 2017."

NuVasive, Inc., a medical device company, develops and markets
minimally disruptive surgical products and procedurally integrated
solutions for spine surgery. Its products focus on applications for
spine fusion surgery, including ancillary products and services
used to aid in the surgical procedure. The company was founded in
1997 and is headquartered in San Diego, California.


OSHEAGA: Travis Scott's Tardiness Subject of Possible Class-Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
CTV News Montreal reports that a frustrated Osheaga concert-goer is
seeking to sue over headline act Travis Scott, who arrived late and
spent just 40 minutes on stage at the recent Montreal music
festival.

The U.S. rapper was the headliner on August 10 night but Osheaga's
Twitter account says he was held up at the U.S.-Canadian border and
arrived more than an hour late.

Scott played a truncated set, and an application for a class-action
lawsuit alleges many attendees had given up by then and left the
venue.

One of those who departed the scene was plaintiff Megan Le Stum,
who says the crowd had become progressively rowdier.

A Montreal law firm filed the application against Osheaga on August
13 on behalf of the university student, as well as all
festival-goers who experienced prejudice or inconvenience due to
Scott's delayed arrival.

The 18-year-old Le Stum says there was a lack of respect from the
promoters with no apologies or reimbursement. The lawsuit is
seeking $115 on behalf of all people who bought a day or weekend
pass for the festival.

The concert was sold out all three days with capacity crowds of
45,000 each day.

Evenko, the promoter behind Osheaga, did not reply to a request for
comment on the legal action.[GN]


P.F. CHANG'S: Esry Suit Has Conditional Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled JACQUELINE ESRY, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. P.F. CHANG'S
CHINA BISTRO, INC., d/b/a P.F. CHANG'S CHINA BISTRO, the DEFENDANT,
Case No. 4:18-cv-00156-JLH (E.D. Ark.), the Hon. Judge J. Leon
Holmes entered an order on August 13, 2018, granting in part and
denying in part Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification
of:

   "all persons whom P.F. Chang's paid as tipped employees at any
   time since February 23, 2015".

The Court will not require P.F. Chang's to post a notice in the
workplace.  P.F. Chang's objects to including the caption and
styling of the case on the notice.  That objection is overruled.

The Court held that P.F. Chang's must provide plaintiff's counsel
in electronically readable or importable form the names and
addresses of all persons who were employed at the P.F. Chang's
location in Little Rock as servers from February 23, 2015, to date,
as well as the e-mail address or cell phone number for any
potential class member whose notice is returned for insufficient
address. Names and addresses must be provided within fourteen days
from the entry of this Opinion and Order. Before sending any
notice, plaintiff's counsel must submit the form of notice to
defense counsel who should review it to verify that the form
complies with this Order, the Court said.


PACIFIC GAS: Changes to Reminder Postcard in Greer Settlement OK'd
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BECKY GREER; TIMOTHY C. BUDNIK; ROSARIO SAENZ; IAN
CARTY, HALEY MARKWITH, MARIA GARCIA PESINA, Individually and as
"Class Representatives," Plaintiffs, v. PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC
COMPANY, IBEW LOCAL 1245, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-01066-EPG (E.D. Cal.), Magistrate
Judge Erica P. Grosjean of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California approved the proposed modifications to the
Reminder Postcard, set forth on pages 3-4 of the stipulation; and
the modifications to the Second and Final Notice of Class Action
Settlement, set forth in Exhibit A to the stipulation.

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

Becky Greer, Individually and as Class Representatives, Timothy C.
Budnik, Individually and as Class Respresentatives, Rosario Saenz,
Individually and as Class Representatives, Ian Carty, Individually
and as Class Relpresentatives & Haley Markwith, Plaintiffs,
represented by Charles Swanston, Fitzpatrick, Spini & Swanston,
Erin Tsitidis Huntington -- ehuntington@wjhattorneys.com -- Wanger
Jones Helsley PC, Lawrence J.H. Liu -- lliu@wjhattorneys.com --
Wanger Jones Helsley PC, Michael S. Helsley --
mhelsley@wjhattorneys.com -- Wanger Jones Helsley PC & Patrick D.
Toole -- ptoole@wjhattorneys.com -- Wanger Jones Helsley PC.

Maria Garcia Pesina, Plaintiff, represented by Charles Swanston,
Fitzpatrick, Spini & Swanston, Erin Tsitidis Huntington, Wanger
Jones Helsley PC, Michael S. Helsley, Wanger Jones Helsley PC &
Patrick D. Toole, Wanger Jones Helsley PC.

Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Defendant, represented by Robert
G. Hulteng -- rhulteng@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, Aurelio J.
Perez -- aperez@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C. & Joshua D.
Kienitz -- jkienitz@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson.

IBEW Local 1245, Defendant, represented by Eileen B. Goldsmith --
egoldsmith@altshulerberzon.com -- Altshuler Berzon LLP, Philip C.
Monrad -- pmonrad@leonardcarder.com -- Leonard Carder, LLP & Peder
J. Thoreen -- pthoreen@altshulerberzon.com -- Altshuler Berzon
LLP.

IBEW Local 1245 Union, Movant, represented by Alexander Jordan
Pacheco, IBEW Local Union 1245 & Philip C. Monrad , Leonard Carder,
LLP.


PANDORA MEDIA: Sheridan Suits in Cal. and N.J. Still Stayed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pandora Media, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the the class action
lawsuits filed by Arthur and Barbara Sheridan in the federal
district courts for the Northern District of California and the
District of New Jersey remains stayed.

Between September 14, 2015 and October 19, 2015, Arthur and Barbara
Sheridan filed separate class action suits against the Company in
the federal district courts for the Northern District of California
and the District of New Jersey.

The complaints allege a variety of violations of common law and
state copyright statutes, common law misappropriation, unfair
competition, conversion, unjust enrichment and violation of rights
of publicity arising from allegations that we owe royalties for the
public performance of sound recordings recorded prior to February
15, 1972. The actions in California and New Jersey are currently
stayed pending the Ninth Circuit's decision in Flo & Eddie, Inc. v.
Pandora Media, Inc.

Pandora Media, Inc. provides music discovery platform services in
the United States and internationally. The company offers streaming
radio and on-demand music services, which enable the listeners to
create personalized stations and playlists, as well as search and
play songs and albums on-demand. Pandora Media, Inc. was founded in
2000 and is headquartered in Oakland, California.


PANDORA MEDIA: Still Defends Flo & Eddie Inc. Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Pandora Media, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the company continues to
defend a class action suit filed by Flo & Eddie Inc.

On October 2, 2014, Flo & Eddie Inc. filed a class action suit
against Pandora Media Inc. in the federal district court for the
Central District of California.  The complaint alleges
misappropriation and conversion in connection with the public
performance of sound recordings recorded prior to February 15,
1972. On December 19, 2014, Pandora filed a motion to strike the
complaint pursuant to California's Anti-Strategic Lawsuit Against
Public Participation ("Anti-SLAPP") statute, which was appealed to
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The district court litigation
is currently stayed pending the Ninth Circuit's decision.

On December 8, 2016, the Ninth Circuit heard oral arguments on the
Anti-SLAPP motion. On March 15, 2017, the Ninth Circuit requested
certification to the California Supreme Court on the substantive
legal questions.

The California Supreme Court has accepted certification and has
received all written briefing on the case, but has not yet
scheduled oral argument.

Pandora Media, Inc. provides music discovery platform services in
the United States and internationally. The company offers streaming
radio and on-demand music services, which enable the listeners to
create personalized stations and playlists, as well as search and
play songs and albums on-demand. Pandora Media, Inc. was founded in
2000 and is headquartered in Oakland, California.


PANDORA MEDIA: Suit by Ponderosa Twins Plus One Still Stayed
------------------------------------------------------------
Pandora Media, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the class action suit
filed by Ponderosa Twins Plus One remains stayed pending the Ninth
Circuit's decision in Flo & Eddie, Inc. v. Pandora Media, Inc.

On September 7, 2016, Ponderosa Twins Plus One et al. filed a class
action suit against the Company alleging claims similar to that of
Flo & Eddie, Inc. v. Pandora Media Inc.

The action is currently stayed in the Northern District of
California pending the Ninth Circuit's decision in Flo & Eddie,
Inc. v. Pandora Media, Inc.

Pandora Media, Inc. provides music discovery platform services in
the United States and internationally. The company offers streaming
radio and on-demand music services, which enable the listeners to
create personalized stations and playlists, as well as search and
play songs and albums on-demand. Pandora Media, Inc. was founded in
2000 and is headquartered in Oakland, California.


PETRO RIVER: Appeal in Donelson-Friend Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------------
Petro River Oil Corp. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2018, for the
fiscal year ended April 30, 2018, that the appeal filed by the
plaintiffs in the case entitled, Martha Donelson and John Friend,
et al. v. United States of America, Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Indian Affairs and Devon Energy Production, LP, et al.,
is still pending.

On August 11, 2014, Martha Donelson and John Friend amended their
complaint in an existing lawsuit by filing a class action complaint
styled: Martha Donelson and John Friend, et al. v. United States of
America, Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs and
Devon Energy Production, LP, et al., Case No. 14-CV-316-JHP-TLW,
United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma
(the "Proceeding").

The plaintiffs added as defendants 27 specifically named operators,
including Spyglass, as well as all Osage County lessees and
operators who have obtained a concession agreement, lease or
drilling permit approved by the Bureau of Indian Affairs ("BIA") in
Osage County allegedly in violation of National Environmental
Policy Act ("NEPA"). Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that
the BIA improperly approved oil and gas leases, concession
agreements and drilling permits prior to August 12, 2014, without
satisfying the BIA's obligations under federal regulations or NEPA,
and seek a determination that such oil and gas leases, concession
agreements and drilling permits are void ab initio.

Plaintiffs are seeking damages against the defendants for alleged
nuisance, trespass, negligence and unjust enrichment. The potential
consequences of such complaint could jeopardize the corresponding
leases.
  
On October 7, 2014, Spyglass, along with other defendants, filed a
Motion to Dismiss the August 11, 2014 Amended Complaint on various
procedural and legal grounds. Following the significant briefing,
the Court, on March 31, 2016, granted the Motion to Dismiss as to
all defendants and entered a judgment in favor of the defendants
against the plaintiffs. On April 14, 2016, Spyglass with the other
defendants, filed a Motion seeking its attorneys' fees and costs.
The motion remains pending.

On April 28, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed three motions: a Motion to
Amend or Alter the Judgment; a Motion to Amend the Complaint; and a
Motion to Vacate Order. On November 23, 2016, the Court denied all
three of Plaintiffs' motions. On December 6, 2016, the Plaintiffs
filed a Notice of Appeal to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.

That appeal is pending as of as of the filing date of these
financial statements. There is no specific timeline by which the
Court of Appeals must render a ruling. Spyglass intends to continue
to vigorously defend its interest in this matter.

Petro River Oil Corp. is an independent energy company focused on
the exploration and development of conventional oil and gas assets
with low discovery and development costs, utilizing modern
technology. The company is based in New York, New York.


PIER 1 IMPORTS: Court Dismisses MERS' Securities Fraud Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Texas, Dallas Division, granted Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff Municipal Employees' Retirement System of Michigan's
(MERS) Amended Class Action Complaint in the case captioned Town of
Davie Police Pension Plan, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Pier 1 Imports, Inc., Alexander
W. Smith, and Charles H. Turner, Defendants, Case No.
3:15-cv-03415-S (N.D. Tex.).

This case is a putative class action alleging claims for securities
fraud, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act), and Securities Exchange
Commission (SEC) Rule 10b-5 promulgated there-under.  MERS asserts
two claims in the Amended Complaint. Count I alleges that the
Defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule
10b-5. Count II alleges that Smith and Turner are liable as control
persons under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

Rule 9(b) Standard

Because the Amended Complaint alleges fraud, MERS must plead the
elements of its claims with the heightened particularity required
by Rule 9(b). At a minimum, Rule 9(b) requires allegations of the
particulars of time, place, and contents of the false
representations, as well as the identity of the person making the
misrepresentation and what he obtained thereby.
Violations of the Exchange Act

To state a claim under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, a plaintiff
must allege, in connection with the purchase or sale of securities,
(1) a misstatement or an omission (2) of material fact (3) made
with scienter (4) on which the plaintiff relied (5) that
proximately caused the plaintiff's injury.

The Court Grants the Motion to Dismiss

The Defendants move to dismiss the Amended Complaint on the
following grounds: (1) the Amended Complaint does not adequately
plead that Defendants made any misleading statements or omissions,
and (2) the Amended Complaint does not plead the requisite strong
inference of scienter.

The Court found that MERS failed to adequately plead that Smith or
Turner had a motive to mislead the public during the Class Period.
A lack of motive is not fatal to a claim, but where a plaintiff has
not alleged a clear motive for the alleged misstatements or
omissions, the strength of the circumstantial evidence of scienter
must be correspondingly greater.
The actions taken by Defendants during the Class Period seriously
undercut a strong inference of scienter. First, the Court found
that the fact that Defendants repeatedly disclosed throughout the
Class Period Pier 1's increasing inventory, disappointing sales,
and the risk of markdowns seriously weakens MERS's argument that
Defendants acted with the requisite scienter. The Court reasoned,
it would have made little sense for the Defendants to
simultaneously disclose to, and attempt to mislead, the public
about Pier 1's inventory sales, and the risk of markdowns.

The Court concluded, a much more reasonable explanation is that
although the Defendants likely realized that Pier 1's inventory was
not tracking sales, they expected that Pier 1 would be able to sell
down its excess inventory in future quarters without having to mark
the inventory down at greater than normal levels. Second, the Court
found that the fact that Pier 1 continued to purchase inventory
throughout the Class Period undercuts a strong inference of
scienter. The Court reasoned, if the Defendants had known that Pier
1's inventory was not 'clean,' or that there was a strong
likelihood that its existing inventory would have to be marked down
more than usual in order to sell it, they would have had no reason
to exacerbate the problem by adding more inventory. The Court
concluded, the more plausible and compelling inference is that
Defendants actually believed at the time the purchases were made
that the inventory could be sold.

In sum, the Court held that MERS alleged fraud by hindsight. The
Fifth Circuit defines fraud by hindsight as a case where a
plaintiff alleges that the fact that something turned out badly
must mean defendant knew earlier that it would turn out badly or a
case where there is no contemporaneous evidence at all that
defendants knew earlier what they chose not to disclose until
later.

The Amended Complaint Does Not Support a Strong Inference of
Scienter

During the Class Period, Pier 1 suffered from growing inventory,
disappointing sales, and increasing costs and expenses --
ultimately resulting in its stock price plummeting from $16.97 per
share to $4.75 per share and the departure of its CEO and CFO. MERS
alleges that Pier 1, Smith, and Turner committed securities fraud,
with severe recklessness, by falsely and misleadingly
misrepresenting to investors the true state of affairs at Pier 1.
The Court disagrees. A more plausible explanation is that after
several years of disappointing sales and huge losses, Pier 1 was
encouraged by a new CEO and an improving financial situation. As a
result, Pier 1 embarked on what turned out to be an ambitious
online initiative.

The Company expanded its inventory and increased its spending to
store, handle, and transport the growing inventory, plausibly
believing at the time that Pier 1 had a healthy mix of inventory to
support the anticipated increase in sales. In reality, Pier 1
apparently failed to forecast adequately revenue and expenses.
Sales targets may have been too aggressive; the transition to
online seemingly was not well executed; unplanned supply chain
expenses added up; and inventory levels got out of whack.Arguably,
this may be a case of poor business judgment on the part of Pier 1,
Smith, and Turner. However, the Court finds that MERS has failed to
allege sufficiently that Defendants committed securities fraud when
they with severe recklessness falsely and misleadingly
misrepresented to investors the true state of affairs at Pier 1.

Accordingly, the Court grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss
MERS's Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claims. Because MERS has failed
to plausibly plead a primary violation under Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, the Court also dismisses MERS's
Section 20(a) claim against Smith and Turner.

The Motion to Dismiss is granted.

The Amended Complaint contains more specific and detailed
allegations about the alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5; however, those
allegations are insufficient to establish a cogent and compelling
inference of scienter. The Amended Complaint does not meet the
rigorous pleading requirements of the PSLRA. Because MERS has
amended twice already, and further amendment would be futile,
MERS's claims are dismissed with prejudice and without leave to
amend

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 25, 2018 Memorandum
Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y8bkha2f
from Leagle.com.

Town of Davie Police Pension Plan, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by James M.
McCown, Nesbitt Vassar & McCown LLP, Adam H. Wierzbowski --
adam@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP, pro
hac vice, Angus Ni -- Angus.Ni@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein Litowitz
Berger & Grossmann LLP, pro hac vice, Avi Josefson --
avi@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP, pro
hac vice, David Folsom , Jackson Walker LLP, David T. Moran ,
Jackson Walker LLP, Gerald H. Silk, Bernstein Litowitz Berger &
Grossman LLP, pro hac vice, Michael D. Blatchley --
michaelb@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP,
pro hac vice & Salvatore J. Graziano -- sgraziano@blbglaw.com --
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, pro hac vice.

Pier 1 Imports Inc, Alexander W. Smith & Charles H. Turner,
Defendants, represented by Stephen B. Crain --
stephen.crain@bracewell.com -- Bracewell & Giuliani, Bradley J.
Benoit -- brad.benoit@bracewell.com -- Bracewell & Giuliani &
Joseph M. Cox -- joe.cox@bracewell.com -- Bracewell & Giuliani
LLP.

Kathleen D. Kenney, James Greenshields & Janis Su, Movants,
represented by William B. Federman -- WBF@FEDERMANLAW.COM --
Federman & Sherwood.


PIONEER CREDIT: Henderson Seeks to Certify Two Classes
------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled WILLIE HENDERSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF
OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v. GENERAL REVENUE
CORPORATION, And PIONEER CREDIT RECOVERY, INC., the Defendants,
Case No. 7:17-cv-00292-GEC-RSB (W.D. Va.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court for an order certifying these classes:

CLASS A

   "all natural persons who are residents of Virginia who are
   similarly situated to the Plaintiff in that, within one year
   of the commencement of this action and continuing to the date
   that an order is entered certifying this class, GRC sent them
   a letter"; and

CLASS B

   "all natural persons who are residents of Virginia who are
   similarly situated to the Plaintiff in that, within one year
   of the commencement of this action and continuing to the date
   that an order is entered certifying this class, Defendant
   Pioneer sent them a letter".

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          John P. Fishwick, Jr., Esq.
          Monica L. Mroz, Esq.
          Fishwick & Associates PLC
          30 Franklin Road, Suite 700
          Roanoke, VA 24011
          Telephone: (540) 345 5890
          Facsimile: (540) 345 5789
          E-mail: John.fishwick@fishwickandassociates.com
                  Monica.mroz@fishwickandassociates.com

Attorneys for Defendant:

          Joshua F. P. Long, Esq.
          F. Elizabeth Burgin Waller, Esq.
          WOODS ROGERS PLC
          10 South Jefferson Street, Suite 1400
          P.O. Box 14125
          Roanoke, VA 24038
          E-mail: jlong@woodsrogers.com
                  bwaller@woodsrogers.com

               - and -

          Lisa M. Simonetti, Esq.
          VEDDER PRICE, LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 1900
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          E-mail: lsimonetti@vedderprice.com


PIONEER NATURAL: Partial Summary Judgment Bid in ERISA Suit OK'd
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, WILLIAM M. BARRETT, individually and as the
representative of a class consisting of the participants and
beneficiaries of the Pioneer Natural Resources USA, Inc. 401(K) and
Matching Plan, Plaintiff, v. PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES USA, INC.;
THE PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES USA INC. 401(K) AND MATCHING PLAN
COMMITTEE; THERESA A. FAIRBROOK; TODD C. ABBOTT; W. PAUL McDONALD;
MARGARET M. MONTEMAYOR; THOMAS J. MURPHY; CHRISTOPHER M. PAULSEN;
KERRY D. SCOTT; SUSAN A. SPRATLEN; LARRY N. PAULSEN; MARK KLEINMAN;
and RICHARD P. DEALY, Defendants, Civil Action No.
17-cv-1579-WMJ-NYW (D. Colo.), Judge William J. Martinez of the
U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado (i) granted the
Defendants' Early Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; and (ii)
denied as moot the Defendants' Motion to Strike.

The Plaintiff sues various parties involved in the management of a
retirement plan in which he previously participated.  Barrett
argues that the Defendants breached the fiduciary duties
established by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. Sections 1001 et seq.

The Plaintiff participated in the Pioneer Natural Resources USA,
Inc. 401(k) and Matching Plan from 2011 until September 2017.  With
over $665 million in assets, the Plan was large enough to possess
the bargaining power needed to negotiate low administrative and
management fees, and to negotiate for participation in mutual funds
at lower expense ratios.  The Plan, however, did not take advantage
of this bargaining power.  It instead continued to pay management
fees to its designated recordkeeper (Vanguard Group Inc.) that were
allegedly well above the industry average.

In addition, the Plan imprudently gave its participants the choice
between two "short-term reserve" funds, the "Retirement Trust" and
the "Money Market Fund."  The Retirement Trust averaged returns of
2% per year over five years while the Money Market Fund averaged
returns of 0.12% per year over the same time period.  Offering both
funds provided no benefit to the Plan participants, but instead
potentially confused and misled the Plan participants.

The Defendants recognized this issue as early as March 2013, but
did not remove theMoney Market Fund as an investment option until
2016.  As a result, many Plan participants who were eligible to
invest in the Retirement Trust instead invested in the Money Market
Fund, which cost them an annual investment return of almost 2%.

Based on these allegations, the Plaintiff asserts four claims for
relief.  Claim 1 asserts breaches of the duties of loyalty and
prudence based on the unreasonably high recordkeeping fees.  Claim
2 asserts breaches of the same duties for maintaining the Money
Market Fund as a Plan option for three years after it became clear
that it was an imprudent investment choice.  Claim 3 is closely
related to Claim 1 and asserts a violation of ERISA regulations
regarding disclosure of administrative fees.  Claim 4 accuses
Defendant Pioneer Natural of failure to monitor the fiduciaries
responsible for administering the Plan.

The Plaintiff seeks to assert these claims on a class-action basis.
He proposes two separate classes:

     (1) Administrative Fee Class and Investment Management Fee
Class: All participants and beneficiaries of the Pioneer Natural
Resources USA, Inc. 401(K) and Matching Plan from July 1, 2011
through the date of judgment, excluding the Defendants.

     (2) Money Market Fund Class: All participants and
beneficiaries of the Pioneer Natural Resources USA, Inc. 401(K) and
Matching Plan who, from July 1, 2011 through the date of judgment,
excluding the Defendants, invested in the Vanguard Money Market
Fund.

Currently before the Court is the Defendants' Early Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment, arguing that (1) the Plaintiff lacks
Article III standing to assert one of the fiduciary breaches
alleged in his complaint; and (2) even if standing exists, the
claim fails on its merits.  Also before the Court is the
Defendants' Motion to Strike, which relates to what they
characterize as a surreply filed by the Plaintiff, in opposition to
their second summary judgment argument.

The Defendants argue that the Plaintiff has no standing to assert
Claim 2, concerning the Money Market Fund, because he never
invested in that fund and cannot invest in it in the future because
the Plan no longer offers it.

Judge Martinez recognizes that the Plaintiff recently filed a
motion to add an additional Plaintiff whose presence, the Plaintiff
argues, would cure the standing defect.  That motion is not yet
ripe and the Order is not meant to prejudge the merits of the
Plaintiff's most recent motion.

To the extent the Plaintiff asserts (or his cited cases stand for)
the proposition that any breach of an ERISA-imposed duty gives
injured plan participants standing to sue for that breach and any
others they can think of, regardless of whether the other breaches
injured the participants, Judge Martinez disagrees.  He says
"injury in fact" is part of the "irreducible constitutional
minimum" of Article III standing.  

He says the Plaintiff does not allege a single practice as to the
Money Market Fund that injured both him and Money Market Fund
investors.  The Plaintiff's own recognition of this deficiency is
best demonstrated by his request for a separate class definition
specific to those investors.  He accordingly finds that the
Plaintiff has failed to carry his burden to demonstrate Article III
standing, and so Claim 2 must be dismissed without prejudice for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

For the reasons set forth, Judge Martinez granted the Defendants'
Early Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.  He dismissed without
prejudice Claim 2 of the First Amended Complaint for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction.  He denied as moot the Defendants'
Motion to Strike.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 29, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/U89uZN from Leagle.com.

William M. Barrett, Individually and as the representative of a
class consisting of the participants and beneficiaries of the
Pioneer Natural Resources USA, Inc. 401(K) and Matching Plan,
Plaintiff, represented by Franklin David Azar -- azarf@fdazar.com
-- Franklin D. Azar & Associates, PC, Hugh Zachary Balkin --
balkinz@fdazar.com -- Franklin D. Azar & Associates, PC, Keith
Richard Scranton, Franklin D. Azar & Associates, PC & Paul R. Wood
-- woodp@fdzar.com -- Franklin D. Azar & Associates, PC.

Pioneer Natural Resources USA, Inc. & Pioneer Natural Resources USA
Inc. 401(K) and Matching Plan Committee, The, Defendants,
represented by Catalina Joos Vergara -- cvergara@omm.com --
O'Melveny & Myers, LLP, Michael James Hofmann --
Michael.Hofmann@bclplaw.com -- Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP &
Shannon M. Barrett -- sbarrett@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers, LLP.

Theresa A. Fairbrook, Todd C. Abbott, W. Paul McDonald, Margaret M.
Montemayor, Thomas J. Murphy, Christopher M. Paulsen, Kerry D.
Scott, Susan A. Spratlen, Larry N. Paulsen, Mark Kleinman & Richard
P. Dealy, Defendants, represented by Catalina Joos Vergara,
O'Melveny & Myers, LLP.


PLAIN GREEN: Great Plains Appeals Ruling in "Gibbs" to 4th Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Great Plains Lending, LLC, filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit styled Darlene Gibbs, et al. v. Great Plains
Lending, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-00495-MHL, in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia at Richmond.

The lawsuit is brought pursuant to the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
was filed on July 11, 2017, and assigned to the Hon. M. Hannah
Lauck.

The appellate case is captioned as Darlene Gibbs v. Great Plains
Lending, LLC, Case No. 18-1907, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

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

   -- Opening Brief and Appendix are due on September 18, 2018;
      and

   -- Response Brief is due on October 18, 2018.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees DARLENE GIBBS, STEPHANIE EDWARDS, LULA
WILLIAMS, PATRICK INSCHO and LAWRENCE MWETHUKU, on behalf of
themselves and all individuals similarly situated, are represented
by:

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

               - and -

          Andrew Joseph Guzzo, Esq.
          Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq.
          Casey Shannon Nash, Esq.
          KELLY & CRANDALL PLC
          3925 Chain Bridge Road
          Fairfax, VA 22030
          Telephone: (703) 424-7570
          Facsimile: (703) 591-0167
          E-mail: aguzzo@kellyandcrandall.com
                  kkelly@kellyandcrandall.com
                  casey@kellyandcrandall.com

               - and -

          James Wilson Speer, Esq.
          VIRGINIA POVERTY LAW CENTER
          919 East Main Street
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 782-9430
          Facsimile: (804) 649-0974
          E-mail: jay@vplc.org

Defendant-Appellant GREAT PLAINS LENDING, LLC, is represented by:

          Saba Bazzazieh, Esq.
          ROSETTE, LLP
          1100 H Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 652-0579
          E-mail: sbazzazieh@rosettelaw.com

               - and -

          Charles Kalman Seyfarth, Esq.
          Elizabeth Scott Turner, Esq.
          O'HAGAN MEYER PLLC
          411 East Franklin Street
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 403-7137
          E-mail: cseyfarth@ohaganspencer.com
                  eturner@ohaganmeyer.com

Defendant PLAIN GREEN, LLC, is represented by:

          Matthew Donald Foster, Esq.
          PEPPER & HAMILTON, LLP
          Hamilton Square
          600 14th Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20005-2004
          Telephone: (202) 220-1235
          E-mail: fosterm@pepperlaw.com

               - and -

          Francis Anthony Weber, Esq.
          Richard Joseph Zack, Esq.
          PEPPER & HAMILTON, LLP
          3000 2 Logan Square
          18th & Arch Streets
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-0000
          Telephone: (215) 981-4000
          E-mail: weberf@pepperlaw.com
                  zackr@pepperlaw.com

               - and -

          Joseph Fredericks Halloran, Esq.
          Jeffrey Kyle Holth, Esq.
          JACOBSON, MAGNUSON, ANDERSON & HOLLARAN, P.C.
          180 East 5th Street
          St. Paul, MN 55101
          Telephone: (651) 644-4710
          E-mail: jhalloran@thejacobsonlawgroup.com
                  jholth@thejacobsonlawgroup.com


PLAIN GREEN: Seeks 4th Circuit Review of Ruling in "Gibbs" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Plain Green, LLC, filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit titled Darlene Gibbs, et al. v. Great Plains Lending,
LLC, et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-00495-MHL, in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia at Richmond.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
was filed on July 11, 2017, and assigned to the Hon. M. Hannah
Lauck.

The appellate case is captioned as Darlene Gibbs v. Plain Green,
LLC, Case No. 18-1908, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Fourth Circuit.

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

   -- Opening Brief and Appendix are due on September 18, 2018;
      and

   -- Response Brief is due on October 18, 2018.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees DARLENE GIBBS, STEPHANIE EDWARDS, LULA
WILLIAMS, PATRICK INSCHO and LAWRENCE MWETHUKU, on behalf of
themselves and all individuals similarly situated, are represented
by:

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

               - and -

          Andrew Joseph Guzzo, Esq.
          Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq.
          Casey Shannon Nash, Esq.
          KELLY & CRANDALL PLC
          3925 Chain Bridge Road
          Fairfax, VA 22030
          Telephone: (703) 424-7570
          Facsimile: (703) 591-0167
          E-mail: aguzzo@kellyandcrandall.com
                  kkelly@kellyandcrandall.com
                  casey@kellyandcrandall.com

               - and -

          James Wilson Speer, Esq.
          VIRGINIA POVERTY LAW CENTER
          919 East Main Street
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 782-9430
          Facsimile: (804) 649-0974
          E-mail: jay@vplc.org

Defendant-Appellant PLAIN GREEN, LLC, is represented by:

          Matthew Donald Foster, Esq.
          PEPPER & HAMILTON, LLP
          Hamilton Square
          600 14th Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20005-2004
          Telephone: (202) 220-1235
          E-mail: fosterm@pepperlaw.com

               - and -

          Francis Anthony Weber, Esq.
          Richard Joseph Zack, Esq.
          PEPPER & HAMILTON, LLP
          3000 2 Logan Square
          18th & Arch Streets
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-0000
          Telephone: (215) 981-4000
          E-mail: weberf@pepperlaw.com
                  zackr@pepperlaw.com

               - and -

          Joseph Fredericks Halloran, Esq.
          Jeffrey Kyle Holth, Esq.
          JACOBSON, MAGNUSON, ANDERSON & HOLLARAN, P.C.
          180 East 5th Street
          St. Paul, MN 55101
          Telephone: (651) 644-4710
          E-mail: jhalloran@thejacobsonlawgroup.com
                  jholth@thejacobsonlawgroup.com

Defendant GREAT PLAINS LENDING, LLC, is represented by:

          Saba Bazzazieh, Esq.
          ROSETTE, LLP
          1100 H Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 652-0579
          E-mail: sbazzazieh@rosettelaw.com

               - and -

          Charles Kalman Seyfarth, Esq.
          Elizabeth Scott Turner, Esq.
          O'HAGAN MEYER PLLC
          411 East Franklin Street
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 403-7137
          E-mail: cseyfarth@ohaganspencer.com
                  eturner@ohaganmeyer.com


PMP SUCCESSOR: Thomas May Sues over Background Checks
-----------------------------------------------------
THOMAS MAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PMP SUCCESSOR, LLC f/k/a PARAMEDICS PLUS,
L.L.C., Defendant, Case No. 8:18-cv-01773-MSS-TGW (Fla. Cir.,
Pinellas Cty., July 20, 2018) alleges violations of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant violated
the Fair Credit Reporting Act when it conducted background checks
on its job applicants as part of a standard screening process. In
addition, the Defendant also conducts background checks on existing
employees from time-to-time during the course of their employment.

Paramedics Plus, L.L.C. provides emergency ambulance services in
Tulsa and Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; Pinellas County, Florida; and
Fort Wayne, Indiana. The company was founded in 1998 and is based
in Tyler, Texas. Paramedics Plus, L.L.C. was a former subsidiary of
ETMC Urology Institute. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marc R. Edelman, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          201 N. Franklin Street, Suite 700
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 223-5505
          Facsimile: (813) 257-0572
          E-mail: MEdelman@forthepeople.com

               - and –

          C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          P.O. Box 4979
          Orlando, FL 33802
          Telephone: (407) 420-1414
          Facsimile: (407) 245-3401
          E-mail: RMorgan@forthepeople.com

               - and –

          Andrew Frisch, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          600 North Pine Island Road, Suite 400
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Facsimile: (954) 327-3013
          E-mail: AFrisch@forthepeople.com


POPSUGAR INC: Removes O'Brien Suit to N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
The Defendants in the case of CATHY O'BRIEN and LAURA ADNEY,
individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. POPSUGAR INC.; and POPSUGAR MEDIA INC.,
Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara (Case No.
18-CV-329645) to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California on July 20, 2018, and assigned Case No.
3:18-cv-04405-JSC (N.D. Cal., July 20, 2018).

PopSugar, Inc. operates a lifestyle brand for women. PopSugar, Inc.
was formerly known as Sugar, Inc. and changed its name in February
2013. The company was founded in 2006 and is headquartered in San
Francisco, California with additional offices in Chicago, Los
Angeles, New York, San Francisco, and London. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael L. Schrag, Esq.
          Steve Lopez, Esq.
          GIBBS LAW GROUP LLC
          505 14th Street, Suite 1110
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 350-9700
          Facsimile: (510) 350-9701
          E-mail: mls@classlawgroup.com
                  sal@classlawgroup.com

               - and –

          Hirlye R. Lutz, III, Esq.
          F. Jerome Tapley, Esq.
          Adam W. Pittman, Esq.
          Brett C. Thompson, Esq.
          CORY WATSON, P.C.
          2131 Magnolia Avenue South
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Telephone: (205) 328-2200
          Facsimile: (205) 324-7896

The Defendants are represented by:

          Benedict Y. Hur, Esq.
          Travis S. Silva, Esq.
          KEKER VAN NEST & PETERS LLP
          633 Battery St.
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 391-5400
          Facsimile: (415) 397-7188


PREMIER SECURITY: Underpays Service Technicians, Champ Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
JEREMY CHAMP, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PREMIER SECURITY GROUP INC.; and DOES 1-
100, Defendants, Case No. 18CECG02714 (Cal. Super., Fresno Cty.,
July 23, 2018) is an action against the Defendants for unpaid
regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal
and rest periods.

The Plaintiff Champ was employed by the Defendant as service and
installation technician from July 2014 to July 21, 2017.

Premier Security Group, Inc. is a diversified physical security
company located in the heart of California. The Company offers a
wide range of services from design and installation to maintenance
for commercial electronic security, banking equipment, cash storage
equipment and locksmithing. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Monrae L. English, Esq.
          WILD CARTER & TIPTON
          246 West Shaw
          Fresno, CA 93704
          Telephone: (559) 224-2131
          Facsimile: (559)224-8562
          E-mail: menglish@wctlaw.com


PROTHENA CORP: Voluntary Dismissal Notice of James Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP disclosed that a notice of voluntary
dismissal was filed in the securities class action entitled James
v. Prothena Corporation (Case No. 3:18-cv-04261) in the USDC for
the Northern District of California ("James Action"). As a result,
potential class members should disregard Levi & Korsinsky's August
6, 2018 notice that announced the pendency of the James Action and
its corresponding deadline for requesting appointment as lead
plaintiff.

Investors should note that the dismissal of the James Action does
not affect the pendency of a similar securities class action
entitled Granite Point Capital v. Prothena Corporation Plc (Case
No. 1:18-cv-06425) in the USDC for Southern District of New York
(the "Granite Point Action"). The Granite Point Action continues to
seek recovery on behalf of a proposed class of investors who
purchased or otherwise acquired Prothena's common stock between
October 15, 2015 and April 20, 2018, inclusive.

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


QUALITY CUSTOM: Underpays Warehouse Workers, Hession Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
DREW HESSION, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. QUALITY CUSTOM DISTRIBUTION SERVICES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01867-KLM (D. Colo., July 23, 2018) is
an action against the Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime
hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods.

Mr. Hession was employed by the Defendants as warehouse worker from
November 2017 to April 2018.

Quality Custom Distribution Services, Inc. operates as a
diversified supplier to the quick service restaurant industry in
the United States. The company was founded in 2006 and is based in
Irvine, California with distribution centers throughout the United
States. Quality Custom Distribution Services, Inc. operates as a
subsidiary of Golden State Foods Corporation. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David H. Miller, Esq.
          Adam M. Harrison, Esq.
          THE SAWAYA & MILLER LAW FIRM
          1600 Ogden Street
          Denver, CO 80218
          Telephone: (303) 839-1650
          Facsimile: (720) 235-4380
          E-mail: DMiller@sawayalaw.com
                  AHarrison@sawayalaw.com


QUIXOTE VENTURES: Superior Court Appeal Filed in Klein Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Ellen Klein, Barbara Jones, Elizabeth Stankovics and
Dawn Rowlands filed an appeal from an order entered on July 16,
2018, in their lawsuit entitled Ellen Klein, Barbara Jones,
Elizabeth Stankovics and Dawn Rowlands, individualy, and all others
similarly situated v. Quixote Ventures, LLP, in the Northampton
County Court of Common Pleas.

The appellate case is captioned as Klein, E. v. Quixote Ventures,
LLP, Case No. 2258-EDA-2018, in the Superior Court of
Pennsylvania.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants Ellen Klein, Barbara Jones, Elizabeth
Stankovics and Dawn Rowlands are represented by:

          James W. Sutton, III, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JAMES W. SUTTON III
          1014 Millcreek Drive
          Feasterville Trevose, PA 19053-7377
          Telephone: (215) 364-7900
          E-mail: jsutton@vslaws.com

Defendant-Appellee Quixote Ventures, LLP, is represented by:

          Devin John Chwastyk, Esq.
          MCNEES WALLACE & NURICK LLC
          PO Box 1166
          Harrisburg, PA 17108-1166
          Telephone: (717) 237-5482
          E-mail: dchwastyk@mwn.com

               - and -

          Daniel E. Cohen, Esq.
          SEIDEL, COHEN, HOF & REID, LLC
          3101 Emrick Blvd., Suite 205
          Bethlehem, PA 18020-8037
          Telephone: (610) 258-6184
          E-mail: dec@schrlaw.com


RECEIVABLE MGMT: Bid to Dismiss P. Maniaci's Suit Denied
--------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge William E. Duffin of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Wisconsin denied RMS' motion to dismiss the
case, PATRICK MANIACI, Plaintiff, v. THE RECEIVABLE MANAGEMENT
SERVICES CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 18-CV-200 (E.D. Wis.).

On Feb. 5, 2018, Maniaci filed a proposed class action complaint
alleging that the Defendant, which does business as RMS, violated
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") and the Wisconsin
Consumer Act ("WCA").  RMS moved to dismiss the complaint for
failure to state a claim.  Maniaci filed an amended complaint, and
RMS again moved to dismiss.

According to the amended complaint, RMS sent Maniaci a debt
collection letter.  The letter contained the FDCPA validation
notice.  Maniaci alleges that the letter violated the FDCPA in a
couple of different ways.  First, nothing in 15 U.S.C. Section
1692g(a) requires that the 'claim number' be included in the
written dispute.  Second, Maniaci alleges that an unsophisticated
consumer would understand the letter's statement that he would be
receiving a call from an RMS representative to mean that RMS would
be calling the consumer within a few days or weeks, and certainly
within the next thirty days after receiving the letter.  Maniaci
alleges these statements violated both the FDCPA and the WCA.

In moving to dismiss the complaint, RMS contends that the statement
that the consumer should include their claim number is not an added
requirement, but instead a way to ensure that RMS is able to
efficiently verify the debt by including identifying information on
the dispute.  It argues that asking the consumer to refer to the
claim number in all communications is not misleading or confusing,
nor does it overshadow the consumer's right to dispute the debt.

RMS also contends that any unsophisticated consumer would
understand the statement that he would be receiving a call from RMS
(if he had not already done so) to bring the matter to resolution
to mean he still has the right to dispute the debt in writing
because the validation notice is still included for the consumer.
It argues that the subject sentence does not overshadow the
remainder of the notice, which clearly and unequivocally directs
the consumer to provide the dispute in writing.

In opposing the motion, Maniaci contends that the unsophisticated
consumer would understand the letter's statement that it was
important that he refer to the claim number in all communications
to mean that RMS would not process the consumer's dispute unless he
provided his claim number when he disputed the debt.  He also
argues that the statement that the consumer should expect a phone
call from RMS violates the FDCPA because it contradicts,
overshadows and confuses the disclosure that the debt collector
will assume the debt is valid unless the consumer within thirty
days from receipt of the notice notifies the debt collector in
writing that the debt is disputed.

Magistrate Judge Duffin denied the RMS motion to dismiss is denied.
He finds he must conclude that it is plausible that a significant
fraction of the population would find the letter confusing with
regard to whether the consumer can wait until he is contacted by
RMS to dispute the debt, or whether he needed to send something in
writing within 30 days if not yet contacted by RMS.  As such, the
amended complaint states a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face that the notice at issue violates section 1692g(b)'s
prohibition of inconsistent or overshadowing language.

For the same reason, the amended complaint states a claim to relief
that is plausible on its face that the notice at issue violates the
WCA.  

Given this conclusion, Magistrate Judge Duffin holds that it is
unnecessary to consider the amended complaint's allegation that the
notice also violated the FDCPA through its inclusion of the
statement that it was important that the consumer refer to the
claim number in all communications.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 29, 2018 Decision and Order is
available at https://is.gd/bXG2kf from Leagle.com.

Patrick Maniaci, Plaintiff, represented by Ben J. Slatky --
bslatky@ademilaw.com -- Ademi & O'Reilly LLP, Jesse Fruchter --
jfruchter@ademilaw.com -- Ademi & O'Reilly LLP, Mark A. Eldridge --
meldridge@ademilaw.com -- Ademi & O'Reilly LLP & John D. Blythin --
jblythin@ademilaw.com -- Ademi & O'Reilly LLP.

The Receivable Management Services Corporation, d/b/a RMS,
Defendant, represented by Alyssa A. Johnson --
ajohnson@hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP & David M.
Schultz -- dschultz@hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP.


RENTOKIL NORTH: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Flores Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
ANDRES FLORES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RENTOKIL NORTH AMERICA, INC., and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Case No. BC713774 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles
Cty., July 20, 2018) is an action against the Defendants for
failure to pay wages owed, provide meal periods and rest periods.

Mr. Flores was employed by the Defendants as non-exempt employee in
Los Angeles, California.

Rentokil North America, Inc. is a Pennsylvania corporation
headquartered in Wyomissing, Pennsylvania. The Company is engaged
in the business of providing pest management and pest control
services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel J. Palay, Esq.
          Brian D. Hefelfinger, Esq.
          PALAY HEFELFINGER, APC
          1484 E. Main Street, Suite 105B
          Ventura, CA 93001
          Telephone: (805) 628-8220
          Facsimile: (805) 765-8600


RESPOND POWER: 3rd Circuit Appeal Filed in Gillis Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Barbara Gillis, Thomas Gillis, Kimberly A. McClelland
and Scott McClelland filed an appeal from a court ruling in their
lawsuit entitled Barbara Gillis, et al. v. Respond Power LLC, Case
No. 2-14-cv-03856, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on August 13, 2018, the
District Court granted the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Class
Claim in the case.

Counts I and II of the Plaintiffs' First Amended Class Action
Complaint are dismissed with prejudice.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 16, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y7fujgbh from Leagle.com.

The appellate case is captioned as Barbara Gillis, et al. v.
Respond Power LLC, Case No. 18-2765, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants BARBARA GILLIS, THOMAS GILLIS, SCOTT
MCCLELLAND and KIMBERLY A. MCCLELLAND, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF
OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, are represented by:

          Michael D. Donovan, Esq.
          DONOVAN LITIGATION GROUP
          15 St. Asaph's Road
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
          Telephone: (610) 647-6067

               - and -

          Patrick Howard, Esq.
          Charles J. Kocher, Esq.
          Simon B. Paris, Esq.
          SALTZ MONGELUZZI BARRETT & BENDESKY
          One Liberty Place, 52nd Floor
          1650 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 575-3895
          E-mail: phoward@smbb.com
                  ckocher@smbb.com
                  sparis@smbb.com

Defendant-Appellee RESPOND POWER LLC is represented by:

          David R. King, Esq.
          Ronald J. Levine, Esq.
          Kathleen H. Robinson, Esq.
          HERRICK FEINSTEIN LLP
          One Gateway Center, 22nd Floor
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 274-2002
          E-mail: dking@herrick.com
                  rlevine@herrick.com
                  hrobinson@herrick.com


RESTORATION ROBOTICS: Faces 3 Class Suits in California
-------------------------------------------------------
Restoration Robotics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the company is facing
three putative class action lawsuits in California.

On May 23, 2018 a putative shareholder class action complaint was
filed in Superior Court of the State of California, County of San
Mateo, captioned Wong v. Restoration Robotics, Inc., et al., No.
18CIV02609.

On June 21, 2018 and June 28, 2018, two putative class action
complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, captioned Guerrini v. Restoration
Robotics, Inc., et al., No. 5:18-cv-03712-EJD and Yzeiraj v.
Restoration Robotics, Inc., et al., No. 5:18-cv-03883-BLF,
respectively.

Restoration Robotics said, "The Wong and Guerrini complaints name
us as defendants, and certain of our current and former executive
officers and directors, certain of our venture capital investors
and the underwriters in our IPO. The Yzeiraj complaint names us as
defendants and certain of our current and former executive officers
and directors."

The Wong complaint asserts claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933, or the Securities Act. The
Guerrini and Yzeiraj complaints assert claims under Sections 11 and
15 of the Securities Act.

The complaints all allege, among other things, that the company's
Registration Statement filed with the SEC on September 1, 2017 and
the Prospectus filed with the SEC on October 13, 2017 in connection
with our IPO were inaccurate and misleading, contained untrue
statements of material facts, omitted to state other facts
necessary to make the statements made not misleading and omitted to
state material facts required to be stated therein.

The complaints seek unspecified money damages, other equitable
relief and attorneys' fees and costs.

Restoration Robotics said, "We believe that these lawsuits are
without merit and we intend to vigorously defend against these
claims."

Restoration Robotics, Inc., a medical device company, develops and
commercializes image-guided robotic systems in the United States
and internationally.  The company was founded in 2002 and is
headquartered in San Jose, California.


RETRIEVAL-MASTERS: Bogacki Files Placeholder Bid to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned CHERY BOGACKI, as Representative of the
Estate of GEORGE BOGACKI, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. RETRIEVAL-MASTERS CREDITORS
BUREAU INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-01254-JPS (E.D.
Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order certifying
classes, appointing the Plaintiff as class representative, and
appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as Class Counsel, and for such
other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate.

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

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

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          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


RS&H INC: 11th Cir. Appeal Filed in Jones Case
----------------------------------------------
Bradley Jones filed an appeal from a court decision in the case
captioned, Bradley Jones v. RS&H, Inc., Case No.
8:17-cv-00054-SCB-JSS (M.D. Fla., Jan. 6, 2017). The appeal was
filed on July 20, 2018 before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit, and captioned as, Bradley Jones v. RS&H, Inc.,
Case No. 18-13068 (11th Cir.).

On January 6, 2017, Plaintiff filed an age discrimination complaint
under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Florida
Civil Rights Act.  Jones alleges that he worked for Defendant RS&H,
Inc. from August 5, 1991 through June 12, 2015 when he was
terminated.  When Defendant terminated Plaintiff, Defendant stated
that his termination was part of a reduction-in-force.  Defendant
terminated 23 employees nationwide during this RIF; Defendant
terminated seven employees within the Tampa location where
Plaintiff worked. Five of the seven employees terminated at the
Tampa location were over 50 years old.

Plaintiff, who was 53 years old at the time of his termination,
believes that he was terminated due to his age.  Plaintiff and the
two opt-in plaintiffs filed affidavits in support of their
allegations of age discrimination in which they state that they had
more than enough work, and as such, there was no need for their
termination or a RIF.  Defendant rarely allowed non-officers to
work until they retired.  Instead, Defendant hired young employees
and then terminated the older employees once the younger hires were
trained.  According to Plaintiff, one of Defendant's supervisors
commented just prior to the RIF that he had been informed that
Defendant was looking to reduce staff, specifically the older
personnel.  Additionally, Defendant's agents often said, "Young
people are our future."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kendra Dawn Presswood, Esq.
          SHANKMAN LEONE, PA
          707 N Franklin ST, Suite 500
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: 813-223-1099

The Defendant is represented by:

          Kim Bouchard-Chaimowiz, Esq.
          ROGERS TOWERS, PA
          818 A1A N, Suite 208
          Ponte Vedra Beach, FL 32082

               - and -

          Samuel J. Horovitz, Esq.
          Lori Schon Patterson, Esq.
          ROGERS TOWERS PA
          1301 Riverplace Blvd, Suite 1500
          JACKSONVILLE, FL 32207
          Telephone: (904) 398-3911


SANFORD LP: Court Denies Spacone's Bid for Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned DAVID SPACONE, individually, and on behalf
of other members of the general public similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. SANFORD, L.P., the Defendant, Case No.
2:17-cv-02419-AB-MRW (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Andre Birotte Jr.
entered an order denying Plaintiff's motion for class certification
of:

   "all individuals who purchased one or more KG Stay Fresh
   Container Products in California from January 31, 2013,
   until the date of trial."

The Court finds that class certification is not appropriate because
Spacone (1) lacks standing to raise claims under the Consumers
Legal Remedies Act, False Advertising Law, and Unfair Competition
Law, (2) fails to provide the Court an ascertainable proposed
class, (3) presents an atypical member of his proposed class under
Rule 23(a)(3), and (4) is not an adequate class representative.


SANTANDER CONSUMER: Court Stays V. Blakely's Suit Pending Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California, Fresno Division, granted a Joint Stipulation to Stay
the case captioned VICKI BLAKELY, STEVEN LAWSON, CHRISTY MITCHELL,
LESLIE WILLIAMS, JAMES ROLLAND, JAYNELLIS SALINAS, KATHLEEN JONES,
ANNIE BLUITT, SAMUEL CARTER, & KEVIN GREIF, on, behalf, of,
themselves, and, all, others, similarly, situated, Plaintiff, v.
SANTANDER CONSUMER USA, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:18-cv-01647-WBS-EFB(E.D. Cal.), and all pending deadlines are
vacated until resolution of the Plaintiffs' pending appeal in the
April Lindblom v. Santander Consumer USA, Inc., Case No.
1:15-cv-00990-BAM, defined here as: (1) the Plaintiffs' pending
appeal to the Ninth Circuit of the Lindblom court's order denying
motions to intervene in that case ; (2) the Plaintiffs' request for
interlocutory appeal of the Lindblom court's orders; and (3) the
Plaintiffs' request to the Lindblom court to certify a question for
appeal (the Appeal).

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 26, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yclk3ew5 from Leagle.com.

Vicki Blakely, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Steven Lawson, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Christy Mitchell, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Leslie Williams, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, James Rolland, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Jaynellis
Salinas, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Kathleen Jones, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Annie Bluitt, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Samuel Carter, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated & Kevin Greif, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented byWesley
W. Barnett -- wbarnett@davisnorris.com -- Davis & Norris, LLP, pro
hac vice & Benjamin P. Tryk -- ben@tryklaw.com -- Tryk Law, PC.

Santander Consumer USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Anthony Q.
Le -- ale@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods, LLP, David S. Reidy --
dreidy@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP & Jamie Wells --
jwells@mcguirewoods.com -- Mcguirewoods LLP.


SCHENKER INC: Removes Ramos Suit to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------
The Defendants in the case of Authur Ramos, individually and on
behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Schenker,
Inc.; Schenker Logistics, Inc.; and Does 1 through 100, inclusive,
Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino, (Case
No. CIVDS81813152) to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on July 20, 2018, and assigned Case No.
5:18-cv-01551-JLS-KK (C.D. Cal., July 20, 2018). The case is
assigned to Judge Josephine L. Staton, and referred to Magistrate
Judge Kenly Kiya Kato.

Schenker, Inc. provides transportation and logistics services by
air, sea, and land in North America and internationally. Schenker,
Inc. was founded in 1947 and is based in Freeport, New York. It has
branches, logistics locations, and hubs in the United States,
Canada, and Puerto Rico. Schenker, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of
Schenker AG. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendants are represented by:

          Everett Clifton Martin IV, Esq.
          Michelle Rapoport, Esq.
          Hovannes G Nalbandyan, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON PC
          633 West 5th Street, 63rd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 443-4300
          Facsimile: (213) 443-4299
          E-mail: cmartin@littler.com
                  mrapoport@littler.com
                  hnalbandyan@littler.com


SDLA COURIER: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Gonzalez Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
AMED GONZALEZ, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SDLA Courier Service, Inc., and DOES 1 to
100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC714174 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., July 20, 2018) is an action against the Defendants
for failure to provide meal periods and meal period premium wages,
provide rest breaks and rest break premium wages, provide accurate
wages statements, and to timely pay final wages.

The Plaintiff Gonzalez was employed by the Defendants as a
non-exempt hourly employee.

SDLA Courier Service, Inc. is a California corporation doing
business in the State of California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Lavi, Esq.
          Vincent C. Granberry, Esq.
          Alexander K. Spellman, Esq.
          LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
          8889 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 200
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 432-0000
          Facsimile: (310) 432-0001
          E-mail: jlavi@lelawfirm.com
                  vgranberry@lelawfirm.com
                  aspeliman@lelawfirm.com


SEARS PROTECTION: Objection to R&R on C. Jackman Opinion Overruled
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, overruled Defendants' Objections to the
Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge on Defendants'
motion to exclude the purported expert opinions of Christopher
Jackman in the case captioned NINA GREENE and GERALD GREENE,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. SEARS PROTECTION COMPANY, SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO., and
SEARS HOLDINGS CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 15-CV-2546 (N.D.
Ill.)

Before the Court are Defendants' objections to the recommendation
to deny the motion to exclude Jackman's opinions, and their
objections to the recommendation to certify the classes.  

The Defendants breached their agreements, were unjustly enriched,
and engaged in a deceptive business practice by selling repair or
replace Master Protection Agreements (MPAs) to the Plaintiffs and a
purported class for appliances Defendants had no intention of
repairing or replacing. The Plaintiffs moved to certify a
nationwide class on their breach of contract and unjust enrichment
claims, and a Pennsylvania class on their claim under
Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law
(UTPCPL).

Defendants' Motion to Exclude Jackman's Opinions

The Defendants object to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation on
the same basic grounds upon which they previously argued. According
to Defendants, it was error to find Jackman's methodology reliable
because they say he cannot identify injured class members, and
Sears' Eligible Brands List cannot be dispositive of breach. As the
Magistrate Judge noted, however, the Plaintiffs have their own
interpretation of the evidence and what it reveals. Although the
Defendants assert that their challenge is to the sufficiency of the
foundation of Jackman's opinions, this Court agrees with the
Magistrate Judge that it is at bottom a challenge not to the
adequacy of the facts upon which Jackman relies but rather to the
interpretation of those facts.

The Seventh Circuit has repeatedly emphasized, however, that the
court's gate-keeping function focuses on an examination of the
expert's methodology. The soundness of the factual underpinnings of
the expert's analysis and the correctness of the expert's
conclusions based on that analysis are factual matters to be
determined by the trier of fact, or, where appropriate, on summary
judgment.

Plaintiffs' Class Certification Motion

The Plaintiffs seek to certify and the Magistrate Judge recommended
certifying the following nationwide breach of contract and unjust
enrichment class:

     All individuals and entities who paid for aftermarket MPAs
(including post-point-of-sale purchases of coverage, purchases of
coverage for products bought from a retailer other than Sears,
and/or subsequent renewals of coverage) for products which were not
covered by nor eligible for coverage under the MPA, and did not
receive a full refund.

The Plaintiffs also seek to certify and the Magistrate Judge
recommended certifying the following Pennsylvania Unfair Trade
Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL) class:

     All residents of Pennsylvania who paid for aftermarket MPAs
(including post-point-of-sale purchases of coverage, purchases of
coverage for products bought from a retailer other than Sears,
and/or subsequent renewals of coverage) for products which were not
covered by nor eligible for coverage under the MPA, and did not
receive a full refund.

Numerosity

The Plaintiffs contend that the anticipated size of the class and
the difficulty of joining all members meet Rule 23's numerosity
requirement, and the Defendants do not appear to disagree. The
Court agrees that this standard is met.

Commonality

Notwithstanding the Defendants' objections, this Court agrees that
the Plaintiffs demonstrate a commonality of issues consistent with
their theory of breach, unjust enrichment, and consumer fraud.
Whether Sears sold policies for products that it did not and could
not cover is a central question common to the class, and capable of
proof at trial through common evidence. The Defendants' insistence
that they had no such policy, that MPAs are variable, and that
Sears ultimately provided some performance under some consumers'
MPAs does not defeat this common contention. Where, as here, the
purported fraud is based on alleged conduct that was uniform as to
all class members, it is well established that individual issues of
reliance do not thwart class actions.

The Plaintiffs point to evidence of a common course of conduct
supporting claims applicable to the class, and propose a damages
methodology applicable to the class that takes into account issues
regarding the provision of repairs or something less than a full
refund. Because Plaintiffs' claims raise common questions
susceptible to common proof across the class, they meet this
component of the Rule.

Typicality

Typicality requires that the claims or defense of the
representative parties be typical of the claims or defenses of the
class.  

In this instance, the Plaintiffs' claims arise from the same
alleged course of conduct as those belonging to the class and
Plaintiffs base their claims on the same legal theory as the claims
belonging to the class. Despite any factual variances in the
products listed in the MPAs or going to the claimed damages as a
result of some repair, their claims have the same essential
characteristics.

Adequacy

The Defendants do not contest the adequacy of class counsel but
challenge the Plaintiffs' adequacy for largely the same reasons
they oppose typicality. The Plaintiffs assert that they have been
injured as a result of the sale of MPAs on non-covered items and
the lack of a full refund. According to the Plaintiffs, they
therefore share an interest with the class in proving their claims
and resulting damages. This Court agrees. That the Plaintiffs
received a partial refund may affect their damages, but it does not
exclude them from the class. Because the Plaintiffs' claims are
based on the same legal theory as those of the class, typicality is
satisfied.

Predominance

The Defendants contend that the remedies available to class members
will depend on whether they received repairs under their MPAs, and
if not, why not. Moreover, the Defendants say, because it was their
policy to provide repairs regardless of whether a product was on
the Eligible Brand List, predominance cannot be found. Because the
Magistrate Judge did not agree with Defendants' focus on repairs
and the variety of factors contributing to them, the Defendants
argue the certification analysis fails.

This Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge's analysis, however,
and concludes that the Plaintiffs have demonstrated the
predominance of common issues.  It is the predominance of common
questions that is key, not whether the answers will be resolved in
the plaintiffs' favor. While the Defendants heavily emphasize
evidence supporting their assertion that Sears had no uniform
coverage position flowing from the Eligible Brand List or
otherwise, the Plaintiffs also submit evidence supporting their
claims and their position that Defendants engaged in standardized
conduct with regard to the sale of MPAs.

Where individual issues predominated over common ones on
plaintiffs' claim that defendant insurer underpaid hail damage
claims in bad faith, the Plaintiffs' claims here rely on the
assertion of the Defendants' standardized conduct in the sale of
coverage. Issues regarding the Defendants' alleged course of
conduct in selling MPAs are central issues capable of common proof
for the class, and the Plaintiffs' damages methodology comports
with their claims.

UTPCPL Class

The Defendants also contend that the Plaintiffs' UTPCPL claim is
inappropriate for class treatment because the Plaintiffs' burden of
showing justifiable reliance under the statue is incompatible with
Rule 23's predominance requirement.

The Defendants' objection is overruled. This Court agrees with the
Magistrate Judge that the Plaintiffs may prove the element of
justifiable reliance by virtue of their purchase of the MPAs.  

Where the claims required individualized assessments of the reasons
for the transactions, justifiable reliance may be shown by common
proof here where the nature of the alleged deception and the
transactions at issue do not permit alternate explanations.

The Defendants' Objections to the Report and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge on the Defendants' motion to exclude the purported
expert opinions of Christopher Jackman are overruled, and the
Defendants' Objections to the Report and Recommendation on the
Plaintiffs' class certification motion are sustained in part and
overruled in part.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 25, 2018 Memorandum
Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7jebb8d from
Leagle.com.

Nina Greene & Gerald Greene, Plaintiffs, represented by David M.
DeVito -- ddevito@kcr-law.com -- Kaufman, Coren & Ress, P.c., pro
hac vice, Deborah R. Gross -- dgross@kcr-law.com -- KAUFMAN COREN &
RESS PC, Marvin Alan Miller , Miller Law LLC.

Andrew Joseph Belli -- abelli@kcr-law.com -- Kaufman Coren & Ress
PC, pro hac vice, Benjamin Michael Mather -- bmather@kcr-law.com --
Kaufman Coren & Ress PC, pro hac vice, Kathleen Ellen Boychuck ,
Miller Law LLC &Lori Ann Fanning , Miller Law LLC.

Sears Protection Company & Sears Roebuck And Co., Defendants,
represented by Craig M. White , Baker & Hostetler LLP, Erin Bolan
Hines -- ehines@bakerlaw.com -- Baker Hostetler LLP & Josephine
Tung -- jtung@bakerlaw.com -- Baker & Hostetler LLP.


SEVEN-ONE-SEVEN: Bodie Seeks to Certify Florida Class
-----------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned MARCUS BODIE, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. SEVEN-ONE-SEVEN
PARKING SERVICES, INC., the Defendant, Case No.
8:18-cv-00986-SDM-CPT (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for
an order:

   A. conditionally certifying a Florida class of:

      "current and former valet attendants who worked for
      Defendant at any location Florida from August 12, 2015
      through the present who were subjected to the same Auto-
      filled, pre-populated average tips of $3.02 per hour and
      the Defendant's use of the maximum tip credit of $3.02 per
      hour.

   B. directing Defendant to produce, in an electronic readable
      format, to the undersigned counsel within 14 days of the
      Order granting this Motion a list containing the full
      names, last known addresses, telephone numbers, and e-mail
      addresses of putative class members who worked for
      Defendant for the three years preceding the filing of
      Plaintiff's Complaint and the present who fits the class-
      defined parameters;

   C. authorizing the undersigned counsel to send initial notice
      to all individuals whose names appear on the list produced
      by the Defendant's counsel by first-class mail, text
      message and email;

   D. directing Defendant to post at all of its business
      locations located a copy of the initial notice in the form
      attached hereto as Exhibit F;

   E. authorizing the undersigned counsel to send a follow-up
      notice, in the same form to all individuals whose names
      appear on the list produced by the Defendant's counsel but
      who, by the 30th day prior to the close of the Court-
      approved notice period, have yet to opt in to the action;
      and

   F. providing all individuals whose names appear on the list
      produced by Defendant's counsel a total of 60 days
      from the date the notices are initially mailed to file a
      Consent to Become Opt-In Plaintiff form.

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Mitchell L. Feldman, Esq.
          Benjamin L. Williams, Esq.
          FELDMAN WILLIAMS PLLC
          6940 W. Linebaugh Ave. No. 101
          Tampa, FL 33625
          Telephone: 813 639 9366
          Facsimile: 813 639 9376
          E-mail: Mitch@FeldmanWilliams.com
                  Ben@Feldmanwilliams.com


SEWERAGE & WATER BOARD: Flood Victims File Class-Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Sean Brennan, writing for WWL-TV, reports that a class-action
lawsuit has been filed against the Sewerage and Water Board
claiming the agency's failure to maintain the New Orleans drainage
system makes it liable for flood damages to homes and businesses
last summer.

The law firm of Bruno & Bruno filed a class action petition in
Orleans Parish Civil District Court that alleges the utility was
negligent in protecting the public from flooding. The lawsuit names
six representative plaintiffs, including the Sixth Union Baptist
Church and a 91-year-old woman whose property was damaged during
the widespread flooding of Aug. 5, 2017.

The 19-page document cites multiple problems with the drainage
system leading up to the July 22 and Aug. 5 flooding last year. It
names the board's former executive director Cedric Grant and former
general superintendent Joseph Becker for omitting facts in the
aftermath of the Aug. 5 flooding, as uncovered in WWL-TV's Down the
Drain Investigation.

"The SWB's actions and omissions with regard to the public drainage
system caused Class Plaintiff's (f)looding-related property
damages," the petition says.

"Despite having knowledge of the defect in the drainage system
prior to the (f)looding, the SWB failed to properly warn Class
Plaintiffs and the citizens of New Orleans that catastrophic
flooding could result from a rainstorm due the defect in the
drainage system infrastructure and staffing," it says.

The document also calls out the S&WB's claims process for the
summer flooding, stating that members of the lawsuit who filed
their own damages have yet to received compensation.

There are roughly 785 damage claims filed with the agency, S&WB
attorney Daryl Harrison, Esq. said in a meeting this week. That
number is up from the 680 claims reported on by WWL-TV in May.

It's unclear if those claims include so-called "subrogation"
claims, in which insurance companies that have already paid for
damages then file a claim against the S&WB to recover their costs
and their clients' deductible.

S&WB spokeswoman D'Seante Parks said earlier this week that 714
individual claims had been filed, not including the subrogated
claims from insurers.

The S&WB hired an insurance adjuster to process claims and voted
recently to extend the deadline for claimants to file court actions
to July 2019. Flood victims had to file a claim to the S&WB within
a year of the Aug. 5 flood to retain the right to file tort claims
in court.

The class-action petition asks the court to define the class as any
property owners in New Orleans who suffered property damage from
flooding. The petition states that thousands of residents will
qualify.[GN]


SHIRE PLC: Appeals from Dismissal of ELAPRASE Suits Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shire plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2018, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2018, that the appeals from the dismissal of the
ELAPRASE-related suit remain pending.

In 2014, Shire's Brazilian affiliate, Shire Farmaceutica Brasil
Ltda, was served with a lawsuit brought by the State of Sao Paulo
and in which the Brazilian Public Attorney's office has intervened
alleging that Shire is obligated to provide certain medical care
including ELAPRASE for an indefinite period at no cost to patients
who participated in ELAPRASE clinical trials in Brazil, and seeking
recoupment to the Brazilian government for amounts paid on behalf
of these patients to date, and moral damages associated with these
claims.

On May 6, 2016, the trial court judge ruled on the case and
dismissed all the claims under the class action, which was
appealed. On February 20, 2017, the Court of Appeals in Sao Paulo
issued the final decision on merit in favor of Shire and dismissed
all the claims under the class action. On July 12, 2017, the Public
Prosecutor filed an appeal addressed to the Supreme Court.

During the last quarter of 2017, the State of Sao Paulo filed
appeals addressed to the Superior Court of Justice and to the
Supreme Court.

Shire plc, a biotechnology company, researches, develops, licenses,
manufactures, markets, distributes, and sells medicines for rare
diseases and other specialized conditions worldwide. The company
was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.


SILVER CROSS HOSPITAL: Diaz Sues over Use of Biometric Data
-----------------------------------------------------------
YESENIA DIAZ, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. SILVER CROSS HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL
CENTERS, the Defendant, Case No. 2018CH10151 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Will
Cty,, Aug. 9, 2018), seeks to redress and curtail Defendant's
unlawful collection, use, storage, and disclosure of Plaintiff's
sensitive biometric data, pursuant to the Illinois Code of Civil
Procedure.

According to the complaint, when Silver Cross employees are granted
access to enter certain restricted areas, such as pharmaceutical
supply stations, they are enrolled in a database. Silver Cross uses
the database to monitor employees' access to certain restricted
materials, e.g., pharmaceuticals. The Plaintiff and other
authorized employees are required to have their fingerprints
scanned by a biometric device within each pharmaceutical supply
station to access restricted materials.

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 Silver
Cross 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.

Silver Cross is a hospital complex and medical care provider.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SINCLAIR BROADCAST: Saxena White Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Saxena White P.A. has filed a securities fraud class action lawsuit
in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland
against Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. ("Sinclair" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ:SBGI) on behalf of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired the common stock of the Company between February
22, 2017 and July 19, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period").

Sinclair is the largest television station operator in the United
States by both number of stations and total coverage.  The Company
owns more than 193 stations across the country, covering nearly 40%
of American households.

The Complaint asserts claims for violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. The Complaint alleges that, throughout the
Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements,
as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and its proposed merger with
Tribune Media Company (the "Sinclair/Tribune Merger").

Specifically, Defendants allegedly made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Sinclair/Tribune
Merger was not in compliance with FCC rules and regulations; (ii)
Sinclair was not using its best efforts to eliminate any impediment
to regulatory approval; (iii) Sinclair was engaging in non-arm's
length transactions with buyers connected to Sinclair's controlling
shareholders in order to skirt FCC ownership rules; and (iv) that,
as a result of the foregoing, Defendant's public statements were
materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.

You may obtain a copy of the Complaint and join the class action at
www.saxenawhite.com.

If you purchased Sinclair shares between February 22, 2017 and July
19, 2018, you may contact Lester Hooker (lhooker@saxenawhite.com)
at Saxena White P.A. to discuss your rights and interests.

If you purchased Sinclair stock during the Class Period of February
22, 2017 through July 19, 2018 and wish to apply to be the lead
plaintiff in this action, a motion on your behalf must be filed
with the Court by no later than October 9, 2018. You may contact
Saxena White P.A. to discuss your rights regarding the appointment
of lead plaintiff and your interest in the class action. Please
note that you may also retain counsel of your choice and need not
take any action at this time to be a class member.

Saxena White P.A., with offices in Florida, New York, and
Massachusetts, concentrates its practice on prosecuting securities
fraud and complex class actions on behalf of institutions and
individuals. Currently serving as lead counsel in numerous
securities fraud class actions nationwide, the firm has recovered
hundreds of millions of dollars on behalf of injured investors and
is active in major litigation pending in federal and state courts
throughout the United States.

         Lester R. Hooker, Esq.
         Saxena White P.A.
         150 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 600
         Boca Raton, FL 33432
         Telephone: (561) 206-6708
         Fax: (866) 290-1291
         Website: www.saxenawhite.com
         Email: lhooker@saxenawhite.com  [GN]


SOURCE RECEIVABLES: Gochet Files Placeholder Bid to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled KEANNA GOCHET, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. SOURCE
RECEIVABLES MANAGEMENT LLC, the Defendant, Case No.
2:18-cv-01257-PP (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an
order certifying classes, appointing the Plaintiff as class
representative, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as Class
Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the Court may
deem appropriate.

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

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with
the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the
certification motion. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896
(7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First
Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of
that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class
from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs.").

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


SOUTHWEST CREDIT: Faces Chwab Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Southwest Credit
Systems, L.P. The case is captioned as Angelina Chwab, on behalf of
herself and all other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff,
v. Southwest Credit Systems, L.P., the Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-04519 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 9, 2018). The case alleges Fair Debt
Collection Act violations.

Southwest Credit was founded in 2003. The Company's line of
business includes collection and adjustment services on
claims.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SOUTHWEST GAS: Court Stays E. Howard's FLSA Suit
------------------------------------------------
In the case, EBONY HOWARD, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SOUTHWEST GAS CORPORATION,
Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-01035-JAD-VCF (D. Nev.), Judge Jennifer
A. Dorsey of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada has
entered an order staying the proceeding, extending the Defendant's
deadline to answer the complaint, and tolling the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") limitations period.

On June 7, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a putative class and
collective action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Nevad.  The Complaint names SGC) as the sole Defendant
and asserts the following three causes of action: (1) Failure to
Pay Overtime in Violation of the FLSA; (2) Failure to Pay For Each
Hour Worked pursuant to Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. Section 608.016; and
(3) Failure to Pay Overtime in Violation pursuant to Nev. Rev.
Stat. Ann. Section 608.018.

The Defendant was served with summons on June 8, 2018.  Pursuant to
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Nevada Local Rules, SGC's
deadline to file a responsive pleading is June 29, 2018.

The parties have agreed, and Judge Dorsey granted, that:

     (1) The action is stayed in its entirety until 30 days from
the date of the Order;

     (2) The Defendant's deadline to answer the Plaintiffs'
Complaint is extended to seven days following the expiration of the
stay; and

     (3) The limitations period for the claims under the FLSA of
putative collective and class action members who have not already
filed consents to join the Litigation will be tolled for 30 days,
such that any consent form filed in the action will be deemed to
have been filed on the later of (a) 30 days prior to the date on
which it is actually filed, or (b) the date of the parties' Tolling
Agreement.

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

Ebony Howard, Plaintiff, represented by Don Springmeyer --
dspringmeyer@wrslawyers.com -- Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman and
Rabkin, LLP, Nicholas R. Conlon -- nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com
-- JTB Law Group, LLC, pro hac vice & Bradley Scott Schrager --
bschrager@wrslawyers.com -- Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman &
Rabkin.

Starla Wheeler & Janelle Clarkson-Dean, Plaintiffs, represented by
Don Springmeyer, Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman and Rabkin, LLP.


SPREEMO INC: Mauthe Class Certification Bid Denied
--------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled ROBERT W. MAUTHE, M.D., P.C., a Pennsylvania
corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly-situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. SPREEMO, INC. and THE
HARTFORD FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, the Defendants, Case No. Case
5:18-cv-01902-EGS (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Edward G. Smith
entered an order on August 14, 2018 denying, without prejudice,
motion for class certification.

Judge Smith noted that the parties have filed a stipulation
indicating that they agree to the court dismissing without
prejudice the motion for class certification.

Following the Court's order, Mauthe filed an amended complaint
against Spreemo, Inc., and The Hartford Financial Services Group.

The lawsuit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act of 1991.


STATE FARM: Court Won't Dismiss RICO Claims in M. Hale's Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARK HALE, TODD SHADLE, and LAURIE LOGER, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. STATE
FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, EDWARD MURNANE, and
WILLIAM G. SHEPHERD, Defendants, Case No. 12-0660-DRH (S.D. Ill.),
Judge David R. Herndorn of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois denied the Defendants' motion for summary
judgment on the Plaintiffs' RICO claims.

Back in 2012, Plaintiffs Hale, Shadle and Morse, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, filed a two-count
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") class
action complaint against State Farm, Murnane, Shepherd and Citizens
for Karmeier.  Count One alleged violations of 18 U.S.C. Section
1962(c) and Count Two alleged violations of 18 U.S.C. Section
1962(d) by conspiring to violate 18 U.S.C. Section 1962(c).

On Nov. 4, 2014, the Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint
containing the same counts as the original complaint.  In essence,
they allege that teh Defendants secretly recruited Judge Karmeier
to run for an open seat on the Illinois Supreme Court, where the
Avery v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. appeal was
pending; that the Defendants organized and managed his campaign
behind the scenes; that the Defendants covertly funneled millions
of dollars to support his campaign through intermediary
organizations over which State Farm exerted considerable influence;
and, after Justice Karmeier was elected to the Illinois Supreme
Court, the Defendants obscured, concealed and misrepresented the
degree and nature of their support of Justice Karmeier so that
Justice Karmeier could participate in the Avery decisions.

Further, the Plaintiffs maintain that the Defendants' scheme
deprived them of their constitutionally-guaranteed right to be
judged by a tribunal uncontaminated by politics; that they did not
have an opportunity during the state court process to conduct the
necessary discovery to uncover State Farm's conduct and that their
motions to recuse were summarily denied and as a result Justice
Karmeier participated in the Avery decision and broke the deadlock
when he voted to overturn the judgment.

Now before the Court is the Defendants' motion for summary judgment
on the Plaintiffs' RICO claims.  The Defendants maintain that the
Plaintiffs have not sustained a cognizable RICO injury as they
cannot establish a RICO injury to property and that the claimed per
capita damages are improper and do not satisfy RICO's damages and
injury requirements.  The Plaintiffs sternly oppose the motion.

Judge Herndorn finds that the Plaintiffs have advanced evidence in
support of its allegations to establish causation.  There are
questions of material fact on which a jury could reasonably rely to
conclude that Justice Karmeier was aware that State Farm was
heavily involved in recruiting him, managing his campaign and
securing the majority of the contributions of campaign.  Further, a
reasonable jury could find that either Justice Karmeier or any
member of the Illinois Supreme Court relied upon State Farm's
misrepresentations.  Likewise, a reasonable jury could find that
had State Farm's involvement been revealed, Justice Karmeier's
"impartiality" could have been "reasonably questioned" and he could
not have participated in the Avery decision and the Plaintiffs
would not have suffered the injury or the damages.  In addition, a
reasonable jury could find that the Defendants' alleged fraudulent
conduct tainted the Avery proceedings/decision and that defendants
foresaw, intended and secretly worked to achieve the end result:
with Justice Karmeier's participation the Avery judgment was
reversed.

As to cognizable RICO injury, the Judge finds that there are
questions of material fact that preclude summary judgment.  The
Plaintiffs have presented evidence which a reasonable jury to
conclude that State Farm provided significant funds to Justice
Karmeier's campaign and that Justice Karmeier did not recuse
himself and voted to overturn the Avery judgment.  Further, he
rejects the Defendants' arguments regarding per capita damages.
The Plaintiffs allege that State Farm's wrongful conduct denied
them an impartial forum of review, that the Defendants' fraudulent
conspiracy prevented the damage allocation in Avery and that the
Plaintiffs' interest is in the judgment that was undivided at that
time.  The damages claimed by the Plaintiffs are not nonexistent
and are based on the Defendants' alleged fraudulent conspiracy
conduct that prevented the damage calculation in Avery.  Based on
the disputes of fact, the Judge denies summary judgment on this
issue.

Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the Plaintiffs,
the Jduge agrees with the Plaintiffs that there are questions of
material fact as to State Farm's fraudulent concealment and the
Plaintiffs' due diligence (because of State Farm's conduct) to
obtain the information to discover the injury which would toll the
statute of limitations.  The record reveals that until Sept. 19,
2011, State Farm did not inform the Illinois Supreme Court or the
Plaintiffs in Avery that it held a seat on the ICJL Executive
Committee.  Prior to this time, State Farm did not disclose any
information in its briefs regarding recusal that would link itself
to Justice Karmeier's campaign.  Thus, the issues are whether State
Farm in denying and misrepresenting its involvement in Justice
Karmeier's election in its briefs to the Illinois Supreme Court
acted deceptively; whether the Plaintiffs reasonably relied upon
State Farm's misrepresentations or omissions and the extent that
the Plaintiffs relied upon the filings of State Farm, through its
lawyers in the appeals process, so that the Plaintiffs did not
discover the injury sooner.

As to the Dfendants' arguments that State Farm's briefs are
appropriate and permissible advocacy, the Jduge finds that there
are disputes of fact and that a jury could reasonably conclude that
the misrepresentations were material and made with an intent to
deceive the Illinois Supreme Court and the Plaintiffs and that a
jury could reasonably conclude that the alleged coordination
between State Farm's agents and other donors in the Karmeier
campaign was material and central as to the question of Justice
Karmeier's impartiality.

As to the Defendants' arguments regarding the Noerr-Pennington
doctrine and United States v. Pendergraft, he finds that
reconsideration is not warranted.  He has re-examined its reasoning
for rejecting the Defendants' arguments at the dismissal stage and
the cases cited by the Defendants in support of summary judgment
and finds that its decision that such court documents can, as a
matter of law, constitute RICO predicate acts is proper.  He finds
that the Defendants have not presented a compelling reason to
change his ruling.  Further, he finds that a there are disputes of
material facts of whether State Farm's misrepresentations to the
Illinois Supreme Court and the Plaintiffs were material and made
with an intent to deceive.

Accordingly, Judge Herndon denied the Defendants' motion for
summary judgment on the Plaintiffs' RICO claims.  He reminded the
parties that the matter is set for Final Pretrial Conference on
Aug. 7, 2018 at 1:30 p.m. and that the matter is set for jury trial
on Sept. 4, 2018 at 9:00 a.m.  Lastly, he directed them to contact
Magistrate Judge Williams' chambers if a settlement conference
would be beneficial.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 3, 2018 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/evWboB from Leagle.com.

Illinois Chamber of Commerce, Objector, represented by August M.
Appleton, August Appleton - Attorney.

Mark Hale, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley M. Cosgrove --
BMC@CliffordLaw.com -- Clifford Law Offices PC, Charles F. Barrett
-- cbarrett@nealharwell.com -- Neal & Harwell, PLC, Kevin P. Durkin
-- KPD@CliffordLaw.com -- Clifford Law Offices PC, Patrick W.
Pendley -- pwpendley@pbclawfirm.com -- Pendley Law Firm, Robert A.
Clifford -- rclifford@CliffordLaw.com -- Clifford Law Offices.
P.C., Stephen A. Saltzburg, Stephen A. Saltzburg --
ssaltz@law.gwu.edu -- pro hac vice, W. Gordon Ball, Ball & Scott,
Brent W. Landau -- blandau@hausfeld.com -- Hausfeld LLP, David T.
Brown -- dbrown@muchshelist.com -- Much, Shelist et al. Cook
County, Elizabeth J. Cabraser -- ecabraser@lchb.com -- Lieff,
Cabraser et al., Erwin S. Chemerinsky --
echemerinsky@law.berkeley.edu -- University of California - School
of Law, pro hac vice, George S. Bellas --
george@bellas-wachowski.com -- Clifford Law Offices P.C., Jeannine
M. Kenney -- jkenney@hausfeld.com -- Hausfeld LLP, Jessica A. Perez
-- jperez@pbclawfirm.com -- Pendley, Baudin & Coffin, L.L.P., John
(Don) W. Barrett -- dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com -- Barrett Law
Group, Jonathan L. Loew -- jloew@muchshelist.com -- Much, Shelist
et al., Kevin Reid Budner -- kbudner@lchb.com -- Lieff, Cabraser et
al., Kristofer S. Riddle -- KSR@CliffordLaw.com -- Clifford Law
Offices PC, Lance K. Baker -- lkbakerlaw@gmail.com -- Gordon Ball
PLLC, Marcus Neil Bozeman -- bozemanmarcus@sbcglobal.net -- Thrash
Law Firm PA, pro hac vice, Megan Elizabeth Jones --
mjones@hausfeld.com -- Hausfeld LLP, pro hac vice, Melinda R.
Coolidge -- mcoolidge@hausfeld.com -- Hausfeld LLP, Michael S.
Krzak -- MSK@CliffordLaw.com -- Clifford Law Offices. P.C.,
Nicholas R. Rockforte -- nrockforte@pbclawfirm.com -- Pendley,
Baudin & Coffin, L.L.P., Nimish Ramesh Desai -- ndesai@lchb.com --
Lieff, Cabraser et al., Richard R. Barrett -- rrb@rrblawfirm.net --
Barrett Law Office, Richard M. Heimann -- rheimann@lchb.com --
Lieff, Cabraser et al., Robert J. Nelson -- rnelson@lchb.com --
Lieff, Cabraser et al., Robert P. Sheridan -- RPS@CliffordLaw.com
-- Clifford Law Offices, Of Counsel, Shannon M. McNulty --
SMM@CliffordLaw.com -- Clifford Law Offices, P.C., Steven P.
Blonder -- sblonder@muchshelist.com -- Much, Shelist et al., Cook
County, Thomas P. Thrash, Thrash Law Firm PA, pro hac vice &
William P. Butterfield -- wbutterfield@hausfeld.com -- Hausfeld
LLP.

Todd Shadle, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley M. Cosgrove,
Clifford Law Offices PC, Charles F. Barrett, Neal & Harwell, PLC,
Kevin P. Durkin, Clifford Law Offices PC, Patrick W. Pendley,
Pendley Law Firm, Robert A. Clifford, Clifford Law Offices. P.C.,
Stephen A. Saltzburg, Stephen A. Saltzburg, pro hac vice, W. Gordon
Ball, Ball & Scott, Brent W. Landau, Hausfeld LLP, Elizabeth J.
Cabraser, Lieff, Cabraser et al., Erwin S. Chemerinsky, University
of California - School of Law, pro hac vice, George S. Bellas,
Clifford Law Offices P.C., Jeannine M. Kenney, Hausfeld LLP, John
(Don) W. Barrett, Barrett Law Group, Jonathan L. Loew, Much,
Shelist et al., Kevin Reid Budner, Lieff, Cabraser et al.,
Kristofer S. Riddle, Clifford Law Offices PC, Lance K. Baker,
Gordon Ball PLLC, Marcus Neil Bozeman, Thrash Law Firm PA, pro hac
vice, Megan Elizabeth Jones, Hausfeld LLP, Melinda R. Coolidge,
Hausfeld LLP, Michael S. Krzak, Clifford Law Offices. P.C., Nimish
Ramesh Desai, Lieff, Cabraser et al., Richard R. Barrett, Barrett
Law Office, Richard M. Heimann,
Lieff, Cabraser et al., Robert J. Nelson, Lieff, Cabraser et al.,
Robert P. Sheridan, Clifford Law Offices- Of Counsel, Shannon M.
McNulty, Clifford Law Offices. P.C., Steven P. Blonder, Much,
Shelist et al. Cook County & Thomas P. Thrash, Thrash Law Firm PA.

Laurie Loger, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley M. Cosgrove,
Clifford Law Offices PC, Kevin P. Durkin, Clifford Law Offices PC,
Robert A. Clifford, Clifford Law Offices. P.C., Stephen A.
Saltzburg, Stephen A. Saltzburg, pro hac vice, Elizabeth J.
Cabraser, Lieff, Cabraser et al., Erwin S. Chemerinsky, University
of California - School of Law, pro hac vice, George S. Bellas,
Clifford Law Offices P.C., Jeannine M. Kenney, Hausfeld LLP,
Jonathan L. Loew, Much, Shelist et al., Marcus Neil Bozeman, Thrash
Law Firm PA, pro hac vice, Megan Elizabeth Jones, Hausfeld LLP,
Melinda R. Coolidge, Hausfeld LLP, Nimish Ramesh Desai, Lieff,
Cabraser et al., Steven P. Blonder, Much, Shelist et al. Cook
County & W. Gordon Ball, Ball & Scott.

Mark Covington, Plaintiff, represented by Robert A. Clifford,
Clifford Law Offices. P.C., George S. Bellas, Clifford Law Offices
P.C., Jeannine M. Kenney, Hausfeld LLP, Jonathan L. Loew, Much,
Shelist et al., Marcus Neil Bozeman, Thrash Law Firm PA, pro hac
vice, Megan Elizabeth Jones, Hausfeld LLP, Melinda R. Coolidge,
Hausfeld LLP, Nimish Ramesh Desai, Lieff, Cabraser et al., Steven
P. Blonder, Much, Shelist et al. Cook County & W. Gordon Ball, Ball
& Scott.

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Defendant,
represented by Joseph A. Cancila, Jr. -- jcancila@rshc-law.com --
Riley Safer et al, Patrick D. Cloud -- pcloud@heylroyster.com --
Heyl, Royster et al., Ronald S. Safer -- rsafer@rshc-law.com --
Riley Safer et al, Harnaik Kahlon -- nkahlon@rshc-law.com -- Riley
Safer et al, J. Timothy Eaton -- teaton@taftlaw.com -- Taft
Stettinius & Hollister, James P. Gaughan -- jgaughan@rshc-law.com
-- Riley Safer et al, Jonathan D. Parente --
jonathan.parente@alston.com -- Alston & Bird LLP, pro hac vice,
Jonathan M. Redgrave -- jredgrave@redgravellp.com -- Partner,
Redgrave LLP, Matthew C. Crowl -- mcrowl@rshc-law.com -- Riley
Safer et al, Michael P. Kenny -- mike.kenny@alston.com -- Alston &
Bird LLP, pro hac vice, Monica McCarroll --
MMcCarroll@redgravellp.com -- Redgrave LLP, pro hac vice, Patricia
B. Holmes -- pholmes@rshc-law.com -- Riley Safer et al & Patricia
T. Mathy -- pmathy@rshc-law.com -- Riley Safer et al.

Edward Murnane, Defendant, represented by Andrew Chinsky --
ACHINSKY@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin LLP, Karim Basaria --
KBASARIA@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin LLP, Patrick Edward Croke --
PCROKE@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin LLP & Paul E. Veith --
PVEITH@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin LLP.

William G Shepherd, Defendant, represented by Russell K. Scott --
rks@greensfelder.com -- Greensfelder, Hemker & Gale PC & Clark W.
Hedger -- ch1@greensfelder.com -- Greensfelder, Hemker & Gale, PC.

Illinois State Bar Association, Stanley Tucker & April Troemper,
Movants, represented by Michael J. Nester, Donovan Rose Nester PC.

Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois, Movant,
represented by Julie Fix Meyer -- jfixmeyer@armstrongteasdale.com
-- Armstrong Teasdale LLP.

Lloyd A Karmeier, Interested Party, represented by A. Courtney Cox
-- ccox@sandbergphoenix.com -- Sandberg, Phoenix et al. & Anthony
L. Martin -- amartin@sandbergphoenix.com -- Sandberg, Phoenix et
al.

Tillery Group, Interested Party, represented by J. William Lucco,
Lucco, Brown et al. & Joseph R. Brown, Jr., Lucco, Brown et al.

U.S. Chamber of Commerce & Institute for Legal Reform, Intervenors,
represented by Bobby Roy Burchfield -- bburchfield@kslaw.com --
King & Spalding, LLP, pro hac vice.

Institute for Legal Reform, Intervenor, represented by Bobby Roy
Burchfield, King & Spalding, LLP, pro hac vice.


STEINHOFF INT'L: Class Action Lawsuit Filed in South Africa
-----------------------------------------------------------
CNBC Africa reports that LHL attorneys on August 8 filed a
prospective class action proceeding at the South Gauteng High Court
in Johannesburg, South Africa over what it alleges was the
destruction of over EUR12 billion (ZAR 185 billion) in shareholder
value resulting from the long-running accounting irregularities at
Steinhoff. It is seeking the recovery of those losses.

There are 42 defendants in the lawsuit including Dutch incorporated
Steinhoff International Holdings NV, its South African predecessor
Steinhoff International Holdings., Absa, Germany's Commerzbank AG,
UK-based bank Standard Chartered Bank, auditors Deloitte and Rodl &
Partner, and several former and current board members, such as
former  Steinhoff International Holdings and Steinhoff
International Holdings, NV CEO Markus Jooste, former CFO Ben la
Grange and ex-Chairman and South African billionaire Christo
Wiese.

Zain Lundell, Esq., of LHL Attorneys told CNBC Africa that once all
respondents have been notified of the action a court date will be
requested.

According to a statement from Steinhoff International Compensation
Claims, the plaintiff who commenced the class action is being
represented by the South African litigation firm, LHL Attorneys Inc
and "has the backing of the Foundation Steinhoff International
Compensation Claims, an initiative of institutional investors
seeking a comprehensive, cross-jurisdictional recovery of losses
suffered as a result of investments in various Steinhoff
securities".

The lawsuit's claims are on behalf of investors who purchased
Steinhoff shares in the period from at least June 26, 2013 to
December 5, 2017.

"Steinhoff has operated and continues to operate in and out of
South Africa. Steinhoff's shares pre-December 2015 were listed on
the JSE and its post-December 2015 shares are registered and traded
on both the JSE and FSE. Thousands of South African shareholders
have been affected by the defendants' conduct, including the
largest pension fund in South Africa, so it was a logical decision
to commence this true opt-out class action proceeding here in South
Africa.

"South Africa has a well-established and reliable legal system with
favourable legislation that we believe will allow aggrieved
investors to be fairly compensated for their losses. Moreover,
South Africa's true opt-out class action procedure is superior to
the proceedings available in the Netherlands and Germany and, thus,
will contribute to the protection of all shareholders, large and
small alike," reckons Lundell. [GN]


STRAIGHT PATH: Court Narrows Claims in Stockholders' Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Chancery of Delaware granted in part and denied in
part Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case captioned IN RE
STRAIGHT PATH COMMUNICATIONS INC. CONSOLIDATED STOCKHOLDER
LITIGATION. C.A. No. 2017-0486-SG. (Del. Ch.)

The Complaint is styled as a class action directly challenging the
Verizon merger, though the Plaintiffs alternatively bring it as a
derivative action. The Complaint contains four counts. Count I
alleges that Howard Jonas, as Straight Path's controlling
stockholder, breached the fiduciary duties he owed to Straight Path
and its stockholders.

The Complaint charges Howard with using his position as a
controlling stockholder to extract unique benefits from the sales
process, to the detriment of the company's minority stockholders.
Those benefits included the settlement of the indemnification claim
for well below its fair value and the acquisition of the IP Assets,
previously valued at around $50 million, for only $6 million. Count
II alleges that Davidi Jonas breached his fiduciary duties to
Straight Path and its stockholders by putting his (and his
family's) interests above those of the company and its
stockholders. Count III alleges that IDT aided and abetted Howard
and Davidi Jonas's breaches of fiduciary duty. Finally, Count IV is
brought derivatively, and it seeks a declaratory judgment and a
constructive trust, though these requests are moot now that the
merger has closed.

Howard Jonas argues that the Plaintiffs' claims are derivative
rather than direct, and that the derivative claims fail as a matter
of law. He also argues that, regardless of whether the claims are
direct or derivative, the Complaint fails to plead any breach of
fiduciary duty. Davidi Jonas separately argues that the Complaint
fails to state a claim against him.

According to Davidi, any breach of fiduciary duty claim against him
fails because, even if he had not tipped off his father as to the
Special Committee's plan to preserve the indemnification claim,
Howard would have learned of the plan anyway.

Direct or Derivative?

Howard Jonas argues that the Plaintiffs' claims are derivative
rather than direct. According to him, the allegations in the
Complaint boil down to the assertion that IDT did not pay Straight
Path enough for the settlement of the indemnification claim and the
IP Assets. Thus, it was Straight Path that suffered the injury, and
any harm befalling the stockholders was merely an indirect result
of the underlying depletion of corporate assets. If Howard Jonas is
correct that the Plaintiffs' claims are derivative, the Complaint
must be dismissed. That is because the Verizon merger has closed,
and it is black-letter law that a plaintiff loses standing to sue
derivatively when she ceases to be a stockholder following a
merger.

In Court's view, the Plaintiffs' claims are properly characterized
as direct. Thus, the Plaintiffs did not lose standing when the
Verizon merger closed.

To determine whether a claim is derivative or direct, this Court
must consider (1) who suffered the alleged harm (the corporation or
the suing stockholders, individually); and (2) who would receive
the benefit of any recovery or other remedy (the corporation or the
stockholders, individually)?

The Special Committee ultimately gave in to Howard's demands, and
the indemnification claim was settled for $10 million plus a right
to receive 22% of the net proceeds from the IP Assets. As part of
the settlement, Straight Path also agreed to sell the IP Assets to
IDT for $6 million, even though the Consent Decree places a $50
million value on Straight Path's Non-License Portfolio Assets,
almost all of which are the IP Assets. The settlement agreement was
made binding on April 9, the same day AT&T offered to acquire
Straight Path for $1.6 billion. And Straight Path was ultimately
sold to Verizon for $3.1 billion. Because the indemnification claim
gave Straight Path the right to recover 20% of the sales price, the
settlement agreement effectively deprived the company's
stockholders of a claim potentially worth over half a billion
dollars as part of the sale of the company. What Straight Path and
its stockholders received in return was a small fraction of that
potential recovery.

These allegations support a reasonable inference that Howard Jonas,
through IDT, improperly diverted merger consideration that
otherwise would have gone to the stockholders. In the transaction
structure proposed by the Special Committee, the stockholders would
receive the $3.1 billion minus the 20% penalty paid to the FCC. But
the indemnification claim would survive the sale, so the litigation
trust would be able to recover the 20% penalty from IDT. Thus, if
the Special Committee had established the litigation trust, the
stockholders would have effectively received a much higher total
price in the Verizon sale.

That is not what happened, of course. Instead, Howard Jonas
insisted that the indemnification claim be settled for a relatively
small amount of consideration. Howard extracted significant,
non-ratable benefits from this settlement: forgiveness of IDT's
enormous debt, and the assurance that IDT would not face bankruptcy
as a result of its obligations to Straight Path. Yet the settlement
directly harmed Straight Path's other stockholders, who ended up
receiving hundreds of millions of dollars less in merger
consideration than they would have but for Howard's disloyalty.

For these reasons, the Complaint supports a reasonable inference
that Howard Jonas "improperly diverted proceeds that would have, if
he had acted properly, ended up in the consideration paid to the
target stockholders. The Complaint also establishes "a causal link
between the breach complained of and the ultimate unfairness of the
merger.

Accordingly, the Plaintiffs have stated direct claims.

Does the Complaint Plead Viable Claims for Breach of Fiduciary
Duty?

Howard Jonas

A controlling stockholder owes fiduciary duties to the corporation
and its minority stockholders, and it is prohibited from exercising
corporate power so as to advantage itself while disadvantaging the
corporation. While a controlling stockholder is entitled to act in
its own self-interest, that right "must yield when a corporate
decision implicates a controller's duty of loyalty."

Here, entire fairness applies because Howard Jonas used his power
as a controlling stockholder to extract unique, non-ratable
benefits from the sales process. By threatening to withhold support
for any sale that would allow the indemnification claim to be
pursued against IDT, Howard got the Special Committee to agree to
forgive a potentially half-billion-dollar debt IDT owed to Straight
Path. In exchange, Straight Path received $10 million and a portion
of the proceeds from the IP Assets. While Howard's equity stake in
Straight Path was larger than that in IDT, his children held 10% of
IDT's equity, and one of his sons was IDT's CEO.
Moreover, IDT which Howard founded and continues to control likely
faced bankruptcy if Straight Path successfully enforced its
indemnification right. Howard was IDT's CEO at the time of the
misconduct that gave rise to the Consent Decree, so it is
reasonable to infer that, if IDT went bankrupt, the bankruptcy
trustee would consider pursuing claims against Howard for breach of
fiduciary duty. The Complaint plausibly alleges that these benefits
were material to Howard.

Davidi Jonas

Davidi owed fiduciary duties of care and loyalty to the company and
its stockholders.To establish a breach of fiduciary duty, a
plaintiff must prove two elements: (i) the defendant owed a
fiduciary duty, and (ii) the defendant breached the duty owed.

Davidi argues that he should be dismissed from this case because
his father would have learned of the Special Committee's plan
regardless of the tip. Davidi points out that, as Straight Path's
controlling stockholder, Howard Jonas had to sign off on any
merger. Presumably, Howard would not agree to vote his stock in
favor of a merger unless he understood its terms. A key component
of the transaction structure proposed by the Special Committee was
that the indemnification claim would be carved out from the sale
and preserved in a litigation trust. Thus, before he agreed to
support a merger, Howard would very likely learn of the Special
Committee's plan. Once that happened, Howard would be in just as
good a position to breach his fiduciary duties as he was when
Davidi tipped him off.

Davidi misconstrues the pleading burden for claims of breach of
fiduciary duty. A plaintiff's obligation at the pleading stage is
simply to allege (1) that a fiduciary duty exists and (2) that the
fiduciary breached that duty. Notably, resulting damages are absent
from this list of elements. For the reasons explained above, the
Plaintiffs have adequately alleged that Davidi breached the
fiduciary duties he owed to Straight Path and its stockholders.
Nothing more is required at this stage of the litigation. Davidi
has not cited a single case supporting the proposition that, in
addition to these two elements, the plaintiff must also allege the
precise impact of a fiduciary's disloyal conduct. In any event,
that is a fact-intensive question that cannot be answered on a Rule
12(b)(6) motion.

Davidi's Motion to Dismiss is denied.

Entire Fairness

Having determined that the Verizon merger is subject to entire
fairness review, the Court now turn to Howard Jonas's argument that
the Plaintiffs have failed to allege facts suggesting the
transaction was unfair.

Howard Jonas argues that the Consent Decree's $50 million valuation
of Straight Path's Non-License Portfolio Assets does not suggest
the IP Assets were worth that amount. But the Complaint explicitly
alleges that the vast majority of Straight Path's non-spectrum
assets consisted of the IP Assets. And, according to the
Plaintiffs, the $50 million figure in the Consent Decree came from
Straight Path itself. Thus, the Complaint supports a reasonable
inference that the IP Assets were worth around $50 million, and
that $6 million was therefore an unfair price. Further, while
Howard claims that IDT simply matched the highest bid Straight Path
had received for the IP Assets, that purported fact is not alleged
or incorporated by reference in the Complaint, and so cannot be
considered on a motion to dismiss. Accordingly, the Complaint
adequately alleges that the sale of the IP Assets at well below
fair value helped render the merger consideration unfair.

The Plaintiffs have alleged enough facts to suggest that the
Verizon merger, conditioned as it was on the transfer of assets to
Howard Jonas's benefit, was unfair to Straight Path's stockholders.
Of course, Howard Jonas is free to make the fact-intensive
arguments advanced in his motion papers at a later stage of this
litigation.

Aiding and Abetting

The Complaint charges IDT with aiding and abetting Howard and
Davidi Jonas's breaches of fiduciary duty. The sole argument for
dismissal of this claim is that the Complaint fails to plead any
underlying breach of fiduciary duty. Because the Complaint
adequately alleges Howard and Davidi committed breaches of
fiduciary duty, the aiding and abetting claim survives.
The Defendants' Motions to Dismiss are granted in part and denied
in part.

A full-text copy of the Chancery Court's June 25, 2018 Memorandum
Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/ycfunk78 from
Leagle.com.

Ned Weinberger -- nweinberger@labaton.com -- and Thomas Curry --
tcurry@labaton.com -- of LABATON SUCHAROW LLP, Wilmington,
Delaware; OF COUNSEL: Mark Lebovitch -- markl@blbglaw.com -- Edward
Timlin -- edward.timlin@blbglaw.com -- John Vielandi --
john.vielandi@blbglaw.com -- and David MacIsaac --
david.macisaac@blbglaw.com -- of BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER &
GROSSMANN LLP, New York, New York; Vincent R. Cappucci --
david.macisaac@blbglaw.com -- and Joshua K. Porter --
jporter@entwistle-law.co -- of ENTWISTLE & CAPPUCCI LLP, Attorneys
for Plaintiffs JDS1, LLC and The Arbitrage Fund.

Rudolf Koch -- koch@rlf.com -- Kevin M. Gallagher, Sarah A. Clark,
and Anthony M. Calvano, of RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER, P.A.; OF
COUNSEL: William Ohlemeyer, Edward Normand, and Jason Cyrulnik, of
BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP, Attorneys for Defendants IDT
Corporation, Howard Jonas, and The Patrick Henry Trust.

Kevin G. Abrams -- abrams@abramsbayliss.com -- Michael A. Barlow --
barlow@barlowbayliss.com -- and April M. Kirby of ABRAMS & BAYLISS
LLP; OF COUNSEL: Greg A. Danilow -- greg.danilow@weil.com -- Seth
Goodchild -- seth@goodchild.com -- and Thomas G. James --
thomas.james@weil.com -- of WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP, Attorneys
for Defendant Davidi Jonas and Nominal Defendant Straight Path
Communications Inc.


SULLIVAN UNIVERSITY: Seeks Review of Judgment in McCann Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant The Sullivan University System, Inc., filed an appeal
from a court judgment in the lawsuit titled MARY E. McCANN
(INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED) v.
THE SULLIVAN UNIVERSITY SYSTEM, INC., D/B/A SULLIVAN UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF PHARMACY, Case No. 10-CI-001130, in the Kentucky Circuit
Court, Jefferson County.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Defendant
hired Mary McCann as an admissions officer at its Fort Knox Campus.
Sullivan transferred McCann to its Spencerian College campus in
Louisville.  Sullivan terminated McCann's employment.

McCann filed an action in Jefferson Circuit Court.  Sullivan
removed McCann's action to federal court after the United States
Department of Labor filed a complaint against Sullivan under the
federal Fair Labor Standards Act.  Sullivan disputed the Department
of Labor's allegations, but as part of that settlement, agreed to
treat its admissions officers as non-exempt employees, to pay
overtime wages, and to pay back wages to certain admissions
officers.

The appellate case is captioned as THE SULLIVAN UNIVERSITY SYSTEM,
INC. v. MARY E. MCCANN (INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED), Case No. 2018-CA-001140, in the Kentucky Court
of Appeals.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee MARY E. MCCANN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, is represented by:

          Theodore Walton, Esq.
          Garry Richard Adams, Jr., Esq.
          ADAMS, LANDENWICH, WALTON, PLLC
          517 West Ormsby Avenue
          Louisville, KY 40203
          Telephone: (502) 561-0085
          E-mail: ted@justiceky.com
                  garry@justiceky.com

Defendant-Appellant THE SULLIVAN UNIVERSITY SYSTEM, INC., is
represented by:

          Grover C. Potts, Jr., Esq.
          Michelle D. Wyrick, Esq.
          WYATT, TARRANT & COMBS, LLP
          500 West Jefferson Street, Suite 2800
          Louisville, KY 40202-2898
          Telephone: (502) 562-7520
          E-mail: gpotts@wyattfirm.com
                  mitziwyrick@wyattfirm.com


SYSTEMFORWARD AMERICA: Faces Luc Burbon Suit in New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Systemforward
America, Inc.  The case is captioned as Luc Burbon, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Systemforward America, Inc., doing business as: Pop-A-Lock, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-07188 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 9, 2018). The
case alleges Americans with Disabilities Act violations.

SystemForward is the national franchisor of the Pop-A-Lock
franchise system.[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


TAMKO BUILDING: Ct. Won't Strike Class Claims in Heritage(R) Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JEFFREY SNYDER, MARTIN and BETH MELNICK, LIA LOUTHAN,
and SUMMERFIELD GARDENS CONDOMINIUM on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. TAMKO BUILDING PRODUCTS,
INC., a Missouri Corporation, Defendant, Case No.
1:15-cv-01892-TLN-KJN (E.D. Cal.), Judge Troy L. Nunley of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California denied the
Defendant's Motion to Strike Class Allegations under Rule
23(d)(1)(D).

The Plaintiffs are the named representatives of a proposed class of
individuals and entities who own or have owned structures on which
fiberglass roofing shingles, sold under the name Heritage(R) and
manufactured by the Defendant, are or have been installed.  They
allege the shingles are plagued by design and/or manufacturing
flaws that result in the shingles generally deteriorating and
leaking.  The Plaintiffs allege the Defendant represented its
shingles as durable, reliable and free from defects on its website,
and advertised its shingles meet certain industry standards.  They
allege the Defendant's shingles contain less asphalt than required
and do not conform to the representations or industry standards,
and that they and the class have suffered damage to the shingles,
their roofs and the underlying structures, which the Defendant has
not remedied.

The Plaintiffs seek to represent a nationwide class as well as
subclasses of individuals and entities in the states of California,
Connecticut, Ohio, and Illinois.  The Defendant argues a nationwide
class is improper because the Court would have to apply materially
differing substantive law of all 50 states and the District of
Columbia to proposed class members claims.  The Plaintiffs opposed
the motion as premature.

Judge Nunley finds that the parties stated the Defendant's sales
occurred "throughout" the country, but have not determined how many
states are implicated in the nationwide class, or which states
beyond the four Plaintiffs' home states.  He cannot yet assess
whether the other states' laws materially differ from California
law, each state's interest, and which would be more impaired were
its law not applied.  Moreover, the Defendant has not shown
"exceptional circumstances" to justify striking the class
allegations, that the class cannot be maintained, or that it
contains defects that cannot be cured through discovery and class
certification.  Accordingly, he denied the Defendant's motion to
strike.

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

Jeffrey Snyder, Martin Melnick & Beth Melnick, Plaintiffs,
represented by Charles E. Schaffer -- cschaffer@lfsblaw.com --
Levin Fishbein Sedran & Berman, pro hac vice, Jacob M. Polakoff --
jpolakoff@bm.net -- Berger and Montague, pro hac vice, Lawrence
Deutsch -- ldeutsch@bm.net -- Berger and Montague, pro hac vice,
Richard Norman Sieving -- rsieving@sievinglawfirm.com -- The
Sieving Law Firm A.P.C., Shanon J. Carson -- scarson@bm.net --
Berger and Montague, pro hac vice & Luke Gabriel Pears-Dickson --
lpearsdickson@sievinglawfirm.com -- Sieving Law Firm, APC.

Lia Louthan & Summerfield Gardens Condominium, Plaintiffs,
represented by Charles E. Schaffer, Levin Sedran & Berman, pro hac
vice, Jacob M. Polakoff, Berger and Montague, pro hac vice &
Richard Norman Sieving, The Sieving Law Firm A.P.C.

Tamko Building Products, Inc., Defendant, represented by Charles
Stephen Painter -- cpainter@ericksenarbuthnot.com -- Ericksen
Arbuthnot, Jessica D. Miller -- jessica.miller@skadden.com --
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, LLP, pro hac vice, John H.
Beisner -- john.beisner@skadden.com -- Skadden Arps Slate Meagher &
Flom, LLP & Richard T. Bernardo -- richard.bernardo@skadden.com --
Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom, LLP, pro hac vice.


TARGET CORP: Court Narrows Claims in Makeup Remover Wipes Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota
granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss the case captioned Megan McAteer, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Target
Corporation, Defendant, Civil No. 18-349 (DWF/LIB)(D. Minn.).

The Plaintiff purchased a 25-count package of Makeup Remover Wipes
for personal and/or household purposes from Target to wash her
face. Target manufactures, designs, and sells the Makeup Remover
Wipes in Target stores and on Target.com. After using the Makeup
Remover Wipes, the Plaintiff experienced a burning sensation and
her face turned bright red. The Plaintiff used the over-the-counter
medicines, Cortisone 10 and Benadryl, to treat these injuries.

Minnesota Statutory Claims

The Court first considers Article III standing as a threshold issue
because the Plaintiff is neither a Minnesota resident, nor alleges
that she purchased the Makeup Remover Wipes in Minnesota.

Article III standing for state-law claims is necessarily lacking
when no plaintiff is alleged to have purchased a product within the
relevant state. This is because injury in fact is not established.
The Supreme Court has explicitly defined injury in fact as an
invasion of a legally protected interest that is not conjectural or
hypothetical.Without a named Plaintiff who has purchased a product
within the relevant state, there can be no determination that an
interest was harmed that was legally protected under the relevant
state's laws.

To be sure, the Minnesota statutes may permit non-residents to
bring suit, and the Minnesota state judiciary is not constrained by
Article III's requirements. The Plaintiff may have perfectly viable
causes of action in Minnesota state court. But the Plaintiff cannot
satisfy the Article III injury-in-fact requirement. The Plaintiff
is not a Minnesota resident and acknowledges that she purchased the
Makeup Remover Wipes in California. Consequently, the Plaintiff
lacks the requisite Article III standing to litigate these causes
of action in federal court. Based on this, the Court must dismiss
Counts V through VII for lack of constitutional standing.

Plaintiff's Material Misrepresentations and Omissions Claims

The Plaintiff alleges that she was deceived by Target's
representations that the Makeup Remover Wipes gently remove makeup
and are hypoallergenic because she developed an allergic reaction
causing her to experience a burning sensation that turned her face
bright red.

The Plaintiff has not alleged that the Makeup Remover Wipes are
more likely to cause allergic reactions than competing products.
The Food and Drug Administration defines hypoallergenic to mean
that the products making the claims are less likely to cause
allergic reactions than competing products.

Here, Target does not represent that no consumer will have an
adverse reaction to the product when it labels the Makeup Remover
Wipes hypoallergenic It does, however, represent that the Makeup
Remover Wipes will not produce an irritating or allergic reaction
in the majority of consumers.

Nothing in the Plaintiff's allegations identify how or why the
Makeup Remover Wipes are more likely to cause allergic reactions
than competing products. The Plaintiff's pleadings are insufficient
to state actionable claims based on Target's hypoallergenic claim.

Therefore, Counts I through IV and Counts VIII through XIV are
dismissed without prejudice.

Target's Motion to Dismiss is granted and Counts I through IV and
Counts VIII through XIV are dismissed without prejudice.  Target's
Motion to Dismiss is granted and Count V through Count VII are
dismissed with prejudice.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 26, 2018 Memorandum
Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ycy35r9z from
Leagle.com.

Megan McAteer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Alex C. Davis --
alex@jonesward.com -- Jones Ward PLC, pro hac vice, Francis J.
Flynn, Jr. -- francisflynn@gmail.com -- Law Office of Francis J.
Flynn, Jr., pro hac vice, Genevieve M. Zimmerman, Meshbesher &
Spence & Jasper D. Ward, IV -- jasper@jonesward.com -- Jones Ward
PLC, pro hac vice.

Target Corporation, Defendant, represented by Anna L. Veit-Carter
-- aveit-carter@soulestull.com -- Soule & Stull, George W. Soule --
gsoule@soulestull.com -- Soule & Stull LLC, Jennifer L. Mesko --
jennifer.mesko@tuckerellis.com -- Tucker Ellis LLP, pro hac vice,
John Q. Lewis -- john.lewis@tuckerellis.com -- Tucker Ellis LLP,
pro hac vice, Karl A. Bekeny -- karl.bekeny@tuckerellis.com --
Tucker Ellis LLP, pro hac vice & Melissa R. Stull --
mstull@soulestull.com -- Soule & Stull LLC.

TEXAS FARM: English et al. Seek to Certify Class of Contractors
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned HEATHER ENGLISH, JOE HAWLEY, and ROBIN
BROUSSARD, the Plaintiffs, v. TEXAS FARM BUREAU BUSINESS
CORPORATION, TEXAS FARM BUREAU CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, TEXAS
FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, TEXAS FARM BUREAU
UNDERWRITERS, FARM BUREAU COUNTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF TEXAS,
and TEXAS FARM BUREAU, the Defendants, Case No.
6:17-cv-00323-RP-JCM (W.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for
an order:

   1. conditionally certifying a class for purposes of providing
      notice to potential class members and allowing class
      members to opt in:

      "all former and current independent contractors of Texas
      Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company, Texas Farm Bureau
      Mutual Insurance Company, Texas Farm Bureau Underwriters,
      Farm Bureau County Mutual Insurance Company Of Texas,
      Southern Farm Bureau Insurance Company, and Texas Farm
      Bureau, who within the past three years have worked in the
      position of insurance agent in Texas";

   2. approving proposed notice consent, and reminder forms; and

   3. approving a script for one call to ensure the Agents
      receive the notice materials.

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          John Eddie Williams Jr., Esq.
          Brian A. Abramson, Esq.
          Sean M. McCarthy, Esq.
          WILLIAMS KHERKHER HART BOUNDAS, LLP
          8441 Gulf Freeway , Suite 600
          Houston, TX 77017
          Telephone: (713) 230 2200
          Facsimile: (713) 643 6336
          E-mail: jwilliams@williamskherkher.com
                  babramson@williamskherkher.com
                  smcarthy@williamskherkher.com

               - and -

          Kelly E. Cook, Esq.
          Warren E. Barlanga, Esq.
          WYLEY & COOK, PLLC
          4101 Washington Ave., 2nd Floor
          Houston, TX 77007
          Telephone: (713) 236 8330
          Facsimile: (713) 863 8502
          E-mail: kcook@wylycooklaw.com
                  wberlanga@wylycooklaw.com

               - and -

          Avi Moshenberg, Esq.
          Nick Lawson, Esq.
          William B. Thomas, Esq.
          MCDOWELL HETHERINGTON, LLP
          1001 Fannin, Suite 2700
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 337 5580
          Facsimile: (713) 337 8850
          E-mail: avi.moshenberg@mhllp.com
                  nick.lawson@mhllp.com
                  William.thomas@mhllp.com


TEZOS FOUNDATION: Class Action Suit Will Proceed
------------------------------------------------
Cali Haan, writing for Crowdfund Insider, reports that two
defendants in a class action suit against the beleaguered but rich
blockchain project Tezos have been exempted by a judge, though the
case will proceed against the Tezos Foundation and DLS.

The decision by California Northern District Judge Richard Seeborg
was filed August 8 in response to motions from defendants Tim
Draper, Bitcoin Suisse AG, Dynamic Ledger Solutions (DLS) and the
Tezos Foundation asking that the case against them alleging they
sold or aided the sale of unregistered securities be dismissed.

According to ETHnews, "Lawyers for the defendants moved to dismiss
the lawsuit on multiple grounds, one of which essentially argued
that the case should be heard elsewhere, namely, Switzerland, where
the foundation is based."

Complaints against Draper and Bitcoin Suisse AG were dismissed
though plaintiffs have 20 days to amend their complaint against
Draper, a first round VC investor in the Tezos scheme.

Judge Seeborg characterized Draper as a "well known technology
investor" whose public appearances promoting Tezos may have
enhanced the perceived legitimacy of the venture.

The claims against Bitcoin Suisse AG were also dismissed on
jurisdictional grounds after the company successfully argued it
served no Americans in the Tezos token sale.

The much-anticipate token sale to fund Tezos' proposed
"self-amending crypto-ledger" blockchain project raised over $232
million dollars in the first two weeks of July last year.

Subsequent protracted, public and acrimonious internal disputes
over governance and claims of non-cooperation and incompetence,
however, delayed the project and may have depressed the token's
performance on exchanges.

Background provided by the judge claims Tezos founders Kathleen and
Artur Breitman maintained close personal control of the project
despite establishing a, "purportedly independent non-profit . . . .
intended to overseethe ICO," namely the Tezos Foundation. The judge
wrote:

"Even as the Foundation made outwardly autonomous gestures --
creating a board of directors, hiring an American spokesperson
(Ross Kenyon), and disseminating that spokesperson's "how-to" video
for prospective ICO participants -- the Breitmans' close advisory
role drew its independence into question. . . ."

The judge also noted, "(O)ne of the Foundation's original
directors…indicate(d) that the Breitmans 'control the
foundation's domains, websites and email servers, so the foundation
has no control or confidentiality in its own communications.'"

The judge also identified Kathleen Breitman as a chief promotor of
Tezos, stating that while she was careful on internet forums not to
characterize the Tezos fundraise as an ICO (initial coin offering),
which some have characterized as a thinly-veiled offering of
securities, Breitman slipped up when she wrote that Tezos "tokens"
would be distributed for "initial investments."

The judge also questioned certain terms in the token sale,
including a promise from the foundation that it would, "reward
donations by 'recommending' (token buyers) be awarded a
commensurate token allocation."

The judge called that aspect of the deal 'asymmetric' because,
"Contributors, who were to give in either Bitcoin or Ethereum,
could not retract donations once recorded on the blockchain
ledger."

Still, the judge seemed to suggest litigious overreach on the part
of class action lead plaintiff Arman Anvari, who says he
contributed 250 ether to the token sale:

"Significantly, (Anvari) does not allege pre-contribution awareness
of any of the defendant-specific promotional or procedural activity
recounted above. He does not, in other words, claim to have read
the Breitmans' posts, watched the Foundation's how-to video, or
been aware of Draper's involvement. Nor, for that matter, does he
allege to have engaged in any transactions through Bitcoin Suisse,
or to have been ignorant of the purportedly governing Contribution
Terms. All the same, he claims he was a victim of an unregistered
securities sale, and seeks rescission plus assorted damages for all
contributors."

The Judge also said Anvari's complaints against Bitcoin Suisse were
weak, and, "plainly failed" to establish jurisdictional relevance
because Anvari,". . . .(did) not allege his having in any way known
of or utilized Bitcoin Suisse's services. . . ."

"In light of these shortcomings," wrote the judge, the exercise of
personal jurisdiction over Bitcoin Suisse is improper. . . . (and)
Anvari's claims against Bitcoin Suisse must therefore be dismissed
without leave to amend."

So, while the judge ultimately determined that the Breitman's
actions can be tried under US jurisdiction because:

   1. "The California-based Breitmans were the de facto U.S.
marketing arm of theFoundation."

   2. "The Foundation engaged in little to no marketing of the ICO
anywhere other thanin the U.S."

   3. "An accordingly significant portion of the some 30,000
contributors to the ICOwere in fact U.S. citizens."

. . . . the judge also claimed that Anvari's submissions were
"conspicuously silent" about whether or not he was completely aware
of the terms of the Tezos token sale, and suggested that, if it can
be proven that he was reasonably aware of the terms, legal
precedent meant that his complaint might be subject to what would,
"ultimately prove to be fleeting procedural mercy."[GN]


TIBET PHARMA: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
denied Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case captioned ROBIN
JOACHIM DARTELL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. TIBET PHARMACEUTICALS,
INC., et al., individually and on behalf all others similarly
situated, Defendants, Civil Action No. 14-3 620 (D.N.J.).

This matter comes before the Court by way of Defendants L. McCarthy
Downs III and Hayden Zou's motion to dismiss certain lead
Plaintiffs for lack of standing pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(1).

This matter involves a class action brought by lead Plaintiffs for
alleged misrepresentations in Defendant Tibet Pharmaceuticals,
Inc.'s (Tibet) Initial Public Offering (IPO) registration
documents. The Lead Plaintiffs brought suit under Section 11 of the
Securities Act of 1933 against a number of individuals and entities
who were involved in the IPO. The Plaintiffs claim that Tibet's IPO
registration statements and prospectus materially misrepresented
Tibet's financial health and profitability.

The Defendants claim that the information provided in Zhu's
affidavit, concerning RMCC's sale of Tibet shares in the secondary
market, destroys the Challenged Plaintiffs' jurisdictional
standing.

The Plaintiffs seeking to establish Article III standing must
demonstrate (1) an injury-in-fact, (2) a sufficient causal
connection between the injury and the conduct complained of, and
(3) a likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable
decision.

Here, a critical issue is whether the Defendants have, in fact,
raised an Article III standing issue. The parties have framed the
issue as one of constitutional versus statutory standing. In
Arbaugh v. MR Corp., Justice Ginsburg framed the same issue as one
of federal-court subject-matter jurisdiction versus the essential
ingredients of a federal claim for relief. 546 U.S. 500, 503
(2006).

In other words, the Supreme Court addressed the difference between
the elements of a case and subject-matter jurisdiction. The Court
held that an objection that a federal court lacks subject-matter
jurisdiction, may be raised by any party, or by the court on its
own initiative, at any stage in the litigation, even after trial
and the entry of judgment. Because subject-matter jurisdiction
involves a court's power to a hear a case, it can never be
forfeited or waived. By contrast, the objection that a complaint
'fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted,' Rule
12(b)(6) may not be asserted post-trial.  In other words, an
objection for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted may be waived if not raised in a timely fashion.

The Court finds that the Defendants have sufficiently raised an
Article III standing issue. As the Third Circuit held in Finkelman,
the Plaintiffs' complained of injury must be fairly traceable to
the challenged actions of the Defendants.  Such traceability is
needed for causation, and consequently, is needed for an Article
III injury-in-fact.

Here, the lead Plaintiffs allege that their injury-in-fact arose
from the Defendants' misrepresentations in Tibet's IPO registration
statements and prospectus. Thus, if the lead Plaintiffs' shares are
not from the IPO, but rather are from pre-existing share, their
alleged injury fails standing causation.

Accordingly, the Defendants' motion to dismiss is denied without
prejudice pending the outcome of discovery.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 26, 2018 Opinion and
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y8rzflg2 from
Leagle.com.

Robin Joachim Dartell, Plaintiff, represented by ERICA L. STONE --
estone@rosenlegal.com -- THE ROSEN LAW FIRM PA & LAURENCE M. ROSEN
-- lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, PA.
Obasi Investment Limited, Lixin Wu & Sean Carithers, Plaintiffs,
represented by LAURENCE M. ROSEN, THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, PA.

LEE FISHMAN, Plaintiff Consolidated, represented by LAURENCE M.
ROSEN, THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, PA.

Youhang Pen, Defendant, represented by SCOTT CARGILL, SHER TREMONTE
LLP.

Hayden Zou, Defendant, represented by ROBERT J. BRENER --
robert.brener@leclairryan.com -- LeClairRyan, SCOTT CARGILL, SHER
TREMONTE LLP & YONATAN Y. JACOBS -- yjacobs@shertremonte.com --
SHER TREMONTE.

MCCARTHY DOWNS III, Defendant, represented by ROBERT J. BRENER,
LeClairRyan.

TIM ABLES: Stickell Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wage under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------
Samuel Stickell, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. TIM ABLES TRUCKING COMPANY, LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00350 (E.D. Tex., Aug. 9, 2018), seeks
to recover compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the Putative Class
Members are those persons who worked for Tim Ables and were paid by
the hour but were not paid any overtime compensation for all hours
worked over 40 in each workweek.

Tim Ables was founded in 1988. The company's line of business
includes provides trucking or transfer services.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members:

          Clif Alexander, Esq.
          Lauren E. Braddy, Esq.
          Alan Clifton Gordon, Esq.
          Carter T. Hastings, Esq.
          George Schimmel, Esq.
          ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
          819 N. Upper Broadway
          Corpus Christi, TX 78401
          Telephone: (361) 452 1279
          Facsimile: (361) 452 1284
          E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
                  lauren@a2xlaw.com
                  cgordon@a2xlaw.com
                  carter@a2xlaw.com
                  geordie@a2xlaw.com

               - and -

          William S. Hommel, Jr., Esq.
          HOMMEL LAW FIRM
          1404 Rice Road, Suite 200
          Tyler, TX 75703
          Telephone: (903) 596 7100
          Facsimile: (469) 533 1618
          E-mail: bhommel@hommelfirm.com


TOMRA METRO: Fails to Pay Overtime Wage, Lawson Says
----------------------------------------------------
JUMA LAWSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. TOMRA METRO, LLC, the Defendant, Case
No. 705470/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Aug. 9, 2018), alleges that
Defendant has engaged and continues to engage in illegal and
improper wage practices in violation of the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the practices include requiring Techs
to perform work without compensation during meal breaks; requiring
Techs to perform work without compensation before the start of
their scheduled shift; requiring Techs to perform work without
compensation after the end of their scheduled shift; failing to pay
Techs overtime of time and one-half their regular rate of pay for
all hours worked over 40 in a week; and failing to provide accurate
wages statements.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          THE LAW FIRM OF LOUIS GINSBERG, P.C.
          1613 Northern Boulevard
          Roslyn, NY 11576
          Telephone: (516) 625 0105

The Defendant is represented by:

          JACKSON LEWIS LLP
          58 South Service Rd., Ste., 410
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 247 0404


TONOGA INC: Court Certified 4 Classes in Water Contamination Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JAY BURDICK, CONNIE PLOUFFE, EDWARD PLOUFFE, FRANK
SEYMOUR, SUZANNE SEYMOUR, AND EMILY MARPE, AS PARENT and NATURAL
GUARDIAN OF E.B., AN INFANT, and G.Y., and INFANT, JACQUELINE
MONETTE, WILLIAM SHARPE, EDWARD PERROTTI-SOUSIS, MARK DENUE, and
MEGAN DUNN, INDIVIDUALLY, and ON BEHALF OF ALL SIMILARLY SITUATED,
Plaintiffs, v. TONOGA, INC., (D/B/A TACONIC), Defendant, Case No.
253835 (N.Y. Sup.), Judge Patrick J. McGrath of the Rensselaer
County Supreme Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification, to appoint class representatives, and to appoint
class counsel.

The action stems from the contamination of groundwater and soil in
the Town of Petersburgh, New York with perfluorooctanoic acid
("PFOA").  The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant was responsible
for this contamination, which came from its manufacturing facility
operated in Petersburgh.  They allege that Defendant released PFOA,
which carried through the air and deposited into the soil, which
then migrated to the groundwater.  Additionally, but to a lesser
extent, that the Defendant directly contaminated the groundwater
beneath its facility by the discharge of waste containing PFOA.
The Plaintiffs allege that the accumulation of PFOA in the body has
been associated in the medical and scientific literature with
increased incidence of cancerous and non-cancerous conditions in
humans and animals.

The Plaintiffs Burdick and Marpe, individually and as parent and
natural guardian of E.B., an infant, and G.Y., an infant, commenced
the action by filing a proposed class action complaint on Aug. 8,
2016.  Plaintiffs Connie and Edward Plouffe, and Frank and Suzanne
Seymour filed a second class action complaint, asserting similar
claims, on Sept. 22, 2016.

The Defendant thereafter moved to dismiss each of these complaints.
In each case, the Court denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss
the Plaintiffs' negligence, trespass, and strict  liability claims,
and also denied its motion to dismiss nuisance claims alleged on
behalf of the Plaintiffs with privately owned wells.  The Court
granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss nuisance claims alleged
on behalf of the Plaintiffs who received their drinking water from
the Petersburgh Public Water System.

The Court then granted the Plaintiffs' motion to consolidate the
cases.  The Plaintiffs filed a consolidated Second Amended
Complaint on Sept. 26, 2017, which the named Plaintiffs who appear.
he Defendant answered the pleading on Oct. 23, 2017.  Although
CPLR 902 requires a party to move for class certification within 60
days after the Defendant's service of a responsive pleading, the
parties jointly requested that the Plaintiffs' motion would be
filed on Feb. 5, 2018, and by order dated Nov. 13, 2017, the Court
granted that request, and ordered the Defendant to file an
opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion by March 30, 2018.

The matter comes before the Court on the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification, to appoint class representatives, and to
appoint class counsel.  The Defendant opposes the motion and the
Plaintiffs have submitted a reply.

The Plaintiffs propose four classes that seek damages for injury to
person, property and nuisance.  The proposed classes, and the
Plaintiffs who seek to represent those classes, are:

     1) Town Water Property Damage Class: All individuals who are
or were owners of real property and who obtain or obtained their
drinking water from the Town of Petersburgh, New York Public Water
System, and who purchased their property on or before Feb. 20,
2016.  The proposed class representative is Jay Burdick, who has
owned a home supplied with drinking water from the public water
system since 1995.

     2) Private Well Water Property Damage Class: All individuals
who are or were owners of real property within a seven mile radius
of defendant's facility in Petersburgh, New York, and who obtain or
obtained their drinking water from a privately owned well
contaminated with PFOA, and who occupied that property at or around
February 2016.  The proposed class representatives are Plaintiffs
Mark Denue, Megan Dunn, Jacqueline Monette, Edward Perrotti-Sousis,
Connie Plouffe, Edward Plouffe, and William Sharpe.  Each Plaintiff
owns property within seven miles of the Defendant's facility and
obtains water from a privately owned well on that property which is
contaminated with PFOA.

     3) Private Well Nuisance Class: All individuals who are or
were owners of real property within a seven mile radius of the
Defendant's facility in Petersburgh, New York, and who obtain or
obtained their drinking water from a privately owned well
contaminated with PFOA, and who occupied that property at or around
February 2016.  The proposed class representatives are Plaintiffs
Mark Denue, Megan Dunn, Jacqueline Monette, Edward Perrotti-Sousis,
Connie Plouffe, Edward Plouffe, and William Sharpe.  Each Plaintiff
owns property within seven miles of the Defendant's facility and
obtains water from a privately owned well on that property which is
contaminated with PFOA.

     4) PFOA Invasion Injury Class: All individuals who have: (i)
ingested PFOA-contaminated water from the Petersburgh Public Water
System or from a contaminated private well located within a seven
mile radius of the Defendant's facility in Petersburgh, New York,
and (ii) who have suffered invasion of their bodies and
accumulation of PFOA in their blood as demonstrated by blood serum
tests disclosing a PFOA level in their blood above the recognized
average background level of 1.86 ug/L.  The proposed class
representatives are Mark Denue, Megan Dunn, Emily Marpe as parent
and natural guardian of E.B., infant, and G.Y., infant, Jacqueline
Monette, Frank Seymour, and William Sharpe.  Each Plaintiff has had
his or her blood tested by the NYSDOH in 2016, and each received
test results demonstrating blood serum level well in excess of the
recognized average background level of 1.86 ug/L.

Judge McGrath granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification.  

He certified the following classes:

     (a) The Town Water Property Damage Class, defined as All
individuals who are or were owners of real property and who obtain
or obtained their drinking water from the Town of Petersburgh, New
York Public Water System, and who purchased their property on or
before Feb. 20, 2016;

     (b) The Private Well Property Damage Class, defined as All
individual who are or were owners of real property located within a
seven mile radius of the Defendant's Taconic Plastics Facility in
Petersburgh, New York, and who obtain or obtained their drinking
water from a privately owned well contaminated with PFOA, and who
occupied that property at or around Feb. 20, 2016;

     (c) The Private Well Nuisance Class, defined as All
individuals who are or were owners or lessors of real property
located within a seven mile radius of the Defendant's Taconic
Plastics Facility in Petersburgh, New York, and who obtain or
obtained their drinking water from a privately owned well
contaminated with PFOA, and who occupied that property at or around
Feb. 20, 2016; and

     (d) The PFOA Invasion Injury Class, defined as All individuals
who have (i) ingested PFOA-contaminated water from the Petersburgh
Public Water System or from a contaminated private well located
within a seven mile radius of the Taconic Plastics Facility in
Petersburgh, New York, and (ii) who have suffered invasion of their
bodies and accumulation of PFOA in their blood as demonstrated by
blood serum tests disclosing a PFOA level in their blood above the
recognized average background level of 1.86 ug/L.

The following class representatives are appointed:

     (a) Jay Burdick as the class representative for the Town Water
Property Damage Class;

     (b) Mark Denue, Megan Dunn, Jacqueline Monette, Edward
Perrotti-Sousis, Connie Plouffe, Edward Plouffe, and William Sharpe
for the Private Well Water Property Damage Class;

     (c) Mark Denue, Megan Dunn, Jacqueline Monette, Edward
Perrotti-Sousis, Connie Plouffe, Edward Plouffe, and William Sharpe
for the Private Well Nuisance Class;

     (d) Mark Denue, Megan Dunn, Emily Marpe, as parent and natural
guardian of E.B., infant, and G.Y., infant, Jacqueline Monette,
Frank Seymour, and William Sharpe for the PFOA Bodily
Invasion/Injury Class.  

Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C. are appointed as the lead counsel.

The Decision and Order is being returned to Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C.
All original supporting documentation is being forwarded to the
Rensselaer County Clerk's Office for filing.  The unredacted
versions of the Defendant's Memorandum of Law in Opposition to
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and Affidavit of Jessica
Kaplan, Esq. are filed under seal pursuant to the Court's
Confidentiality Order dated July 10, 2017.  The signing of the
Decision and Order will not constitute entry or filing under CPLR
2220.  The counsel are not relieved from the applicable provisions
of that rule relating to filing, entry, and notice of entry.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 3, 2018 Decision and Order is
available at https://is.gd/RgSKVF from Leagle.com.

FARACI LANGE, LLP, POWERS & SANTOLA, LLP, WEITZ & LUXENBERG, PC,
WILLIAMS CUKER BEREZOFSKY, LLC, CHAFFIN LUHANA, LLP, Attorneys for
the Plaintiffs and the Proposed Classes.

BOND, SCHOENECK & KING, PLLC, HOLLINGSWORTH, LLP, Attorneys for the
Defendant.


TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Faces Rukhman Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Transworld Systems,
Inc. The case is captioned as Erik D. Rukhman, on behalf of himself
and all other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff, v.
Transworld Systems, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-04524
(E.D.N.Y., Aug. 9, 2018). The case alleges Fair Debt Collection Act
violations.

Transworld Systems provides accounts receivable, debt recovery, and
past due accounts services for businesses, medical companies, and
dental companies.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se


TRINET GROUP: Appeal in Welgus' Securities Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
The appeal by the plaintiff in the case entitled, Welgus v. TriNet
Group, Inc., et. al., is underway, TriNet Group, Inc. said in its
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on July 30, 2018, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018.

In August 2015, Howard Welgus, a purported stockholder, filed a
putative securities class action lawsuit, Welgus v. TriNet Group,
Inc., et. al., under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.

The complaint was later amended in April 2016 and again in March
2017. On December 18, 2017, the district court granted TriNet's
motion to dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety, without
leave to amend. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of the district
court's order on January 17, 2018. Plaintiff-Appellant filed his
opening appeal brief before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on
April 27, 2018. TriNet filed a responsive brief on June 29, 2018.
Plaintiff-Appellant's reply brief was due August 20, 2018.

TriNet Group said, "We see no basis for reversal of the district
court's decision. We are unable to reasonably estimate the possible
loss or expense, or range of losses and expenses, if any, arising
from this litigation."

TriNet Group, Inc. provides human resources solutions for small and
midsize businesses in the United States and Canada. The company
offers multi-state payroll processing and tax administration;
employee benefits programs, including health insurance and
retirement plans; workers compensation insurance and claims
management; employment and benefit law compliance; and other
services. TriNet Group, Inc. was founded in 1988 and is
headquartered in San Leandro, California.


TWITTER INC: Court Grants Bid for Class Cert. in Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Twitter, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the court has granted
plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the consolidated
securities action.

Beginning in September 2016, multiple putative class actions and
derivative actions were filed in state and federal courts in the
United States against Twitter, Twitter's directors, and/or certain
officers alleging false and misleading statements in violation of
securities laws and breach of fiduciary duty.

The Company disputes the claims and intends to continue to defend
the lawsuits vigorously.

The putative class actions were consolidated in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California. On October 16, 2017,
the court granted in part and denied in part the Company's motion
to dismiss.

On July 17, 2018, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for class
certification in the consolidated securities action.

Twitter, Inc. operates as a platform for public self-expression and
conversation in real time. The company offers various products and
services, including Twitter that allows users to consume, create,
distribute, and discover content; and Periscope, a mobile
application that enables user to broadcast and watch video live
with others. It also provides promoted products and services, such
as promoted tweets, promoted accounts, and promoted trends, which
enable its advertisers to promote their brands, products, and
services. Twitter, Inc. was founded in 2006 and is headquartered in
San Francisco, California.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Dismissal of Arbitration in Mass. Suit Flipped
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit, reversed the
District Court's judgment granting Defendant's Motion to Compel
Arbitration in the case captioned RACHEL CULLINANE, JACQUELINE
NUNEZ, ELIZABETH SCHAUL, and ROSS MCDONAGH, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, Appellants, v. UBER
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant, Appellee, No. 16-2023 (1st Cir.).

The district court granted Uber's motion to compel arbitration and
dismissed the complaint.

The Plaintiffs alleged that Uber violated a Massachusetts
consumer-protection statute by knowingly imposing certain
fictitious or inflated fees.

The Court review de novo an order compelling arbitration where the
appeal involves solely legal issues as to the enforceability of an
arbitration clause.

In deciding a motion to compel arbitration, a court must first
determine whether there exists a written agreement to arbitrate.

Reasonable Notice

Uber makes no claim that any of the Plaintiffs actually saw the
arbitration clause or even clicked on the Terms of Service &
Privacy Policy button.

Under Massachusetts law, conspicuous means that a terms is so
written, displayed or presented that a reasonable person against
which it is to operate ought to have noticed it.

Uber contends that the gray rectangular box with the language Terms
of Service & Privacy Policy was reasonably conspicuous, both
visually and contextually, because it was displayed in a larger
font, in bold, contrasting in color, and highlighted by the box
around it.

First, Uber's Terms of Service & Privacy Policy hyperlink did not
have the common appearance of a hyperlink. While not all hyperlinks
need to have the same characteristics, they are commonly blue and
underlined.

Here, the Terms of Service & Privacy Policy hyperlink was presented
in a gray rectangular box in white bold text. Though not
dispositive, the characteristics of the hyperlink raise concerns as
to whether a reasonable user would have been aware that the gray
rectangular box was actually a hyperlink.

Next, the overall content of the Link Card and Link Payment screens
show that the Terms of Service & Privacy Policy hyperlink was not a
conspicuous term as defined by Massachusetts law. Again, this
hyperlink was displayed in white bold font within a gray
rectangular box. While these features may have been sufficient to
accentuate a hyperlink found within a registration process
interface with a plain design and limited content, that was not the
case here.

Uber's Terms of Service & Privacy Policy hyperlink was even less
conspicuous on the Link Payment screen. The inclusion of the
additional payment option and the placement of a large blue PayPal
button in the middle of the screen were more attention-grabbing and
displaced the hyperlink to the bottom of the screen.

It is thus the design and content of the Link Card and Link Payment
screens of the Uber App interface that lead us to conclude that
Uber's Terms of Service & Privacy Policy hyperlink was not
conspicuous. Even though the hyperlink did possess some of the
characteristics that make a term conspicuous, the presence of other
terms on the same screen with a similar or larger size, typeface,
and with more noticeable attributes diminished the hyperlink's
capability to grab the user's attention. If everything on the
screen is written with conspicuous features, then nothing is
conspicuous.

Because both the Link Card and Link Payment screens were filled
with other very noticeable terms that diminished the
conspicuousness of the Terms of Service & Privacy Policy hyperlink
and the notice, we find that the terms of the Agreement were not
reasonably communicated to the Plaintiffs. As such, Uber's motion
to compel arbitration fails.

A full-text copy of the First Circuit's June 25, 2018 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y8kb2xqg from Leagle.com.

Matthew W.H. Wessler -- matt@guptawessler.com -- Matthew Spurlock
-- matt@guptawessler.com -- Gupta Wessler PLLC, John Roddy --
jroddy@baileyglasser.com -- Elizabeth Ryan --
eryan@baileyglasser.com -- and Bailey & Glasser LLP were on brief,
for appellants.

S. Elaine McChesney -- elaine.mcchesney@morganlewis.com -- Lawrence
T. Stanley -- lawrence.stanley@morganlewis.com -- Emma D. Hall --
emma.hall@morganlewis.com -- and Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP were
on brief, for appellee.

Jennifer D. Bennett -- jbennett@publicjustice.net -- Public
Justice, P.C., Jonathan D. Selbin  -- jselbin@lchb.com -- Jason L.
Lichtman -- jlichtman@lchb.com -- Andrew R. Kaufman, Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Jahan Sagafi, Paul W. Mollica , Outten &
Golden LLP, Stuart Rossman , and National Consumer Law Center, on
brief for amicus curiae Public Justice P.C., and National Consumer
Law Center in support of appellants.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Moves to Arbitrate Data-Breach Class Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The Recorder, reports that Uber has
moved to push class actions brought over its 2017 data breach into
arbitration.

U.S. District Judge Philip Gutierrez, who is overseeing the data
breach lawsuits in the Central District of California, told lawyers
at the first status hearing last month that he would focus on the
arbitration arguments, which Uber raised in at least eight of the
17 cases so far.

Gutierrez also has asked plaintiffs lawyers to file a motion for
lead counsel by Aug. 13.

Plaintiffs attorney Ben Barnow Esq. -- b.barnow@barnowlaw.com --
of Barnow and Associates in Chicago, who filed a motion last month
before Gutierrez relating to the arbitration matter in his case,
declined to comment. Desmond Hogan, Esq. --
desmond.hogan@hoganlovells.com -- and Michelle Kisloff, Esq. --
michelle.kisloff@hoganlovells.com -- both partners at Hogan Lovells
in Washington, D.C., who represent Uber Technologies Inc., did not
respond to a request for comment.

The dispute stems from Uber's Nov. 21 announcement that hackers had
stolen the personal information of 57 million drivers and riders in
2016. It also admitted that it paid them $100,000 to destroy the
information. Several government entities, like the city of Chicago
and the states of Pennsylvania and Washington, have sued Uber over
its breach in state courts.

In federal court, meanwhile, Uber immediately filed its motions to
compel arbitration in most of the class actions. On April 4, the
U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation sent the lawsuits
to Gutierrez.

Gutierrez held his first hearing on July 30, after which he said he
would focus on the arbitration motions in the case.

In those motions, Uber argues that multiple other courts have
upheld its arbitration agreements, contained in the "terms and
conditions" that riders see when creating an account. Among those
are a decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, which last year found in a price-fixing class action,
called Meyer v. Uber, that a "reasonable user" of a smartphone
would understand the process to agree to Uber's terms of service.

"This court should reach the same conclusion as judges in this
district and across the country that, in reviewing similar Uber
sign-up processes and arbitration provisions as those here, have
found binding and enforceable agreements to arbitration," defense
counsel, Hogan, wrote in a Feb. 5 motion to compel arbitration in
Barnow's case.

Last month, Barnow, whose firm opposed that motion, filed a
supplemental memorandum flagging the First Circuit's June 25
decision in Cullinane v. Uber, which struck down Uber's arbitration
agreement in a case alleging unnecessary fees for travel in East
Boston.

In opposing arbitration, plaintiffs lawyers have argued that Uber's
agreement doesn't pertain to data-breach claims. But they also
insist that Uber's terms are inconspicuous. For instance, there is
a hyperlink in a light gray box with a black background -- rather
than blue and underlined -- and text gets covered up when a
keyboard pops up on the screen to enter credit card information.

Plaintiffs attorneys cite a 2017 decision by U.S. District Judge
Richard Seeborg in a case over Uber's cancellation fees that found
a similar keypad blocking the registration process. And the First
Circuit decision criticized the gray letters on black background,
concluding that Uber's terms of service were less conspicuous than
payment information.

"The circumstances addressed in Cullinane are virtually identical
to those placed at issue by Uber's outstanding motion to compel,"
Barnow wrote in his supplemental memorandum.

Uber countered that the First Circuit wasn't binding and, moreover,
got it wrong. The ruling failed to acknowledge most smartphone
users would have understood the process or that hyperlinks come in
all "colors, fonts, icons and shapes," including on the First
Circuit's own website, wrote Kisloff in a response on August 6.

"The First Circuit's decision in Cullinane was wrongly decided and
conflicts with the current legal landscape regarding assent to
online agreements," she wrote. "It also inexplicably departs from
the reasoning applied by other courts that have reviewed the
registration processes for Uber riders."[GN]


UMPQUA HOLDINGS: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Amirian Suit Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Umpqua Holdings Company filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit entitled Ani Amirian v. Umpqua Holdings
Company, Case No. 2:17-cv-07574-FMO-FFM, in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California, Los Angeles.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
was filed on October 16, 2017.

Umpqua Holdings, an Oregon corporation, is a financial holding
company with two principal operating subsidiaries, Umpqua Bank and
Umpqua Investments, Inc.

The appellate case is captioned as Ani Amirian v. Umpqua Holdings
Company, Case No. 18-80088, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Respondent ANI AMIRIAN, individually, and on behalf of
all other members of the general public similarly situated, is
represented by:

          Haig B. Kazandjian, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF HAIG B. KAAZNDJIAN
          801 North Brand Boulevard
          Glendale, CA
          Telephone: (818) 696-2306

               - and -

          Romina Keshishyan, Esq.
          RK LEGAL PC
          801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 970
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 696-2306
          E-mail: Romina@rklegalpc.com

Defendants-Petitioners UMPQUA HOLDINGS COMPANY, D/B/A Umpqua Bank;
an unknown business entity; and DOES 1 THROUGH 100, inclusive, are
represented by:

          Jesse C. Ferrantella, Esq.
          Timothy L. Johnson, Esq.
          Jonathan Liu, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          4370 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 990
          San Diego, CA 92122
          Telephone: (858) 652-3100
          E-mail: jesse.ferrantella@ogletree.com
                  tim.johnson@ogletreedeakins.com
                  jonathan.liu@ogletreedeakins.com

               - and -

          Carolyn Blecha Hall, Esq.
          Michael Nader, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          Steuart Tower
          One Market Plaza
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 442-4810
          E-mail: carolyn.hall@ogletreedeakins.com
                  michael.nader@ogletree.com


UNITY COURIER: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ruiz Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
ROBERTO RUIZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. UNITY COURIER SERVICE, INC.; and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Case No. BC713776 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles
Cty., July 20, 2018) is an action against the Defendants for
failure to pay wages for all hours worked, reimburse business
expenses, provide rest breaks and meal periods, to timely pay final
wages, and provide accurate wage itemized wages statements.

Mr. Ruiz was employed by the Defendants as delivery driver from
August 2, 2017.

Unity Courier Service, Inc. provides courier services. The Company
delivers individually addressed letters, parcels, and packages.
Unity Courier Service serves customers in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brian J. Mankin, Esq.
          Misty M. Lauby, Esq.
          FERNANDEZ & LAUBY LLP
          4590 Allstate Drive
          Riverside, CA 92501
          Telephone: (951) 320-1444
          Facsimile: (951) 320-1445
          E-mail: bjm@fernandezlauby.com
                  mml@fernandezlauby.com


US IMMIGRATION: Certification of Cambodian Nationals Class Okayed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned NAK KIM CHHOEUN AND MONY NETH,
individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated
individuals, the Petitioners, v. DAVID MARIN, DAVID JENNINGS,
THOMAS HOMAN, ELAINE DUKE, JEFFERSON SESSIONS III, SANDRA HUTCHENS,
AND SCOTT JONES, the Respondents, Case No. 8:17-cv-01898-CJC-GJS
(C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Cormac J. Carney entered an order on
August 14, 2018:

   1. finding that Petitioners' claims, which challenge the
      Government's uniform policy as unlawful, may proceed as a
      class action;

   2. granting in substantial part Petitioners' motion for class
      certification and certifying a class of:

      "all Cambodian nationals in the United States who received
      final orders of deportation or removal, and were
      subsequently released from ICE custody, and have not
      subsequently violated any criminal laws or conditions of
      their release, and have been or may be re-detained for
      removal by ICE";

   3. appointing Petitioners as Class Representatives and
      Petitioners' counsel, ALC and Sidley Austin LLP, as Class
      Counsel.

On March 26, 2018, the Court issued an Order finding that Chhoeun's
detention was unlawful and immediately releasing him from custody
under the same terms and conditions imposed on him prior to his
unlawful detention.  In light of the Court's March 26 Order, Judge
Carney in an order also dated March 26, directed the Respondents to
show cause why the Court should not certify the proposed class:

     "All Cambodian citizens in the United States who received
final orders of deportation or removal to Cambodia, who were
subsequently released from ICE custody, who then years later were
re-detained for removal by ICE, and who now have filed motions to
reopen their removal proceedings."

Respondents were also ordered to show cause why the Court should
not release all putative class members pending the resolution of
their motions to reopen their removal proceedings.

The Court previously entered an order taking Plaintiff's motion to
certify class under submission.

Nak Kim Chhoeun, individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly-situated individuals, Petitioner, is represented by
Michael L. Mallow , Sidley Austin LLP, Angela C. Makabali , Sidley
Austin LLP, Anoop Prasad , Asian Americans Advancing Justice,
Christopher M. Lapinig , Asian Americans Advancing Justice, Jingni
Zhao , Asian Americans Advancing Justice, Katelyn N. Rowe , Sidley
Austin LLP, Kevin Chun Hoi Lo , Asian Americans Advancing Justice,
Laboni A. Hoq , Asian Americans Advancing Justice, Lee Gelernt ,
American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, pro hac vice, Melanie
Chun-Yu Kim , Asian Americans Advancing Justice, Naomi Ariel Igra ,
Sidley Austin LLP, Nicole K. Ochi , Asian Americans Advancing
Justice, Sean A. Commons , Sidley Austin LLP, Winifred V. Kao ,
Asian Americans Advancing Justice & Darlene M. Cho , Sidley Austin
LLP.

David Marin, Field Office Director, Los Angeles Field Office,
United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, David W.
Jennings, Field Office Director, San Francisco Field Office, United
States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Thomas D. Homan, Acting
Director, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Elaine
C. Duke, Acting Secretary, United States Department of Homeland
Security, Jefferson B. Sessions, III, United States Attorney
General, Sandra Hutchens, Sheriff of Orange County & Scott R.
Jones, Sheriff of Sacramento County, Respondents, are represented
by Troy D. Liggett, US Department of Justice Office of Immigration
Litigation, Joseph Carilli, Jr., US Department of Justice Civil
Division - Office of Immigration Litigation & Julian Kurz , US
Department of Justice Civil Division - Office of Immigration
Litigation.


VALENTINE & KEBARTAS: Faces Natadze Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Valentine & Kebartas,
LLC.  The case is captioned as David Natadze, on behalf of himself
and all other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff, v.
Valentine & Kebartas, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-04525
(E.D.N.Y., Aug. 9, 2018).  The case alleges Fair Debt Collection
Act violations.

Valentine & Kebartas is doing business in collections
industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


VITAL RECOVERY: Faces Qureshi Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vital Recovery
Services, LLC. The case is captioned as Sohail Qureshi, on behalf
of himself and all other similarly situated consumers, the
Plaintiff, v. Vital Recovery Services, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-04522 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 9, 2018). The case alleges Fair Debt
Collection Act violations.

Vital Recovery is doing business in collection industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WESBANCO INC: Agreement in Principle Reached in Parshall Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
WesBanco, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that an agreement in
principle has been reached in Parshall v. Farmers Capital Bank
Corporation.

On July 10, 2018 an alleged class action complaint was filed by a
purported stockholder of Farmers Capital in the Franklin Circuit
Court of the Commonwealth of Kentucky captioned Parshall v. Farmers
Capital Bank Corporation (Case No. 18-CI-00699) against Farmers
Capital, United Bank, the individual members of the board of
directors of Farmers Capital ("Defendant Directors"), WesBanco and
WesBanco Bank (the "Complaint").

Among other things, the Complaint alleges that the Definitive Proxy
Statement filed by Farmers Capital with the Securities and Exchange
Commission ("SEC") on June 15, 2018 failed to disclose allegedly
material information, including information relating to Farmers
Capital's financial projections and the valuation analyses
performed by Farmers Capital's financial advisor in connection with
the Proposed Merger, and that the Director Defendants breached
various of their fiduciary duties to Farmers Capital's shareholders
and that Farmers Capital, United Bank, WesBanco and WesBanco Bank
aided and abetted those alleged breaches.

On July 18, 2018, solely to avoid the costs, risks and
uncertainties inherent in litigation, Farmers Capital, United Bank,
WesBanco, WesBanco Bank and the Director Defendants (Farmers
Capital, United Bank, WesBanco, WesBanco Bank and the Director
Defendants (collectively the "Defendants"), agreed with the
plaintiff, among other things, that the Defendants would make
certain additional disclosures concerning the Proposed Merger, and
the plaintiff would dismiss his complaint with prejudice.

Plaintiff's counsel reserved the right to seek attorneys' fees and
expenses. The settlement had no impact on the timing of the special
meeting of Farmers Capital shareholders, which was held on July 23,
2018 and at which Farmers Capital shareholders voted to approve the
Merger Agreement. The settlement also did not affect the merger
consideration to be paid to Farmers Capital's shareholders in
connection with the Proposed Merger. The additional disclosures
were made pursuant to a Form 8-K filed by WesBanco with the SEC on
July 18, 2018.

WesBanco, Inc. operates as the holding company for WesBanco Bank,
Inc. that provides retail banking, corporate banking, personal and
corporate trust, brokerage, and mortgage banking and insurance
services in the United States. It operates in two segments,
Community Banking, and Trust and Investment Services. WesBanco,
Inc. was founded in 1968 and is headquartered in Wheeling, West
Virginia.


XPO LAST MILE: Underpays Drivers, Gonzalez Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------
RAMON GONZALEZ; VICTOR RODRIGUEZ ORTIZ; and ADDELYN MARTE,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. XPO LAST MILE, INC. d/b/a XPO LOGISTICS, Defendants,
Case No. 1877CV01075B (Mass. Super., Essex Cty., July 20, 2018)
seeks minimum wage and overtime compensation, monetary and
liquidated damages, prejudgment interest and costs, including
reasonable attorney's fees for violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as drivers. Mr.
Gonzalez was employed from April 2015 to January 2018. Mr. Ortiz
and Ms. Marte were employed from April 2015 and continue to work
for the Defendant.

XPO Last Mile, Inc. provides last-mile logistics solutions to
customers in the United States and Canada. XPO Last Mile, Inc. was
formerly known as 3PD, Inc. and changed its name to XPO Last Mile,
Inc. in 2014. The company was founded in 2001 and is based in
Marietta, Georgia. As of August 16, 2013, XPO Last Mile, Inc.
operates as a subsidiary of XPO Logistics, Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen Churchill, Esq.
          Hillary Schwab, Esq.
          Rachel Smit, Esq.
          FAIR WORK, P.C.
          192 South Street, Suite 450
          Boston, MA 02111
          Telephone: (617) 607-3260
          E-mail: steve@fairworklaw.com
                  hillary@fairworklaw.com
                  rachel@fairworklaw.com


ZION OIL: Bragar Eagel Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Texas on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired Zion Oil & Gas, Inc. (NASDAQ: ZN) securities
between March 12, 2018 and July 10, 2018 (the "Class Period").
Investors have until October 8, 2018 to apply to the Court to be
appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) Zion was either already or was likely to soon
become the subject of an SEC investigation; and (2) as a result,
Zion's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

If you purchased Zion securities during the Class Period or
continue to hold shares purchased before the Class Period, have
information, would like to learn more about these claims, or have
any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or
interests with respect to these matters please;
        
         Contact:
         Brandon Walker, Esq.
         Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
         Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
         Telephone: (212) 355-4648
         Website: www.bespc.com
         Email: investigations@bespc.com
                fortunato@bespc.com
                walker@bespc.com [GN]


ZION OIL: Peaks Sue over Share Price Drop, Misleading Reports
-------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT W. PEAK and CINDY J. HURRELBRINK PEAK, Individually and On
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. ZION
OIL & GAS, INC., VICTOR G. CARRILLO, and MICHAEL B. CROSWELL, JR.,
the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-02067-L (N.D. Tex., Aug. 9, 2018),
is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or
otherwise acquired Zion securities between March 12, 2018 through
July 10, 2018, both dates inclusive.

According to the complaint, Zion operates as an oil and gas
exploration company in Israel. Zion currently holds one active
petroleum exploration license in Israel, the Megiddo-Jezreel
License, comprising approximately 99,000 acres. The company was
founded in 2000 and is based in Dallas, Texas. Its common stock
trades on the NASDAQ Global Market under the ticker symbol "ZN".

Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational
and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Zion was
either already or was likely to soon become the subject of an SEC
investigation; and (ii) as a result, Zion' public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.  On July 11,
2018, Zion disclosed that the Company had received a subpoena to
produce documents from the Fort Worth office of the SEC, informing
Zion of the existence of a non-public, fact-finding inquiry into
the Company. Zion advised investors that its "response to the
subpoena will necessarily entail significant costs and management's
attention".  On this news, the price of Zion common stock fell
$0.44, or 11%, to close at $3.56 on July 12, 2018. As a result of
Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous
decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiffs
and other Class members have suffered significant losses and
damages.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Willie C. Briscoe, Esq.
          THE BRISCOE LAW FIRM, PLLC
          3131 McKinney Avenue, Suite 600
          Dallas, Texas 75204
          Telephone: (214) 643 6011
          Facsimile: (281) 254 7789
          E-mail: wbriscoe@thebriscoelawfirm.com

               - and -

          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, New York 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661 1100
          Facsimile: (212) 661 8665
          E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  ahood@pomlaw.com
                  pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com


ZION OIL: Pomerantz Law Announces Filing of Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP disclsoed that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Zion Oil & Gas, Inc. ("Zion" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:
ZN) and certain of its officers.   The class action, filed in
United States District Court, Northern District of Texas, is on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons other than Defendants
who purchased or otherwise acquired Zion securities between March
12, 2018 through July 10, 2018, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants'
violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
against the Company and certain of its top officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Zion securities between
March 12, 2018, and July 10, 2018, both dates inclusive, you have
until October 8, 2018, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead
Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the Complaint can be obtained
at www.pomerantzlaw.com.  To discuss this action, contact Robert S.
Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or
888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail
are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number,
and the number of shares purchased.

Zion operates as an oil and gas exploration company in Israel. Zion
currently holds one active petroleum exploration license in Israel,
the Megiddo-Jezreel License, comprising approximately 99,000
acres.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants
failed to disclose that: (i) Zion was either already or was likely
to soon become the subject of an SEC investigation; and (ii) as a
result, Zion' public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On July 11, 2018, Zion disclosed that the Company had received a
subpoena to produce documents from the Fort Worth office of the
SEC, informing Zion of the existence of a non-public, fact-finding
inquiry into the Company.  Zion advised investors that its
"response to the subpoena will necessarily entail significant costs
and management's attention".

On this news, the price of Zion common stock fell $0.44, or 11%, to
close at $3.56 on July 12, 2018.

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



                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2018. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***