CAR_Public/180830.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, August 30, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 174

                            Headlines

1LIFE HEALTHCARE: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Murphy Says
ACTION REVENUE: Blakeley Suit Alleges FDCPA Violation
ALAMO MISSION: Fails to Pay Servers, Quattrone Suit Claims
ALLIANZ ASSET: Court Approves Settlement in ERISA Suit
ALTICE USA: Stephanie Garcia Sues over 2017 IPO

AMAZON.COM LLC: Court Narrows Claims in C. Morales's Wage Suit
AMERICAN CORADIUS: Faces Emily Switz Suit in E.D. Wisconsin
AMERICAN HONDA: Decertification of Secret Warranty Claim Reversed
AMERICAN PACIFIC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Brydl-Smith Alleges
ANCHOR DRILLING: Fails to Pay Proper OT, Kapolka et al. Claim

ANYTIME LABOR-KANSAS: Wins Declaratory Judgment in Worker's Suit
APPLE INC: Faces Mendez Suit in Southern District of New York
ARIZONA: Secretary of State Faces League of Women Voters' Suit
ASSET RECOVERY: Faces Cassie Mount Suit in E.D. North Carolina
AUSTRALIAN GOLD: Bauman Suit Alleges CLRA Violation

AVCORP COMPOSITE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Chang Suit Alleges
AXA EQUITABLE: Court Won't Review Denial of Bid to Junk 4226 Claim
BARCLAYS CAPITAL: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of UCL Suit
BEGGINS ENTERPRISES: Becker Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
BLACK GOLD RENTAL: Underpays Service Reps & Technicians, Suit Says

BRAMBLES LIMITED: Facing New Shareholder Legal Battle
CA INC: Gainey McKenna Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
CANADA: Veteran Launches Proposed Class-Action Lawsuit
CAPITAL ONE: Court Dismisses N. Porteous's Amended FLSA Suit
CENLAR FSB: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss M. Weir's RICO Suit

CHAMPION PETFOODS: Bid to Remove Website Discussing Suit Denied
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Reaches $7.75MM Settlement with Royalty Owners
CLEARONE ADVANTAGE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Souders Suit Says
CORELOGIC NATIONAL: D. Alvarez's FCRA Action Transferred to D. Del.
CREDIT UNION: Court Grants Protective Stipulations in "Nichols"

DMNO LLC: Court Approves Settlement in Servers' Suit
DUNNING MANAGEMENT: Fails to Pay OT to Managers, DeBarbieris Says
EBIX INC: Summary Judgment Bids in Stockholder Suit Partly Granted
EKIMOTO & MORRIS: Court Dismisses C. Connelly's FDCPA Claim
FACEBOOK INC: Indonesian Class Action Lawsuit Sets Precedent

FLORIDA FIRST: Cooper Suit Seeks Damages Under TCPA
GDS HOLDINGS: Klein Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
GDS HOLDINGS: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Class Action
GOODWILL INDUSTRIES: Drivers' Class Certification Denial Affirmed
GOOGLE INC: Tracks Location of Mobile Phone Users, Patacsil Says

GSG PROTECTIVE: Fails to Pay OT to Security Guards, Pasallo Says
H & J RESTAURANT: Dunn Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
HAYT & HAYT: Sera Sues over Debt Collection Practices
HIDALGO COUNTY, NM: Ct. to Review Stipulated Judgment in "Jimenez"
HOOGLAND FOODS: Underpays Delivery Drivers, Sutherlin Suit Says

IROQUOIS HOTEL: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Mercer Alleges
JOHNNY TAYLOR: Robinson Sues over Debt Collection Practices
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Cathy Bernal Sues over Talc Powder-Based Injury
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Dorothy Bro Sues over Talc Powder-Based Injury
JOON LLC: Faces Song Suit in Middle District of Alabama

JPMORGAN CHASE: Jan. 22 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
JUST SALAD: Tecocoatzi-Ortiz et al. Seek Unpaid Wages & OT
KIA MOTORS: Grant of JNOV in R. Little's Suit Reversed
KIVA BRANDS: Faces Lambert Suit over Mislabeled Products
KMIN USA: Fails to Pay OT to Sales Managers, Jin Suit Alleges

KNORR-BREMSE: Arcuri Suit over No-Poach Deal Moved to W.D. Pa.
KNORR-BREMSE: Johnson Suit over No-Poach Deal Moved to W.D. Pa.
LANDSCAPES BY LANCE: Suarez Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
LM RESTAURANTS: Grimes Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
MAC COSMETICS: J. Monteon's Unpaid Rest Suit Remains in Dist. Court

MARIN COUNTY, CA: Perez et al. Seek Overtime Pay under FLSA
MASTERS FOOD: Underpays Delivery Workers, Cuxil et al. Allege
MDL 2311: Sept. 26 Mitsuba Settlement Final Approval Hearing Set
MDL 2437: $63MM Attorneys' Fees Awarded in Drywall Antitrust Suit
MDL 2804: Masiowski Sues Amerisourcebergen over RICO Violations

MEDWAY PLASTICS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Sanchez, & Hicks Say
MERRILL LYNCH: Removed Case to Southern District of Florida
MICHAEL PAGE: Removes Jordan Suit to C.D. California
MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Faces Bryant Suit over DRAM Price Fixing
MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces Lewis Suit in Southern District of Ohio

MINNESOTA LONG BEACH: Maldonado Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages
MSI INVENTORY: Court Narrows Claims in K. Roush's Wage & Hour Suit
NESTLE USA: Dismissal of Ivory Coast Child Labor Suit Affirmed
NEW YORK: Bronx Residents Settle Class Action Suit
NIELSEN HOLDINGS: Oct. 8 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline

NIKE INC: Former Female Workers File Sex-Bias Class Suit
NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Bethpage Residents File Contamination Lawsuit
ORACLE CORP: Rosen Law Firm Files Class Action Lawsuit
OWTEL WIRELESS: Rivera Alleges Wrongful Debt Collections
PACIFIC TRUCK: Fails to Pay OT to Drivers, Qagi Suit Alleges

PENSKE LOGISTICS: Michelle Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
PINNACLE FOODS: Gainey McKenna Files Securities Class Action
POSTMEDS INC: Campos Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
PRINTOGRAPH INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Hakopian Suit Says
QUALITY HUTS: Sagendorf Seeks Minimum Wages & OT under FLSA

R&L CARRIERS: Fails to Pay Wages, Miranda & Maya Claim
RED RIBBON BAKESHOP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ebuen Suit Claims
RESCUE ONE: Whittaker Sues over Unwanted Telephone Calls
RSL INC: Koenig Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
RYDER INTEGRATED: $300K Settlement in Drivers' Suit Has Prelim OK

SALVATION ARMY: Wright Sues over Unpaid Overtime under FLSA
SAVORY & SWEET: Faces Bishop Suit in Southern Dist. of New York
SCENTBIRD INC: Faces Crosson Suit in Eastern District of New York
SCHNEIDER NATIONAL: Class Action Settlement Has Prelim Approval
SCREEN ACTORS GUILD: Faces Risto Suit in C.D. California

SEBASTOPOL, CA: Ct. Won't Certify Class in Vehicle Impounding Suit
SGB ENTERPRISES: Underpays Mechanical Engineers, Suit Alleges
SINCLAIR BROADCAST: Rosen Law Firm Files Class Action Lawsuit
STANDARD & POOR'S: Settles Landmark Lawsuit in Australia
SURNAIK HOLDINGS: Multiple Claims in IEI Fire Lawsuit Dismissed

SUTTER HEALTH: Faces Bracamontes Suit in San Joaquin, California
TESLA INC: Maia Sues over Going-Private Transaction
TEXPO POWER: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Perrong Suit Claims
TIME INC: Class Settlement in C. Perlin's Suit Has Prelim OK
TOSHIBA CORP: 9th Cir. Reverses Dismissal of M. Stoyas' Suit

TOYOTA MOTOR: Court Dismisses D. Campbell's CLEC Suit
TRAKUS LLC: Underpays Computer Operators, Altaf Suit Alleges
UNILEVER UNITED: No Final Judgment on Pepsi Soft Drink Claims
UNION PACIFIC: Harris et al. Seek to Certify Class
UNITED STATES: Judge OKs $3.5MM Deal Between IRS, Tea Party Groups

UNUM GROUP: Levi & Korsinsky Files Securities Class Action
VIKING ENTERPRISES: Fails to Pay Wages to Paramedics, Ellis Says
VIRGIN AMERICA: Partial Summary Judgment in FAs' Suit Granted
VIRGINIA: Suit vs. Vehicle Dealer Board Remanded to State Court
VUZIX CORPORATION: Bauman Sues over 22% Drop in Share Price

WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Fails to Pay OT, Anguiano-Tamayo Alleges
WAL-MART STORES: Court Certifies 6 Subclasses in Hamilton Suit
WILMINGTON TRUST: $200MM Securities Class Deal Has Prelim Approval
WISCONSIN: Court Denies Leave to Disclose Rebuttal Liability Expert
ZION OIL: Oct. 8 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline


                            *********

1LIFE HEALTHCARE: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Murphy Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES MURPHY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 1LIFE HEALTHCARE, INC. d/b/a ONE MEDICAL,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06785 (S.D.N.Y., July 27, 2018) alleges
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff alleged in the complaint that the Defendant failed to
design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other
blind or visually impaired people.

The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby and
in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of the
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

1Life Healthcare, Inc. provides healthcare services and offers
primary care physician services for the employers. It provides
employee wellness assessments, access to primary care physicians,
prevention and wellness experts, and online/mobile tools and
services. The company was incorporated in 2002 and is based in San
Francisco, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, N.Y. 10003-2461
          Telephone: (212) 228-9795
          Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
          E-mail: nyjg@aol.com
                  danalgottlieb@aol.com


ACTION REVENUE: Blakeley Suit Alleges FDCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------
Nicole Blakeley, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Action Revenue Recovery, LLC, Case No. 5:18-cv-05147
(W.D. Ark., July 24, 2018), is brought against the Defendant for
violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is a resident of the State of Arkansas, County of
Benton, and City of Rogers.

The Defendant is a debt collector that uses mails and telephone, in
attempting to collect a debt. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Russel S. Thompson, IV, Esq.
      THOMPSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, PLLC
      5235 E. Southern Ave., D106-618
      Mesa, AZ 85206
      Tel: (602) 388-8898
      Fax: (866) 317-2674
      E-mail: rthompson@thompsonconsumerlaw.com


ALAMO MISSION: Fails to Pay Servers, Quattrone Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
MELISA QUATTRONE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALAMO MISSION LLC; and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. CGC-18-568435 (Cal. Super., San
Francisco, July 27, 2018) is an action against the Defendants for
failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and
permit meal and rest periods, and provide accurate wage
statements.

Ms. Quattrone was employed by the Defendants as server from
November 2015 to February 2018.

Alamo Mission LLC is a California limited liability company engaged
in the restaurant business. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kelly Armstrong, Esq.
          Matthew J. Wayne, Esq.
          THE ARMSTRONG LAW FIRM
            A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
          302 Caledonia Street, Suite 4
          Sausalito, CA 94965
          Telephone: (415) 331-4400
          Facsimile: (415) 331-4407
          E-mail: kelly@thearmstronglawfirm.com
                  mwayne@thearmstronglawfirm.com


ALLIANZ ASSET: Court Approves Settlement in ERISA Suit
------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California granted Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of the
Class Action Settlement Agreement in the case captioned ALEKSANDR
URAKHCHIN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ALLIANZ ASSET MANAGEMENT OF
AMERICA, L.P., et al., Defendants, Case No. 8:15-cv-01614-JLS-JCG
(C.D. Cal.).

The Court finds that it has subject matter jurisdiction over the
claims herein and personal jurisdiction over the Defendants and the
Class Members pursuant to the provisions of Employee Retirement
Income Security Act (ERISA), and expressly retains that
jurisdiction for purposes of enforcing this Final Approval Order
and/or the Settlement Agreement.

The Court finds that all applicable CAFA requirements have been
satisfied.

The Settlement Administrator will have final authority to determine
the share of the Net Settlement Amount to be allocated to each
Current Participant and each Authorized Former Participant pursuant
to the Plan of Allocation approved by the Court.

With respect to payments or distributions to Authorized Former
Participants, all questions not resolved by the Settlement
Agreement will be resolved by the Settlement Administrator in its
sole and exclusive discretion.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 30, 2018 Judgment is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ydx4hs2b from Leagle.com.

Aleksandr Urakhchin, individually, as representatives of the class,
and on behalf of the Allianz Asset Management of America, L.P.
401(k) Savings and Retirement Plan & Nathan Marfice, individually,
as representatives of the class, and on behalf of the Allianz Asset
Management of America, L.P. 401(k) Savings and Retirement Plan,
Plaintiffs, represented by Carl F. Engstrom, Nichols Kaster PLLP,
pro hac vice, Jennifer K. Lee -- jlee@nka.com -- Nichols Kaster
PLLP, pro hac vice, Kai H. Richter -- krichter@nka.com -- Nichols
Kaster PLLP, pro hac vice, Paul J. Lukas -- Lukas@nka.com --
Nichols Kaster PLLP, pro hac vice & Richard L. Kellner --
rlk@kbklawyers.com -- Kabateck Brown Kellner LLP.

Allianz Asset Management of America, L.P. 401(K) Savings and
Retirement Plan, Plaintiff, represented by Carl F. Engstrom,
Nichols Kaster PLLP, Jennifer K. Lee, Nichols Kaster PLLP, Paul J.
Lukas, Nichols Kaster PLLP, pro hac vice, Kai H. Richter, Nichols
Kaster PLLP, pro hac vice & Richard L. Kellner, Kabateck Brown
Kellner LLP.

Allianz Asset Management of America, L.P., Allianz Asset Management
of America, LLC, Committee of the Allianz Asset Management of
America, L.P. 401(K) Savings and Retirement Plan & John Maney,
Defendants, represented by Christina Queiros Bouchot --
cbouchot@goodwinlaw.com -- Goodwin Procter LLP, David M. Rosenberg
-- drosenberg@goodwinlaw.com -- Goodwin Procter LLP, pro hac vice,
James O. Fleckner -- jfleckner@goodwinlaw.com -- Goodwin Procter
LLP, pro hac vice, Paul E. Nemser -- pnemser@goodwinlaw.com --
Goodwin Procter LLP, pro hac vice & Steven A. Ellis --
sellis@goodwinlaw.com -- Goodwin Procter LLP.

Allianz Global Investors Fund Management LLC, Pacific Investment
Management Company LLC, Allianz Global Investors U.S. LLC & NFJ
Investment Group LLC, Defendants, represented byChristina Queiros
Bouchot, Goodwin Procter LLP, David M. Rosenberg, Goodwin Procter
LLP, pro hac vice & James O. Fleckner, Goodwin Procter LLP, pro hac
vice.


ALTICE USA: Stephanie Garcia Sues over 2017 IPO
-----------------------------------------------
A securities class action lawsuit has been filed against Altice
USA, Inc.  The case is brought on behalf of a class consisting of
all persons and entities, other than Defendants and their
affiliates, who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded
securities of Altice USA pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's
initial public offering on or around June 22, 2017, seeking to
recover compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the
Securities Act of 1933.

The IPO was conducted pursuant to a prospectus with the Securities
Exchange Commission as part of a Form S-l registration statement,
collectively referred to as the "Registration Statement". The
Registration Statement made materially false or misleading
statements concerning, among other things, the purported
competitive advantage and managerial expertise the Company enjoyed
through employing the "Altice Way" when, in fact, Altice USA and
its corporate parent, Altice Europe.

The lawsuit is captioned as Stephanie Garcia, Individually on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. Altice
USA, Inc., Altice Europe N.V., Patrick Drahi, Dexter Goei, Michel
Combes, Dennis Okhuijsen, Jeremie Bonnin, Raymond Svider, Mark
Mullen, Charles Stewart, Victoria Mink, Abdelhakim Boubazine, Lisa
Rosenblum, David Connolly, J.P. Morgan Securities, LLC, Morgan
Stanley & Co. LLC, Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Goldman Sachs &
Co. LLC, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated,
Barclays Capital Inc., BNP Paribas Securities Corp., Credit
Agricole Securities (USA) Inc., Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., RBC
Capital Markets, LLC, Scotia Capital (USA) Inc., SG Americas
Securities LLC, and TD Securities (USA) LLC, the Defendants, Case
No. 712803/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Aug. 17, 2018).

Altice is an American cable television provider/multiple system
operator with headquarters in New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Phillip Kim, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 686 1060
          Facsimile: (212) 202 3827
          E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com


AMAZON.COM LLC: Court Narrows Claims in C. Morales's Wage Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California granted Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's meal
and rest break claims pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) in the
case captioned CARLOS MORALES, an individual, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AMAZON.COM, LLC., a
Delaware corporation; PEACH, INC., DBA ACTION MESSENGER SERVICE., a
California corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-1981-ODW-JEM (C.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint alleging eight
causes of action: (1) Failure to Provide Meal Periods; (2) Failure
to Provide Rest Periods; (3) Failure to Pay Hourly Wages; (4)
Failure to Provide Accurate Written Wage Statements; (5) Failure to
Timely Pay All Final Wages; (6) Unfair Competition; (7) Failure to
Pay Employees for All Hours Worked; and (8) Civil Penalties.

FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

The Plaintiff's First and Second Causes of Action: Failure to
Provide Meal and Rest Periods

The Defendants contend that the Plaintiff's meal and rest break
claims are insufficiently alleged and therefore fail to provide the
Defendants fair notice.

The Defendants argue that Plaintiff failed to allege facts
demonstrating precisely how Defendants failed to provide meal and
rest periods, and which allegations pertain to Amazon and Peach
individually.   

The Court finds that the Plaintiff's allegations are vague and
insufficient because it is unclear whether the Defendants actually
failed to provide a meal and rest break, or whether the Plaintiff
and applicable sub-classes chose not to take otherwise available
breaks. In support of his claims, the Plaintiff simply states that
workload, pressure, and a lack of written policies impeded the
Plaintiff and appropriate sub-classes from taking breaks. These
broad statements do not allege any pertinent factual information
regarding how Amazon or Peach actually went about coercing the
Plaintiff and sub-classes to forego breaks. Without further factual
allegations, the Defendants are not provided with sufficient fair
notice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and
Twombly/Iqbal.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants maintained control over
packages and the amount of packages employees were required to
deliver. Yet, the Plaintiff fails to show exactly how Defendants'
control over packages directly impacted the Plaintiff and sub-class
members. A broad conclusory statement that workload and pressure
required employees to work through their breaks is not enough to
establish that the Defendants violated the California Labor Code.


The Plaintiff's allegation that the Defendants failed to provide
written policies pertaining to available meal and rest breaks is
insufficient to state a claim. Simply alleging a failure to provide
written notice is not enough to establish employer liability. Yet,
this argument is a misreading of the Twombly/Iqbal pleading
standard and indicates the Plaintiff misunderstands the key issues
raised by the Defendants.

While an employer's lack of meal break policy may raise questions
of liability, it is not dispositive, and a plaintiff is still
required to provide sufficient factual support. Simply alleging
that meal and rest period policies were not provided fails to offer
any notice of how employees' meal and break period rights were
actually violated. That is, Plaintiff never shows that employees
lacked information about their meal and rest period rights or how
employees' ability to take breaks were actually impacted.

Accordingly, the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiff's
First and Second Causes of Action are granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 30, 2018, Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ydgykmw3 from Leagle.com.

Carlos Morales, on behalf of himself, all others similarly
situated, and the general public, Petitioner, represented by Chaim
Shaun Setareh -- shaun@setarehlaw.com -- Setareh Law Group, Thomas
Alistair Segal , Setareh Law Group, Cody R. Kennedy, Marlin and
Saltzman LLP, Stanley D. Saltzman -- ssaltzman@marlinsaltzman.com
-- Marlin and Saltzman LLP & Stephen P. O'Dell --
sodell@marlinsaltzman.com -- Marlin and Saltzman LLP.

Amazon.Com LLC, a Delaware corporation, Respondent, represented by
Christopher J. Banks -- christopher.banks@morganlewis.com -- Morgan
Lewis and Bockius LLP, John S. Battenfeld --
john.battenfeld@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP,
Andrea L. Fellion -- andrea.fellion@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis
and Bockius LLP & Roberta H. Kuehne --
roberta.kuehne@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP.

Peach, Inc., a California corporation, Respondent, represented by
Charles E. Ruben , Law Office of Charles E Ruben.


AMERICAN CORADIUS: Faces Emily Switz Suit in E.D. Wisconsin
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Coradius
International LLC. The lawsuit is captioned as Emily Switz,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. American Coradius International LLC, the Defendant,
the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01278-WCG (E.D. Wisc., Aug. 17,
2018). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge William C. Griesbach.
The case alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Act.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AMERICAN HONDA: Decertification of Secret Warranty Claim Reversed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JANET CASE et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v.
AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC. Defendant and Respondent, Case No.
B279468 (Cal. App.), Judge Audrey B. Collins of the Court of
Appeals of California for the Second District, Division Four,
reversed the trial court's orders (i) denying class certification
of the Plaintiffs' failure to disclose claims, and (ii) granting
the decertification of the Plaintiffs' secret warranty claim.

Case and Courtney Shararian appeal from the denial of a motion for
class certification in this product liability lawsuit against
Honda.  

On behalf of a putative class of owners of certain Honda vehicles,
the Plaintiffs alleged that the vehicles contained a common design
defect that could cause the automatic transmission to prematurely
fail; the Plaintiffs further alleged that Honda knew about the
defect but failed to disclose it to consumers.  In addition, they
alleged that Honda adopted an unofficial extended warranty program
for transmission repair costs for complaining owners, but failed to
disclose the program to consumers in violation of the Secret
Warranty Law.

The trial court initially denied class certification as to the
Plaintiffs' failure-to-disclose claims, but granted it as to the
secret warranty claim.  However, at the suggestion of Honda's
counsel, the court agreed to reconsider the latter decision and,
following additional briefing and argument, decertified that claim.
The Court found that the Plaintiffs failed to meet their burden to
establish the existence of predominant common questions, in
particular, the existence of a design defect common to all class
vehicles that could be proven by common evidence.  It further
concluded that the Plaintiffs had not established that their claims
were typical of the class or that the proposed class trial would be
manageable.  In reconsidering the secret warranty claim, the court
found that the same issues with lack of common evidence of a defect
defeated that claim as well.

On appeal, the Plaintiffs argue that the trial court improperly
analyzed the merits of their claims and required them to prove the
existence of the alleged transmission design defect.  They assert
that their theory of a defect inherent in the vehicles' design was
amenable to common proof and therefore sufficient to warrant
certification.  They further argue that the trial court erred by
decertifying the class on the secret warranty claim without a
showing of changed circumstances.

Judge Collins concludes that the trial court abused its discretion
in denying class certification based on an analysis of the merits
of the Plaintiffs' claims.  Rather than analyzing the issue of
whether the defect alleged by the Plaintiffs was amenable to common
proof, the court focused on whether the Plaintiffs had sufficiently
proved the existence of the inherent design defect.  In doing so,
the court improperly evaluated the merits of the Plaintiffs'
claims.  The trial court also failed to identify or assess any
individual issues that might render the proposed class action
unmanageable.  As such, the court lacked substantial evidence to
conclude that the Plaintiffs had failed to meet their burden on
this issue.

Further, while the trial court had the authority to reconsider its
certification ruling on its own motion, it similarly erred in
considering the merits on the Plaintiffs' secret warranty claim.
The trial court did abuse its discretion in its substantive
determination to decertify the secret warranty class.  She
concludes that the trial court engaged in an improper merits
analysis regarding proof of the third clutch defect.  The court's
subsequent decertification of the secret warranty class was based
on the same analysis and a finding that the secret warranty claim
was "tethered" to the purported third clutch defect.  As such, the
court's conclusion that the Plaintiffs could not establish
predominance of common issues as to their secret warranty claim
must be reversed as well.

For these reasons, Judge Collins reversed.  She remanded the matter
for further proceedings consistent with her Opinion.  The
Plaintiffs are awarded their costs on appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 17, 2018 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/QpZx5E from Leagle.com.

Esensten Law, Robert L. Esensten , Jordan S. Esensten for Plaintiff
and Appellant.

Sidley Austin, Michael Mallow -- MMALLOW@SIDLEY.COM -- Sean A.
Commons -- SCOMMONS@SIDLEY.COM -- Michael B. Shortnacy --
mshortnacy@kslaw.com -- Rachel A. Straus --RSTRAUS@SIDLEY.COM;
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith and Eric Y. Kizirian --
Eric.Kizirian@lewisbrisbois.com -- for Defendant and Respondent.


AMERICAN PACIFIC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Brydl-Smith Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
SIMONE BRYDL-SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN PACIFIC MORTGAGE
CORPORATION, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. BC715065
(Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., July 26, 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.

The Plaintiff Brydl-Smith was employed by the Defendants as an
hourly-paid, non-exempt employee from November 2015 to April 2017.

American Pacific Mortgage Corporation provides retail mortgage
lending and branching services in the United States. The company
was founded in 1996 and is based in Roseville, California. [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

               - and –

          Amir Nayebdadash, Esq.
          Heather Davis, Esq.
          PROTECTION LAW GROUP LLP
          136 Main Street, Suite A
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (844) 294-3095


ANCHOR DRILLING: Fails to Pay Proper OT, Kapolka et al. Claim
-------------------------------------------------------------
CHAD KAPOLKA, and BRETT TURRENTINE, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ANCHOR DRILLING
FLUIDS, USA, LLC; and Q'MAX AMERICA INC., Defendants, Case No.
2:18-cv-01007-AJS (W.D. Pa., July 27, 2018) is an action against
the Defendant for failure to pay wages and overtime compensation.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as a non-exempt,
hourly-paid employees.

Anchor Drilling Fluids USA, Inc. provides integrated fluids
management and customized drilling fluids, and related services
solutions to oil and gas exploration and production industry in the
United States. Anchor Drilling Fluids USA, Inc. was founded in 1984
and is headquartered in Tulsa, Oklahoma. As of November 21, 2017,
Anchor Drilling Fluids USA, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Q'max
America Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew Dunlap, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 352-1100
          Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
          E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                  adunlap@mybackwages.com

               - and -

          Richard J. Burch, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 877-8788
          Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
          E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com

               - and -

          Joshua P. Geist, Esq.
          GOODRICH & GEIST, P.C.
          3634 California Ave.
          Pittsburgh, PA 15212
          Telephone: (412) 766-1455
          Facsimile: (412) 766-0300
          E-mail: josh@goodrichandgeist.com


ANYTIME LABOR-KANSAS: Wins Declaratory Judgment in Worker's Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Missouri, Western Division, granted Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary
Judgment as to Defendant Christine Anderson in the case captioned
ANYTIME LABOR-KANSAS LLC, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CHRISTINE
ANDERSON, et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:17-00573-CV-RK (W.D.
Mo.).

Defendant Anderson was previously employed as a temporary worker by
Defendant Anytime Labor-Kansas, LLC.  Defendant Anytime
Labor-Kansas, LLC does business under the name "LaborMAX Staffing."
As part of her two-page application for employment, Defendant
Anderson executed a Policy Regarding Dispute Resolution.

The Plaintiffs are seeking a declaratory judgment and injunctive
relief from the Court precluding Defendant Anderson from proceeding
with an attempted class/collective arbitration that has been filed
with the American Arbitration Association, Case No. 01-17-0003-6335
(Anderson Arbitration).

Here, the Court finds that there is a valid arbitration agreement
and that Defendant Anderson's dispute falls within the terms of the
agreement.

Based on this, the Arbitration Agreement is silent regarding class
arbitration and is therefore construed as not allowing class
arbitration. Defendant Anderson signed the Arbitration Agreement
which allows only individual arbitration. Therefore, Plaintiffs
succeed on their declaratory judgment action.

The Plaintiffs have succeeded on the merits of their declaratory
judgment action. The Plaintiffs have also shown that allowing
Defendant Anderson to proceed with class arbitration against them
would result in irreparable harm.

Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment is granted
with regard to their claims against Defendant Anderson seeking
declaratory judgment and injunctive relief.

The Arbitration Agreement executed by Defendant Anderson does not
permit arbitration of class, collective, or group claims; the
Plaintiffs did not agree to arbitration of disputes arising out of
Defendant Anderson's employment on a class, collective, or group
basis; and the Plaintiffs are not required by the Arbitration
Agreement to participate in class, collective, or group arbitration
as to the claims Defendant Anderson has raised in her Demand for
Arbitration in the Anderson Arbitration.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 5, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yb7l9zc5 from Leagle.com.

Anytime Labor-Kansas LLC, Anytime Labor-Funding, LLC, Anytime
Labor-Springfield LLC, Anytime Labor-KC Metro, LLC & Anytime Labor
Las Vegas LLC, Plaintiffs, represented by Kevin D. Case --
case@caselinden.com -- Case Linden PC, Cory Richter Buck, Case
Linden PC & Patric Shane Linden, Case Linden PC.

Christine Anderson, Defendant, pro se.

Erin Auman, Amber Blackaby, Donna Burns, Emanuel Campbell, Derek
Entrikin, Chrissa Erichsen, Laura Keith, Susan Kraft, Thomas
Fountain & Krystal Nankivel, Defendants, represented by Brittany
Coughlin Mehl -- mehl@Cornerstonefirm.com -- Cornerstone Law Firm &
Ryan Paulus -- ryan.paulus@pauluslawfirm.com -- Cornerstone Law
Firm.


APPLE INC: Faces Mendez Suit in Southern District of New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Apple Inc.  The
lawsuit is captioned as Himelda Mendez, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Apple Inc., the
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-07550 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 17, 2018). The
case alleges Americans with Disabilities Act violations.

Apple Inc. is an American multinational technology company
headquartered in Cupertino, California, that designs, develops, and
sells consumer electronics, computer software, and online
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ARIZONA: Secretary of State Faces League of Women Voters' Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Michele Reagan.  The
lawsuit is captioned as League of Women Voters of Arizona; Mi
Familia Vota Education Fund; and Promise Arizona, on behalf of
themselves, their members, and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Michele Reagan, in her official capacity as Secretary
of State for the State of Arizona, the Defendant, Case No.
2:18-cv-02620-DMF (D. Ariz., Aug. 17, 2018). The case is assigned
to the Hon. Judge Deborah M Fine.

Arizona, a southwestern U.S. state, is best known for the Grand
Canyon, the mile-deep chasm carved by the Colorado River.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Arusha Gordon, Esq.
          Ezra D Rosenberg, Esq.
          Jon Marshall Greenbaum, Esq.
          LAWYERS COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER LAW
          1401 New York Ave. NW, Ste. 400
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 662 8306
          E-mail: agordon@lawyerscommittee.org
                  erosenberg@lawyerscommittee.org
                  jgreenbaum@lawyerscommittee.org

               - and -

          Ceridwen Cherry, Esq.
          Sarah Brannon, Esq.
          Theresa J Lee, Esq.
          ACLU - WASHINGTON DC
          915 15th St. NW, 7th Fl.
          Washington, DC 20005

               - and -

          Chiraag Bains, Esq.
          Stuart Naifeh, Esq.
          DEMOS - WASHINGTON, DC
          740 6th St. NW, 2nd Fl.
          Washington, DC 20001

               - and -

          Darrell Lavar Hill, Esq.
          Kathleen E Brody, Esq.
          ACLU - PHOENIX, AZ
          P.O. Box 17148
          Phoenix, AZ 85011
          Telephone: (602) 650 1854
          E-mail: dhill@acluaz.org
                  kbrody@acluaz.org

               - and -

          Julie Marie Birk, Esq.
          Lawrence GD Scarborough, Esq.
          Teresa Pauline Meece, Esq.
          BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP - PHOENIX, AZ
          2 N Central Ave., Ste. 2100
          Phoenix, AZ 85004-4406
          Telephone: (602) 364 7282
          Facsimile: (602) 364 7070
          E-mail: julie.birk@bclplaw.com
                  lgscarborough@bclplaw.com
                  teresa.meece@bclplaw.com


ASSET RECOVERY: Faces Cassie Mount Suit in E.D. North Carolina
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Asset Recovery
Solutions, LLC.  The lawsuit is captioned as Cassie Mount,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Asset Recovery Solutions, LLC and John Does 1-25,
Case No. 5:18-cv-00403-D (E.D.N.C., Aug. 17, 2018). The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge James C. Dever, III, and alleges Fair
Debt Collection Act violations.

Asset Recovery Solutions, LLC is a full service asset recovery
management company that is committed to establishing unmatched
standards of performance.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Asa Covington Edwards, IV, Esq.
          MAGINNIS LAW, PLLC
          4801 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 310
          Raleigh, NC 27612
          Telephone: (919) 526 0450
          Facsimile: (919) 882 8763
          E-mail: aedwards@maginnislaw.com


AUSTRALIAN GOLD: Bauman Suit Alleges CLRA Violation
---------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Bauman, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Australian Gold, LLC, and Does 1-10, Case No.
3:18-cv-01682  (S.D. Calif., July 24, 2018), is brought against the
Defendants for violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant is unlawfully labeling its
consumable consumer packaged goods, such as Australian Gold Spray
Gel with Instant Bronzer, with the false designation and
representation that the products are or were a "Product of U.S.A."

The Plaintiff is a resident of the City of Vista, County of San
Diego, State of California.

The Defendant is a limited liability company based in Indiana. The
Defendant conducts business through Internet sales and mail orders,
and at general merchandise stores and outlets within the United
States. One of the products sold by Defendant is the Australian
Gold Spray Gel with Instant Bronzer. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
      Yana A. Hart, Esq.
      HYDE & SWIGART, APC
      2221 Camino Del Rio South, Ste 101
      San Diego, CA 92108
      Tel: (619) 233-7770
      Fax: (619) 297-1022
      E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com
              yana@westcoastlitigation.com


AVCORP COMPOSITE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Chang Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM CHANG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AVCORP COMPOSITE FABRICATION, INC.; and DOES
1 through 100, Defendants, Case No. BC715159 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., July 27, 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. Chang was employed by the Defendants as non-exempt employees
from August 2003 to March 2018.

Avcorp Composite Fabrication Inc. was founded in 2015. The
company's line of business includes the manufacturing of aircraft
parts and equipment. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul K. Haines, Esq.
          Fletcher W. Schmidt, Esq.
          Andrew J. Rowbotham, Esq.
          Matthew K. Moen, Esq.
          Brittaney D. de la Torre, Esq.
          HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
          222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (424) 292-2350
          Facsimile: (424) 292-2355
          E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com
                  fschmidt@haineslawgroup.com
                  arowbotham@haineslawgroup.com
                  mmoen@haineslawgroup.com
                  bdelatorre@haineslawgroup.com


AXA EQUITABLE: Court Won't Review Denial of Bid to Junk 4226 Claim
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York denied Defenant's Motion for Reconsideration in the case
captioned IN RE: AXA EQUITABLE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY COI
LITIGATION, This Document Relates to LSH CO v. AXA Equitable Life
Insurance Company, No. 18-CV-2111 (JMF). No. 16-CV-740 (JMF).
(S.D.N.Y.)

AXA moves for reconsideration of the denial of its motion to
dismiss the Section 4226 claim in the then-operative version of the
complaint.

In this putative class action, the Brach Family Foundation, Inc.,
alleges that, by increasing the cost of insurance (COI) for a group
of flexible-premium life insurance policyholders, Defendant AXA
Equitable Life Insurance Company breached the terms of the policies
at issue and made material misrepresentations in violation of
Section 4226 of the New York Insurance Law.

The Court finds that AXA's efforts to satisfy the stringent
standard of reconsideration are not persuasive. First, contrary to
AXA's assertions, the Court did not overlook key documents that are
dispositive namely, the illustrations attached to the Second
Amended Complaint in denying the motion to dismiss. To the
contrary, the Court scrutinized the illustrations and expressly
cited them in its Opinion, and also considered allegations in the
Second Amended Complaint that provided detail as to the timing and
nature of the allegedly fraudulent materials in question and
explained in depth their alleged import.

Similarly, the Court remains unconvinced by AXA's contention that
the illustrations contradict allegations in the Second Amended
Complaint and therefore supersede those allegations. It is true
that documents appended to a complaint control, and this Court need
not accept as true a complaint's allegations about the content of
the documents to the extent that the allegations contradict the
documents themselves. Yet where no such contradiction exists, the
Court is otherwise required to rely on the allegations in the
complaint as true.  

Here, the Court finds no inconsistency between the Brach
Foundation's allegations about the content of the illustrations and
the illustrations themselves. The contradiction AXA purports to
identify is, rather, a dispute between the parties as to the
validity of the Brach Foundation's gloss on the illustrations and
its explanation of their import as an integral part of the alleged
misrepresentations.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 30, 2018 Memorandum
Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7d2kb6g from
Leagle.com.

Brach Family Foundation, Inc., on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Frances Sarah Lewis
-- flewis@susmangodfrey.com -- Susman Godfrey LLP, Glenn Charles
Bridgman -- gbridgman@susmangodfrey.com -- Susman Godfrey LLP, pro
hac vice, Mark P. Musico -- mmusico@susmangodfrey.com -- Susman
Godfrey LLP, Rohit Nath -- rnath@susmangodfrey.com -- Susman
Godfrey LLP, pro hac vice, Seth D. Ard -- sard@susmangodfrey.com --
Susman Godfrey LLP, Steven Gerald Sklaver --
ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com -- Susman Godfrey LLP & Halley Wilder
Josephs -- hjosephs@susmangodfrey.com -- Susman Godfrey LLP.

Allen Dyer & Malcolm Currie, Plaintiffs, represented by Rohit Nath,
Susman Godfrey LLP & Steven Gerald Sklaver, Susman Godfrey LLP.

AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Andrea Gail Hood -- ahood@milbank.com -- Milbank, Tweed, Hadley &
McCloy LLP, David Robert Gelfand -- dgelfand@milbank.com --
Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP, Robert Charles Hora --
rhora@milbank.com -- Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP, Scott
Alexander Edelman -- sedelman@milbank.com -- Milbank, Tweed, Hadley
& McCloy LLP & Stacey Jill Rappaport -- srappaport@milbank.com --
Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP.

EFG Bank AG, Cayman Branch, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association
as securities intermediary for EFG Bank AG, Cayman Branch, DLP
Master Trust, DLP Master Trust II, DLP Master Trust III, GWG DLP
Master Trust, Greenwich Settlements Master Trust, Life Funding
Trust, PF Participation Funding Trust & Palm Beach Settlement
Company, Interested Partys, represented by Khai LeQuang --
klequang@orrick.com -- Orrick Herrington and Sutcliffe LLP.


BARCLAYS CAPITAL: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of UCL Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, affirmed the
district court's judgment dismissing Great Pacific's claims in the
case captioned GREAT PACIFIC SECURITIES, et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BARCLAYS CAPITAL, INC., et al.,
Defendants-Appellees. No. 16-56804. (9th Cir.)

Barclays moved to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint (TAC) and the
district court granted the motion with leave to amend. Great
Pacific declined the opportunity to amend the TAC and appealed to
this court.

Great Pacific filed a class action lawsuit in the District Court
for the Central District of California on behalf of itself and all
other similarly-situated traders alleging state law claims for
concealment, violation of California's Unfair Competition Law (the
UCL) and violation of California's False Advertising Law (FAL).

To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient
factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that
is plausible on its face. To plead a claim for fraud with
particularity, as required by Rule 9(b), a party's averments of
fraud must be accompanied by the who, what, when, where, and how'
of the misconduct charged.

The district court correctly found that the TAC failed to plead
reliance with particularity.

Specifically, the TAC failed to plead that Great Pacific received
and was aware of the representations regarding LX which it claims
were false.  With the exception of one iteration of a pitchbook
distributed by Barclays to its clients, the TAC fails even to
allege that Great Pacific received the specific marketing materials
and representations cited by the TAC. With respect to the one
pitchbook the TAC states Great Pacific received, the TAC fails to
plead whether anyone at Great Pacific read the pitchbook or how
Great Pacific personnel relied on the pitchbook. Thus, the

TAC failed to plead with particularity the who, what, when, where,
and how of its reliance.  
As the district court held, Great Pacific's FAL and UCL claims
based on Barclays' alleged misrepresentations fail for the same
reasons as its concealment claim. The FAL makes it unlawful for any
person to induce the public to enter into any obligation based on a
statement that is untrue or misleading, and which is known, or
which by the exercise of reasonable care should be known, to be
untrue or misleading. The UCL is intended to protect both consumers
and competitors by promoting fair competition in commercial markets
for goods and services. Plaintiffs alleging claims under the FAL
and UCL are required to plead and prove actual reliance on the
misrepresentations or omissions at issue. Just like Great Pacific's
concealment claim, these allegations are subject to Rule 9(b)'s
particularity standard.   

The TAC fails to plead reliance with particularity.

Accordingly, the Court affirms the district court's judgment
dismissing Great Pacific's claims and denying Great Pacific's
request for discovery.

A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's July 30, 2018 Memorandum is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ybcl356h from Leagle.com.


BEGGINS ENTERPRISES: Becker Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------
Cody Becker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Beggins Enterprises, Inc., Case No. 18-cv-61697 (S.D.
Fla., July 24, 2018), is brought against the Defendant for
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff is a resident of Broward County, Florida.

The Defendant is a Florida corporation with its principal address
at 6542 US HWY 41 N, Apollo BCH, FL 33572. The Defendant markets
itself as the "#1 Selling CENTURY 21 company in the Southeastern
USA in both units and sales volume." [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BLACK GOLD RENTAL: Underpays Service Reps & Technicians, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD STEPHEN ALDEN and JAMES CROOP, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BLACK GOLD RENTAL
TOOLS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00215 (S.D. Tex., July 27,
2018) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid overtime wages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mr. Alden was employed by the Defendant as service representative
from September 2016 to June 2018. Mr. Croop was employed as field
technician from October 2013 to October 2017.

Black Gold Rental Tools, Inc. is a Texas corporation engaged as an
oilfield tool and parts rental company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Melissa Moore, Esq.
          Curt Hesse, Esq.
          Bridget Davidson, Esq.
          MOORE & ASSOCIATES
          Lyric Center
          440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 222-6775
          Facsimile: (713) 222-6739

               - and -

          Bridget Davidson, Esq.
          MOORE & ASSOCIATES
          440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 222-6775
          Facsimile: (713) 222-6739


BRAMBLES LIMITED: Facing New Shareholder Legal Battle
-----------------------------------------------------
Sol Dolor, writing for Austalasian Lawyer, reports that logistics
giant Brambles is facing a new legal battle after Slater and Gordon
filed a shareholder class action in the Federal Court of Australia
on August 10.

Backed by global litigation funder IMF Bentham, the suit alleges
that Brambles misled investors and wrongly withheld information it
was required to disclose as a public company. Slater and Gordon
said in April that it was looking at filing a class action against
Brambles, saying the company may have cannibalised its own growth
in fiscal year 2017.

Slater and Gordon said that since April, a large number of
investors, who purchased Brambles equity between 18 August 2016 and
17 February 2017, have registered their claim. Affected
shareholders can still register their claim.

The firm has received a lot of interest from both institutional and
"mum and dad" investors in joining the class action, said Kaitlin
Ferris, Slater and Gordon senior associate.

"Many of these shareholders have expressed their concern about
Brambles' conduct in the lead up to the 2017 downgrade
announcements. These views are consistent with our investigations
to date, which have revealed that there is a strong case to be made
that Brambles misled the market and breached its continuous
disclosure obligations," she said.

"Today marks an important step in the proceeding, and we expect to
appear before the Federal Court soon to seek orders for a timetable
which will move the case along," she added.

The claim contends that Brambles did not have reasonable grounds to
issue the FY17 guidance it released in August 2016. The company
made misleading and deceptive representations to the market, as
well as breached its continuous disclosure obligations by not
backtracking on its fiscal 2017 guidance.

"This case doesn't only call into question Brambles' statements
about its future performance -- when you look at what the company
was saying when announcing its 'exceptional' FY16 results, and
compare that with the explanation Brambles eventually provided for
its poor FY17 performance, it's clear that the market was misled
about the quality of the company's FY16 growth from the very
beginning," Ferris said. [GN]


CA INC: Gainey McKenna Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against CA, Inc. ("CA" or the "Company") (NYSE: CA) and
its board of directors (the "Board"), on behalf of a class
consisting of all public stockholders of CA who have been harmed by
CA in connection with alleged violations of Sections 14(a) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "1934 Act").  The
class action stems from the proposed sale of CA to Broadcom Inc.
(AVGO) ("the Proposed Transaction").

The Complaint alleges that Defendants have violated the
above-referenced Sections of the Exchange Act by causing a
materially incomplete and misleading preliminary proxy statement
(the "Proxy") to be filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission ("SEC") on July 24, 2018. The Proxy recommends that CA
shareholders vote in favor of a proposed transaction (the "Proposed
Transaction") whereby CA is acquired by Broadcom Inc. The Proposed
Transaction was first disclosed on July 11, 2018, when CA and
Broadcom Inc. announced that they had entered into a definitive
merger agreement (the "Merger Agreement") pursuant to which
Broadcom Inc. will acquire all of the outstanding shares of common
stock of CA for $44.50 per share (the "Merger Consideration"). The
deal is valued at approximately $18.9 billion and is expected to
close in the fourth quarter of 2018.

The Complaint also alleges that the Proposed Transaction does not
make economic sense. CA is a software company; Broadcom is a
hardware company. The Complaint alleged that there are few, if any,
synergies expected with the Proposed Transaction.

Furthermore, the Proxy is materially incomplete and contains
misleading representations and information in violation of Sections
14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Specifically, the Proxy
contains materially incomplete and misleading information
concerning the sales process, financial projections prepared by CA
management, as well as the financial analyses conducted by Qatalyst
Partners LP ("Qatalyst Partners"), CA's financial advisor.

If you wish to discuss your rights or interests regarding this
class action, please contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M.
Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or
via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com or gegleston@gme-law.com [GN]


CANADA: Veteran Launches Proposed Class-Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth McMillan, writing for CBC News, reports that a former
member of the Canadian Forces is suing the federal government,
alleging the formula used to calculate long-term disability
payments only takes into account a portion of what he was earning
when he was medically discharged.

A lawyer for former warrant officer Simon Logan filed the notice of
motion for the proposed class-action lawsuit in Federal Court in
Halifax on July 26.

Logan, who lives in Ontario, served in the army from 1998 until his
release in February 2016. His lawsuit says he suffers from a
"number of medical conditions" as a result of his military service
and he receives a monthly payment for a disability benefit through
the insurance plan of the Canadian Forces.

The court documents offer no details of his injuries, and his
lawyer wouldn't elaborate August 9, saying Logan didn't want to
disclose them publicly.

Logan's statement of claim argues his disability payment should be
calculated based on 75 per cent of his total monthly pay at the
time of his release.

It is now calculated based on 75 per cent of his warrant officer
salary, which was $6,801 a month when he left the military. But
that doesn't account for the other compensation he received on a
monthly basis -- including a $3,730 allowance.

The court records don't detail why he received the allowance, but
such payments are made to military personnel who serve in
particularly demanding circumstances and operations. For instance,
there are submarine, paratroop and rescue specialist allowances.

"They are aimed at compensating members and their families for
working in unique, demanding and potentially high-risk
circumstances, which can often take members away from home for
extended periods," the department said in a statement to CBC.

The lawsuit states omitting that allowance resulted in Logan
receiving $2,898 less a month in disability benefits. He is asking
for arrears payments, damages for mental distress as a result of
the payment discrepancy, general damages and costs.

"We would say pay would include your salary and allowances," said
lawyer Daniel Wallace, Esq. -- daniel.wallace@mcinnescooper.com --
who is representing Logan. "I've always understood pay in what
you're paid, and that's not what the government is doing for Simon
or anyone else."

The proposed class action applies to any former members of the
military who receive long-term disability benefits and or
dismemberment benefits. It names as defendants the Crown, the
minister of national defence, the chief of defence staff and the
Treasury Board.

Wallace said it isn't yet clear how many veterans might be affected
if the class action goes ahead.

Allowances don't factor into retirement

The allegations haven't been proven in court and the federal
government has yet to file its defence.

Allowances do not factor into former members' retirement benefits,
the Department of National Defence said in a statement. Retirement
benefits are calculated based on base pay and not allowances
because that extra compensation is "strictly tied to duties that a
member is currently performing or expected to resume within 180
days."

The long-term disability benefits cited in the lawsuit are paid
through the military's Service Income Security Insurance Plan,
which DND said is paid for through contributions from government
and service members. The department's statement said the insurance
plan is equivalent to those for public servants and RCMP members.

A certification hearing, where a judge will decide whether the
class action should proceed, has been scheduled for April 29 and
30, 2019, in Halifax.

Wallace was previously co-counsel in a 2013 $887-million settlement
of a class-action lawsuit affecting about 7,500 disabled veterans.
The case involved a three-decade-long federal government practice
of clawing back the military pensions of injured soldiers by the
amount of disability payments they received. [GN]


CAPITAL ONE: Court Dismisses N. Porteous's Amended FLSA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NATASHA PORTEOUS, Plaintiff(s), v. CAPITAL ONE
SERVICES II, LLC, Defendant(s), Case No. 2:17-CV-2866 JCM (GWF) (D.
Nev.), Judge James C. Mahan of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Nevada (i) granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss
the Plaintiff's amended collective and class action complaint; and
(ii) denied as moot the Defendant's motion to strike the
declarations of Ayesha Elliott, Chidi Emetanjo, Cole Squires, and
Porteous.

This is a collective and class action brought by the Plaintiff and
on behalf of all similarly situated individuals.  The Plaintiff was
employed by the Defendant as a non-exempt, hourly, full-time,
personal banker/customer service representative at its Las Vegas
call center location from Nov. 30, 2015, until April 11, 2017.

For each 8-hour shift, the Plaintiff was entitled to two 15-minute
paid rest breaks and one 30-minute unpaid lunch period.  She
alleges that, although she took her 30-minute lunch daily, she was
"rarely" able to take her two allotted 15-minute breaks.  According
to her, she was not paid for the breaks she was unable to take
despite working during that time.

In addition, the Plaintiff claims that the Defendant did not
include her "non-discretionary" monthly incentive payment -- a form
of compensation paid to call center employees for meeting the
Defendant's production standards -- when it calculated her regular
hourly rate of pay.  The Plaintiff asserts that this omission meant
that the Defendant failed to properly calculate her hourly wage,
resulting in its subsequent failure to properly calculate her
overtime pay.

The Plaintiff alleges that all call center employees, including the
Plaintiff, were required to perform daily pre-shift activities and
post-shift activities "off-the-clock," without compensation.  She a
sserts that the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") class consists of
all hourly paid call center employees for the "relevant" time
period.

The Plaintiff simultaneously asserts both federal and state claims.
Her federal claims implicate the FLSA.  She makes similar
allegations with respect to the Nevada class under Nevada's
constitution and Nevada's Revised Statutes ("NRS").  Like the FLSA
class, the Plaintiff asserts that the Nevada class consists of all
hourly paid call center employees employed in the state of Nevada
during the "relevant" time period, as well as a Nevada sub-class
consisting of wages due and owing to all members of the Nevada
class that are former employees of the Defendant.  In total, the
Plaintiff alleges that there are approximately 700 former and
current call center employees who are class members, over 500 of
whom are in the Nevada class.

The Plaintiff filed the original complaint in state court on Oct.5,
2017.  The Defendant removed the action to federal court on Nov.
15, 2017, based upon federal question jurisdiction.  On Dec. 6,
2017, the Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint.  In the
instant motion, the Defendant move to dismiss the Plaintiff's
complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).

The Plaintiff's first amended complaint alleges seven causes of
action: (1) failure to pay overtime in violation of the FLSA; (2)
failure to pay the correct overtime rate in violation of the FLSA;
(3) failure to compensate for all hours worked in violatio of NRS
608.140 and 608.016; (4) failure to pay minimum wages in violation
of the Nevada constitution; (5) failure to pay overtime in
violation of NRS 608.140 and 608.018; (6) failure to timely pay all
wages "due and owing" in violation of NRS 608.140 and 608.020-050;
and (7) breach of contract.

The Plaintiff asserts these claims on behalf of herself and the
following proposed classes: (i)the  FLSA class consisting of all
hourly paid call center employees employed by defendant in the
United States at any time during the relevant time period; (ii) the
Nevada class consisting of all hourly paid call center employees
employed by the Defendant in the United States at any time during
the relevant time period; and (iii) the wages due and owing class
consisting of all members of the Nevada class who are former
employees of Defendant.

Presently before the Court is the Defendant's motion to dismiss
Plaintiff's first amended collective and class action complaint.
Porteous filed a response, to which the Defendant replied.  Also
before the Court is the Plaintiff's motion for circulation of
notice.  The Defendant responded, to which the Plaintiff replied.


Also before the Court is the Defendant's motion to strike
declarations offered in support of the Plaintiff's motion for
circulation of notice.  The Plaintiff filed a response, to which
the Defendant replied.

Judge Mahan finds that (i) the Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently
state a basis for an FLSA overtime claim for off-the-clock pre- and
post-shift activities, working through breaks without compensation,
and failure to calculate incentive pay in her wages.  The
Defendant's motion to dismiss is granted as to the Plaintiff's FLSA
claims.

As the Plaintiff's underlying claims have been dismissed, the
Plaintiff's allegations regarding conditional certification of
class, the appropriate statute of limitations for wage and hour
claims, and equitable tolling, are dismissed as moot.

As to the Plaintiff's four remaining causes of action are with
respect to the NRS and the Nevada Constitution, the Judge finds
that as no private right of action exists under NRS Section
608.016, 608.018, or 608.140, the Defendant's motion to dismiss is
granted with prejudice as to the Plaintiff's NRS Section 608.016,
608.018, and 608.140 claims.

Just as he dismissed the Plaintiff's FLSA claims for failing to
meet the pleading standard, he does the same with regards to the
Plaintiff's claims under NRS Section 608.020-050.  While he
acknowledges this private right of action, the Plaintiff has failed
to satisfy the pleading standard.  The Plaintiff does not offer any
additional facts or evidence in support of her NRS claims than she
did in support of her FLSA claims.

Even if he accepts the Plaintiff's allegations regarding minimum
wage as true, and in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, the
Judge finds that the Plaintiff cannot demonstrate that her wages
fell below the requirements of Section 16 of Nevada's constitution.
Accordingly, the Defendant's motion to dismiss is granted as to
this claim.

Finally, because the Plaintiff fails to show that her employment
was anything but at-will, the Defendant's motion to dismiss is
granted with respect to the Plaintiff's breach of contract claim.


Accordingly, Judge Mahan granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss
the Plaintiff's amended collective and class action complaint
consistent with the foregoing.  He denied as moot (i) the
Plaintiff's motion for notice of circulation, and (ii) the
Defendant's motion to strike the declarations of Elliott, Emetanjo,
Squires, and Porteous.  The clerk is instructed to enter judgment
accordingly and close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 17, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/ykNanr from Leagle.com.

Natasha Porteous, Plaintiff, represented by Joshua D. Buck --
josh@thiermanbuck.com -- Thierman Buck, LLP, Leah Lin Jones --
leah@thiermanbuck.com -- Thierman Buck, LLP & Mark R. Thierman --
mark@thiermanbuck.com -- Thierman Buck, LLP.

Capital One Services II, LLC, Defendant, represented by Anthony L.
Martin -- anthony.martin@ogletree.com -- Ogletree, Deakins, Nash,
Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Suzanne L. Martin --
suzanne.martin@ogletree.com -- Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak, &
Stewart, P.C. & Tullio Joseph Marchionne --
tullio.marchionne@ogletree.com -- Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak &
Stewart PC.


CENLAR FSB: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss M. Weir's RICO Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Cathy Seibel of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York granted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the
case, MICHAEL WEIR; ELAINE WEIR; JENNIFER STASUL; JOSE FRANCISCO;
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs, v. CENLAR FSB, d/b/a CENTRAL LOAN ADMINISTRATION &
REPORTING; and CENLAR AGENCY, INC., Defendants, Case No. 16-CV-8650
(CS) (S.D. N.Y.).

The case arises out of the Defendants' conduct in servicing the
Plaintiffs' mortgages.  The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants
participated in a scheme aimed at maximizing automated fees
assessed on mortgage borrowers' accounts who had fallen into
arrears on their mortgages.  The Defendants are one of the leading
mortgage subservicing companies, and as of Sept. 30, 2016, serviced
approximately 2.3 million loans totaling $500 billion.  

The Plaintiffs bring the action on behalf of themselves and a class
of similarly-situated persons, which is defined as all persons who
were charged computer-generated inspection fees by Defendants as a
result of a late payment on their mortgages.  The Plaintiffs do not
know the class' exact size, but estimate that it is comprised of
thousands of individuals across the United States.

Named Plaintiffs Michael and Elaine Weir purchased a home in
Fishkill, New York, and the Security Instrument securing their
mortgage with lender National City Mortgage, a division of National
City Bank, was recorded on Sept. 12, 2006.  Named Plaintiffs
Jennifer Stasul and Francisco Jorge purchased a home in Carmel, New
York and the Security Instrument securing their mortgage with
lender 1st Alliance Lending, LLC was recorded on June 15, 2009.
Both couples' mortgages were serviced by the Defendants.  The
Defendants are Cenlar FSB, which is alleged to be a loan servicing
company, and Cenlar Agency, Inc., which is alleged to be a wholly
owned subsidiary of Cenlar FSB and the instrumentality through
which Cenlar FSB is authorized to do business in New York.

Over the life of their loans, the Plaintiffs occasionally faced
financial difficulty that caused them to miss payments.  When they
failed to make timely payments, their monthly statements reflected
additional amounts owed for late fees and inspections of their
property.  The Plaintiffs allege upon information and belief that
the Defendants did not always inspect their properties, but charged
them for these inspections nonetheless.

The Plaintiffs allege that the charges for inspections and other
fees were applied through an unjust scheme undertaken by the
Defendants to maximize profits by ordering repetitive, unfair and
excessive property inspections which are then charged to defaulted
borrowers' accounts.

The Plaintiffs commenced the action on Nov. 7, 2016.  On March 13,
2017, the Defendants filed a letter seeking a pre-motion conference
to discuss their anticipated motion to dismiss.  The parties
appeared for a pre-motion conference to discuss the proposed motion
on April 17, 2017.

At that conference, the Court granted the Plaintiffs leave to
amend, and the Plaintiffs filed their Amended Complaint on June 16,
2017, bringing seven causes of action.  Counts One and Two allege
violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act ("RICO"), and Count Three alleges a conspiracy to violate RICO
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1692(d).  

The Plaintiffs also bring claims for (1) violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"); (2) violation of the Real
Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA"); (3) violation of New
York General Business Law ("N.Y. G.B.L."); and (4) unjust
enrichment.  In addition to federal question jurisdiction, the
Plaintiffs assert subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
Section 1332(d)(2), known as the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005
("CAFA").

The Defendants filed their motion on Dec. 15, 2017.  They argue
that: (1) the Plaintiffs' RICO claims should be dismissed because
they fail to plausibly allege a RICO enterprise, a fraudulent
misrepresentation, or an injury; (2) the Plaintiffs' FDCPA claim
fails because the Plaintiffs have not plausibly alleged a
misrepresentation or deception, or that the Defendants are
debt-collectors; (3) the Plaintiffs' RESPA claim is barred by a
one-year statute of limitations and the claim arose after the
inception of a mortgage, taking it outside the purview of the
statute; (4) the N.Y. G.B.L. Section 349 claim fails because the
Plaintiffs have not pleaded any deceptive or misleading act and do
not address a consumer-oriented practice; and (5) the Plaintiffs'
unjust enrichment claim is improper because there is a contract
governing the relevant issues.

The Plaintiffs respond that they have adequately pleaded the
alleged enterprise as consisting of the Defendants and their
inspection vendors; that, by charging the Plaintiffs for "Fee
Property Inspect," the Defendants created the belief that the
automatic and repetitive property inspections were reasonable and
necessary to protect the lender's security and that the Defendants
therefore fraudulently misrepresented the true nature of the fees
as unreasonable and unnecessary to ensure the houses were occupied;
and that they have adequately alleged claims under the FDCPA and
N.Y. G.B.L. Section 349, and for unjust enrichment.

Judge Seibel granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss.  She finds
that the Plaintiffs (i) fail to plausibly plead a misrepresentation
or that Defendants are debt collectors; (ii) have not plausibly
alleged that $5 million is in controversy; (iii) failed to
plausibly plead a deceptive practice under N.Y. G.B.L. Section
349(a); and (iv) have not alleged that they actually paid the fees
or facts rendering it plausible that any such fees were retained by
the servicer Defendants, as opposed to the lenders.

She is not sure that the relevant contracts authorize passing on to
borrowers the costs of periodic inspections if, as the Plaintiffs
allege, those inspections serve no purpose.  And it can be a harsh,
and perhaps counterproductive, practice.  But she finds that the
Plaintiffs did not bring a breach of contract claim, nor did they
bring claims against the entities with whom they entered into their
Security Instruments.  Thus, on the theories alleged in the Amended
Complaint, the Plaintiffs cannot sustain claims against the
Defendants.

The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the
pending motion, and close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 17, 2018 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/o9OA7R from Leagle.com.

Michael Weir, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Elaine Weir, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Jennifer Stasul, Individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated & Jose Francisco, Individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by
Rick S. Cowle -- Rcowlelaw@comcast.net -- The Law Office of Rick S.
Cowle.

Cenlar FSB, doing business as Central Loan Administration &
Reporting, Defendant, represented by Casey Brian Howard --
choward@lockelord.com -- Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell LLP.

Cenlar FSB, doing business as, Defendant, represented by Andrew Max
Braunstein -- andrew.braunstein@lockelord.com -- Locke Lord LLP.

Cenlar Agency, Inc., Defendant, represented by Casey Brian Howard,
Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell LLP & Andrew Max Braunstein, Locke
Lord LLP.


CHAMPION PETFOODS: Bid to Remove Website Discussing Suit Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KELLIE LOEB, Plaintiff, v. CHAMPION PETFOODS USA INC.
and CHAMPION PETFOODS LP, Defendants, Case No. 18-CV-494-JPS-JPS
(E.D. Wis.), Judge J.P. Stadtmueller of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Wisconsin denied the Plaintiff's motion to
restrict Defendants' communications with putative class members.

This is a putative class action alleging that the Defendants
deceptively marketed their dog food as being of high quality when,
in reality, it was contaminated with harmful heavy metals.  The
Court in large measure denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss the
case on June 7, 2018.  Thereafter, the parties appeared to proceed
with discovery.

On July 13, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an expedited motion asking
the Court to order the Defendants to take down a website they
created concerning the subject matter of the action.  The Plaintiff
states that in response to the lawsuit and other lawsuits filed
against the Defendants over their allegedly tainted products, the
Defendants established a website called
www.championpetfoodsfacts.com, which discusses the lawsuits.  

The website claims that the lawsuits are baseless and that the
Plaintiffs' counsel are simply trying to get a payday.  According
to Plaintiff, this not only misleads potential class members about
the merits of the action, but unjustifiably turns them against the
Plaintiff and her counsel.  The Plaintiff further contends that the
Defendants' website mischaracterizes the Court's ruling on the
motion to dismiss to make it seem more favorable to them.  The
Plaintiff asks that the Court orders the Defendants to remove all
false and misleading statements from the website and require them
to obtain Court approval before posting anything else about the
case.

Judge Stadtmueller finds that the Plaintiff has failed to make a
clear showing of abusive communications.  To be sure, the
Defendants' website portrays the action negatively.  That is not,
however, abusive.  Just as the Plaintiffs are free to offer their
opinion (in their complaint or otherwise) about the quality of the
Defendants' products, so too are the Defendants entitled to assert
that those allegations are false.

The Defendants do not directly discourage any potential class
member from participating or threaten them with negative
consequences if they do.  Further, the Plaintiff has offered no
specific evidence that its fear of class manipulation has been
realized or is even threatened.  Finally, the Plaintiff's concern
about misrepresentation of the Court's order on the motion to
dismiss appears to have been rectified.

For these reasons, the Judge denied the Plaintiff's motion.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 17, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/bq6Ptz from Leagle.com.

Kellie Loeb, Plaintiff, represented by Erich P. Schork --
e.schork@barnowlaw.com -- Barnow and Associates PC, John D. Blythin
-- jblythin@ademilaw.com -- Ademi & O'Reilly LLP, Mark A. Eldridge
-- meldridge@ademilaw.com -- Ademi & O'Reilly LLP, Shpetim Ademi --
sademi@ademilaw.com -- Ademi & O'Reilly LLP & Ben Barnow --
b.barnow@barnowlaw.com -- Barnow and Associates PC.

Champion Petfoods USA Inc & Champion Petfoods LP, Defendants,
represented by Mark E. Schmidt -- mschmidt@vonbriesen.com -- von
Briesen & Roper SC, David A. Coulson -- coulsond@gtlaw.com --
Greenberg Traurig LLP & Susan E. Lovern -- slovern@vonbriesen.com
-- von Briesen & Roper SC.


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Reaches $7.75MM Settlement with Royalty Owners
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Laura Legere, writing for Pittsburgh Post Gazette, reports that
Chesapeake Energy Corp. has reached a $7.75 million settlement
agreement with about two-thirds of its Pennsylvania natural gas
royalty owners who claimed that the company inflated transportation
and marketing costs, often leaving them with paltry payments for
their gas.

The agreement applies to about 10,000 early Chesapeake leases
located mainly in northeastern Pennsylvania that do not have
so-called market enhancement clauses, which limited the kinds of
deductions the company could take from a landowner's share of gas
sales.

It aims to resolve two class-action lawsuits filed in U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania in 2014 known as
Brown v. Access Midstream Partners and The Suessenbach Family
Limited Partnership v. Access Midstream Partners.

Access Midstream was once Chesapeake's pipeline subsidiary and is
now owned by Tulsa, Okla.-based Williams.

If the settlement is approved by a judge, royalty owners who don't
opt out of the agreement will get a proportional share of some of
the past costs that Chesapeake subtracted from royalty payments and
the ability to choose from two options for how royalties will be
paid going forward.

They can either continue receiving royalties as they do now -- with
Chesapeake selling the gas in other markets and deducting the
landowner's share of the costs of processing and shipping it there
-- or receive royalties based on a northern Pennsylvania regional
index price, without any deductions.

The $7.75 million settlement represents about 8 percent of the past
deductions taken from the landowners' royalties.

Chesapeake denies that its costs were inflated or that its royalty
payment practices were improper.

In a statement, Chesapeake spokesman Gordon Pennoyer said the
company is pleased to have reached the agreement, which he said
provides "the unprecedented opportunity for our owners to alter the
terms of their lease and elect their royalty formula moving
forward."

Michael Donovan, Esq. -- mdonovan@bajb.com -- one of the attorneys
representing the landowners in the class, said the agreement gives
landowners more control over how their royalties are calculated and
pays them now rather than years from now when past deductions might
be recovered through litigation.

"We think that the settlement is a fantastic deal for the lessors,"
he said.

The agreement contains a contingency clause allowing Chesapeake to
decide to pull out of the settlement if the Pennsylvania attorney
general does not agree that the deal resolves all of the claims of
unfair trade practices that the state brought on behalf of the
class members in a related case in Bradford County court.

The attorney general has declined to endorse similar terms in the
past.

"The private class-action settlement does not impact our case at
all," Joe Grace, a spokesman for the attorney general's office,
said. "Our claims against these energy companies are active and
ongoing, and they are intended to protect all Pennsylvanians
against this kind of corporate misconduct, not just one group of
individuals in one case." [GN]


CLEARONE ADVANTAGE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Souders Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KRISTYNA SOUDERS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CLEARONE ADVANTAGE, LLC; and DOES
1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01027-DAD-JLT
(E.D. Cal., July 27, 2018) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice
of making unsolicited calls.

ClearOne Advantage, LLC, doing business as ClearOne Debt Relief,
operates as a debt resolution company in the United States. It
offers debt settlement services for credit cards, medical bills,
and other unsecured debts through negotiating its clients' debt
obligations to an amount they could actually afford, which is less
than what is owed.  The company was incorporated in 2006 and is
based in Baltimore, Maryland. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CORELOGIC NATIONAL: D. Alvarez's FCRA Action Transferred to D. Del.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania granted Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion to Transfer to
the District of Delaware the case captioned DANIEL ALVAREZ, v.
CORELOGIC NATIONAL BACKGROUND DATA, LLC, Civil Action No. 18-1234
(E.D. Pa.).

Plaintiff Daniel Alvarez has filed this action against defendant
CoreLogic National Background Data, LLC (CoreLogic) for violations
of the Federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).

With regard to general jurisdiction over a corporation, the Supreme
Court has instructed that such jurisdiction typically arises only
in the place of incorporation and the principal place of business.
CoreLogic is organized in the state of Delaware and maintains its
principal place of business in Texas. As a result, it is not
subject to general jurisdiction in this district.

Nor is it subject to specific jurisdiction here. CoreLogic
performed the background check on Alvarez on behalf of its client
ADP, which is based in New Jersey. CoreLogic then submitted to ADP
its information on Alvarez through electronic means. It had no
contact with Alvarez or his prospective employer Manor College in
Pennsylvania. CoreLogic maintains no employees or offices in
Pennsylvania. Under these circumstances, CoreLogic has not
purposefully directed its activities at this forum. The fact that
CoreLogic is alleged to have caused harm to Alvarez in Pennsylvania
is insufficient on its own to establish personal jurisdiction over

Since this court lacks personal jurisdiction over CoreLogic, venue
is improper.  Recognizing this deficiency, Alvarez has moved to
transfer this action to the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware where CoreLogic is subject to personal
jurisdiction because Delaware is CoreLogic's state of
incorporation. Under 28 U.S.C. Section 1406(a), the district court
of a district in which is filed a case laying venue in the wrong
division or district shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of
justice, transfer such case to any district or division in which it
could have been brought. Such a transfer, to which CoreLogic
agrees, is in the interest of justice.

The Court will grant the unopposed motion of Alvarez to transfer
this action to the District of Delaware. The Court will deny as
moot the motion of CoreLogic to dismiss for lack of personal
jurisdiction.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 5, 2018 Memorandum is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ycsop2vp from Leagle.com.

DANIEL ALVAREZ, Plaintiff, represented by DAVID P. HEIM --
dheim@bochettoandlentz.com -- BOCHETTO & LENTZ PC &VINCENT VAN LAAR
-- vvanlaar@bochettoandlentz.com -- BOCHETTO AND LENTZ, P.C.

CORELOGIC NATIONAL BACKROUND DATA, LLC, formerly known as,
Defendant, represented by SHARON F. MCKEE -- smckee@hangley.com --
HANGLEY ARONCHICK SEGAL PUDLIN & SCHILLER.


CREDIT UNION: Court Grants Protective Stipulations in "Nichols"
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Nevada issued
a Stipulated Protective Order in the case captioned Catherine
Nichols, Plaintiff, v. Credit Union 1, and Experian Information
Solutions, Inc. Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-02337-APG-GWF (D.
Nev.).

All documents, transcripts, or other materials subject to this
Order, and all information derived therefrom, shall not be used,
directly or indirectly, by any person, including Plaintiff, Credit
Union 1, and Experian for any business, commercial or competitive
purposes or for any purpose whatsoever other than solely for the
preparation and trial of this action in accordance with the
provisions of this Order. As set forth in the preceding sentence,
materials subject to this Order shall only be used for the
preparation and trial of this action and shall not be used in any
litigation other than the above-captioned action.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 5, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ycl9tgvl from Leagle.com.

Catherine Nichols, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew I. Knepper --
matthew.knepper@knepperclark.com -- Knepper & Clark, LLC, Sean N.
Payne -- seanpayne@spaynelaw.com -- PAYNE LAW FIRM LLC, Miles N.
Clark -- miles.clark@knepperclark.com -- Knepper & Clark LLC &
David H. Krieger -- dkrieger@hainesandkrieger.com -- Haines &
Krieger, LLC.

Credit Union 1, Defendant, represented by Brandi M. Planet --
bplanet@fclaw.com -- Fennemore Craig, P.C., Brenoch R. Wirthlin --
bwirthlin@fclaw.com -- Fennemore Craig Jones Vargas & Leslie Bryan
Hart -- lhart@fclaw.com -- Fennemore Craig, P.C.

Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Andrew J. Sharples -- asharples@naylorandbrasterlaw.com -- Naylor &
Braster Attorneys at Law, PLLC, Brianne J. Kendall --
bkendall@jonesday.com Jones -- Day, pro hac vice, Cheryl L.
O'Connor -- coconnor@jonesday.com -- Jones Day & Jennifer L.
Braster -- jbraster@naylorandbrasterlaw.com -- Naylor & Braster.



DMNO LLC: Court Approves Settlement in Servers' Suit
----------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana granted Parties' Joint Motion to Approve the Settlement
in the case captioned JAMES BLACK, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DMNO,
LLC, et al., Section "E", Defendants, Civil Action No. 16-2708
(E.D. La.).

The Plaintiffs allege the Defendants violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 201 by, inter alia: (1) paying its
servers $2.15 per hour instead of the national minimum wage of
$7.25 per hour, claiming a tip credit, but requiring the servers to
participate in a tip pool that included managers (2) failing to pay
the Plaintiffs one and one half times their hourly rate for the
hours they work in excess of forty hours per week and (3) requiring
the Plaintiffs to attend mandatory Monday meetings, without paying
the Plaintiffs an hourly wage.

The Settlement is the Product of a Bona Fide Dispute

The Court finds a bona fide dispute exists between the Plaintiffs
and the Defendants with regard to whether the Defendants violated
the FLSA. Numerous matters are currently in dispute, including
whether the Plaintiffs were properly paid regular and overtime
compensation, whether the Defendants properly claimed a tip credit,
and whether the Defendants maintained accurate employment and
payroll records.

During the trial of this matter, the parties offered various
witnesses and substantial evidence into the record in support of
their respective positions.

The Court finds this sufficient to conclude that, in this case,
there was "both aggressive prosecution and strenuous defense to
prove a bona fide dispute."

The Settlement is Fair and Reasonable

In determining whether a negotiation is fair and reasonable under
the FLSA, courts are guided by Reed v. General Motors Corporation,
in which the Fifth Circuit enumerated factors to determine whether
a settlement is fair in a class action under Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.

There are six factors: (1) the existence of fraud or collusion
behind the settlement; (2) the complexity, expense, and likely
duration of the litigation; (3) the stage of the proceedings and
the amount of discovery completed; (4) the probability of the
plaintiffs' success on the merits; (5) the range of possible
recovery; and (6) the opinions of class counsel, class
representatives, and absent class members.

Application of the Factors

The existence of fraud or collusion behind the settlement

With respect to the fraud or collusion factor, there are several
presumptions that guide a court's determination of whether a
settlement is fair and reasonable. There is a strong presumption in
favor of finding a settlement fair, and, absent evidence to the
contrary, there is a presumption that no fraud or collusion
occurred between counsel. In light of these presumptions, however,
it is clear that the court should not give rubberstamp approval.

The Court has found no indication of fraud or collusion. The
Parties have engaged in discovery, motions practice, and
negotiations to resolve this matter. The case proceeded to trial,
where both sides presented witnesses and evidence. This factor
indicates the settlement is fair and reasonable.

The complexity, expense, and likely duration of the litigation

The instant case has been pending for more than two years. Although
the discovery period concluded on March 27, 2018, and the Court
heard evidence at a two-day bench trial on which the Court has not
yet ruled, there remain numerous unresolved issues. For example,
the Court has not yet issued its findings of fact and conclusions
of law with respect to whether Doris Metropolitan's practice of
including managers in the tip pool violates the FLSA, and, if so,
whether that violation was willful.

The Court finds that the unresolved issues and the complexity of
the litigation indicate the settlement is fair and reasonable.

The stage of the proceedings and the amount of discovery completed

A court will consider how much formal discovery has been completed
for two reasons: (1) extensive discovery [by the parties indicates]
a good understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of their
respective cases and hence that the settlement's value is based
upon such adequate information and (2) full discovery demonstrates
that the parties have litigated the case in an adversarial manner
and therefore settlement is not collusive but arms-length.

In this case, the Parties have engaged in both pre-certification
discovery as well as extensive merits discovery for the last two
years. The parties have exchanged thousands of pages of documents
and undergone two rigorous settlement conferences. The case
proceeded to trial,30 and the parties reached a settlement only
after evidence had been presented. The Court, therefore, finds the
Parties have litigated the case in an adversarial manner and are
sufficiently familiar with the facts of this case to reach a fair
settlement. This factor weighs in favor of finding the settlement
fair and reasonable.

The probability of Plaintiffs' success on the merits

The Parties have taken into account the uncertain outcome and the
risk of continued litigation, as well as the difficulties and
delays inherent in such litigation and the likelihood of protracted
appellate review. The Court finds that given the unresolved
disputes between the parties and the stage at which this litigation
remains, it is unclear whether and to what extent the Plaintiffs
would be meritorious. This factor indicates the settlement is fair
and reasonable.

The range of possible recovery

Under the proposed settlement, the Plaintiffs will be compensated
for half of their claimed minimum wage/tip credit and/or overtime
claim and an amount equal to liquidated damages on that amount. A
portion of the settlement amount due to the Plaintiffs is
designated as wages and subject to applicable income and payroll
taxes and withholding. The remaining portion is designated as
damages and not subject to any taxes or withholdings. The Court
finds that all of the agreed-upon amounts are within a range of
possible recovery for the Plaintiffs, indicating the settlement is
fair and reasonable.

The opinions of class counsel, class representatives, and absent
class members

There are no absent class members, as no other servers or server
assistants consented to join the collective action on or before
July 31, 2017, the date on which the opt-in period for the class
expired. Both parties are represented by counsel.  The Parties
jointly seek judicial approval of a settlement agreement that
addresses a bona fide dispute and was negotiated in good faith. The
Court finds the final factor indicates the settlement is fair and
reasonable.

All six of the factors indicate the proposed settlement is fair and
reasonable. As a result, the Court finds the proposed settlement
agreement is fair and reasonable.

Accordingly, the Joint Motion to Approve Settlement is granted and
the Parties' settlement agreement is approved.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 30, 2018 Order and
Reasons is available at https://tinyurl.com/yan6bqeh from
Leagle.com.

James Black, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
employees, Mark Gandy, individually and on behalf of similarly
situated employees, Ashley Newton, individually and on behalf of
similarly situated employees, David Pierce-Feith, individually and
on behalf of similarly situated employees, Austin Lane,
individually and on behalf of similarly situated employees, Patrice
Jones, individually and on behalf of similarly situated employees,
Erin Lawrence, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
employees, Zachary Adams, individually and on behalf of similarly
situated employees, Asaria Crittenden, individually and on behalf
of similarly situated employees, Elizabeth Kuzmovich, individually
and on behalf of similarly situated employees, Larry J. Hunt, Jr.,
individually and on behalf of similarly situated employees & Carlos
Ayestas, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
employees, Plaintiffs, represented by Jessica Michelle Vasquez,
Vasquez Law Office & Laura Lanier Catlett, Laura L. Catlett,
Attorney at Law, Jeffrey Blair, individually and on behalf of
similarly situated employees, Plaintiff, pro se.

DMNO, LLC, Doron Moshe Rebi-Chia, Itai Ben Eli & Itamar Levy,
Defendants, represented by Steven Russell Cupp, Fisher & Phillips,
LLP & Jaklyn Leigh Wrigley -- jwrigley@fisherphillips.com -- Fisher
& Phillips, LLP, pro hac vice.


DUNNING MANAGEMENT: Fails to Pay OT to Managers, DeBarbieris Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOY DEBARBIERIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE DUNNING MANAGEMENT GROUP-NOLA LLC;
ROBERT DUNNING; and YOSHIE DUNNING, Defendants, Case No.
2:18-cv-07079 (E.D. La., July 29, 2018) seeks to recover unpaid
overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Ms. DeBarbieris was employed by the Defendants from April 5, 2014
to May 15, 2018, and was an assistant manager from January 2, 2017
to February 20, 2017, and as General Manager from February 20, 2017
to May 15, 2018.

The Dunning Management Group - NOLA, LLC is a Louisiana limited
liability company doing business as Dickie's Barbeque Pit - New
Orleans. The Company is engaged in the restaurant business. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bryce G. Murray, Esq.
          Jenny A. Abshier, Esq.
          BIG EASY LAW GROUP, LLC
          3939 Veterans Memorial Blvd., Suite 215
          Metairie, LA 70002
          Telephone: (504) 484-9696
          Facsimile: (866) 596-2555
          Email: Bryce@brycemurray.com
                 Jenny@bigeasybk.com

               -and-

          Michael Collins, Esq.
          THE COLLINS LAW FIRM, LLC
          2901 Division Street, Suite 102
          Metairie, LA 70002
          Telephone: (504) 900-8009
          Facsimile: (504) 900-8019
          Email: mcollins@collinsattorney.com


EBIX INC: Summary Judgment Bids in Stockholder Suit Partly Granted
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Joseph R. Slights, III of the Court of Chancery of Delaware
granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motions for
summary judgment in the case, IN RE EBIX, INC. STOCKHOLDER
LITIGATION, Consolidated C.A. No. 8526-VCS (Del. Ch.).

Ebix is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.1
Ebix provides software and e-commerce services to insurance
companies.  Its board of directors comprises eight directors: Robin
Raina, Pavan Bhalla, Hans U. Keller, Hans U. Benz, Neil D. Eckert
and Rolf Herter ("Ebix Defendants") and Joseph R. Wright, Jr. and
George W. Hebard III ("Barington Defendants").  The Ebix Defendants
joined the Board in or before 2005; the Barington Defendants joined
the Board in 2015 as designees of Ebix stockholder, Barington
Capital Group, L.P.

The Plaintiffs filed their initial class action complaint on May 6,
2013, in which they sought to enjoin a transaction between Ebix and
affiliates of Goldman, Sachs & Co.  When the merger discussions
terminated, the Plaintiffs abandoned their merger-related claims
and shifted their focus to certain compensation and related
agreements between Ebix and its CEO, Raina, as well as other Ebix
executives and directors.

The operative complaint, the FAC, alleges that in 2009, Ebix
entered into the Acquisition Bonus Agreement ("ABA") with Raina.
Ebix first disclosed the ABA to stockholders in its July 21, 2009
Form 8-K.  The ABA provided Raina the right to receive certain
bonus payments upon an "Acquisition Event."  Per the July 21, 2009
disclosure, the independent Ebix directors unanimously approved the
ABA on July 15, 2009, and the price of any grant to Raina under the
ABA was to be determined from a "Base Price" of $23.84.

Since the adoption of the ABA, the Board has disclosed certain
details about the ABA and its terms in Ebix's annual proxy
statements.  Relevant to the claims set forth in the FAC are the
disclosures in Ebix's 2010 and 2016 Proxy Statements.

On Dec. 19, 2014, the Board adopted certain amendments to Ebix's
bylaws following Barington's expression of displeasure with the
Board's performance and its stated desire to add directors to the
Board.

On March 7, 2018, Defendants Bhalla, Keller, Benz, Eckert, Herter
("Outside Directors"), the Barington Defendants and Ebix filed
Motions for Summary Judgment, seeking judgment as a matter of law
as to all then-extant counts of the FAC.  On March 8, 2018,
Defendant Raina, filed his Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.

On April 10, 2018, Ebix and Raina entered into the Stock
Appreciation Right Award Agreement ("SAR Agreement").  The SAR
Agreement replaces the ABA and, by its terms, terminates Ebix's and
Raina's rights under the ABA.

On April 18, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed an answering brief in
opposition to the Defendants' Motions.  On May 18, 2018, the
Outside Directors, the Barington Defendants and Ebix filed their
reply briefs in further support of their Motions and Raina filed
his joinder in those briefs.  

Counts I and VI challenge the adoption and the maintenance of the
ABA.  Counts VII and X allege breaches of fiduciary duty by the
Director Defendants in connection with the ABA.  Count II alleges
the Ebix Defendants intentionally disclosed false information in
Ebix's 2010 Proxy Statement to secure stockholder ratification of
the 2010 Plan.  Count III alleges the Director Defendants breached
their fiduciary duties by granting incentive compensation to
themselves under the invalid 2010 Plan and incentive compensation
to others under the invalid 2010 Plan.  Count IV challenges the
2014 Bylaw Amendments as unreasonable anti-takeover devices adopted
in breach of the Ebix Defendants' fiduciary duties.  Count V
challenges the adoption of the 2014 Bylaw Amendments, claiming they
were not approved by the Board because there are no minutes of any
meeting, no unanimous written consent or any other document
evidencing Board approval of the Bylaws.  Count IX alleges that
Ebix and the Director Defendants issued a false and materially
misleading and incomplete 2016 Proxy Statement that contained
material misstatements regarding the ABA and Base Price.  

The Barington Defendants seek summary judgment as to Count III
because: (1) they were not members of the Board when the 2010 Plan
was adopted; (2) they are disinterested and the Plaintiffs present
no evidence that their compensation was not customary or
reasonable; and (3) the Plaintiffs failed to plead demand futility
as to Count III.

The Court heard oral argument on the Motions on May 23, 2018.

Judge Slights granted in part and denied in part the Defendants'
motions for summary judgment.  He granted summary judgment as to
all the Defendants on Counts I, IV, V, VI, VII and X.  He granted
in part and denied in part summary judgment as to all the
Defendants other than Ebix and the Barington Defendants on Count
IX.  He granted summary judgment as to Ebix and the Barington
Defendants on Count IX.  The summary judgment as to Counts II (Ebix
Defendants) and III (Director Defendants) is denied.  

Among other things, the Judge finds that:

     i. Ebix and Raina terminated the ABA on April 10, 2018.  Thus,
there is no relief available as to these two counts and no present
controversy remains.  Accordingly, the Motions as to Counts I and
VI are granted.

     ii. The claims for declaratory relief in Counts VII and X are
also moot.  To the extent Counts VII and X purport to state a claim
for damages, the record does not support that claim.

     iii. The Ebix Defendants' decision to adopt the 2014 Bylaw
Amendments is subject to the business judgment presumption, and the
Plaintiffs have failed to rebut that presumption.  Hence, summary
judgment as to Count IV is granted.

     iv. None of the deposition testimony cited by the Plaintiffs
overcomes the presumption of validity in light of the clear
evidence of adoption.  The testimony simply shows that, years after
the "Board call," several directors do not recall the call or the
approval of the 2014 Bylaw Amendments.  Such failure to remember,
however, does not "place in dispute" the approval of the 2014 Bylaw
Amendments.  Summary judgment as to Count V is granted.

A copy of the Court's July 17, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/RQI3Rc from Leagle.com.


EKIMOTO & MORRIS: Court Dismisses C. Connelly's FDCPA Claim
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Hawaii granted
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Third Amended Class Action
Complaint in the case captioned CRAIG CONNELLY and KRISTINE
CONNELLY, as individuals and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. EKIMOTO & MORRIS, LLLC, a Hawai'i limited
liability law company, as individual entities; ASSOCIATION OF
APARTMENT OWNERS OF KO OLINA KAI GOLF ESTATES AND VILLAS, a Hawai'i
corporation as individual entities and on behalf of all others
similarly situated; DOE DEFENDANTS 1-100, Defendants, Civil No.
16-00448 LEK-KSC (D. Haw.).

The Third Amended Complaint alleges the following claims:
declaratory relief against E&M and Defendant Association of
Apartment Owners of Ko Olina Kai Golf Estates and Villas (AOAO and
Count I), wrongful foreclosure against the AOAO (Count II), a FDCPA
claim against E&M and the AOAO (Count III) and a UDAP claim against
the AOAO (Count IV) and an improper foreclosure claim against the
AOAO (Count V).

Count III alleges E&M violated 15 U.S.C. Sections 1692e and 1692f.

Section 1692e states, in pertinent part: "A debt collector may not
use any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in
connection with the collection of any debt. Without limiting the
general application of the foregoing, the following conduct is a
violation of this section: (5) The threat to take any action that
cannot legally be taken or that is not intended to be taken."

According to the Third Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs purchased
the Unit in March 2006 for approximately $830,000, and they
financed the purchase with a $625,000 loan, secured by a mortgage
on the Unit. On July 15, 2008, the AOAO recorded a $6,329.36 lien
on the Unit for unpaid condominium assessments. In 2011, the AOAO,
acting through E&M, foreclosed upon the Unit in order to collect
the unpaid assessments.

At the time they filed the Third Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs
were California residents. For purposes of E&M's Motion, the
factual allegations of the Third Amended Complaint are presumed to
be true. However, even assuming all of the Plaintiffs' factual
allegations are true, they are insufficient to support a reasonable
inference that the Plaintiffs' unpaid condominium assessments were
a debt for purposes of the FDCPA.

The Motion is therefore granted insofar as the portion of Count III
alleging a FDCPA claim against E&M is dismissed.

Although the AOAO did not move for dismissal of Count III, the same
analysis applies to the Plaintiffs' FDCPA claim against the AOAO.
Thus, the portion of Count III alleging a FDCPA claim against the
AOAO is also dismissed.

A full-text copy of the District Court’s July 5, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ybax75qg from Leagle.com.

Craig Connelly, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated & Kristine Connelly, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Chanelle M.C.
Fujimoto -- cfujimoto@imanaka-asato.com -- Imanaka Asato, LLLC,
Isam C. Khoury -- ikhoury@ckslaw.com -- Cohelan Khoury & Singer,
pro hac vice, James J. Hill -- jhill@ckslaw.com -- Cohelan Khoury &
Singer, pro hac vice, Michael L. Iosua -- miosua@imanaka-asato.com
-- Imanaka Asato, LLLC, Steven K.S. Chung --
miosua@imanaka-asato.com -- Imanaka Asato, LLLC, Timothy G. Blood
-- tblood@bholaw.com -- Blood Hurst & O'Reardon, LLP, pro hac vice,
Timothy D. Cohelan -- tcohelan@ckslaw.com -- Cohelan Khoury &
Singer, pro hac vice, Li Li , Imanaka Asato, LLLC & Margaret LeAnn
Webster, Imanaka Asato LLLC.

Ekimoto & Morris, LLLC, a Hawai'i limited liability law company, as
individual entities, Defendant, represented by Christopher T.
Goodin -- cgoodin@cades.com -- Cades Schutte LLP, Peter W. Olson --
polson@cades.com -- Cades Schutte LLP & Trisha H.S.T. Akagi --
takagi@cades.com -- Cades Schutte LLP.

AOAO Ko Olina Kai Golf Estates and Villas, a Hawai'i corporation,
as individual entities and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Defendant, represented by David J. Minkin , McCorriston
Miller Mukai MacKinnon & Jordan K. Inafuku , McCorriston Miller
Mukai MacKinnon.


FACEBOOK INC: Indonesian Class Action Lawsuit Sets Precedent
------------------------------------------------------------
Anbar Jayadi, writing for The Jakarta Post, reports that the
scandal of Facebook and Cambridge Analytica has ignited debates
about data privacy enforcement. The pressing question is twofold.
First, it is about compliance and enforcement mechanisms against
Facebook and CA and similar entities. Second, it is about
compensation for the Facebook users as well as assurance for the
future,  that data misuse like this will not happen again.
Indonesia is no exception to these questions.

There is an ongoing class action lawsuit against Facebook's
California headquarters and Jakarta office and CA in London. The
Institute for the Development of Indonesian Information Society
Empowerment, and Indonesia ICT Institute has filed the lawsuit to
the South Jakarta District Court. The first trial is set for the
third week of August 2018.

The central issue of the lawsuit is on Facebook users' data misuse
especially Indonesian users. As Facebook is recognized as an
electronic system provider under the Electronic Information and
Transaction Law, the plaintiffs argue Facebook is subject to
Indonesian laws. Cambridge Analytica also is believed to obtain
personal data of Indonesian users because the Facebook policy on
third-party apps allowed them to do so.

This lawsuit is paramount because it will hold the critical answers
to the questions of first, whether our current legal rules are
adequate for a data privacy related case. Second, how far can
Indonesian authorities including the courts ensure compliance
through effective measures against Facebook and CA and similar
outfits? Third, what are possible compensations for Indonesian
citizens as Facebook users whose personal data was abused?

To this date, relevant legislation about data privacy is the above
cyberlaw, where one core provision is the importance of consent for
any use of personal data utilizing the electronic medium. The
implementing regulation is the ministry regulation no. 20/2016 on
Personal Data Protection in Electronic Systems.

In this lawsuit, the plaintiffs refer further to the Governmental
Regulation No. 82/ 2012 on the Operation of Electronic Systems and
Transactions, the basis for their charges of Facebook's wrongdoing
of not notifying Indonesian users of the data misuse.

The plaintiffs also demand consumer protection and disclosure of
public information and refer to the constitutional right to
communication and obtaining information.

Further, the plaintiffs call on the government to block Facebook
and suspend its operational activities in Indonesia. The plaintiffs
also demand compensation for material and immaterial loss for
Indonesian citizens.

The plaintiffs' arguments seem valid as they raise the central
issues of the scandal of Facebook and CA and protection of
Indonesian users.

Nevertheless, there are at least two aspects of the case that might
affect its degree of significance to Indonesia.

First is the extraterritorial effect of this lawsuit. While
Facebook has an office in Indonesia, CA does not. At the very least
collecting evidence would need cooperation between Indonesian
authorities with those in the United Kingdom and the United States.


Secondly, CA, part of a bigger business group, has reportedly begun
proceedings of insolvency both in the UK and the US. By the time of
trials here, CA may have ceased to exist.

"Further, as Indonesian courts generally do not recognize
jurisprudence, any ruling may not largely impact further legal
protection of personal data in Indonesia. Nevertheless, we need to
keep our eyes on the case, at least as a learning experience in the
hopes of better efforts towards protection of our privacy in
cyberspace," the news agency said.[GN]


FLORIDA FIRST: Cooper Suit Seeks Damages Under TCPA
---------------------------------------------------
Donna Cooper, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v.
Florida First Insurance Agency, LLC, Case No. 18-cv-61694 (S.D.
Fla., July 23, 2018), seeks injunctive relief and statutory damages
under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff Donna Cooper is a resident of Winter Haven, Florida
and a citizen of the State of Florida.

The Defendant Florida First Insurance Agency, LLC is a Florida
corporation with its principal place of business at 2515 Hollywood
Boulevard, Hollywood, Florida 33020. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
      BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
      2665 South Bayshore Drive, Suite 220
      Miami, FL 33133
      Tel: (305) 330-5512
      Fax: (305) 676-9006
      E-mail: scott@bursor.com


GDS HOLDINGS: Klein Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm disclosed that a class action complaint has been
filed on behalf of shareholders of GDS Holdings Limited.  If you
suffered a loss you have until the lead plaintiff deadline to
request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff.        

GDS Holdings Limited (NASDAQ: GDS)
Class Period: November 2, 2016 to July 31, 2018
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 1, 2018

According to the complaint, GDS Holdings Limited allegedly made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) the Company has overstated its utilization and
occupancy rates; (2) the Company has made acquisitions with related
parties at inflated prices; (3) it has used suspect capital and
debt raisings despite large off-shore cash reserves; (4) it has
adopted unorthodox accounts receivable and payable practices; and
(5) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendant's statements
about GDS' business, operations, and prospects were materially
false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

Get additional information about the GDS lawsuit:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-c/gds-holdings-limited?wire=3

Joseph Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in
securities litigations involving financial fraud throughout the
nation.

         Joseph Klein, Esq.
         Empire State Building
         350 Fifth Avenue, 59th Floor
         New York, NY 10118
         Telephone: (212) 616-4899
         Fax: (347) 558-9665
         E-mail: jk@kleinstocklaw.com [GN]


GDS HOLDINGS: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP disclosed that a federal
securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York against
GDS Holdings Limited ("GDS" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: GDS) on
behalf of investors who purchased GDS American Depositary Receipts
(ADRs) between March 29, 2018 through July 31, 2018, inclusive (the
"Class Period").

Investors who have incurred losses in the ADRs of GDS Holdings
Limited are urged to contact the firm immediately at
classmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774. You may
obtain additional information concerning the action on our website,
www.whafh.com.

If you have incurred losses in the ADRs of GDS Holdings Limited,
you may, no later than October 1, 2018, request that the Court
appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed class. Please contact
Wolf Haldenstein to learn more about your rights as an investor in
GDS Holdings Limited.

The filed complaint alleges that, Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:

   -- GDS Holdings overstated the value of certain data centers it
had acquired;

   -- GDS Holdings failed to maintain adequate internal controls;
and

   -- as a result, defendants' statements about GDS Holdings'
business, operations, and prospects were materially false and/or
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

On July 31, 2018, Blue Orca Capital published a report alleging
that "GDS is borrowing crippling amounts of debt to enrich insiders
by acquiring data centers from undisclosed related parties which
are not nearly as valuable as the Company claims." On this news,
the Company's share price fell $12.92, or more than 37%, to close
at $21.83 per share on July 31, 2018.    

Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP has extensive experience
in the prosecution of securities class actions and derivative
litigation in state and federal trial and appellate courts across
the country.  The firm has attorneys in various practice areas; and
offices in New York, Chicago and San Diego.  The reputation and
expertise of this firm in shareholder and other class litigation
has been repeatedly recognized by the courts, which have appointed
it to major positions in complex securities multi-district and
consolidated litigation.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding
your rights and interests in this case, please immediately contact
Wolf Haldenstein by telephone at (800) 575-0735, via e-mail at
classmember@whafh.com, or visit our website at www.whafh.com.

         Kevin Cooper, Esq.
         Gregory Stone, Director of Case and Financial Analysis
         Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
         Tel: (800) 575-0735
              (212) 545-4774
         Email: gstone@whafh.com
                kcooper@whafh.com [GN]


GOODWILL INDUSTRIES: Drivers' Class Certification Denial Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, OCTAVIO TORRES, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. GOODWILL
INDUSTRIES OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, Defendant and Respondent, Case No.
D072271 (Cal. App.), Judge Judith McConnell of the Court of Appeals
of California for the Fourth District, Division One, affirmed the
trial court's denial of Torres' motion for class certification
without prejudice and his motion for leave to file a second amended
complaint to amend the class definition and add a new
representative.

The appeal arises from a putative class action filed by Torres
against his former employer, Goodwill, alleging it failed to
provide truck drivers and helpers with off-duty meal periods and
rest breaks and asserting related wage and hour claims.  Torres was
a truck driver for Goodwill from June 2014 to February 2015, until
Goodwill terminated his employment.

In December 2015, Torres filed a class action against Goodwill.
The operative first amended complaint alleges Goodwill failed to
provide off-duty meal and rest breaks and violated related wage and
hour requirements, including failing to provide an hour of pay for
missed breaks.  

Torres identified the Plaintiffs as current and former non-exempt
employees of the Defendant, who worked for the Defendant in the
State of California, County of San Diego, as Truck Drivers and
Truck Helpers for a period of time within the four years preceding
the filing of the action.

In September 2016, Torres moved for class certification.  Goodwill
opposed the motion.  The trial court heard the motion for class
certification in October 2016.  It denied the motion without
prejudice.  After setting forth the legal standards on class
certification, the court concluded common questions did not
predominate.  It also determined Torres could not adequately
represent the class.

In March 2017, Torres moved for leave to file a second amended
complaint.  He proposed adding the following language to the
definition of the Plaintiffs: "who were subjected to the illegal
policies, procedures, and practices set forth herein, including
being denied compliant meal periods and rest breaks, accurate pay
statements, and timely payment of all wages due.  He also sought to
add another class representative.  Goodwill opposed the motion.

In May 2017, the trial court heard and denied the motion.  It
determined that the modified class definition did not change the
fact that individual questions continue to predominate and did not
reach the adequacy of the new representative, effectively ending
Torres's efforts to proceed on behalf of a class.

In June 2017, Torres filed a Notice of Appeal from the October 2016
order denying his motion for class certification and from the May
2017 order denying his motion for leave to file a second amended
complaint.

Judge McConnell is not persuaded by Goddwill's contention that the
order denying leave was (i) a ruling that amendment would be
futile, not a denial of certification; or (ii) if it was a ruling
on certification, it would have to be without prejudice because
Torres would be free to move for certification again.  She explains
that the court denied leave to amend based on a certification issue
(i.e., individual facts would predominate).  In substance, if not
form, this was an order denying class certification and precluded
any further opportunity to bring a successful class certification
motion.

She also disagrees with Torres' contention that the trial court
abused its discretion in ruling that common issues do not
predominate and also erred in concluding he was an inadequate
representative.  She has reviewed the record and is satisfied that
it contains substantial evidence to support the court's
predominance finding.

Finally, she disagrees with Torres' argument that the trial court
abused its discretion by denying leave to amend the complaint to
limit the Plaintiff definition to those impacted by the alleged
unlawful policies, and to add a new class representative.  Turning
to the substance of the trial court's ruling, the Judge finds no
abuse of discretion.  There is nothing to suggest the court
believed Torres could change the fact that individual issues
predominated simply by excluding those who did not experience the
alleged conduct.

Judge McConnell concludes the trial court did not abuse its
discretion in denying class certification or in denying leave to
amend.  She affirmed.  Goodwill will recover its costs on appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 18, 2018 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/XeKshc from Leagle.com.

Rastegar Law Group, Farzad Rastegar -- farzad@rastegarlawgroup.com
-- and Douglas W. Perlman -- douglas@rastegarlawgroup.com -- for
Plaintiff and Appellant.

Manning & Kass, Ellrod, Ramirez, Trester, Alfred M. De La Cruz --
amd@manningllp.com -- and Ladell Hulet Muhlestein --
lhm@manningllp.com -- for Defendant and Respondent.


GOOGLE INC: Tracks Location of Mobile Phone Users, Patacsil Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
NAPOLEON PATACSIL, individually, and on behalf of other persons
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. GOOGLE, INC., the Defendant,
Case No. 3:18-cv-05062 (N.D. Cal., Aug. 17, 2018), alleges
surreptitious location tracking of millions of mobile phone users
by Defendant Google, Inc.

According to the complaint, Google expressly represented to users
of its operating system and apps that the activation of certain
settings will prevent the tracking of users' geolocations. This
representation was false. Despite users' attempts to protect their
location privacy, Google collects and stores users' location data,
thereby invading users' reasonable expectations of privacy, counter
to Google's own representations about how users can configure
Google's products to prevent such egregious privacy violations.

Despite the recognized sensitivity of location data, Google
collects this data against the express wishes and expectations of
its users. As reported recently by the Associated Press, "Google
wants to know where you go so badly that it records your movements
even when you explicitly tell it not to."  The report --
corroborated by respected cyber security researchers -- found that
Google technology, embedded on millions upon millions of
smartphones, stores individual's location information even if users
activate a privacy setting purporting to prevent Google from doing
so.

Google is a mobile operating system and mobile applications
developer.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated:

          Michael W. Sobol, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN &
            BERNSTEIN, LLP
          275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: 415-956-1000
          Facsimile: 415-956-1008
          E-mail: msobol@lchb.com

               - and -

          Hank Bates, Esq.
          CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
          519 West 7th St.
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: 501-312-8500
          Facsimile: 501-312-8505
          E-mail: hbates@cbplaw.com


GSG PROTECTIVE: Fails to Pay OT to Security Guards, Pasallo Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN PASALLO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GSG PROTECTIVE SERVICES CA INC., and DOES
1-50, inclusive, Case No. 37-2018-00037611-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Super.,
San Diego Cty., July 26, 2018) is an action against the Defendants
for failure to pay overtime wages, provide required meal periods,
provide required rest periods, provide accurate itemized
statements, and provide wages.

Mr. Pasallo was employed by the Defendants as security guard from
July 2014 to November 2015.

GSG Protective Services CA Inc. is a California corporation engaged
as a service provider of security services in California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shani O. Zakay, Esq.
          ZAKAY LAW GROUP, APLC
          5850 Oberlin Drive, Suite 230A
          San Diego, CA 92121
          Telephone: (619) 892-7095
          Facsimile: (858) 404-9203

               - and –

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


H & J RESTAURANT: Dunn Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
---------------------------------------------------
Nicole Dunn, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v.
H & J Restaurant Management, Inc., Case No. 2:18-cv-03068 (E.D.
Pa., July 23, 2018), is brought against the Defendant for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania
Minimum Wage Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant at its Plumsteadville
McDonald's franchise from approximately January 2017 until April
2017, and again from approximately January 2018 until April 2018.

The Defendant operates at least three McDonald's franchises located
in southeastern Pennsylvania. This includes locations in
Plumsteadville, New Hope, and Warrington. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter Winebrake, Esq.
      R. Andrew Santillo, Esq.
      Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq.
      WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
      Twinning Officer Center, Suite 211
      715 Twinning Road
      Dresher, PA 19025
      Tel: (215) 884-2491


HAYT & HAYT: Sera Sues over Debt Collection Practices
-----------------------------------------------------
JANET SERA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. HAYT, HAYT & LANDAU, P.L., the
Defendants, Case No. 0:18-cv-61925-DPG (S.D. Fla., Aug. 17, 2018),
seeks to recover damages under the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

According to the complaint, the debt at issue is a financial
obligation Plaintiff incurred primarily for personal, family, or
household purposes. The Consumer Debt is a "debt" governed by the
FDCPA and FCCPA. See 15 U.S.C section 1692a(5). On a date better
known by Defendant, Defendant began attempting collect the consumer
Debt from Plaintiff. On or about July 24, 2018, Defendant sent a
collection letter to Plaintiff in an attempt to collect the
Consumer Debt.  The Collection Letter was Defendant's first and/or
initial communication with Plaintiff in connection with the
Consumer Debt. Nowhere in the Collection Letter does it state who
the current creditor of the debt is as Defendant is required to
clearly and effectively disclose pursuant to 15 U.S.C section
1692g(a)(2) of the FDCPA.

Hayt & Hayt has been practicing law in the state of Florida for
over 25 years specializing in the area of collections.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
          110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 907 1136
          Facsimile: (855) 529 9540
          E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com


HIDALGO COUNTY, NM: Ct. to Review Stipulated Judgment in "Jimenez"
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico
granted Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration of Amended
Stipulated Judgment in the case captioned MARTHA JIMENEZ, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF HIDALGO COUNTY,
Defendant, Civ. No. 13-971 GBW/KRS (D.N.M.).

Subsequently, counsel agreed to the following distribution of the
settlement proceeds:

   18 Dispatch Operator Class Members:  $7,098.90
       (average recovery of $394.38)

   Named Plaintiffs:                    $13,200.00

   Attorney's Fees:                     $20,000.00

   Gross Receipts Tax (7.5%):            $1,500.00

   Costs:                               $10,000.00

   Total:                               $51,798.90

The Judgment is Impracticable as Written

That determination by the Court raises two problems for the parties
in executing the judgment. First, Plaintiff Vogelsang-Wolf was
formerly the class representative for the Detention Officer class,
whose claims were extinguished at the summary judgment stage by
this Court and were not revived on appeal to the Tenth Circuit.  

Second, while the Dispatch Operator class successfully appealed
this Court's grant of summary judgment to Defendants on their FLSA
claims, only eighteen of the nineteen dispatchers listed on the
chart are members of the certified Dispatch Operator class.

Bonus Payments are Appropriate in the Present Circumstances

Here, in eliminating the parties' agreed-upon incentive awards to
the named Plaintiffs in this case, the presiding judge relied upon
his earlier opinions where similar awards were disapproved.

In the Amended Joint Motion to Approve Settlement, the parties did
not fully address the above-outlined factors relevant to justifying
incentive awards.

In short, the Amended Joint Motion to Approve Settlement did not
adequately justify the incentive award payments proposed for the
named plaintiffs.

First, the Plaintiffs note in their Motion for Reconsideration that
in this case, class representatives either were not forthcoming or
dropped out early in the litigation due to the pressures of the
discovery process.

Second, the Plaintiffs assert that Jimenez and Vogelsang-Wolf
undertook risk in sticking with the litigation because both,
experiencing or fearing retaliation, left the Defendant's employ.

Third, the Plaintiffs flesh out the additional efforts factor more
thoroughly in the Motion for Reconsideration, explaining that the
named Plaintiffs' efforts exceeded the effort of typical class
representatives by taking their case to the Tenth Circuit Court of
Appeals.

Fourth, and most importantly, the named Plaintiffs' willingness to
pursue the partially successful appeal to the Tenth Circuit is the
only reason there are any settlement funds to be disbursed here.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 5, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y8jmgaog from Leagle.com.

Martha S Jimenez & Amanda Vogelsang-Wolf, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Shane
C. Youtz  -- shane@youtzvaldez.com -- Youtz & Valdez PC, Stephen
Curtice -- stephen@youtzvaldez.com -- Youtz & Valdez, PC & James A.
Montalbano -- james@youtzvaldez.com -- Youtz & Valdez, PC.

Board of County Commissioners of Hidalgo County, Defendant,
represented by Agnes F. Padilla -- afpadilla@btblaw.com -- Butt
Thornton & Baehr, P.C. & Felicia Castillo Boyd -- fcboyd@btblaw.com
-Butt Thornton & Baehr PC.


HOOGLAND FOODS: Underpays Delivery Drivers, Sutherlin Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN SUTHERLIN, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff v. HOOGLAND FOODS, LLC d/b/a Marco's Pizza; and
KEITH HOOGLAND, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-00573-RLM-MGG (N.D.
Ind., July 27, 2018) seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and
overtime compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mr. Sutherlin is still currently employed by the Defendants as
delivery driver.

Hoogland Foods, LLC d/b/a Marco's Pizza owns and operates chain of
restaurants. The Company offers pizza, salads, and drinks. Marco's
Pizza serves customers in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


IROQUOIS HOTEL: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Mercer Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
STACEY MERCER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. IROQUOIS HOTEL LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-06726-ALC (S.D.N.Y., July 26, 2018) alleges violation of
the Americans with Disabilities Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff visited the Defendant's
website to learn about accessible features of its Hotel, and to
independently assess whether the Hotel is accessible to her, and
whether she could independently reserve an accessible room at the
Hotel, in the same manner as those seeking to reserve
non-accessible rooms. Upon her visit, the Plaintiff discovered the
website does not comply with the ADA.

The Plaintiff was unable to independently assess accessible and
inaccessible features of the Defendant's Hotel, independently
assess accessible and inaccessible features of relevant guestrooms,
or reserve accessible guestrooms online, because of the Defendant's
refusal to conform with ADA.

Iroquois Hotel LLC was founded in 1984. The Company's line of
business includes operating public hotels and motels. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nolan Klein, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF NOLAN KLEIN
          39 Broadway, Suite. 2250
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (646) 560-3230
          Facsimile: (877) 253-1691
          E-mail: klein@nklegal.com
                  amy@nklegal.com


JOHNNY TAYLOR: Robinson Sues over Debt Collection Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------
MARLON ROBINSON, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. JOHNNY TAYLOR LAW PLLC, the Defendant,
Case No. 4:18-cv-02793 (S.D. Tex., Aug. 14, 2018), seeks to recover
damages under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

According to the complaint, on or about June 4, 2018, the Defendant
sent a written communication to Plaintiff in connection with debt
collection.  The June 4, 2018 communication was the first written
communication Plaintiff received from Defendant in connection with
the Debt. The Plaintiff did not receive any additional written
communications from Defendant within five days of the June 4, 2018
communication.

The June 4, 2018 communication is headed "NOTICE OF PRIOR
ACCELERATION AND DEMAND FOR PAYMENT" and advises Plaintiff that
Defendant represents Shared Resources Credit Union regarding an
allegedly defaulted loan.  The June 4, 2018 letter includes a
demand for payment on the allegedly defaulted loan, as well as a
disclosure that "this communication is from a debt collector and is
an attempt to collect a debt.  Any information obtained will be
used for that purpose. A Fair Debt Collection Practice [sic] Act
Notice follows below." In said "Notice," appearing immediately
below Johnny Taylor's signature, Defendant states in relevant part:
"Unless, within 30 days after receipt of this notice, you dispute
the validity of this debt, or any portion thereof, the debt will be
assumed valid."

Johnny Taylor Law PLLC is a law firm in Katy, Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aaron D. Radbil, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
          106 E. 6th Street, Suite 913
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 322 3912
          Facsimile: (561) 961 5684
          E-mail: aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Cathy Bernal Sues over Talc Powder-Based Injury
------------------------------------------------------------------
CATHY BERNAL, an individual, as successor in interest for ESTHER
BERNAL, deceased, Plaintiff v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JOHNSON & JOHNSON
CONSUMER INC. F/K/A JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC.;
IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC.; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 18CV332276 (Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty.,
July 25, 2018) seeks recovery for damages as a result of the
Plaintiff Decedent's ovarian cancer, which was directly and
proximately caused by the wrongful conduct of the Defendants, the
false and fraudulent representations, omissions, and concealments
of the defective nature of talcum powder, the main ingredient of
the Defendants' product.

The Plaintiff alleged in the complaint that Esther Bernal developed
ovarian cancer, and suffered effects and sequelae therefrom, as a
direct and proximate result of the unreasonably dangerous and
defective nature of talcum powder, the main ingredient of the
Defendants' products. The Defendants also committed wrongful and
negligent conduct in the research, development, testing,
manufacture, production, formulation, processing, packaging,
promotion, distribution, marketing, and sale of the their products
and the talcum powder that comprises the products.

Johnson & Johnson, together with its subsidiaries, researches and
develops, manufactures, and sells various products in the health
care field worldwide. Johnson & Johnson was founded in 1885 and is
based in New Brunswick, New Jersey. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark P. Robinson, Jr., Esq.
          ROBINSON CALCAGNIE, INC.
          19 Corporate Plaza Drive
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 720-1288
          Facsimile: (949) 720-1292
          E-mail: mrobinson@robinsonfirm.com

               - and -

          Michelle Parfitt, Esq.
          Patrick Lyons, Esq.
          ASHCRAFT & GEREL, LLP
          4900 Seminary Road, Suite 650
          Alexandria, VA 22311
          Telephone: (703) 931-5500
          Facsimile: (703) 820-1656
          E-mail: mparfitt@ashcraftlaw.com
                  plyons@ashcraftlaw.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Dorothy Bro Sues over Talc Powder-Based Injury
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DOROTHY BRO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JOHNSON & JOHNSON
CONSUMER INC. F/K/A JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC.;
IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC.; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 18CV332014 (Cal. Super., Santa Cty., July 25,
2018) is an action against the Defendants for failure to warn the
consumers on the defective nature of talcum powder, the main
ingredient of the Defendants' product.

The Plaintiff alleged in the complaint that the Defendants failed
to warn the consumers regarding the hazards of talc and talcum
powder products, including the failure to disclose the fact that
such products contained asbestos and other carcinogens and was,
therefore, deprived of an opportunity to make informed decisions
concerning use of, exposure to and contact with said products. The
Defendants also knowingly concealed the fact that their product
contained the carcinogenic substances talc, asbestos and
asbestiform fibers which posed a high risk of ovarian cancer and/or
death.

Johnson & Johnson, together with its subsidiaries, researches and
develops, manufactures, and sells various products in the health
care field worldwide. Johnson & Johnson was founded in 1885 and is
based in New Brunswick, New Jersey. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lee Cirsch, Esq.
          Michael Akselrud, Esq.
          THE LANIER LAW FIRM, PC
          21550 Oxnard Street, 3rd Floor
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (310) 277-5100
          Facsimile: (310) 277-5103
          E-mail: lee.cirsch@lanierlawfirm.com
                  michael.akselrud@lanierlawfirm.com


JOON LLC: Faces Song Suit in Middle District of Alabama
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Joon, LLC.  The
lawsuit is captioned as Soohwan Song, on behalf of himself and
other similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Joon, LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-00740-TFM (M.D. Ala., Aug. 17, 2018).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Terry F. Moorer. The case
alleges Fair Labor Standards Act violations.

Joon, LLC, doing business as Ajin USA, manufactures and markets
automotive metal stampings.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian Gene Kim, Esq.
          BRIAN KIM PC
          1815 Satellite Blvd; Suite 303
          Duluth, GA 30097
          Telephone: (678) 878 4200
          Facsimile: (678) 878 4208
          E-mail: leonandkimllc@gmail.com


JPMORGAN CHASE: Jan. 22 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:15-cv-09188-VEC

BENJAMIN MICHAEL MERRYMAN, AMY
WHITAKER MERRYMAN TRUST, B
MERRYMAN AND A MERRYMAN 4TH
GENERATION REMAINDER TRUST AND
CHESTER COUNTY EMPLOYEES
RETIREMENT FUND, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

            v.

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,

Defendant.

SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT; (II) FINAL APPROVAL HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR
ATTORNEYS' FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES

TO:  All Persons or entities who are or were holders (directly or
indirectly, registered or beneficially) of or otherwise claim any
entitlement to any payment (whether a dividend, rights offering,
interest on capital, sale of shares or other distribution) in
connection with: (1) the securities listed in Appendix 1 to the
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated June 12, 2018
("Stipulation") and the Notice described below (including any
predecessor or successor securities)1 from November 21, 2010 to
July 18, 2018, inclusive; or (2) the securities listed in Appendix
2 to the Stipulation and the Notice described below (including any
predecessor or successor securities)2 from November 21, 2012 to
July 18, 2018, inclusive (collectively, the "Settlement Class").

Certain Persons and entities are excluded from the definition of
Settlement Class as set forth in detail in the Stipulation and the
Notice described below.

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY.  IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE
SETTLEMENT CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION
LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT, AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN
THE SETTLEMENT DESCRIBED BELOW.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, that the above-captioned
litigation ("Litigation") has been provisionally certified as a
class action for the purposes of settlement only and that the
parties to the Litigation have reached a proposed settlement for
$9,500,000 in cash ("Settlement"), that, if approved, will resolve
all claims in the Litigation.  A hearing will be held on January
22, 2019 at 10:00 a.m., before the Honorable Valerie E. Caproni at
the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square,
New York, NY 10007, to determine: (i) whether the proposed
Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate;
(ii) whether the Litigation should be dismissed with prejudice
against JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. ("Defendant" or "JPM"), and the
releases specified and described in the Stipulation (and in the
Notice) should be granted; (iii) whether the proposed Plan of
Allocation should be approved as fair and reasonable; and (iv)
whether Lead Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees
and reimbursement of expenses should be approved.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS DESCRIBED ABOVE, YOUR
RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE PENDING LITIGATION AND YOU MAY BE
ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE SETTLEMENT FUND.  A detailed Notice of (I)
Pendency of Class Action and Proposed Settlement; (II) Final
Approval Hearing; and (III) Motion for Attorneys' Fees and
Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses ("Notice") and Proof of Claim
and Release form ("Claim Form") (or Validation Letter for those
Settlement Class Members who hold (or held) their eligible
securities directly and are listed on the records of JPM's transfer
agent are currently being mailed to Settlement Class Members
explaining their rights in connection with the Settlement and the
process, for certain Settlement Class Members, to submit a Claim
Form in order to be eligible to receive a payment from the
Settlement.  If you have not yet received the detailed Notice and
Claim Form (or Validation Letter), you may obtain copies of these
documents by visiting www.JPMorganADRFXSettlement.com, or by
contacting the Claims Administrator at:
         
         JPMorgan ADR FX Settlement
         c/o KCC Class Action Services
         P.O. Box 404068
         Louisville, KY  40233-4068
        (866) 637-9457
         info@JPMorganADRFXSettlement.com

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form,
should be made to Court-appointed Lead Counsel:
         
         Sharan Nirmul, Esq.
         Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
         280 King of Prussia Road
         Radnor, PA  19087
         (610) 667-7706
         info@ktmc.com
                    
As explained in the Notice, if you hold (or held) your eligible
securities directly and are listed on the records of JPM's transfer
agent, you are a Registered Holder Settlement Class Member and do
not have to take any action in order to participate in the
Settlement and be eligible to receive a payment from the
Settlement.  Your losses (if any) will be calculated using the
information provided by JPM's transfer agent. However, if you hold
(or held) your eligible securities through a bank, broker or other
nominee and are not listed on the records of JPM's transfer agent,
you are a Non-Registered Holder Settlement Class Member and, in
order for you to participate in the Settlement and be eligible to
receive a payment from the Settlement, you must submit a Claim Form
postmarked no later than January 12, 2019.  If you are a
Non-Registered Holder Settlement Class Member and do not submit a
proper Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the
distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement, but you will
nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the
Court in the Litigation.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude
yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for
exclusion such that it is received no later than December 18, 2018,
in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice.  If
you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will
not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the
Litigation and you will not be eligible to share in the net
proceeds of the Settlement.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses, must be filed with the Court and
delivered to Lead Counsel and Defendant's Counsel such that they
are received no later than December 18, 2018, in accordance with
the instructions set forth in the Notice.

Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, JPM, or its
counsel regarding this notice.  All questions about this notice,
the Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the
Settlement should be directed to Lead Counsel or the Claims
Administrator.

DATED:  July 18, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

United States District Court

Southern District of New York

1 The securities listed in Appendix 1 to the Stipulation and Notice
are: (1) Banco Santander SA; (2) Chunghwa Telecom Co., Ltd.; (3)
CNOOC Ltd.; (4) ENEL SpA; (5) Guangshen Railway; (6) Nippon
Telegraph & Telephone Corp.; (7) Novartis A.G.; (8) Novo Nordisk
A/S; (9) Prudential PLC; (10) Rio Tinto PLC; (11) Sanofi; (12) Vale
S.A.; (13) Vale S.A. – Pref; and (14) Volkswagen AG – Pref. See
Appendix 1 to the Stipulation (or Notice) for CUSIPs and Ticker
Symbols.

2  The securities listed in Appendix 2 to the Stipulation and
Notice are: (1) Alcatel-Lucent; (2) Allianz SE; (3) AMCOR Ltd.; (4)
ASML Holding NV; (5) BAE Systems PLC; (6) Banco Santander SA; (7)
Banco Santander Chile; (8) BNP Paribas; (9) Braskem SA; (10) BT
Group PLC; (11) Canon, Inc.; (12) Carlsberg A/S; (13) Carnival PLC;
(14) CIA Brasileira De Distribuicao Grupo Pao De Acucar; (15)
Danone; (16) Gerdau SA; (17) Honda Motor Co. Ltd.; (18) Iberdrola
SA; (19) ING Groep NV; (20) KB Financial Group Inc.; (21) Kirin
Holdings Co. Ltd.; (22) Kubota Corp.; (23) Lafarge; (24) Nissan
Motor Co. Ltd.; (25) OMV AG; (26) Panasonic Corp.; (27) Reckitt
Benckiser Group PLC; (28) Roche Holding AG / Roche Holding Ltd.;
(29) Rolls-Royce Holdings PLC; (30) SABMiller PLC; (31) Sony Corp.;
(32) STMicroelectronics NV; (33) Swedbank AB; (34) Telenor ASA;
(35) Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.; (36) TIM Participações
SA; (37) Tokio Marine Holdings Inc.; (38) TOTAL SA; (39) Valeo SA;
(40) Volkswagen AG; and (41) Yara International ASA. See Appendix 2
to the Stipulation (or Notice) for CUSIPs and Ticker Symbols.


JUST SALAD: Tecocoatzi-Ortiz et al. Seek Unpaid Wages & OT
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit against Just Salad seeks to recover unpaid
wage/minimum wage compensation, unpaid overtime wages compensation,
the full portion of tips illegally retained by Defendants,
including the entirety of the "delivery fee" advertised as tips for
Just Salad deliverymen, including tips from the tip pool used to
pay unpaid-for Just Salad customer orders or to reconcile the
delivery orders actually paid for and the delivery orders processed
by the point-of-sale system, uniform maintenance costs, uniform
maintenance costs, liquidated damages, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest; and/or attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, because they were not given enough
T-shirts for the T-shirts to be washed along with their weekly
laundry, the Plaintiffs were required to wear uniform and to
launder the uniform at their own expense and in their own time. At
all relevant times following September 1, 2017, the Defendants that
do business as Just Salad have systematically, willfully and
intentionally committed widespread violations of the FLSA and the
NYLL by unlawfully retaining the entire
portion of the $1.99 "delivery fee" on Seamless, GrubHub and credit
card orders, which increased to $2.50 on or about March 20, 2018,
which many Just Salad customers believes is intended for the
deliverymen in violation of NYLL.

The case is captioned as RODOLFO TECOCOATZI-ORTIZ, DIEGO DE LA CRUZ
ROSAS, NEFTALI D. BATEN, ADELAIDO GALEANA, JOSE PEREDA ABARCA,
CAMILO RAMOS FLORES, OMAR RAUL ZAPOTITLAN SANCHEZ, RODOLFO
ZEMPOALTECA MONTES, ENRIQUE DOSITEO ENCALADA ABAD, on behalf of
themselves, and on behalf others similarly situated in the Proposed
FLSA Collective and Potential Rule 23 Class; and LUIS JOFREE LEMA
MAYANCELA, ANTHONY PETER ROSARIO, REYMUNDO MOLINA MEDEL, and
BERNALDO TLACZANI CARRANZA, on behalf of themselves, and on behalf
of others similarly situated in the Potential Rule 23 Class, the
Plaintiffs, v. JUST SALAD LLC d/b/a Just Salad; JUST SALAD 600
THIRD LLC d/b/a Just Salad Murray Hill; JUST SALAD GP LLC d/b/a
Just Salad Fashion District; JUST SALAD 134 37TH ST. LLC d/b/a Just
Salad Fashion District; JUST SALAD PARTNERS LLC d/b/a Just Salad
Financial District; JUST SALAD 315 PAS LLC d/b/a Just Salad 315
Park Ave South; JUST SALAD 320 PARK AVE LLC d/b/a Just Salad Park
Avenue; JUST SALAD 30 ROCK LLC d/b/a Just Salad 30 Rock; JUST SALAD
706 6TH AVE LLC d/b/a Just Salad Chelsea; JUST SALAD WWP LLC d/b/a
Just Salad World Wide Plaza; JUST SALAD 663 LEX LLC d/b/a Just
Salad Lexington; JUST SALAD PARK SLOPE LLC d/b/a Just Salad Park
Slope; JUST SALAD 8TH ST LLC d/b/a Just Salad 8th Street (NYU);
JUST SALAD 1471 3RD AVE LLC d/b/a Just Salad Upper East Side (83rd
and 3rd); JUST SALAD 1ST AVENUE LLC d/b/a Just Salad Upper East
Side (70th and 1st); JUST SALAD HUDSON SQUARE LLC d/b/a Just Salad
Hudson Square; JUST SALAD STATE STREET LLC d/b/a Just Salad
Downtown Brooklyn; JUST SALAD HERALD SQUARE LLC d/b/a Just Salad
Macy’s Herald Square; JUST SALAD 90 BROAD STREET LLC d/b/a Just
Salad Financial District (90 Broad Street); JUST SALAD 2056
BROADWAY LLC d/b/a Just Salad Upper West Side; JUST SALAD 140 8TH
AVE LLC d/b/a Just Salad Chelsea (8th Ave); JUST SALAD 233 BROADWAY
LLC d/b/a Just Salad City Hall; JUST SALAD WOODBURY LLC d/b/a Just
Salad Woodbury; JUST SALAD 291 7TH AVENUE LLC d/b/a Just Salad FIT;
JUST SALAD 437 5TH AVENUE LLC d/b/a Just Salad Bryant Park; and
NICHOLAS F KENNER a/k/a Nick Kenner, the Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-07342-AJN (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 14, 2018).[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs, proposed FLSA Collective and Proposed
Class Plaintiffs:

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


KIA MOTORS: Grant of JNOV in R. Little's Suit Reversed
------------------------------------------------------
In the case, REGINA LITTLE, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Respondent, v. KIA
MOTORS AMERICA, INC., Defendant-Respondent/Cross-Appellant, Docket
No. A-0794-15T3 (N.J. Super. App. Div.), Judge Ellen L. Koblitz of
the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, reversed the
trial judge's grant of a judgment notwithstanding the verdict
("JNOV") and remanded for a determination of counsel fees
consistent with her opinion.

In the class action against KMA, the Plaintiff class of 8455 Kia
Sephia owners and lessees represented by Little proved at a jury
trial that the Sephia, model years 1997 through 2000, had a
defective front brake system, which caused premature brake pad and
rotor wear.  Concluding that the defect amounted to a breach of
express and implied warranties, and that all owners had suffered
damage due to the defect, the jury awarded each member of the class
$750 ($6.3 million total) in repair damages.

Determining for the first time post-trial that repair damages could
not be awarded on a class-wide basis because they were dependent
upon individual factors, the trial court granted KMA's motion for
JNOV on the repair damages award, decertified the class for
purposes of damages, and ordered a new trial on repair damages
only, to proceed by way of claim forms.  

The Plaintiff contends that the trial judge erred in granting the
Defendant's motion for JNOV and vacating the $750 repair expenses
award for each class member.  It argues that the award was (a)
consistent with the Uniform Commercial Code ("UCC"), which allows
for a reasonable estimate of damages in a breach of warranty case;
(b) consistent with breach of contract damages in a class action;
and (c) supported by the evidence.

With the advantage of recent case law unavailable to the trial
judge, Judge Koblitz reversed, reinstated the jury award and
remanded for determination of counsel fees.  While she agreed with
the trial court that class certification was not appropriate for
all New Jersey customers, she concluded that certification was
appropriate for a more limited class, namely, customers in Red Bank
whose outages directly resulted from the alleged negligence in
delaying the replacement of the transformers in the Red Bank
substation.  She recognized that individual damages issues might
still exist with respect to the limited class, but concluded that
those damages issues could be addressed through a number of
techniques, including claim forms, interrogatories, requests for
admissions, and statistical interpretation of sampling data from
the relevant universe, established based on competent data.

The Judge held that the trial judge did not have the advantage of
reviewing the 2011 Pennsylvania Supreme Court opinion in
Samuel-Bassett v. Kia Motors Am., Inc., supporting the propriety of
the verdict in that sister-case.  The Samuel-Bassett jury found
that KMA had breached its express and implied warranties, and
awarded each of the 9400 Pennsylvania class members $600 (about
$5.6 million for the class) in repair damages.  After the trial
court denied KMA's motion for JNOV, it awarded the class $4,125,000
in counsel fees and $267,513 in costs of suit.  Samuel-Bassett
majority's decision is consistent with New Jersey law on breach of
contract damages in a class action.

The Defendant failed to present evidence to rebut the class's
formula for computing aggregate damages.  It had access to
documents that would have established the actual rate of brake
repairs by defendant's dealers.  But the only documents on repairs
that they produced related to warranty repairs.  The Judge saw no
reason to disturb the jury's considered determination of class
damages.

The Judge also found that the court correctly charged the jury on
the implied warranty of merchantability.  The implied warranty
standard was not limited to whether the Sephia was safe and
reliable, but rather, whether it was fit for the ordinary purpose
for which cars are used.  A driver would fairly assume that an
ordinary car would have a brake system that does not cause
premature wear of brake pads and rotors.

Finally, the Judge found that failing to return a claim form does
not prove that the class member incurred no damage.  The court
correctly certified the class and the cross-appeal is without
merit.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 18, 2018 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/FFUKUV from Leagle.com.

Michael D. Donovan (Donovan Axler, LLC) of the Pennsylvania bar,
admitted pro hac vice, argued the cause for
appellant/cross-respondent (Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis, LLP,
Francis and Mailman, PC, Feldman Shepherd Wohlgelernter Tanner
Weinstock Dodig, LLP, and Michael D. Donovan, attorneys; Michael D.
Donovan, Lisa J. Rodriguez -- ljrodriguez@schnader.com -- James A.
Francis -- info@consumerlawfirm.com -- Edward S. Goldis --
egoldis@feldmanshepherd.com -- and Alan M. Feldman --
afeldman@feldmanshepherd.com --  (Feldman Shepherd Wohlgelernter
Tanner Weinstock Dodig, LLP) of the Pennsylvania bar, admitted pro
hac vice, on the brief).

Roberto A. Rivera-Soto -- RIVERASOTORBALLARDSPAHR.COM -- argued the
cause for respondent/cross-appellant (Ballard Spahr, LLP,
attorneys; Roberto A. Rivera-Soto, Neal D. Walters --
WALTERSNBALLARDSPAHR.COM -- Michael R. Carroll and Michele C.
Ventura, on the brief).


KIVA BRANDS: Faces Lambert Suit over Mislabeled Products
--------------------------------------------------------
TINA LAMBERT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KIVA BRANDS, INC.; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 37-2018-00037812-CU-BT-CTL (Cal.
Super., San Diego Cty., July 27, 2018) is an action against the
Defendants for their unlawful, deceptive and unfair course of
conduct, in manufacturing, marketing, or selling a variety of
products to consumers, and falsely advertising the amount of THC on
the product packaging.

According to the complaint, the Defendants manufacture, distribute,
market, and sell products, the KIVA Dark Chocolate, Milk Chocolate,
Espresso Dark Chocolate, Vanilla Chai Milk Chocolate, Blackberry
Dark Chocolate, and Tangerine Dark Chocolate bars. The said
products contain materially less THC than advertised to consumers
on product packaging.

Kiva Brands, Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of the
State of Delaware.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John H. Donboli, Esq.
          Raquel S. Mor, Esq.
          DONBOLI LAW GROUP, APC
          11682 El Camino Real, Suite 100
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Telephone: (858) 252-2015
          Facsimile: (858) 724-1490


KMIN USA: Fails to Pay OT to Sales Managers, Jin Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
HEEJOO JIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KMIN USA, INC., Defendants, Case No.
3:18-cv-00693-WKW-DAB (M.D. Ala., July 27, 2018) seeks to recover
overtime wages, liquidated damages, interest, and reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Plaintiff Jin was employed by the Defendant as assistant sales
manager from January 5, 2018 to June 22, 2018.

Kmin USA, Inc. manufactures automobile parts and assembles parts
for automobile seats. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian G. Kim, Esq.
          BRIAN KIM, PC
          1815 Satellite Blvd., Suite 303
          Duluth, GA 30097
          Telephone: (678) 878-4200
          Facsimile: (404) 878-4208
          E-mail: brian@leonandkim.com


KNORR-BREMSE: Arcuri Suit over No-Poach Deal Moved to W.D. Pa.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled PAUL ARCURI and ASHLEY KERR, the
Plaintiffs, v. KNORR-BREMSE AG, KNORR BRAKE COMPANY LLC, NEW YORK
AIR BRAKE LLC, WESTINGHOUSE AIR BRAKE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, and
FAIVELEY TRANSPORT NORTH AMERICA, INC., the Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-01191, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania (Pittsburgh) on Aug. 17, 2018. The Western
District of Pennsylvania Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:18-cv-01098-JFC to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Joy Flowers Conti.

The civil antitrust class action is brought by and on behalf of
employees of Defendants, the world's largest rail equipment
suppliers.  Rail equipment employees, like employees in any labor
market, benefit when their employers compete for their services.
Competition among employers leads to greater negotiating leverage
for employees, which in turn leads to higher wages and greater
mobility.

According to the lawsuit, Defendants, however, agreed not to
compete for the services of rail equipment employees through
"no-poach" agreements, meaning Defendants agreed among themselves
that they would not solicit or recruit each other's employees.
Knorr and Wabtec were the first to enter into a no-poach agreement,
which began in January 2009 at the latest. Knorr and Wabtec then
each entered into separate no-poach agreements with Faiveley (which
has since been acquired by Wabtec). As a result of the agreements,
Defendants' employees were denied the benefits of competition and
received compensation that was artificially suppressed.

Knorr-Bremse is a manufacturer of braking systems for rail and
commercial vehicles that has operated in the field for over 110
years.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          James P Ulwick, Esq.
          KRAMON AND GRAHAM PA
          One South St Ste 2600
          Baltimore, MD 21202
          Telephone: (410) 752 6030
          Facsimile: (410) 539 1269
          E-mail: julwick@kg-law.com

               - and -

          Adam E Polk, Esq.
          GIRARD GIBBS LLP
          601 California Street Ste. 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 981 4800
          Facsimile: (415) 981 4846
          E-mail: aep@girardgibbs.com

               - and -

          Daniel C. Girard, Esq.
          LIEF, CABASER & HEIMANN
          275 Battery Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 956 1000

Attorneys for Defendants:

          Steven Michael Chasin, Esq.
          BAKER AND MCKENZIE LLP
          815 Connecticut Ave NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 452 7000
          Facsimile: (202) 452 7074
          E-mail: steven.chasin@bakermckenzie.com


KNORR-BREMSE: Johnson Suit over No-Poach Deal Moved to W.D. Pa.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled DEREK JOHNSON, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
KNORR-BREMSE AG, KNORR BRAKE COMPANY LLC, NEW YORK AIR BRAKE LLC,
WESTINGHOUSE AIR BRAKE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, and FAIVELEY
TRANSPORT NORTH AMERICA, INC., the Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-01493, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania (Pittsburgh) on Aug. 17, 2018. The Western
District of Pennsylvania Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:18-cv-01091-JFC to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Joy Flowers Conti.

The class action challenges an illegal conspiracy among Knorr,
Knorr Brake, N.Y. Air Brake, Wabtec, Faiveley, Faiveley North
America, and others to suppress the compensation of each company's
employees. Without the knowledge or consent of their employees,
Defendants and senior executives at these companies entered into
express agreements to eliminate or reduce competition among them
for skilled labor. This conspiracy consists of at least three
agreements -- between Wabtec and Knorr Brake, between Knorr Brake
and Faiveley North America, and between Wabtec and Faiveley North
America -- that each company would not hire or attempt to hire
employees from the other company without prior consent from that
company.

The intended and actual effect of this Conspiracy is to suppress
employee compensation, and to impose unlawful restrictions on
employee mobility. During the relevant period, Knorr, Wabtec, and
Faiveley were the three largest rail equipment suppliers in the
world and often each other's direct competitors. Their employees
possessed skills that were particularly valuable to each other, and
so their no-poach agreements were an effective means of reducing
competition for employees and suppressing employee pay below
competitive levels.

Knorr-Bremse is a manufacturer of braking systems for rail and
commercial vehicles that has operated in the field for over 110
years.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin Howard Carney, Esq.
          GORDON, WOLF & CARNEY, CHTD
          100 W Pennsylvania Ave Ste 100
          Towson, MD 21204
          Telephone: (410) 825 2300
          Facsimile: (410) 825 0066
          E-mail: bcarney@GWCfirm.com

               - and -

          Anne B Shaver, Esq.
          Brendan P Glackin, Esq.
          Dean Harvey, Esq.
          Kelly M Dermody, Esq.
          Lin Y Chan, Esq.
          Michael Sheen, Esq.
          Richard M Heimann, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN AND BERNSTEIN LLP
          275 Battery St. 29th Fl.
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 956 1000
          Facsimile: (415) 956 1008
          E-mail: ashaver@lchb.com
                  bglackin@lchb.com
                  dharvey@lchb.com
                  lchan@lchb.com
                  msheen@lchb.com
                  dbehrmann@lchb.com

               - and -

          Judith Camilleri, Esq.
          Richard Donahoo, Esq.
          Sarah L Kokonas, Esq.
          DONAHOO AND ASSOCIATES PC
          440 W. First St. Ste. 101
          Tustin, CA 92780
          Telephone: (714) 953 1010
          Facsimile: (714) 953 1777
          E-mail: jcamilleri@donahoo.com
                  kdermody@lchb.com
                  rdonahoo@donahoo.com
                  skokonas@donahoo.com

Attorneys for Defendants:

          Steven Michael Chasin, Esq.
          BAKER AND MCKENZIE LLP
          815 Connecticut Ave NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 452 7000
          Facsimile: (202) 452 7074
          E-mail: steven.chasin@bakermckenzie.com


LANDSCAPES BY LANCE: Suarez Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------
FRANCISCO SUAREZ on his own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. LANDSCAPES BY LANCE, LLC,
LANCE ERSKINE and TERESA ERSKINE, the Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-02070-MSK (D. Colo., Aug. 14, 2018), alleges that
Defendants refused to pay Plaintiff and their other hourly
landscaping employees one and one­half times their regular rate of
pay for each hour worked beyond 40 each workweek and for each hour
worked beyond twelve each workday in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Colorado Minimum Wage of Workers Act, and the
Colorado Minimum Wage.

According to the complaint, the Defendants also failed to provide
their employees with two 10­minute rest periods each full day of
work. The Defendants thus violated the MWO which requires employers
to provide their employees with two 10-­minute rest periods in
each full day of work. The Defendants also failed to pay Plaintiff
for all hours worked.[BN]

Attorney for Plaintiff:

          Brandt Milstein, Esq.
          MILSTEIN LAW OFFICE
          1123 Spruce Street, Suite 200
          Boulder, CO 80302
          Telephone: 303 440 8780
          Facsimile: 303 957 5754
          E­mail: brandt@milsteinlawoffice.com


LM RESTAURANTS: Grimes Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
Allen Grimes, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. LM Restaurants, Inc. et al., Case No. 5:18-cv-00370
(E.D. N.C., July 23, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages
and all allowable damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff Allen Grimes was a resident of Greenville, North
Carolina.  The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as an assistant
kitchen manager at the Carolina Ale House restaurant located in
Greenville, NC.

The Defendant LM Restaurants, Inc. maintains, operates and manages
the Carolina Ale House restaurants located in North Carolina, in
aaddition to other states, including but not limited to the
Greenville, NC restaurant location where Plaintiff worked. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Narendra K. Ghosh, Esq.
      Paul E. Smith, Esq.
      PATTERSON HARKAVY LLP
      100 Europa Dr., Suite 420
      Chapel Hill, NC 27517
      Tel: (919) 942-5200
      E-mail: nghosh@pathlaw.com
              psmith@pathlaw.com


MAC COSMETICS: J. Monteon's Unpaid Rest Suit Remains in Dist. Court
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California denied Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand the case captioned
JANET MONTEON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. M.A.C. COSMETICS, INC., et
al. Defendants, No. CV 18-3952 DSF (Ex) (C.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiff brings claims for (1) unpaid rest periods, (2)
unreimbursed business expenses, (3) failure to timely pay final
wages upon termination, (4) failure to provide accurate wage
statements, and (5) unlawful business acts and practices.

MAC's original rest break calculation assumed two violations per
week for each of the 1,253 putative class members identified at the
time of removal. Using the above, and an average hourly rate of
$15.00, MAC estimated that at least $3,458,880.00 was in
controversy.

In opposition, MAC provides a declaration from Scott Mayhugh, MAC's
Human Resources Director.
Using the Plaintiff's proposed class period, Mayhugh identifies
743 of the 1,542 putative class members as full-time employees who
would regularly have worked five 6-8 hour shifts per week. Those
743 purported members worked approximately 118,573 workweeks.

Assuming two rest period violations occurred per full-time employee
per week, MAC estimates at least $3,557,190 (118,573 workweeks x
$15.00 average hourly wage x 2 violations per week) is in
controversy. MAC contends this is a conservative estimate given the
Plaintiff alleges MAC failed to timely provide second rest periods
across the board.

The Plaintiff alleges she and the putative class are owed rest
break premiums for all shifts from six to eight hours in length,
which premiums were not paid. On these allegations, it is not a
stretch to imagine a significant violation rate for MAC employees
who worked between six and eight hours. The Mayhugh Declaration
also states that MAC's full-time employees are generally scheduled
for six to eight hour shifts. Given this evidence, MAC's
extrapolated violation rate of two noncompliant rest periods per
week is reasonable.

The Court finds that MAC has established a rest break premium of
$3,557,190 by a preponderance of the evidence.

The Defendant calculates the amount in controversy by multiplying
an estimated weekly amount of unreimbursed expenses ($5.00) by the
total number of workweeks (218,455) to arrive at a figure of
$1,092,272. The Plaintiff does not dispute MAC's calculation; the
Court finds MAC's estimate appropriate.

The Plaintiff contends MAC's calculations are inflated because her
wage statement claim is derivative of her rest period claim, so
part-time employees must be excluded. MAC mostly concedes this
point, and after excluding part-time employees, re-calculates wage
statement penalties of at least $1,596,322.  

The Court finds that MAC has proven a rest break premium of
$1,596,322 by a preponderance of the evidence.

MAC has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the
amount in controversy exceeds $5 million.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand is denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 5, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ydhjafoh from Leagle.com.

Janet Monteon, individually and on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Janine R. Menhennet
-- jmenhennet@markham-law.com -- Cohelan Khoury and Singer,
Jonathan M. Lebe, Lebe Law APLC, Michael D. Singer, Cohelan Khoury
and Singer, Rodney Mesriani, Mesriani Law Group APLC & Marta Manus,
Cohelan Khoury & Singer.

M.A.C. Cosmetics Inc., Defendant, represented by James Putman
Carter -- James.Carter@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis PC, Kathy
A. Le -- Kathy.Le@jacksonlewis.com -- JACKSON LEWIS P.C. & Nicole
Shaffer -- Nicole.Shaffer@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis LLP.


MARIN COUNTY, CA: Perez et al. Seek Overtime Pay under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
VERONICA PEREZ; ALICIA BALENCIA; CLARISSA CHUI; JOLIE CLARK; SARAH
COLTON; DIELLY DIAZ; LAURA ESTRADA-SHEPHERD; CHELSEA GEYER; ANDREA
GONZALEZ; ROSIE HERNANDEZ; TERESA HIGUERA-TABASSI; ALANA KAPUST;
LORRY KRONE; ERIN LYNCH; JILL MAIER; MILA MALDONADO; DULCE
McCALLISTER; SASHA CHELSEA McGOWAN; HALEY MEARS; TONY MILANI; MOLLY
MILLER; LOREN ROTHBERRY; KRISTIN SHORE; DAVID SLOTTERBACK; DANIEL
SOLIS; TRACY VEGA; and AUDREY ZARDKOOHI, the Plaintiffs, v. COUNTY
OF MARIN; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case
No. 3:18-cv-04938-EDL (N.D. Cal., Aug. 14, 2018), alleges that the
County has refused to pay Plaintiffs for overtime work because it
has unlawfully misclassified Plaintiffs as exempt under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the County's misclassification of
Plaintiffs is willful because, at all relevant times, the County
knew, should have known and/or recklessly disregarded, that
Plaintiffs were non-exempt and entitled to overtime pay. The County
has ignored the express language of the FLSA and related
regulations, as well as the law interpreting it. For example, in
2005, the United States Department of Labor -- the agency
designated to enforce the FLSA, issued an opinion letter expressly
holding that social workers were non-exempt from the overtime
components of the FLSA. Further, in Solis v. Washington, 656 F.3d
1079 (9th Cir. 2011), the Ninth Circuit held that social workers
were not subject to exemption under the FLSA, and therefore
entitled to overtime pay under the FLSA.

The Plaintiffs are social workers employed by the County of Marin.
As social workers, Plaintiffs work long hours, often under
difficult circumstances, providing critical services to the public.
In addition to the challenges posed by the nature of Plaintiffs'
work, Plaintiffs are burdened by high workloads -- with many
serving on call day and night to assist those in need. As a result,
each Plaintiff has worked more than forty hours per week at various
times during the relevant period prior to the filing of this
Complaint. As mandated by the FLSA, the Plaintiffs should have been
paid overtime for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.
Yet, the County has refused to pay overtime, notwithstanding its
knowledge at all relevant times that Plaintiffs were inundated with
heavy workloads that often required working more than 40 hours per
week.

Marin County is in Northern California, across the Golden Gate
Strait from San Francisco. The sprawling Marin Headlands has Golden
Gate Bridge views, trails and the 1855 Point Bonita Lighthouse.
North are the giant redwood trees of Muir Woods National Monument.
Mount Tamalpais State Park's namesake peak has panoramic
views.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Trevor V. Stockinger, Esq.
          David W. Kesselman, Esq.
          Kara McDonald, Esq.
          KESSELMAN BRANTLY STOCKINGER LLP
          1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 690
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
          Telephone: (310) 307 4555
          Facsimile: (310) 307 4570
          E-mail: dkesselman@kbslaw.com
                  tstockinger@kbslaw.com
                  kmcdonald@kbslaw.com

               - and -

          Michael D. McLachlan, Esq.
          Edward M. Chavez, Esq.
          McLACHLAN LAW, APC
          2447 Pacific Coast Highway
          Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
          Telephone: (310) 954 8270
          Facsimile: (310) 954 8271
          E-mail: mike@mclachlan-law.com
                  edward@mclachlan-law.com


MASTERS FOOD: Underpays Delivery Workers, Cuxil et al. Allege
-------------------------------------------------------------
EUGENIO (A.K.A ERIC) CUXIL, and ENRIQUE JULIO VASQUEZ TZUNUN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. MASTERS FOOD SERVICE INC. D/B/A FUEL GRILL & JUICE
BAR; FUEL HEALTH & SOUL INC. D/B/A FUEL GRILL AND JUICE BAR
EXPRESS; NINTH AVE FOOD CORP. D/B/A FUEL GRILL & JUICE BAR; AHMAD
ALOUIE; RICK GURSOY TOASTY DOE; SHANTELLE CURVETS; DELFINO
CASTILLO; and JOHN DOE, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-06782
(S.D.N.Y., July 27, 2018) is an action against the Defendants to
recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime wages, liquidated damages,
interest, attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as delivery workers.
Mr. Cuxil was employed from June 2014 to July 6, 2018, Mr. Vasquez
Tzunun from August 2016 to May 17, 2018.

Masters Food Service Inc. is a New York corporation engaged in the
restaurant business in New York under the name "Fuel Grill & Juice
Bar." [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MDL 2311: Sept. 26 Mitsuba Settlement Final Approval Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
In re Automotive Parts Antitrust Litigation, No. 12-md-02311

If You Are a Truck and/or Equipment Dealership That Purchased New
Vehicles or Starters, Alternators, or Radiators for a Vehicle in
the U.S. Since January 1, 2000 You Could Receive Money from
Settlements of a Class Action

A lawsuit involving the prices of certain vehicle Starters,
Alternators, or Radiators has been settled with certain Defendants
in class actions in this litigation ("Settling Defendants"). The
Settling Defendants are identified below. The cases are separate
class actions within the lead case known as In re Automotive Parts
Antitrust Litigation, 12-md-02311 (E.D. Mich.), which is currently
before United States District Judge Marianne O. Battani.

You may be part of class action settlements if you are a Truck
and/or Equipment dealership that indirectly purchased a Starter,
Alternator, or Radiator as a separate part, which was manufactured
or sold by a Defendant or any subsidiary, affiliate, or alleged
co-conspirator of a Defendant, and/or purchased new vehicles for
resale or lease containing one of these parts ("Dealer") in the
District of Columbia or one or more of the following states:
Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa,
Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi,
Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York,
North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota,
Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

What Are The Lawsuits About?

The lawsuits allege that the Defendants agreed to unlawfully raise
the price of certain motor vehicle Starters, Alternators, or
Radiators. As a result, dealers of Trucks and/or Equipment who
purchased for resale or lease new Trucks and/or Equipment
containing those parts or who indirectly purchased those parts as
separate parts, which were manufactured or sold by a Defendant or
any subsidiary, affiliate, or alleged co-conspirator of a
Defendant, allegedly paid more than they should have. Although the
Settling Defendants have agreed to settle, the Settling Defendants
do not agree that they engaged in any wrongdoing or are liable or
owe any money or benefits to Plaintiffs. The Court has not yet
decided who is right.

The Court has appointed Duane Morris LLP as interim class counsel
("Class Counsel") in these lawsuits to represent your dealership
and all other members of the class actions. Your dealership will
not be charged directly by these lawyers, and any fees that they
are paid will come from any settlements or recovery in the lawsuit.
If your dealership wants to be represented by its own lawyer, it
may hire one at its own expense.

Who's Included In The Settlements?

Your dealership is part of the Settlements if it is a Truck and/or
Equipment Dealer and falls within the definition of the settlement
classes ("Settlement Classes") approved by Judge Battani. The class
definitions are set forth in the full length Notice. The term
"Truck and/or Equipment Dealer" or "Truck and/or Equipment
Dealership" means an entity or person authorized to engage in the
business of selling or dealing in Trucks and/or Equipment at retail
in the United States.

Who Are The Settling Defendants?

The Settling Defendants are MITSUBA Corporation and American
Mitsuba Corporation ("Mitsuba"), T. RAD Co. Ltd. and T. RAD North
America, Inc.'s ("T.RAD"), Robert Bosch GmbH and Robert Bosch LLC
("Bosch"), and Hitachi Automotive Systems, Ltd. ("HIAMS") for
Hitachi, Ltd., Hitachi Automotive Systems Americas, Inc., and HIAMS
(the "HIAMS Defendants") (collectively, "Settling Defendants"). A
list of the Defendants, their affiliates, and the alleged
co-conspirators for the case involving the vehicle Starters,
Alternators, or Radiators described in the Settlement Class
definitions and settlement agreements are available under the Court
Documents section of this website.

What Do The Settlements Provide?

Generally, you are included if, at any time between January 1, 2000
through June 20, 2018, inclusive, you were a dealer of heavy-duty
(Class 8) or medium-duty (Class 3, 4, 5, 6, & 7) trucks, buses,
commercial vehicles (excluding automobiles, light trucks, vans,
sports utility vehicles, crossovers, pickup trucks, and/or similar
motor vehicles sold by automobile dealers), all-terrain vehicles,
construction equipment, mining equipment, agricultural equipment,
railway vehicles, materials-handling vehicles, and other similar
vehicles ("Trucks and/or Equipment") that:  (a) purchased for
resale or lease new Trucks and/or Equipment containing a Starter,
Alternator, or Radiator, which was manufactured or sold by a
Defendant or any subsidiary, affiliate, or alleged co-conspirator
of a Defendant; or (b) indirectly purchased such a Starter,
Alternator, or Radiator as a separate part. Indirectly means you
bought the vehicle part from someone other than the manufacturer of
the part.

The specific definitions of who is included in the Settlement
Classes are set forth in the Settlement Agreements between the
Plaintiffs and the Settling Defendants. Those Settlement
Agreements, and the related Complaints, are accessible under the
Court Documents section of this website.

The Settlement Funds amount to $3,104,990. Detailed information
about the Settlements and the parts involved can be found in the
full-length Notice.  The amount of money your dealership may
receive, if any, will depend upon where the dealership purchased
the affected Trucks and/or Equipment or component parts, the type
and quantity of Trucks and/or Equipment and parts your dealership
purchased in the states listed above and the District of Columbia,
and the total number of claims made by eligible Truck and/or
Equipment Dealers.

What Are My Rights And Options?

1. Opt Your Dealership Out of One or More of the Settlements

If your dealership indirectly purchased any of the Starters,
Alternators, or Radiators listed in the Settlement Class
definitions as components in the specified Trucks and/or Equipment
or as parts and purchased for resale or lease such new Trucks
and/or Equipment or parts in the states listed in this Notice or
the District of Columbia and does not want to be legally bound by
the Settlements, your dealership must exclude itself ("opt out") in
a writing postmarked by September 12, 2018, or it will not be able
to sue, or continue to sue, the Settling Defendants (including all
related entities covered by the releases in the Settlement
Agreements) about the legal claims settled in the Settlement
Agreements.

If your dealership submits a valid and timely request for
exclusion/opt out from a Settlement, it will not share in the
proceeds of that Settlement, and it will not be bound by the
judgment. To be valid, the request for exclusion/opt out must
follow the instructions set forth in the full-length Notice and be
postmarked by September 12, 2018. The full instructions and
requirements for opting out may be viewed in the Notice.

2. Object to One or More of the Settlements

If your dealership wishes to object to the Settlements or the
request for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses, it may
write to the Court and counsel about why it objects. To be
considered, your dealership's objection must be filed according to
the procedures set forth in the full-length Notice and postmarked
no later than September 12, 2018. The full instructions and
requirements for objecting to the Settlements may be viewed in the
Notice.

3. Attend the Final Approval Hearing

The Court will hold a Final Approval Hearing at a time certain TBD
by the Court on September 26, 2018, at the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Theodore Levin U.S.
Courthouse, 231 W. Lafayette Blvd., Courtroom 272, Detroit, MI
48226 to decide whether to approve the Settlements and the request
for attorney's fees and reimbursement of expenses.  You or your own
lawyer may attend and ask the Court's permission to speak, but you
don't have to participate in the hearing in order to attend. To
request to speak at the Final Approval Hearing, you must follow the
procedures set forth in the full-length Notice no later than
September 12, 2018.

The complete terms, including the definitions of what parties and
claims are being released, are set forth in the full-length Notice,
settlement agreements, and the Court filings, which may be obtained
under the Court Documents section of this website.

A copy of the full length Notice is available at:

                    https://is.gd/wau2LO


MDL 2437: $63MM Attorneys' Fees Awarded in Drywall Antitrust Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: DOMESTIC DRYWALL ANTITRUST LITIGATION. THIS
DOCUMENT RELATES TO: All Direct Purchaser Actions, MDL No. 2437,
No. 13-MD-2437 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Michael M. Baylson of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees and Expenses.

As part of the class settlement for Direct Purchasers in these
cases, the Plaintiffs have appropriately filed a Motion for Award
of Attorneys' Fees and Expenses.  The Court has reviewed the
supporting documents filed by the Plaintiffs' counsel and the
applicable legal precedents and files the Memorandum in support of
the award.

As the first step in the outstanding success of the Plaintiffs'
counsel, the case started as a traditional price-fixing antitrust
case.  The counsel had located several direct purchasers of
drywall, extensively used in construction and renovation work, as
the Plaintiffs on behalf of class of similarly situated direct
purchasers.

The initial Complaint in the Court was filed on Dec. 20, 2012, and
shortly thereafter a number of other Complaints were filed and the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated all of the
cases in the Court.  An initial pretrial conference and scheduling
order set in motion the start of discovery, and the Court
determined other relatively routine issues that commonly arise in
complex litigation.

Judge Baylson finds that very few precedents have awarded this
percentage amount in antitrust and securities cases.  He finds the
total hours claimed is accurate and reasonable.  The lodestar
$38,058,631.50 is also reasonable because the rates claimed are
well within the range of rates charged by counsel in this district
in complex cases.  He finds the hours and rates to have been
presented in an accurate and credible manner.

The Judge follows Judge Brody's decision in In re Flonase Antitrust
Litig., which has many similar features to the case.  In
considering all of the factors, he has decided to award the
requested one-third of the $190,059,056 Combined Settlement Fund as
attorneys' fees, in the amount of $63,353,019.  A significant
factor in awarding the full one-third requested is the delay in
payment.  The class counsel has labored for approximately six
years, including pre-suit investigation, without any payment.

The class counsel is also awarded expenses in the amount of
$2,925,629, and the funds in the opt-out fee and expense account of
$610,236.  The Judge awarded incentive awards to the four named
Plaintiffs in the amount of $50,000 each as in line with other
cases.  He did not award accrued interest.

A cross-check with the lodestar confirms that this award of
attorneys' fees is reasonable.  Dividing the net amount of
attorneys' fees, $63,353,019, by the lodestar, $38,058,631.50,
yields a lodestar multiplier of 1.66, which is reasonable and lower
than in some of the cases described.

Applying a reasonable multiplier of the lodestar, for judicial
factors such as contingency, delay and payment risk, etc., the
Judge finds there is a reasonable correlation between an award of
fees of one-third of the Combined Settlement Fund plus costs.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 17, 2018 Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/yOhsVk from Leagle.com.


MDL 2804: Masiowski Sues Amerisourcebergen over RICO Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit alleging Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act has been filed against Amerisourcebergen Drug
Corporation. The case is captioned as Michael Masiowski,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. AMERISOURCEBERGEN DRUG CORPORATION; CARDINAL HEALTH
INC.; MCKESSON CORPORATION; PURDUE PHARMA LP; PURDUE PHARMA INC.;
PURDUE FREDERICK COMPANY INC; TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD;
TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA INC.; CEPHALON INC.; JOHNSON & JOHNSON;
JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.; ORTHO-MCNEIL-JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS
INC. n/k/a JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.; JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICA INC.
n/k/a JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.; NORAMCO INC.; ENDO HEALTH
SOLUTIONS INC.; ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS INC.; ALLERGAN PLC. f/k/a
ACTAVIS PLS; WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS INC. n/k/a ACTAVIS INC.; WATSON
LABORATORIES INC.; ACTAVIS LLC; ACTAVIS PHARMA INC. f/k/a WATSON
PHARMA INC.; INSYS THERAPEUTICS INC.; MALLINCKRODT PLC;
MALLINCKRODT LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-02080-MDL (D.S.C.,
July 26, 2018. The Masiowski suit is a member case in the
multi-district litigation proceeding, MDL No. 2804.

AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation provides pharmaceutical
distribution and pharmacy management solutions. AmerisourceBergen
Drug Corporation was formerly known as AmeriSource Corporation and
changed its name to AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation in October
2002. The company was incorporated in 1985 and is headquartered in
Chesterbrook, Pennsylvania. It has pharmaceutical distribution
centers and specialty distribution centers in the United States and
Canada. AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation operates as a subsidiary
of AmerisourceBergen Corporation. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dean Anthony Hayes, Esq.
          MCCABE TROTTER AND BEVERLY
          4500 Fort Jackson Boulevard, Suite 250
          Columbia, SC 29221
          Telephone: (803) 724-5000
          Facsimile: (803) 724-5001
          E-mail: dean.hayes@mccabetrotter.com


MEDWAY PLASTICS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Sanchez, & Hicks Say
----------------------------------------------------------------
CARMINA SANCHEZ, and ZIA HICKS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MEDWAY PLASTICS
CORPORATION; INSPERITY PEO SERVICES, L.P.; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC715070 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles
Cty., July 27, 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.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as hourly-paid, non
exempt employees. Ms. Sanchez was employed from July 2012 to July
2017, and Ms. Hicks from May 2013 to March 2015.

Medway Plastics Corporation, a custom injection molder,
manufactures custom plastics injection molded products for
agricultural, aerospace, audio components, food products, commodity
items, office furniture, automotive, structural molded parts, and
non-clean room medical products industries. Medway Plastics
Corporation was founded in 1974 and is based in Long Beach,
California. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are 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


MERRILL LYNCH: Removed Case to Southern District of Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated and
Bank of America Corporation removed the lawsuit captioned as BLAND
MATTHEWS, individual and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH,
INC. and BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, the Defendants, Case No.
9:18-cv-81084-RLR (S.D. Fla., Aug. 14, 2018), from the Circuit
Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for the Palm Beach
County, Florida, to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
          Paolo C. Meireles, Esq.
          SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
          1515 South Federal Highway, Suite 404
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: 561 447 8888
          Facsimile: 561 447 8831
          E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
                  pmeireles@shavitzlaw.com

Attorneys for Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated
And Bank Of America Corporation:

          Cameron G. Kynes, Esq.
          Thomas R. Brice, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS LLP
          50 North Laura Street, Suite 3300
          Jacksonville, FL 32202-3661
          Telephone: (904) 798 2629
          Facsimile: (904) 360 6335
          E-mail: tbrice@mcguirewoods.com
                  ckynes@mcguirewoods.com


MICHAEL PAGE: Removes Jordan Suit to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
In the case of DANIEL JORDAN, individually and on behalf of all
other others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MICHAEL PAGE
INTERNATIONAL, INC.; C&D ZODIAC, INC.; and DOES 1 through 100, the
Defendants filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Orange, (Case No.
30-2018-01008160-CU-OE-CXC) to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California on July 30, 2018, and assigned Case
No. 2:18-cv-06552 (C.D. Cal., July 30, 2018).

Michael Page International Inc. operates as a recruitment
consultancy.  The company was incorporated in 1997 and is based in
Stamford, Connecticut with additional offices and operations in the
United Kingdom, Continental Europe, the Asia-Pacific, and Americas.
Michael Page International Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Michael
Page International plc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Caryn F. Horner, Esq.
          Greg S. Labate, Esq.
          Sarah B. Takasugi, Esq.
          SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          650 Town Center Drive, 4th Floor
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1993
          Telephone: (714) 513-5100
          Facsimile: (714) 513-5130
          E-mail: glabate@sheppardmullin.com
                  chorner@sheppardmullin.com
                  stakasugi@sheppardmullin.com


MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Faces Bryant Suit over DRAM Price Fixing
-----------------------------------------------------------
STUART BRYANT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC.; MICRON
SEMICONDUCTOR PRODUCTS, INC.; MICRON CONSUMER PRODUCTS GROUP, INC.;
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.; SAMSUNG SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.; SK
HYNIX, INC. F/K/A HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.; and SK HYNIX AMERICA,
INC. F/K/AHYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR AMERICA, INC., Defendants, Case No.
3:18-cv-04599 (N.D. Cal., July 30, 2018) is an action alleging
conspiracy among the Defendants and their co-conspirators that had
the purpose and effect of fixing the prices of one of the most
common forms of semiconductor memory, the Dynamic Random Access
Memory ("DRAM").

According to the complaint, on June 1, 2016 through the present,
the Defendants and their co-conspirators contracted, combined, or
conspired to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize prices for DRAM in
the United States. The conspiracy was implemented in part through
an agreement among the Defendants to limit production and constrict
the supply of DRAM and, thereby, drive up the prices.

Micron Technology, Inc. provides semiconductor systems worldwide.
It offers DDR3 and DDR4 DRAM products for computers, servers,
networking devices, communications equipment, consumer electronics,
automotive, and industrial applications. The company was founded in
1978 and is headquartered in Boise, Idaho. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aaron M. Sheanin, Esq.
          Tai S. Milder, Esq.
          ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
          2440 West El Camino Real, Suite 100
          Mountain View, CA 94040
          Telephone: 650-784-4040
          Facsimile: 650-784-4041
          E-mail: ASheanin@RobinsKaplan.com
                  TMilder@RobinsKaplan.com

               - and -

          Hollis Salzman, Esq.
          Kellie Lerner, Esq.
          Nahid A. Shaikh, Esq.
          ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
          399 Park Avenue, Suite 3600
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 980-7400
          Facsimile: (212) 980-7499
          E-mail: HSalzman@RobinsKaplan.com
                  KLerner@RobinsKaplan.com
                  NShaikh@RobinsKaplan.com

               - and -

          Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
          TURKE & STRAUSS LLP
          613 Williamson Street, #201
          Madison, WI 53703
          Telephone: (608) 237-1775
          Facsimile: (608) 509-4423
          E-mail: Sam@TurkeStrauss.com


MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces Lewis Suit in Southern District of Ohio
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc. The lawsuit is captioned as Jennifer Lewis,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. and Midland Funding,
LLC and John Does 1-25, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00576-TSB
(S.D. Ohio, Aug. 14, 2018). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge
Timothy S. Black. The case alleges Fair Debt Collection Act
violations.

Midland Credit, a licensed debt collector, assists customers in
resolving past-due financial obligations through various education
and payment.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Amichai Eitan Zukowsky, Esq.
          ZUKOWSKY LAW
          23811 Chagrin Blvd., Ste. 160
          Beachwood, OH 44122
          Telephone: (216) 800 5529
          Facsimile: (216) 514 4987
          E-mail: ami@zukowskylaw.com


MINNESOTA LONG BEACH: Maldonado Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
WILSON MALDONADO on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MINNESOTA LONG BEACH LLC
d/b/a MINNESOTA'S, KEVIN P. WRIGHT and VINCENT FUNARO, the
Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-04581 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 14, 2018), seeks
to recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime wages, spread of hours
pay, and statutory damages under the New York Labor Law and the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants own and operate a
restaurant and bar located in Long Beach, New York. The Plaintiff
and similarly situated employees performed non-exempt work for the
Defendants. The Plaintiff and similarly situated employees
regularly worked more than 40 hours in a work week but were not
paid overtime in violation of the FLSA and the NYLL.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Peter A. Romero, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC
          825 Veterans Highway-Ste. B
          Hauppauge, NY 11788
          Telephone: (631) 257 5588
          E-mail: promero@romerolawny.com


MSI INVENTORY: Court Narrows Claims in K. Roush's Wage & Hour Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California granted in part Individual Defendants' Motion on the
Pleadings in the case captioned KIM ROUSH, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
MSI INVENTORY SERVICE CORP., et al., Defendants, No.
2:17-cv-1010-JAM-KJN (E.D. Cal.).

Kim Roush, Sheila Emmerling, and Cindy Henderson filed this
putative class action against their employers MSI Inventory Service
Corporation, I-Fran, Inc., James O. McClain, and Sandra B. McClain
(McClains) alleging various wage and labor law violations.

James O. McClain and Sandra B. McClain seek dismissal, or judgment
on the pleadings, of the Plaintiffs' Complaint against them.

State Law Claims

In 2016, a new law took effect that changes the terms of individual
liability for California Labor Code violations. California Labor
Code section 558.1 reads as follows, inter alia:

"(a) Any employer or other person acting on behalf of an employer,
who violates, or causes to be violated, any provision regulating
minimum wages or hours and days of work in any order of the
Industrial Welfare Commission, or violates, or causes to be
violated, Sections 203, 226, 226.7, 1193.6, 1194, or 2802, may be
held liable as the employer for such violation.

(b) For purposes of this section, the term other person acting on
behalf of an employer is limited to a natural person who is an
owner, director, officer, or managing agent of the employer, and
the term managing agent has the same meaning as in subdivision (b)
of Section 3294 of the Civil Code."

The McClains argue that the Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim
against them.

First, they argue that they cannot be held personally liable for
the Plaintiffs' wage and hour claims because the Plaintiff has not
sufficiently pled that either of them employed the Plaintiffs.
Second, they argue the Plaintiffs failed to sufficiently allege
that they are alter egos of the Corporate Defendants.  Third, they
argue section 558.1 does not apply to them because it did not exist
when the alleged Labor Code violations began.  Fourth, they argue
section 558.1 should not be interpreted in a manner that interferes
with long-standing corporate protections.

The Court agrees that the McClains cannot be held liable for
violations that occurred before January 1, 2016.  The Plaintiffs do
not appear to dispute this point. The Plaintiffs have not pointed
to any express declaration or clear indication from the State
Legislature that it intended section 558.1 to operate
retrospectively. Therefore, the Court grants the McClains' motion
for judgment on the pleadings with prejudice insofar as the
Plaintiffs' state law claims against them encompass violations
occurring before January 1, 2016.

The Court finds the Plaintiffs' allegations insufficient to state a
claim against the McClains. The Plaintiffs only allege that the
McClains are officers and directors of the Corporate Defendants.
They do not allege what specific actions the McClains took in their
individual capacity to violate the Plaintiffs' labor rights or to
cause such violation. While it may be acceptable to group all the
four Defendants together with respect to some allegations,
conclusory allegations that do not specify the McClains' role in
the alleged wrongdoing do not suffice.

The McClains' motion is granted with respect to the state law
claims asserted against them. The Plaintiffs are permitted leave to
amend the allegations against the McClains, only.

Federal Claim

As the Plaintiffs point out, the McClains make no challenge to
their personal liability for FLSA violations as corporate officers
of the Corporate Defendants. Indeed, in their moving papers, the
McClains only argue that the allegations are insufficient to
establish their status as employers as defined under California
law. They did not argue that the Plaintiffs failed to state a claim
under FLSA, set forth any legal standards under FLSA, or cite any
court authority interpreting FLSA. The Court declines to grant the
McClains' motion on a claim that the McClains failed to address in
their moving papers.

Accordingly, the Court grants the McClains' Motion for Judgment on
the Pleadings with respect to the state law claims, with prejudice
as to violations alleged to have occurred prior to January 1, 2016,
and with leave to amend those allegations against the McClains as
to violations alleged to have occurred on and after January 1,
2016. The Court denies the McClains' Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings as to the Plaintiffs' FLSA claim.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 30, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y7cthod5 from Leagle.com.

Kim Roush, Sheila Emmerling & Cindy Henderson, Plaintiffs,
represented by Joseph Wayne Rose -- joe@joeroselaw.com -- Rose Law,
APC & Mehran Tahoori -- legalteam@joeroselaw.com -- Rose Law, APC.

MSI Inventory Service Corporation, I-Fran, Inc., James O. McClain &
Sandra B. McClain, Defendants, represented by Howard A. Sagaser --
has@sw2law.com -- Sagaser, Watkins & Wieland, PC & Ian Blade
Wieland -- ian@sw2law.com -- Sagaser, Watkins & Wieland, PC.


NESTLE USA: Dismissal of Ivory Coast Child Labor Suit Affirmed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the
dismissal of the case, ELAINE McCOY, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NESTLE USA,
INC., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 16-15794
(9th Cir.).

Nestle is one of the world's largest chocolate companies and
sources some of its cocoa beans from the Ivory Coast (or Cote
d'Ivoire).  The Bureau of International Labor Affairs of the United
States Department of Labor recognizes that cocoa beans from the
Ivory Coast are produced using the worst forms of child labour.
Therefore, Nestle's supply chain may include child and forced
labor, but the company does not disclose this on its labels.

McCoy argues that by not labeling its products, Nestle misled
purchasers and thereby violated California's consumer protection
laws.  Specifically, McCoy brings suit under (1) California Civil
Code Sections 1750, et seq., the Consumers Legal Remedies Act
("CLRA"); (2) California's Business & Professions Code Sections
17200, et seq., the Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"); and (3)
California's Business & Professions Code Sections 17500, et seq.,
the False Advertising Law ("FAL").

The district court dismissed all of McCoy's claims.  McCoy appeals.


McCoy argues that Nestle had a duty to disclose, on its labels, the
existence of child labor in its supply chain.  But the Appellate
Court finds that the Plaintiff failed to allege that the existence
of child labor in the supply chain affects the chocolate products'
central function.  Although it explains that although a claim may
be stated under the CLRA in terms constituting fraudulent
omissions, to be actionable, the omission must be contrary to a
representation actually made by the defendant, or an omission of a
fact the defendant was obliged to disclose.  Therefore, Nestlé did
not violate the CLRA.

The UCL prohibits "any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act
or practice."  The Plaintiff claims that Nestle is liable under all
three varieties.  However, the Court holds that Nestle is not
liable under the unlawful prong because McCoy did not state a claim
under the CLRA.  Likewise, McCoy cannot state a claim under the
fraudulent prong because Nestle did not have a duty to disclose the
forced labor.  Therefore, McCoy did not state a UCL claim.

Finally, for the purposes of the FAL, whether an advertisement is
misleading is determined by asking whether a reasonable consumer
would likely be deceived.  McCoy's FAL claims fail because a
failure to disclose a fact one has no affirmative duty to disclose
is not likely to deceive anyone.

For these reasons, the judgment of the district court is affirmed
by the Appellate Court.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 10, 2018 Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/rEzunG from Leagle.com.


NEW YORK: Bronx Residents Settle Class Action Suit
--------------------------------------------------
Kaja Whitehouse, writing for New York Post, reports that a group of
Bronx residents who claimed that the state criminal courthouse was
so poorly managed they were being denied their constitutional right
to a speedy trial have agreed to settle their proposed class-action
suit amid signs of improvements, according to court filings.

Since the Manhattan federal lawsuit was filed in 2016, misdemeanor
cases pending for more than a year have dropped to 513 from 2,378,
lawyers for the plaintiffs said. Misdemeanor cases pending for more
than two years fell to 64 from 538.

The settlement calls for the plaintiffs to halt their lawsuit for
four years as they monitor disposition times. If data shows worse
backlogs, they will reopen the case, they said.

"I think success is parity with the other boroughs," said Jennifer
Brown, Esq. -- jbrown@mofo.com -- of Morrison & Foerster, one of
their lawyers. [GN]


NIELSEN HOLDINGS: Oct. 8 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
----------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC and KSF partner, former Attorney General of
Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors that they have
until October 8, 2018 to file lead plaintiff applications in a
securities class action lawsuit against Nielsen Holdings plc (NYSE:
NLSN), if they purchased the Company's shares between February 8,
2018 and July 25, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period").  This
action is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

What You May Do

If you purchased shares of Nielsen and would like to discuss your
legal rights and how this case might affect you and your right to
recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost
to you, contact KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn toll-free at
1-877-515-1850 or via email (lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com), or visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-nlsn/ to learn more. If you
wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you must
petition the Court by October 8, 2018.

About the Lawsuit

Nielsen and certain of its executives are charged with failing to
disclose material information during the Class Period, violating
federal securities laws.

On July 26, 2018, Nielsen disclosed poor 2Q2018 financial results
consisting of missed revenue and earnings targets and significant
guidance reductions including EBITDA margin growth, a $0.56
reduction of net income and a $250 million reduction of free cash
flow, which the Company blamed on "GDPR [General Data Protection
Regulation] and changes in the consumer data privacy landscape."

On this news, the price of Nielsen's shares plummeted more than
25%, from $29.57 on July 25, 2018 to $22.11 on July 26, 2018.

                  About Kahn Swick & Foti

KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General
Charles C. Foti, Jr., is a law firm focused on securities,
antitrust and consumer class actions, along with merger &
acquisition and breach of fiduciary litigation against publicly
traded companies on behalf of shareholders. The firm has offices in
New York, California and Louisiana.

To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com.

         Lewis Kahn, Esq.
         Managing Partner
         Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
         1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200
         New Orleans, LA 70163
         1-877-515-1850
         Email: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com [GN]


NIKE INC: Former Female Workers File Sex-Bias Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Manning, writing for The Oregonian, reports tht four women are
suing Nike, claiming their former employer has for years
perpetuated a culture of unequal compensation and sexual
harassment.

The class-action lawsuit, filed August 9 in the U.S. District Court
in Portland, is among the first to hit the Washington County
company since a wave of complaints about pay disparities and
bullying managers became public earlier this year. In response, the
company parted ways with at least 11 executives in March and April,
though it never publicly accused them of anything.

Laura Salerno Owens, an employment lawyer at Markowitz Herbold in
Portland, said the executive purge was too little, too late. "Nike
has a real good-old-boy's culture," she said.

"Women came into the company paid less than men, then they are
ranked more harshly and, as a result, got smaller raises and
bonuses. I think Nike wants to say that 'Just a couple people were
responsible for the problem and we've gotten rid of them.' But we
know that's certainly not the case."

The most senior of the ousted executives is Trevor Edwards, former
Nike brand president. The plaintiffs allege that Edwards was
ultimately dismissed because he "caused and exacerbated a hostile
workplace environment towards women."

The Oregonian/OregonLive published a lengthy piece about Edwards,
Nike's troubled culture and why he was the first to go in last
spring's executive purge.

The plaintiffs accuse Nike of violating the Federal Equal Pay Act;
the Oregon Equal Pay Act; and the Oregon Equality Act. They don't
ask for specific monetary damages. Rather they seek a court order
requiring Nike to pay its employees fairly without regard to
gender.

The company has publicly acknowledged it has a gender- and
racial-equity problem, which could complicate its defense efforts.
As the complaint points out, in April, current Human Resources Vice
President Monique Matheson stated, "[w]hile we've spoken about this
many times, and tried different ways to achieve change, we have
failed to gain traction -- and our hiring and promotion decisions
are not changing senior-level representation as quickly as we have
wanted."

"The numbers don't lie," Salerno Owens said. "On a global scale,
currently 77 percent of Nike's leadership team are men; 71 percent
of its vice presidents are men; and 62 percent of its directors and
senior directors are men."

Salerno Owens added: "I've represented more than 50 Nike employees,
and their experiences have been consistent with the plaintiffs.'
The more senior the job title, the smaller the percentage of
women."

The plaintiffs -- Kelly Cahill, Sara Johnston, Samantha Phillips
and Tracee Cheng -- all used to work for the company.

Cahill worked for Nike for four years. Much of that time she served
as a brand marketing director for Nike.com.  In 2017, she claimed
in the lawsuit, she was paid $20,000 a year less than a male
co-worker doing much the same job.

She filed four complaints against her boss, Danny Tawiah, who was
one of the 11 executives who left the company last spring.

Nike's human resources department took no action, the suit alleges.
Cahill quit and went to work for Adidas.

After earning her undergraduate degree in economics and her MBA
from Willamette University, Johnston worked initially part-time at
Nike. From 2008 to 2017, she worked as an account services
representative and later a business systems analyst.

She alleges that a male co-worker made sexual advances that
included emailing her nude images of himself. When she rejected his
propositions, the suit says, he retaliated by blaming her for
problems, withholding information and refusing to attend meetings
she was conducting.

She went to her bosses to complain around February 2016. "In
response, one of the Directors said, in effect, that Nike has a
culture that revolves around alcohol, that Ms. Johnston should let
the incidents go, that the rise of the internet and cell phones
have made drunk messages part of this generation, that she should
be less sensitive to these messages," according to the lawsuit.

The situation escalated after Johnston claims she learned this same
male co-worker was propositioning other women and had groped
another. She again tried to lodge a complaint with human
resources.

The department took no action and the male co-worker was promoted
to a position where he would work more closely with Johnston.

She quit not long after.

Nike's human resources department, which was supposed to
investigate workers' complaints, was part of the problem, the
complaint alleges. The department was run by David Ayre for most of
the last 10 years. The complaint alleges Ayre himself "caused and
fostered a hostile work environment towards female Nike
employees."

The company conducted at least two internal investigations into
Ayre's conduct before his departure last year.

The plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction against Nike prohibiting
practices that lead to gender discrimination and ask that it be
required to "develop and institute reliable, validated, and
job-related standards for evaluating performance, determining pay,
and making promotion decisions."

It also asks for unspecified monetary damages and "reasonable"
attorney fees.

Nike officials declined to comment. [GN]


NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Bethpage Residents File Contamination Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Harrington, writing for Newsday, reports that more than 80
current and former residents of Bethpage or their estates have
filed a new lawsuit against Northrop Grumman alleging that
contaminants from the company's former site have led to specific
medical injuries and death, according to court records.

The complaint, filed in state Supreme Court on July 30 and since
transferred to federal court at Grumman's request, seeks
unspecified damages for personal injury stemming from the defense
contractor's alleged negligence, nuisance, trespass and liability
tied to contaminants left at the site.

Northrop Grumman, based in Falls Church, Virginia, said in a
statement, "While we were only recently served and are still
reviewing, the allegations and claims appear to be the same as
those in [a previously filed] case, which Northrop Grumman has
moved to dismiss, and will contest vigorously."

The suit is separate from a class-action complaint filed by the
same law firm, Napoli Shkolnik in Melville, in 2016.

That action seeks $500 million in damages for residents' past and
continued exposure to the contaminants. It was filed on behalf of
"everyone in the area we believe was exposed" to contaminants at
the site, said Lilia Factor, Esq. an attorney for the plaintiffs.

The new suit is a personal injury case filed on behalf of 83
individuals "with specific injuries," including some who have since
died, Factor said.

"Most of them are still alive but suffering from different medical
conditions linked to the toxic contaminants," she said. "Every one
of them has suffered currently with an injury or has deceased."

When it operated at the site, from 1942 to 1996, Grumman
"generated, stored, and disposed of toxic contaminants and
manufacturing byproducts, such as arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead,
mercury, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), metals, and volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) at the site," the lawsuit charges.

Grumman disposed of contaminants on an adjacent parcel that was
donated to Oyster Bay Town and became Bethpage Community Park.
Toxins released at the main site and the location of the park
created plumes of contaminated groundwater that migrated onto the
plaintiffs' properties, causing "significant" health problems and
future health concerns, the suit says.

The suit cites illnesses including breast cancer; colon cancer;
throat cancer; prostate cancer; and bladder cancer. Each plaintiff
regularly spent time in their yards and had direct contact with
surface and subsurface soil and water, the suit alleges.

The suit accuses Grumman of mishandling toxic materials at the
site. The company sprayed waste oil on dirt roads to control dust,
dumped wastewater containing toxic chemicals into sludge drying
beds that later became the community park and used recharge basins
to dispose of contaminated wastewater, according to the lawsuit.

Remediation plans, "if any," remain "inadequate and insufficient
given the breadth of the contamination," the suit says.

The company said it "continues to work closely with the Navy and
federal, state, and local government regulatory authorities, as we
have done for more than 20 years, to address environmental
conditions in Bethpage, through implementation of
scientifically-sound and technically-proven remedial measures."
[GN]


ORACLE CORP: Rosen Law Firm Files Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, disclosed the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of Oracle
Corporation securities (NYSE:ORCL) from May 10, 2017 through March
19, 2018, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit
seeks to recover damages for Oracle investors under the federal
securities laws.

To join the Oracle class action, go to the firm's website at
http://rosenlegal.com/cases-905.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. or
Zachary Halper, Esq. toll free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or zhalper@rosenlegal.com for more information
on the class action.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.

According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants
issued false and misleading statements regarding Oracle's cloud
revenues and failed to disclose that these revenues were driven, at
least in part, by improper, coercive sales practices, which
included: (1) threatening existing customers with "audits" of their
use of Oracle's non-cloud software licenses and levying expensive
penalties against those customers, unless the customers agreed to
shift their business to Oracle cloud programs; (2) decreasing
customer support for certain Oracle on-premises or hardware
systems, in an effort to drive customers away from such systems and
into cloud-based systems; and (3) strong-arming customers by
threatening to raise the cost of legacy database licenses
dramatically if the customers choose another cloud provider. These
tactics alienated and angered Oracle customers, which in some cases
have not only refused to purchase Oracle's cloud offerings but have
also looked to terminate their existing business relationships.
When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that
investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October 9,
2018. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to the firm's website at
http://rosenlegal.com/cases-905.htmlfor more information. You may
also contact Phillip Kim, Esq. or Zachary Halper, Esq. of Rosen Law
Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via email at pkim@rosenlegal.com
or zhalper@rosenlegal.com.

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

View source version on
businesswire.com:https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20180810005445/en/

         Laurence Rosen, Esq.
         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         Zachary Halper, Esq.
         The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
         275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Telephone: (212) 686-1060
         Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
         Fax: (212) 202-3827
         Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com[GN]


OWTEL WIRELESS: Rivera Alleges Wrongful Debt Collections
--------------------------------------------------------
FERDINAND RIVERA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OWTEL WIRELESS INC., and DOES
1-10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-06493-PSG-SS (C.D.
Cal., July 27, 2018) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and
unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Owtel Wireless Inc. is a California corporation doing business and
engaged as a debt collection agent. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PACIFIC TRUCK: Fails to Pay OT to Drivers, Qagi Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
MUATH QAGI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PACIFIC TRUCK & AUTO TOWING, INC.; and DOES
1 through 100, Defendants, Case No. BC715069 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., July 27, 2018) is an action against the Defendants
for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, provide
meal and rest periods, and provide accurate wage statements.

The Plaintiff Qagi was employed by the Defendants as driver from
February 23, 2017 to June 6, 2018.

Pacific Truck & Auto Towing, Inc. is engaged in providing auto and
truck towing services in California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Heather Davis, Esq.
          Amir Nayebdadash, Esq.
          PROTECTION LAW GROUP, LLP
          136 Main Street, Suite A
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (424) 290-3095
          Facsimile: (866) 264-7880

               - and –

          Sam Sani, Esq.
          SANI LAW, APC
          El Sebundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (310) 935-0405
          Facsimile: (310) 935-0409
          E-mail: ssani@sanilawfirm.com


PENSKE LOGISTICS: Michelle Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------
ANGELINA MICHELLE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PENSKE LOGISTICS LLC, and
SOUTHSTAR LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-00667-O (N.D. Tex.,
Aug. 14, 2018), alleges that Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff in
accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was not paid
time-and-one-half of her regular rate of pay for all hours worked
in excess of 40 hours per workweek. Rather, Defendants
misclassified Plaintiff as exempt from the requirements of the FLSA
and paid her primarily on a salaried basis and without regard to
the number of hours Plaintiff actually worked.

Penske provides innovative logistics services and solutions using a
results-oriented approach and extensive industry experience to meet
your logistics needs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PINNACLE FOODS: Gainey McKenna Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Pinnacle Foods Inc. ("Pinnacle" or the
"Company") (NYSE: PF) and its board of directors (the "Board"), on
behalf of a class consisting of all public stockholders of Pinnacle
who have been harmed by Pinnacle in connection with alleged
violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the "1934 Act").  The class action stems from the
proposed sale of Pinnacle to Conagra Brands, Inc. (CAG) ("the
Proposed Transaction").

The Complaint alleges that on June 27, 2018, the Company's Board of
Directors (the "Board" or the "Individual Defendants") caused the
Company to enter into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger
Agreement") with Merger Sub. Under the terms of the Proposed
Transaction, Pinnacle shareholders will receive $43.11 per share in
cash and 0.6494 shares of Conagra common stock for each share of
Pinnacle held (the "Merger Consideration"). The implied offer price
per share of the Merger Consideration is $68.00 per Pinnacle share.
Upon completion of the Merger, Merger Sub will merge with and into
Pinnacle, with Pinnacle surviving the merger as a wholly owned
subsidiary of Conagra.

The Complaint also alleges that on July 25, 2018, Defendants filed
a preliminary proxy statement on Form S-4 (the "Proxy") with the
United States Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") in
connection with the Proposed Transaction. As described herein, the
Proxy omits certain material information with respect to the
Proposed Transaction, which renders it false and misleading, in
violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), 15 U.S.C. Sections 78n(a),
78t(a), and SEC Rule 14a-9, 17 C.F.R. 140.14a-9 ("Rule 14a-9")
promulgated thereunder.

If you wish to discuss your rights or interests regarding this
class action please;

         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]


POSTMEDS INC: Campos Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
--------------------------------------------------------
ROSHAN CAMPOS and CHAVELLA MONTANTES, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. POSTMEDS, INC.,
MOHAMMAD AFRIDI, and DOES 1-100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case
No. RG18916615 (Cal. Super. Ct., Aug. 14, 2018), alleges that the
Defendants failed to pay overtime wages and minimum wage under the
California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs allege that the
Defendants have engaged in, among other things a system of willful
violations of the California Labor Code, applicable Industrial
Welfare Commission wage orders, Industrial Welfare Commission, and
the Unfair Competition Law. The Defendants acted intentionally and
with deliberate indifference and conscious disregard for the rights
of Plaintiffs and Class Members by intentionally misclassifying
Warehouse Associates as independent contractors, when in fact they
were Defendants' employees, in violation of Labor Code, and, in so
doing, have denied them the benefits and protections of California
employment law.  The Defendants further failed to pay Plaintiffs
and Class Members for all wages earned including regular hours,
overtime hours, minimum wages, or for "on-duty" meal periods or
"on-duty" rest breaks, failed to keep and provide accurate and
timely records of wages earned and other legally mandated records.

Postmeds is doing business in retail pharmacy.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Plaintiff Class:

          Matthew S. Da Vega, Esq.
          Matthew Fisher, Esq.
          DA VEGA FISHER MECHTENBERG LLP
          232 E. Anapamu St.
          Santa Barbara, CA 93101
          Telephone: 805 232 4471
          Facsimile: 877 535 9358
          E-mail: Mdavega@mdmtlaw.com


PRINTOGRAPH INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Hakopian Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
VREESH HAKOPIAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PRINTOGRAPH, INC. D/B/A GOTPRINT, and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Case NO. BC715066 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles
Cty., July 26, 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,
keep payroll records, and reimburse business expenses.

The Plaintiff Hakopian was employed by the Defendants as an
hourly-paid, non-exempt employee.

Printograph, Inc., doing business as GotPrint, provides online
printing, design, and marketing services to the businesses and
individuals. The company offers design, logo design, mailing, and
marketing services. Printograph, Inc. was founded in 2001 and is
based in Burbank, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Haig B. Kazandjian, Esq.
          HAIG B. KAZANDJIAN LAWYERS, APC
          801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 970
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 696-2306
          Facsimile: (818) 696-2307

               - and –

          Romina Keshishyan, Esq.
          RK LEGAL, PC
          801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 970
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (323) 744-4124
          Facsimile: (323) 763-7770


QUALITY HUTS: Sagendorf Seeks Minimum Wages & OT under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH SAGENDORF, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons, the Plaintiff, v. QUALITY HUTS, LLC, QUALITY HUTS EAST,
LLC, QUALITY HUTS INDIANAPOLIS, LLC, QUALITY HUTS MID ATLANTIC,
LLC, QUALITY HUTS MIDWEST, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-00623
(N.D. Ind., Aug. 14, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages
and overtime hours under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Indiana Minimum Wage Law.

The Defendants operate numerous Pizza Hut franchise stores.
According to the complaint, the Defendants employ delivery drivers
who use their own automobiles to deliver pizza and other food items
to their customers. However, instead of reimbursing delivery
drivers for the reasonably approximate costs of the business use of
their vehicles, the Defendants use a flawed method to determine
reimbursement rates that provides such an unreasonably low rate
beneath any reasonable approximation of the expenses they incur
that the drivers' unreimbursed expenses cause their wages to fall
below the federal minimum wage during some or all workweeks.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew Haynie, Esq.
          Jay Forester, Esq.
          FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
          1701 N. Market Street, Suite 210
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Telephone: (214) 210 2100
          Facsimile: (214) 346 5909
          E-mail: www.foresterhaynie.com


R&L CARRIERS: Fails to Pay Wages, Miranda & Maya Claim
------------------------------------------------------
HECTOR MIRANDA, an individual, RENE MAYA JR., an individual, on
behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated individuals,
the Plaintiffs, vs. R&L CARRIERS SHARED SERVICES, LLC, a
Corporation, and DOES 1-10, the Defendants, Case No.
3:18-cv-04940-MEJ (N.D. Cal., Aug. 14, 2018), seeks to recover all
wages which Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees
rightfully earned but have been denied, as well as any penalties
associated with Defendants' rampant and willful violations of the
California Labor Code.

This case arises out of Defendants' systematic violations of
California wage and hour laws. Defendants are national motor
freight carrier companies which service all 50 states in addition
to Canada, Puerto Rico and the Dominican Republic. The Plaintiffs
and members of the Plaintiff Class are California based truck
drivers employed by Defendants.

According to the complaint, Defendants routinely failed to make
available to Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff Class meal and
rest periods as mandated by California law. The Defendants did not
compensate Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff Class for missed
meal and rest periods despite their knowledge that these employees
were routinely required to work through their meal and rest
periods.

R+L Carriers is a privately owned American freight shipping company
based in Wilmington, Ohio.[BN]

Attorneys for Hector Miranda, Rene Maya, Jr., Individually, On
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated:

          Michael H. Boyamian, Esq.
          Armand R. Kizirian, Esq.
          BOYAMIAN LAW, INC.
          550 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 1500
          Glendale, CA 91203-1922
          Telephone: 818 547 5300
          Facsimile: 818 547 5678
          E-mail: michael@boyamianlaw.com
                  armand@boyamianlaw.com

               - and -

          Thomas W. Falvey, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS W. FALVEY
          550 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 1500
          Glendale, CA 91203-1922
          Telephone: 818 547 5200
          Facsimile: 818 500 9307
          E-mail: thomaswfalvey@gmail.com


RED RIBBON BAKESHOP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ebuen Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ALBERT EBUEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RED RIBBON BAKESHOP INC., and DOES 1 through
100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC715064 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., July 26, 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. Ebuen was employed by the Defendants as hourly-paid, non-exempt
employee from March 2011 to November 2015.

Red Ribbon Bakeshop, Inc. was founded in 1981.  The company's line
of business includes the manufacturing of fresh or frozen bread and
bread-type rolls, cakes, pies, and other perishable bakery
products. [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


RESCUE ONE: Whittaker Sues over Unwanted Telephone Calls
--------------------------------------------------------
Brenda Whittaker, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Rescue One Lending, Inc., a
California corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-08187-JAT
(D. Ariz., Aug. 14, 2018), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice
of placing calls using an automatic telephone dialing system and/or
using an "artificial or prerecorded voice" to the cellular
telephones of consumers nationwide without their prior express
consent.

According to the complaint, unfortunately for consumers, Rescue One
casts its marketing net too wide. That is, in an attempt to promote
its financial services business and to generate leads for its
financial products Defendant conducted (and continues to conduct) a
wide scale telemarketing campaign that features the repeated making
of unsolicited autodialed and/or pre-recorded calls to consumers'
telephones, including their cellular telephones, all without any
prior express consent to make these calls.  Defendant places these
calls to telephone using an ATDS without consumers' prior written
express consent in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

Rescue One is a purported financial services company that provides
capital primarily to small businesses.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class:

          Penny L. Koepke, Esq.
          MAXWELL & MORGAN, P.C.
          4854 E. Baseline Rd., Suite 104
          Mesa, AZ 85206
          Telephone: (480) 833 1001
          Facsimile: (480) 969 8267
          E-mail: pkoepke@hoalaw.biz

               - and -

          Steven L. Woodrow, Esq.
          Patrick H. Woodrow, Esq.
          Taylor Smith, Esq.
          WOODROW & PELUSO
          3900 East Mexico Ave., Suite 300
          Denver, CO 80210
          E-mail: swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com
                  ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com
                  tsmith@woodrowpeluso.com


RSL INC: Koenig Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
-------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Koenig, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. RSL Inc., Preston Girard, Yadira Mirabal, Case No.
5:18-cv-00378 (M.D. Fla., July 23, 2018), is brought against the
Defendants for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants make spam telephone calls
and texts en masse, both autodialed and prerecorded, without any
consent.

The Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of Leesburg, Florida.

The Defendant RSL is a California corporation with principal place
of business at 135 State College Blvd., Suite #200, Brea, CA
92821.

The Defendants Mirabal and Girard are co-owners of Defendant RSL.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bradford R. Sohn, Esq.
      THE BRAD SOHN LAW FIRM, PLLC
      2600 South Douglas Rd, Ste 1007
      Coral Gables, FL 33134
      Tel: (786) 708-9750
      Fax: (305) 397-0650

          - and -

      Jeremy M. Glapion, Esq.
      THE GLAPION LAW FIRM, LLC
      1704 Maxwell Drive
      Wall, NJ 07719
      Tel: (732) 455-9737
      Fax: (732) 709-5150
      E-mail: jmg@glapionlaw.com


RYDER INTEGRATED: $300K Settlement in Drivers' Suit Has Prelim OK
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California granted Plaintiffs' Unopposed Application for
Preliminary Approval of the Class Action Settlement in the case
captioned TIM EURE, on behalf of himself, all others similarly
situated, and on behalf of the general public, Plaintiff, v. RYDER
INTEGRATED LOGISTICS, INC., a corporation; RYDER DEDICATED
LOGISTICS, INC., a corporation, and DOES 1-100, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 16-CV-00324-MCE-AC (E.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiff represents a class of current and former hourly
drivers for Defendant Ryder. The Plaintiff alleges violations of
certain labor laws stemming from the Defendant's meal and rest
policies which, the Plaintiff contends, incentivize drivers to skip
meals and breaks.

Under the settlement, the Defendant will pay a total Gross
Settlement Amount (GSA) of three hundred thousand dollars
($300,000.00), which amount includes all Settlement Payments to
individual Class Members, all attorney's fees and expenses, the
employee and employer portions of all required payroll
withholdings/taxes, any Class Representative Enhancement Award,
settlement administration costs and expenses, and any penalty
amounts. No amount of the GSA will revert to the Defendants.

The Settlement Administrator will be CPT Group, Inc. Settlement
administration fees are estimated not to exceed $20,000.00. If the
actual cost is more or less than $20,000.00, these funds will be
added to or subtracted from the Net Settlement Amount (NSA).

The Class Representative may seek an Enhancement Award of not more
than $5,000.00, which amount will come from the GSA.

Class Counsel may seek attorney's fees of up to 25% of the GSA, or
$75,000.00. Counsel may also seek costs not to exceed $20,000.00.

The Court finds on a preliminary basis that the provisions of the
Settlement Agreement are fair, just, reasonable, and adequate and,
therefore, the Agreement meets the requirements for preliminary
approval.  

The Court certifies, for settlement purposes only, the following
class:

     All individuals who are or were employed by Defendant in
California as drivers who were paid exclusively on an hourly basis
at any time between April 20, 2011 and the date of preliminary
approval.

The Court finds, for settlement purposes only, the requirements of
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(b)(3) are satisfied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 30, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y7ajd3my from Leagle.com.

Tim Eure, Plaintiff, represented by Jill Marie Vecchi --
jvecchi@turleylawfirm.com -- Turley & Mara Law Firm, APLC, William
Turley -- bturley@turleylawfirm.com -- Turley & Mara Law Firm, APLC
& Jamie Kathryn Serb -- jserb@turleylawfirm.com -- Turley & Mara
Law Firm, APLC.

Ryder Integrated Logistics, Inc. & Ryder Dedicated Logistics, Inc.,
Defendants, represented by Mara D. Curtis -- mcurtis@reedsmith.com
-- Reed Smith LLP.


SALVATION ARMY: Wright Sues over Unpaid Overtime under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
TERESA WRIGHT, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. THE SALVATION ARMY, a New York
Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-12762 (D.N.J., Aug.
14, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated
damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs as a result of
the Defendant's willful violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act,
the New Jersey Wage and Hour Laws and Regulations, and New Jersey
Wage Payment Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is an international
charitable organization structured in a quasi-military fashion,
which provides thrift stores and charity shops selling donated used
items to raise funds for its rehabilitation programs. The Plaintiff
and the putative FLSA collective and Rule 23 class members were
hourly-paid thrift store workers including store managers,
assistant store managers and associates/clerks who were victims of
Defendant's common unlawful policies in violation of the FLSA,
NJWHLR and NJWPL.

Specifically, the Defendant required these hourly-paid thrift store
workers to perform pre-shift and/or post-shift off-the-clock work
without pay. As a result of Defendant's common unlawful policies,
these hourly-paid workers were not compensated straight time for
work performed up to 40 hours per week and overtime at a rate of
not less than 1.5 times their regular rate of pay for work
performed over 40 hours per week.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Jason T. Brown, Esq.
          Nicholas Conlon, Esq.
          Ching-Yuan Teng, Esq.
          JTB LAW GROUP, LLC
          155 2nd St., Suite 4
          Jersey City, NJ 07302
          Telephone: (877) 561 0000
          Facsimile: (855) 582 5297
          E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com
                  nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com
                  tonyteng@jtblawgroup.com


SAVORY & SWEET: Faces Bishop Suit in Southern Dist. of New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Savory & Sweet LLC.
The lawsuit is captioned as Cedric Bishop, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Savory & Sweet
LLC, doing business as: 404 NYC, the Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-07355 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 14, 2018). The case alleges Americans
with Disabilities Act violations.[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


SCENTBIRD INC: Faces Crosson Suit in Eastern District of New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Scentbird, Inc.  The
lawsuit is captioned as Aretha Crosson, Individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons, the
Plaintiff, v. Scentbird, Inc., the Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-04565 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 14, 2018). The case alleges Americans
with Disabilities Act violations.

Scentbird provides an online subscription service that provides
luxury sample scents to the subscribers.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


SCHNEIDER NATIONAL: Class Action Settlement Has Prelim Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington, Seattle, granted Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement in the case captioned
BALAPUWADUGE MENDIS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SCHNEIDER NATIONAL
CARRIERS, INC., Defendant. Case No. C15-0144-JCC. (W.D. Wash.)

The Parties have entered into a Class Action Settlement Agreement
and Release (Settlement Agreement), which sets forth the terms and
conditions of the settlement and release of claims against
Defendant. Having reviewed and considered the Settlement Agreement
and all of the filings, records, and other submissions, the Court
finds upon a preliminary examination that the Agreement appears
fair, reasonable, and adequate, and that a hearing should and will
be held after notice to the Settlement Class in order to confirm
that the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and to
determine whether the Settlement Agreement should be finally
approved pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth in the
Settlement Agreement.

The Court finds that (a) the Settlement Agreement resulted from
extensive arm's-length negotiations, with participation of an
experienced mediator, and (b) the Settlement Agreement is
sufficient to warrant notice thereof to members of the Settlement
Class and the Final Approval Hearing.

The Court preliminarily finds that the Settlement Agreement is
fundamentally fair, adequate, and reasonable.

The Court appoints CPT Group as the Settlement Administrator.

The Court approves the proposed forms of notice and the plan for
giving direct notice to the Settlement Class by U.S. Mail as set
forth in the Settlement Agreement.  The Notice Plan, in form,
method, and content, fully complies with the requirements of Rule
23 and due process, constitutes the best notice practicable under
the circumstances, and is due and sufficient notice to all persons
entitled thereto.

The Court finds that the Notice Plan is reasonably calculated under
all circumstances to reasonably apprise the persons in the
Settlement Class of the pendency of this Action, the terms of the
Settlement Agreement, and the right to object to the Settlement and
to exclude themselves from the Settlement Class.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 30, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yaonane3 from Leagle.com.

Balapuwaduge Mendis, On his own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Michael Feola, on their own behalf and on the
behalf of all others similarly situated, Andrea Arbaugh, on her own
behalf and on the behalf of all others similarly situated & Edward
Ash, On his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Erika L. Nusser --
enusser@tmdwlaw.com -- TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC, Greg Alan
Wolk, REKHI & WOLK, P.S., Hardeep S. Rekhi, REKHI & WOLK, P.S. &
Toby James Marshall -- tmarshall@tmdwlaw.com -- TERRELL MARSHALL
LAW GROUP PLLC.

Schneider National Carriers Inc, a Nevada Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Douglas Edward Smith -- desmith@littler.com --
LITTLER MENDELSON, Joel H. Spitz -- jspitz@mcguirewoods.com --
MCGUIRE WOODS, pro hac vice, Kellie Anne Tabor --
ktabor@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON, Matthew C. Kane --
mkane@mcguirewoods.com -- MCGUIREWOODS LLP, pro hac vice & Michael
R. Phillips -- mphillips@mcguirewoods.com -- MCGUIRE WOODS, pro hac
vice.


SCREEN ACTORS GUILD: Faces Risto Suit in C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Screen Actors Guild -
American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, et al.  The
lawsuit is captioned as Kevin Risto, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Screen Actors Guild -
American Federation of Television and Radio Artists; American
Federation of Musicians of The United States of Canada; Raymond M.
Hair; Tino Gagliardi; Duncan Crabtree-Ireland; Stefanie Taub; Jon
Joyce; Bruce Bouton; and DOES 1-10, the Defendants, Case No.
2:18-cv-07241 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 17, 2018).

The Screen Actors Guild - American Federation of Television and
Radio Artists is an American labor union representing approximately
160,000 film and television actors, journalists, and radio
personalities.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


SEBASTOPOL, CA: Ct. Won't Certify Class in Vehicle Impounding Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California denied Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification in the
case captioned NAHUM AVENDANO-RUIZ, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF
SEBASTOPOL, et al., Defendants, Case No. 15-cv-03371-RS (N.D.
Cal.).

SPD Officer Charles Wong stopped Avendano-Ruiz for a traffic
violation in August 2014.  Upon discovering Avendano-Ruiz did not
have a valid license and had previously been convicted of driving
without a valid license, Wong arranged for Avendano-Ruiz's car to
be towed and impounded for 30 days pursuant to California Vehicle
Code section 14602.6. At the subsequent tow hearing, Avendano-Ruiz
attempted to retrieve his car before the 30-day period expired, but
SPD and Chief Police Officer Jeremy Weaver ordered the impound to
continue.

Now Avendano-Ruiz moves to certify a class defined as Persons whose
vehicles were seized by the Sebastopol Police Department without a
warrant and under the purported authority of Cal. Veh. Code Section
14602.6, at any time from July 21, 2013, up through the present,
where (a) the vehicle's driver was issued a citation for driving
without a valid license (Cal. Veh. Code Section 12500), (b) the
driver had one or more prior Section 12500 convictions, and (c) the
driver was not driving on a suspended, revoked, or restricted
driver's license, driving while intoxicated or arrested or cited
for any dangerous driving offense.

The Defendants raise two objections to the class definition as it
currently stands. As to the first issue, whether the term person in
the definition is ambiguous, Avendano-Ruiz is amenable to replacing
the term with registered owners to make clear that membership in
the class is restricted to those persons who have the right of
possession when the vehicle in question was impounded.

The Defendants also object to Avendano-Ruiz's effort to limit the
class to those persons who were not cited for a dangerous driving
offense, on the grounds it is unclear which offenses are considered
dangerous for purposes of ascertaining class membership.

Rule 23(a) requirements

Numerosity

Numerosity is met if the potential class members are so numerous
that joinder is impracticable. Based on arrest reports obtained
from the SPD for section 14602.6(a)(1) impounds, Avendano-Ruiz
anticipates the number of class members to be at least 81 and more
likely in excess of 90. This factor weighs in favor of
certification.

Adequacy

Adequacy turns on whether the named plaintiff and class counsel
have any conflicts of interest with other class members, and
whether the representative plaintiff and class counsel can
vigorously prosecute the action on behalf of the class.
Avendano-Ruiz and his counsel have submitted declarations
indicating they have the capacity to carry out the vigorous
prosecution of this case. Therefore, Avendano-Ruiz is an adequate
representative of the class.

Commonality

Commonality requires the plaintiff to demonstrate that the class
members have suffered the same injury and that the class claims
depend on a common contention of such a nature that it is capable
of class wide resolution.

Here, although Avendano-Ruiz points to numerous questions that are
common to the class, he cannot sustain his burden to show that
class-wide litigation will generate common answers. Avendano-Ruiz
contends that every class member suffered the same injury, having
their vehicle impounded without a warrant, and for the same
reasons, being a never-been-licensed driver and having at least one
prior section 12500 violation on their records. He also argues that
because defendants had the opportunity to obtain a warrant to hold
impounded vehicles, every 30-day impound not supported by a warrant
violated the Fourth Amendment. That conclusion is incorrect as a
matter of law.

Although the Ninth Circuit has found warrantless 30-day vehicle
impounds to be seizures within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment,
the Constitution only prohibits unreasonable seizures. Thus,
although the 30-day impound may be presumptively unreasonable under
the Fourth Amendment without a supporting warrant, the continued
seizure of individual class members' vehicles may be justified
under an established exception to the warrant requirement.

In Miranda v. Bonner, the district court refused to certify a class
of individuals The court explained, other than alleging that they
have all suffered from a violation of the same statute, Plaintiffs
have not demonstrated that a class-wide proceeding will generate
common answers. As a result, the answer to the question of whether
the defendant's conduct was reasonable was dependent upon a variety
of circumstances and impoundment decisions made for various
reasons, including factors such as the location of the vehicle and
the police officers' duty to prevent [the vehicle from creating a
hazard to other drivers.

In another case addressing nearly identical facts, the district
court rejected the plaintiffs' theory that the Defendants' Fourth
Amendment justifications for the warrantless thirty-day
impoundments, as distinguished from the vehicle's initial seizure
and removal from the street, will not turn on the individual
circumstances underlying an officer's decision to seize the vehicle
and remove it from the street. Although the court determined a
30-day impound was unreasonable as applied to the individual
plaintiffs, it found the same could not be said for other putative
class members whose vehicles were impounded under different factual
circumstances.

Because the question of whether prolonged seizure of a vehicle was
reasonable under the Fourth Amendment could be answered differently
for these different potential class members, the court concluded
plaintiffs had not demonstrated commonality.

Typicality

Typicality focuses on the class representative's claim but not the
specific facts from which the claim arose and ensures that the
interest of the class representative aligns with the interest of
the class. The requirement is permissive, such that representative
claims are typical if they are reasonably coextensive with those of
absent class members; they need not be substantially identical.

Here, as in many cases, the commonality and typicality requirements
tend to merge. As explained above, the length of each impound
claimed by individual class members varies considerably in length
from 1 day to the full 30-day period. Some class members never
reclaimed their vehicles at all. There is also no evidence that
other putative class members attended a storage hearing, or that
there were licensed drivers who were available to take possession
of their vehicles at the scene of the traffic stop or at the
vehicle storage facility.

Therefore, the class as currently constituted embraces individuals
whose vehicles were impounded under different factual circumstances
and retained for different reasons. As a result, Avendano-Ruiz
cannot show his claims are typical of other members of the class.

Accordingly, Avendano-Ruiz's motion for class certification is
denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 30, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ycu6czch from Leagle.com.

Nahum Avendano-Ruiz, individually and as class representative,
Plaintiff, represented by Donald Webster Cook, Attorney at Law &
Alicia Roman -- aliciaromanlaw@yahoo.com -- Alicia Roman Law
Office.

City of Sebastopol & Sebastopol Police Department, Defendants,
represented by Raymond J. Fullerton, Jr. -- rfullerton@gearylaw.com
-- Geary, Shea, O'Donnell, Grattan & Mitchell, PC.
Superior Court of California, County of Sonoma, Miscellaneous,
represented by Kimberly M. Drake, Jarvis Fay Doporto and Gibson
LLP.


SGB ENTERPRISES: Underpays Mechanical Engineers, Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID DOUGLASS; KEVIN LARSEN; GILBERT COTA; and TRAVIS HOLLAND,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. SGB ENTERPRISES, INC.; and DOES 1-10, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. BC715068 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., July
27, 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.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as mechanical
engineers. Mr. Douglass was employed by the Defendants from
September 2015 to March 16, 2018; Mr. Larsen was employed from
March 31, 2008 to February 16, 2018; Mr. Cota from August 2004 to
April 9, 2017; and Mr. Holland is currently employed.

SGB Enterprises, Inc. designs and manufactures procedural training
systems, flight simulators, maintenance trainers, and avionics and
control components for military and commercial simulation training
sectors worldwide. SGB Enterprises, Inc. was founded in 1994 and is
headquartered in Santa Clarita, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory P. Wong, Esq.
          ADEPT EMPLOYMENT LAW, APC
          10880 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 1101
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (213) 505-6283
          Facsimile: (213) 947-4584
          E-mail: greg.wong@adeptemploymentlaw.com

               - and –

          Bryan J. Lazarski, Esq.
          LAZARSKI LAW PRACTICE, P.C.
          1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 224
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (323) 952-3200
          E-mail: bryan@lazarskilaw.com


SINCLAIR BROADCAST: Rosen Law Firm Files Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, disclosed the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. (NASDAQ:SBGI) from
February 22, 2017 through July 19, 2018, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Sinclair
investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Sinclair class action, go to
https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1383.html or call Phillip Kim,
Esq. or Zachary Halper, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or zhalper@rosenlegal.com for information on
the class action.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.

According to the lawsuit, defendants during the Class Period made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) the Sinclair/Tribune Merger was not in
compliance with FCC rules and regulations; (2) Sinclair was not
using its best efforts to eliminate any impediment to regulatory
approval; (3) 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 (4) as a
result, defendants' public statements 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.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October 9,
2018. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to
https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1383.html or to discuss your
rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact
Phillip Kim, Esq. or Zachary Halper, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll
free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
zhalper@rosenlegal.com.

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

View source version on
businesswire.com:https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20180809005826/en/

         Laurence Rosen, Esq.
         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         Zachary Halper, Esq.
         The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
         275 Madison Avenue, 34thFloor
         New York, NY 10016
         Telephone: (212) 686-1060
         Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
         Fax: (212) 202-3827
         Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com [GN]


STANDARD & POOR'S: Settles Landmark Lawsuit in Australia
--------------------------------------------------------
Tom Westbrook, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports that
Standard & Poor's has settled a lawsuit in Australia over claims by
pension funds and local governments that the credit rating firm had
overlooked risks when awarding high ratings to opaque investments
that imploded in the global financial crisis.

Australia's Federal Court approved the settlement on August 9, S&P
said in an emailed statement on August 10, without disclosing the
settlement sum or terms.

"S&P Global is pleased to reach a settlement on the class action
lawsuit, the last of the significant litigation pertaining to our
previous ratings actions on collateralised debt obligations," it
said.

The US-based ratings agency was sued for at least $190 million by
two local governments and two pension funds in Australia, which
lost money on synthetic collateralised debt obligations (SCDOs)
rated by S&P when the US subprime mortgage crisis hit a decade
ago.

Settling the class action suit, funded by Singapore-based
Litigation Capital Partners, likely protects S&P from suits from
other investors because legal avenues have now lapsed.

A spokesman for the plaintiffs said the settlement was
confidential. Litigation Capital Partners' Australian
representative had no comment on August 9, nor did the councils and
pension funds when contacted by Reuters.

During the case, lawyers for the local councils accused S&P of
weakening its risk assessment criteria to win business and turn out
high ratings on opaque debt products. S&P said it designed and
assigned ratings in accordance with well-recognised international
practice and Australian regulations.

In the decade since the global financial crisis, S&P has settled
lawsuits in the US over its ratings of CDOs, the products blamed
for spreading market turmoil around the world.

A finding of wrongdoing against the agency here in Australia could
have re-opened legal avenues, since lapsed due to the statute of
limitations, to pursue S&P over its role in investment losses
incurred during the financial crisis.

S&P and other rating agencies have long faced criticism from
investors, politicians and regulators for assigning high ratings to
securities that quickly turned sour. Criticism specifically focuses
on the fact they are paid by issuers for ratings, raising concern
about potential conflicts of interest.

The investments that found their way into Australia were designed
by US investment banks, transferring risk in those products from
Wall Street to local councils that would typically invest their
spare cash in bank and government bonds. [GN]


SURNAIK HOLDINGS: Multiple Claims in IEI Fire Lawsuit Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis Bright and Megan Vanselow, writing for The News Center,
reports that all but one claim of a lawsuit filed in the aftermath
of the IEI warehouse fire have been dismissed in federal court.

According to a court order provided to WTAP by Mike Hissam, Esq.
the attorney representing the owners of the warehouse, Judge Thomas
Johnston of the Southern U.S. District Court in Charleston granted
the defendants' motion to dismiss seven of eight counts of the
class action case on August 10.

Only one count, "negligent infliction of emotional distress,"
remains, according to the court order.

Dismissed were counts of public and private nuisance; negligence
and gross negligence; trespassing; medical monitoring and unjust
enrichment.

The class-action suit was originally filed in Wood County Circuit
Court on Oct. 30, nine days after the fire ravaged the building on
Camden Avenue just outside the Parkersburg city limits.

It alleged that the fire "released smoke, soot, pollutants, air
contaminants, and noxious odors, causing material injury to
plaintiffs' property through negligence, gross negligent and
nuisance."

The case was moved to federal court in November.

Named as a defendant in the case was Saurabh Naik, the principal
owner of Surnaik Holdings of WV LLC, Sirnaik LLC, Polymer Alliance
Services LLC, Green Sustainable Solutions LLC and Maryland- based
Intercontinental Expert Import Inc. John Barker is named as a
plaintiff in the case. [GN]


SUTTER HEALTH: Faces Bracamontes Suit in San Joaquin, California
----------------------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action lawsuit has been filed against
Memorial Hospital Los Banos.  The case is captioned as MARIELA
BRACAMONTES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MEMORIAL HOSPITAL LOS BANOS; MEMORIAL
HOSPITALS ASSOCIATION; SUTTER CENTRAL VALLEY HOSPITALS; SUTTER
HEALTH; SUTTER TRACY COMMUNITY HOSPITAL; and SUTTER VALLEY
HOSPITALS, Defendants, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2018-0009198 (Cal.
Super., San Joaquin Cty., July 26, 2018).  The case is assigned to
Judge Elizabeth Humphreys.

The Plaintiff is represented by David G. Spivak, Esq.


TESLA INC: Maia Sues over Going-Private Transaction
---------------------------------------------------
CARLOS MAIA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. TESLA, INC. and ELON R. MUSK, the
Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-04939 (N.D. Cal., Aug. 14, 2018),
alleges that the Defendants engaged in a scheme to deceive the
market and a course of conduct that artificially inflated the price
of Tesla securities, and operated as a fraud or deceit on
purchasers of Tesla securities by misrepresenting the certainty and
funding for a Going-Private Transaction.

This action is a securities fraud action brought under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, brought by
Plaintiff on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased the
publicly traded securities of Tesla from at least as early as
August 7, 2018 through August 14, 2018, inclusive.

Tesla designs, develops, manufactures and sells high-performance
fully electric vehicles, and energy generation and storage systems,
and also installs and maintains such systems and sells solar
electricity. Tesla purports to be the world's only vertically
integrated sustainable energy company, offering end-to-end clean
energy products, including generation, storage and consumption.
Founded in 2003, the Company was formerly known as "Tesla Motors,
Inc." and changed its name to Tesla, Inc. in February 2017. Tesla
is headquartered in Palo Alto, California, and its common stock
trades on the NASDAQ Global Select market under the ticker symbol
"TSLA."

The complaint cites an August 2, 2018 article in The Wall Street
Journal entitled "For Tesla's Elon Musk, Twitter is Sword Against
Short Sellers," that states that Defendant Elon R. Musk, Tesla's
Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and co-founder, "has been engaged
for some time in a digital cat-and-mouse fight with negative
investors on his company's stock, and so far he is often winning.
His extraordinary use of Twitter to battle short sellers has often
been followed by a jump in Tesla's stock price, hurting shorts in
the process."

On August 7, 2018, Musk issued a statement on Twitter that stated
"Am Considering taking Tesla private at $420. Funding secured." In
reaction to Musk's tweet, the price of Tesla's common stock
increased reaching an intra-day high of $387.46 per share, $45.47
per share higher than the previous day's closing price, and closed
at $379.57 per share on August 7, 2018, an increase of $37.58 per
share, or approximately 11%.

The next day, August 8, 2018, reports began to emerge that the SEC
had made inquiries into Musk's tweet and whether it was truthful
that he had "funding secured" to take Tesla private. Following this
news, Tesla's shares fell $9.23 per share, or 2.4%, to close at
$370.34 per share on August 8, 2018. On August 9, 2018, Tesla
shares continued to decline after facts emerged after the market
closed on August 8, and later on August 9, that Musk's tweet had,
in fact, triggered an SEC inquiry. For example, The Wall Street
Journal reported that the SEC "has asked Musk to produce proof that
he's secured funding." and numerous media sources reported that
Musk did not have funding locked in before he tweeted "funding
secured."

Following this news, Tesla shares fell by more than $17.89 per
share, nearly 5%, to close at $352.45 per share on August 9, 2018,
resulting in a two-day decline of more than 7%. As a result of
Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous
decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff
and other Class members have suffered significant losses and
damages.

Tesla, founded in 2003, is an American multinational corporation
based in Palo Alto, California, that specializes in electric
vehicles, lithium-ion battery energy storage and solar panel
manufacturing.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Laurence D. King, Esq.
          Mario M. Choi, Esq.
          Frederic S. Fox, Esq.
          Donald R. Hall, Esq.
          Jeffrey P. Campisi, Esq.
          KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
          350 Sansome Street, Suite 400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 772-4700
          Facsimile: (415) 772-4709
          E-mail: lking@kaplanfox.com
                  mchoi@kaplanfox.com
                  ffox@kaplanfox.com
                  dhall@kaplanfox.com
                  jcampisi@kaplanfox.com


TEXPO POWER: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Perrong Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW PERRONG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TEXPO POWER, LP d/b/a YEP ENERGY, Defendant,
Case No. 2:18-cv-03213-JHS (E.D. Pa., July 27, 2018) seeks to stop
the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls.

Texpo Power, LP, doing business as YEP Energy, provides electricity
and natural gas to residential and commercial customers in Texas.
The company was founded in 2002 and is based in Houston, Texas.
[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Clayton S. Morrow, Esq.
          MORROW & ARTIM, PC
          304 Ross Street, 7th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 281-1250
          E-mail: csm@consumerlaw365.com

               - and -

          Anthony Paronich, Esq.
          BRODERICK & PARONICH, P.C.
          99 High St., Suite 304
          Boston, Massachusetts 02110
          Telephone: (508) 221-1510
          E-mail: anthony@broderick-law.com

               - and -

          Matthew P. McCue, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW P. MCCUE
          1 South Avenue, Suite 3
          Natick, MA 01760
          Telephone: (508) 655-1415
          E-mail: mmccue@massattorneys.net

               - and -

          Brian K. Murphy
          MURRAY MURPHY MOUL BASIL LLP
          1114 Dublin Road
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 488-0400
          Facsimile: (614) 488-0401
          E-mail: murphy@mmmb.com


TIME INC: Class Settlement in C. Perlin's Suit Has Prelim OK
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan granted Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement in
the case captioned CAROLYN PERLIN, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Hon. George Caram Steeh Plaintiff,
v. TIME INC., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant, Case No.
16-cv-10635 (E.D. Mich.).

The Parties have moved the Court for an order approving the
settlement of the Action in accordance with the Settlement
Agreement, which, together with the documents incorporated therein,
sets forth the terms and conditions for a proposed settlement and
dismissal of the Action with prejudice, and the Court having read
and considered the Settlement Agreement and having heard the
parties and being fully advised in the premises, hereby
preliminarily approves the Settlement Agreement in its entirety
subject to the Final Approval Hearing referred to in paragraph 20
of this Order.

The Court finds that, subject to the Final Approval Hearing, the
Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, within the
range of possible approval, and in the best interests of the
Settlement Class set forth below. The Court further finds that the
Settlement Agreement substantially fulfills the purposes and
objectives of the class action, and provides substantial relief to
the Settlement Class without the risks, burdens, costs, or delay
associated with continued litigation, trial, and/or appeal.

For purposes of settlement only, the Court conditionally certifies
the following Settlement Class as defined in the Settlement
Agreement:

     All persons with Michigan street addresses who purchased a
subscription to a Time Publication directly from Time, but in a
manner other than through a Time website, between February 19, --
and February 19, 2016.

The Court approves, as to form, content, and distribution, the
Claim Form attached to the Settlement Agreement, the Notice Plan
and all forms of Notice to the Settlement Class as set forth in the
Settlement Agreement and Exhibits B, C, and D thereto, and finds
that such Notice is the best notice practicable under the
circumstances, and that the Notice complies fully with the
requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 5, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ybtg9hje from Leagle.com.

Carolyn Perlin, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin Scott Thomassen
-- bthomassen@edelson.com -- Edelson PC, Eve-Lynn Rapp --
erapp@edelson.com -- Edelson PC, Roger J. Perlstadt --
rperistadt@edelson.com -- Edelson PC, Schuyler R. Ufkes --
sufkes@edelson.com -- Edelson PC & Ari J. Scharg --
ascharg@edelson.com -- Edelson P.C.

Time Inc., Defendant, represented by Jacob A. Sommer --
jake@zwillgen.com -- Zwillgen, PLLC, Jeffrey G. Landis --
jeff@zwillgen.com -- ZWILLGEN PLLC, Lara F. Phillip --
lara.phillip@honigman.com -- Honigman, Miller, Marc J. Zwillinger
marc@zwillgen.com -- Zwillgen, PLLC & Nury R. Siekkinen --
nury@zwillgen.com -- ZwillGen PLLC.


TOSHIBA CORP: 9th Cir. Reverses Dismissal of M. Stoyas' Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal with prejudice of
the case, MARK STOYAS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, and AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRIES PENSION
TRUST FUND; NEW ENGLAND TEAMSTERS & TRUCKING INDUSTRY PENSION FUND,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. TOSHIBA CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee,
Case No. 16-56058 (9th Cir.), on May 20, 2016.

In Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd., 561 U.S. 247 (2010),
the Supreme Court held that the presumption against
extraterritorial applicability of congressional legislation renders
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 applicable to deceptive
conduct only in connection with the purchases or sales of any
securities registered on a national securities exchange or domestic
transactions in other securities not so registered.  The Court
reasoned that the focus of the Exchange Act is not upon the place
where the deception originated, but upon purchases and sales of
securities in the United States.

Appellants Automotive Industries Pension Trust Fund ("AIPTF") and
New England Teamsters & Trucking Industry Pension Fund are the
named Plaintiffs in a putative class action alleging violations of
the Exchange Act and the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act of
Japan ("JFIEA") against Toshiba based on its now-admitted
fraudulent accounting practices that caused hundreds of millions of
dollars in loss to U.S. investors.  AIPTF became the lead Plaintiff
based on its purchase on March 23, 2015, of 36,000 Toshiba ADRs in
the United States on an over-the-counter market run by OTC Markets
Group and a loss of $196,913.47.

The complaint alleges (1) violation of Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 on behalf of American Depository Shares
or Receipts ("ADRs") purchasers, (2) violation of Section 20(a) of
the Exchange Act on behalf of ADR purchasers, and (3) violation of
JFIEA Article 21-2 on behalf of ADR purchasers and purchasers of
Toshiba common stock.

The district court dismissed the case with prejudice on the grounds
that the over-the-counter market by which ADRs are sold was not a
"national exchange" within the meaning of Morrison, and that there
was not any domestic transaction between ADR purchasers and
Toshiba.  Having dismissed the Exchange Act claims, the district
court dismissed the Japanese law claim under principles of comity
and forum non conveniens.

Thus, at the heart of the appeal is the question of the nature of
ADRs and their transactions, and whether Toshiba ADRs are covered
by the Exchange Act through either registry on a national exchange,
or through domestic sales and purchases.

Judge Wardlaw holds that the district court misapplied Morrison.
And, without significant analysis, it concluded that leave to amend
would be futile.  It therefore dismissed the Funds' case with
prejudice.  The Judge believes the FAC does not sufficiently allege
a domestic violation of the Exchange Act, but that allowing leave
to amend would not be futile.  Therefore, she reversed and remanded
to allow the Funds to amend their complaint.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 17, 2018 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/ZYZ6SJ from Leagle.com.

Susan K. Alexander -- Christopher M. Curran -- (argued), San
Francisco, California, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Christopher M. Curran -- ccurran@whitecase.com -- (argued),
Washington, D.C., for Defendants-Appellees.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Court Dismisses D. Campbell's CLEC Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Judge Paul W. Grimm of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maryland, Southern Division, dismissed with prejudice the case,
DELPHINE CAMPBELL, Plaintiff, v. TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORP.,
Defendant, Case No. PWG-18-150 (D. Md.).

Campbell filed a class action suit in the Circuit Court of Maryland
for Montgomery County for violations of Maryland's credit grantor
closed end credit provisions statute ("CLEC").

On April 5, 2014, Ms. Campbell entered into a Retail Installment
Contract ("RISC"), which the parties affirmatively elected to be
governed by CLEC, to purchase a Toyota Rav 4.  Through TMCC, Ms.
Campbell financed $26,889.48, and the RISC also included an
additional $5,128.20 in finance charges.

Ms. Campbell made numerous payments; however, ultimately, TMCC
repossessed the vehicle before June 27, 2016.  After repossessing
the vehicle, TMCC conducted a private sale and provided a post-sale
notice to Ms. Campbell, which stated the name of the purchaser ("A
1 Imports Inc") and the state ("MD").  However, the post-sale
notice lists A 1 Imports' street address, town, and zip code as
"N/A."  TMCC also sent Ms. Campbell a deficiency notice following
the sale of her car and stated she still owed TMCC $3,538.91.

Ms. Campbell initially filed a similar action against TMCC
regarding the same underlying events in state court, which was
removed to the Court on Oct. 10, 2017, Campbell v. Toyota Motor
Credit Corp., No. RWT-17-2976 (D. Md. Nov. 16, 2017) ("Campbell
I").  In Campbell I, Ms. Campbell alleged the same claims as she
does here but defined her class as all persons whose personal
property was repossessed by TMCC in connection with a credit
contract governed by CLEC, whose vehicle was sold at private sale
and whose post-sale notice did not include the purchaser's
address.

Her amended complaint (as well as her initial pleading) alleged
that the class consisted, at a minimum, of more than 100 members.
But then, in seeking remand, she argued that TMCC had not
demonstrated that the potential class was greater than 100 people
even though she pleaded exactly that.  And, in an effort to obtain
a higher level of judicial expertise by seeking to have the case
assigned to the Business and Technology Case Management Program,
Ms. Campbell had informed the state court prior to removal that the
class size exceeded 500 members.

Judge Titus denied Ms. Campbell's Motion to Remand because there
was sufficient evidence in the record -- mainly Ms. Campbell's own
statements -- that demonstrated there was an adequate class size
and amount in controversy for the Court to have subject matter
jurisdiction over her claims.

Ms. Campbell then initiated the action in the Circuit Court for
Montgomery County on Nov. 20, 2017, and TMCC again removed it to
the Court on Jan. 17, 2018.  In her Complaint, Ms. Campbell revised
the class definition she had provided in Campbell I, as all persons
whose personal property was repossessed by TMCC in connection with
a credit contract governed by CLEC: (1) whose personal property was
sold at a private sale; (2) whose post-sale notice did not include
the purchaser's address; and (3) where TMCC collected more than the
principal amount of the credit contract.

This time around, Ms. Campbell alleges that the class is "a minimum
of 50" people and that the claims of the class "exceed" $75,000.
She claims that TMCC collected more than the principal amount of
her loan and that she is entitled to relief under CLEC because TMCC
violated its notice provisions by not providing the buyer's full
address.

The Defendant opposed the Plaintiff's motion and filed a cross
motion to dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim.

Ms. Campbell also requests that the Court certifies the following
questions to the Maryland Court of Appeals: (i) whether CLEC
Section 12-1018(a)(2) authorizes a consumer to recover affirmative
damages; and (iii) whether a consumer must allege that a credit
grantor collected amounts in excess of the principal amount of the
credit contract and receipt of a nonprincipal payment after the
alleged CLEC violation to state a claim for a violation of CLEC.

Judge Grimm denied the Plaintiff's request to certify the questions
to the Maryland Court of Appeals.  He says he is capable of
resolving the state law issues currently before the Court.
Therefore, he needs not certify a question to the Maryland Court of
Appeals to determine the outcome of the parties' motions.

Judge Grimm denied the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand because TMCC
has provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate the alleged class
of Plaintiffs is at least 100 people and the amount in controversy
exceeds $5 million.  He granted the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
because the Plaintiff has not stated a claim for which relief can
be granted.  Finally, because the Plaintiff has had multiple
opportunities to do so (in this and a prior litigation), her
Complaint is dismissed with prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 17, 2018 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/rBlcAb from Leagle.com.

Delphine Campbell, on her own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Cory L. Zajdel, Z Law
LLC.

Toyota Motor Credit Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Christopher M. Loveland -- cloveland@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard
Mullin Richter and Hampton LLP & Anna S. McLean --
amclean@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richter and Hampton
LLP, pro hac vice.


TRAKUS LLC: Underpays Computer Operators, Altaf Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
MOHAMMAD ALTAF, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TRAKUS, LLC; ROBERT J. MCCARTHY; and MICHAEL
CIACCIARELLI, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-11601 (D. Mass., July
30, 2018) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay
required overtime wages and minimum wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Mr. Altaf was employed by the Defendants as a computer operator
from June 2016 to June 2018.

TKS, Inc. provides tracking systems and related technology services
for sports and media. TKS, Inc. was formerly known as Trakus, Inc.
The company was founded in 1996 and is based in Everett,
Massachusetts. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Howard M. Brown, Esq.
          BOSTON EMPLOYMENT LAW PC
          1170 Beacon Street, Suite 200
          Brookline, MA 02446
          Telephone: (617) 566-8090
          Facsimile: (617) 566-8091
          E-mail: hmb@bostonemploymentlaw.com


UNILEVER UNITED: No Final Judgment on Pepsi Soft Drink Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division, denied Plaintiffs' Motion for Entry
of Final Judgment in the case captioned AMY MAXWELL, Plaintiff, v.
UNILEVER UNITED STATES, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No.
5:12-cv-01736-EJD (N.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiff moves pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
54(b) for entry of final judgment on the Pepsi carbonated soft
drink claims.

Plaintiff Amy Maxwell brought this putative class action suit
against Defendant PepsiCo, Inc.'s (PepsiCo) and several other
defendants on behalf of all persons in the United States who, since
April 6, 2008 to the present, purchased the same or 83 similar
allegedly mislabeled food products.

It must be a "judgment" in the sense that it is a decision upon a
cognizable claim for relief, and it must be "final" in the sense
that it is an ultimate disposition of an individual claim entered
in the course of a multiple claims action. After a district court
has determined whether a judgment is final, it must determine
whether, in its discretion, any just reason for delay exists.

The Plaintiff argues that there is none, citing three primary
reasons:

First, there is a strong public interest in the enforcement of
accurate product labeling.

Second, it will likely be a long time before the remainder of this
case is unstayed, the merits adjudicated, and Plaintiff has the
opportunity to appeal the Dismissal Order.

And, third, the issues that Plaintiff seeks to appeal now are
factually and legally distinct from the remaining claims in this
case, as the former are claims against PepsiCo based on Pepsi
carbonated soft drink products, whereas the latter are claims
against Unilever and Pepsi-Lipton Team Defendants based on Lipton
tea products.  

PepsiCo disagrees, arguing that Rule 54(b) certification here would
result in piecemeal appeals and inefficient litigation.
Specifically, PepsiCo points out that certification would not
eliminate it as a party, as it would need to remain in this case to
defend the tea labeling claims. PepsiCo also argues that the issues
are not sufficiently distinct, because they are all based on
violations of the same statutes and, at least with respect to Pepsi
and Lipton Sweet Tea, there are overlapping factual allegations.  

On balance, the Court agrees with PepsiCo that there are just
reasons for delay. While it is true that the claims that remain are
based on different products from those that were dismissed (i.e.,
tea products as opposed to soft drink products), substantial
overlap in factual and legal issues remain. For example,
Plaintiff's claims relating to Lipton Sweet Tea include the same
artificial labelling claims that Plaintiff levied against the Pepsi
products.  

The Court declines to enter final judgment on its dismissal of the
Pepsi carbonated soft drink claims. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's
motion is denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 30, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ychl33b8 from Leagle.com.

Amy Maxwell, individually and on behalf of all others siminlarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Ananda N. Chaudhuri --
achaudhuri@fleischmanlawfirm.com -- Fleischman Law Firm, Ben F.
Pierce Gore -- pgore@prattattorneys.com -- Pratt & Associates,
Carol Nelkin, Nelkin, Nelkin & Krock, PC, Charles F. Barrett --
cbarrett@nealharwell.com -- Neal & Harwell, PLC, David Malcolm
McMullan, Jr. -- dmcmullan@barrettlawgroup.com -- Don Barrett,
P.A., David Shelton, David Shelton, PLLC, Dewitt Marshall Lovelace,
Sr., Lovelace Law Firm, P.A., Frank Karam --
fkaram@fleischmanlawfirm.com -- Fleischman Law Firm, J. Price
Coleman, Coleman Law Firm, Jay P. Nelkin, Nelkin & Nelkin, P.C.,
Katherine B. Riley -- jbriley@barrettlawgroup.com -- Don Barrett,
P.A., Keith M. Fleischman -- keith@fleischmanlawfirm.com -- The
Fleischman Law Firm, Richard Barrett -- rrb@rrblawfirm.net -- Law
Offices of Richard R. Barrett, PLLC & Stuart M. Nelkin, Nelkin,
Nelkin & Krock, PC.

Unilever United States, Inc., Defendant, represented by William
Francis Tarantino -- wtarantino@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster
LLP, Alexandra Eve Laks -- alaks@mofo.com -- Morrison and Foerster
LLP, Claudia Maria Vetesi -- cvetesi@mofo.com -- Morrison &
Foerster LLP, Daniel W. Nelson -- dnelson@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson
Dunn and Crutcher LLP, Lucia X. Roibal -- lroibal@mofo.com --
Morrison Foerster LLP & William Lewis Stern -- wstern@mofo.com --
Morrison & Foerster LLP.

PEPSICO, Inc., Defendant, represented by Daniel W. Nelson , Gibson
Dunn and Crutcher LLP, pro hac vice, William Francis Tarantino,
Morrison & Foerster LLP, Claudia Maria Vetesi, Morrison & Foerster
LLP, Timothy William Loose -- tloose@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn
& Crutcher LLP & William Lewis Stern, Morrison & Foerster LLP.


UNION PACIFIC: Harris et al. Seek to Certify Class
--------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned QUINTON HARRIS; JOHN BAKER; GEOFFREY
MILLER; NORMAN MOUNT; THOMAS TAYLOR; AND SCOTT ZINN; individually
and on behalf of other similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. UNION
PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No.
8:16-cv-00381-JFB-SMB (D. Neb.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for
an order certifying a class (or in the alternative, such other
class or subclasses as the Court may deem appropriate) consisting
of:

     "all individuals who have been or will be subject to a
fitness-for-duty examination as a result of a reportable health
event at any time from September 18, 2014 until the final
resolution of this action."

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Robert L. Schug, Esq.
          James H. Kaster, Esq.
          David E. Schlesinger, Esq.
          Charles A. Delbridge, Esq.
          Robert L. Schug, Esq.
          Neil D. Pederson, Esq.
          Laura A. Baures, Esq.
          NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
          80 South Eighth Street
          4600 IDS Center
          Minneapolis, MN 55402-2242
          Telephone: (612) 256 3200
          Facsimile: (612) 338 4878
          E-mail: kaster@nka.com
                  schlesinger@nka.com
                  cdelbridge@nka.com
                  schug@nka.com
                  npederson@nka.com
                  lbaures@nka.com

               - and -

          Corey L. Stull, Esq.
          ATWOOD, HOLSTEN, BROWN
          DEAVER & SPIER, P.C., L.L.O.
          575 Fallbrook Boulevard, Suite 206
          Lincoln, NE 68521
          Telephone: (402) 817 2717
          E-mail: cstull@atwoodlawyers.com

               - and -

          Anthony S. Petru, Esq.
          HILDEBRAND MCLEOD & NELSON
          250 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, 4th Floor
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 451 6732
          Facsimile: (510) 465 7023
          E-mail: petru@hmnlaw.com

               - and -

          Nicholas D. Thompson, Esq.
          MOODY LAW FIRM
          500 Crawford Street
          Portsmouth, VA 23704
          Telephone: (757) 477 0991
          E-mail: nthompson@moodyrrlaw.com


UNITED STATES: Judge OKs $3.5MM Deal Between IRS, Tea Party Groups
------------------------------------------------------------------
Fox News reports that a judge approved a settlement between the IRS
and hundreds of tea party groups, in which the federal agency
agreed to pay out $3.5 million, reports said.

The conservative groups were the subjects of illegal and
unwarranted scrutiny by the federal agency for political purposes,
the Chattanooga Times Free Press reported.

"It shows that when a government agency desires to target citizens
based on their viewpoints, a price will be paid," said Edward
Greim, Esq. -- edgreim@gravesgarrett.com -- a lawyer who led the
class-action case in federal court in Cincinnati, according to the
Washington Times.

The tea party groups received a "sincere apology" from the IRS, and
the government agreed to a declaratory judgment that "it is wrong"
to srutinize a tax return because of a taxpayer's name or political
philosophy, the report said.

"I'm not frankly aware of any other class-action lawsuit against
the IRS for anything where the IRS paid money," Mark Meckler, who
as president of Citizens for Self Governance funded the
class-action challenge, previously told the Times when the
settlement was submitted for final approval a few weeks ago.

Lois Lerner, then-senior executive of the IRS, allegedly "put in
place new processes that guaranteed even more delay," Greim told
the Times, referring to tea party groups' attempts to secure
tax-exempt status.

But Lerner denied that she encouraged the targeting. In fact, a
U.S. Justice Department review cleared her and called her one of
the "heroes of the saga," saying she attempted to stop it,
according to the newspaper.

The litigation for August 8's settlement lasted about five years,
the Times reported.

The decision over whether Lerner's deposition explaining her
behavior would be shielded from public view is still being argued
in court, the report said.

Conservative groups are reportedly calling for testimony to be
unsealed. [GN]


UNUM GROUP: Levi & Korsinsky Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
commenced on behalf of shareholders of Unum Group.  Shareholders
interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the deadlines
listed to petition the court and further details about the cases
can be found at the links provided. There is no cost or obligation
to you.

Unum Group (NYSE: UNM)
Class Period: October 27, 2016 - May 1, 2018
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 13, 2018
Join the action: http://www.zlk.com/pslra-d/unum-group-2?wire=3

The lawsuit alleges: Unum Group made materially false and/or
misleading statements throughout the class period and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) the Company was experiencing a higher claims
incidence for its long-term care business; (ii) the Company was
experiencing less favorable policy terminations in connection with
its long-term care business; (iii)  the Company had grossly
miscalculated the actuarial assumptions underlying its long-term
care business; (iv) premium price hikes could not sustainably
offset increasing losses related to the Company's long-term care
business; (v)  the Company was subject to a much greater risk of
catastrophic losses and major reserve charges than represented to
investors; and (vi) as a result of the foregoing, the Company would
not be able to maintain its long-term care interest adjusted loss
ratio in the 85% to 90% range.

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

         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
         Email: jlevi@levikorsinsky.com [GN]


VIKING ENTERPRISES: Fails to Pay Wages to Paramedics, Ellis Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
ZACHARY ELLIS, GREGORY WESTOVER, and MEGAN CAMDEN, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. VIKING
ENTERPRISES, INC. d/b/a CITY AMBULANCE SERVICES, and MOHAMAD
MASSOUD, Defendant, Case No. 18-772 (W.D. Tex., July 26, 2018)
seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages, and unpaid
overtime for all hours worked pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as emergency medical
technicians paramedics.

Viking Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a City Ambulance Services is a
corporation organized under the laws of the State of Texas. Viking
Enterprises operates an ambulance service in San Antonio, Houston,
and Dallas, Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael V. Galo, Jr., Esq.
          GALO LAW FIRM, P.C.
          4230 Gardendale, Bldg., 401
          San Antonio, TX 78229
          Telephone: (210) 616-9800
          Facsimile: (210) 616-9898
          E-mail: mgalo@galolaw.com


VIRGIN AMERICA: Partial Summary Judgment in FAs' Suit Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs' Motion
for Summary Judgment in the case captioned JULIA BERNSTEIN, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. VIRGIN AMERICA, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No.
15-cv-02277-JST (N.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiffs are flight attendants who work or who have worked
for Defendant Virgin America, Inc., and Defendant Alaska Airlines,
Inc., in California. The Plaintiffs allege that Virgin did not pay
them for hours worked before, after, and between flights; time
spent completing incident reports; time spent in training; or time
spent taking mandatory drug tests.
The Plaintiffs further allege that Virgin did not allow flight
attendants to take meal periods earlier than one hour before
landing; did not allow flight attendants to take rest breaks;
failed to pay overtime and minimum wages and failed to provide
accurate wage statements.

Failure to Pay for All Hours Worked, Failure to Pay Overtime,
Failure to Provide Accurate Wage Statements, and Failure to Pay
Waiting Time Claims

In its opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment,
Virgin again also argues that the Dormant Commerce Clause bars
these claims. The Court previously found there was no Dormant
Commerce Clause violation. The Court will not reconsider its prior
order.

Meal and Rest Break Claims

In its motion for summary judgment, Virgin argued that the
Plaintiffs' meal and rest breaks are preempted by the Federal
Aviation Act (FAA) and/or the Airline Deregulation Act (ADA). The
Court found that the Plaintiffs' meal and rest break claims are not
pre-empted by the FAA or the ADA.

Here, Virgin argues that meal period and rest break claims are
pre-empted under field pre-emption because the FAA pervasively
regulated the area of flight attendant duties, including duty
periods and rest requirements, as part of its mandate to regulate
aviation safety. The Court previously rejected this argument also.
The Court noted the Ninth Circuit's emphasis on defining the
relevant field with specificity, and defined the relevant field as
the regulation of meal and rest breaks for flight attendants. The
Court rejected Virgin's argument that 14 C.F.R. Section 121.467
justified field pre-emption, finding that section hardly
comprehensive, detailed, or pervasive enough to justify federal
pre-emption of the field.  The Court will not reconsider this
order.

Flight Attendant Residence

Virgin contends that there is a triable issue of material fact as
to plaintiff Bernstein's residence and, by extension, as to each
class member's residence.

With regard to residence, the Court determined that residence could
be determined by looking to Virgin's business records and the state
where each flight attendant paid taxes. Viewed in this light, there
is no dispute of material fact. The Court previously found that the
fact that Bernstein filed her taxes in California in 2011 is
sufficient to identify her as a member of the California Resident
Subclass.

Eligibility for Overtime Pay

Virgin argues that there is a triable issue of fact because a
flight attendant is not eligible for overtime when the overtime
hours worked were due to a temporary modification in the employee's
work schedule arranged at the request of the employee. Virgin
provides no evidence, however, that any flight attendant made such
a request. Hence, there is no dispute of material fact.  

Incident Reports

Virgin contends that there is a dispute of material fact with
regard to the Plaintiffs' claims for time spent completing incident
reports. It notes that the Plaintiffs have failed to present any
class data or expert testimony that would reliably establish
whether the reports were completed during or after a duty period,
or how much time was spent preparing them" and that the time it
takes to complete the reports admittedly varies.

In support of this contention, Virgin submits responses to requests
for admission confirming that the time spent completing these
reports varies, and showing that the reports are not always
prepared contemporaneously with the incidents they describe.
Drawing all inferences in favor of Virgin, as the Court must the
Court concludes there is a triable issue of fact regarding how long
it takes to complete an incident report.

Plaintiffs' motion as to this claim is denied.

Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment

Virgin's Liability to the Class and Subclass for Failure to Pay for
All Hours Worked

This Court has previously found that Virgin fails to compensate its
flight attendants for all hours worked because Virgin's formula
does not separately compensate flight attendants for duty time that
is not block time or deadheading time. Instead, Virgin's flight
attendants only receive credit for duty hours if they have already
earned 3.5 credits of block time or deadheading for the day. Virgin
identifies no additional disputes of fact.

Therefore, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs are entitled to
summary judgment on this claim.

Virgin's Liability to the Class and Subclass for Failure to Pay
Overtime Premiums

California Labor Code Section 510 requires employers to pay over
time for any work in excess of eight hours in one workday and any
work in excess of 40 hours in any one workweek.

This Court previously found evidence that the Plaintiffs worked
more than eight hours some days such that they qualify for overtime
pay. For example, Virgin's expert testified that each of the
Plaintiffs had at least one day where they worked in excess of
eight hours. Virgin does not dispute this evidence. Therefore, the
Court finds that the Plaintiffs are entitled to summary judgment on
this claim.

Virgin's Liability to the Class for Failure to Provide Legally
Compliant Meal Periods and Rest Breaks

California Labor Code Section 510 requires an employer to provide a
30 minute-meal if an employee works more than five hours per day.

This Court previously found that the Plaintiffs' meal period and
break claims are geographically limited to California. However, the
Court also noted that there was evidence that the Plaintiffs worked
duty periods solely within California that were long enough to
trigger meal period and rest break eligibility.  Virgin's expert
found between four and fifty-three instances for each Plaintiff
where they were potentially eligible for either a rest break or a
meal period. Virgin does not dispute this evidence.

Therefore, the Plaintiffs are entitled to summary judgment on their
remaining meal period and rest break claims.

Virgin's Liability to the Class for Failure to Provide Accurate
Wage Statements

Under Section 226 of the California Labor Code, an employer is
required to provide "an accurate itemized wage statement" showing
gross wages, total hours worked, net wages earned, and all
applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period and the
corresponding number of hours worked at each hourly rate, among
other things.  

Virgin concedes that its wage statements do not show the effective
hourly rate of pay for each hour of duty or the actual number of
hours worked.  The Plaintiffs have also provided evidence that
Virgin knew that its wage statements did not show the actual number
of hours worked. Virgin does not dispute this evidence or offer
competing evidence. Therefore, the Plaintiffs are entitled to
summary judgment on this claim.

Virgin's Liability to the Waiting Time Penalty Subclass for
Violations of Labor Code Section 203

Under California law, if an employer willfully fails to pay any
wages of an employee who is discharged or who quits, the wages of
the employee shall continue as a penalty from the due date thereof
but the wages shall not continue for more than 30 days.

The Court has already found that Virgin failed to pay class members
for all hours worked and for overtime. Therefore, the Court grants
Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on this claim.

Virgin's Liability to the Class and Subclass for Violations of the
Unfair Competition Law (UCL)

The Plaintiffs ask for summary judgment on the UCL claims that are
derivative of Virgin's violations of the California Labor Code for
(1) failing to pay for all hours worked; (2) failing to pay
overtime; (3)failing to provide meal breaks; and (4) failing to
provide rest breaks.  

The Court found that the Plaintiffs are entitled to summary
judgment for their remaining failure to pay all hours worked,
failure to pay overtime, failure to provide meal break, and failure
to provide rest breaks claims. The Plaintiffs' motion for summary
judgment on their UCL claims is granted.

Virgin's Liability for Violations of the Private Attorney General
Act (PAGA)

The Plaintiffs also seek PAGA penalties for Virgin's failure to
provide timely payments. The Plaintiffs provide evidence that
Virgin does not provide timely payments pursuant to California
Labor Code Section 204.Virgin does not dispute this evidence.
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on this
claim is granted.

The Court grants the Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment for
its failure to pay for all hours worked, failure to pay overtime,
failure to provide meal and rest breaks, and failure to provide
accurate wage statements claims. The motion is denied regarding the
time spent completing incident reports. The Court also grants the
Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment as to the Waiting Time
Penalty Subclass. Finally, the Court grants the Plaintiffs' motion
for summary judgment for its UCL and PAGA claims.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 9, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y9jq3zpf from Leagle.com.

Julia Bernstein, Esther Garcia & Lisa Marie Smith, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
represented by Monique Olivier -- Monique@osclegal.com -- Olivier
Schreiber & Chao LLP, Alison L. Kosinski, Kosinski & Thiagaraj,
LLP, Chiharu Gina Sekino -- csekino@sfmslaw.com -- Shepherd,
Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP, Emily Ann Thiagaraj, Kosinski &
Thiagaraj, LLP, James Edward Miller -- jmiller@sfmslaw.com --
Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah, LLP, James C. Shah --
jshah@sfmslaw.com -- Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah, LLP, Kolin
C. Tang -- ktang@sfmslaw.com -- Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah,
LLP, Nathan Curtis Zipperian -- nzipperian@sfmslaw.com -- Shepherd
Finkleman Miller & Shah, LLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Scott Kravitz
-- rkravitz@sfmslaw.com -- Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah,
LLP.

Virgin America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Robert Jon
Hendricks -- rj.hendricks@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius LLP, Brendan T. Killeen -- brendan.killeen@morganlewis.com
-- Morgan Lewis Bockius LLP, pro hac vice, Jennifer Adkins Tomlin,
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP & Nancy Villarreal --
nancy.villarreal@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP.

Alaska Airlines, Inc., Defendant, represented by Robert Jon
Hendricks, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP.


VIRGINIA: Suit vs. Vehicle Dealer Board Remanded to State Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge M. Hannah Lauck of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, Richmond Division, remanded the case, COLIN
ANDREW, Plaintiff, v. MARK HERRING, et al., Defendants, Civil
Action No. 3:17cv373 (E.D. Va.), to the Superior Court of the
District of Columbia.

In 2008, Andrew filed a claim in the D.C. Superior Court against a
Virginia-based motor vehicle dealer alleging fraud related to the
purchase of a vehicle.  In 2015, Andrew obtained a default judgment
against the dealer.  Because the dealership was no longer in
business, Andrew filed a claim with the Virginia Motor Vehicle
Dealer Board seeking compensation for the unpaid judgment from the
Virginia Motor Vehicle Transaction Recovery Fund, which the Board
administers.  The Board denied the claim after determining that
Andrew did not meet the Fund's statutory requirements.

In June 2016, Andrew filed a second suit in D.C. Superior Court,
this time as a purported class action.  Andrew, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated, challenged the Board's
interpretation of the statutory scheme governing the Fund as
unconstitutional.  On Sep. 2, 2016, the Defendants timely removed
the case to the D.C. District Court.

On Sept. 8, 2016, Andrew filed an Amended Complaint.  In his
Amended Complaint, Andrew alleges that the Defendants incorrectly
interpret a statutory scheme so as to favor judgments of the
Commonwealth of Virginia over judgments of other states in
violation of the Constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause.
Andrew argues that the statute should be interpreted to treat
Virginia and non-Virginia judgments identically in order to avoid
an unconstitutional application.

On May 5, 2017, the D.C. District Court transferred the case to the
Court because the legally relevant events -- particularly, the
Board's denial of Andrew's claim -- would take place in Virginia.

The Defendants seek dismissal of Andrew's class action Amended
Complaint on either of two grounds: (1) for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1);6 or
(2) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).  

Judge Lauck begins, as she must, by addressing Defendants' motion
to dismiss for want of subject-matter jurisdiction, she finds that
the parties do not dispute whether Andrew meets the first two
prongs of standing: (1) an injury in fact, (2) that is fairly
traceable to the Defendants' conduct.  Assuming, without deciding,
that Andrew meets the first two prongs of standing, he nevertheless
fails to show that a favorable judicial decision would redress his
alleged injury.  Because Andrew lacks a judgment for fraud, he
fails to meet the statutory requirements to apply for relief from
the Fund.  Because he is ineligible for relief from the Fund, a
favorable outcome in this case would not redress his alleged
injury.  Consequently, Andrew lacks standing to proceed.

In addition, in their Amended Motion to Dismiss, the Defendants
request that the Court dismisses the Complaint for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction.  Although the Court doubts that
Andrew's claim can survive a standing challenge in any court due to
the lack of a judgment for fraud, the Court is not in a position to
dismiss the case.  Rather, the statutory mandate is clear: the
Court must remand the case to the D.C. Superior Court.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Lauck remanded the civil action to
the D.C. Superior Court

A full-text copy of the Court's July 11, 2018 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/BX7wto from Leagle.com.

Colin Andrew, A class representative, Plaintiff, represented by
Thomas Coffin Willcox, Thomas C. Willcox, Attorney at Law, pro hac
vice & Jason Meyer Krumbein -- JKrumbein@KrumbeinLaw.com --
Krumbein Consumer Legal Services Inc.

Mark Herring, In his official capacity as Attorney General of
Virginia, LARRY T. BAILEY, In their professional capacities as
members of the Virginia Motor Vehicle Dealer Board, ROY E. BOSWELL,
In their professional capacities as members of the Virginia Motor
Vehicle Dealer Board, M. GARDNER BRITT, JR., In their professional
capacities as members of the Virginia Motor Vehicle Dealer Board,
DAVID P. DUNCAN, In their professional capacities as members of the
Virginia Motor Vehicle Dealer Board, L. STEVE FARMER, In their
professional capacities as members of the Virginia Motor Vehicle
Dealer Board, DAVID GRIPSHOVER, In their professional capacities as
members of the Virginia Motor Vehicle Dealer Board, Rick Holcomb,
In their professional capacities as members of the Virginia Motor
Vehicle Dealer Board, CLAY HUBER, In their professional capacities
as members of the Virginia Motor Vehicle Dealer Board, WILLIAM
"ART" HUDGINS, In their professional capacities as members of the
Virginia Motor Vehicle Dealer Board, BRIAN P. HUTCHENS, In their
professional capacities as members of the Virginia Motor Vehicle
Dealer Board, RONALD KODY, In their professional capacities as
members of the Virginia Motor Vehicle Dealer Board, Chip Lindsay,
In their professional capacities as members of the Virginia Motor
Vehicle Dealer Board, CHRIS MAHER, In their professional capacities
as members of the Virginia Motor Vehicle Dealer Board, MATTHEW
MCQUEEN, In their professional capacities as members of the
Virginia Motor Vehicle Dealer Board, JACQUES J. MOORE, JR., In
their professional capacities as members of the Virginia Motor
Vehicle Dealer Board, GEORGE R. PELTON, In their professional
capacities as members of the Virginia Motor Vehicle Dealer Board &
Joe Tate, In their professional capacities as members of the
Virginia Motor Vehicle Dealer Board, Defendants, represented by
Matthew Robert McGuire, Office of the Attorney General & Trevor
Stephen Cox , Office of the Attorney General.


VUZIX CORPORATION: Bauman Sues over 22% Drop in Share Price
-----------------------------------------------------------
DUSTIN BAUMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. VUZIX CORPORATION; PAUL J. TRAVERS; GRANT
RUSSELL; ALEXANDER RUCKDAESCHEL; and MICHAEL SCOTT, Defendants,
Case No. 1:18-cv-06793 (S.D.N.Y., July 27, 2018) alleges that the
Defendants violated the Securities Act of 1933, and the Securities
and Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, on January 26, 2018, Vuzix filed its
secondary public offering prospectus with the SEC, which forms part
of the SPO Registration Statement. In the SPO, Vuzix sold 3,000,000
shares of common stock at a price of $10 per share. Vuzix received
proceeds of approximately $28.4 million from the SPO, net of
underwriting discounts and commissions. The proceeds from the SPO
were purportedly to be used to for general corporate purposes,
including expanding Vuzix's product lines, and for general working
capital purposes.

The Defendants made materially false or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Vuzix's
business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the Defendants
failed to disclose that: (i) Vuzix used unlawful stock promotion
tactics to boost Vuzix's stock price; (ii) Vuzix used misleading
stock promotion tactics to raise nearly $30 million at an all-time
high share price; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, the
Defendants' statements in the Registration Statement regarding
Vuzix's business, operations, and prospects, were materially false
or misleading.

On March 16, 2018, MOX Reports published a report alleging that
Vuzix had used undisclosed stock promotion tactics involving
mainstream media outlets to artificially inflate its share price.

On this news, the Vuzix's share price fell $1.70 per share, or more
than 22%, on heavy trading volume, over the course of three trading
sessions, to close on March 21, 2018 at $5.95 per share.

Vuzix Corporation designs, manufactures, markets, and sells
wearable display devices in the United States and internationally.
The company was formerly known as Icuiti Corporation and changed
its name to Vuzix Corporation in 2007. Vuzix Corporation was
founded in 1997 and is headquartered in West Henrietta, New York.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, New York 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
          Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                 ahood@pomlaw.com

               -and-

          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
          Chicago, Illinois 60603
          Telephone: (312) 377-1181
          Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
          Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

               -and-

          Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
          BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 697-6484
          Email: peretz@bgandg.com


WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Fails to Pay OT, Anguiano-Tamayo Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
ANA ANGUIANO-TAMAYO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC.;
WAL-MART STORES, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, Defendants, Case No.
3:18-cv-04598 (N.D. Cal., July 30, 2018) is an action against the
Defendants for failure to provide accurate itemized wage
statements.

Ms. Anguiano-Tamayo was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt
employee. The Plaintiff is currently employed by the Defendants.

Walmart Inc. engages in the retail and wholesale operations in
various formats worldwide. The company was formerly known as
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and changed its name to Walmart Inc. in
February 2018. Walmart Inc. was founded in 1945 and is based in
Bentonville, Arkansas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Larry W. Lee, Esq.
          Nicholas Rosenthal, Esq.
          DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C.
          515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 488-6555
          Facsimile: (213) 488-6554
          E-mail: lwlee@diversitylaw.com
                  nrosenthal@diversitylaw.com


WAL-MART STORES: Court Certifies 6 Subclasses in Hamilton Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Andre Birotte, Jr., granted in part and denied in
part the motion for class certification filed by the Plaintiffs in
the lawsuit titled CHELSEA HAMILTON, et al. v. WAL-MART STORES,
INC., et al., Case No. 5:17-cv-01415-AB-KK (C.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiffs' Motion is granted as to the Security Checkpoint,
Overtime, Meal Break, Alternative Workweek Schedule, Waiting Time
Penalty, and Wage Statement Penalty subclasses on the theories
specifically identified in the Order.  The Plaintiff's Motion is
denied as to the Plaintiffs' Rest Break subclass.

The certified classes are defined as follows:

   1. Security Checkpoint Subclass: all current and former
      non-exempt employees employed by Defendants in the State of
      California and who worked in a Walmart Fulfillment center
      and who were required to go through a security checkpoint
      during a meal period and/or at the end of his/her shift
      during the period from June 8, 2013 to the present;

   2. Overtime Subclass: all current and former non-exempt
      employees employed by Defendants in the State of California
      and who worked in a Walmart Fulfillment center and who
      worked one or more shifts in excess of eight (8) hours in a
      day or forty (40) hours in a workweek and who were not
      properly paid all overtime wages during the period from
      June 8, 2013 to the present;

   3. Alterative Workweek Subclass: all current and former
      non-exempt employees employed by Defendants in the State of
      California and who worked in a Walmart Fulfillment center
      and pursuant to an alternative workweek schedule and were
      not paid daily overtime for work in excess of eight (8) but
      less than ten (10) hours;

   4. Meal Break Subclass: all current and former non-exempt
      employees employed by Defendants in the State of California
      and who worked in a Walmart Fulfillment center and who
      worked a shift in excess of six (6) hours during the period
      from June 8, 2013 to the present;

   5. Waiting Time Penalty Subclass: all current and former
      non-exempt employees employed by Defendants in the State of
      California and who worked in a Walmart Fulfillment center
      and who separated from their employment with Defendants
      during the period from June 8, 2014 to the present; and

   6. Wage Statement Penalty Subclass: all current and former
      nonexempt employees employed by Defendants in the State of
      California and who worked in a Walmart Fulfillment center
      during the period from June 8, 2016 to the present.


WILMINGTON TRUST: $200MM Securities Class Deal Has Prelim Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Delaware
granted Lead Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval
of Settlements and Approval of Notice to the Class in the case
captioned IN RE WILIMINGTON TRUST SECURITIES LITIGATION, This
document relates to: ALL ACTIONS, Master No. 10-cv-0990-ER  (D.
Del.).

The Lead Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants violated federal
securities laws by making false and misleading statements to
conceal Wilmington Trust Corporation's true financial condition and
lending practices. The Lead Plaintiffs allege that these statements
caused investors to purchase stock at artificially inflated prices
and to suffer damages as a result.

The Proposed Class Action Settlement

The Class

The Stipulation and Agreement of Settlements provide for a Class
defined as follows:

     All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
Wilmington Trust common stock during the period of January 18, 2008
up to November 1, 2010 (the Class Period), including all persons or
entities who purchased shares of Wilmington Trust common stock
issued in the secondary common stock offering that occurred on or
about February 23, 2010 (the Offering), and were damaged thereby.

The Proposed Settlement Terms

The settlement agreements provide that Wilmington Trust will pay
$200,000,000 in cash and KPMG will pay $10,000,000 in cash to be
deposited into separate escrow accounts no later than ten business
days after the Court enters an order preliminarily approving the
settlement agreements.

The Settlement Funds will also be used to pay attorney's fees not
to exceed 28% of each Settlement Fund, and expenses and costs of
not more than $7,500,000.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e), the settlement of a
class action requires court approval. A district court may approve
a settlement agreement only after a hearing and on finding that it
is fair, reasonable, and adequate.

Whether the Proposed Settlement is Fair

In deciding whether to grant preliminary approval of a proposed
class action settlement, the court is required to determine only
whether the proposed settlement discloses grounds to doubt its
fairness or other obvious deficiencies such as unduly preferential
treatment of class representatives or segments of the class, or
excessive compensation of attorney, and whether it appears to fall
within the range of possible approval.

The Defendants asserted that the maximum recoverable damages would
be $590 million and that the settlements offer the Class
compensation of 40% of that amount.  After fees and expenses are
extracted, the remainder of the $210 million cash recovery will be
distributed proportionately to Class Members, depending on when the
Class Member purchased and/or sold his Wilmington Trust common
stock. This pro rata distribution will account for changes in
artificial inflation rates and closing prices over the course of
the Class Period.   

Therefore, the Court finds that there is a reasonable basis for
presuming that the fairness, adequacy, and reasonableness of the
settlement agreements will be demonstrated during the final
approval process. The settlement agreements were reached at
arms-length, after substantial discovery, between well-informed and
experienced counsel that were agreed to after extensive fact and
expert discovery. Facially, the settlement agreements do not
disclose grounds to doubt their fairness or other obvious
deficiencies. As a result, the settlement agreements appear proper
under Rule 23(e)(2).

Whether the Notices are Adequate

The Court further concludes that the notices of the class action
settlement submitted by the parties are adequate. Rule 23(e)
requires that all members of the class be notified of the terms of
any proposed settlement. This notice is designed to summarize the
litigation and the settlement and to apprise class members of the
right and opportunity to inspect the complete settlement documents,
papers, and pleadings filed in the litigation.

Accordingly, the Court will grant the Lead Plaintiffs' motion for
preliminary approval of the settlements and notice program.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 9, 2018 Memorandum is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ycs6fuea from Leagle.com.

Pipefitters Local 537 Annuity Fund, On Behalf Of Themselves And All
Others Similarly Situated & Mohammed Elzagha, Plaintiffs,
represented by Norman M. Monhait -- nmonhait@rmgglaw.com --
Rosenthal, Monhait & Goddess, P.A. & Peter Bradford de Leeuw -
bdeleeuw@rmgglaw.com -- Rosenthal, Monhait & Goddess, P.A.

Merced County Employees Retirement Association, St. Petersburg
Firefighters Retirement System & Pompano Beach General Employees
Retirement System, Plaintiffs, represented byRobert J. Kriner, Jr.,
Chimicles & Tikellis, LLP, Salvatore J. Graziano --
sgraziano@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP,
pro hac vice, Steven B. Singer -- steven@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein
Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, pro hac vice, Tiffany Joanne
Cramer -- Tiffany.Cramer@chimicles.com -- Chimicles & Tikellis, LLP
& Vera Gerrit Belger -- Vera.Gerritt@chimicles.com -- Chimicles &
Tikellis, LLP.

Wilmington Trust Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jamie Lynne
Edmonson -- jledmonson@Venable.com -- Venable LLP, Barry S. Simon -
bsimon@wc.com -- Williams & Connolly LLP, pro hac vice, Christopher
T. Berg -- cberg@wc.com -- Williams & Connolly LLP, pro hac vice,
Daniel P. Moylan -- dpmoylan@Venable.com -- Venable LLP, pro hac
vice, Daniel A. O'Brien -- dao'brien@Venable.com -- Venable LLP,
James A. Dunbar -- jadunbar@Venable.com -- Venable LLP, pro hac
vice, James L. Shea -- jlshea@venable.com -- Venable LLP, pro hac
vice, Jessica Wack -- jbwack@Venable.com -- Venable LLP, pro hac
vice, Williams & Connolly LLP, pro hac vice, Lance A. Wade --
lwade@wc.com -- Williams & Connolly LLP, pro hac vice, Margaret A.
Keeley -- mkeeley@wc.com -- Williams & Connolly LLP, pro hac vice,
Matthew R. Alsip -- mralsip@Venable.com -- Venable LLP, pro hac
vice, Simon A. Latcovich -- slatcovich@wc.com -- Williams &
Connolly LLP, pro hac vice & Tobin J. Romero -- tromero@wc.com --
Williams & Connolly LLP, pro hac vice.


WISCONSIN: Court Denies Leave to Disclose Rebuttal Liability Expert
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Wisconsin denied Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Disclose a
Rebuttal Liability Expert to inspect Oshkosh Correctional
Institution (OCI) in the case captioned DAVID D. AUSTIN II,
Plaintiff, v. JUDY P. SMITH, EDWARD WALL, REXFORD SMITH, and JON
LITSCHER, Defendants, No. 15-cv-525-jdp (W.D. Wis.).

Plaintiff David D. Austin II, a former prisoner at OCI, alleges
that the plexiglass sheets covering the windows of the cells in
certain blocks of OCI cause the cells to be extremely hot and
potentially unsafe.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c)(1), when a party fails
to disclose an expert witness by the deadline set by the court, the
party is not allowed to use that witness to supply evidence on a
motion, at a hearing, or at a trial. These sanctions are automatic
and mandatory unless the non-disclosure was justified or harmless.


Austin has not justified his late disclosure: he blames the
defendants' alleged failure to timely provide documents and medical
records, but there's no indication that he requested discovery
before the October 27 disclosure deadline, the first time he
notified the court of discovery issues was in March 2018 when he
requested an extension of the dispositive motions deadline and the
damages expert disclosure deadline. If he believed he needed
additional time to disclose his liability experts, he should have
said so then.

Because Austin has not shown that his late disclosure would be
justified or harmless, the Court will deny his motion.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 5, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y7c6glz3 from Leagle.com.

David D. Austin, II, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas J. Nitschke,
Blaise & Nitschke, P.C., Heather Lea Blaise, Blaise & Nitschke,
P.C. & Lana Bajes Nassar, Blaise & Nitschke, P.C.

Judy P. Smith, Warden, Oshkosh Correctional Institution,
individually and in her official capacity, Rexford Smith, Unit
Manager, R-Unit, Oshkosh Correctional Institution, individually and
in his official capacity & Jon Litscher, Defendants, represented by
Michael David Morris , State of Wisconsin Department of Justice,
Gesina S. Carson , Wisconsin Department of Justice & Katherine D.
Spitz , Wisconsin Department of Justice.

Edward Wall, Secretary, Wisconsin Department of Corrections,
individually and in his official capacity, Defendant, represented
by Gesina S. Carson, Wisconsin Department of Justice, Katherine D.
Spitz, Wisconsin Department of Justice, Samuel C. Hall, Jr.,
Crivello Carlson, S.C. & Zachary James Flood, CRIVELLO CARLSON,
S.C.



ZION OIL: Oct. 8 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
--------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Zion Oil & Gas, Inc. ("Zion"
or the "Company") (NASDAQ: ZN) and certain of its officers, on
behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired Zion
securities between March 12, 2018, and July 10, 2018, both dates
inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged to
join this case by visiting the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/zn.

This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Complaint alleges that 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' 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
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, informing Zion of the
existence of a non-public, fact-finding inquiry into the Company.
On this news, Zion's stock price fell $0.44, or 11%, to close at
$3.56 on July 12, 2018.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/zn or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his
Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz &
Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in Zion you
have until October 8, 2018 to request that the Court appoint you as
lead plaintiff.  Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't
require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

         Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
         Yael Hurwitz, Esq.
         Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
         Telephone: 212-697-6484
         Email: peretz@bgandg.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 ***