CAR_Public/180903.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, September 3, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 176

                            Headlines

ACE CLEARWATER: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Stanley Suit Alleges
ADVENTIST HEALTH: Morgan Sues over Robocalls
AEROHIVE NETWORKS: Pomerantz LLP Named Lead Counsel
AFLAC INCORPORATED: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Tabiel Suit Says
AKORN INC: Bid to Lift PSLRA Stay in Joshi Living Suit Denied

AKORN INC: Securities Litigation in N.D. Illinois Closed
ALLSTATE CORP: Awaits Final Approval of Settlement in Perez Suit
ALLSTATE CORP: Bid to Dismiss Illinois Suit Denied
ALLSTATE CORP: Still No Trial Date in Jimenez Lawsuit
ALLY FINANCIAL: Scheduling Order Entered in Securities Class Suit

AMERICA FAMILY: Summary Ruling in Consumer Fraud Suit Affirmed
AMERICAN WATER: Accord in Chemical Spill Suit Wins Final Approval
AMERICAN WATER: August 2019 Trial in Water Main Break Suit
ANTONIO SOSA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Boone and Freeman Claim
APOLLO THEATER: Faces Reyes Suit in Southern District of New York

ATKINSON-BAKER INC: Halbert Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
ATLANTA BEVERAGE: Ga. Ct. Conditionally Certifies Workers' Class
AV HOMES: Bid for Class Cert. in Solivita Suit Granted in Part
AV HOMES: Faces Zucker Class Action in Delaware
BANK OF AMERICA: Court Narrows Claims in I. Frausto's Wage Suit

BASF SE: Rhino Linings Alleges Price-Fixing of Isocyanate
BERGEN SHIPPERS: Fails To Pay Proper OT, Rubi Suit Alleges
BONE BIOLOGICS: AFH et al. Challenge Sale to Hankey Capital
BRINK'S INC: Court Modifies Protective Order in D. Ceron's Suit
BROOKLYN EVENTS: Faces Reyes Suit in Eastern District of New York

C.R. ENGLAND: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage, Wallace Says
CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Faces Posner Suit in E.D. New York
CAREER EDUCATION: Pays $3 Million in Surrett Settlement
CARLYLE GROUP: Continues to Defend Suit over Cobalt Shares Sale
CARNEGIE HALL: Faces Reyes Suit in Southern District of New York

CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Continues to Defend Merger-Related Suit
CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Final Approval Hearing Set for September 21
CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Jacobson Class Action Dismissed
CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Oct. 15 Final Approval Hearing in French Case
CF ARCIS: Court Narrows Claims in L. Hart's CPA Suit

CHATHAM LODGING: Ruffy and Doonan Suits Underway in California
CHURCHILL DOWNS: Bid for Rehearing in La. Horsemens' Suit Denied
CHURCHILL DOWNS: Seeks Arbitration in Kater Suit
CIRQUE DU SOLEIL: Court Dismisses TCPA Suit as Untimely
CLOISTERS OF THE VALLEY: Underpays Caregivers, Barajas Suit Says

COCKTAIL BLUE: Faces Castillo Suit in Southern Dist. of New York
COWEN INC: Class Action by Landol Fletcher Underway
CREATURES OF COMFORT: Faces Delacruz Suit in S.D. New York
CREDIT PROTECTION: Phillips Sues over Debt Collection Practices
CREE INC: Court Won't Deny Suit Over LED Bulbs

CV SCIENCES: Awaits Case Scheduling Order in Sallustro Suit
DAVITA INC: Urges Court to Dismiss Peace Officers' Fund Suit
DELTA FLORAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Calderon Suit Alleges
DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Class Suit by B&R Supermarket Underway
EAST WEST: Court Dismisses S. Cohen's False Advertising Suit

ECHELON CORPORATION: Pannucci Balks at Merger Deal with Adesto
ECHELON MUSIC: Breached Contracts for Live Music Events, Natan Says
EDGE THERAPEUTICS: Sanfilippo Securities Class Action Underway
ENERGY HEALTH: Faces Delacruz ADA in Southern District of New York
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Appeal in Anthem ERISA Class Suit Underway

EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Securities Suit
EYESUPPLY USA: Retina Associates Sues over Unsolicited Fax Ads
F & B ASSOCIATES: Faces Castillo Suit in S.D. New York
FCI LENDER: Jimenez Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE: Faces Wazee Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania

FLEX PHARMA: Faces Rumaldo Class Action in New York
FLORIDA: Madera et al. Sue over Voting Rights
FORD MOTOR: Badagliacco Sues over Defective Motor Vehicles
FOREST LABS: 2nd Cir. Appeal Filed in Namenda Decision
FOULGER-PRATT LLC: Underpays Construction Workers, Suit Alleges

FREEDOM MORTGAGE: Court Won't Dismiss J. Somogyi's TCPA Suit
FREEDOM MORTGAGE: Court Won't Dismiss S. Sieleman's TCPA Suit
FUNKO INC: Investor Class Suits Underway in Washington
GENWORTH FINANCIAL:  Accord in Virginia Suit Wins Final Approval
GLOBAL TEL-LINK: Pollard Alleges Monopoly Power over Phone Calls

GOOGIE ENTERPRISES: Faces Gomez ADA Suit in Florida
GULF SOUTHERN: Vasquez Seeks Overtime Premium under FLSA
GYMGUYZ LLC: Faces Delacruz ADA Suit in Southern Dist. of New York
HERBALIFE NUTRITION: Rodgers Suit Underway in Florida
HOLOD'S GARDEN: McCafferety Seeks Minimum Wage under FLSA

HSBC BANK: NCUA Can't Intervene in Royal Park's Suit
HYATT HOTELS: Faces Illinois Antitrust Class Action
INCASE DESIGNS: Faces Martinez ADA Suit in E.D. New York
INSPERITY INC: Continues to Defend 401(k) Plan Class Action
J ALEXANDERS: Elstein Class Action Dismissed With Prejudice

JTH TAX INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Labrado Suit Alleges
JUST BORN: White Appeals W.D. Mo. Ct. Decision to 8th Cir.
K.L.T.S. LLC: Fails to Pay OT to Dispatchers, Streeter Suit Says
KEMET CORP: Made 3 of 5 Installment Payments in Capacitor Suit
KEMET CORP: Pays C$2.2M to Settle Canadian Capacitors' Suit

KEMET CORP: TOKIN & TOKIN America Face Inductors Suit
KEMET CORP: Tokin Pays $4.95M in Lithium Ion Battery Suit
KEMPHARM INC: Iowa Class Action Dismissed
KIMBERLY-CLARK: Rooney Seeks Overtime Compensation under FLSA
KIMPTON HOTEL: Court Denies Prelim Approval of $600K Settlement

KIRNA ZABATE: Faces Delacruz ADA Suit in S.D. New York
KISLING NESTICO: Wins Dismissal of F. Lord's TCPA Suit
KNORR-BREMSE: Shepherd Suit Moved to W.D. Pennsylvania
KNORR-BREMSE: Stewart Suit Moved to Western Dist. of Pennsylvania
KOZENY & MCCUBBIN: Sevela Sues over Debt Collection Practices

KUSH HOTELS: Faces Honeywell Suit in Northern District of Florida
L'OREAL USA: Hubbard FCRA Suit Moved to N.D. California
LAMO SHEEPSKIN: Faces Conner Suit in Southern Dist. of New York
LOWE'S HOME IMPROVEMENT: Palley Sues over Sale of Bathtub Handle
LYCEUM THEATRE: Faces Reyes Suit in Southern District of New York

LYMI INC: Faces Delacruz ADA Suit in Southern District of New York
MACY'S INC: Faces Maroldi Suit in District of New Jersey
MARC FISHER: Faces Conner Suit in Southern District of New York
MASIMO CORP: 11th Cir. Affirms Decision in Alabama Case
MASIMO CORP: Physicians Healthsource's Suit Goes to Trial

MDL 2792: Court Denies Stay Pending JPML Proceedings
METROPOLITAN OPERA: Faces Reyes ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MICHAEL PAGE INTERNATIONAL: Removes Jordan Suit to C.D. California
MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Continues to Defend Steamfitters Local 449 Suit
MORNING CALL: Court Dismisses A. Albers' Wage & Hour Suit

MSG SPORTS: Faces Reyes Suit in Southern District of New York
MUSIC HALL: Faces Reyes Suit in Eastern District of New York
NABOR INDUSTRIES: Bid to Dismiss Texas Class Action Underway
NATIONAL CREDIT: Faces Khaimov Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
NATIONAL GUNITE: Ziembowicz Seeks Overtime Premiums under FLSA

NATURAL HEALTH: Ford Class Action Concluded
NEUROTROPE INC: Time to Appeal Dismissal of New York Suit Expires
NRJM INC: Underpays Delivery Drivers, Rodino Suit Alleges
OCULAR THERAPEUTIX: Bid to Nix Dextenza Suit Underway
OPHTHOTECH CORP: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Class Suit Underway

ORLEANS PARISH, LA: Seeks 5th Cir. Review of Caliste Suit Ruling
PACIFIC COAST: Court Okays Cy Press Award in Welch & Berliner Suit
PERSHING LLC: Wins Summary Judgment in P. Weatherly's Suit
PREMIER NUTRITION: Ransom Sues over Clean Whey Protein Bar
RADIO CITY: Faces Reyes Suit in Southern District of New York

REV GROUP: Bitar Suit Moved to the Eastern District of Wisconsin
REV GROUP: Marinoff Suit Transferred to E.D. Wisconsin
REV GROUP: Rajaram Suit Moved to Eastern District of Wisconsin
ROGA SATELLITE: Fails to Pay Additional Wages, Thomas Watt Says
RSK CONSTRUCTION: Fails to Pay Wages & OT, Romero et al. Say

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: 9th Cir. Appeal Filed in Baird Suit
SHUBERT & BOOTH: Faces Reyes Suit in Southern Dist. of New York
SJW GROUP: Faces Two Merger-Related Suits in Connecticut
SOLID BIOSCIENCES: Awaits Court Order Appointing Lead Plaintiff
SOLID BIOSCIENCES: Bid to Stay IPO-Related Suit Granted

SOLID BIOSCIENCES: Massachusetts Class Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
SOMANI CORPORATION: Faces Honeywell Suit in N.D. Florida
SOUTHSIDE SERVICES: Underpays Carpenters, Ortiz and Espinosa Claim
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Bid for Approval of Notice Program Pending
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Bid for En Banc Rehearing Denied

SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Denial of Markow's Bid for Fees Reversed
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Still Awaits Service of Saskatchewan Claim
SPEEDY CASH: Faces Ascencio Suit in Los Angeles
SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Boeing's Motion for Reargument Denied
SPITZER ENGINEERING: Faces Fischler ADA Suit in E.D. New York

SPRINGFIELD, MA:  Disability Law Appeals Ruling to 1st Cir.
STELLAR LLC: Faces Honeywell Suit in Northern Dist. of Florida
SUNLIGHT MANAGEMENT: Faces Castillo Suit in S.D. New York
SUNLIGHT MANAGEMENT: Faces Reyes ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SUNPOWER CORP: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss California Suit

SYNTEL INC: Tolapu Balks at Merger Deal with Atos
TARGET ENTERPRISE: Carlson Suit Goes to Massachusetts Dist. Court
TEREX CORP: Still Defends Sheet Metal Workers Pension Fund Suit
TL TRANSPORTATION: Court Narrows Claims in T. Hickman's FLSA Suit
TRAVELEX INSURANCE: Faces Anderson Suit over Insurance Plans

TRIANGLE CAPITAL: Awaits Court OK on Bid to Dismiss Suit
TRIANGLE CAPITAL: Preliminary Injunction Bid Denied in "Carlson"
TRUEACCORD CORP: Faces Mercado Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
UNIQUE GUIDANCE: Wesley Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
UNITED STATES: 4th Circuit Appeal Filed in Clarke Class Suit

US FOODS: Court Dismisses S. Frizziola's ERISA Suit
VONAGE HOLDINGS: Still Defends Merkin & Smith Class Action
WASHINGTON GAS: Continues to Defend Silver Spring Incident Suit
WEN BY CHAZ DEAN: Court Won't Revise Bellwether Selection Protocol
WESTERN NEW YORK ARENA: Faces Reyes ADA Suit

WILLIAM A. HECHT: Faces Faust FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
ZWICKER & ASSOCIATES: Faces Carrozza Suit in E.D. New York

                            *********

ACE CLEARWATER: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Stanley Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN STANLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ACE CLEARWATER ENTERPRISES, INC.; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Case No. BC715075 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles
Cty., July 30, 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. Stanley was employed by the Defendants as an hourly-paid,
non-exempt employee from November 2015 to November 2016.

Ace Clearwater Enterprises, Inc. builds formed and welded
assemblies for the aerospace and power generation industries. The
company was founded in 1949 and is based in Torrance, 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


ADVENTIST HEALTH: Morgan Sues over Robocalls
--------------------------------------------
ANGELA MORGAN, individually an on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. ADVENTIST HEALTH SYSTEM/SUNBELT, INC.,
d/b/a FLORIDA HOSPITAL ORLANDO, the Defendant, Case No.
6:18-cv-01342-PGB-DCI (M.D. Fla., Aug. 16, 2018), alleges that
Defendant "robo-called" Plaintiff numerous times in stark violation
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, on June 5, 2018 the Plaintiff received
a telephone call to her cellular telephone number from Florida
Hospital seeking to recover debt from someone other than Plaintiff.
During the June 5, 2018 call, the Plaintiff advised Florida
Hospital that it had wrong number. On June 7, 2018 in order to
confirm that her number would be removed, the Plaintiff called the
number that Florida Hospital's May 2018 voicemails asked her to
call. During the June 7, 2018 telephone call, the Plaintiff advised
Florida Hospital that it had wrong number and requested that
Florida Hospital remove her number from the account in order to
stop calling.

The Defendant is an healthcare provider in Central Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William Billy Peerce Howard, Esq.
          Heather Jones, Esq.
          THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM, PLLC
          4030 Henderson Blvd.
          Tampa, FL 33629
          Telephone: (813) 500 1500
          Facsimile: (813) 435 2369
          E-mail: Billy@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com
                  Heather@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com

               - and -

          Keith J. Keogh, Esq.
          KEOGH LAW, LTD
          55 W. Monroe St., Suite 3390
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 726 1092
          Facsimile: (312) 726 1093
          E-mail: keith@keoghlaw.com


AEROHIVE NETWORKS: Pomerantz LLP Named Lead Counsel
---------------------------------------------------
Judge Lucy H. Koh of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California granted a motion to consolidate three class
action lawsuits against Aerohive Networks, Inc.:

     -- McGovney v. Aerohive Networks, Inc., et al., Case No.
5:18-cv-00435;

     -- Beyerbach v. Aerohive Networks, Inc., et al., Case No.
5:18-cv-0544; and

     -- Panjabi v. Aerohive Networks, Inc., et al., Case No.
5:18-cv-00656.

According to Judge Koh, the Court agrees with the parties that the
three cases involve common questions of law and fact within the
meaning of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a).  The Court will
determine whether to consolidate future-filed actions on a
case-by-case basis.

The Court appointed Andrew Moreau as Lead Plaintiff in the
consolidated action.  The Court held that Mr. Moreau satisfies the
requirements for lead plaintiff pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Section
78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii).  The Court also approved Pomerantz LLP, Mr.
Moreau's proposed counsel, as the lead counsel.

The Court directed the Lead Plaintiff to file the consolidated
complaint by September 28, 2018.  The Defendants must file their
motion to dismiss by October 26, 2018.  The Lead Plaintiff shall
file an opposition by November 28, 2018.  The Defendants shall file
their reply by December 19, 2018.  The hearing on the motion to
dismiss shall be January 31, 2019 at 1:30 p.m.

The Court also set an initial case management conference for
February 13, 2019 at 2:00 p.m. The parties shall file a joint case
management statement by February 6, 2019.

Aerohive Networks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that in January 2018, three
purported class actions were filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California against the Company
and two of its officers.  The actions are McGovney v. Aerohive
Networks, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:18-cv-00435, Beyerbach v.
Aerohive Networks, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:18-cv-0544 and Panjabi
v. Aerohive Networks, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:18-cv-00656.

The complaints allege that the defendants made false and misleading
statements, in particular regarding the Company's financial outlook
for the fourth quarter of 2017. The complaints assert claims for
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC
Rule 10b-5 on behalf of those who purchased the Company's common
stock between November 1, 2017 and January 16, 2018, inclusive. The
complaints seek monetary damages in an unspecified amount.  

On March 20, 2018, three shareholders filed respective motions to
consolidate the three cases and to be appointed lead plaintiff for
a class.  The Company said it anticipates that these cases will be
consolidated and that a court-appointed lead plaintiff will file a
consolidated complaint later this year.

Aerohive Networks, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, designs
and develops cloud networking and enterprise Wi-Fi solutions in the
Americas, Europe, the Middle East and Africa, and the Asia Pacific.
Aerohive Networks, Inc. was incorporated in 2006 and is
headquartered in Milpitas, California.


AFLAC INCORPORATED: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Tabiel Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
OMEED TABIEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AFLAC INCORPORATED; and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. BC715164 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., July
30, 2018) alleges that the Defendants have made unsolicited calls
in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Aflac Incorporated, through its subsidiary, American Family Life
Assurance Company of Columbus, provides voluntary supplemental
health and life insurance products. Aflac Incorporated was founded
in 1955 and is headquartered in Columbus, Georgia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AKORN INC: Bid to Lift PSLRA Stay in Joshi Living Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
Akorn, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2018, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2018, that the Court denied the motion to lift the
PSLRA stay in the case, Joshi Living Trust v. Akorn, Inc. et al.

On May 2, 2017, a purported shareholder of the Company filed a
complaint in a putative class and derivative action in the Circuit
Court of Cook County, Illinois, County Department, Chancery
Division, captioned Robert J. Shannon, Jr. v. Fresenius Kabi AG, et
al., Case No. 2017-CH-06322. The Shannon Action sought, among other
things, to enjoin the transactions contemplated by the merger
agreement or, in the alternative, to recover monetary damages.

On April 30, 2018, the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois,
County Department, Chancery Division granted the voluntary
dismissal without prejudice of the Shannon Action pursuant to the
plaintiff's motion for dismissal.

On March 8, 2018, a purported shareholder of the Company filed a
putative class action complaint entitled Joshi Living Trust v.
Akorn, Inc. et al., in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois alleging violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint
names as defendants the Company, Chief Executive Officer Rajat Rai,
Chief Financial Officer Duane Portwood and Chief Accounting Officer
Randall Pollard.

The complaint alleges that defendants made materially false or
misleading statements and/or material omissions by failing to
disclose sooner the existence of investigations into data integrity
at the Company. The Complaint seeks, among other things, an award
of damages, attorneys' fees and expenses. The Company disputes
these claims.

On May 24, 2018, the Court ordered that the lead plaintiff file an
amended complaint not later than September 5, 2018, that defendants
respond to the amended complaint by November 5, 2018. On May 31,
2018, the Court issued an order appointing Gabelli & Co. Investment
Advisors, Inc. and Gabelli Funds, LLC as lead plaintiffs pursuant
to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA"), and
approving their selection of lead counsel and liaison counsel.

On June 14, 2018, lead plaintiffs filed a motion to lift the PSLRA
stay of discovery. On June 22, 2018, the Company filed a memorandum
in opposition to the motion to lift the PSLRA stay. On June 26,
2018, the Court denied the motion to lift the PSLRA stay, subject
to entry of a preservation order.

Akorn, Inc., a specialty generic pharmaceutical company, develops,
manufactures, and markets generic and branded prescription
pharmaceuticals, over-the-counter (OTC) consumer health products,
and animal health pharmaceuticals in the United States and
internationally. The company was founded in 1971 and is
headquartered in Lake Forest, Illinois.


AKORN INC: Securities Litigation in N.D. Illinois Closed
--------------------------------------------------------
Akorn, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2018, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2018, that the court granted final approval of the
settlement, reduced plaintiffs' counsel's request for attorney
fees, and closed the case.

On March 4, 2015, a purported class action complaint was filed
entitled Yeung v. Akorn, Inc., et al., in the federal district
court of Northern District of Illinois, No. 15-cv-1944.  The
complaint alleged that the Company and three of its officers
violated the federal securities laws in connection with matters
related to its accounting and financial reporting in the wake of
its acquisitions of Hi-Tech Pharmaceutical Co., Inc. and
VersaPharm, Inc.

A second, related case entitled Sarzynski v. Akorn, Inc., et al.,
No. 15-cv-3921, was filed on May 4, 2015 making similar
allegations.

On August 24, 2015, the two cases were consolidated and a lead
plaintiff appointed in In re Akorn, Inc. Securities Litigation. On
July 5, 2016, the lead plaintiff group filed a consolidated amended
complaint making similar allegations against the Company and an
officer and former officer of the Company. The consolidated amended
complaint seeks damages on behalf of the putative class. On August
9, 2016, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case. On
March 6, 2017, the court denied the motion to dismiss and the
defendants subsequently filed an answer to the consolidated amended
complaint on March 27, 2017. On October 3, 2017, the parties
informed the court that they had reached a settlement in principle
of the litigation.

In December 2017, following the court's order preliminarily
approving the class plaintiffs' proposed settlement for $24
million, the Company paid $5.0 million and its insurers paid $19.0
million. The court granted final approval of the settlement,
reduced plaintiffs' counsel's request for attorney fees, and closed
the case on June 5, 2018.

Akorn, Inc., a specialty generic pharmaceutical company, develops,
manufactures, and markets generic and branded prescription
pharmaceuticals, over-the-counter (OTC) consumer health products,
and animal health pharmaceuticals in the United States and
internationally. The company was founded in 1971 and is
headquartered in Lake Forest, Illinois.


ALLSTATE CORP: Awaits Final Approval of Settlement in Perez Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the parties in the case,
Maria Victoria Perez and Kaela Brown, et al. v. Allstate Insurance
Company, are awaiting final court approval of their settlement
agreement.

The case of Maria Victoria Perez and Kaela Brown, et al. v.
Allstate Insurance Company was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York in April 2011. Plaintiffs alleged
that no-fault claim adjusters have been improperly classified as
exempt employees under the New York Labor Law and the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Plaintiffs sought unpaid wages, liquidated damages, injunctive
relief, compensatory and punitive damages, and attorneys' fees.

On September 16, 2014, the court certified a class of no-fault
adjusters under the New York Labor Law and refused to decertify a
Fair Labor Standards Act class of no-fault adjusters.

The parties entered into a settlement agreement in May 2018 which
is pending final approval by the court.

The Allstate Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, engages
in property and casualty insurance, and life insurance businesses
in the United States and Canada. The company was founded in 1931
and is based in Northbrook, Illinois.


ALLSTATE CORP: Bid to Dismiss Illinois Suit Denied
--------------------------------------------------
The Allstate Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the court has denied the
defendants' motion to dismiss in the case entitled, In re The
Allstate Corp. Securities Litigation.

A putative class action filed in November 2016 in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the
Company and several of its officers asserting claims under the
federal securities laws. Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of
damages, costs, attorney's fees, and such other relief as the court
deems appropriate.

Plaintiffs allege that the Company and certain senior officers made
allegedly material misstatements or omissions concerning claim
frequency statistics and the reasons for a claim frequency increase
for Allstate brand auto insurance. Plaintiffs' further allege that
a senior officer engaged in stock option exercises and sales during
that time allegedly while in possession of nonpublic information
about claim frequency.

The Company, its chairman, president and chief executive officer,
and its former president are the named defendants. Defendants
answered the complaint, disputing plaintiffs' allegations that
there was any misstatement or omission or other misconduct, after
the court denied their motion to dismiss on February 27, 2018.

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

The Allstate Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, engages
in property and casualty insurance, and life insurance businesses
in the United States and Canada. The company was founded in 1931
and is based in Northbrook, Illinois.


ALLSTATE CORP: Still No Trial Date in Jimenez Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------
The Allstate Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that no trial date has been
calendared in the case, Jack Jimenez, et al. v. Allstate Insurance
Company.

The case of Jack Jimenez, et al. v. Allstate Insurance Company was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California in September 2010.

Plaintiffs allege off-the-clock wage and hour claims and other
California Labor Code violations resulting from purported unpaid
overtime. Plaintiffs seek recovery of unpaid compensation,
liquidated damages, penalties, and attorneys' fees and costs.

The court certified a class that includes all adjusters in the
state of California, except auto field adjusters, from September
29, 2006 to final judgment. Allstate's appeals to the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals and then to the U.S. Supreme Court did not result
in decertification. No trial date is calendared.

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

The Allstate Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, engages
in property and casualty insurance, and life insurance businesses
in the United States and Canada. The company was founded in 1931
and is based in Northbrook, Illinois.


ALLY FINANCIAL: Scheduling Order Entered in Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ally Financial Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the court has entered a
scheduling order in the case entitled, In re Ally Financial, Inc.
Securities Litigation.

In October 2016, a purported class action captioned as, Bucks
County Employees Retirement Fund v. Ally Financial Inc. et al., was
filed in the Circuit Court for Wayne County in the State of
Michigan (Case No. 16-013616-CZ).  This matter was removed to the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on
November 18, 2016.

The complaint alleges material misstatements and omissions in
connection with Ally's initial public offering in April 2014,
including a failure to adequately disclose the severity of rising
subprime automotive loan delinquency rates, deficient underwriting
measures employed in the origination of subprime automotive loans,
and aggressive tactics used with low-income borrowers. The request
for relief includes an indeterminate amount of damages, fees, and
costs and other remedies.

In January 2017, another purported class action—National Shopmen
Pension Fund v. Ally Financial Inc. et al. was filed in the Circuit
Court for Oakland County in the State of Michigan (Case No.
2017-156719-CB). This matter was removed to the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan on January 30, 2017.

In March 2017, a third purported class action James McIntire v.
Ally Financial Inc. et al.—was filed in the Circuit Court for
Wayne County in the State of Michigan (Case No. 17-003811-CZ). This
matter was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan on March 15, 2017.

The allegations and requested relief in the National Shopmen
Pension Fund and James McIntire complaints are substantially
similar to those included in the complaint filed by Bucks County
Employees Retirement Fund.

All three matters were remanded from the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan to the state circuit courts on May
26, 2017, and have been consolidated for discovery in Wayne County
Circuit Court as In re Ally Financial, Inc. Securities Litigation
(Case No. 16-013616-CB). In November 2017, the plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended complaint. In April 2018, the court entered a
scheduling order setting deadlines for briefing of defendants'
joint motion for summary disposition.

Ally Financial said, "We intend to vigorously defend against each
of these actions."

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

Ally Financial Inc. provides various financial products and
services for consumers, businesses, automotive dealers, and
corporate clients in the United States and Canada. The company
operates Automotive Finance Operations, Insurance Operations,
Mortgage Finance Operations, and Corporate Finance Operations
segments. The company was formerly known as GMAC Inc. and changed
its name to Ally Financial Inc. in May 2010. Ally Financial Inc.
was founded in 1919 and is headquartered in Detroit, Michigan.


AMERICA FAMILY: Summary Ruling in Consumer Fraud Suit Affirmed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, affirmed the
District Court’s judgment granting Defendant's Motion for Summary
Judgment in the case captioned Charles P. Nelson; Darlene F.
Nelson, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company,
Defendant-Appellee, No. 17-2665 (8th Cir.).

The district court granted summary judgment in favor of American
Family.

The Nelsons filed an amended complaint against American Family,
asserting breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, and
violation of Minnesota's consumer fraud statutes. Each of the
claims is based on the notion that the company misrepresented the
replacement cost of the property, which caused the Nelsons to pay
excessive premiums.

Summary judgment is appropriate when there are no genuine issues of
material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law.

Despite the policy language, the Nelsons now claim that the
contract necessarily incorporates a duty created by Minnesota
statutes. The Policy states that if any part of this policy is
contrary to a law of the state in which the described property is
located, American Family agrees to alter that part of the policy
and make it conform with that state law. The Nelsons argue that
these statutes create a contractual obligation to provide accurate
replacement cost estimates.

The Court declines to incorporate a statutory duty into the Policy
where the contractual provisions about replacement cost are
unambiguous and where the relevant insurance statutes do not create
a private right of action.  Because American Family lacked a
contractual obligation to provide the Nelsons with accurate
replacement cost estimates, the Nelsons' breach-of-contract claim
cannot survive summary judgment.

Negligent Misrepresentation

Under Minnesota law, to prevail on their negligent
misrepresentation claim, the Nelsons must establish: (1) a duty of
care owed by the defendant to the plaintiff; (2) the defendant
supplied false information to the plaintiff; (3) justifiable
reliance upon the information by the plaintiff; and (4) failure by
the defendant to exercise reasonable care in communicating the
information.

The Policy expressly states that American Family does not guarantee
its replacement cost estimate will be the actual replacement cost
in the event of a covered loss and that it is up to the
policyholder to select the proper amount of coverage. The Policy
also suggests that the policyholder obtain a detailed replacement
cost appraisal or estimate from a contractor. Under these
circumstances, the Nelsons cannot show justifiable reliance upon
American Family's replacement cost estimates, and summary judgment
was proper on their negligent misrepresentation claim.

Consumer Fraud

The final issue on appeal is whether the district court erred in
granting summary judgment for American Family on the Nelsons' claim
under Minnesota's Consumer Fraud Act (MCFA). The MCFA prohibits the
use of any fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation,
misleading statement or deceptive practice, with the intent that
others rely thereon in connection with the sale of any
merchandise.

American Family's policy notified the Nelsons that replacement cost
value was based on a residential building cost guide. The
unambiguous policy terms provided: (1) the replacement cost
estimate was not guaranteed to be accurate; (2) the policyholders
were responsible for selecting the appropriate amount of coverage;
and (3) the policyholders may consider obtaining their own
replacement cost appraisal or estimate from a contractor. The
protections the Nelsons argue American Family failed to provide a
lower replacement cost estimate and refund for purported
overcharges from 2007 to 2010 are not among the protections for
which the Nelsons bargained by agreeing to the terms of the Gold
Star Policy. The Nelsons can point to no promise,
misrepresentation, or false statement made by American Family, let
alone one that they relied upon, justifiably or unjustifiably, in
deciding to purchase or renew the Policy.  

It is also noteworthy that the Nelsons never presented any evidence
that the replacement estimates for the years 2007 to 2010 were
false. This failure to develop an appropriate record is fatal.

Without any evidence of a misrepresentation or false statement that
the Nelsons relied on, there is insufficient evidence to create a
submissible case that American Family violated the MCFA.
  
Summary judgment was proper on the Nelsons' MCFA claim.

The Court affirms the judgment of the district court.

A full-text copy of the Eighth Circuit's August 2, 2018 Opinion is
available at  https://tinyurl.com/y6v3pgce from Leagle.com.

Richard J. Fuller, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Robert K. Shelquist -- rkshelquist@locklaw.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellant.

Lawrence P. Schaefer -- LSchaefer@ScheaferHalleen.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellant.

Deborah Ann Ellingboe -- debbie.ellingboe@FaegreBD.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

Bert Black -- BBlack@SchaeferHalleen.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellant.

Aaron Daniel Van Oort -- aaron.vanoort@FaegreBD.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

Elizabeth R. Odette -- erodette@locklaw.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellant.

Rebecca A. Peterson -- rapeterson@locklaw.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellant.

Larry E. LaTarte -- larry.latarte@FaegreBD.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.


AMERICAN WATER: Accord in Chemical Spill Suit Wins Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
American Water Works Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1,
2018, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia has
granted final approval of a settlement class and global class
action settlement in the litigation related to the West Virginia
Elk River Freedom Industries Chemical Spill.

On June 8, 2018, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of West Virginia granted final approval of a settlement class and
global class action settlement (the "Settlement") for all claims
and potential claims by all putative class members (collectively,
the "Plaintiffs") arising out of the January 2014 Freedom
Industries, Inc. chemical spill in West Virginia. The effective
date of the Settlement is July 16, 2018.

Under the terms and conditions of the Settlement, West
Virginia-American Water Company ("WVAWC") and certain other Company
affiliated entities (collectively, the "American Water Defendants")
have not admitted, and will not admit, any fault or liability for
any of the allegations made by the Plaintiffs in any of the actions
that were resolved.

Under federal class action rules, claimants had the right, until
December 8, 2017, to elect to opt out of the final Settlement. Less
than 100 of the 225,000 estimated putative class members opted out
from the Settlement, and these claimants will not receive any
benefit from or be bound by the terms of the Settlement.

On June 1, 2018, the Company and its remaining non-participating
general liability insurance carrier settled for a payment to the
Company of $20 million, out of a maximum of $25 million in
potential coverage under the terms of the relevant policy, in
exchange for a full release by the American Water Defendants of all
claims against the insurance carrier related to the Freedom
Industries chemical spill.

As a result, the aggregate pre-tax amount to be contributed by
WVAWC of the $126 million Settlement with respect to the Company,
net of insurance recoveries, is $23 million. As of June 30, 2018,
the settlement amount of $126 million, less advance payments made
by the Company under the terms of the Settlement, is reflected in
Accrued Liabilities, and the offsetting insurance receivables are
reflected in Other Current Assets on the Consolidated Balance
Sheet. On July 17, 2018, the Company funded WVAWC's contributions
to the guaranteed fund portion of the Settlement through existing
sources of liquidity.

American Water Works Company, Inc., through its subsidiaries,
provides water and wastewater services in the United States and
Canada. It offers water and wastewater services to approximately
1,600 communities in 16 states. The company was founded in 1886 and
is based in Voorhees, New Jersey.


AMERICAN WATER: August 2019 Trial in Water Main Break Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
American Water Works Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1,
2018, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the court
in the Dunbar, West Virginia Water Main Break Class Action
Litigation has set a trial date of August 26, 2019.

On the evening of June 23, 2015, a 36-inch pre-stressed concrete
transmission water main, installed in the early 1970s, failed. The
water main is part of West Virginia-American Water Company's
(WVAWC's) West Relay pumping station located in the City of Dunbar.
The failure of the main caused water outages and low pressure to up
to approximately 25,000 WVAWC customers.

In the early morning hours of June 25, 2015, crews completed a
repair, but that same day, the repair developed a leak. On June 26,
2015, a second repair was completed and service was restored that
day to approximately 80% of the impacted customers, and to the
remaining approximately 20% by the next morning. The second repair
showed signs of leaking but the water main was usable until June
29, 2015 to allow tanks to refill.

The system was reconfigured to maintain service to all but
approximately 3,000 customers while a final repair was completed
safely on June 30, 2015. Water service was fully restored by July
1, 2015 to all customers affected by this event.

On June 2, 2017, a class action complaint was filed in West
Virginia Circuit Court in Kanawha County against WVAWC on behalf of
a purported class of residents and business owners who lost water
service or pressure as a result of the Dunbar main break. The
complaint alleges breach of contract by WVAWC for failure to supply
water, violation of West Virginia law regarding the sufficiency of
WVAWC's facilities and negligence by WVAWC in the design,
maintenance and operation of the water system.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified alleged damages on behalf of the
class for lost profits, annoyance and inconvenience, and loss of
use, as well as punitive damages for willful, reckless and wanton
behavior in not addressing the risk of pipe failure and a large
outage.

On October 12, 2017, WVAWC filed with the court a motion seeking to
dismiss all of the plaintiffs' counts alleging statutory and common
law tort claims. Furthermore, WVAWC asserted that the PSC, and not
the court, has primary jurisdiction over allegations involving
violations of the applicable tariff, the public utility code and
related rules.

On May 30, 2018, the court, at a hearing, denied WVAWC's motion to
apply the primary jurisdiction doctrine. The court will issue a
written order on the motion to dismiss, and has set a trial date of
August 26, 2019.

The Company and WVAWC believe that WVAWC has valid, meritorious
defenses to the claims raised in this class action complaint. WVAWC
is vigorously defending itself against these allegations.

American Water Works said "Given the current stage of this
proceeding, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the amount of
any reasonably possible losses or a range of such losses related to
this proceeding."

American Water Works Company, Inc., through its subsidiaries,
provides water and wastewater services in the United States and
Canada. It offers water and wastewater services to approximately
1,600 communities in 16 states. The company was founded in 1886 and
is based in Voorhees, New Jersey.


ANTONIO SOSA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Boone and Freeman Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER BOONE, and SHAWNEE FREEMAN, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ANTONIO SOSA d/b/a PEG
LEG RESTAURANT, Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-00499-SWW (E.D. Ark.,
July 31, 2018) is an action against the Defendant for failure to
pay minimum wage under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as servers. The
Plaintiffs were both employed from April 2018 to July 2018.

Antonio Sosa d/b/a Peg Leg Restaurant is engaged in the restaurant
business. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel Ford, Esq.
          Chris Burks, Esq.
          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          650 S. Shackleford Suite 411
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Telephone: (501) 221-0088
          Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
          E-mail: daniel@sanfordlawfirm.com
                  chris@sanfordlawfirm.com
                  josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


APOLLO THEATER: Faces Reyes Suit in Southern District of New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Apollo Theater
Foundation, Inc. The lawsuit is styled as Jose Reyes, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. The
Apollo Theater Foundation, Inc. doing business as: The Apollo
Theater, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-07484 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 16,
2018). The suit alleges Americans with Disabilities Act violation.

The Apollo Theater is a music hall located at 253 West 125th Street
between Adam Clayton Powell Jr. Boulevard and Frederick Douglass
Boulevard in the Harlem neighborhood of Manhattan, New York
City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 465 1188
          Facsimile: (212) 465 1181
          E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com


ATKINSON-BAKER INC: Halbert Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
ALICE HALBERT, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. ATKINSON-BAKER, INC., a California
Corporation, and DOES 1 through 100, Case No. RG18917629 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., August 21, 2018), seeks to recover
alleged unpaid wages and penalties under the California Business
and Professions Code, the Labor Code and the Industrial Welfare
Commission Wage Order No. 4.

Atkinson-Baker, Inc., is a California Corporation.  The Plaintiff
does not know the true names or capacities of the Doe Defendants.

The Defendants provide court reporting services for legal
proceedings, and employed the Plaintiff and other
similarly-situated non-exempt employees within Alameda County and
the state of California.  The Defendants provide court reporting
services for depositions, arbitrations, trials, and other legal
proceedings.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul K. Haines, Esq.
          Tuvia Korobkin, Esq.
          Stacey M. Shim, Esq.
          Jamin Xu, 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
                  tkorobkin@haineslawgroup.com
                  sshim@haineslawgroup.com
                  jxu@haineslawgroup.com


ATLANTA BEVERAGE: Ga. Ct. Conditionally Certifies Workers' Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia, Atlanta Division, granted Plaintiffs' Motion for
Conditional Certification in the case captioned KEITH MASON on
behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
ATLANTA BEVERAGE COMPANY, Defendant, Civil Action No.
1:17-CV-2293-TWT (N.D. Ga.).

The Plaintiff alleges, on behalf of himself and other similarly
situated individuals, that he was denied overtime compensation for
time worked in excess of forty hours in a workweek, in violation of
the FLSA. According to the Plaintiff, he and other merchandisers
were paid a salary without any overtime payment, no matter how many
hours they worked.

Courts typically employ a two-step process to determine whether
employees are similarly situated so that collective action is
proper. The first step is the notice or conditional certification
stage. At this stage, the Court may grant conditional certification
if a plaintiff demonstrates a reasonable basis to believe that: (1)
there are other employees of the Defendant who desire to opt-in and
(2) that these other employees are similarly situated' with respect
to their job requirements and with regard to their pay provisions.

Here, the Defendant urges the Court to employ a more stringent
standard. According to the Defendant, the lenient standard
articulated in Hipp does not apply in this case since the parties
have engaged in four months of discovery.

The discovery period was open for four months before the Plaintiff
filed this Motion for Conditional Class Certification. The Court
therefore concludes that a heightened standard of scrutiny is
necessary.

The Putative Class Members are Similarly Situated

The Eleventh Circuit has explained that opt-in plaintiffs need show
only that their positions are similar, not identical, to the
positions held by the putative class members.'

Here, the Plaintiff has sufficiently made this showing, even when
applying a more rigorous standard. The Plaintiff proposes a
relatively narrow class. The Plaintiff seeks to represent a class
of similarly situated beverage merchandisers and stockers employed
by the Defendant from June 19, 2014 to the present. According to
the Defendant, it only employs about 30 merchandisers total.This
undoubtedly would be a small class. The declarations provided by
the Plaintiff demonstrate that there are other merchandisers and
stockers who performed the same job duties and were also paid a
salary or flat rate. Even when more carefully considering the
evidence offered by the parties, the Court finds that the Plaintiff
has offered sufficient evidence that the putative class members are
similarly situated.

The Defendant argues that the Plaintiff has not established the
existence of similar pay provisions among the putative class.
According to the Defendant, it paid its merchandisers in a number
of different ways, depending upon their dates of employment, job
duties, and locations.

The Defendant also contends that even if some merchandisers and
stockers were paid a salary or flat rate, they were also paid an
hourly wage at certain points. Thus, according to the Defendant,
there was no uniform policy of paying merchandisers a salary rate.

The Defendant then argues that the Plaintiff has failed to show
that he is similarly situated to merchandisers at other facilities.
The Defendant maintains three facilities: one in Atlanta, one in
Marietta, and one in Griffin. The Plaintiff worked out of the
Atlanta facility.

While it is true that the Plaintiff has offered no evidence as to
the pay policies at the Griffin location, he has offered the
declaration of Justin Calamia, who worked at both the Atlanta and
Marietta facilities. In his declaration, Calamia states that he
worked at both of these facilities, and that at all times he was
paid a weekly salary. Calamia contends that the Defendant refused
to pay him overtime compensation for time worked in excess of forty
hours in a workweek. Calamia also states that he has personal
knowledge, based on interactions with his co-workers, that other
merchandisers and stockers that worked at these locations were paid
in the same fashion. The Court concludes that this evidence is
sufficient at this stage of the litigation to show that the
Defendant employed a similar policy of paying merchandisers and
stockers a flat rate at both its Atlanta and Marietta locations.

Therefore, the Plaintiff has satisfied his burden in showing that
the putative class is similarly situated.

Desire to Opt-In

The Plaintiff must demonstrate that there are other potential class
members who desire to opt-in to this litigation. The Plaintiff has
the burden of demonstrating a reasonable basis for his assertion
that similarly situated individuals exist and desire to join this
lawsuit. The lawsuit, or expert evidence on the existence of
similarly-situated employees.

The Defendant contends that the Plaintiff has not produced
sufficient evidence that such potential class members exist.

In this case, in addition to the named Plaintiff Keith Mason, two
other individuals have submitted consent forms opting-in to this
litigation. Charles Cason Campbell and Justin Calamia, who were
both employed by the Defendant as merchandisers/stockers, have
consented to joining this litigation by signing Notice of Consent
forms. Furthermore, the Plaintiff has provided declarations by
these two merchandisers/stockers, describing the type of work they
performed for the Defendant and the manner in which the Defendant
compensated them. They, along with the Plaintiff, also state in
their declarations that a number of other employees who performed
the same job duties were paid in a similar fashion.

Though there is no evidence as of yet as to the exact size of the
putative class, it cannot be a relatively large one, as the
Defendant only operates in the metro Atlanta area and only employs
approximately 30 merchandisers total. Based upon this, the Court is
satisfied at this point that the presence of the three plaintiffs
sufficiently demonstrates an interest by other employees to opt-in
to the suit.

The Defendant objects to the Plaintiff's proposed notice on a
number of grounds. Rather than parse through and resolve each of
these individual objections, the Court directs the parties to
confer in good faith in an effort to submit a joint proposed opt-in
notice for Court approval. The Court also orders the Defendant to
provide the Plaintiff with a list of the names, addresses, and
phone numbers for the putative class members.

Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Class Certification is GRANTED.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 2, 2018 Opinion and
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ydz2qdap from
Leagle.com.

Keith Mason, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, represented by Katie McGregor , Bailey Peavy Bailey
PLLC, Michael A. Mills , Michael A. Mills, P.C. & Robert Wayne
Cowan , Bailey Peavy Bailey Cowan Heckman, PLLC.

Atlanta Beverage Company, Defendant, represented by Matthew Rudolph
Simpson -- msimpson@fisherphillips.com -- Fisher & Phillips LLP &
Michelli Rivera -- mrivera@fisherphillips.com -- Fisher & Phillips
LLP.


AV HOMES: Bid for Class Cert. in Solivita Suit Granted in Part
--------------------------------------------------------------
AV Homes, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the court has ruled on
plaintiffs' amended motion for class certification, granting class
certification as to three counts and partially as to a fourth
count, and denying class certification as to the remaining eight
counts of plaintiffs' amended complaint.

On April 26, 2017, the company received notice of a Class Action
Complaint filed in the Circuit Court for the 10th Judicial Circuit,
Polk County, Florida, generally alleging that the collection of
club membership fees in connection with the use and enjoyment of
the club facilities located within the Solivita community is
illegal in that it violates, among other laws, Florida's
Homeowners' Association Act ("FLHOA") and Florida's Deceptive and
Unfair Trade Practices Act ("FDUTPA").

It also generally alleges that certain other actions by the company
has violated FLHOA and FDUTPA. The complaint seeks relief in
various forms including recovery for the prior payment of club
membership fees and an injunction to prohibit the future collection
of club membership fees.

On June 9, 2017, the company filed an amended motion to dismiss the
matter, which was heard on June 13, 2017.  On August 8, 2017, the
judge issued an order denying in part and granting in part the
motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs were provided leave to amend the
FDUTPA claims and filed an amended complaint on September 15,
2017.

The company filed its amended answer on September 29, 2017 along
with certain affirmative defenses. The amended answer also contains
counterclaims against the plaintiffs for breach of contract and
tortious interference with contractual relations, among other
claims. On October 5, 2017, the company also filed a motion for
summary judgment, which was heard on December 8, 2017.

On January 23, 2018, the court ruled, granting the company's motion
for summary judgment in part and denying it in part. Importantly,
the court ruled that the company's club operations in Solivita
constitute commercial property under the FLHOA, that the club
facilities are not common areas of the homeowners' association and
that nothing in the FLHOA prevents a developer from owning club
operations for profit, as is the case in this instance.

On April 6, 2018, the court heard arguments relative to the
plaintiffs' amended motion for class certification pursuant to
which the plaintiffs sought to certify a class of "persons who
currently own, or previously owned, a home in Solivita, who have
paid, or have been obligated to pay, a Club Membership Fee under
the Club Plan Declaration on or after April 26, 2013."

On June 29, 2018, the court ruled on plaintiffs' amended motion for
class certification, granting class certification as to three
counts and partially as to a fourth count and denying class
certification as to the remaining eight counts of plaintiffs'
amended complaint, but not otherwise making any dispositive rulings
as to the merits of the plaintiffs' counts.

In the ruling, the court also redefined and limited the class being
certified to include only those persons who currently own a home in
Solivita and who have paid a Club Membership Fee under the Club
Plan on or after April 26, 2013.

AV Homes, Inc. engages in the homebuilding and community
development businesses in Florida, the Carolinas, Arizona, and
Texas markets. The company is involved in the acquisition,
development, and building of active adult communities, which are
age-restricted to the age 55 and over active adult demographic; and
primary residential home communities under local Savvy Homes,
Bonterra Builders, Royal Oak Homes, and Oakdale-Hampton brands for
first-time and move-up buyers. AV Homes, Inc. was founded in 1970
and is headquartered in Scottsdale, Arizona.


AV HOMES: Faces Zucker Class Action in Delaware
-----------------------------------------------
AV Homes, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the company is facing a
putative stockholder class action suit entitled, Lawrence Zucker v.
AV Homes, Inc. et al.

On July 24, 2018, a putative stockholder class action lawsuit
captioned Lawrence Zucker v. AV Homes, Inc. et al., Case
1:18-cv-01091, was filed in the United States District Court for
the District of Delaware against AV Homes, the members of the AV
Homes Board and Taylor Morrison pursuant to Sections 14(a) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the disclosures set
forth in the preliminary proxy statement/prospectus filed in
connection with the Merger on July 13, 2018 are insufficient and
allegedly fail to disclose material information about the
combination.

The complaint seeks, among other remedies, injunctive relief
prohibiting the stockholder vote contemplated by the Merger
Agreement, an accounting of damages sustained by the stockholders
comprising the purported class and an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses.

AV Homes said, "We believe that the action is without merit."

AV Homes, Inc. engages in the homebuilding and community
development businesses in Florida, the Carolinas, Arizona, and
Texas markets. The company is involved in the acquisition,
development, and building of active adult communities, which are
age-restricted to the age 55 and over active adult demographic; and
primary residential home communities under local Savvy Homes,
Bonterra Builders, Royal Oak Homes, and Oakdale-Hampton brands for
first-time and move-up buyers. AV Homes, Inc. was founded in 1970
and is headquartered in Scottsdale, Arizona.


BANK OF AMERICA: Court Narrows Claims in I. Frausto's Wage Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California granted in part and denied in part Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss the case captioned IRMA FRAUSTO, Plaintiff, v. BANK OF
AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-01983-MEJ
(N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff Irma Frausto alleges various putative wage and hour class
action claims against her former employer, Bank of America, N.A.
She alleges that throughout her employment, Bank of America failed
to pay the correct amount of overtime wages, failed to provide meal
periods, failed to pay meal period premium wages, failed to provide
rest periods, failed to timely pay all final wages when it
terminated her employment, and failed to furnish accurate wage
statements.

Failure to Pay Overtime Wages

Ms. Frausto's first cause of action is for failure to pay overtime
wages pursuant to California Labor Code section 510. Section 510(a)
requires employers to pay non-exempt employees no less than one and
one-half times the regular rate of pay for an employee for any work
in excess of 40 hours in any one workweek.

Here, Ms. Frausto alleges she earned non-discretionary bonuses,
such as bonuses based on customer service surveys and that Bank of
America failed to include these non-discretionary bonuses for
calculating the regular rate of pay for overtime purposes. Ms.
Frausto further alleges she earned non-discretionary bonuses based
on customer service surveys in the amount of $191.32 in 2016 and
$239.14 in 2017, and that despite working at least 52.62 overtime
hours in 2016 and at least 64.77 overtime hours in 2017, Bank of
America failed to include these bonuses when paying her for
overtime. Instead, Bank of America only paid her overtime based on
her straight time hourly rate.

Frausto alleges that what happened to her was a result of Bank of
America's policy and practice of failing to include all applicable
remuneration in calculating the regular rate of pay when paying
overtime to its employees. These allegations are sufficient to
survive a motion to dismiss. Ms. Frausto's factual allegations
plausibly support the inference that Bank of America failed to pay
her overtime when it was owed on at least one occasion. That is
enough under Landers. Daugherty, 2017 WL 386253, at *5.

The Court denies Bank of America's motion to dismiss Ms. Frausto's
claim for failure to pay overtime wages.

Failure to Provide Meal Periods

Ms. Frausto's second cause of action is for failure to provide meal
periods pursuant to California Labor Code section 512. Section 512
requires employers to provide non-exempt employees with an
uninterrupted meal period of at least thirty minutes for each work
period of five hours and two meal periods for each period of ten
hours. For each workday on which an employer fails to provide such
meal periods, California Labor Code section 226.7 requires the
employer to pay the employee one additional hour of pay at the
employee's regular rate of compensation for each workday that the
meal or rest or recovery period is not provided.

Bank of America argues Ms. Frausto's allegations must be dismissed
because she fails to plausibly suggest she and potential class
members were actually prevented from taking meal breaks or that
they did not actually take meal breaks, nor does she plausibly
suggest that any meal period waiver forms were signed
involuntarily.

Ms. Frausto alleges that Bank of America's policies and practices
impeded her and class members from taking legally mandated meal and
rest periods, and that it failed to adequately compensate its
employees for these missed meal and rest periods. Specifically, Ms.
Frausto alleges that Manny Golf, a Bank of America Manager in North
Carolina, sent an e-mail to Plaintiff and certain class members
stating that employees need to forego their breaks in order to deal
with customers on calls. Ms. Frausto also alleges Bank of America
failed to pay her any meal period premium wages at all before 2017,
even though it failed to provide her with legally compliant meal
periods at least once or twice per month.

Similarly, Ms. Frausto alleges Bank of America failed to pay her
any rest period premium wages at all during her employment, even
though it required her to work and forego a rest period at least
once or twice a month.  

The Court finds these allegations sufficient.

The Court denies Bank of America's motion to dismiss Ms. Frausto's
claim for failure to provide meal periods. However, the Court
grants Bank of America's motion to the extent Ms. Frausto seeks
payment above her regular rate of compensation without leave to
amend.

Failure to Provide Rest Periods

Ms. Frausto's third cause of action is for failure to provide rest
periods pursuant California Labor Code section 226.7. Bank of
America argues her claim must be dismissed for the same reason as
her meal period claim, namely that she fails to identify a specific
week in which she was entitled to but not authorized to take a
legally-complaint rest break and that she does not identify any
common policy, practice, or procedure that applied to the potential
class members in a uniform or systemic manner to deprive them of
breaks.  

The Court denies Bank of America's motion to dismiss Ms. Frausto's
claim for failure to provide rest periods. However, the Court
grants Bank of America's motion to the extent Ms. Frausto seeks
payment above her regular rate of compensation without leave to
amend.

Failure to Pay Waiting Time Penalties

Ms. Frausto's fourth cause of action seeks penalties under
California Labor Code section 203 for alleged violations of
sections 201 and 202. Under section 201, if an employer discharges
an employee, the wages earned and unpaid at the time of discharge
are due and payable immediately.

Bank of America  argues Ms. Frausto's section 203 claim fails to
the extent it relies on a failure to make section 226.7 meal and
rest period payments at termination because section 226.7 payments
do not constitute wages earned under California Labor Code section
201. Two California Supreme Court cases have addressed this issue
in other contexts. In Murphy, the California Supreme Court held
that meal and rest premiums sought under section 226.7 are wages
for statute of limitations purposes. 40 Cal. 4th at 1113.

There, the appellant argued payments ordered for meal and rest
period violations were penalties and therefore subject to the
statute of limitations related to penalties. The Court disagreed,
holding the payments were wages and fell under the statute of
limitations for statutory liabilities other than penalties,
including related to wages. The Court noted that payments for meal
and rest period violations had a behavior-shaping purpose, but were
first and foremost meant to compensate employees for their
injuries.

The Court concluded that payments for meal and rest period
violations were wages, rather than penalties, and therefore fell
under the statute of limitations related to wages.

The Court denies Bank of America's motion as to Ms. Frausto's
fourth claim for failure to pay waiting time penalties.

Failure to Provide and Maintain Accurate and Compliant Wage
Records

In her fifth cause of action, Ms. Frausto alleges Bank of America
failed to provide accurate wage statements. California Labor Code
section 226(a) requires an accurate itemized statement in writing"
showing nine specific items. An employee who suffers an injury as a
result of a knowing and intentional failure by an employer to
comply with subdivision (a) is entitled to recover damages.  

To establish liability under section 226(e), an employee must
demonstrate: (1) a failure to include in the wage statement one or
more of the required items from Section 226(a); (2) that failure
was `knowing and intentional and (3) a resulting injury.

Bank of America first argues Ms. Frausto fails to allege any facts
to plausibly suggest it provided inaccurate wage statements or that
it did so knowingly and intentionally. Bank of America contends Ms.
Frausto simply alleges in conclusory fashion that it has
intentionally and willfully failed to provide employees with
complete and accurate wage statements. And, even assuming Ms.
Frausto properly alleged a knowing and intentional failure, Bank of
America argues she still fails to properly allege that she suffered
injury as a result of any such violation.  

Here, Ms. Frausto pleads that she and the class have been injured
as they were unable to determine whether they had been paid
correctly for all hours worked per pay period. This is a sufficient
allegation of an injury.

The Court denies Bank of America's motion as to Ms. Frausto's fifth
claim for failure to provide accurate wage statements.

UCL Claim

Bank of America argues, and Ms. Frausto agrees, that her sixth
claim for violation of the UCL is derivative of her underlying
claims that Bank of America failed to pay her and class members
overtime pay and meal and rest break premiums.

Bank of America also argues Ms. Frausto's claim for injunctive
relief should be dismissed because she lacks standing to seek such
relief as a former employee. It is undisputed that Ms. Frausto is
no longer employed by Bank of America. The Ninth Circuit has held
that a former employee currently seeking to be reinstated or
rehired may have standing to seek injunctive relief against a
former employer. But a former employee has no claim for injunctive
relief addressing the employment practices of a former employer
absent a reasonably certain basis for concluding he or she has some
personal need for prospective relief. Ms. Frausto does not allege
she may seek future employment with Bank of America and therefore
lacks Article III standing to seek injunctive relief because she
cannot demonstrate a credible threat of future injury.

The Court denies Bank of America's motion as to Ms. Frausto's sixth
claim for unfair competition. However, the Court grants the motion
as to Ms. Frausto's request for injunctive relief.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 2, 2018 is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ycmexawh from Leagle.com.

Irma Frausto, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Justin F. Marquez --
justin.marquez@moonyanglaw.com -- Moon & Yang, APC, Allen Victor
Feghali -- allen.feghali@moonyanglaw.com -- Moon and Yang, APC &
Kane Moon -- kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com -- Moon and Yang, APC.

Bank of America, National Association, a business entity, form
unknown, Defendant, represented by Sylvia Jihae Kim --
skim@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuire Woods LLP & Michael David Mandel
-- mmandel@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP.


BASF SE: Rhino Linings Alleges Price-Fixing of Isocyanate
---------------------------------------------------------
RHINO LININGS CORPORATION, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. BASF SE; BASF CORP.; BAYER
AG; BAYER CORP., COVESTRO AG; COVESTRO LLC; DOWDUPONT INC.; DOW
CHEMICAL CO.; HUNTSMAN CORP.; HUNTSMAN INTERNATIONAL LLC; MCNS
POLYURETHANES USA INC.; MITSUI CHEMICALS, INC.; MITSUI CHEMICALS
AMERICA, INC.; MITSUI CHEMICALS & SKC POLYURETHANES, INC.; WANHUA
CHEMICAL GROUP CO., LTD.; WANHUA CHEMICAL (AMERICA) CO. LTD.;
WANHUA CHEMICAL US HOLDING, INC., the Defendants Case No.
2:18-cv-12864 (D.N.J., Aug. 16, 2018), alleges that Defendants
involved in a long-standing conspiracy fixing price of methylene
diphenyl diisocyanate (MDI) and toluene diisocyanate (TDI).

Isocyanates are chemicals primarily used in the production of
polyurethane products.

According to the complaint, the Defendants are recidivist antitrust
violators, who have been the subject of previous criminal and civil
cases, including unlawfully conspiring to fix the prices of
polyurethanes in the late 1990's and early 2000s. For many years,
beginning as early as 2015 and continuing until at least February
2018, Defendants agreed among themselves to fix the prices of
Isocyanates, including by limiting supply through planned
manufacturing plant shutdowns. Defendants' conspiracy is currently
the subject of an investigation by the United States Department of
Justice. Defendants' conspiracy unlawfully inflated the price of
Isocyanates, causing harm to Plaintiff and Class Members

The Plaintiff brings this action for injunctive relief and to
recover treble damages, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and
court costs, for violations of Sections 1 and 3 of the Sherman
Act of 1890, and pursuant to Sections 4 and 16 of the Clayton Act
of 1914.

BASF SE is a German chemical company and the largest chemical
producer in the world.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Jason L. Lichtman, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10013-1413
          Telephone: (212) 355 9500
          Facsimile: (212) 355 9592
          E-mail: jlichtman@lchb.com

               - and -

          Jason S. Hartley, Esq.
          Jason M. Lindner, Esq.
          HARTLEY LLP
          550 West C Street, Suite 1750
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 400 5822
          Facsimile: (619) 400 5832
          E-mail: hartley@hartleyllp.com
                  lindner@hartleyllp.com

               - and -

          Daniel J. Mogin, Esq.
          Jonathan Rubin, Esq.
          MOGINRUBIN LLP
          One America Plaza
          600 West Broadway, Suite 3300
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 687 6611
          E-mail: dmogin@moginrubin.com
                  jrubin@moginrubin.com


BERGEN SHIPPERS: Fails To Pay Proper OT, Rubi Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
LAURA RUBI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BERGEN SHIPPERS CORP. d/b/a BERGEN
LOGISTICS; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
BC715077 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., July 30, 2018) is an
action against the Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime
hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods.

Ms. Rubi was employed by the Defendants as an hourly-paid,
non-exempt employee from November 2013 to June 2018.

Bergen Shippers Corp. d/b/a Bergen Logistics provides order
fulfillment, retail distribution, warehousing and pick & pack
services in fashion, footwear, handbags, accessories, cosmetics,
home goods and supplements. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zachary Cantor, Esq.
          CANTOR LAW
          1112 Montana Avenue, Suite C
          Santa Monica, CA 90403
          Telephone: (310) 393-6620
          Facsimile: (310) 393-6680

               - and -

          Rodney Mesriani, Esq.
          MESRIANI LAW GROUP
          5723 Melrose Avenue, Suite 202
          Los Angeles, CA 90038
          Telephone: (310) 826-6300
          Facsimile: (310) 820-1258


BONE BIOLOGICS: AFH et al. Challenge Sale to Hankey Capital
-----------------------------------------------------------
AFH HOLDING & ADVISORY, LLC; AMIR HESHMATPOUR; STEVE RICHARDS; and
DR. BESSIE (CHIA) SOO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BRUCE STROEVER; JOHN BOOTH;
STEPHEN LANEVE; BRET HANKEY; JAMES DELSHAD; THE MUSCULOSKELETAL
TRANSPLANT FOUNDATION, INC.; and BONE BIOLOGICS CORPORATION,
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-11612 (D. Mass., July 31, 2018)
alleges that the sale of the control of Bone Biologics to Hankey
Capital LLC violates the Securities Exchange Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant Musculoskeletal
Transplant, the owner of 34.5% of Bone Biologics, arranged a sale
of control of Bone Biologics to minority interest holder, Hankey
Capital, at an unfair price and following an unfair process that
severely diluted the interest of the minority interest holders,
including the Plaintiffs.

As a result of the combination of a securities purchase by Hankey
Capital, the re-pricing of its prior convertible notes, and a 1 for
10 reverse stock split, Hankey Capital and its principal and
affiliate Don Hankey increased their ownership from 21% to over 58%
effecting a change in control of Bone Biologics.

On July 19, 2018, three days after the Transaction was set to
close, Bone Biologics filed a Form 8-K stating that effective July
16, 2018, the closing date for the Transaction, Bone Biologics and
Hankey Capital had entered into an Amendment to the Purchase
Agreement materially changing the terms of the stock purchase
portion of the Transaction. Bone Biologics failed to make a prior
disclosure of the material changes to the terms of the stock
purchase portion of the Transaction and thus the disclosure to
shareholders in the Rights Offering was incomplete.

Musculoskeletal Transplant Foundation, a non-profit tissue bank,
provides grafts for transplantations. It offers bone and soft
tissue grafts in the United States. Musculoskeletal Transplant
Foundation was founded in 1987 and is based in Edison, New Jersey.
The company has facilities in Pennsylvania, California, Minnesota,
and Germany, as well as recovery sites in Wisconsin, California,
Illinois, and New York. As of May 17, 2010, Musculoskeletal
Transplant operates as a subsidiary of California Transplant Donor
Network. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rosanne Elena Felicello, Esq.
          CKR LAW LLP
          1330 Avenue of the Americas, 14th Floor
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 259-7300


BRINK'S INC: Court Modifies Protective Order in D. Ceron's Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California entered a Modified Version of Stipulated Protective
Order in the case captioned DORIAN CERON, as an individual, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BRINK'S
INCORPORATED, a Delaware Corporation; BRINK'S GLOBAL SERVICES USA,
INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, Defendants,
Case No. CV 15-1129 JFW (JCx)(C.D. Cal.).

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 2, 2018 Order is
available at  https://tinyurl.com/ycefntom from Leagle.com.

Dorian Ceron, as an individual, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Fletcher W.H. Schmidt
-- fschmidt@haineslawgroup.com -- Haines Law Group APC, Paul Keith
Haines -- phaines@haineslawgroup.com -- Haines Law Group APC, Sean
M. Blakely -- sblakely@haineslawgroup.com -- Haines Law Group APC,
Min Ha Shim -- sshim@haineslawgroup.com -- Haines Law Group & Tuvia
Korobkin -- tkorobkin@haineslawgroup.com -- Haines Law Group APC.

Brinks Incorporated, a Delaware Corporation & Brinks Global
Services USA, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Defendants, represented
by Spencer C. Skeen -- spencer.skeen@ogletreedeakins.com --
Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak and Stewart PC, Clint S. Engleson --
clint.engleson@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak
and Stewart PC & Timothy L. Johnson, Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak
and Stewart PC.


BROOKLYN EVENTS: Faces Reyes Suit in Eastern District of New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Brooklyn Events
Center, LLC. The lawsuit is captioned as Jose Reyes on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Brooklyn Events Center, LLC doing business as: The Barclays Center,
the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-04636-NGG-ST (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 16,
2018). The suit alleges Americans with Disabilities Act violation.
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis.

Brooklyn Events Center LLC constructs, manages, and operates real
estate building. The company is based in New York. Brooklyn Events
Center LLC operates as a subsidiary of Brooklyn Arena Holding
Company LLC.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          30 East 39th Street, 2nd floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 465 1188
          Facsimile: (212) 465 1181
          E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com



C.R. ENGLAND: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage, Wallace Says
-----------------------------------------------------
CRAIG WALLACE, an individual, MARY MCNUTT, an individual, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
C.R. ENGLAND, INC.; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the
Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-01204 (W.D. Wash., Aug. 16, 2018),
alleges that Defendants failed to pay rest breaks, minimum wage for
non-driving time, and other labor violations, pursuant to the
Washington Administrative Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants paid Plaintiffs and
class members on a per mile driven basis. Defendant's pay plan
failed to compensate Plaintiffs and other drivers rest breaks or
minimum wage for non driving activities.

C.R. England is an American family-owned trucking company founded
in 1920. The company provides temperature-controlled transportation
services throughout North America.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua H. Haffner, Esq.
          HAFFNER LAW PC
          445 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2325
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 514 5681
          Facsimile: (213) 514 5682
          E-mail: jhh@haffnerlawyers.com


CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Faces Posner Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Capital Management
Services, L.P. The lawsuit is captioned as Chana Posner, on behalf
of herself and all other similarly situated consumers, the
Plaintiff, v. Capital Management Services, L.P., the Defendant,
Case No. 1:18-cv-04649 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 16, 2018). The suit alleges
Fair Debt Collection Act violation.

Capital Management Services L.P., a collections agency, provides
delinquent receivables resolutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


CAREER EDUCATION: Pays $3 Million in Surrett Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------
Career Education Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2018, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the company has
initially paid $3.0 million in relation to its settlement agreement
in the case, Surrett, et al. v. Western Culinary Institute, Ltd.
and Career Education Corporation.

On March 5, 2008, a complaint was filed in Portland, Oregon in the
Circuit Court of the State of Oregon in and for Multnomah County
naming Western Culinary Institute, Ltd. ("WCI") and the Company as
defendants. Plaintiffs filed the complaint individually and as a
putative class action and alleged two claims for equitable relief:
violation of Oregon's Unlawful Trade Practices Act ("UTPA") and
unjust enrichment.

Plaintiffs alleged WCI made a variety of misrepresentations to
them, relating generally to WCI's placement statistics, students'
employment prospects upon graduation from WCI, the value and
quality of an education at WCI, and the amount of tuition students
could expect to pay as compared to salaries they could expect to
earn after graduation.

The Company entered into a settlement agreement as of February 2,
2018 pursuant to which the Company will make a payment to
settlement class members who completed, signed and returned a claim
form within 90 days of mailing of the claim form. The amount of the
payment to each settlement class member returning a form will be
44% of the total charged to that person by WCI for tuition, books
and fees, less institutional grants and scholarships received by
the person, amounts charged by WCI but not paid by the person and
refunds applied as a result of withdrawal by the person.

The settlement class consists of 1,169 individuals who enrolled at
WCI primarily from 2006-2007. The institution is no longer in
operation and closed in 2017. Unless they opt out, settlement class
members will release the Company from all claims against the
Company alleged in the case. The Company makes no admission of
liability pursuant to the terms of the settlement.

The court preliminarily approved the settlement on February 8,
2018, and the final approval hearing was held on June 8, 2018.

Career Education said "The Company's liability pursuant to the
settlement was dependent on how many settlement class members
returned valid claim forms by June 8, 2018. The final amount based
on valid returned claim forms has been determined to be
approximately $11.1 million, of which $4.9 million was recorded
during the second quarter of 2018. An initial payment of $3.0
million was made in June 2018 and accordingly, as of June 30, 2018,
the Company has a remaining reserve of $8.1 million related to this
matter. These amounts are expected to be paid during the third
quarter of 2018."

Career Education also said "The settlement terms also provide that
the court will determine the amount of attorneys' fees and costs
payable by the Company to counsel for plaintiffs, although the
parties agreed that the attorneys' fees and costs awarded would be
in the range of $3.75 to $8.0 million. On June 8, 2018, the Court
awarded $4.9 million for attorneys' fees and costs. Accordingly, as
of June 30, 2018, the Company has a reserve of $4.9 million related
to the attorneys' fees and costs, of which $1.1 million was
recorded during the second quarter of 2018. This amount is expected
to be paid during the third quarter of 2018."

Career Education Corporation operates colleges, institutions, and
universities that provide education to student population in
various career-oriented disciplines through online, campus based,
and blended learning programs in the United States. The company
operates through three segments: Colorado Technical University
(CTU), American InterContinental University (AIU), and All Other
Campuses. Career Education Corporation was founded in 1994 and is
headquartered in Schaumburg, Illinois.


CARLYLE GROUP: Continues to Defend Suit over Cobalt Shares Sale
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Carlyle Group L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the firm continues to
defend state class action claims related to Cobalt International
Energy, Inc.

Cobalt International Energy, Inc. ("Cobalt") was a company owned by
two of the so-called Legacy Energy funds and funds advised by
certain other private equity sponsors. Cobalt and certain of its
affiliates filed for bankruptcy protection on December 14, 2017.

The Legacy Energy Funds are Energy II, Energy III, Energy IV, and
Renew II.  They are managed with Riverstone Holdings LLC and its
affiliates.  Affiliates of both Carlyle and Riverstone act as
investment advisers to each of the Legacy Energy Funds.  Carlyle
has a minority representation on the management committees of
Energy IV and Renew II. Carlyle and Riverstone each hold half of
the seats on the management committees of Energy II and Energy III,
but the investment period for these funds has expired and the
remaining investments in such funds are being disposed of in the
ordinary course of business.

A federal securities class action against Cobalt (In re Cobalt
International Energy, Inc. Securities Litigation) was filed in
November 2014 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Texas, seeking monetary damages and alleging that Cobalt and its
directors made misrepresentations in certain of Cobalt's securities
offering filings relating to: (i) the value of oil reserves in
Angola for which Cobalt had acquired drilling concessions, and (ii)
its compliance with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act regarding its
operations in Angola and a U.S. government investigation regarding
the same.  

The securities class action also named as co-defendants certain
securities underwriters and the five private equity sponsors of
Cobalt, including Riverstone and the Partnership. The class action
alleged that the Partnership has liability as a "control person"
for the alleged misrepresentations in Cobalt's securities offerings
as well as insider trading liability.

The federal court dismissed the insider trading claim against the
Partnership.  

The Partnership believes that the matter will be resolved without
any material financial contribution from the Partnership.

In addition to the class action in federal court, derivative claims
were also filed in Texas state court in Houston (Ira Gaines v.
Joseph Bryant, et al.) on similar grounds, alleging that the
private equity sponsors, including the Partnership, breached their
fiduciary duties by engaging in insider trading.

On May 9, 2018, the Plan Administrator for Cobalt filed a Notice of
Nonsuit with Prejudice, dismissing all the claims in the case
(including the claim against the Partnership) with prejudice. The
court ordered the nonsuit of all claims in an order entered that
day.

The Carlyle Group LP is an investment firm specializing in direct
and fund of fund investments in Fintech sector. The Carlyle Group
LP was founded in 1987 and is based in Washington, District of
Columbia with additional offices in 20 countries across six
continents (North America, South America, Asia, Australia, Europe,
and Africa).


CARNEGIE HALL: Faces Reyes Suit in Southern District of New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Carnegie Hall
Corporation. The lawsuit is styled as Jose Reyes, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. The
Carnegie Hall Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-07479
(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 16, 2018). The suit alleges Americans with
Disabilities Act violation.

Carnegie Hall is a concert venue in Midtown Manhattan in New York
City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 465 1188
          Facsimile: (212) 465 1181
          E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com


CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Continues to Defend Merger-Related Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
CEC Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended July 1, 2018, that the company continues to
defend a class action suit related to merger with Apollo Global
Management, LLC and its subsidiaries.

Following the January 16, 2014 announcement that CEC Entertainment
had entered into an agreement ("Merger Agreement"), pursuant to
which an entity controlled by Apollo Global Management, LLC and its
subsidiaries merged with and into CEC Entertainment, with CEC
Entertainment surviving the merger ("the Merger"), four putative
shareholder class actions were filed in the District Court of
Shawnee County, Kansas, on behalf of purported stockholders of CEC
Entertainment, against A.P. VIII Queso Holdings, L.P., CEC
Entertainment, CEC Entertainment's directors, Apollo and Merger Sub
(as defined in the Merger Agreement), in connection with the Merger
Agreement and the transactions contemplated thereby.

These actions were consolidated into one action (the "Consolidated
Shareholder Litigation") in March 2014, and on July 21, 2015, a
consolidated class action petition was filed as the operative
consolidated complaint, asserting claims against CEC's former
directors, adding The Goldman Sachs Group ("Goldman Sachs") as a
defendant, and removing all Apollo entities as defendants (the
"Consolidated Class Action Petition").

The Consolidated Class Action Petition alleges that CEC
Entertainment's directors breached their fiduciary duties to CEC
Entertainment's stockholders in connection with their consideration
and approval of the Merger Agreement by, among other things,
conducting a deficient sales process, agreeing to an inadequate
tender price, agreeing to certain provisions in the Merger
Agreement, and filing materially deficient disclosures regarding
the transaction.

The Consolidated Class Action Petition also alleges that two
members of CEC Entertainment's board who also served as the senior
managers of CEC Entertainment had material conflicts of interest
and that Goldman Sachs aided and abetted the board's breaches as a
result of various conflicts of interest facing the bank. The
Consolidated Class Action Petition seeks, among other things, to
recover damages, attorneys' fees and costs.

The Company assumed the defense of the Consolidated Shareholder
Litigation on behalf of CEC's named former directors and Goldman
Sachs pursuant to existing indemnity agreements. On March 23, 2016,
the Court conducted a hearing on the defendants' Motion to Dismiss
the Consolidated Class Action Petition and on March 1, 2017, the
Special Master appointed by the Court issued a report recommending
to the Court that the Consolidated Class Action Petition be
dismissed in its entirety.

On March 17, 2017, Plaintiffs filed objections to the Special
Master's report and recommendation with the Kansas court and
separately filed a motion with the Special Master to amend the
complaint as to Goldman Sachs, but not objecting to the dismissal
of CEC or its former directors.

On November 20, 2017, the Special Master filed a Supplemental
Report recommending to the Court that Plaintiffs' motion for leave
to amend be denied; if the District Court accepts the Special
Master's supplemental recommendations, the case will be dismissed
in its entirety.

Both remaining parties (Plaintiffs and Goldman Sachs) filed
objections to the Supplemental Report on December 22, 2017, and the
parties filed responses to these objections on February 16, 2018.
The District Court has not yet set this case for trial.

CEC Entertainment While no assurance can be given as to the
ultimate outcome of the consolidated matter, we currently believe
that the final resolution of the action will not have a material
adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position,
liquidity or capital resources.

CEC Entertainment, Inc. develops, operates, and franchises family
dining and entertainment centers (venues) under the names of Chuck
E. Cheese's and Peter Piper Pizza in the United States and
internationally. CEC Entertainment, Inc. was founded in 1977 and is
headquartered in Irving, Texas. CEC Entertainment, Inc. operates as
a subsidiary of Queso Holdings Inc.


CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Final Approval Hearing Set for September 21
--------------------------------------------------------------
CEC Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended July 1, 2018, that the court in the Sinohui
Litigation has continued the hearing to consider final approval of
a class action settlement to September 21, 2018.

On October 10, 2014, former General Manager Richard Sinohui filed a
purported class action lawsuit against CEC Entertainment in the
Superior Court of California, Riverside County (the "Sinohui
Litigation"), claiming to represent other similarly-situated
current and former General Managers of CEC Entertainment in
California during the period October 10, 2010 to the present.

The lawsuit sought an unspecified amount in damages and to certify
a class based on allegations that CEC Entertainment wrongfully
classified current and former California General Managers as exempt
from overtime protections; that such General Managers worked more
than 40 hours a week without overtime premium pay, paid rest
periods, and paid meal periods; and that CEC Entertainment failed
to provide accurate itemized wage statements or to pay timely wages
upon separation from employment, in violation of the California
Labor Code, California Business and Professions Code, and the
applicable Wage Order issued by the California Industrial Welfare
Commission.

The plaintiff also alleged that CEC Entertainment failed to
reimburse General Managers for certain business expenses, including
for personal cell phone usage and mileage, in violation of the
California Labor Code; he also asserted a claim for civil penalties
under the California Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA").

On December 5, 2014, CEC Entertainment removed the Sinohui
Litigation to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, Southern Division. On March 16, 2016, the Court issued
an order denying in part and granting in part Plaintiff's Motion
for Class Certification. Specifically, the Court denied Plaintiff's
motion to the extent that he sought to certify a class on
Plaintiff's misclassification and wage statement claims, but
certified a class with respect to Plaintiff's claims that CEC
Entertainment had wrongfully failed to reimburse him for cell phone
expenses and/or mileage. On June 14, 2016, the Court dismissed
Sinohui's PAGA claim.

After participating in mediation on April 19, 2017, the parties
agreed to settle all of Sinohui's individual and class claims.
Pursuant to the basic terms of their settlement, Sinohui will grant
a complete release to CEC Entertainment on behalf of himself and
the class of all claims that he asserted or could have asserted
against the Company, based on the facts that gave rise to the
certified reimbursement claim in the Sinohui Litigation, in
exchange for the Company's settlement payment. On December 13,
2017, the Court entered its order granting preliminary approval of
the parties' settlement and setting a final fairness hearing for
June 15, 2018.

Pursuant to the order, Plaintiff filed his motion for final
approval of the parties' settlement on April 27, 2018; the Court
then set the motion for hearing on June 15, 2018. By order dated
June 6, 2018, the Court continued the hearing on the motion for
final approval to September 21, 2018.

CEC Entertainment said "The settlement of this lawsuit should not
have a material adverse effect on our results of operations,
financial position, liquidity or capital resources."

CEC Entertainment, Inc. develops, operates, and franchises family
dining and entertainment centers (venues) under the names of Chuck
E. Cheese's and Peter Piper Pizza in the United States and
internationally. CEC Entertainment, Inc. was founded in 1977 and is
headquartered in Irving, Texas. CEC Entertainment, Inc. operates as
a subsidiary of Queso Holdings Inc.


CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Jacobson Class Action Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------
CEC Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended July 1, 2018, that the Arizona District
Court has accepted a magistrate judge's recommendation and entered
an order dismissing the lawsuit by Diane Jacobson without prejudice
to its refiling.

On September 8, 2016, Diane Jacobson filed a purported class action
lawsuit against Peter Piper, Inc. ("Peter Piper") in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Arizona, Tucson Division (the
"Jacobson Litigation").

The plaintiff claims to represent other similarly-situated
consumers who, within the two years prior to the filing of the
Jacobson Litigation, received a printed receipt on which Peter
Piper allegedly printed more than the last five digits of the
consumer's credit/debit card number, in violation of the Fair and
Accurate Credit Transactions Act.

On November 11, 2016, Peter Piper filed a motion to dismiss the
Jacobson Litigation. After the plaintiff filed her opposition to
the Motion to Dismiss and Peter Piper filed its reply in support
thereof, the motion was submitted to the Court for ruling on
December 22, 2016. On February 2, 2017, the Court stayed the
Jacobson Litigation pending the decision of the U.S. Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals in Noble v. Nevada Check Cab Corp., a case that
presented an issue for decision that is relevant to Peter Piper's
motion to dismiss.

On March 9, 2018, the Ninth Circuit issued its decision in the
Noble case, setting precedent that favors Peter Piper's position in
the Jacobson Litigation. Based on the appellate court's decision in
that case, on March 15, 2018 Peter Piper filed a motion to lift the
stay and requesting that the trial court grant its motion to
dismiss.

On June 28, 2018, the magistrate judge issued a report recommending
that the District Court grant Peter Piper's motion to dismiss and
dismiss the plaintiff's claims without prejudice to their refiling.
On August 3, 2018, the District Court accepted the magistrate
judge's recommendation and entered an order dismissing the lawsuit
without prejudice to its refiling.

CEC Entertainment, Inc. develops, operates, and franchises family
dining and entertainment centers (venues) under the names of Chuck
E. Cheese's and Peter Piper Pizza in the United States and
internationally. CEC Entertainment, Inc. was founded in 1977 and is
headquartered in Irving, Texas. CEC Entertainment, Inc. operates as
a subsidiary of Queso Holdings Inc.


CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Oct. 15 Final Approval Hearing in French Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
CEC Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended July 1, 2018, that the court in the French
State Court Lawsuit has set the final settlement approval hearing
for October 15, 2018.

On January 30, 2017, former Technical Manager Kevin French filed a
purported class action lawsuit against the Company in the U. S.
District Court for the Northern District of California ("the French
Federal Court Lawsuit"), alleging that CEC Entertainment failed to
pay overtime wages, failed to issue accurate itemized wage
statements, failed to pay wages due upon separation of employment,
and failed to reimburse for certain business expenses, including
for mileage and personal cell phone usage, in violation of the
California Labor Code and federal law, and seeking to certify
separate classes on his federal and state claims.

On October 30, 2017, the parties conducted a mediation. At the
conclusion of the mediation, the parties agreed to settle all of
French's class and individual claims. Pursuant to the parties'
agreement, on November 14, 2017, the Federal Court Lawsuit was
dismissed, and on November 15, 2017, Plaintiff filed a new lawsuit
in Superior Court of San Bernadino County, California (the "French
State Court Lawsuit").

The French State Court Lawsuit carried forward only the California
state law claims alleging a failure to reimburse for business
expenses, and sought to certify a class of CEC California Senior
Assistant Managers, Assistant Managers, Technical Managers and
Assistant Technical Managers who were authorized to drive on behalf
of CEC from January 30, 2013 through April 27, 2018.

On December 20, 2017, further pursuant to the parties' settlement,
Plaintiff filed a Notice of Settlement. The Court entered an order
preliminarily approving of the parties' settlement on May 17, 2018;
in that same order, the Court set the final approval hearing for
October 15, 2018.

CEC Entertainment said, "The settlement of this action will not
have a material adverse effect on our results of operations,
financial position, liquidity or capital resources."

CEC Entertainment, Inc. develops, operates, and franchises family
dining and entertainment centers (venues) under the names of Chuck
E. Cheese's and Peter Piper Pizza in the United States and
internationally. CEC Entertainment, Inc. was founded in 1977 and is
headquartered in Irving, Texas. CEC Entertainment, Inc. operates as
a subsidiary of Queso Holdings Inc.


CF ARCIS: Court Narrows Claims in L. Hart's CPA Suit
----------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington, Seattle, granted in part and denied in part Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss the case captioned LAWRENCE HART, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. CF ARCIS VII LLC d/b/a THE CLUB AT SNOQUALMIE RIDGE
d/b/a TPC AT SNOQUALMIE RIDGE and d/b/a SNOQUALMIE RIDGE GOLF CLUB,
et al., Defendants, Case No. C17-1932RSM (W.D. Wash.).

The Plaintiffs bring claims against the Defendants for violations
of the Washington Consumer Protection Act (CPA), breach of
contract, and conversion.

The Complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as
true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.
This requirement is met when the plaintiff pleads factual content
that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the
defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Absent facial
plausibility, Plaintiff's claims must be dismissed.

Consumer Protection Act Claim

The Defendants first assert that the Plaintiffs' claim for
violations of the CPA must be dismissed.

To prevail in a private Consumer Protection Act claim, the
plaintiff must prove (1) an unfair or deceptive act or practice,
(2) occurring in trade or commerce, (3) affecting the public
interest, (4) injury to a person's business or property, and (5)
causation.

The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs fail to allege any public
interest impact, cannot allege a deceptive or unfair act, and do
not plausibly allege a cognizable injury under the CPA. The
Plaintiffs respond that they have alleged adequate facts to support
all elements of a CPA claim.

In this case, the Plaintiffs do not allege that persons other than
members holding Refundable Memberships as of 2013 were injured by
the amendment of the Rules. The Court interprets the 2009
amendments' language of injuring other persons to relate to persons
not already such members. This interpretation is consistent with
both pre-amendment and post-amendment case law.  

The Plaintiffs argue that, because at least 100 other persons were
injured, the public interest element is met under the 2009
amendments, specifically RCW 19.86.093(3)(a) (injured other
persons).  Every one of those persons, however, was a member of the
Golf Club, and no other persons were allegedly injured. Because
Plaintiffs do not allege anyone outside the Club was injured, the
Court concludes that Defendants' alleged conduct has not injured
other persons within the meaning of RCW 19.86.093. Accordingly,
Plaintiffs fail to sufficiently plead the public interest element,
and therefore cannot support a CPA claim. Thus, the CPA claim will
be dismissed.

Further, because the Court has determined that the public interest
element has not been met, it is not necessary to reach Defendants'
alternative arguments for dismissal of the CPA claim.

Conversion Claim

The Court next turns to the Plaintiffs' claim for conversion.
Defendants argue that this claim must be dismissed because
Plaintiffs allege no facts suggesting that the Arcis Defendants
wrongfully received any money from them.

The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs have no property interest
in any money that Defendants received from the sales of
Non-Refundable Memberships.

In this case, the Plaintiffs allege that conversion occurred when
the Defendants unilaterally decided they would funnel money they
received from the sales of Non-Refundable Memberships into the Club
rather than paying refunds to the Plaintiffs and Class members on
the Waiting List.

The Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for conversion. The
Plaintiffs allege that the Rules in existence prior to 2013 give
members the right to voluntarily resign and receive a refund of a
portion of the Membership Fee paid to join the Club. These Rules
entitle resigning members to receive refunds once their memberships
are re-issued to new members, with the refund amounting to 70
percent of the of the Membership Fee published at the time the Club
Operator re-issues the membership.   

The Plaintiffs do not acknowledge, however, that the Rules in
existence prior to 2013 entitled resigning members to receive
refunds after the third sale/reissuance of a membership in the same
category as the membership to be refunded. The Plaintiffs never
held Non-Refundable memberships, and therefore would not have been
entitled to a refund after the sale of such memberships under the
Rules they claim govern their refunds. While it appears that the
Rules for refunds have since changed, the Plaintiffs make no
specific allegations with respect to those revised refund Rules,
other than that they changed the ratio of memberships purchased
prior to refunding memberships.

The Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate any property interest in the
money received from Non-Refundable memberships and cannot make a
claim for conversion. As a result, the claim will be dismissed.

Breach of Contract Claim

To state a contract claim, the Plaintiffs must allege facts
showing: (1) a contract that imposed a duty (2) breach of that duty
and (3) an economic loss as a result of the breach.

The Plaintiffs argue that, together, these provisions impose on the
Defendants a duty to give members notice of a proposed rule change
to their refund rights, and an obligation to obtain the approval of
two-thirds of the membership before such change can be effective.


While the Defendants disagree with the interpretation of the
contract provisions set forth by the Plaintiffs, at this stage of
the proceedings, and accepting the Plaintiffs' factual allegations
as true, the Plaintiffs have alleged sufficient facts to support a
claim that Defendants breached a duty owed to them. Thus, the Court
will not dismiss the breach of contract claim on the basis that the
Plaintiffs failed to adequately allege a breach.

Likewise, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs have adequately
pleaded damages at this stage of the proceeding. The Defendants
argue that the Plaintiffs merely complain about a delay in their
refunds. However, the Plaintiffs have specifically alleged money
damages, even if the amount of such damages in uncertain at this
time. The Plaintiffs also seek equitable relief.

Accordingly, the Court will not dismiss the breach of contract
claim on the basis that Plaintiffs failed to adequately allege
damages.

Claims Against Mr. Walker

The alter ego theory derives from the notion that courts should not
respect the separateness of a corporation and its parent where the
parent exerts such an amount of control and dominance over the
corporation that it becomes a mere shell or alter ego of the parent
for accomplishing improper purposes.   

To pierce the corporate veil, a plaintiff must show (1) the
corporate form was used to violate or evade a duty, and (2) the
corporate veil must be disregarded to prevent loss to an innocent
party.  

Here, the Plaintiffs' allegations are no more than a recitation of
the elements. To survive a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff must
allege specific facts supporting both of the necessary elements.

Accordingly, the Court will dismiss the claims against Mr. Walker
as they are all premised on the application of the corporate veil
piercing doctrine.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 2, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y8xmmwnw from Leagle.com.

Lawrence Hart, Clyde Stephen Lewis, James Presti & Michael Ralls,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, represented by Adrienne McEntee --
amcentee@terrellmarshall.com -- TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC &
Beth E. Terrell -- bterrell@terrellmarshall.com -- TERRELL MARSHALL
LAW GROUP PLLC.

CF Arcis VII LLC, doing business as Snoqualmie Ridge Golf Club,
Arcis Equity Partners, LLC, Blake S. Walker, individually and on
behalf of the marital community of Blake S. Walker and Jane Doe
Walker & CF Arcis IV Holdings, LLC, Defendants, represented by
Rebecca J. Francis -- rebeccafrancis@dwt.com -- DAVIS WRIGHT
TREMAINE & Stephen M. Rummage -- steverummage@dwt.com -- DAVIS
WRIGHT TREMAINE.


CHATHAM LODGING: Ruffy and Doonan Suits Underway in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chatham Lodging Trust said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that Island Hospitality
Management LLC (IHM) is defending against two related class action
lawsuits pending in the Santa Clara County Superior Court.

The first class action lawsuit was filed on October 21, 2016 under
the title Ruffy, et al, v. Island Hospitality Management, LLC, et
al. Case No. 16-CV-301473 and the second class action was filed on
March 21, 2018 under the title Doonan, et al, v. Island Hospitality
Management, LLC, et al. Case No. 18-CV-325187.

The class actions relate to hotels operated by IHM in the state of
California and owned by affiliates of the Company and the NewINK
JV, and/or certain third parties. The complaints allege various
wage and hour law violations based on alleged misclassification of
certain hotel managerial staff and violation of certain California
statutes regarding incorrect information contained on employee
paystubs. The plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, money damages,
penalties, and interest.

Chatham Lodging said "None of the potential classes has been
certified and we are defending our case vigorously. As of June 30,
2018, included in accounts payable is $0.2 million which represents
an estimate of the Company's total exposure to the litigation and
is also its estimated maximum possible loss that the Company may
incur."

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

Chatham Lodging Trust is a self-advised, publicly-traded real
estate investment trust focused primarily on investing in upscale,
extended-stay hotels and premium-branded, select-service hotels.
The company is based in West Palm Beach, Florida.


CHURCHILL DOWNS: Bid for Rehearing in La. Horsemens' Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
Churchill Downs Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2018, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the motion for
rehearing filed by the Fair Ground defendants in the Louisiana
Horsemens' Purses Class Action Suit has been denied.

On April 21, 2014, John L. Soileau and other individuals filed a
Petition for Declaratory Judgment, Permanent Injunction, and
Damages-Class Action styled John L. Soileau, et. al. versus
Churchill Downs Louisiana Horseracing, LLC, Churchill Downs
Louisiana Video Poker Company, LLC (Suit No. 14-3873) in the Parish
of Orleans Civil District Court, State of Louisiana (the "District
Court").

The petition defined the "alleged plaintiff class" as quarter-horse
owners, trainers and jockeys that have won purses at the "Fair
Grounds Race Course & Slots" facility in New Orleans, Louisiana
since the first effective date of La. R.S. 27:438 and specifically
since 2008. The petition alleged that Churchill Downs Louisiana
Horseracing, L.L.C. and Churchill Downs Louisiana Video Poker
Company, L.L.C. ("Fair Ground Defendants") have collected certain
monies through video draw poker devices that constitute monies
earned for purse supplements and all of those supplemental purse
monies have been paid to thoroughbred horsemen during Fair Grounds'
live thoroughbred horse meets. La. R.S. 27:438 requires a portion
of those supplemental purse monies to be paid to quarter-horse
horsemen during Fair Grounds' live quarter-horse meets.

The petition requested that the District Court declare that Fair
Grounds Defendants violated La. R.S. 27:438, issue a permanent and
mandatory injunction ordering Fair Grounds Defendants to pay all
future supplements due to the plaintiff class pursuant to La. R.S.
27:438, and to pay the plaintiff class such sums as it finds to
reasonably represent the value of the sums due to the plaintiff
class.

On August 14, 2014, the plaintiffs filed an amendment to their
petition naming the Horsemen's Benevolent and Protective
Association 1993, Inc. ("HBPA") as an additional defendant and
alleging that HBPA is also liable to plaintiffs for the disputed
purse funds. On October 9, 2014, HBPA and Fair Grounds Defendants
filed exceptions to the suit, including an exception of primary
jurisdiction seeking referral to the Louisiana Racing Commission.
By Judgment dated November 21, 2014, the District Court granted the
exception of primary jurisdiction and referred the matter to the
Louisiana Racing Commission.

On January 26, 2015, the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals
denied the plaintiffs' request for supervisory review of the
Judgment. On August 24, 2015, the Louisiana Racing Commission ruled
that the plaintiffs did not have standing or a right of action to
pursue the case. On September 18, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a
Petition for Appeal of Administrative Order Dismissing Case for No
Right of Action in the District Court seeking a reversal of the
Louisiana Racing Commission's ruling.

On July 13, 2016, the plaintiffs filed their brief with the
District Court and Fair Grounds Defendants filed its brief on
August 12, 2016. A hearing was held at the District Court on
September 15, 2016 and the District Court affirmed the Louisiana
Racing Commission's ruling.

The plaintiffs filed an appeal with the Louisiana Fourth Circuit
Court of Appeals on December 7, 2016. By Order dated August 23,
2017, the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the
plaintiffs' appeal without prejudice because the District Court’s
Judgment did not contain the necessary decretal language.  

To correct this deficiency, the District Court entered an Amended
Judgment on September 19, 2017. On December 11, 2017, the
plaintiffs appealed the Amended Judgment to the Louisiana Fourth
Circuit Court of Appeals, which has not yet issued a ruling. On
June 13, 2018, the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals
reversed the Louisiana Racing Commission's ruling and remanded the
matter to the Louisiana Racing Commission for further proceedings.


On June 27, 2018, the Fair Grounds Defendants filed a Motion for
Rehearing with the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals which
was denied on July 12, 2018.

Churchill Downs Incorporated operates as a racing, gaming, and
online entertainment company in the United States. It operates
through Racing, Casinos, TwinSpires, and Other Investments
segments. Churchill Downs Incorporated was founded in 1928 and is
headquartered in Louisville, Kentucky.


CHURCHILL DOWNS: Seeks Arbitration in Kater Suit
------------------------------------------------
Churchill Downs Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2018, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the Company has
filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration in the purported class action
styled Cheryl Kater v. Churchill Downs Incorporated, in the
District Court.

On April 17, 2015, a purported class action styled Cheryl Kater v.
Churchill Downs Incorporated (the "Kater litigation") was filed in
the United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington (the "District Court") alleging, among other claims,
that the Company's "Big Fish Casino" operated by the Company's
then-wholly owned mobile gaming subsidiary Big Fish Games violated
Washington law, including the Washington Consumer Protection Act,
by facilitating unlawful gambling through its virtual casino games
(namely the slots, blackjack, poker, and roulette games offered
through Big Fish Casino), and seeking among other things, return of
monies lost, reasonable attorney's fees and injunctive relief.

On November 19, 2015, the District Court dismissed the case with
prejudice and, on December 7, 2015, Plaintiff's motion for
reconsideration was denied. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on
January 5, 2016 to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.

On January 9, 2018, the Company sold Big Fish Games to Aristocrat
Technologies, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Purchaser"), an
indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of Aristocrat Leisure Limited, an
Australian corporation pursuant to the Stock Purchase Agreement,
dated as of November 29, 2017, by and among the Company, Big Fish
Games and the Purchaser.

Pursuant to the terms of the Stock Purchase Agreement, the Company
agreed to indemnify the Purchaser for the losses and expenses
associated with the Kater litigation for Big Fish Games, which is
referred to in the Stock Purchase Agreement as the "Primary
Specified Litigation."

On February 6, 2018, oral arguments on Plaintiff's appeal of the
dismissal of the Kater litigation took place before the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On March 28, 2018,
the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed
and remanded the District Court's dismissal of the complaint
against the Company.

On June 12, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit denied the Company's Petition for Rehearing En Banc filed
by the Company on May 11, 2018. On July 13, 2018, the parties filed
a Joint Status Report and Discovery Plan in the District Court. On
July 20, 2018, the Company filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration in
the District Court.

In accordance with the terms of the Stock Purchase Agreement, the
Company is working closely with the Purchaser to vigorously defend
this matter in both the District Court and in any further appellate
proceedings, and the Company believes that there are meritorious
legal and factual defenses against Plaintiff’s allegations and
requests for relief.

Churchill Downs Incorporated operates as a racing, gaming, and
online entertainment company in the United States. It operates
through Racing, Casinos, TwinSpires, and Other Investments
segments. Churchill Downs Incorporated was founded in 1928 and is
headquartered in Louisville, Kentucky.


CIRQUE DU SOLEIL: Court Dismisses TCPA Suit as Untimely
-------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, granted Defendants' Motion for
Decertification in the case captioned PRACTICE MANAGEMENT SUPPORT
SERVICES, INC., an Illinois corporation, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, Plaintiff,
v. CIRQUE DU SOLEIL INC., CIRQUE DU SOLEIL (US), INC., AND JOHN
DOES 1-10, Defendants, No. 14 C 2032 (N.D. Ill.).

The Defendants have moved to decertify the class, arguing that
Practice Management's class claims in this third successive class
action are untimely.

Plaintiff Practice Management Support Services, Inc., challenges
the alleged practice of defendants Cirque du Soleil, Inc., and
Cirque du Soleil (US), Inc., of using a fax broadcasting service to
advertise theatrical shows without providing sufficient
instructions about how to opt out, in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).

American Pipe established that the commencement of the original
class suit tolls the running of the statute [of limitations] for
all purported members of the class who make timely motions to
intervene after the court has found the suit inappropriate for
class action status. 414 U.S. at 553. The Seventh Circuit in Saywer
expressly rejected a distinction based on whether the second suits
were brought as individual litigation or as a class action, finding
that American Pipe tolling could apply in either situation. 642
F.3d at 563.

The Supreme Court in China Agritech abrogated this reasoning in
Sawyer and similar cases by drawing a clear distinction between
successive individual suits and successive class actions. The China
Agritech Court explained that American Pipe  addressed only
putative class members who wish to sue individually after a
class-certification denial. 138 S. Ct. at 1806. But American Pipe
did not so much as hint that tolling extends to otherwise
time-barred class claims.

A straightforward application of China Agritech to this case
compels the conclusion that Practice Management's untimely class
claims cannot be tolled under American Pipe. American Pipe does not
permit the maintenance of a follow-on class action past expiration
of the statute of limitations. This case is a follow-on class
action that was filed well after the four-year statute of
limitations expired.

For this reason, the Court agrees with the defendants that the
class should be decertified and the class claims dismissed.

First, Practice Management argues that China Agritech does not
address situations like this one where class certification was
never decided in a prior class action. Practice Management claims
that this Court remains bound by Sawyer, which held that class
claims are tolled where a plaintiff has been denied a full and fair
opportunity to litigate the question whether a class action is
proper.

It is true that the China Agritech Court framed the question
presented early in its opinion as: Upon denial of class
certification, may a putative class member, in lieu of promptly
joining an existing suit or promptly filing an individual action,
commence a class action anew beyond the time allowed by the
applicable statute of limitations? But the Court purported to
resolve a division of authority among the Courts of Appeals over a
broader question: whether otherwise-untimely successive class
claims may be salvaged by American Pipe tolling. And the Supreme
Court repeatedly stated its holding in clear terms that were in no
way qualified based on how the prior class action lawsuit was
resolved.

Second, Practice Management maintains that even if China Agritech
applies to this case, this Court should not apply it retroactively
because Practice Management acted in reliance on controlling
Seventh Circuit precedent in Sawyer and other cases when failing to
file its class claims sooner.

Third, Practice Management suggests that a different tolling
doctrine, such as fraudulent concealment or equitable estoppel,
could be applied to toll its claims. But equitable estoppel, also
called fraudulent concealment, applies only when plaintiffs act
with reasonable diligence to discover and file their claims. The
Court finds Practice Management's argument that it was diligent
foreclosed by the reasoning in China Agritech itself. The China
Agritech Court explained that a would-be class representative who
commences suit after expiration of the limitation period can hardly
qualify as diligent in asserting claims and pursuing relief. Her
interest in representing the class as lead plaintiff, therefore,
would not be preserved by the prior plaintiff's timely filed class
suit.

The Court grants the defendants' motion to decertify the class and
dismisses the class claims as untimely based on the Supreme Court's
recent decision in China Agritech, Inc. v. Resh, 138 S.Ct. 1800
(2018).

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 2, 2018 Memorandum
Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ycefntom from
Leagle.com.

Practice Management Support Services, Inc., an Illinois
corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly-situated persons,, Plaintiff, represented by Brian J.
Wanca -- bwanca@andersonwanca.com -- Anderson & Wanca, Glenn L.
Hara -- ghara@andersonwanca.com -- Anderson & Wanca, Max G.
Margulis -- MaxMargulis@MargulisLaw.com -- Margulis Law Group --
rgood@andersonwanca.com -- Anderson Wanca, Ryan M. Kelly --
rkelly@andersonwanca.com -- Anderson & Wanca & Wallace Cyril
Solberg -- wsolberg@andersonwanca.com -- Anderson Wanca

Cirque Du Soleil Inc. & Cirque Du Soleil (US), Inc., Defendants,
represented by Eric L. Samore -- esamore@salawus.com --
SmithAmundsen LLC, Albert M. Bower -- abower@salawus.com --
SmithAmundsen LLC, Molly Anne Arranz -- marranz@salawus.com --
Smith Amundsen, LLC, Ronald David Balfour -- rbalfour@salawus.com
-- Smithamundsen LLC & Yesha Sutaria Hoeppner, Smithamundsen LLC.


CLOISTERS OF THE VALLEY: Underpays Caregivers, Barajas Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
ELVA BARAJAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CLOISTERS OF THE VALLEY, INC.; and DOES 1
through 100, Defendants, Case No. 37-2018-00068350-CU-OE-CTL (Cal.
Super., San Diego Cty., July 30, 2018) is an action against the
Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages,
wages for missed meal and rest periods.

Ms. Barajas was employed by the Defendant as caregiver from August
22, 2016 to October 2017.

Cloisters of the Valley, Inc. is engaged in the business of
providing homes for the aged in San Diego County, and State of
California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul K. Haines, Esq.
          Tuvia Korobin, Esq.
          Stacey M. Shim, Esq.
          Jamin Xu, 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
                  tkorobkin@haineslawgroup.com
                  sshim@haineslawgroup.com
                  jxu@haineslawgroup.com


COCKTAIL BLUE: Faces Castillo Suit in Southern Dist. of New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cocktail Blue LLC.
The lawsuit is captioned as Evelyn Castillo, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Cocktail Blue
LLC, doing business as: The Bowery Ballroom, the Defendant, Case
No. 1:18-cv-07482 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 16, 2018). The suit alleges
Americans with Disabilities Act violation.

Cocktail Blue is in the cocktail lounge business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 465 1188
          Facsimile: (212) 465 1181
          E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com


COWEN INC: Class Action by Landol Fletcher Underway
---------------------------------------------------
Cowen Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2018, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2018, that the company continues to defend a class
action suit initiated by Landol Fletcher.

On December 27, 2013, Landol Fletcher filed a putative class action
lawsuit against Convergex Holdings, LLC, Convergex Group, LLC,
Cowen Execution, Convergex Global Markets Limited and G-Trade
Services LLC (collectively, "Convergex") in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York (Landol
Fletcher and all others similarly situated v. Convergex Group LLC,
Cowen Execution, Convergex Global Markets Ltd., Convergex Holdings
LLC, G-Trade Services LLC, & Does 1-10, No. 1:13-CV-09150-LLS).

The suit alleges breaches of fiduciary duty and prohibited
transactions under ERISA and seeks to maintain a class action on
behalf of all ERISA plan participants, beneficiaries and named
fiduciaries whose plans were impacted by net trading by Convergex
Global Markets Limited from October 2006 to December 2011. On April
11, 2014, Landol Fletcher and Frederick P. Potter Jr., filed an
amended complaint raising materially similar allegations.

This matter was assumed by the Company as a result of the Company's
previously announced acquisition of Convergex Group, which was
completed on June 1, 2017. On February 17, 2016, the District Court
granted Convergex's motion to dismiss the amended complaint.

Plaintiffs filed an appeal to the Second Circuit, and the AARP and
Department of Labor filed amicus briefs on plaintiffs' behalf. The
appeal was argued on December 12, 2016. On February 10, 2017, the
Second Circuit Court of Appeals (1) reversed the District Court,
finding that plaintiff has constitutional standing in a
"representative" capacity to sue for damages to the ERISA defined
benefit plan in which he is a participant, and (2) remanded to the
District Court to reconsider, in light of the Circuit Court's
decision, the issue whether plaintiff has standing to pursue claims
on behalf of ERISA plans in which plaintiff is not a participant.

Convergex filed a petition for rehearing, and the Court of Appeals
denied the petition. On June 30, 2017, the Company filed a notice
of motion and memorandum of law in support of a motion to stay the
proceedings in the District Court pending resolution of its
petition for writ of certiorari, which the Company intended to file
with the U.S. Supreme Court. On August 16, 2017, the District Court
granted the Company's motion to stay the proceedings in the
District Court pending resolution of the Company's petition for
writ of certiorari. On September 1, 2017, the Company filed a
petition with the United States Supreme Court for a writ of
certiorari requesting review of the decision of the Court of
Appeals.

On January 8, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the Company's
petition for a writ of certiorari. The previously granted stay of
the proceedings in the District Court has been lifted, and the case
is proceeding in the District Court. A status conference was held
on April 6, 2018.

Cowen said "We are indemnified against losses arising from this
matter pursuant to, and subject to, the provisions of the purchase
agreement relating to the acquisition of Convergex Group. Because
the case is in its preliminary stages, the Company cannot predict
the outcome at this time, but it does not currently expect this
case to have a material effect on its financial position or its
results of operations."

Cowen Inc. is a publicly owned asset management holding company.
Through its subsidiaries, the firm provides alternative investment
management, investment banking, research, and sales and trading
services for its clients. It manages separate client focused
portfolio through its subsidiaries.


CREATURES OF COMFORT: Faces Delacruz Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Creatures of Comfort,
Inc. The lawsuit is captioned as Emanuel Delacruz, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Creatures of Comfort, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-07461
(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 16, 2018). The suit alleges Americans with
Disabilities Act violation.

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


CREDIT PROTECTION: Phillips Sues over Debt Collection Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID PHILLIPS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. CREDIT PROTECTION ASSOCIATION, L.P.,
the Defendant, Case No. 6:18-cv-00418 (E.D. Tex., Aug. 16, 2018),
seeks to recover damages under the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

On or about April 23, 2018, CPA allegedly sent the Plaintiff a
collection letter. The letter stated: "It has been 5 months since
your account has been turned over for collections and we can't
understand why this has not been paid." As a debt collector,
Defendant should be aware or should know that there are many
reasons why a consumer might not have paid an alleged debt. As an
example, the consumer may dispute the amount partially or in its
entirety. Therefore, Defendant clearly intended the language of the
letter to be threatening, disparaging, and demeaning.

Defendant's letter is aggressive and combative. As further evidence
of the threatening nature of the letter, Defendants letter states:
"Ignoring this debt will not make collection efforts stop."
Defendant's letter made an overt threat that a lawsuit was
imminent. These statements are clearly veiled threats used as a
pressure tactic and aimed to manipulate the least sophisticated
consumer into making payment on the alleged debt out of fear of
reprisal. This veiled threat is egregious in that it does not even
specify what, if any, "collection efforts" will be used against the
least sophisticated consumer to collect the alleged debt. The least
sophisticated consumer is left to ponder over what "collection
efforts" could potentially befall them if they didn’t make
payment on the alleged debt.

The Defendant is a collection agency.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Joel S. Halvorsen, Esq.
          HALVORSEN KLOTE
          680 Craig Road, Suite 104
          St. Louis, MO 63141
          Telephone: (314) 451 1314
          Facsimile: (314) 787 4323
          E-mail: joel@hklawstl.com


CREE INC: Court Won't Deny Suit Over LED Bulbs
----------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California denied Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case captioned
JEFF YOUNG, Plaintiff, v. CREE, INC., Defendant, Case No.
17-cv-06252-YGR (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff Jeff Young brings this putative class action lawsuit
against defendant Cree, Inc. alleging that defendant engaged in an
"unfair and deceptive practice of . . . promising consumers" that
Cree's light-emitting-diode bulbs (the "LED Bulbs") "will last for
particularly long periods of time up to 35,000 hours" with a "100%
Satisfaction Guarantee" and "yearly energy cost savings ranging
from around $0.60 to $2 per blub per year" in violation of
California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), Cal. Bus. Prof. Code
Sections 17200, et seq. (Count I); California's False Advertising
Law ("FAL"), Cal. Bus. Prof. Code Sections 17500, et seq. (Count
II); Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), Cal. Civ. Code Sections
1750, et seq. (Count III); fraudulent misrepresentation and
concealment (Count IV); unjust enrichment (Count V); and breach of
express and implied warranties (Count VI).

Cree argues that Young's misrepresentation-based claims, Counts
I-V, fail because the plaintiff has not alleged, and cannot allege,
any actionable misrepresentations in any of the materials which he
claims to have reviewed. These materials include: (i) the products'
labels; and (ii) internet and television advertisements. As to
Young's claims regarding the products' labels, Cree argues that
"[n]one of the product label representations Plaintiff claims to
have relied upon in purchasing his bulbs is actionable, because
none is false or likely to deceive or confuse the public."  As to
Young's claims regarding the internet and television
advertisements, Cree argues that the alleged statements are either
true or amount to puffery.

Claims under California consumer protection statutes, like those at
issue here, do not require that statements by merchants are
actually false. Instead, these statutes prohibit merchants from
utilizing any statement which, "although true, is either actually
misleading or which has a capacity, likelihood or tendency to
deceive or confuse the public." Chapman v. Skype, Inc., 220
Cal.App.4th 217, 226 (2013); see also McKell v. Washington Mut.,
Inc., 142 Cal.App.4th 1457, 1471 (2006) (confirming that "[a]
fraudulent business practice is one which is likely to deceive the
public.") Whether a business practice results in deception "is
based on the likely effect such practice would have on a reasonable
consumer," McKell, 142 Cal. App. 4th at 1471, and is "usually . . .
a question of fact not appropriate for decision on demurrer."
Rubenstein v. Neiman Marcus Grp LLC., 687 F. App'x 564, 566 (9th
Cir. 2017) (citing Williams v. Gerber Prods. Co., 552 F.3d 934,
938-39 (9th Cir. 2008)). Additionally, "[w]here, as here, the
reasonable consumer test applies to a plaintiff's underlying claim,
it is a 'rare situation in which granting a motion to dismiss is
appropriate.'" Rubenstein, 687 F. App'x at 566 (quoting Williams,
552 F.3d at 939).

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 2, 2018 Memorandum
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y8ftwxj4 from
Leagle.com.

Jeff Young, Plaintiff, represented by S. Clinton Woods --
cwoods@audetlaw.com -- Audet & Partners, LLP, Adam R. Gonnelli --
gonnellia@thesultzerlawgroup.com -- The Sultzer Law Group, Charles
E. Schaffer -- cschaffer@lfsblaw.com -- Levin Sedran & Berman,
Jason Paul Sultzer -- sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com -- The
Sultzer Law Group, Ling Yue Kuang -- lkuang@audetlaw.com -- Audet &
Partners, LLP, Melissa S. Weiner, PEARSON SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP &
Michael Andrew McShane -- mcshane@audetlaw.com -- Audet & Partners
LLP.

Cree, Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrew John Demko --
andrew.demko@kattenlaw.com -- Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, Charles
Allan DeVore -- charles.devore@kattenlaw.com -- Katten Muchin
Rosenman LLP, Rebecca K. Lindahl -- rebecca.lindahl@kattenlaw.com
-- Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP & Stuart Matthew Richter --
stuart.richter@kattenlaw.com -- Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP.


CV SCIENCES: Awaits Case Scheduling Order in Sallustro Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
CV Sciences, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that parties in the class
action complaint initiated by Tanya Sallustro are awaiting entry of
a case scheduling order by the Court.

On April 23, 2014, Tanya Sallustro filed a purported class action
complaint (the "Complaint") in the Southern District of New York
(the "Court") alleging securities fraud and related claims against
the Company and certain of its officers and directors and seeking
compensatory damages including litigation costs.  Ms. Sallustro
alleges that between March 18-31, 2014, she purchased 325 shares of
the Company's common stock for a total investment of $15,791.

The Complaint refers to Current Reports on Form 8-K and Current
Reports on Form 8-K/A filings made by the Company on April 3, 2014
and April 14, 2014, in which the Company amended previously
disclosed sales (sales originally stated at $1,275,000 were
restated to $1,082,375 -- a reduction of $192,625) and restated
goodwill as $1,855,512 (previously reported at net zero). On March
19, 2015, the Court issued a ruling appointing Steve Schuck as lead
plaintiff.

Counsel for Mr. Schuck filed a "consolidated complaint" on
September 14, 2015, asserting two claims: (1) for violation of
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10B-5 promulgated
thereunder against all defendants, and (2) for violation of Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individual defendants.
Plaintiffs sued the Company, Michael Mona, Jr., Bart Mackay,
Theodore Sobieski, Edward Wilson, Stuart Titus, and Michael
Llamas.

On December 11, 2015, the Company and the individuals (except for
Messrs. Titus and Llamas) filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint. On April 2, 2018, the Court issued an order
granting in part and denying in part the motion to dismiss. With
respect to the First Claim for violation of Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act, the court ruled that plaintiffs failed to allege
misstatements or omissions attributable to Messrs. Mackay,
Sobieski, or Titus, and so granted the motion on that claim as to
those parties.

The court found the allegations sufficient as to the Company and
Messrs. Wilson, and Mona Jr., and so denied the motion as to those
parties. Under plaintiffs’ separate theory of "market
manipulation," the Court granted the motion in favor of all
defendants.  

The parties are currently awaiting entry of a case scheduling order
by the Court.

Management intends to vigorously defend the allegations and an
estimate of possible loss cannot be made at this time.

CV Sciences, Inc. operates as a life science company. It operates
through two segments, Specialty Pharmaceuticals and Consumer
Products. CV Sciences, Inc. was founded in 2010 and is based in Las
Vegas, Nevada.


DAVITA INC: Urges Court to Dismiss Peace Officers' Fund Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
DaVita Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2018, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2018, that the company has filed a reply in support
of its motion to dismiss a securities class action by the Peace
Officers' Annuity and Benefit Fund of Georgia.

On February 1, 2017, the Peace Officers' Annuity and Benefit Fund
of Georgia filed a putative federal securities class action
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado
against the Company and certain executives. The complaint covers
the time period of August 2015 to October 2016 and alleges,
generally, that the Company and its executives violated federal
securities laws concerning the Company's financial results and
revenue derived from patients who received charitable premium
assistance from an industry-funded non-profit organization.

The complaint further alleges that the process by which patients
obtained commercial insurance and received charitable premium
assistance was improper and "created a false impression of DaVita's
business and operational status and future growth prospects."

In November 2017, the court appointed the lead plaintiff and an
amended complaint was filed on January 12, 2018. On March 27, 2018,
the Company and various individual defendants filed a motion to
dismiss. The plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion to
dismiss on June 6, 2018. The Company filed a reply in support of
the motion on July 19, 2018.

The Company disputes these allegations and intends to defend this
action accordingly.

DaVita Inc. provides kidney dialysis services for patients
suffering from chronic kidney failure or end stage renal disease
(ESRD). The company operates kidney dialysis centers and provides
related lab services in outpatient dialysis centers. DaVita Inc.
was founded in 1994 and is headquartered in Denver, Colorado.


DELTA FLORAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Calderon Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL CALDERON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DELTA FLORAL DISTRIBUTORS, INC.; and DOES 1
to 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC715165 (Cal. Super., July
30, 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. Calderon was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt
employee.

Delta Floral Distributors Inc. markets and distributes flowers and
caters to supermarkets. The company is based in Los Angeles,
California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Lavi, Esq.
          Vincent C. Granberry, Esq.
          Alexander Spellman, Esq.
          LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
          8889 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 200
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          E-mail: jlavi@lelawfirm.com
                  vgranberry@lelawfirm.com
                  aspellman@lelawfirm.com


DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Class Suit by B&R Supermarket Underway
----------------------------------------------------------
Discover Financial Services said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that opening expert reports
in the case, B&R Supermarket, Inc., d/b/a Milam's Market, et al. v.
Visa, Inc. et al., are due on August 31, 2018.

On March 8, 2016, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
Company, other credit card networks, other issuing banks, and EMVCo
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
(B&R Supermarket, Inc., d/b/a Milam's Market, et al. v. Visa, Inc.
et al.) alleging violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act,
California's Cartwright Act, and unjust enrichment.

Plaintiffs allege a conspiracy by defendants to shift fraud
liability to merchants with the migration to the EMV security
standard and chip technology. Plaintiffs assert joint and several
liability among the defendants and seek unspecified damages,
including treble damages, attorneys' fees, costs and injunctive
relief.

On July 15, 2016, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that
includes additional named plaintiffs, reasserts the original
claims, and includes additional state law causes of action. The
defendants filed motions to dismiss on August 5, 2016. On September
30, 2016, the court granted the motions to dismiss for certain
issuing banks and EMVCo but denied the motions to dismiss filed by
the networks, including the Company.

In May 2017, while discovery was proceeding and after class
certification was fully briefed but not yet ruled upon, the Court
entered an order transferring the entire action to a federal court
in New York that is presiding over certain related claims that are
pending in the actions consolidated as MDL 1720. In June 2017, the
federal court in New York declined to consolidate the B&R case with
MDL 1720, but ordered the parties to coordinate discovery across
the actions to the extent they involved related issues. On July 6,
2017, the Company requested permission to file a motion to dismiss
the claims against it in the federal court in New York. On August
24, 2017, the Court held a status conference at which it set a
briefing schedule on Discover's motion to dismiss.

In September 2017, Discover filed its motion to dismiss. On
November 29, 2017, the Court heard argument on class certification
and took the motion under advisement. On January 23, 2018, the
Court heard argument on Discover's motion to dismiss. On March 11,
2018, the Court entered an order denying the plaintiffs' motion of
class certification without prejudice to filing a renewed motion
with additional detail on the proposed class period and alleged
antitrust injuries. Fact discovery closed on June 14, 2018, and
plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for class certification on July
16, 2018.

Opening expert reports are due on August 31, 2018, and class
briefing will be complete by November 2018. The Court has not yet
set a hearing date on the class motion, and merits expert discovery
will close in 2019.

Discover Financial said "The Company is not in a position at this
time to assess the likely outcome or its exposure, if any, with
respect to this matter, but will seek to vigorously defend against
all claims asserted by the plaintiffs."

Discover Financial Services, through its subsidiaries, operates as
a direct banking and payment services company in the United States.
The company was incorporated in 1960 and is based in Riverwoods,
Illinois.


EAST WEST: Court Dismisses S. Cohen's False Advertising Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
California denied Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case captioned
SYDNEY COHEN, Plaintiff, v. EAST WEST TEA COMPANY, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 17-CV-2339-JLS (BLM)(S.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiff alleges the Defendant's advertising and marketing of
the Products violate California law in various ways. The Plaintiff
argues the Products are advertised and sold as containing Organic
Kombucha, when in fact they contain no kombucha.

First, the Defendant argues the Plaintiff's California Unfair
Competition Law (UCL), Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), and
False Advertising Law (FAL) claims should be dismissed because: (a)
the Products' labels are not misleading to a reasonable consumer
and (b) the Plaintiff has failed to allege reasonable reliance.

Second, the Defendant argues the Plaintiff fails to state a claim
for breach of express warranty.

Third, the Defendant argues the Plaintiff's prayer for injunctive
relief should be dismissed for lack of Article III standing.

The Reasonable Consumer Test

The Plaintiff's first three causes of action allege violation of
the UCL, FAL, and CLRA. The Defendant argues the Plaintiff's UCL,
FAL, and CLRA claims should be dismissed because the Products'
labeling is not misleading to a reasonable consumer.

The plaintiff must show that a reasonable consumer is likely to be
deceived. Likely to deceive means the ad is such that it is
probable that a significant portion of the general consuming public
or of targeted consumers, acting reasonably under the
circumstances, could be misled.

Here, the Plaintiff alleges she purchased the Products because she
read and relied upon Defendant's representations that the Green Tea
Kombucha Products contain Organic Kombucha and that they combine
Green Tea with Kombucha to supply antioxidants to support your
overall health. The Plaintiff argues the Products contain no
kombucha and therefore their labeling is false. The Defendant
argues the Plaintiff's allegations fail to satisfy the reasonable
consumer standard because no consumer would be misled by the
labeling on the Products.

The Plaintiff argues there is a common understanding that kombucha
contains live organisms. The Defendant disagrees. On the packaging
of the Products, there are instructions to boil the tea bags in hot
water.  The Defendant argues that those instructions clarify any
ambiguity regarding the definition of kombucha because any
reasonable person would know that there cannot be live organisms
present in the tea bag when the tea is boiled. While this may be
true, this does not resolve the underlying issue of whether
kombucha must contain live organisms in the first place in order to
be truthfully labeled as kombucha.

How a reasonable consumer would define kombucha is a question of
fact. Both Parties have offered plausible definitions of kombucha.
Without an approved nor agreed upon definition of kombucha, at this
stage, the Plaintiff has plausibly alleged that a reasonable
consumer could read the word kombucha to be a drink with live
organisms or bacteria. Therefore, it would be plausible for a
reasonable consumer to expect a kombucha tea beverage to contain
live organisms. The Defendant states that none of the Products'
packaging claim there are live organisms in the tea bags. Because
Defendant's Products say they contain kombucha, but do not contain
live organisms, it is plausible the packaging is deceiving.
Therefore, the Court cannot conclude as a matter of law that
members of the public are not likely to be deceived by the
Products' packaging.

The Court denies the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the claims for
this reason.

Reasonable Reliance

The Defendant argues the Plaintiff's UCL, CLRA, and FAL claims
should be dismissed because Plaintiff failed to plead facts that
showed her reliance on the Products' packaging was justifiable or
reasonable.  

To have standing under the FAL and the CLRA, a plaintiff must
allege she relied on the defendant's misrepresentation and that she
suffered economic injury as a result.

The Plaintiff alleges she suffered economic injury because she
purchased the Defendant's Products after reading Organic Kombucha
on the label. The Court found the Plaintiff has plausibly pled a
reasonable consumer would expect a kombucha beverage to contain
live organisms. The Plaintiff states in reading the Products'
labeling, she believed she had purchased a tea beverage with live
organisms.

The Plaintiff read the Kombucha Product packaging, specifically the
Defendant's representation that the Green Tea Kombucha contained
Organic Kombucha and that the tea combines Green Tea with Kombucha
to supply antioxidants to support your overall health. She alleges
that she would not have purchased the Green Tea Kombucha but for
the Defendant's misrepresentation that the tea did in fact contain
Organic Kombucha. Therefore, the Plaintiff's allegations
sufficiently plead reliance because she saw, read, and relied on
the Products' labeling.

The Court denies the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the claims for
this reason.

Breach of Express Warranty

To plead a claim for breach of express warranty, the plaintiff must
allege the exact terms of the warranty, plaintiff's reasonable
reliance thereon, and a breach of that warranty which proximately
causes plaintiff injury.

The Plaintiff has alleged the Defendant expressly warranted to its
purchasers that the Products contained organic kombucha. The
Defendant argues it did not breach the warranty because the label
stating Organic Kombucha as an ingredient was true and accurate.
The Plaintiff has pled the elements of her claim for breach of
express warranty because, as analyzed above, she has alleged the
statements made on the Product packaging promised there was organic
kombucha, that she reasonably relied on that statement, and that
the Product did not provide what was promised.  

The Court denies Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the claim of express
warranty.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 2, 2018 Memorandum
Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ybobx8d8 from
Leagle.com.

Sydney Cohen, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Brittany Courtney
Casola -- bcasola@carlsonlynch.com -- Carlson Lynch Sweet Kilpela &
Carpenter LLP.

East West Tea Company, LLC, an Oregon Limited Liability Company,
Defendant, represented by Jaikaran Singh -- jsingh@foley.com --
Foley & Lardner LLP, Kelsey Kathleen Wong -- kkwong@foley.com --
Foley & Lardner LLP & Mikle S. Jew -- mjew@foley.com -- Foley &
Fardner LLP.


ECHELON CORPORATION: Pannucci Balks at Merger Deal with Adesto
--------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL PANNUCCI, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. ECHELON CORPORATION, RONALD A. SEGE,
ARMAS CLIFFORD MARKKULA, JR., ROBERT J. FINOCCHIO, JR.., ROBERT R.
MAXFIELD, and BETSY RAFAEL, the Defendants, Case No.
3:18-cv-05004-VC (N.D. Cal., Aug. 16, 2018), is a class action
brought on behalf of the public stockholders of Echelon Corporation
against the Company and its Board of Directors for their violations
of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, pursuant to which
Echelon will be acquired by Adesto Technologies Corporation through
its wholly owned subsidiary, Circuit Acquisition Corporation.

According to the complaint, on June 29, 2018, Echelon and Adesto
issued a joint press release announcing they had entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger dated June 28, 2018 to sell Echelon to
Adesto. Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, Echelon
stockholders will be entitled to receive $8.50 per share in cash.
The acquisition price represents a total equity value of
approximately $45 million, and a total enterprise value of about
$30 million, after accounting for Echelon's cash and investments on
its balance sheet at March 31, 2018, as well as expected
transaction expenses of approximately $4 million. On May 23, 2018,
Echelon filed a Definitive Proxy Statement on Schedule 14A with the
SEC. The Proxy Statement, which recommends that Echelon
stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, omits
and/or misrepresents material information concerning, among other
things: Echelon's financial projections, relied upon by
Echelon's financial advisor Piper Jaffray & Co.; the data and
inputs underlying financial valuation analyses that support the
fairness opinion provided by Piper; and the background process
leading to the Proposed Transaction. The failure to adequately
disclose such material information constitutes a violation of
Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act as Echelon
stockholders need such material information in order to cast a
fully-informed vote or seek appraisal in connection with the
Proposed Transaction. In short, unless remedied, Echelon's public
stockholders will be forced to make a voting or appraisal decision
on the Proposed Transaction without full disclosure of all material
information concerning the Proposed Transaction being provided to
them.

Echelon Corporation is an American company which designs control
networks to connect machines and other electronic devices, for the
purposes of sensing, monitoring and control.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Joel E. Elkins, Esq.
          WEISSLAW LLP
          9107 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 450
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: (310) 208 2800
          Facsimile: (310) 209 2348
          E-mail: jelkins@weisslawllp.com


ECHELON MUSIC: Breached Contracts for Live Music Events, Natan Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit alleges that Defendants breached various
contracts to provide talent for live music events.  According to
the complaint, in or about January 2017, the Plaintiff loaned
Defendant Stenger and Echelon approximately $500,000 in successive
loans in return for Defendants' promise that they would return the
principal and pay Plaintiff 10% on the principal within 30 days of
each loan. The Defendants represented to Plaintiff that the monies
were to promote live concert events by popular "hip-hop" acts such
as Dwayne Carter, professionally known as "LiT Wayne," "MIGOS,"
"Marshmello" and "Nelly," that such concerts would take place at
specific locations on specific dates, and that talent booking
agents Agency Twelve, Quality Control And Red Light would timely
furnish the acts for performances.

Stenger and Echelon represented to Plaintiff that the money would
be used for advertising and promotion, and they would advance the
artists fees to the talent in a series of "deposits," made to
either the booking agents or directly to the talent. The Defendants
further represented that they would pay the remainder to the talent
directly or through their managers at the particular venue on the
dates of their various performances.

Stenger And Echelon presented contracts, paperwork, advertising,
social media promotional material and documentary evidence to
Plaintiff showing the breakdown in payments and advances to the
booking agents, as well as venue engagement contracts and artist
engagement agreements. In reliance on said representations and
promotional documentation, which appeared professionally produced,
and the promises of Stenger and Echelon that tickets would sell for
the performance, and that the performances would actually take
place, Plaintiff loaned Stenger and Echelon hundreds of thousands
of dollars as investment money to reserve the venues and the talent
as well as purchase advertising and promote the events.

The representations of Defendants were false. The true facts were
that Stenger and Echelon are not concert promoters; they are Ponzi
scam artists. Stenger and Echelon had no connection to the talent
they promoted or any other hip-hop talent. Further, the booking
agents are and were sham entities with no connection to the talent
they purported to represent, and that said talent was never booked
or never agreed to perform at the specified locations on the
particular dates represented by Stenger and Echelon.

The lawsuit is captioned as RAMIN NATAN, an individual, and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ERIC STENGER, an
individual; ECHELON MUSIC GROUP, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability
company; AGENCY TWELVE, INC., a Florida corporation,; JULIA
BEVERLY, an individual; YOUNG MONEY TOURING, INC., a Florida
corporation; DWAYNE CARTER pka LI'L WAYNE, an individual; CORTEZ
BRYANT, an individual; SILBERT MANI, an individual; MIGOS TOURING,
INC, a Georgia Corporation; QUAVIOUS KEYATE MARSHALL (pka "QUAVO");
KIRSHNIK KHARI BALL (pka "TAKEOFF"); KIARIKEND CEPHUS (pka
"OFFSET"); JEREL NANCE, an individual; PIERRE THOMAS, an
individual; MIGOS, a hip-hop trio; QUALITY CONTROL BOOKING. INC., a
Georgia corporation; KEVIN LEE, an individual; TAMIKA HOWARD, an
individual; CHRISTOPHER COMSTOCK, pka MARSHMELLO, an individual;
RED LIGHT MANAGEMENT, INC, AKA RED LIGHT MANAGEMENT HOLDINGS, INC,
a Virginia corporation; R CAPSHAW, an individual; WILL BOTWIN, an
individual; ANDREW J. DONDERO; DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. BC717798 (Cal. Super. Ct., Aug. 16,
2018).[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Philip A. Iadevaia, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF PHILIP A. IADEVAIA
          12100 Wilshire Boulevard, Eighth Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 806 9237


EDGE THERAPEUTICS: Sanfilippo Securities Class Action Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
Edge Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the company continues to
defend against a purported securities class action suit entitled,
Sanfilippo v. Edge Therapeutics, Inc.

On April 23, 2018, a purported securities class action complaint
was filed against the Company, Brian Leuthner (the Company's
President and Chief Executive Officer) and Andrew Saik (the
Company's Chief Financial Officer) in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey, captioned Sanfilippo v. Edge
Therapeutics, Inc., Case No. 2:18-cv-8236.  

The complaint alleges that the Company, Mr. Leuthner and Mr. Saik
violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
making false and misleading statements concerning the Company's
business, operations and prospects by failing to disclose that
EG-1962 would likely fail a futility analysis.  

The complaint is brought on behalf of all purchasers of the
Company's common stock between December 27, 2017 and March 27,
2018, and seeks unspecified damages.  

None of the Company, Mr. Leuthner, or Mr. Saik has been served with
the complaint and their time to respond has not yet expired.  

Various individuals have moved to be appointed lead plaintiff to
act on behalf of the putative class. After the court appoints that
party (or parties), it is expected that the lead plaintiff will
file an amended complaint.  

Edge Therapeutics said, "The Company and its executives intend to
defend themselves vigorously in the action. There can be no
guarantee as to the outcome or timing of any resolution."

Edge Therapeutics, Inc., a clinical-stage biotechnology company,
discovers, develops, and seeks to commercialize hospital-based
therapies for acute life-threatening neurological and other
conditions. Edge Therapeutics, Inc. was founded in 2009 and is
headquartered in Berkeley Heights, New Jersey.


ENERGY HEALTH: Faces Delacruz ADA in Southern District of New York
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Energy Health &
Fitness Corp. The lawsuit is styled as Emanuel Delacruz, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Energy Health & Fitness Corp., doing business as: Energy Fitness,
the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-07463 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 16, 2018).
The suit alleges Americans with Disabilities Act violation.[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


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Appeal in Anthem ERISA Class Suit Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------
Express Scripts Holding Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2018, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the appeal in the
case entitled, In re Express Scripts/Anthem ERISA Litigation
(consolidating John Doe One and John Doe Two v. Express Scripts,
Inc. and Karen Burnett, Brendan Farrell, and Robert Shullich v.
Express Scripts, Inc. and Anthem, Inc.), is now fully briefed.

Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Consolidated Class Action
Complaint on behalf of health plan beneficiaries who are enrolled
in health care plans that are insured or administered by Anthem.
Plaintiffs allege that the Company and Anthem breached fiduciary
duties and otherwise violated their legal obligations under ERISA,
that the Company engaged in mail fraud, wire fraud and other
racketeering activity through its invoicing system with Anthem,
that the Company breached its contract with Anthem, that plaintiffs
are entitled to equitable relief under theories including unjust
enrichment, that the Company violated unfair and deceptive trade
practices statutes, that Anthem breached the covenant of good faith
and fair dealing implied in health plans, and that ESI violated the
anti-discrimination provisions of the Affordable Care Act.

Plaintiffs adopt many of Anthem's Allegations in support of their
claim. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, declaratory relief,
equitable relief and attorneys' fees and costs.

The Company's motion to dismiss was granted on January 5, 2018. On
April 11, 2018, plaintiffs filed an appellate brief. On May 2,
2018, an amicus brief in support of appellants was filed by the
American Association of Retired Persons and National Employment
Lawyers Association. On May 30, 2018, appellees' briefs were filed.
On June 20, 2018, an amicus brief in support of appellees was filed
by Pharmaceutical Care Management Association, Association of
Health Insurance Plans, and the Chamber of Commerce.

On July 5, 2018, appellants filed a reply brief, and the appeal is
now fully briefed.

Express Scripts Holding Company operates as a pharmacy benefit
management (PBM) company in the United States and Canada. Express
Scripts Holding Company was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in
Saint Louis, Missouri.


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Express Scripts Holding Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2018, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the plaintiff in the
case, In re Express Scripts Holding Company Securities Litigation,
has taken an appeal from a court order granting defendants' motion
to dismiss.

Plaintiff filed this putative securities class action complaint on
behalf of all persons or entities that purchased or otherwise
acquired the Company's publicly traded common stock between
February 24, 2015 and March 21, 2016, and alleges the Company and
named individuals violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("the "Exchange Act") and Rule
10b-5 thereunder by carrying out a scheme to defraud the investing
public. Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages in favor of plaintiff
and other class members, attorneys' fees and costs, and equitable
relief.

Plaintiff adopts many of Anthem's Allegations in support of their
claim. On August 1, 2017, the court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss the complaint in its entirety. On August 30, 2017,
Plaintiff filed an amended complaint alleging similar claims, and
defendants moved to dismiss. On May 22, 2018, the court granted
defendants' motion to dismiss and plaintiffs filed a notice of
appeal on June 20, 2018.

Express Scripts Holding Company operates as a pharmacy benefit
management (PBM) company in the United States and Canada. Express
Scripts Holding Company was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in
Saint Louis, Missouri.


EYESUPPLY USA: Retina Associates Sues over Unsolicited Fax Ads
--------------------------------------------------------------
RETINA ASSOCIATES MEDICAL GROUP, INC., individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. EYESUPPLY USA,
INC., and GREGORY CHARLES STOCKFORD, the Defendants, Case No.
8:18-cv-01446 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 16, 2018), alleges that Defendants
approved, authorized and participated in the scheme to broadcast
fax advertisements by directing a list to be purchased or
assembled, directing and supervising employees or third parties to
send the faxes, creating and approving the fax form to be sent, and
determining the number and frequency of the facsimile
transmissions.

On April 23, 2018, Defendants, or someone acting on their behalf,
used a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to
send to Plaintiff's telephone facsimile machine at (714) 633-7470
an unsolicited advertisement. The Plaintiff received the Fax
through Plaintiff's facsimile machine. The Fax constitutes material
advertising the quality or commercial availability of any property,
goods, or services. The Defendants have sent other facsimile
transmissions of material advertising the quality or commercial
availability of property, goods, or services to Plaintiff and to at
least 40 other persons as part of a plan to broadcast fax
advertisements, of which the Fax is an example, or, alternatively,
the Fax was sent on Defendants' behalf. The Defendants had a high
degree of involvement in, actual notice of, or ratified the
unlawful fax broadcasting activity and failed to take steps to
prevent such facsimile transmissions. The Defendants created, made,
or ratified the sending of the Fax and other similar or identical
facsimile advertisements to Plaintiff and other members of the
Class.[BN]

Attorneys for Retina Associates Medical Group, Inc.:

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


F & B ASSOCIATES: Faces Castillo Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against F & B Associates of
New York, Inc. The lawsuit is captioned as Evelyn Castillo on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff,
v. F & B Associates Of New York, Inc., doing business as:
Playstation Theater, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-07453
(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 16, 2018). The case alleges Americans with
Disabilities Act violation.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


FCI LENDER: Jimenez Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
-------------------------------------------------------
MARIA JIMENEZ, as an individual and on behalf of all similarly
situated employees, the Plaintiff, v. FCI LENDER SERVICES, INC., a
California corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the
Defendant, Case No. 30-2018-01012572-CIJ-OE-CXC (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Aug. 16, 2018), alleges that Defendants failed to pay all wages
including overtime wages; failed to provide meal periods; failed
provide rest periods; failed to provide accurate itemized wage
statements; and failed to pay wages upon ending employment,
pursuant to the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendant carried out a joint
scheme, business plan, or policy in all respects pertinent hereto,
and the acts of each Defendant are legally attributable to the
other Defendants. The Defendant has consistently maintained and
enforced against Class Members unlawful practices and policies
which includes refusing to pay Plaintiff and Plaintiff Class for
all hours worked, including both regular and overtime.

FCI Lender Services, Inc. provides outsourced loan servicing,
collection, and foreclosure of hard money loans.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anna R. Salusky, Esq.
          Edward Kim, Esq.
          MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC
          249 E. Ocean Blvd., Ste. 814
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: (562) 590 5550
          Facsimile: (562) 590 8400
          E-mail: asalusky@mahoney-law.net
                  ekim@mahoney-law.net


FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE: Faces Wazee Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Federal Housing
Finance Agency. The lawsuit is styled as WAZEE STREET OPPORTUNITIES
FUND IV LP, DOUGLAS WHITLEY, and LISA BROWN, ON BEHALF OF
THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiffs, v.
THE FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY; MELVIN L. WATT, IN HIS OFFICIAL
CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF THE FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE; and THE U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, the Defendants, Case No.
2:18-cv-03478-NIQA (E.D. Pa., Aug. 16, 2018). The suit alleges
constitutional-state statute violations. The case is assigned to
the Hon. Judge Nitza I. Quinones Alejandro.

The Federal Housing Finance Agency is an independent federal agency
created as the successor regulatory agency of the Federal Housing
Finance Board, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise
Oversight.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Eric L. Zagar, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          280 King Of Prussia Rd
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: (610) 667 7706
          Facsimile: (610) 667 7056
          E-mail: ezagar@ktmc.com


FLEX PHARMA: Faces Rumaldo Class Action in New York
---------------------------------------------------
Flex Pharma, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the company is defending
against a putative class action suit entitled, Teofilina Rumaldo v.
Flex Pharma, Inc., et al.

On June 19, 2018, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against
the Company and certain of its current executive officers in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
captioned Teofilina Rumaldo v. Flex Pharma, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:18-cv-05493.

The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of stockholders who
purchased the Company's common stock between November 6, 2017 and
June 12, 2018. The complaint generally alleges that the Company and
certain of its current officers violated Sections 10(b) and/or
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making allegedly false and
misleading statements or omissions regarding the Company's
business, operational and compliance policies.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Company overstated the
viability and approval prospects for its product candidate FLX-787
for the treatment of MND and CMT and, as a result, the Company's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

The complaint seeks unspecified damages, attorneys' fees and other
costs.

Flex Pharma said "The Company denies any allegations of wrongdoing
and intends to vigorously defend against this lawsuit. The Company
is unable, however, to predict the outcome of this matter at this
time and has not accrued any expense related to this lawsuit as of
June 30, 2018."

Flex Pharma, Inc., a biotechnology company, develops and
commercializes products for the treatment of muscle cramps, spasms,
and spasticity associated with neurological conditions and exercise
in the United States. It operates in two segments, Consumer
Operations and Drug Development. Flex Pharma, Inc. was founded in
2014 and is headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts.


FLORIDA: Madera et al. Sue over Voting Rights
---------------------------------------------
MARTA VALENTINA RIVERA MADERA, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated; FAITH IN FLORIDA, HISPANIC FEDERATION, MI
FAMILIA VOTA EDUCATION FUND, UNIDOSUS, and VAMOS4PR, the
PLAINTIFFS, v. KEN DETZNER, in his official capacity as Secretary
of State for the State of Florida; and KIM A. BARTON, in her
official capacity as Alachua County Supervisor of Elections, on
behalf of herself and similarly-situated County Supervisors of
Elections, the DEFENDANTS, Case No. 1:18-cv-00152-MW-GRJ (N.D.
Fla., Aug. 16, 2018), seeks injunctive and declaratory relief,
including immediate preliminary injunctive relief before Florida's
November 6, 2018 general election, seeking to enjoin Defendants to
comply with Section 4(e) of the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965,
by providing Spanish-language ballots, registration and other
election materials, and assistance in the following 32 Florida
counties for the November 6, 2018 election and future elections:
Alachua, Bay, Brevard, Charlotte, Citrus, Clay, Columbia, Duval,
Escambia, Flagler, Hernando, Highlands, Indian River, Jackson,
Lake, Leon, Levy, Manatee, Marion, Martin, Monroe, Okaloosa,
Okeechobee, Pasco, Putnam, St. Johns, St. Lucie, Santa Rosa,
Sarasota, Sumter, Taylor, and Wakulla Counties.

Florida is the southeastern most U.S. state, with the Atlantic on
one side and the Gulf of Mexico on the other. It has hundreds of
miles of beaches. The city of Miami is known for its Latin-American
cultural influences and notable arts scene, as well as its
nightlife, especially in upscale South Beach. Orlando is famed for
theme parks, including Walt Disney World.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kira Romero-Craft, Esq.
          Esperanza Segarra, Esq.
          Jackson Chin, Esq.
          LATINO JUSTICE PRLDEF
          523 West Colonial Drive
          Orlando, FL 32804
          Telephone: (321) 418-6354
          E-mail: kromero@latinojustice.org
                  esegarra@latinojustice.org
                  jchin@latinojustice.org

               - and -

          Chiraag Bains, Esq.
          Stuart Naifeh, Esq.
          DEMOS
          740 6th Street NW, 2nd Floor
          Washington, DC 20001
          E-mail: cbains@demos.org
                  snaifeh@demos.org

               - and -

          Stephen P. Berzon, Esq.
          Stacey M. Leyton, Esq.
          Matthew J. Murray, Esq.
          Corinne F. Johnson, Esq.
          Megan C. Wachspress, Esq.
          ALTSHULER BERZON LLP
          177 Post Street, Suite 300
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 421-7151
          E-mail: sberzon@altber.com
                  sleyton@altber.com
                  mmurray@altber.com
                  cjohnson@altber.com
                  mwachspress@altber.com

               - and -

          Katherine Roberson-Young, Esq.
          Nicole G. Berner, Esq.
          SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION
          11687 NE 18th Dr.
          North Miami, FL 33181-3278
          Telephone: (954) 804 2710
          E-mail: katherine.roberson-young@seiu.org
                  nicole.berner@seiu.org


FORD MOTOR: Badagliacco Sues over Defective Motor Vehicles
----------------------------------------------------------
DINA M. BADAGLIACCO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY; ROBERT BOSCH
GMBH; and ROBERT BOSCH LLC, Case No. 2:18-cv-12379-GAD-MKM (E.D.
Mich., July 31, 2018) seeks damages, injunctive relief, and
equitable relief for the Defendants' misconduct related to the
design, manufacture, marketing, sale, and lease of Ford motor
vehicles.

According to the complaint, the Defendants' motor vehicles, the
Ford F-250, F-350 and F-450 with 6.7-liter Power Stroke diesel
engines, have an illegal software algorithm -- a "defeat device" --
that cheats federal and state emission testing for nitrogen oxide
(NOx). The device "defeats" the vehicle's emissions controls in
certain situations during real-world driving but activating its
emissions control system only when the vehicle is being tested.

On the contrary, the Defendants' motor vehicles emit levels of NOx
many times higher than (i) their gasoline counterparts; (ii) what a
reasonable consumer would expect; (iii) what Ford had advertised;
(iv) the EPA's maximum standards; and (v) the levels set for the
vehicles to obtain a certificate of compliance, which allows them
to be sold in the United States. Further, the vehicles' promised
power, fuel economy and efficiency, and towing capacity is obtained
only by turning off or turning down emission controls when the
software in these vehicles senses that they are not in an emissions
testing environment.

Ford Motor Company designs, manufactures, markets, and services a
range of Ford cars, trucks, sport utility vehicles, and electrified
vehicles; and Lincoln luxury vehicles worldwide. The company has a
strategic collaboration with Panasonic Corporation of North America
and Qualcomm Technologies. Ford Motor Company was founded in 1903
and is based in Dearborn, Michigan. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          E. Powell Miller, Esq.
          Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq.
          Dennis A. Lienhardt, Esq.
          THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
          950 W. University Dr., Suite 300
          Rochester, MI 48307
          Telephone: (248) 841-2200
          Facsimile: (248) 652-2852
          E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com
                  ssa@millerlawpc.com
                  dal@millerlawpc.com

               - and -

          Simon B. Paris, Esq.
          Patrick Howard, Esq.
          Charles J. Kocher, Esq.
          SALTZ MONGELUZZI BARRETT
          & BENDESKY, P.C.
          1650 Market Street, 52nd Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 496-8282
          Facsimile: (215) 496-0999
          E-mail: sparis@smbb.com
                  phoward@smbb.com
                  ckocher@smbb.com


FOREST LABS: 2nd Cir. Appeal Filed in Namenda Decision
------------------------------------------------------
Forest Laboratories, LLC; Actavis PLC; Forest Laboratories, Inc.;
and Forest Laboratories Holdings Ltd., the Petitioners, v. JM Smith
Corporation, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated,
DBA Smith Drug Company; and Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc.; the
Respondents; and Merz GmbH & Co. KGaA, Merz Pharmaceuticals GmbH;
and Merz Pharma GmbH & Co. KGaA, the Defendants, Case No. 18-2421
(2nd Cir.), is an appeal filed in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit from a lower court decision in the
case, In Re Namenda Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation, Case No.
15-cv-7488 (S.D.N.Y.).

Attorneys for Petitioners:

          Martin M. Toto, Esq.
          WHITE & CASE LLP
          1221 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020
          Telephone: (212) 819 8852

Attorneys for JM Smith Corporation, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, DBA Smith Drug Company

          Joseph Opper, Esq.
          GARWIN GERSTEIN & FISHER, LLP
          Wall Street Plaza
          88 Pine Street
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 398 0055

Attorneys for Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc.:

          Daniel C. Simons, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875 3000


FOULGER-PRATT LLC: Underpays Construction Workers, Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE BARRERA-AGUIRRE; GERMAN DIAZ; EDWIN MARIN, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
FOULGER-PRATT, LLC; MANGANARO MIDATLANTIC, LLC; and GENESIS
CONTRACTORS LLC, Defendants, Case No. 5604 (D.C. Super., July 30,
2018) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay
minimum wages, and overtime compensation.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as construction
workers.

Foulger-Pratt Companies, LLC develops, constructs, and manages real
estate properties, including residential and commercial properties.
Foulger-Pratt Companies, LLC was formerly known as Foulger &
Company and changed its name to Foulger-Pratt Companies, LLC in
1982. The company was founded in 1963 and is based in Potomac,
Maryland. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew K. Handley, Esq.
          HANDLEY & ANDERSON PLLC
          718 7th Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 559-2411
          E-mail: mhandley@hajustice.com

               - and -

          Matthew B. Kaplan, Esq.
          THE KAPLAN LAW FIRM
          1100 N. Glebe Rd., Suite 1010
          Arlington, VA 22201
          Telephone: (703) 665-9529
          E-mail: mbkaplan@thekaplanfirm.com


FREEDOM MORTGAGE: Court Won't Dismiss J. Somogyi's TCPA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
denied Defendant's Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned JOSHUA
SOMOGYI and KELLY WHYLE SOMOGYI, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. FREEDOM MORTGAGE
CORPORATION, Defendant, Civil Action No. 17-6546 (JBS/JS)
(D.N.J.).

The Plaintiffs filed this putative class action on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated against Defendant
Freedom Mortgage Corporation (FMC). In this matter, the Plaintiffs
generally allege that FMC violated the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA), by using an automatic telephone dialing
system (ATDS) and/or pre-recorded voices to place unsolicited
telemarketing calls to consumers without their prior express
written consent and continuing to place those calls after the
Plaintiffs and other class members requested that the calls stop.

FMC argues that the Amended Complaint should be dismissed for four
reasons.

First, with regard to the alleged calls to Mr. Somogyi's cellular
phone as opposed to the Plaintiffs' residential line, FMC argues
that the Plaintiffs' description of the specific dialing equipment
allegedly used by FMC does not qualify as an ATDS because an
employee pressing a single button" constitutes human intervention
and therefore, the "alleged dialing system does not operate
automatically.

Second, according to FMC, the Plaintiffs fail to plausibly allege
that Freedom Mortgage contacted Mr. Somogyi on his cellular phone
using a random or sequential number generator because the Somogyis
were called not randomly but specifically because they were
customers of Freedom Mortgage.

Third, FMC argues the Plaintiffs have failed to plausibly allege
that a pre-recorded or artificial voice was used to call their
residential line because the Plaintiffs offer only vague
allegations regarding a single voicemail, failed to allege the
contents of the message and do not explain why the absence of names
or the clarity or cadence of the message shows that the voice was
pre-recorded.

Fourth, FMC argues the Plaintiffs fail to allege sufficient facts
regarding their do not call requests.

Stay Pending FCC Guidance

FMC requested a stay of this litigation pending the D.C. Circuit's
decision in a case involving the FCC's interpretation of an ATDS,
among other things. Before the Court decided FMC's stay request,
the D.C. Circuit issued its decision in that case, ACA Int'l v.
Fed. Commc'n Comm'n, 885 F.3d 687 (D.C. Cir. 2018). FMC
subsequently modified its stay request, asking that the Court stay
the case pending further guidance from the FCC regarding what
constitutes an ATDS following ACA International.

Since the statutory definition of an ATDS (as opposed to the FCC's
interpretation of an ATDS) was not questioned in either ACA
International or Dominguez, the Court finds it is unnecessary to
issue a stay at the present time. Whatever guidance the FCC may
issue in the future will not alter the statutory definition of an
ATDS. In other words, telephone dialing equipment that has the
capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using
a random or sequential number generator" qualifies as an ATDS
today, just as it will following any future FCC guidance.

For purposes of the instant motion, whether the Plaintiffs have
plausibly alleged FMC contacted them using telephone dialing
equipment that falls within the TCPA's statutory definition of an
ATDS may be determined by applying the statute and previous FCC
guidance that was not changed by ACA International. It is therefore
doubtful that any new guidance issued by the FCC will be
dispositive, or even simplify the issues, for purposes of deciding
the present motion to dismiss. Further, the FCC's reconsideration
of its ATDS definition will not be relevant to Plaintiffs' claim of
violating the do-not-call requirements, see Part IV.D below,
because such calls need not be automated to violate the
regulations.

FMC's request for stay shall be denied.

Automatic Telephone Dialing System (ATDS) Calls to Cellular Phones

Congress enacted the TCPA to protect individual consumers from
receiving intrusive and unwanted calls.

To prove a violation of the TCPA for calls made to cellular phones,
a plaintiff must show that: (1) the defendant called a cellular
telephone number; (2) using an ATDS; (3) without the recipient's
prior express consent.

In the Matter of Rules & Regulations Implementing the Tel. Consumer
Prot. Act of 1991, (2008 FCC Order),  is still the capacity to dial
numbers without human intervention and that predictive dialers fall
within the meaning and definition of auto-dialer and the intent of
Congress. The 2003 Order remains effective guidance, according to
the Third Circuit in Dominguez, 893 F.2d at 119.

Predictive Dialers

The Plaintiffs allege in their Amended Complaint that the dialing
system used by FMC qualifies as an ATDS because a Freedom Mortgage
employee would press a single button on a computer keyboard screen,
which would cause the software to choose a telephone number to be
called and dial the ten-digit number without further human
intervention.

Here, unlike the authorities cited, the Plaintiffs do not allege
that an FMC employee had to click a button to initiate each call
made. Rather, the Plaintiffs allege an FMC employee need only press
onebutton on a computer screen, at which point the dialing system
chooses who to call, dials the number, and then the software, not
the caller, decides who to call next. At this stage, the
Plaintiff's allegation satisfies the human intervention test
because the human intervention that occurred, if any, took place
before the number was actually selected or dialed by operation of
the algorithm.

Random or Sequential Number Generation

FMC next argues that the Plaintiffs fail to plausibly allege that
Freedom Mortgage contacted them using a random or sequential number
generator since they were called not randomly but specifically
because they were customers of Freedom Mortgage.

Here, conversely, the Plaintiffs have made sufficient factual
allegations, taken as true, to infer FMC used an ATDS. The
Plaintiffs have alleged the following: that all the calls they
received were for the purpose of marketing mortgage refinancing;
that FMC used a specific dialing software system, the name of the
system and the company that markets it, how FMC operated the
system, and that the system effectively acted like a random number
dialer; that FMC has six call centers employing about 300 loan
officers who were engaged in telemarketing of refinance
opportunities and that FMC called Mr. Somogyi's cellular phone
multiple times offering refinancing between 2014 and 2016.

The Amended Complaint alleges sufficient information which, if
true, could establish that FMC used an ATDS to call Mr. Somogyi's
cell phone. The Court, therefore, finds that the Plaintiff has
adequately pleaded the ATDS element under the TCPA.

Pre-recorded or Artificial Voice Calls to Residential Line

The TCPA makes it unlawful, with limited exceptions, to initiate
any telephone call to any residential telephone line using an
artificial or pre-recorded voice to deliver a message without the
prior express consent of the called party.

The Plaintiffs allege that FMC used a pre-recorded voice to call
their residential line beginning in 2014 or 2015 through August 8,
2017.To support their allegation, the Plaintiffs contend that the
call allegedly placed on August 8, 2017, left a message using a
voice that, based on its clarity and cadence, and the absence of
anything specific such as the name of the person being called, was
pre-recorded. FMC argues the alleged calls to the Plaintiffs'
residential line are deficient because Plaintiffs offer only vague
allegations regarding a single voicemail, failing to allege the
contents of the message footnote about all calls offering
refinancing, or why the absence of names or the clarity or cadence
of the message shows that the voice was pre-recorded.

The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have alleged sufficient facts
in their Amended Complaint, when taken as true, to allow a
reasonable inference that FMC used an artificial or pre-recorded
voice to contact them on their residential landline.  

Do-Not-Call List Violations

To comply with the TCPA's restrictions, the FCC has determined that
companies making telemarketing calls to cellular or residential
lines must institute procedures for maintaining a list of persons
who request not to receive telemarketing calls.

FMC argues that the Plaintiffs have failed to plead sufficient
facts regarding their do not call requests, including: (i) the
dates of the calls (ii) the manner in which they supposedly
opted-out and (iii) how many calls (FMC) placed to the Plaintiffs
on each telephone line after the do-not-call requests were
allegedly made.

At this stage, the Plaintiffs have pleaded sufficient factual
allegations to raise a reasonable inference that FMC failed to
follow the internal do-not-call list requirement mandated by the
FCC under the TCPA. The Amended Complaint alleges that the
Plaintiffs orally requested in the first calls that they answered,
and on additional calls subsequently, that further calls cease.

Therefore, the Plaintiffs have sufficiently pleaded that FMC
allegedly violated the internal do-not-call restrictions of the
TCPA.

The Court finds that the Plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to
plausibly state a claim under the TCPA. The Defendant's motion to
dismiss is therefore denied, and FMC's application for a temporary
stay pending FCC guidance post-ACA International will be denied so
that appropriate discovery may proceed.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 2, 2018 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yacxzrua from Leagle.com.

JOSHUA SOMOGYI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated & KELLY WHYLE SOMOGYI, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by ERIC LECHTZIN
-- elechtzin@bm.net -- BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.

FREEDOM MORTGAGE CORP., Defendant, represented by KATIE BAILEY
GARAYOA -- Katie.Bailey@dbr.com -- RINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP,
MEREDITH C. SLAWE -- mslawe@akingump.com -- AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER
& FELD LLP &MICHAEL W. MCTIGUE, JR. -- mmctigue@akingump.com --
AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP.


FREEDOM MORTGAGE: Court Won't Dismiss S. Sieleman's TCPA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
denied Plaintiffs' Motion to Dismiss the case captioned STEWART
SIELEMAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. FREEDOM MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Defendant, Civil Action
No. 17-13110 (JBS/JS)(D.N.J.).

The Plaintiff filed this putative class action on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated against Defendant Freedom
Mortgage Corporation (FMC). In this matter, the Plaintiff generally
alleges that FMC violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA), by using an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS) to
place unsolicited telephone calls to the cellular telephones of
himself and other consumers without prior express written consent.
The Plaintiff further alleges that calls to his cell phone
continued even after he twice requested that FMC stop calling him.


FMC argues that the Complaint should be dismissed for two reasons.
First, FMC argues the Plaintiff's allegation that FMC used an ATDS
is not plausible.  Second, FMC argues the Complaint should be
dismissed because any calls FMC placed to the Plaintiff did not
require prior express written consent under the TCPA.

Stay Pending FCC Guidance

FMC requested a stay of this litigation pending the D.C. Circuit's
decision in a case involving the FCC's interpretation of an ATDS,
among other things. Before the Court decided FMC's stay request,
the D.C. Circuit issued its decision in that case, ACA Int'l v.
Fed. Commc'n Comm'n, 885 F.3d 687 (D.C. Cir. 2018).

Two months later, the FCC issued a Public Notice seeking comment on
a variety of issues stemming from the D.C. Circuit's decision. At
oral argument, counsel for FMC posited that the forthcoming FCC
Order could be dispositive and might be promulgated by the
beginning of 2019, and that the case should be temporarily stayed
until then. For the reasons discussed below, FMC's request for a
stay will be denied at this time.

The Plaintiff here alleges that on the calls he answered he would
hear a noticeable pause/delay indicative of the use of an ATDS. In
fact, the Plaintiff goes further. He alleges that the purpose of
the calls was to encourage him to refinance his mortgage with FMC,
that FMC sought to hire people with autodialing experience, that a
former employee alleged leads come from an autodialer making
ringlesss calls and, most importantly, that FMC's own website
explicitly states that [it] may use automated technology to contact
customers. A party who receives such calls could scarcely be
required to plead more than this plausible basis for alleging that
an ATDS launched the calls. The actual configuration of the
Defendant's calling apparatus can be explored in discovery.

Indeed, at this early stage of the case, this the Plaintiff has
gathered significant background information regarding FMC's
recruitment and employment of individuals with autodialing
experience and FMC's own website information about use of
autodialers to contact its customers, as alleged in the Complaint,
such that the Plaintiff's allegation of FMC's ATDS use goes beyond
mere speculation and guesswork. The Plaintiff should thus have the
opportunity to proceed and discover the facts about the FMC calling
system to see whether it accorded with these allegations and
ultimately violated the TCPA.

The Complaint alleges more than sufficient information which, if
true, could establish that FMC improperly employed an ATDS to call
the Plaintiff and others similarly situated. The Court, therefore,
finds that the Plaintiff has adequately pleaded the ATDS element
under the TCPA.

Prior Express Written Consent

Pursuant to that authority, the FCC has determined that it is
essential to require prior express written consent for autodialed
or prerecorded telemarketing calls to wireless numbers.

FMC argues that the express written consent requirement does not
apply to calls that are placed to a number which the called party
provided in connection with an existing debt.  The Plaintiff, on
the other hand, contends he has properly pleaded that the calls
received were for telemarketing purposes and not in connection with
an existing debt.

Here, the calls placed by FMC were not debt collection calls
because the Plaintiff was not in default on his mortgage FMC was
simply offering new refinancing services to the Plaintiff.
Therefore, the calls do not fall within the purview of the FCC's
requirement that the provision of a cell phone number to a creditor
reasonably evidences prior express consent by the cell phone
subscriber to be contacted at that number regarding the debt.
Rather, the Plaintiff's allegation that FMC placed auto-dialed
calls to his cellular phone for the sole purpose of encouraging him
to refinance his mortgage falls squarely within the statutory
definition of telemarketing. Such telemarketing calls require prior
express written consent under the TCPA.

The Plaintiff has plausibly alleged that: (1) the calls FMC placed
to the Plaintiff were not debt-collection calls; (2) the calls
encouraged the purchase and therefore qualified as telemarketing
calls requiring FMC to obtain prior express written consent from
the Plaintiff to place the calls; and (3) the calls were placed
after the prior express written consent requirement went into
effect in October 2013. Accordingly, the Plaintiff has properly
pleaded that he did not provide FMC with his prior express written
consent and that such written consent was required before the
Defendant could place the telemarketing calls soliciting
refinancing his mortgage to his cell phone.

The Court finds that the Plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to
plausibly state a claim under the TCPA in each of the two counts.
The Defendant's motion to dismiss is, therefore, denied, and FMC's
application for a temporary stay pending FCC guidance post-ACA
International will be denied so that appropriate discovery may
proceed.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 2, 2018 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y8jvgcf6 from Leagle.com.

STEWART SIELEMAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by STEFAN LOUIS
COLEMAN.

FREEDOM MORTGAGE CORPORATION, a company registered in the State of
New Jersey, Defendant, represented by DAVID G. MURPHY --
dmurphy@reedsmith.com -- REED SMITH LLP.


FUNKO INC: Investor Class Suits Underway in Washington
------------------------------------------------------
Funko, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2018, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2018, that the company continues to face
state and federal securities class action lawsuits in Washington.

On November 16, 2017, a purported stockholder of the Company filed
a putative class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of Washington
in and for King County against the company, certain of its officers
and directors, and the underwriters of its IPO, entitled Robert
Lowinger v. Funko, Inc., et. al.

In January and March 2018, five additional putative class action
lawsuits were filed in Washington state court, four in the Superior
Court of Washington in and for King County and one in the Superior
Court of Washington in and for Snohomish County.

Two of the King County lawsuits, Surratt v. Funko, Inc. et. al.
(filed on January 16, 2018) and Baskin v. Funko, Inc. et. al.
(filed on January 30, 2018), were filed against the company and
certain of its officers and directors.

The other two King County lawsuits, The Ronald and Maxine Linde
Foundation v. Funko, Inc. et. al. (filed on January 18, 2018) and
Lovewell v. Funko, Inc. et. al (filed on March 27, 2018), were
filed against the company, certain of its officers and directors,
ACON, Fundamental and certain other defendants.

The Snohomish County lawsuit, Berkelhammer v. Funko, Inc. et. al.
(filed on March 13, 2018), was filed against the company, certain
of its officers and directors, and ACON.

On May 8, 2018, the Berkelhammer action was voluntarily dismissed,
and on May 15, 2018 a substantially similar action was filed by the
same plaintiff in the Superior Court of Washington in and for King
County.  

On April 2, 2018, a putative class action lawsuit Jacobs v. Funko,
Inc. et. al was filed in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington against the Company, certain of its
officers and directors, and certain other defendants. On May 21,
2018 the Jacobs action was voluntarily dismissed, and on June 12,
2018 a substantially similar action was filed by the same plaintiff
in the Superior Court of Washington in and for King County.

On July 2, 2018, all of the above-referenced suits were ordered
consolidated for all purposes into one action under the title In re
Funko, Inc. Securities Litigation in the Superior Court of
Washington in and for King County. On August 1, 2018, plaintiffs
filed a consolidated complaint against the Company, certain of its
officers and directors, ACON, Fundamental, and certain other
defendants.

Additionally, on June 4, 2018, a putative class action lawsuit
Kanugonda v. Funko, et al. was filed in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Washington against the Company,
certain of its officers and directors, and certain other
defendants.

The complaints in both state and federal court allege that the
company violated Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933, as amended, by making allegedly materially misleading
statements and by omitting material facts necessary to make the
statements made therein not misleading. The lawsuits seek, among
other things, compensatory statutory damages and rescissory damages
in account of the consideration paid for the company's Class A
common stock by plaintiff and members of the putative class, as
well as attorneys' fees and costs.

Funko said "The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the
claims of the plaintiff and members of the class and any liability
for the alleged claims is not currently probable or reasonably
estimable."

Funko, Inc., a pop culture consumer products company, designs,
sources, and distributes licensed pop culture products in the
United States, China, Vietnam, and the United Kingdom. Funko, Inc.
was founded in 2017 and is headquartered in Everett, Washington.


GENWORTH FINANCIAL:  Accord in Virginia Suit Wins Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
Genworth Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the court in the Eastern
District of Virginia  has granted final approval of a class action
settlement.

In January 2017, two putative stockholder class action lawsuits,
captioned Rice v. Genworth Financial Incorporated, et al, and James
v. Genworth Financial, Inc. et al., were filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond
Division, against Genworth and its board of directors.

A third putative stockholder class action lawsuit captioned
Rosenfeld Family Trust v. Genworth Financial, Inc. et al, was filed
in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware
against Genworth and its board of directors.

In February 2017, a fourth putative class action lawsuit captioned
Chopp v. Genworth Financial, Inc. et al, was filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Delaware against Genworth
and its board of directors and a fifth putative class action
lawsuit captioned Ratliff v. Genworth Financial, Inc. et al, was
filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Virginia, Richmond Division, against Genworth and its board of
directors.

The complaints in all five actions allege, among other things, that
the preliminary proxy statement filed by Genworth with the SEC on
December 21, 2016 contains false and/or materially misleading
statements and/or omits material information. The complaints assert
claims under Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, and seek equitable relief, including declaratory and
injunctive relief, and an award of attorneys' fees and expenses.

On February 2, 2017, the plaintiff in Rice filed a motion for a
preliminary injunction to enjoin the transaction described in the
preliminary proxy. On February 10, 2017, defendants filed an
opposition to the preliminary injunction motion in the Rice action.


Also on February 10, 2017, the plaintiff in Rosenfeld Family Trust
filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the
transaction described in the preliminary proxy. On February 14,
2017, defendants filed a motion to transfer the Rosenfeld Family
Trust action to the Eastern District of Virginia.

On February 15, 2017, defendants filed a motion to transfer the
Chopp action to the Eastern District of Virginia.

On February 21, 2017, the parties to the Eastern District of
Virginia actions (Rice, James and Ratliff) reached an agreement in
principle to resolve the pending preliminary injunction motion in
the Eastern District of Virginia through additional disclosure
prior to the March 7, 2017 stockholder vote on the proposed merger
transaction. On February 22, 2017, the plaintiffs in the Eastern
District of Virginia withdrew their preliminary injunction motion
in consideration of the agreed disclosures to be filed in a Form
8-K by February 24, 2017. Also on February 22, 2017, the court in
the District of Delaware suspended briefing on the motion for
preliminary injunction in the Rosenfeld Family Trust action and
entered an order transferring the Rosenfeld Family Trust and Chopp
actions to the Eastern District of Virginia.

On February 23, 2017, the court in the Eastern District of Virginia
set the Rosenfeld Family Trust preliminary injunction motion for a
hearing on March 1, 2017. On February 26, 2017, defendants filed an
opposition to the preliminary injunction motion in the Rosenfeld
Family Trust action. On February 27, 2017, the parties in the
Rosenfeld Family Trust action reached an agreement in principle to
resolve the pending preliminary injunction motion in the Rosenfeld
Family Trust action through additional disclosure prior to the
March 7, 2017 stockholder vote on the proposed merger transaction,
and the plaintiff in the Rosenfeld Family Trust action withdrew its
preliminary injunction motion in consideration of the agreed
disclosures as filed in a Form 8-K on February 28, 2017.

On March 6, 2017, the court in the Eastern District of Virginia
entered an order setting a schedule for proceedings to appoint a
lead plaintiff and lead counsel for the purported class action. On
March 7, 2017, the court in the Eastern District of Virginia
consolidated the Rice, James, Ratliff, Rosenfeld Family Trust, and
Chopp actions. On July 5, 2017, the court in the Eastern District
of Virginia heard oral argument on the motion to appoint a lead
plaintiff and lead counsel. On August 25, 2017, the court in the
Eastern District of Virginia entered an order appointing the
plaintiffs Alexander Rice and Brian James as lead plaintiffs and
their counsel as lead counsel.

In November, 2017, the parties reached an agreement in principle to
settle the action based upon the previously provided additional
disclosures, subject to confirmatory discovery and court approval.
On April 4, 2018, the parties entered into a stipulation of
settlement. On April 24, 2018, the court in the Eastern District of
Virginia entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement
and following a July 3, 2018 hearing, granted final approval of the
settlement.

Genworth Financial, Inc. provides insurance and homeownership
solutions in the United States and internationally. It operates
through five segments: U.S. Mortgage Insurance, Canada Mortgage
Insurance, Australia Mortgage Insurance, U.S. Life Insurance, and
Runoff. Genworth Financial, Inc. was founded in 2003 and is
headquartered in Richmond, Virginia.


GLOBAL TEL-LINK: Pollard Alleges Monopoly Power over Phone Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
GLENN POLLARD, On Behalf Of Himself And All Other Persons Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. GLOBAL TEL-LINK CORPORATION, and
DSI-ITI, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-03479-NIQA (E.D.
Pa., Aug. 16, 2018), alleges that Defendants violated federal and
Pennsylvania law arising from Defendants' abuse of their monopoly
power over phone calls made from Pennsylvania by prisoners.

Defendants provide managed telecommunications services at state and
local correctional facilities in Pennsylvania, so inmates can
communicate with family members, friends, attorneys and other
approved persons outside the correctional facilities.  The lawsuit
alleges that:

     -- Defendants charge rates that are more than 100 times higher
than market rates;

     -- Defendants impose abusive, discriminatory and unreasonable
phone charges whereby they permit Pennsylvania prisoners to make
collect calls but only to family, friends and lawyers who open
credit/debit accounts and who customarily are required to make
substantial advance payments to Defendants from which unnecessary
and unconscionable fees and charges on accounts used for inmate
telephone calls are siphoned off at opening and again at closing of
the accounts as "administrative costs"; and

     -- Defendants forfeit balances in accounts when the account is
not used for 90 days after that Defendants require that the
accounts be opened with minimum payments of specific amounts often
at or above $20.

According to the complaint, Defendants' wrongful conduct involves
relatively small amounts of damages for each class member and
Defendants are carrying out a scheme to deliberately cheat large
numbers of consumers out of individually small sums of money. The
Defendants have contracted exclusively with correctional facilities
throughout Pennsylvania for the right to provide telephone services
to at least tens of thousands of Pennsylvania inmates. As a result
of the monopolies created by these exclusive contracts, Defendants
face little or no market competition to challenge increasing
telephone rates. In return for this monopoly power, Defendants
provided kickbacks, masqueraded as "site commissions," to the
contracting correctional facilities located in Pennsylvania.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class:

          Jonathan Shub, Esq.
          Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
          KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
          1600 Market Street, Suite 2500
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 238 1700
          Facsimile: (215) 238 1968
          E-mail: jshub@kohnswift.com
                  klaukaitis@kohnswift.com

               - and -

          Alan E. Denenberg, Esq.
          ABRAMSON & DENENBERG, P.C.
          1315 Walnut Street, 12th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 546 1345
          E-mail: adenenberg@adlawfirm.com


GOOGIE ENTERPRISES: Faces Gomez ADA Suit in Florida
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against GOOGIE ENTERPRISES,
LLC. The lawsuit is styled as Andres Gomez, on his own and on
behalf of all other individuals similarly situated, the Plaintiff,
v. GOOGIE ENTERPRISES, LLC, doing business as: VAGABOND KITCHEN AND
BAR, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-23344-DPG (S.D. Fla., Aug. 16,
2018). The suit alleges Americans with Disabilities Act violation.
The case is assigned to the Hon Judge Darrin P. Gayles.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jessica Lynn Kerr, Esq.
          JESSICA L.KERR, P.A. DBA THE ADVOCACY GROUP
          200 S.E. 6th Street, Suite 504
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 282 1858
          Facsimile: (844) 786 3694
          E-mail: service@advocacypa.com


GULF SOUTHERN: Vasquez Seeks Overtime Premium under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------
RAMIRO VASQUEZ, on Behalf of Himself and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. GULF SOUTHERN CONSTRUCTION,
LLC and CHARLES CRAWFORD, the Defendants, Case No.
2:18-cv-07831-SM-MBN (E.D. La., Aug. 16, 2018), seeks to recover
overtime premium under Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants employ general laborers
or those working in similar job positions, and pays them on an
hourly basis for all hours worked, even when more than 40 hours of
work is performed in a particular week. The Plaintiff and similarly
situated employees routinely work more than 40 hours in a workweek
but are not paid an overtime premium for any of their overtime
hours. As a result of Defendants' failure to compensate Plaintiff
and similarly situated employees for all hours worked, Defendants
have violated the requirements of the FLSA.

Gulf Southern is a full service commercial and residential general
contractor and construction management company.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff:

          George B. Recile, Esq.
          Preston L. Hayes, Esq.
          Ryan P. Monsour, Esq.
          Zachary R. Smith, Esq.
          CHEHARDY, SHERMAN, WILLIAMS, MURRAY,
          RECILE, STAKELUM & HAYES, L.L.P.
          One Galleria Boulevard, Suite 1100
          Metairie, LA 70001
          Telephone: (504) 833 5600
          Facsimile: (504) 613 4528


GYMGUYZ LLC: Faces Delacruz ADA Suit in Southern Dist. of New York
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gymguyz, LLC. The
lawsuit is styled as Emanuel Delacruz, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Gymguyz, LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-07462 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 16, 2018). The
suit alleges Americans with Disabilities Act violation.[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


HERBALIFE NUTRITION: Rodgers Suit Underway in Florida
-----------------------------------------------------
Herbalife Nutrition Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the company continues to
defend against a class action suit in Florida entitled, Rodgers, et
al. v Herbalife Ltd., et al.

On September 18, 2017, the Company and certain of its subsidiaries
and Members were named as defendants in a purported class action
lawsuit, titled Rodgers, et al. v Herbalife Ltd., et al. and filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida,
which alleges violations of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices statute and federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations statutes, unjust enrichment, and negligent
misrepresentation. The plaintiffs seek damages in an unspecified
amount.

Herbalife Nutrition said "The Company believes the lawsuit is
without merit and will vigorously defend itself against the claims
in the lawsuit."

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

Herbalife Nutrition Ltd. develops and sells nutrition solutions in
North America, Mexico, South and Central America, Europe, the
Middle East, Africa, and the Asia Pacific. It provides
science-based products in the areas of weight management; targeted
nutrition; energy, sports, and fitness; and outer nutrition.
Herbalife Nutrition Ltd. was founded in 1980 and is headquartered
in Los Angeles, California.


HOLOD'S GARDEN: McCafferety Seeks Minimum Wage under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------
EDWARD McCAFFERETY, for himself and all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. HOLOD'S GARDEN CENTER, INC., LOUIS HOLOD, SR. and
LOUIS HOLOD, JR., the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-03458-MMB (E.D.
Pa., Aug. 15, 2018), alleges that the Defendants automatically
deduct 30 minutes from associates' daily time for unpaid meal break
without any consideration for their frequent meal break work; and
consistently round off Associates' time punches in Defendants'
favor, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, and
the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act of 1968.

According to the complaint, although Defendants promise Associates
one unpaid 1/2-hour meal break per shift, it is almost impossible
for Associates to take these meal breaks because Defendants: give
Associates more work than can reasonably be completed during their
assigned shift; require Associates to prioritize their work
responsibilities over their ability to take a meal break; do not
assign dedicated relief workers to free Associates from their
duties so they can take an uninterrupted meal break; and routinely
schedule fewer Associates to work each shift than their business
requires, particularly during the hours Associates would normally
try to take a meal break. The Defendants have never told their
Associates they could track their missed or interrupted meal
breaks, allowed their Associates to record their missed and
interrupted meal breaks on the time clock, or maintained any
procedure for Associates to track their missed or interrupted meal
breaks.

The Defendants have never told their Associates they could request
pay for their missed or interrupted meal breaks, maintained any
procedure for Associates to claim pay for their missed or
interrupted meal breaks, or paid any Associate for his or her meal
break work. Instead, Defendants automatically deduct 30 minutes
from every shift their Associates work, representing their unpaid
meal break, without any consideration for whether their Associates
received a full meal break, an interrupted meal break, or no meal
break at all.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Class and Collective
Members:

          James B. Zouras, Esq.
          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          David J. Cohen, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          604 Spruce Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215) 873 4836
          E-mail: jzouras@stephanzouras.com


HSBC BANK: NCUA Can't Intervene in Royal Park's Suit
----------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York denied the Motion for Intervention in the case captioned ROYAL
PARK INVESTMENTS SA/NV, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, as Trustee, Defendant, No. 17-CV-7684
(VEC)(S.D.N.Y.).

The National Credit Union Administration Board (NCUA or Intervenor)
moved to intervene in a lawsuit brought by Plaintiff Royal Park
Investments (Royal Park) against Defendant HSBC Bank USA, National
Association (HSBC) regarding HSBC's use of trust funds to indemnify
itself in related litigation. HSBC opposes the intervention.

This case is part of the next round of litigation between entities
that lost money when the Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities
(RMBS) market collapsed and a few banks that appear to represent
the last available deep pockets that may have some conceivable
liability for those investment losses. In an earlier round of
litigation, which is still ongoing, unhappy holders of RMBS
certificates are suing financial institutions that serve as
trustees for RMBS trusts.

NCUA is Not Entitled to Intervention as of Right

To intervene either as of right or with permission, an applicant
must (1) timely file an application, (2) show an interest in the
action, (3) demonstrate that the interest may be impaired by the
disposition of the action, and (4) show that the interest is not
protected adequately by the parties to the action.

Failure to satisfy any one of these four requirements is a
sufficient ground to deny the application.

NCUA's Motion is Timely

NCUA asserts that its motion is timely because it filed its motion
the day after Defendant filed its motion to dismiss and less than
two months after the Complaint was filed.

The Defendant argues that NCUA knew about its alleged interest in
this case well before it sought to intervene and intended to delay
the case by waiting to move to intervene until after Royal Park's
motion to dismiss was filed.

The Court finds that, in all, NCUA's motion is timely. While its
motion did not immediately follow the Complaint's filing, NCUA did
move within two months of the case's commencement.5Were the Court
to grant Intervenor's motion, it would likely strike the current
briefing on Defendant's motion to dismiss, and order the plaintiffs
to file a single consolidated amended complaint. Doing so would
generate some amount of prejudice to HSBC, which would have to
again move to dismiss the complaint. But there could also be
prejudice to NCUA in denying intervention, as denial could
potentially lead to inconsistent rulings as to HSBC's ability to
fund its litigation defense from the FHLT 2006-C trust, and the
trust funds could thereby be depleted to NCUA's detriment. And
lastly, the Court does not find any notable unusual circumstances
that militate for or against intervention.

On balance, the Court finds NCUA's motion to be timely.

NCUA Does Not Have a Sufficient Interest in the Action to
Intervene

NCUA points to its interest in the OTCs as they relate to the FHLT
2006-C trust, as well as its OTCs in other trusts from the same
securitization shelves. According to Intervenor, its right to the
re-conveyance of the RMBS certificates, although a future event, is
not subject to reasonable doubt.

In response, HSBC contends that NCUA does not have an interest in
this action because, inter alia, it does not own any certificates
in FHLT 2006-C.  HSBC argues that NCUA transferred all of its
rights in the underlying FHLT 2006-C certificates to the NGN Trust,
which then transferred those same rights to an Indenture Trustee.

Just as NCUA lacks standing to sue RMBS trustees because it
transferred its complete stake in the RMBS and has no claims to
bring, for the purposes of intervention, NCUA's interest is not
direct, is remote from the subject matter of the proceeding and is
contingent upon the occurrence of a sequence of events before it
becomes colorable.  NCUA is only entitled to the NGN Trusts'
remaining assets  after all NGN investors are paid and Guaranty
payments are reimbursed.

Accordingly, NCUA's OTCs do not constitute a sufficiently-direct
interest to support its intervention nor do its OTCs that have
residual interests in the other 14 trusts, whose relevance to the
instant matter is even more attenuated. Additionally, NCUA's role
as Guarantor provides it no relevant interest, as NCUA is seeking
to intervene as a liquidating agent and its role as Guarantor
provides it no ownership interest in any RMBS certificates. In all,
NCUA's motion to intervene fails because NCUA lacks a sufficient
interest in the action.

If NCUA Had A Sufficient Interest, It Might Be Impaired By a
Disposition of This Action

To demonstrate impairment, the proposed intervenor must show that
his interest may be impaired by the disposition of the action which
can be satisfied by asserting that as a practical matter, an
adverse decision may compromise the party's claims.  

NCUA asserts that precluding intervention here may affect its
interests through stare decisis and, at best, it could generate
conflicting rulings as to how HSBC may fund the various Trustee
Liability Cases in which it is a defendant.  

HSBC responds, inter alia, that the impairment needs to be caused
by NCUA's absence, and that this Court's ruling would only be
persuasive authority to another district judge.  

The Court finds that, if NCUA did have a sufficient interest in
this action, that interest might be impaired by a disposition of
this action. It is true that this Court's ultimate determination
will only be persuasive authority as to other district court judges
who may face the same issue.  

Even if NCUA Has an Interest, It is Adequately Represented

NCUA advances three arguments for why Royal Park's representation
is inadequate.

First, it asserts that NCUA, as a federal agency, has broader
interests than Royal Park does that also are rooted in public
interest, which Royal Park cannot represent.

Second, NCUA argues that, although it may ultimately become a
member of Royal Park's class,11 absent class members are routinely
permitted to intervene, and its interests will diverge from Royal
Park's because Royal Park will seek to maximize recovery to the
class, but NCUA would attempt to maximize recovery for itself.  

Third, NCUA claims that its interests extend beyond the three
trusts on which Royal Park is suing such that Royal Park has no
incentive to argue for broader application of its arguments to the
shelf level.

HSBC counters that NCUA's interest as a federal agency is
irrelevant because NCUA seeks to intervene as a liquidating agent,
not as a federal regulatory agency. It contends that class members
are presumed to be adequately represented by the class
representative, and that, in any event, Royal Park and NCUA have
the same objective, rendering intervention inappropriate.  

The Court agrees with HSBC. It is clear that Royal Park and NCUA
share the same objectives in that both want to prevent HSBC from
indemnifying itself with funds from the trust, and both want to
recover funds that have allegedly been improperly withdrawn. That
NCUA would prefer to maximize its own recovery is of no moment.
NCUA's existence as a federal agency is irrelevant because NCUA
seeks to intervene not as a federal regulator but as a liquidating
agent and owner of the OTCs.    

Because NCUA does not satisfy all four factors required for
intervention as of right, its motion to intervene is denied.

NCUA's motion to intervene is denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 2, 2018 Order and
Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/yae26w74 from
Leagle.com.

Royal Park Investments SA/NV, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher M.
Wood -- cwood@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP,
Regis C. Worley, Jr., Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & Samuel
Howard Rudman -- srudman@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP.

HSBC Bank USA, National Association, as Trustee, Defendant,
represented by George Anthony Borden -- gborden@wc.com -- Williams
& Connolly LLP, Kevin Michael Hodges -- khodges@wc.com -- Williams
& Connolly LLP, Edward C. Reddington -- ereddington@wc.com --
Williams & Connolly LLP -- luhlig@wc.com -- Williams & Connolly
LLP, Matthew Boyd Underwood -- munderwood@wc.com -- Williams &
Connolly LLP & Vidya Atre Mirmira -- vmirmira@wc.com -- Williams &
Connolly LLP.

National Credit Union Administration Board, as Liquidating Agent,
Intervenor Plaintiff, represented by Scott K. Attaway --
sattaway@kellogghansen.com -- Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd & Evans,
P.L.L.C. & John Anton Libra , Korein Tillery, LLC.


HYATT HOTELS: Faces Illinois Antitrust Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Hyatt Hotels Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the company is defending
against a putative class action suit in Illinois.

In March 2018, a putative class action was filed against the
Company and several other hotel companies in federal district court
in Illinois seeking an unspecified amount of damages and equitable
relief for an alleged violation of the federal antitrust laws. The
Company disputes the allegations and will defend its interests
vigorously.

Hyatt Hotels said, "We currently do not believe the ultimate
outcome of this litigation will have a material effect on our
consolidated financial position, results of operation, or
liquidity."

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

Hyatt Hotels Corporation, a hospitality company, develops, owns,
operates, manages, franchises, licenses, or provides services to
hotels, resorts, residential, and other properties. It operates in
four segments: Owned and Leased Hotels, Americas Management and
Franchising, ASPAC Management and Franchising, and EAME/SW Asia
Management and Franchising. Hyatt Hotels Corporation was founded in
1957 and is headquartered in Chicago, Illinois.


INCASE DESIGNS: Faces Martinez ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Incase Designs Corp.
The lawsuit is styled as Pedro Martinez, Individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons, the
Plaintiff, v. Incase Designs Corp., the Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-04630 (, Aug. 16, 2018). The suit alleges Americans with
Disabilities Act violation.

Incase Designs Corp. designs and creates protection and mobility
products for consumers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dan Shaked, Esq.
          SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
          44 Court Street, Suite 1217
          Brooklyn, NY 11217
          Telephone: (917) 373 9128
          Facsimile: (718) 504 7555
          E-mail: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


INSPERITY INC: Continues to Defend 401(k) Plan Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Insperity, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the company continues to
defend itself in a class action suit related to its 401(k)
retirement plan.

In December 2015, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
company and the third-party discretionary trustee of the Insperity
401(k) retirement plan that is available to eligible worksite
employees (the "Plan") in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, on behalf of Plan
participants.

The suit generally alleges that Insperity's third-party
discretionary trustee of the Plan and Insperity breached their
fiduciary duties to plan participants by selecting an Insperity
subsidiary to serve as the recordkeeper for the Plan, by causing
participants in the Plan to pay excessive recordkeeping fees to the
Insperity subsidiary, by failing to monitor other fiduciaries, and
by making imprudent investment choices.

The parties filed a stipulation concerning class certification that
defined the class as "all participants and beneficiaries of the
Insperity 401(k) Plan from December 22, 2009 through September 30,
2017."

In November 2017, the court approved the class certification
stipulation and denied the plaintiffs' request for a jury trial.
Discovery is complete.

On June 8, 2018, the company filed a motion for summary judgment
seeking dismissal of all claims. Briefing on that motion is
scheduled to be complete in September 2018. A date for the bench
trial has not yet been set.

Insperity said "We believe we have meritorious defenses, and we
intend to vigorously defend this litigation. As a result of
uncertainty regarding the outcome of this matter, no provision has
been made in the accompanying consolidated financial statements."

Insperity, Inc. provides human resources (HR) and business
solutions to enhance business performance for small and
medium-sized businesses in the United States. The company was
formerly known as Administaff, Inc. and changed its name to
Insperity, Inc. in March 2011. Insperity, Inc. was founded in 1986
and is headquartered in Kingwood, Texas.


J ALEXANDERS: Elstein Class Action Dismissed With Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------
J. Alexander's Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2018, for
the quarterly period ended July 1, 2018, that the lawsuit by Margie
Elstein has been dismissed without prejudice.  

On December 8, 2017, Margie Elstein, a purported shareholder of the
Company, filed a putative class action lawsuit in the Tennessee
Chancery Court for Davidson County, 20th Judicial District (the
"Elstein Action") against the Company, members of the Board,
Fidelity Newport Holdings, LLC ("FNH"), then FNFV and FNF. The
Elstein Action alleged that the members of the Board breached their
fiduciary duties to shareholders because the directors of the
Company and Stephens, Inc. had conflicts of interest related to the
Company's proposed acquisition of 99 Restaurants.  

The Elstein Action also alleged that the Board and the Company made
materially inadequate disclosures and material omissions in its
preliminary proxy statement for the acquisition of 99 Restaurants.
The Elstein Action further alleged that FNH, then FNFV, and FNF
defendants aided and abetted the Board's purported breach of its
fiduciary duties.  

During the second quarter of 2018, the Elstein Action was dismissed
without prejudice, and no further developments or costs related
thereto are anticipated.  

J. Alexander's Holdings, Inc., through its subsidiaries, owns and
operates full service restaurants in the United States. It operates
four complementary upscale dining restaurant concepts, including J.
Alexander's, Redlands Grill, Lyndhurst Grill, and Stoney River
Steakhouse and Grill (Stoney River). The company's restaurants
offer American menu. J. Alexander's Holdings, Inc. was founded in
1970 and is headquartered in Nashville, Tennessee.


JTH TAX INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Labrado Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
RENE LABRADO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JTH TAX INC. d/b/a LIBERTY TAX SERVICE; and
DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC715076 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., July 30, 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 Labrado was employed by the Defendants as an
hourly-paid, non-exempt employee from December 2011 to March 2017.

JTH Tax, Inc., doing business as Liberty Tax Service, provides tax
return preparation services for Americans. The company was
incorporated in 1996 and is headquartered in Virginia Beach,
Virginia with additional offices in the United States and Canada.
JTH Tax, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Liberty Tax, Inc. [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


JUST BORN: White Appeals W.D. Mo. Ct. Decision to 8th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Darryl White, Jr., filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit styled Darryl White, Jr. v. Just Born, Inc., Case No.
2:17-cv-04025-NKL, in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Missouri - Jefferson City.

The appellate case is captioned as Darryl White, Jr. v. Just Born,
Inc., Case No. 18-8011, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Eighth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Petitioner Darryl White, Jr., Individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Stephen Frank Gaunt, Esq.
          David L. Steelman, Esq.
          STEELMAN, GAUNT & HORSEFIELD, ATTORNEYS AT LAW
          901 Pine Street
          P.O. Box 1257
          Rolla, MO 65402
          Telephone: (573) 341-8336
          E-mail: sgaunt@steelmanandgaunt.com
                  dsteelman@steelmanandgaunt.com

               - and -

          Scott A. Kamber, Esq.
          KAMBERLAW
          201 Milwaukee Street
          Denver, CO 80206
          Telephone: (646) 964-9600
          E-mail: skamber@kamberlaw.com

Defendant-Respondent Just Born, Inc., is represented by:

          Leo A. Bautista, Esq.
          Eric Y. Kizirian, Esq.
          LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
          633 W. 5th Street, Suite 4000
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 580-3981
          E-mail: Leo.Bautista@lewisbrisbois.com
                  eric.kizirian@lewisbrisbois.com

               - and -

          Alan L. Rupe, Esq.
          LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
          1605 N. Waterfront Parkway, Suite 150
          Wichita, KS 67206
          Telephone: (316) 609-7900
          E-mail: Alan.Rupe@lewisbrisbois.com


K.L.T.S. LLC: Fails to Pay OT to Dispatchers, Streeter Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
LESHADY STREETER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. K.L.T.S. LLC; KLTC ENTERPRISES
INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants Case No.
BC715072 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., July 30, 2018) is an
action against the Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime
hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods.

The Plaintiff Streeter was employed by the Defendants as dispatcher
from November 2017 to January 12, 2018.

K.L.T.S. LLC is a limited liability company organized under the
laws of the State of California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Spivak, Esq.
          THE SPIVAK LAW FIRM
          16530 Ventura Blvd., Suite 312
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 582-3086
          Facsimile: (818) 582-2561
          E-mail: david@spivaklaw.com


KEMET CORP: Made 3 of 5 Installment Payments in Capacitor Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kemet Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that TOKIN has already made
three installment payments in In re: Capacitors Antitrust
Litigation.

On July 15, 2016, TOKIN entered into definitive settlement
agreements in two antitrust suits filed with the United States
District Court, Northern District of California as In re:
Capacitors Antitrust Litigation, No. 3:14-cv-03264-JD.

Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, in consideration of the
release of TOKIN and its subsidiaries (including TOKIN America,
Inc.) from claims asserted in the Capacitor Class Action Suits,
TOKIN will pay an aggregate $37.3 million to a settlement class of
direct purchasers of capacitors and a settlement class of indirect
purchasers of capacitors. Each of the respective class payments is
payable in five installments, three of which have been paid on or
before their respective due dates of July 29, 2016, May 15, 2017,
and May 15, 2018. The fourth payment is due May 15, 2019 and the
final payment is due by December 31, 2019.

Kemet Corporation is a leading global manufacturer of a wide
variety of capacitors, and Electro-magnetic compatible ("EMC")
devices, sensors and actuators. The company operates in three
segments: Solid Capacitors, Film and Electrolytic; and
Electro-Magnetic, Sensors, and Actuators. The company was founded
in 1919 and is headquartered in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.


KEMET CORP: Pays C$2.2M to Settle Canadian Capacitors' Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kemet Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that a settlement payment was
made on June 27, 2018, to the plaintiffs in the Canadian lawsuits
against capacitor manufacturers.

KEMET and KEC, along with certain other capacitor manufacturers and
subsidiaries (including TOKIN), were named as defendants in several
additional suits that were filed in Canada: Badashmin v. Panasonic
Corporation, et al., filed August 6, 2014 in the Superior Court,
Province of Quebec, District of Montreal; Herard v. Panasonic
Corporation, et al., filed August 6, 2014 in the Superior Court,
Province of Quebec, District of Montreal; Cygnus Electronics
Corporation v. Panasonic Corporation, et al., filed August 6, 2014
in the Superior Court of Justice, Province of Ontario; LeClaire v.
Panasonic Corporation, et al., filed August 6, 2014 in the Superior
Court, Province of Quebec, District of Montreal; Taylor v Panasonic
Corporation, et al., filed August 11, 2014 in the Superior Court of
Justice, Province of Ontario; Ramsay v. Panasonic Corporation, et
al., filed August 14, 2014 in the Supreme Court, Province of
British Columbia; Martin v. Panasonic Corporation, et al., filed
September 25, 2014 in the Superior Court, Province of Quebec,
District of Montreal; Parikh v. Panasonic Corporation, et al.,
filed October 3, 2014 in the Superior Court of Justice, Province of
Ontario; Fraser v. Panasonic Corporation, et al., filed October 3,
2014 in the Court of Queen's Bench, Province of Saskatchewan;
Pickering v. Panasonic Corporation, et al., filed October 6, 2014
in the Supreme Court, Province of British Columbia; McPherson v
Panasonic Corporation et al., filed on November 6, 2014 in the
Court of Queen's Bench, Province of Manitoba; and Allott v AVX
Corporation, et al., filed on May 13, 2016 in the Superior Court of
Justice, Province of Ontario. The Canadian Complaints generally
allege the same unlawful acts as in the U.S. Complaints, assert
claims under Canada's Competition Act as well as various civil and
common law causes of action, and seek injunctive and equitable
relief and money damages.

On May 30, 2018, TOKIN entered into a definitive settlement
agreement, subject to court approval, with the plaintiffs in the
Canadian Complaints.

Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, in consideration of the
release of TOKIN and its subsidiaries (including TOKIN America,
Inc.) from claims asserted in the Canadian Complaints, TOKIN paid
CAD 2.9 million (approximately USD $2.2 million) to a settlement
class of purchasers of aluminum and tantalum electrolytic
capacitors and purchasers of products containing such capacitors.

The settlement payment was made on June 27, 2018.

Kemet Corporation is a global manufacturer of a wide variety of
capacitors, and Electro-magnetic compatible ("EMC") devices,
sensors and actuators. The company operates in three segments:
Solid Capacitors, Film and Electrolytic; and Electro-Magnetic,
Sensors, and Actuators. The company was founded in 1919 and is
headquartered in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.


KEMET CORP: TOKIN & TOKIN America Face Inductors Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Kemet Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that TOKIN and TOKIN America
Inc. have been named as defendants in the case entitled, In re:
Inductors Antitrust Litigation.

On July 2, 2018, TOKIN and TOKIN America Inc. were named as two of
20 defendants in a purported U.S. class action antitrust lawsuit,
In re: Inductors Antitrust Litigation, No. 5:18-cv-00198-EJD-NC,
filed in the United States District Court, Northern District of
California, regarding the sale of inductors brought on behalf of
direct product purchasers and indirect product purchasers. The
complaint alleges violations of Sections 1 and 3 of the Sherman
Act, for which it seeks injunctive and equitable relief and money
damages.

Kemet Corporation is a global manufacturer of a wide variety of
capacitors, and Electro-magnetic compatible ("EMC") devices,
sensors and actuators. The company operates in three segments:
Solid Capacitors, Film and Electrolytic; and Electro-Magnetic,
Sensors, and Actuators. The company was founded in 1919 and is
headquartered in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.


KEMET CORP: Tokin Pays $4.95M in Lithium Ion Battery Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Kemet Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the court has granted
final approval to the settlement agreement in the case entitled, In
Re: Lithium Ion Batteries Antitrust Litigation.  TOKIN has agreed
to pay $4.95 million to the settlement class of direct product
purchasers.

In July 2013, TOKIN was named as one of eight defendants in two
purported U.S. class action antitrust lawsuits (In Re: Lithium Ion
Batteries Antitrust Litigation, 13-MD-02420-YGR, United States
District Court, Northern District of California) (the "Battery
Class Action Suits") regarding the sale of lithium ion batteries
brought on behalf of direct product purchasers and indirect product
purchasers. TOKIN paid the settlement amount on January 18, 2018.

On March 2, 2018, TOKIN entered into a settlement agreement, which,
subject to court approval, provides for the release of TOKIN and
its subsidiaries from claims asserted in the Battery Class Action
Suits, in consideration of which, TOKIN agreed to pay $2.0 million
to the settlement class of indirect product purchasers.

On May 16, 2018, the Court granted final approval to a settlement
agreement by which, in consideration of the release of TOKIN and
its subsidiaries from claims asserted in the Battery Class Action
Suits, TOKIN agreed to pay $4.95 million to the settlement class of
direct product purchasers.

Kemet Corporation is a leading global manufacturer of a wide
variety of capacitors, and Electro-magnetic compatible ("EMC")
devices, sensors and actuators. The company operates in three
segments: Solid Capacitors, Film and Electrolytic; and
Electro-Magnetic, Sensors, and Actuators. The company was founded
in 1919 and is headquartered in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.


KEMPHARM INC: Iowa Class Action Dismissed
-----------------------------------------
KemPharm, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the Iowa District Court
has dismissed a stockholder class action suit without prejudice to
members of the putative class.

In  December 2016, a class action suit was filed against the
Company in the Iowa District Court in Johnson County by a
stockholder alleging that the Company, certain of its senior
executives and directors who signed the registration statement in
connection with its IPO, and each of the investment banks that
acted as underwriters for the offering negligently issued untrue
statements of material facts and omitted to state material facts
required to be stated in the registration statement and
incorporated offering materials that the Company filed with the SEC
in support of the offering.

On June 27, 2018, the Iowa District Court dismissed the case
without prejudice to members of the putative class.

KemPharm, Inc., a specialty pharmaceutical company, discovers and
develops various proprietary prodrugs in the United States. The
company was founded in 2006 and is headquartered in Coralville,
Iowa.


KIMBERLY-CLARK: Rooney Seeks Overtime Compensation under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
BRANDON ROONEY, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the PLAINTIFF, v. KIMBERLY-CLARK CORPORATION, the
Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-00534-JM (E.D. Ark., Aug. 16, 2018),
seeks to recover declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated
damages, prejudgment interest, and costs, including reasonable
attorneys' fees, as a result of Defendant's failure to pay
Plaintiff and other hourly-paid workers lawful overtime
compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week under
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other hourly-paid
workers regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week throughout
their tenure with Defendant. The Plaintiff and other hourly-paid
workers were classified as hourly employees and paid an hourly
rate. The Plaintiff and other hourly-paid workers also received
non-discretionary incentive pay. However, the Defendant did not
include the incentive pay that was paid to Plaintiff and other
hourly-paid workers in their regular rates when calculating their
overtime pay.

The Defendant operates manufacturing facilities worldwide,
including two facilities in Arkansas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sean Short, Esq.
          Chris Burks, Esq.
          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          One Financial Center
          650 South Shackleford, Suite 411
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Telephone: (501) 221-0088
          Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
          E-mail: sean@sanfordlawfirm.com
                  chris@sanfordlawfirm.com
                  josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


KIMPTON HOTEL: Court Denies Prelim Approval of $600K Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California denied Plaintiffs' for Preliminary Approval of the Class
Settlement in the case captioned ANDREW PARSONS, Plaintiff, v.
KIMPTON HOTEL & RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
16-cv-05387-VC (N.D. Cal.).

The motion for preliminary approval of the class settlement is
denied, because the motion is seriously deficient in several
respects.

First, the plaintiffs must explain how many people are expected to
file claims, for instance, by describing settlements that resemble
this one). The plaintiffs must also explain the expected recovery
of the typical class member and how they arrived at that estimate.

Relatedly, the parties must explain the estimated maximum exposure
faced by Kimpton as a result of this data breach, and describe and
justify the discount rate that was applied in arriving at the
$600,000 settlement amount.

As discussed at the hearing, the proposed claim form appears
inadequate as well. It's difficult to imagine that any rational
person would take the time to gather the various documents needed
to prove expenses incurred as a result of their personal
information having been compromised, all for no more than (and
likely much less than) $250 in reimbursement.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 12, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y9mkj9kg from Leagle.com.

Andrew Parsons, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Francis Ram --
MRam@RobinsKaplan.com -- Robins Kaplan LLP, John A. Yanchunis --
jyanchunis@forthepeople.com -- Morgan and Morgan, P.A., Marisa
Kendra Glassman , Morgan and Morgan Complex Litigation Group, pro
hac vice, Matt J. Malone , Ram, Olson, Cereghino and Kopczynski
LLP,Samuel Joseph Strauss , Turke and Strauss LLP & Susan S. Brown
, Robins Kaplan LLP.

Kimpton Hotel & Restaurant Group, LLC, Defendant, represented by
Daniel Rubin Warren , Baker Hostetler LLP, pro hac vice, David A.
Carney , Baker Hostetler LLP, pro hac vice, Douglas Shively , pro
hac vice, Gilbert S. Keteltas , Baker & Hostetler, Paul G.
Karlsgodt , Baker Hostetler, LLP, pro hac vice, Teresa Carey Chow ,
Baker & Hostetler LLP & Thomas Robert Lucchesi , BakerHostetler.


KIRNA ZABATE: Faces Delacruz ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kirna Zabate, Inc.
The lawsuit is captioned as Emanuel Delacruz, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Kirna Zabate,
Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-07459 (, Aug. 16, 2018). The
suit alleges Americans with Disabilities violation.

Kirna Zabete is a luxury fashion women's concept store with 4
boutiques in the US and a global online shop. [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


KISLING NESTICO: Wins Dismissal of F. Lord's TCPA Suit
------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio,
Eastern Division, granted Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case
captioned FRANK LORD, et al., Plaintiffs, v. KISLING, NESTICO &
REDICK, LLC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-CV-01739 (N.D.
Ohio).

This matter is before the Court on Defendant Kisling, Nestico &
Redick, LLC's (KNR) Motion To Dismiss Frank Lord and Steven M.
Katz's (Plaintiffs) First Amended Class Action Complaint pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

Plaintiffs Frank Lord and Steven M. Katz filed an amended class
action complaint against Defendants KNR and Wire2Air Mobile
Solutions (Wire2Air), alleging receipt of unsolicited and
unauthorized electronic text messages from KNR. Plaintiffs alleged
that KNR sent text messages using an automatic telephone dialing
system (ATDS) in violation of (1) the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act (TCPA) (2) the Ohio Electronic Mail Advertisements Act (EMAA)
and (3) the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act  (OCSPA).

TCPA Claim

The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA)  does not completely
prohibit calling or texting cellular telephones. Instead, the TCPA
only prohibits calling or texting cellular telephones when (1) the
call or text is made using an ATDS; or (2) the telephone call uses
an artificial or pre-recorded voice. An ATDS is defined as
equipment which has the capacity (A) to store or produce telephone
numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number
generator; and (B) to dial such numbers.

For the telephone system KNR allegedly uses to constitute a
violation of the TCPA, Plaintiffs' claim must allege plausible
facts that KNR's system has the ability to store or produce
telephone numbers using a random or sequential number generator.  

Here, the Plaintiffs' do not allege any facts that KNR uses a
system that has the ability to store or produce telephone numbers
to be called using a random or sequential number generator.
Instead, Plaintiffs' complaint alleges that KNR's equipment can be
modified or programmed to generate and dial random or sequential
numbers. Even if these allegations are taken as true they do not
plausibly allege the use of an ATDS. In addition, after ACA Int'l,
(ACA Int'l v FCC, 885 F.3d 687, 692, 697), the fact that KNR's
system maybe capable of sending bulk or mass messages without human
intervention is irrelevant. Plaintiffs' remaining allegations are
not facts and are simply conclusions that are insufficient to state
a claim.  

As such the Plaintiffs' complaint only parrots the statutory
language and fails to state a claim for violation of the TCPA.

CSPA Claim

The Plaintiffs' CSPA claim also fails because it is predicated on
their TCPA claims.

The Plaintiffs argue that the attorney exemption only applies an
attorneys' actual clients and not potential clients. The
Plaintiffs' arguments are incorrect because even if no transaction
is ever completed, interactions between attorneys and their clients
including solicitation efforts of potential clients are exempt from
the CPSA. KNR's text messages, advertising KNR's legal services,
were sent to individuals involved in automobile accidents. The text
messages were sent to solicit potential clients and are therefore
exempt from the CSPA.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 12, 2018 Memorandum
Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7j8abn5 from
Leagle.com.

Frank Lord, On behalf of himself and all those similarly situated &
Steven M. Katz, On behalf of himself and all those similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Gary A. Vick, Jr. --
gavickjr@connickvicklaw.com -- Connick & Vick & Thomas J. Connick
-- tconnick@connicklawllc.com -- Connick Law.


KNORR-BREMSE: Shepherd Suit Moved to W.D. Pennsylvania
------------------------------------------------------
SHAWN SHEPHERD 2241 250th Street Lomita, CA 90717, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
KNORR-BREMSE AG Moosacher Str. 80 80809 Munich, Germany; KNORR
BRAKE COMPANY LLC 1 Arthur Peck Drive Westminster, Carroll County,
MD 21157; NEW YORK AIR BRAKE LLC 748 Starbuck Avenue Watertown, NY
13601; WESTINGHOUSE AIR BRAKE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION 1001 Air
Brake Avenue Wilmerding, PA 15148 FAIVELEY TRANSPORT, S.A. 3, rue
du 19 mars 1962 92230 Gennevilliers, CEDEX – France; FAIVELEY
TRANSPORT NORTH AMERICA INC., 50 Beechtree Boulevard Greenville, SC
29605; and DOES 1-20, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-02253, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maryland, to the U.S. District Court for the on Aug. 16, 2018. The
Maryland District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-01092-JFC
to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Joy
Flowers Conti.

The class action alleges 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.

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

Counsel for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class:

          Benjamin H. Carney, Esq.
          GORDON, WOLF & CARNEY, CHTD
          100 W. Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 100
          Towson, MD 21204
          Telephone: (410) 825 2300
          Facsimile: (410) 825 0066
          E-mail: bcarney@gwcfirm.com

               - and -

          Richard M. Heimann, Esq.
          Kelly M. Dermody, Esq.
          Brendan P. Glackin, Esq.
          Dean M. Harvey, Esq.
          Anne B. Shaver, Esq.
          Lin Y. Chan, Esq.
          Michael K. Sheen, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
          Telephone: (415) 956 1000
          Facsimile: (415) 956 1008
          E-mail: rheimann@lchb.com
                  kdermody@lchb.com
                  bglackin@lchb.com
                  dharvey@lchb.com
                  ashaver@lchb.com
                  lchan@lchb.com
                  msheen@lchb.com

               - and -

          Roberta D. Liebenberg, Esq.
          Gerard A. Dever, Esq.
          FINE, KAPLAN AND BLACK, R.P.C.
          One South Broad Street, Suite 2300
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 567 6565
          Facsimile: (215) 568 5872
          E-mail: rliebenberg@finekaplan.com
                  gdever@finekaplan.com

               - and -

          Thomas G. Foley, Jr., Esq.
          Robert A. Curtis, Esq.
          FOLEY BEZEK BEHLE & CURTIS, LLP
          15 W. Carrillo Street
          Santa Barbara, CA 93101
          Telephone: (805) 962 9495
          Facsimile: (805) 962 0722
          E-mail: tfoley@foleybezek.com
                  rcurtis@foleybezek.com

               - and -

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


KNORR-BREMSE: Stewart Suit Moved to Western Dist. of Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit, Case No. 1:18-cv-01275, 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. 16, 2018.  The Pennsylvania Western District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-01083-JFC to the proceeding.
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Joy Flowers Conti.

The Plaintiff brought this action under the antitrust laws of the
United States on behalf of himself and a class of all others
similarly situated, against the Defendants' unlawful conspiracy to
suppress Plaintiff's and Class members' compensation. The Plaintiff
seeks to recover damages for the lost compensation, including
treble damages and other appropriate relief, and further alleges.

The lawsuit titled is SLOAN STEWART, 2343 Roper Mountain Road
Simpsonville, South Carolina 29681, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. KNORR-BREMSE AG
Moosacher Str. 80 Munchen, 80809 Germany; KNORR BRAKE COMPANY LLC 1
Arthur Peck Drive Westminster, Carroll County, Maryland 21157; NEW
YORK AIR BRAKE LLC 748 Starbucks Avenue Watertown, New York 13601;
WESTINGHOUSE AIR BRAKE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION 1001 Air Brake
Avenue Wilmerding, Pennsylvania 15148; WABTEC PASSENGER TRANSIT
P.O. Box 11 Spartanburg, South Carolina 29304; FAIVELEY TRANSPORT,
S.A. 3, rue du 19 mars 1962 92230 Gennevilliers France; FAIVELEY
TRANSPORT NORTH AMERICA, INC. 50 Beechtree Boulevard Greenville,
South Carolina 29605; DOES 1-50, Inclusive Identities and addresses
currently unknown; DOES 51-100, Inclusive Identities and addresses
currently unknown, the Defendants.[BN]

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

          Eric R Harlan, Esq.
          Paul Mark Sandler, Esq.
          SHAPIRO SHER GUINOT AND SANDLER
          250 West Pratt Street, Suite 2000
          Baltimore, MD 21201
          Telephone: (410) 385 4218
          Facsimile: (410) 539 7611
          E-mail: erh@shapirosher.com
                  pms@shapirosher.com

               - and -

          Daniel J Walker, Esq.
          Eric L. Cramer, Esq.
          Karissa Sauder, Esq.
          Michael C Dell Angelo, Esq.
          BERGER AND MONTAGUE PC
          1622 Locust St
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (217) 559 9745
          Facsimile: (215) 875 4604
          E-mail: dwalker@bm.net
                  ecramer@bm.net
                  ksauder@bm.net
                  mdellangelo@bm.net

               - and -

          Jiamin Chen, Esq.
          Joseph Richard Saveri, Esq.
          Kyla J Gibboney, Esq.
          JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM INC.
          601 California St. No. 1000
          San Francisco, CA 84108
          Telephone: (415) 500 6800
          Facsimile: (415) 395 9940
          E-mail: jchen@saverilawfirm.com
                  jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com
                  kgibboney@saverilawfirm.com

               - and -

          Steven N. Williams, Esq.
          MCKOOL SMITH
          300 Crescent Court, Suite 1500
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 978 4000


KOZENY & MCCUBBIN: Sevela Sues over Debt Collection Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES SEVELA, as Personal Representative of the Estate of BRYCE J.
BOLEN, deceased, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. KOZENY & MCCUBBIN, L.C. and JOHN DOES,
the Defendants, Case No. 8:18-cv-00390 (D. Neb., Aug. 16, 2018),
seeks to recover declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, as well
as statutory damages against Defendants for their routine practice
of sending collection letters to Nebraska residents in violation of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and the Nebraska Consumer
Protection Act.

According to the complaint, Defendant's routine practice is to send
collection letters to threaten a lawsuit to recover allegedly past
due accounts on K& M letterhead without any meaningful attorney
involvement in reviewing and approving the file before sending the
letter. Defendant's failure to conduct a review of the cases by an
attorney before sending letters violates 15 U.S.C. sections
1692e(3) and 1692e(10).

The Defendant is a law firm located in St. Louis, Missouri and
elsewhere.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Pamela A. Car, Esq.
          CAR & REINBRECHT, P.C., L.L.O.
          2120 South 72nd St, Ste. 1125
          Omaha, NE 68124
          Telephone: (402) 391 8484
          Facsimile: (402) 391 1103
          E-mail: pacar@cox.net

               - and -

          O. Randolph Bragg, Esq.
          HORWITZ, HORWITZ& ASSOCIATES
          25 East Washington Street, Suite 900
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 372 8822
          Facsimile: (312) 372 1673
          E-mail: rand@horwitzlaw.com


KUSH HOTELS: Faces Honeywell Suit in Northern District of Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kush Hotels II, Inc.
The lawsuit is captioned as CHERI HONEYWELL, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. KUSH
HOTELS II, INC., a Florida corporation, the Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-00151-MW-GRJ (N.D. Fla., Aug. 16, 2018). The suit alleges
Americans with Disabilities Act violation. The case is assigned to
the Hon. Judge Mark E Walker.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jessica Lynn Kerr, Esq.
          JESSICA L KERR PA - FORT LAUDERDALE FL
          200 Se 6th Street, Suite 504
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 282 1858
          Facsimile: (844) 786 3694
          E-mail: service@advocacypa.com


L'OREAL USA: Hubbard FCRA Suit Moved to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit entitled as Deborah Hubbard, Individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. L'Oreal USA,
Inc., the Defendant, Case No. CGC-18-567952, was removed from the
San Francisco County Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for
California Northern District (San Francisco on Aug. 16, 2018. The
California Northern District Court clerk assigned Case No.
3:18-cv-05017 to the proceeding. The suit alleges Fair Credit
Reporting Act violation.

L'Oreal is a French personal care company headquartered in Clichy,
Hauts-de-Seine with a registered office in Paris.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se:

The Defendant is represented by:

          Pamela Lynn Vartabedian, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          560 Mission Street, Suite 3100
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 397 2823
          E-mail: pvartabedian@seyfarth.com



LAMO SHEEPSKIN: Faces Conner Suit in Southern Dist. of New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lamo Sheepskin, Inc.
The lawsuit is captioned as Mary Conner, Individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons, the
Plaintiff, v. Lamo Sheepskin, Inc., the Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-07446 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 16, 2018). The suit alleges Americans
with Disabilities Act violation.

The Defendant is doing business in apparel & textile industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dan Shaked, Esq.
          SHAKED LAW GROUP P.C.
          44 Court Street, Suite 1217
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Telephone: (917) 373 9128
          Facsimile: (718) 504 7555
          E-mail: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


LOWE'S HOME IMPROVEMENT: Palley Sues over Sale of Bathtub Handle
----------------------------------------------------------------
AVI PALLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LOWE'S HOME IMPROVEMENT, Defendant, Case No.
PAS-L-002574-18 (N.J. Super., Passaic Cty., July 31, 2018) is an
action against the Defendant for breach of contract, breach of
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, negligence, fraud
and intentional misrepresentation, and violation of the New Jersey
Consumer Fraud Act.

According to the complaint, on December 20, 2017, the Plaintiff
placed an order for a bathtub handle through the Defendant's
website and arranged to pick the item up in its store. As of
February 20, 2018, the Plaintiff had not made it to the Defendant's
store to pick up the goods. Nonetheless, despite the fact that the
Plaintiff never picked up the goods, on February 20, 2018, the
Defendant charged the Plaintiff's credit card $12.81, the price of
the bathtub handle.

Lowe's Home Improvement operates as a home improvement retailer in
the United States. It offers a line of products for maintenance,
repair, remodeling, and decorating. The Company is headquartered in
Mooresville, North Carolina [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel Zemel, Esq.
          Nicholas Linker, Esq.
          ZEMEL LAW, LLC
          1373 Broad Street, Suite 203-C
          Clifton, NJ 07013
          Telephone: (862) 227-3106
          E-mail: dz@zemellawllc.com


LYCEUM THEATRE: Faces Reyes Suit in Southern District of New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lyceum Theatre
Corporation. The lawsuit is captioned as Jose Reyes on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Lyceum
Theatre Corporation doing business as: Lyceum Theatre, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-07486 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 16, 2018). The
suit alleges Americans with Disabilities Act violation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 465 1188
          Facsimile: (212) 465 1181
          E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com


LYMI INC: Faces Delacruz ADA Suit in Southern District of New York
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lymi Inc. The lawsuit
is captioned as Emanuel Delacruz, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Lymi Inc., doing
business as: The Reformation, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-07458
(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 16, 2018). The suit alleges Americans with
Disabilities Act violation.

Lymi Inc. designs and manufactures limited-edition clothes for
women. The company offers dresses, wedding/party collections, tops,
jumpsuits, bottoms, two pieces, tees, accessories, and
bodysuits.[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


MACY'S INC: Faces Maroldi Suit in District of New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Macy's Inc. The case
is captioned as SHARON MAROLDI, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MACY'S INC.; MACY'S RETAIL
HOLDINGS, INC.; and MACY'S SYSTEMS AND TECHNOLOGY, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-12190-JMV-JBC (D.N.J., July 30, 2018).
The case is assigned to Judge John Michael Vazquez and referred to
Magistrate Judge James B. Clark.

Macy's, Inc., an omni-channel retail organization, operates stores,
Websites, and mobile applications. The company also operates as a
beauty products and spa retailer. The company was formerly known as
Federated Department Stores, Inc. and changed its name to Macy's,
Inc. in June 2007. Macy's, Inc. was founded in 1830 and is based in
Cincinnati, Ohio. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Taylor Christopher Bartlett, Esq.
          HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS LLC
          2224 First Avenue North
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 326-3336
          E-mail: taylor@hgdlawfirm.com


MARC FISHER: Faces Conner Suit in Southern District of New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Marc Fisher LLC.  The
lawsuit is styled as Mary Conner, Individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons, the
Plaintiff, v. Marc Fisher LLC, the Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-07447 (S.D.N..Y, Aug. 16, 2018). The case alleges Americans
with Disabilities Act violation.

Marc Fisher LLC was founded in 1997. The company's line of business
includes the wholesale distribution of footwear.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dan Shaked, Esq.
          SHAKED LAW GROUP P.C.
          44 Court Street, Suite 1217
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Telephone: (917) 373 9128
          Facsimile: (718) 504 7555
          E-mail: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


MASIMO CORP: 11th Cir. Affirms Decision in Alabama Case
-------------------------------------------------------
Masimo Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the Eleventh Circuit
Court of Appeals has affirmed the decision of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Alabama in a product liability
class action.

On January 31, 2014, an amended putative class action complaint was
filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama by and on behalf of two participants
in the Surfactant, Positive Pressure, and Oxygenation Randomized
Trial at the University of Alabama.

On April 21, 2014, a further amended complaint was filed adding a
third participant. The complaint alleges product liability and
negligence claims in connection with pulse oximeters the Company
modified and provided at the request of study investigators for use
in the trial. On August 13, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama granted summary judgment in favor of
the Company on all claims.

The plaintiffs appealed the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama's decision. The appellate hearing before the
Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals was held on December 13, 2016.
On March 3, 2018, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed
the decision of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Alabama.

Masimo said, "The Company is unable to determine whether any loss
will ultimately occur or to estimate the range of such loss;
therefore, no amount of loss has been accrued by the Company in the
accompanying consolidated financial statements."

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

Masimo Corporation, a medical technology company, develops,
manufactures, and markets noninvasive monitoring technologies
worldwide. The company was founded in 1989 and is headquartered in
Irvine, California.


MASIMO CORP: Physicians Healthsource's Suit Goes to Trial
---------------------------------------------------------
Masimo Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California set a trial date of November
5, 2019, in the putative class action suit filed by Physicians
Healthsource, Inc.

On January 2, 2014, a putative class action complaint was filed
against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California by Physicians Healthsource, Inc. (PHI).

The complaint alleges that the Company sent unsolicited facsimile
advertisements in violation of the Junk Fax Protection Act of 2005
and related regulations. The complaint seeks $500 for each alleged
violation, treble damages if the District Court finds the alleged
violations to be knowing, plus interest, costs and injunctive
relief.

On April 14, 2014, the Company filed a motion to stay the case
pending a decision on a related petition filed by the Company with
the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). On May 22, 2014, the
District Court granted the motion and stayed the case pending a
ruling by the FCC on the petition. On October 30, 2014, the FCC
granted some of the relief and denied some of the relief requested
in the Company's petition. Both parties appealed the FCC's decision
on the petition.

n November 25, 2014, the District Court granted the parties' joint
request that the stay remain in place pending a decision on the
appeal. On March 31, 2017, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals
vacated and remanded the FCC's decision, holding that the
applicable FCC rule was unlawful to the extent it requires opt-out
notices on solicited faxes. On April 28, 2017, PHI filed a petition
seeking rehearing by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. The D.C.
Circuit Court of Appeals denied the requested rehearing on June 6,
2017.

The plaintiff filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the
United States Supreme Court on September 5, 2017 seeking review of
the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals' decision. The Company and the
FCC filed oppositions to this petition on January 16, 2018. On
February 20, 2018, the Supreme Court denied certiorari. The
District Court lifted the stay on April 9, 2018 and set a trial
date of November 5, 2019.

The Company believes it has good and substantial defenses to the
claims in the District Court litigation, but there is no guarantee
that the Company will prevail. The Company is unable to determine
whether any loss will ultimately occur or to estimate the range of
such loss; therefore, no amount of loss has been accrued by the
Company in the accompanying condensed consolidated financial
statements.

Masimo Corporation, a medical technology company, develops,
manufactures, and markets noninvasive monitoring technologies
worldwide. The company was founded in 1989 and is headquartered in
Irvine, California.


MDL 2792: Court Denies Stay Pending JPML Proceedings
----------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for Western District of Oklahoma
issued an Order granting in part and denying in part Proposed
Intervenors' Motion to Intervene and Stay Proceedings in the case
captioned IN RE: SAMSUNG TOP-LOAD WASHING MACHINE MARKETING, SALES
PRACTICES AND PRODUCT LIABILITY LITIGATION. THIS DOCUMENT RELATES
TO ALL CASES. MDL Case No. 17-ml-2792-D. (W.D. Okla.)

The cases alleged that certain Samsung top-load washing machines
contained a drain pump design defect.  The Proposed Intervenors
have moved to intervene pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24 (a) as a
matter of right or (b) with court permission.

Intervention is permitted as of right under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24
(a)(2), when the party satisfies the following requirements: (1)
the application is timely; (2) the applicant claims an interest
relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the
action; (3) the applicant's interest may as a practical matter be
impaired or impeded; and (4) the applicant's interest is not
adequately represented by existing parties.

By their own admission, the Proposed Intervenors were aware of the
JPML Order creating this MDL and had concerns about the potential
overlap of the MDL with their own pending cases in the District of
New Jersey in mid-October 2017. On May 2, 2018, Judge Martini held
a show case hearing to determine why the Kennedy/Orenstein cases
had not been referred to the JPML for transfer to this MDL.
Proposed Intervenors waited a full nine months after becoming aware
and concerned about the overlap of the MDL with their pending cases
and two months after Judge Martini's show cause hearing to file
their Motion to Intervene.

However, at the time of learning of the JPML order and the
potential overlap with their cases, Proposed Intervenors believed
they had negotiated a settlement with Defendant SEA. The Proposed
Intervenors filed their Motion to Intervene approximately two weeks
after the JPML issued its Consolidated Transfer Order. In addition,
neither Defendants nor Plaintiffs in the MDL have expressed any
issues of prejudice due to the timing of the Motion to Intervene.
Likewise, the Court sees little prejudice, under these
circumstances, in the timing of the motion.

The Court determines the Motion to Intervene is timely.

Judge Martini's Enforcement Order was not a final order or
judgment. In order for a settlement in a class action to be final,
it must be approved by a court pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e).
No hearings were conducted as to the fairness, reasonableness and
adequacy of the terms of the Kennedy/Orenstein settlement, notice
was not provided to all class members as to the proposed
settlement, and an objection period was not provided. Judge Martini
merely issued an order finding that the parties had reached an
agreed settlement. Again, he made no rulings pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 23(e) as to the terms of the settlement. Proposed
Intervenors' posited interest in preventing a collateral attack is
insufficient for intervention as of right.

While the misapplied doctrine of collateral attack is insufficient
interest to intervene, the Proposed Intervenors' concerns regarding
the possible release of their claims, which are common to the MDL,
are sufficient. Such an interest would aid in disposing of lawsuits
by involving as many apparently concerned persons as is compatible
with efficiency and due process. As stated above, the JPML included
Wagner, a case involving the same alleged drain pump defect as the
Kennedy/Orenstein cases in this MDL, noting the overlapping
interests with the defects alleged in the other underlying cases.
Whether Proposed Intervenors may intervene as of right thus rests
on the question as to whether those interests would be adequately
represented by the existing parties.

Both the Proposed Intervenors and the MDL Plaintiffs assert claims
arising from allegedly defective drain pumps in Samsung top-load
washers. The named plaintiffs in Wagner, their counsel, and the MDL
Liaison Counsel have the same interest as Proposed Intervenors in
prosecuting the claims relating to allegedly defective drain pumps.
Therefore, Proposed Intervenors and the MDL Plaintiffs have the
same ultimate objective. The MDL Plaintiffs' representation of that
shared ultimate objective would continue if the Motion to Intervene
is denied. Moreover, if intervention were denied, Proposed
Intervenors would retain the ability to opt out of the settlement,
object to the Settlement during the approval process and file
individual lawsuits, and appeal any settlement.

The Court determines that the Proposed Intervenors' interests are
adequately represented by the existing MDL Plaintiffs and that
their interests would not be impaired or impeded if denied
intervention. Therefore, the Proposed Intervenors' Motion to
Intervene as of right pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a) is denied.

None of the existing MDL parties oppose the Proposed Intervenors'
motion for permissive intervention. The motion is timely and
Proposed Intervenors state claims which share common questions of
fact relating to the allegedly defective drain pump at issue in the
MDL.

Because both the Kennedy/Orenstein cases and the MDL are in a
settlement posture and have common claims and proposed classes, the
Court finds there will be no undue delay or prejudice to the
existing parties' rights.

The Court grants the Proposed Intervenors' motion for permissive
intervention pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24 (b).

Motion to Stay

The Proposed Intervenors assert that the Court should stay the MDL
pending the JPML ruling on the Conditional Transfer Order because
the MDL parties have indicated an intent to file a motion for
preliminary approval of settlement which will collaterally attack
and nullify Judge Martini's Enforcement Order. In their Reply
brief, Proposed Intervenors further argue that: (1) denying the
stay irreparably injures them; and, (2) denying a stay will render
the proceedings before the JPML a nullity. Proposed Intervenors do
not specifically state how the JPML proceedings would be rendered a
nullity by the consideration of a motion for preliminary approval
in the MDL.

The Court interprets the misplaced argument regarding collateral
attack as concern that Proposed Intervenors' shared claims with the
MDL Plaintiffs will be released by an MDL settlement. The Court has
granted Kennedy/Orenstein's motion for permissive intervention;
therefore, they may assert and protect their admitted common
interests in the MDL claims directly in the settlement approval
proceedings.

The Proposed Intervenors make no other reference or attempt to
demonstrate any of the factors for considering a motion to stay in
their opening brief. The Court finds that the Proposed Intervenors
will not suffer any hardship or inequity by the denial of a stay.
The Proposed Intervenors' motion for stay pending the outcome of
the JPML proceedings is therefore denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 2, 2018 is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yac8yg8k from Leagle.com.

Jerry Wells, on behalf of himself, Vicky Higginbotham, on behalf of
herself, Peter Fraker, on behalf of himself, Katherine Mikrut, on
behalf of herself & Tracy Pronstroller, on behalf of herself,
Plaintiffs, represented by William B. Federman --
WBF@FEDERMANLAW.COM -- Federman & Sherwood, Amanda B. Murphy --
abm@federmanlaw.com -- Federman & Sherwood, Jason Louis Lichtman,
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, John P. Zelbst, Zelbst
Holmes & Butler & Joshua D. Wells -- JDW@FEDERMANLAW.COM --
Federman & Sherwood.

Samsung Electronics America Inc, Defendant, represented by Alvin
Bruce Davis, Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, Andrew Russell Kruppa,
Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, Arthur H. Stroyd, Jr., Reed Smith
LLP, Bruce A. Khula, Squire Patton Boggs LLP, pro hac vice, Elie
Salamon -- elie.salamon@arnoldporter.com -- Arnold & Porter Kaye
Scholer LLP, pro hac vice, Kate Elizabeth Janukowicz, Gibbons PC,
Kristin L. Bryan, Squire Patton Boggs LLP, pro hac vice, Mahnu V.
Davar, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, Michael R. McDonald,
Gibbons, PC, Murray E. Abowitz, Doerner Saunders Daniel & Anderson,
Philip M. Oliss, Squire Patton Boggs LLP, pro hac vice, Sean
Patrick Neafsey, Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, Susan L. Shin,
Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, pro hac vice, Arthur E. Brown --
arthur.brown@arnoldporter.com -- Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP,
pro hac vice, Jonathan E. Green -- jonathan.green@arnoldporter.com
-- Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP & Stephanie E. Niehaus, Squire
Patton Boggs LLP.


METROPOLITAN OPERA: Faces Reyes ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Metropolitan Opera
Association, Inc. The lawsuit is styled as Jose Reyes, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Metropolitan Opera Association, Inc. doing business as: The
Metropolitan Opera, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-07485
(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 16, 2018). The suit alleges Americans with
Disabilities Act violation.

Metropolitan Opera is an opera company based in New York City,
resident at the Metropolitan Opera House at the Lincoln Center for
the Performing Arts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 465 1188
          Facsimile: (212) 465 1181
          E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com


MICHAEL PAGE INTERNATIONAL: Removes Jordan Suit to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendants in the case of Daniel Jordan, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Michael Page
International, Inc., C and D Zodiac, Inc. d/b/a Zodiac Aerospace,
Does 1 through 100, inclusive, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit
from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of
Orange, (Case No. 30-2018-01008160) to the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California on July 30, 2018, and assigned
Case No. 8:18-cv-01328-JVS-DFM (C.D. Cal., July 30, 2018). The case
is assigned to Judge James V. Selna, and referred to Magistrate
Judge Douglas F. McCormick.

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:

          Richard E Quintilone , II, Esq.
          Alvin B Lindsay, Esq.
          George Andrew Aloupas, Esq.
          QUINTILONE AND ASSOCIATES
          22974 El Toro Road Suite 100
          Lake Forest, CA 92630-4961
          Telephone: (949) 458-9675
          Facsimile: (949) 458-9679
          E-mail: req@quintlaw.com
                  alvin@yeremianlaw.com
                  gaa@quintlaw.com

               - and -

          Bianca A Sofonio, Esq.
          Roger Richard Carter, Esq.
          THE CARTER LAW FIRM
          23 Corporate Plaza Drive Suite 150
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 629-2565
          Facsimile: (949) 629-2501
          E-mail: bianca@carterlawfirm.net
                  rcarter@carterlawfirm.net

               - and -

          Marc H Phelps, Esq.
          THE PHELPS LAW GROUP
          23 Corporate Plaza Drive Suite 1500
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 629-2533
          Facsimile: (949) 629-2501
          E-mail: marc@phelpslawgroup.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Felicia R Reid, Esq.
          China M Westfall, Esq.
          HIRSCHFELD KRAEMER LLP
          505 Montgomery Street 13th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 835-9000
          Facsimile: (415) 834-0443
          E-mail: freid@hkemplymentlaw.com
                  cwestfall@hkemploymentlaw.com

               - and -

          Caryn F Horner, Esq.
          SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER AND HAMPTON LLP
          379 Lytton Avenue
          Palo Alto, CA 94301-1479
          Telephone: (650) 815-2600
          Facsimile: (650) 815-2601
          E-mail: chorner@sheppardmullin.com

               - and -

          Greg S Labate, Esq.
          Sarah B Takasugi, Esq.
          SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER AND 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


MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Continues to Defend Steamfitters Local 449 Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Molina Healthcare, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the company continues to
defend a securities class action suit entitled, Steamfitters Local
449 Pension Plan v. Molina Healthcare, Inc, et al.

On April 27, 2018, the Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Plan filed a
class action securities complaint in the Central District Court of
California against the Company and its former executive officers,
J. Mario Molina, John C. Molina, Terry P. Bayer, and Rick Hopfer,
Case 2:18-cv-03579.

The complaint purports to seek recovery on behalf of all persons or
entities who purchased Molina common stock between October 31,
2014, and August 2, 2017, for alleged violations under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.

The plaintiff alleges the defendants misled investors regarding the
scalability of the Company's administrative infrastructure during
the identified class period.

Molina Healthcare said, "The Company believes it has meritorious
defenses to the alleged claims and intends to defend the matter
vigorously."

Molina Healthcare, Inc. provides Medicaid-related solutions to meet
the health care needs of low-income families and individuals; and
to assist state agencies in their administration of the Medicaid
program in the United States. It operates through three segments:
Health Plans, Molina Medicaid Solutions, and Other. The Health
Plans segment operates health plans in 12 states. Molina
Healthcare, Inc. was founded in 1980 and is headquartered in Long
Beach, California.


MORNING CALL: Court Dismisses A. Albers' Wage & Hour Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana granted Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Angelo
Albers, Jr. for failure to prosecute in the case captioned ANTONIA
HERNANDEZ, v. MORNING CALL COFFEE STAND, INC., SECTION "L" (1),
Civil Action No. 17-2613 (E.D. La.).

Plaintiff Antonia Hernandez has filed this lawsuit as a putative
class action on behalf of herself and other similarly situated
parties to recover unpaid overtime wages. The Plaintiff claims
that, while she was employed as a kitchen helper at Defendant
Morning Call Coffee Stand, Inc. (Morning Call), she was not paid
one-and-a-half times her hourly wage for hours worked in excess of
forty (40) hours per week.

The Defendant alleges that Plaintiff Albers, Jr. has twice failed
to appear for a noticed deposition and has failed to communicate
with counsel.

Regarding the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Angelo
Albers, Jr., the Court finds that Albers, Jr. has indeed failed to
prosecute his claims. Accordingly, his claims will be dismissed
with prejudice.

Accordingly, the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of
Prosecution is granted and Angelo Albers, Jr.'s claims are
dismissed with prejudice.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 12, 2018 Order and
Reason is available at https://tinyurl.com/ycdonzyo from
Leagle.com.

Antonia Hernandez, on behalf of herself and other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Emily Westermeier --
eaw@beaumontcostales.com -- Costales Law Office, Roberto L.
Costales -- rlc@beaumontcostales.com -- Costales Law Office,
Jonathan Mille Kirkland, Beaumont Costales LLC & William Henry
Beaumont -- whb@beaumontcostales.com -- William H. Beaumont Law.

Morning Call Coffee Stand, Inc., Defendant, represented by Clement
Peter Donelon, Clement P. Donelon, Attorney at Law.


MSG SPORTS: Faces Reyes Suit in Southern District of New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against MSG Sports &
Entertainment, LLC. The lawsuit is styled as Jose Reyes, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MSG
Sports & Entertainment, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-07433
(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 16, 2018). The suit alleges Americans with
Disabilities Act violation.

The Madison Square Garden Company is a fully-integrated sports,
media and entertainment business.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


MUSIC HALL: Faces Reyes Suit in Eastern District of New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Music Hall of
Williamsburg LLC. The lawsuit is captioned as Jose Reyes, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Music Hall of Williamsburg LLC, doing business as: Music Hall of
Williamsburg, Case No. 1:18-cv-04643 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 16, 2018). The
suit alleges Americans with Disabilities Act violation.

Music Hall of Williamsburg is a concert hall in New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          30 East 39th Street, 2nd floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 465 1188
          Facsimile: (212) 465 1181
          E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com



NABOR INDUSTRIES: Bid to Dismiss Texas Class Action Underway
------------------------------------------------------------
Nabors Industries Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the company's motion to
dismiss the putative shareholder class action suit filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston
Division, is pending.

On September 29, 2017, Nabors and Nabors Maple Acquisition Ltd.
were sued, along with Tesco Corporation ("Tesco") and its Board of
Directors, in a putative shareholder class action filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas,
Houston Division.

The plaintiff alleges that the September 18, 2017 Preliminary Proxy
Statement filed by Tesco with the United States Securities and
Exchange Commission omitted material information with respect to
the proposed transaction between Tesco and Nabors announced on
August 14, 2017.

The plaintiff claims that the omissions rendered the Proxy
Statement false and misleading, constituting a violation of
Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
and alleges liability by Nabors as a control person of Tesco. The
court consolidated several matters and entered a lead plaintiff
appointment order. The plaintiff recently filed their amended
complaint, adding Nabors Industries, Ltd. as a party.

Nabors has filed its motion to dismiss and will vehemently defend
itself against the allegations.

Nabors Industries Ltd. provides drilling and drilling-related
services and technologies for land-based and offshore oil and
natural gas wells. It operates through five segments: U.S., Canada,
International, Drilling Solutions, and Rig Technologies. Nabors
Industries Ltd. was founded in 1952 and is headquartered in
Hamilton, Bermuda.


NATIONAL CREDIT: Faces Khaimov Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Credit
Services, Inc. The lawsuit is styled as Venyamin K. Khaimov, on
behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers, the
Plaintiff, v. National Credit Services, Inc., and Account Control
Technology Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-04648 (E.D.N.Y.,
Aug. 16, 2018). The suit alleges Fair Debt Collection Act
violation.

National Credit operates as collection agencies. The company offers
customized pre collection letters and third party collection.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
          ADAM J. FISHBEIN, P.C.
          735 Central Avenue
          Woodmere, NY 11598
          Telephone: (516) 668 6945
          E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


NATIONAL GUNITE: Ziembowicz Seeks Overtime Premiums under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOSHUA ZIEMBOWICZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL GUNITE CO., INC.,
and STEVEN MILLIGAN, the Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-12561-LVP-DRG
(E.D. Mich., Aug. 16, 2018), alleges that Defendants refused to pay
their hourly employees legal overtime premiums under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and those similarly
situated worked for Defendants' in-ground pool business performing
hard manual labor, including digging holes for the pools by hand
and shoveling concrete. They often worked for many hours beyond the
standard forty-hour work week, during the hottest months of the
year, yet Defendants never paid them overtime premiums as required
by law.

National Gunite provides trenchless repair of sewers and storm
culverts.[BN]

Attorney for Plaintiff and the Putative Collective:

          Amy Marino, Esq.
          MARINO LAW PLLC
          18977 W. Ten Mile Rd., Ste. 100E
          Southfield, MI 48075
          Telephone: (248) 797 9944
          E-mail: amy@marinopllc.com


NATURAL HEALTH: Ford Class Action Concluded
-------------------------------------------
Natural Health Trends Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the court in Ford v.
Natural Health Trends Corp., has entered a final judgment and order
of dismissal with prejudice.

In January 2016, two putative securities class action complaints
were filed against the Company and its top executives in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California.

On March 29, 2016, the court consolidated these actions under the
caption Ford v. Natural Health Trends Corp., Case No.
2:16-cv-00255-TJH-AFMx, appointed two Lead Plaintiffs, Mahn Dao and
Juan Wang, and appointed the Rosen Law Firm and Levi & Korsinsky
LLP as co-Lead Counsel for the purported class.

On April 2, 2018, the court approved a class-wide settlement of the
action in the amount of $1.75 million, which was fully funded by
the Company's insurers. On April 6, 2018, the court entered a Final
Judgment and Order of Dismissal With Prejudice.

Natural Health Trends Corp., a direct-selling and e-commerce
company, provides personal care, wellness, and lifestyle products
under the NHT Global brand. Natural Health Trends Corp. was founded
in 1988 and is headquartered in Rolling Hills Estates, California.


NEUROTROPE INC: Time to Appeal Dismissal of New York Suit Expires
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Neurotrope, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the plaintiffs' time to
appeal the decision by the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York dismissing a class action lawsuit has already
expired.

Since May 17, 2017, two purported class action lawsuits were
commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York. On August 10, 2017, the lawsuits were
consolidated and Plaintiffs filed their Amended Consolidated
Complaint on October 9, 2017.  

The Amended Consolidated Complaint named as defendants the company,
its former Chief Executive Officer and its co-founder and
President/Chief Scientific Officer. The lawsuit alleged violations
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, in connection
with allegedly false and misleading statements made by the company
in certain press releases and in its Annual Report on Form 10-K
relating to the results stemming from our Phase 2 clinical trial
for bryostatin.  

Plaintiffs sought, among other things, damages for purchasers of
the company's securities between January 7, 2016 and July 18,
2017.

On November 21, 2017, the company and the other named defendants
filed a motion to dismiss all of the claims (the "Motion"). On June
4, 2018 the Court granted the Motion and dismissed with prejudice
the NY Litigation.  Plaintiffs' time to appeal the Court's decision
expired on July 5, 2018.

Neurotrope, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, focuses on the
development of a product platform for the treatment of
Alzheimer’s disease (AD). The company was founded in 2012 and is
based in New York, New York.


NRJM INC: Underpays Delivery Drivers, Rodino Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------
PAUL RODINO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NRJM, Inc.; and RAY MONTEZ, Defendants, Case
No. 1:18-cv-05167 (N.D. Ill., July 30, 2018) is an action against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime and minimum wages under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mr. Rodino was employed by the Defendants as delivery drivers

NRJM, Inc. is an Illinois corporation engaged in the business of
selling pizza. The Company own and operate Domino's franchises.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Fradin, Esq.
          MICHAEL L. FRADIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          8401 Crawford Ave. Ste. 104
          Skokie, IL 60076
          Telephone: (847) 644-3425
          Facsimile: (847) 673-1228
          E-mail: mike@fradinlaw.com

               - and -

          Andrew Biller, Esq.
          Andrew Kimble, Esq.
          MARKOVITS STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC
          3825 Edwards Road, Suite 650
          Telephone: (513) 651-3700
          Facsimile: (513) 665-0219
          E-mail: abiller@msdlegal.com
          Facsimile: akimble@msdlegal.com

               - and -

          Aaron Maduff, Esq.
          MADUFF & MADUFF, LLC
          205 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 2050
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 276-9000
          E-mail: abmaduff@madufflaw.com


OCULAR THERAPEUTIX: Bid to Nix Dextenza Suit Underway
-----------------------------------------------------
Ocular Therapeutix, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2018, that the Plaintiffs' deadline to file an
opposition to the motion to dismiss the consolidated amended class
action related to DEXTENZA is September 4, 2018, and defendants
will file a reply within 30 days thereafter.

On July 7, 2017, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against
the Company and certain of the Company's current and former
executive officers in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey, captioned Thomas Gallagher v. Ocular
Therapeutix, Inc, et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-05011.  The complaint
purports to be brought on behalf of shareholders who purchased the
Company's common stock between May 5, 2017 and July 6, 2017.  The
complaint generally alleges that the Company and certain of the
Company's current and former officers violated Sections 10(b)
and/or 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange
Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making allegedly
false and/or misleading statements concerning the Form 483 issued
by the FDA related to DEXTENZA and the Company's manufacturing
operations for DEXTENZA.  The complaint seeks unspecified damages,
attorneys' fees, and other costs.  On July 14, 2017, an amended
complaint was filed; the amended complaint purports to be brought
on behalf of shareholders who purchased the Company's common stock
between May 5, 2017 and July 11, 2017, and otherwise includes
allegations similar to those made in the original complaint.

On July 12, 2017, a second putative class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company and certain of the Company's current and former
executive officers in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey, captioned Dylan Caraker v. Ocular
Therapeutix, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-05095.  The complaint
purports to be brought on behalf of shareholders who purchased the
Company's common stock between May 5, 2017 and July 6, 2017.  The
complaint includes allegations similar to those made in the
Gallagher complaint, and seeks similar relief.  

On August 3, 2017, a third putative class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company and certain of the Company's current and former
executive officers in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey, captioned Shawna Kim v. Ocular Therapeutix,
Inc., et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-05704.  The complaint purports to be
brought on behalf of shareholders who purchased the Company's
common stock between March 10, 2016 and July 11, 2017.  The
complaint includes allegations similar to those made in the
Gallagher complaint, and seeks similar relief.  

On October 27, 2017, a magistrate judge for the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey granted the
defendants' motion to transfer the Gallagher, Caraker, and Kim
litigations to the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts.  These matters were assigned the following docket
numbers in the District of Massachusetts: 1:17-cv-12288
(Gallagher), 1:17-cv-12146 (Caraker), and 1:17-cv-12286 (Kim).

On March 9, 2018, the court consolidated the three actions and
appointed co-lead plaintiffs and co-lead counsel for the
consolidated action.  On May 7, 2018, co-lead plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended class action complaint.  The amended complaint
makes allegations similar to those in the original complaints,
against the same defendants, and seeks similar relief on behalf of
shareholders who purchased the Company's common stock between March
10, 2016 and July 11, 2017.  The amended complaint generally
alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  On July 6,
2018, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint.  Plaintiffs' deadline to file an opposition to the
motion to dismiss is September 4, 2018, and defendants will file a
reply within thirty days thereafter.

Ocular Therapeutix, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company focused on
the formulation, development and commercialization of innovative
therapies for diseases and conditions of the eye using our
proprietary, bioresorbable hydrogel platform technology.  The
company is based in Bedford, Massachusetts.


OPHTHOTECH CORP: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Class Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ophthotech Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the company's motion to
dismiss the Micholle and Wasson consolidated class action suit
remains pending.

On January 11, 2017, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against the company and certain of its current and former executive
officers in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, captioned Frank Micholle v. Ophthotech
Corporation, et al., No. 1:17-cv-00210.

On March 9, 2017, a related putative class action lawsuit was filed
against the company and the same group of its current and former
executive officers in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, captioned Wasson v. Ophthotech
Corporation, et al., No. 1:17-cv-01758.

These cases were consolidated on March 13, 2018.

On June 4, 2018, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended
complaint, the CAC. The CAC purports to be brought on behalf of
shareholders who purchased the company's common stock between March
2, 2015 and December 12, 2016. The CAC generally alleges that the
company and certain of its officers violated Sections 10(b) and/or
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by making allegedly false and/or misleading
statements concerning the results of the company's Phase 2b trial
and the prospects of its Phase 3 trials for Fovista in combination
with anti-VEGF agents for the treatment of wet AMD. The CAC seeks
unspecified damages, attorney' fees, and other costs.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the CAC on July 27, 2018.

Ophthotech Corporation, a biopharmaceutical company, develops novel
therapies to treat ophthalmic diseases, with a focus on age-related
and orphan retinal diseases. The company was founded in 2007 and is
based in New York, New York.


ORLEANS PARISH, LA: Seeks 5th Cir. Review of Caliste Suit Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Harry E. Cantrell filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit entitled Adrian Caliste, et al. v. Harry Cantrell, Case
No. 2:17-CV-6197, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana, New Orleans.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge Eldon E.
Fallon granted the Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify a Class Action.

On June 27, 2017, a group of Plaintiffs filed suit against
Magistrate Judge Harry Cantrell.  The case arises from the
Defendant's allegedly unlawful practice of imposing unreasonably
expensive secured financial conditions of release upon arrestees
without inquiring about their ability to pay.  The Plaintiffs are
two criminal defendants who were in the custody of the Orleans
Parish Sheriff's Office.  The Defendant is the Magistrate Judge for
Orleans Parish Criminal District Court, where he is responsible for
setting bail upon arrest, and has a role in managing the
expenditures of the Judicial Expense Fund.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant routinely sets a $2,500
minimum secured money bond.  They contend Judge Cantrell sets bond
without considering the facts of the case to determine whether a
lower bond amount or an alternative condition of release might be
appropriate.  They further aver that the Defendant requires the use
of a for-profit bail bond and does not allow arrestees to post cash
bail.

The appellate case is captioned as Adrian Caliste, et al. v. Harry
Cantrell, Case No. 18-30954, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees ADRIAN CALISTE, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, and BRIAN GISCLAIR, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Alec George Karakatsanis, Esq.
          CIVIL RIGHTS CORPS
          910 17th Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (412) 725-8540
          E-mail: alec@civilrightscorps.org

               - and -

          Katharine Murphy Schwartzmann, Esq.
          RODERICK & SOLANGE MACARTHUR JUSTICE CENTER
          4400 S. Carrollton Avenue
          New Orleans, LA 70119
          Telephone: (504) 620-2259
          Facsimile: (504) 208-3133
          E-mail: katie.schwartzmann@macarthurjustice.org

Defendant-Appellant HARRY E. CANTRELL, Magistrate Judge of Orleans
Parish Criminal District Court, is represented by:

          Dennis J. Phayer, Esq.
          Christopher Kent Tankersley, Esq.
          BURGLASS & TANKERSLEY, L.L.C.
          5213 Airline Drive
          Metairie, LA 70001
          Telephone: (504) 836-0412
          E-mail: dphayer@burglass.com
                  ctankersley@burglass.com


PACIFIC COAST: Court Okays Cy Press Award in Welch & Berliner Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Coast Oil Trust said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the Court authorized a
distribution of a small amount of funds that had not been
distributed to class members to a charity in the consolidated Welch
& Berliner Class Suit.

On July 1, 2014, Thomas Welch, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, filed a putative class action complaint
in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, against
the Trust, PCEC, PCEC (GP) LLC, Pacific Coast Energy Holdings LLC,
certain executive officers of PCEC (GP) LLC and others.

The complaint asserts federal securities law claims against the
Trust and other defendants and states that the claims are made on
behalf of a class of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired
Trust securities pursuant or traceable to the registration
statement that became effective on May 2, 2012 and the prospectuses
issued thereto and the registration statement that became effective
purportedly on September 19, 2013 and the prospectuses issued
thereto.

The complaint states that the plaintiff is pursuing negligence and
strict liability claims under the Securities Act and alleges that
both such registration statements contained numerous untrue
statements of material facts and omitted material facts. The
plaintiff seeks class certification, unspecified compensatory
damages, rescission on certain of plaintiff's claims, pre-judgment
and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs and any other
relief the Court may deem just and proper.

On October 16, 2014, Ralph Berliner, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, filed a second putative class action
complaint in the Superior Court of California, County of Los
Angeles, against the Trust, PCEC, PCEC (GP) LLC, Pacific Coast
Energy Holdings LLC, certain executive officers of PCEC (GP) LLC
and others. The Berliner complaint asserts the same claims and
makes the same allegations, against the same defendants, as are
made in the Welch complaint. In November 2014, the Welch and
Berliner actions were consolidated into a single action.

On December 8, 2015, the parties agreed in principle to settle the
consolidated action. On June 12, 2017, the Court entered a final
judgment in the action approving the settlement in the amount of
$7.6 million. The settlement was paid by PCEC and its insurers and
no amounts were required to be paid by the Trust.

On May 22, 2018 the Court authorized a distribution of a small
amount of funds that had not been distributed to class members to a
charity (a cy pres award). The Court authorization concluded all
remaining matters related to the consolidated action and PCEC
expects no further matters to arise in connection with the
consolidated action.  

The Trust believes that it is fully indemnified by PCEC against any
liability or expense it might incur in connection with the
consolidated action. The approved settlement does not require any
payment from the Trust.

Pacific Coast Oil Trust (the "Trust") is a statutory trust formed
in January 2012 under the Delaware Statutory Trust Act pursuant to
a Trust Agreement (as amended, the "Trust Agreement") among Pacific
Coast Energy Company LP ("PCEC"), as trustor, The Bank of New York
Mellon Trust Company, N.A., as Trustee (the "Trustee"), and
Wilmington Trust, National Association, as Delaware Trustee (the
"Delaware Trustee"). The Trust was created to acquire and hold net
profits and royalty interests in certain oil and natural gas
properties located in California for the benefit of the Trust
unitholders.


PERSHING LLC: Wins Summary Judgment in P. Weatherly's Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Texas, Dallas Division, granted Defendant's Motion for Summary
Judgment in the case captioned PATSY WEATHERLY, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. PERSHING, LLC, Defendant, Civil Action No. 3:14-CV-0366-N (N.D.
Tex.).

This action arises out of the Ponzi scheme  perpetrated by R. Allen
Stanford, his associates, and various entities under his control
for several years. At root, the scheme was based on Stanford's sale
of fraudulent certificates of deposit (CDs) through an offshore
bank located in Antigua, known as Stanford International Bank
Limited.

Pershing moves for summary judgment on both of the Plaintiffs'
claims on the grounds that (1) both claims are time-barred, (2) the
Plaintiffs cannot establish any of the elements of their fraud
claim, and (3) the Plaintiffs' participation in a breach of a
fiduciary duty claim fails on the merits.

Plaintiffs' Fraud Claim is Time-Barred

Under Florida law, fraud claims are subject to a four-year statute
of limitations. Although claims generally begin to accrue when the
last element of the cause of action occurs, Florida applies the
delayed discovery doctrine to fraud claims.  Under this doctrine, a
fraud claim does not accrue until the plaintiff discovers, or
reasonably should have discovered with the exercise of due
diligence, the facts giving rise to the claim.  

The Plaintiffs filed the instant action on November 20, 2013. Thus,
absent any tolling, this action is timely if, at the earliest, the
Plaintiffs first discovered, or reasonably should have discovered,
the facts giving rise to their fraud claim on November 20, 2009. On
one hand, Pershing argues that the Plaintiffs' fraud claim began
accruing on February 17, 2009 when the SEC first publicly reported
Stanford's scheme. The Plaintiffs, on the other hand, contend that
they neither discovered nor reasonably should have discovered
Pershing's role in the scheme until November 18, 2009 when the Turk
Suit was filed. But, even assuming the Plaintiffs' fraud claim did
not begin accruing until November 18, 2009, their claim is still
two days untimely.

Plaintiffs' Participation in a Breach of a Fiduciary Duty Claim is
Time-Barred

The parties agree that claims for participation in a breach of a
fiduciary duty in Florida are subject to a four-year statute of
limitations.   

Pershing argues that the delayed discovery rule does not apply and
thus the Plaintiffs' participation in a breach of a fiduciary duty
claim began accruing on February 17, 2009 when the SEC first
publicly reported Stanford's scheme. The Plaintiffs, on the other
hand, contend that the delayed discovery rule applies and therefore
the Plaintiffs' participation in a breach of a fiduciary duty claim
did not begin accruing until November 18, 2009 when the Plaintiffs
first discovered Pershing's role in the scheme with the filing of
the Turk Suit.  
But, even assuming Plaintiffs are correct that the delayed
discovery doctrine applies to this claim and it hence did not begin
accruing until November 18, 2009, their claim  filed on November
20, 2013  is still two days untimely.

As a result, the Plaintiffs require a tolling doctrine to render
their participation in a breach of a fiduciary duty claim timely.
To this end, the Plaintiffs offer three such doctrines: American
Pipetolling, tolling while the Turk Suit was stayed pending an
appeal, and equitable tolling due to fraudulent concealment. But,
each of these tolling doctrines is unavailing in the instant case.
The Plaintiffs' participation in a breach of a fiduciary duty claim
is therefore also foreclosed as a matter of law.

Because both of the Plaintiffs' claims in this case are
time-barred, the Court grants Pershing's motion for summary
judgment.  

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 12, 2018 Memorandum
Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yamgpxuc from
Leagle.com.

Patsy Weatherly, Edith Wichman, Michelle Morrison, Felix Bravo, Jon
Hanna, Bruce Beckner, George R. Jenkins, Robert Legault, Ute Amann,
Anahis Bolivar, Manoj Chatlani, Noberto Malcotti, Italo Belon Neto,
John Doe, Hector Pena, Cristian Palacios, Felice Pelligrino,
Eduardo Roe, Oscar Salazar, Miguel Serrani, Juan Carlos Valencia,
Anwar Perbtani, Maria C. Perbtani, Gilbert Villaverde, Jose Pendas,
Nicholas Pescatore, Susan Pescatore, Raul Sanchez, Jorge Egoavil,
Maria Elena Pelligrino, Alessandro Pellegrino, Guiseppe Pellegrino
& Carmen Sanchez, Plaintiffs, represented by Robert Cecil Gilbert
-- robert@gilbertpa.com -- Kopelowitz Ostrow Ferguson Weiselberg
Gilbert, Scott David Hirsch --scott@shlawfla.com -- Scarlett &
Hirsch PA, Charles E. Scarlett -- charles@shlawfla.com -- Scarlett
& Hirsch PA, Jason G. Andrew , Criden & Love PA, Lindsey C.
Grossman , Criden & Love PA & Michael E. Criden, Criden & Love PA.

P Bowery Ltd, Plaintiff, represented by Scott David Hirsch --
scott@shlawfla.com -- Scarlett & Hirsch PA, Charles E. Scarlett --
charles@shlawfla.com -- Scarlett & Hirsch PA, Jason G. Andrew ,
Criden & Love PA, Lindsey C. Grossman , Criden & Love PA & Michael
E. Criden , Criden & Love PA.

Pershing LLC, Defendant, represented by Kathy M. Klock --
kathy.klock@akerman.com -- Akerman LLP, Thomas M. Farrell --
tfarrell@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, Danielle M. Kudla --
dkudla@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, Jeffrey J. Chapman --
jchapman@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, Jonathan Brennan
Butler , Akerman LLP, Michael F. Easley, Jr. --
mfeasley@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuire Woods LLP, pro hac vice,
Stanley A. Roberts -- sroberts@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods
LLP, pro hac vice & Susan Groh -- sgroh@mcguirewoods.com --
McGuireWoods, pro hac vice.

P Bowery Ltd, Movant, represented by Michael E. Criden , Criden &
Love PA, Scott David Hirsch, Scarlett & Hirsch PA, Charles E.
Scarlett , Scarlett & Hirsch PA, Jason G. Andrew , Criden & Love
PA, Lindsey C. Grossman , Criden & Love PA & Robert Cecil Gilbert ,
Kopelowitz Ostrow Ferguson Weiselberg Gilbert.


PREMIER NUTRITION: Ransom Sues over Clean Whey Protein Bar
----------------------------------------------------------
Russell Ransom individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Premier Nutrition Corporation, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-04617 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 16, 2018),
alleges that Defendant purposed to mislead consumers who seek foods
which are optimal for exercise and nutrition and not made with
artificial sweeteners.

According to the complaint, Defendant's intent was to mislead
consumers by not disclosing that the "clean whey protein" was
present in close to the same amount as the "clean milk protein."
The Plaintiff and class members observed and relied on Defendant's
claims, causing them to pay more than they would have otherwise,
entitling them to damages.

Premier Nutrition manufactures, distributes, markets, labels and
sells the "Clean Whey Protein Bar" products in various flavor
combinations under the PowerBar brand.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
          SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          891 Northern Blvd., Suite 201
          Great Neck, NY 11021
          Telephone: (516) 303 0552
          E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com

               - and -

          Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq.
          LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          1 Penn Plaza, Suite 2527
          New York, NY 10119
          Telephone: (212) 792 0046


RADIO CITY: Faces Reyes Suit in Southern District of New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Radio City
Productions LLC. The lawsuit is captioned as Jose Reyes, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Radio City Productions LLC, doing business as: Radio City Music
Hall, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-07483 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 16,
2018), seeks to recover. The suit alleges Americans with
Disabilities Act violation.

Radio City Productions LLC oversees productions held at radio city
music hall in New York city.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 465 1188
          Facsimile: (212) 465 1181
          E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com


REV GROUP: Bitar Suit Moved to the Eastern District of Wisconsin
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled LEAH BITAR, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. REV
GROUP, INC., TIMOTHY W. SULLIVAN, DEAN J. NOLDEN, THOMAS B.
PHILLIPS, PAUL BAMATTER, JEAN MARIE CANAN, DINO CUSUMANO, CHARLES
DUTIL, JUSTIN FISH, KIM MARVIN, and JOEL ROTROFF, the Defendants,
Case No. 2:18-cv-06239, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin (Milwaukee) on Aug. 16,
2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-01268-DEJ
to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge
Magistrate Judge David E Jones.

REV Group is an American manufacturer of specialty vehicles the in
Fire & Emergency, Recreational Vehicles, and Bus & Industrial
sectors.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          468 N Camden Dr
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: (818) 532 6499
          Facsimile: (917) 463 1044

Attorneys for REV Group Inc.:

          Anne Johnson Palmer, Esq.
          ROPES & GRAY LLP
          3 Embarcadero Center-24th Fl
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 315 6300
          Facsimile: (415) 315 6350

               - and -

          David I Hurwitz, Esq.
          Paul S Chan, Esq.
          BIRD MARELLA BOXER WOLPERT
            NESSIM BROOKS LINCENBERG & RHOW
          1875 Century Park E-Ste 2300
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201 2100
          Facsimile: (310) 201 2110


REV GROUP: Marinoff Suit Transferred to E.D. Wisconsin
------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled SETH MARINOFF, Individually and On
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. REV
GROUP, INC., TIM SULLIVAN, and DEAN NOLDEN, the Defendants, , Case
No. 2:18-cv-05095, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Wisconsin (Milwaukee)on Aug. 16, 2018. The
Eastern District of Wisconsin Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:18-cv-01269-DEJ to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge David E Jones.

The case is a federal securities class action 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 REV Group pursuant and/or
traceable to the Company's initial public offering on or about
January 27, 2017, seeking to recover compensable damages caused by
Defendants violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff:

          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 785 2610
          Facsimile: (213) 226 4684
          E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com

Attorneys for Defendants:

          Anne Johnson Palmer, Esq.
          Randall W Bodner, Esq.
          ROPES & GRAY LLP
          3 Embarcadero Center-24th Fl
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 315 6300
          Facsimile: (415) 315 6350

               - and -

          David I. Hurwitz, Esq.
          Paul S Chan, Esq.
          BIRD MARELLA BOXER WOLPERT
          NESSIM BROOKS LINCENBERG & RHOW
          1875 Century Park E-Ste 2300
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201 2100
          Facsimile: (310) 201 2110


REV GROUP: Rajaram Suit Moved to Eastern District of Wisconsin
--------------------------------------------------------------
RAMANITHARAN RAJARAM, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. REV GROUP, INC., TIMOTHY W.
SULLIVAN, DEAN J. NOLDEN, THOMAS B. PHILLIPS, PAUL BAMATTER, JEAN
MARIE CANAN, DINO CUSUMANO, CHARLES DUTIL, JUSTIN FISH, KIM MARVIN,
JOEL ROTROFF, GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. LLC, BMO CAPITAL MARKETS CORP.,
JEFFERIES LLC, STIFEL, NICOLAUS & COMPANY, INCORPORATED, MORGAN
STANLEY & CO. LLC, ROBERT W. BAIRD & CO. INCORPORATED, CREDIT
SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC, DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES INC., WELLS
FARGO SECURITIES, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-05693, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Wisconsin (Milwaukee) on Aug. 16, 2018. The Eastern District of
Wisconsin Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-01270-DEJ to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge David E Jones.

The suit seeks to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants'
violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and/or to pursue remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, on June 6, 2018, after stock market
close, REV issued a press release entitled "REV Group, Inc. Reports
Fiscal 2018 Second Quarter Results." The Company disclosed that its
second quarter 2018 results were below expectations due to "cost
inflation" across many of the commodities and services the Company
buys, the unavailability of chassis, and a negative impact on
margins attributed to "lower-than-expected sales of certain
higher-content product categories including custom fire apparatus,
large commercial buses, and Class A RVs." The Company also lowered
its fiscal year 2018 guidance-predicting "full-year 2018 revenue of
$2.4 to $2.6 billion" compared to "$2.4 to $2.7 billion" announced
earlier, and "Net Income of $72 to $87 million" compared to "$90 to
$110 million" announced earlier.

On the same day, June 6, 2018, after announcing its Q2 2018
financial results, the Company issued a press release entitled "REV
Group, Inc. Appoints Ian Walsh as Chief Operating Officer."
Therein, the Company disclosed that the Company's Chief Operating
Officer, Thomas B. Phillips was replaced by Ian Walsh, effective
June 1, 2018. The next day, June 7, 2018, the Company held a
conference call to discuss its Q2 2018 results. On the call,
Timothy W. Sullivan, the Company's Chief Executive Officer,
elaborated on the Company's poor Q2 2018 financial results. On this
news, REV's share price fell $3.39 per share, or 18.9%, to close at
$14.52 per share on June 7, 2018, on unusually heavy trading
volume. Throughout the Class Period and/or in the Company's
Registration Statement, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose: (1) that
the Company was experiencing cost inflation across many of the
commodities and services it bought; (2) that the Company was
experiencing difficulty obtaining the chassis necessary for
production; (3) that the Company's margins were being negatively
impacted by a lower sales of high margin products, including custom
fire apparatus, large commercial buses, and Class A RVs; (4) that
the Company did not have "strong visibility into future net sales"
to "effectively plan" and manage its backlog of vehicles; (5) that
the Company's manufacturing operations were not operating
efficiently or at a low cost to satisfy customer demand; and (6)
that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' statements about
REV's business, operations, and prospects, were materially false
and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. 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.

REV designs, manufactures, and distributes specialty vehicles and
related aftermarket parts and services. The Company claims to serve
a customer base primarily in the United States through three
segments: Fire & Emergency, Commercial, and Recreation.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
          Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
          Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201 9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201 9160
          E-mail: lportnoy@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          Howard G. Smith, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH
          3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
          Bensalem, PA 19020
          Telephone: (215) 638 4847
          Facsimile: (215) 638 4867


ROGA SATELLITE: Fails to Pay Additional Wages, Thomas Watt Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS WATT, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. ROGA SATELLITE, INC. D/B/A BAM TECHS,
ZAVALLA BAM TEX, LLC D/B/A BAM TECHS, MICHAEL DEEMER, CHRISTOPHER
SPRINGER; and BILLY LINTHICUM, the Defendants, Case No.
5:18-cv-00846 (W.D. Tex., Aug. 16, 2018), alleges that Defendants
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by misclassifying its
satellite internet installers as independent contractors and failed
to pay them any additional wages for working more than 40 hours in
a workweek.

According to the complaint, Class Members also regularly worked
more than forty hours per week. The Defendants incentivized
Installers to be available to start installation jobs beginning at
8AM and to continue to be available until 5 PM, Monday through
Sunday. The Plaintiff and Class Members also attended hour-long
monthly training meetings on Sundays. Despite working long hours,
Defendants pay their Installers on a per job basis. Defendants do
not pay Installers on an hourly basis and do not pay Installers any
additional wages for hours worked in a week over forty.
The Defendants do not record the number of hours worked per
workweek by Named Plaintiff Watt and or the Class Members.

Roga Satellite is an authorized HughesNet retailer.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Daniel A. Verrett, Esq.
          Edmond S. Moreland, Jr. , Esq.
          MORELAND LAW FIRM, P.C.
          The Commissioners House at Heritage Square
          2901 Bee Cave Road, Box L
          Austin, TX 78746
          Telephone: (512) 782 0567
          Facsimile: (512) 782 0605
          700 West Summit Drive
          Wimberley, TX 78676
          Telephone: (512) 782 0567
          Facsimile: (512) 782 0605
          E-mail: daniel@morelandlaw.com
                  edmond@morelandlaw.com


RSK CONSTRUCTION: Fails to Pay Wages & OT, Romero et al. Say
------------------------------------------------------------
ELIHU ROMERO, SAMUEL LEON, NELSON ELIAS DIAZ, FRANCISCO TENEZACA,
FRANCISCO AGUILAR, FERNANDO OLEA, JHON SPENCER, REYNALDO ARIZA
BARRIOS, SERGIO AVILA LOPEZ, and FERNANDO ARELLANO individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. RSK
CONSTRUCTION, INC., REAL INNOVATIVE CONSTRUCTION, LLC, and MARK
MCCARTHY, ANDY MORALES, and CARLOS MORALES, an individual, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-07424 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 16, 2018), seeks
to recover damages for violations of federal and state overtime
wage and minimum wage laws arising out of Plaintiffs' employment
for Defendants at 164 West 74th Street, New York, New York 10023.

According to the complaint, the Defendants willfully failed to pay
Plaintiffs overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours
per week at wage rate of one and half times the regular wage
pursuant to the New York Labor Law and Fair labor Standards Act.

RSK Construction is a civil engineering and building construction
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Helen F. Dalton, Esq.
          Roman Avshalunov, Esq.
          HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          69-12 Austin Street
          Forest Hills, NY 11375


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: 9th Cir. Appeal Filed in Baird Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Steve Altes, Lance Baird, Krishendu Chakraborty and
Louis Leciejewski filed an appeal from a court ruling in their
lawsuit titled Lance Baird, et al. v. Samsung Electronics America,
Inc., Case No. 4:17-cv-06407-JSW, in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California, Oakland.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
was filed on November 2, 2017.  The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge Jeffrey S. White.

Samsung Electronics America, Inc. supplies consumer electronics and
digital products in the United States.

The appellate case is captioned as Lance Baird, et al. v. Samsung
Electronics America, Inc., Case No. 18-16579, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Mediation Questionnaire was due August 28, 2018;

   -- Appellants Steve Altes, Lance Baird, Krishendu Chakraborty
      and Louis Leciejewski's opening brief is due on October 19,
      2018;

   -- Appellee Samsung Electronics America, Inc.'s answering
      brief is due on November 19, 2018; and

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

Plaintiffs-Appellants LANCE BAIRD, STEVE ALTES, LOUIS LECIEJEWSKI
and KRISHENDU CHAKRABORTY, individually, and on behalf of a class
of others similarly situated, are represented by:

          David R. Ongaro, Esq.
          ONGARO PC
          50 California Street, Suite 3325
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 433-3900
          Facsimile: (415) 433-3950
          E-mail: dongaro@ongaropc.com

Defendant-Appellee SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., is
represented by:

          Lance Etcheverry, Esq.
          Jack P. DiCanio, Esq.
          SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM, LLP
          525 University Avenue
          Palo Alto, CA 94301
          Telephone: (650) 470-3170
          E-mail: letcheve@skadden.com
                  Jack.DiCanio@skadden.com

               - and -

          Richard Adam Schwartz, Esq.
          SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
          300 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 687-5000
          E-mail: schwartz@skadden.com


SHUBERT & BOOTH: Faces Reyes Suit in Southern Dist. of New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Shubert and Booth
Theatre, LLC. The lawsuit is styled as Jose Reyes, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Shubert and Booth Theatre, LLC, the Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-07467 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 16, 2018). The suit alleges Americans
with Disabilities Act violation.

Shubert Theatre is a Broadway theatre located at 225 West 44th
Street in Midtown Manhattan, New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 465 1188
          Facsimile: (212) 465 1181
          E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com


SJW GROUP: Faces Two Merger-Related Suits in Connecticut
--------------------------------------------------------
SJW Group said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2018, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2018, that the company is facing two merger-related
class action suits in Connecticut State Court.

On June 14, 2018, certain shareholders of Connecticut Water
Service, Inc. (CTWS) filed two nearly identical class-action
complaints in Connecticut state court against the CTWS board of
directors, SJW Group, and Eric W. Thornburg, Chairman, President
and Chief Executive Officer of SJW Group, CTWS and the Merger.

The complaints allege that the CTWS board breached its fiduciary
duties in connection with the Merger and that SJW Group and Mr.
Thornburg aided and abetted such breaches. Among other remedies,
the actions seek to recover rescissory and other damages and
attorney's fees and costs.

SJW Group believes the claims in these complaints are without merit
and intends to vigorously defend this litigation. At this time, SJW
Group cannot determine the likelihood that liability exists on the
part of SJW Group or Mr. Thornburg and we are unable to provide a
reasonable estimate of potential loss, if any.

SJW Group, through its subsidiaries, provides water utility
services in the United States. It engages in the production,
purchase, storage, purification, distribution, wholesale, and
retail sale of water. SJW Group was founded in 1866 and is
headquartered in San Jose, California.


SOLID BIOSCIENCES: Awaits Court Order Appointing Lead Plaintiff
---------------------------------------------------------------
Solid Biosciences Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the U.S. District Court
for the District of Massachusetts has not yet issued an order
appointing lead plaintiff or approving lead counsel.

On March 27, 2018, a purported stockholder of the Company, filed a
putative class action complaint alleging violations of the federal
securities laws, in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts (Case No. 18-10587), against the Company
and certain of the Company's current executive officers and
underwriters in the Company's initial public offering.

The plaintiff claims to represent purchasers of the Company's
common stock during the period from January 25, 2018 to March 14,
2018 and seeks unspecified damages arising out of the alleged
failure to disclose risks associated with toxicity and potential
for adverse events related to the Company's lead product candidate.


On May 29, 2018, the plaintiff and another purported stockholder
filed separate motions each seeking his appointment as lead
plaintiff and approval of his selected lead counsel. On June 5,
2018, the plaintiff withdrew his motion. The court has not yet
issued an order appointing a lead plaintiff or approving lead
counsel.

Pursuant to a stipulation filed by the parties on April 16, 2018
and allowed by the court on April 30, 2018, the lead plaintiff will
file an amended complaint within sixty (60) days after entry of the
order appointing the lead plaintiff and approving lead counsel.

Defendants will then answer, move, or otherwise respond to the
amended complaint no later than 60 days after the filing of that
amended complaint.

Lead plaintiff will have 45 days within which to file an opposition
to any motion to dismiss filed by defendants, and defendants shall
file a reply to lead plaintiff's opposition no later than 45 days
after the filing of the opposition.

Solid Biosciences Inc. engages in identifying and developing
therapies for duchenne muscular dystrophy in the United States. The
company was founded in 2013 and is headquartered in Cambridge,
Massachusetts.


SOLID BIOSCIENCES: Bid to Stay IPO-Related Suit Granted
-------------------------------------------------------
Solid Biosciences Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that a Massachusetts state
court has stayed a securities class action lawsuit.

On March 28, 2018, a purported stockholder of the Company, filed a
putative class action complaint alleging violations of the federal
securities laws, in the Business Litigation Section of the Superior
Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (Civil Action No.
1884-00984), against the Company, Ilan Ganot, Jennifer Ziolkowski,
the Company's directors and certain of the underwriters in the
Company's initial public offering.

The plaintiff in this suit claims to represent purchasers of the
Company's common stock in or traceable to the Company's January 25,
2018 initial public offering and seeks unspecified damages arising
out of the alleged failure to disclose risks associated with
toxicity and potential for adverse events related to the Company's
lead product candidate.

On April 30, 2018, all defendants including the Company moved to
stay the proceedings in favor of the prior-filed federal court
securities class action. The plaintiff filed his opposition to this
motion on May 14, 2018, and defendants filed a reply in support of
their motion on May 24, 2018. After oral argument on June 13, 2018,
the court issued an order on June 22, 2018 allowing the motion to
stay and directing the parties to advise the court of the status of
the federal court action every six months.

Solid Biosciences Inc. engages in identifying and developing
therapies for duchenne muscular dystrophy in the United States. The
company was founded in 2013 and is headquartered in Cambridge,
Massachusetts.


SOLID BIOSCIENCES: Massachusetts Class Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Solid Biosciences Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the plaintiff in a
putative class action suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts (Case No. 18-10639) has voluntarily
dismissed a lawsuit, without prejudice, as to all defendants.

On April 3, 2018, a purported stockholder of the Company, filed a
putative class action complaint alleging violations of the federal
securities laws, in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts (Case No. 18-10639), against the Company,
Ilan Ganot and Jennifer Ziolkowski.

The plaintiff in this suit claims to represent purchasers of the
Company's common stock during the period from January 25, 2018 to
March 14, 2018 and seeks unspecified damages arising out of the
alleged failure to disclose risks associated with toxicity and
potential for adverse events related to the Company's lead product
candidate.

On June 6, 2018, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the action,
without prejudice, as to all defendants.

Solid Biosciences Inc. engages in identifying and developing
therapies for duchenne muscular dystrophy in the United States. The
company was founded in 2013 and is headquartered in Cambridge,
Massachusetts.


SOMANI CORPORATION: Faces Honeywell Suit in N.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SOMANI CORPORATION.
The lawsuit is captioned as CHERI HONEYWELL, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. SOMANI
CORPORATION, a Florida corporation, the Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-00153-MW-GRJ (N.D. Fla., Aug. 16, 2018). The case is
alleges Americans with Disabilities Act violation. The case is
assigned to Hon. Judge Mark E Walker.

Somani Group, through its subsidiaries, engages in steel,
engineering, oil and energy, education, and investment businesses
in India and internationally.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jessica Lynn Kerr, Esq.
          JESSICA L KERR PA
          200 SE 6th Street, Suite 504
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 282 1858
          Facsimile: (844) 786 3694
          E-mail: service@advocacypa.com


SOUTHSIDE SERVICES: Underpays Carpenters, Ortiz and Espinosa Claim
------------------------------------------------------------------
ADRIAN ORTIZ, and LUIS ESPINOSA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SOUTHSIDE SERVICES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 711825/2018 (N.Y. Sup., July 31, 2018) seeks to
recover from the Defendant unpaid overtime pay, wages, liquidated
damages, interest, and attorneys' fees and costs.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as carpenter. Mr.
Ortiz was hired from November 2014 to May 2018, and Mr. Espinoza
from November 2014 to April 2018.

Southside Services Inc. is a corporation organized and existing
under the laws of the State of New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lawrence Spasojevich, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JAMES F. SULLIVAN, P.C.
          52 Duane Street, NY 1007
          Telephone: (212) 374-0009
          Facsimile: (212) 374-9931
          E-mail: ls@jfslaw.net


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Bid for Approval of Notice Program Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Southwest Airlines Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the court has not yet
ruled on plaintiffs' motion to approve a proposed notice program
and to set a schedule for objections, opt-outs, and the final
fairness hearing.

On July 1, 2015, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
putative classes of consumers alleging collusion among the Company,
American Airlines, Delta Air Lines, and United Airlines to limit
capacity and maintain higher fares in violation of Section 1 of the
Sherman Act.

Since then, a number of similar class action complaints were filed
in the United States District Courts for the Central District of
California, the Northern District of California, the District of
Columbia, the Middle District of Florida, the Southern District of
Florida, the Northern District of Georgia, the Northern District of
Illinois, the Southern District of Indiana, the Eastern District of
Louisiana, the District of Minnesota, the District of New Jersey,
the Eastern District of New York, the Southern District of New
York, the Middle District of North Carolina, the District of
Oklahoma, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the Northern
District of Texas, the District of Vermont, and the Eastern
District of Wisconsin.

On October 13, 2015, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District
Litigation centralized the cases to the United States District
Court in the District of Columbia. On March 25, 2016, the
plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint in the
consolidated cases alleging that the defendants conspired to
restrict capacity from 2009 to present.

The plaintiffs seek to bring their claims on behalf of a class of
persons who purchased tickets for domestic airline travel on the
defendants' airlines from July 1, 2011 to present. They seek treble
damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and expenses.

On May 11, 2016, the defendants moved to dismiss the Consolidated
Amended Complaint, and on October 28, 2016, the Court denied this
motion. On December 20, 2017, the Company reached an agreement to
settle these cases with a proposed class of all persons who
purchased domestic airline transportation services from July 1,
2011, to the date of the settlement.

The Company agreed to pay $15 million and to provide certain
cooperation with the plaintiffs as set forth in the settlement
agreement. The Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement
on January 3, 2018, and on March 23, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a
motion asking the Court to approve a proposed notice program and to
set a schedule for objections, opt-outs, and the final fairness
hearing. The Court has not yet ruled on that motion.

Southwest Airlines said, "The Company denies all allegations of
wrongdoing."

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

Southwest Airlines Co. operates a passenger airline that provides
scheduled air transportation services in the United States and
near-international markets. Southwest Airlines Co. operates a
passenger airline that provides scheduled air transportation
services in the United States and near-international markets.
Southwest Airlines Co. was founded in 1967 and is based in Dallas,
Texas.


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Bid for En Banc Rehearing Denied
----------------------------------------------------
Southwest Airlines Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the Court of Appeals for
the Eleventh Circuit has denied plaintiffs' petition for rehearing
and rehearing en banc.

A complaint alleging violations of federal antitrust laws and
seeking certification as a class action was filed against Delta Air
Lines, Inc. and AirTran Holdings, Inc. and its subsidiary AirTran
Airways, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia in Atlanta on May 22, 2009.

The complaint alleged, among other things, that AirTran attempted
to monopolize air travel in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman
Act, and conspired with Delta in imposing $15-per-bag fees for the
first item of checked luggage in violation of Section 1 of the
Sherman Act. The initial complaint sought treble damages on behalf
of a putative class of persons or entities in the United States who
directly paid Delta and/or AirTran such fees on domestic flights
beginning December 5, 2008.

After the filing of the May 2009 complaint, various other nearly
identical complaints also seeking certification as class actions
were filed in federal district courts in Atlanta, Georgia; Orlando,
Florida; and Las Vegas, Nevada.

All of the cases were consolidated before a single federal district
court judge in Atlanta. A Consolidated Amended Complaint was filed
in the consolidated action on February 1, 2010, which broadened the
allegations to add claims that Delta and AirTran conspired to
reduce capacity on competitive routes and to raise prices in
violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. In addition to treble
damages for the amount of first baggage fees paid to AirTran and to
Delta, the Consolidated Amended Complaint sought injunctive relief
against a broad range of alleged anticompetitive activities, as
well as attorneys' fees.

On August 2, 2010, the Court dismissed plaintiffs' claims that
AirTran and Delta had violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act; the
Court let stand the claims of a conspiracy with respect to the
imposition of a first bag fee and the airlines' capacity and
pricing decisions.

On June 30, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a class,
which AirTran and Delta opposed. On June 18, 2012, the parties
filed a Stipulation and Order that plaintiffs abandoned their claim
that AirTran and Delta conspired to reduce capacity.

On August 31, 2012, AirTran and Delta moved for summary judgment on
all of plaintiffs' remaining claims. On July 12, 2016, the Court
granted plaintiffs' motion to certify a class of all persons who
paid first bag fees to AirTran or Delta from December 8, 2008 to
November 1, 2014 (the date on which AirTran stopped charging first
bag fees). Defendants appealed that decision. On March 29, 2017,
the Court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment and
dismissed all claims against AirTran.

On April 13, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from the
district court's judgment, and on April 24, 2017, AirTran filed a
conditional notice of cross-appeal to appeal the Court's order
certifying a class. On March 9, 2018, the Court of Appeals affirmed
the district court's order granting summary judgment to AirTran and
Delta, and on June 8, 2018, the court of appeals denied plaintiffs'
petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc.

The time for plaintiffs to petition the Supreme Court for
certiorari has not yet expired.

Southwest Airlines said "AirTran denies all allegations of
wrongdoing, including those in the Consolidated Amended Complaint,
and intends to defend vigorously any and all such allegations."

Southwest Airlines Co. operates a passenger airline that provides
scheduled air transportation services in the United States and
near-international markets. Southwest Airlines Co. operates a
passenger airline that provides scheduled air transportation
services in the United States and near-international markets.


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Denial of Markow's Bid for Fees Reversed
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, reversed the
District Court's judgment denying Objector's Motion for Fees and
Incentive Award in the case captioned IN RE: SOUTHWEST AIRLINES
VOUCHER LITIGATION, ADAM J. LEVITT and HERBERT C. MALONE,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES COMPANY,
Defendant-Appellee. APPEAL OF: GREGORY MARKOW, Objector-Appellant.
No. 17-3541. (7th Cir.)

Objector Markow then moved for fees and an incentive award. The
district court denied the motion, reasoning that requiring Siprut
to pay Markow's fees out of Siprut's supplemental fee award undoes
the settlement.

This is the third appeal regarding attorney fees to stem from a
class action against Southwest Airlines after it stopped honoring
in-flight drink vouchers for customers who bought Business Select
fares.

After the appeal, class counsel Siprut PC requested additional
fees. The district court awarded them. Markow, the objector,
appealed but dismissed the appeal after Southwest tripled the
relief to the class by giving two additional vouchers for every one
claimed to narrow the gap between the amount of supplemental fees
Siprut would receive and the value of the relief the class would
actually receive. The district court approved that agreement.

Settlement Agreement and Status Reports

The final status report represented that Class Counsel will receive
$227,647.00 in supplemental fees. That statement does not bar
Markow from filing his own fee motion to recover out of the total
amount set aside for Siprut. And it does not mean that Markow
agreed to take nothing. Siprut argues that Markow waived his claim
to fees. But he did not. The non-profit Center for Class Action
Fairness does not seek to obtain payments for withdrawing
objections and appeals to settlement approvals so Markow's lawyer
told Siprut that Markow and his attorneys are not asking for any
payment to themselves as part of these discussions. Markow's lawyer
said only that he did not seek fees as part of the discussions
regarding the dismissal of the second appeal. He did not say that
he never intended to seek fees.

To avoid these problems, the parties should have addressed
objector's fees up front as part of the comprehensive settlement
negotiations. That they failed to do so does not doom Markow's fee
request. The roundabout order of operations Markow chose is
problematic: it raises the potential for an objector to agree to
fees for Siprut, to say nothing about objector's fees, and then to
sandbag the settlement by requesting fees later. But settlement
agreements work both ways, and the parties never expressly agreed
to bar Markow's request.

This recognition is consistent with a second principle: the
common-fund doctrine. That doctrine provides that a litigant or a
lawyer who recovers a common fund for the benefit of persons other
than himself or his client is entitled to a reasonable attorney's
fee from the fund as a whole.

The common-fund doctrine applies as a default rule unless the
parties draft their settlement agreement to depart from it.
Contracts are enacted against a background of common-sense
understandings and legal principles that the parties may not have
bothered to incorporate expressly but that operate as default rules
to govern in the absence of a clear expression of the parties'
contrary intent.

Because these parties did not address objector's fees, the Court
interpolates the common-fund doctrine to avoid wreaking unintended
consequences like the one that would result here. It would be
inequitable for Markow's lawyer to receive nothing despite
negotiating, in exchange for dropping the second appeal, a tripling
of relief for the class and a significant cut to Siprut's fees.
Markow's $80,000 fee request is a modest 10% of the market value of
the additional vouchers, $825,630. The request is even more modest
if it is calculated based on the higher $5 face value of the
vouchers. Either calculation shows that this is not a case where an
objector ran up a tab with minimal value added.

The common-fund doctrine applies as a default rule unless the
parties draft their settlement agreement to depart from it.

Accordingly, the Court reverses the denial of Markow's motion for
fees and an incentive award and remands for entry of a judgment
granting Markow's request, payable from Siprut.

A full-text copy of the Seventh Circuit's August 2, 2018 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y9z9soa9 from Leagle.com.

Leonard A. Gail -- lgail@masseygail.com -- for Defendant-Appellee.

Theodore H. Frank, for Appellant.

Michael William Drumke -- mdrumke@smbtrials.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

Joseph Siprut, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Todd L. McLawhorn, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Huey Thomas Wells, Jr. -- twells@maynardcooper.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

Eli J. Kay-Oliphant -- ekay-oliphant@masseygail.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellee.

M. Frank Bednarz, for Appellant.



SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Still Awaits Service of Saskatchewan Claim
--------------------------------------------------------------
Southwest Airlines Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the so-called
Saskatchewan claim has not been served on the Company, and the time
for the Company to respond to that complaint has not yet begun to
run.

On July 8, 2015, the Company was named as a defendant in a putative
class action filed in the Federal Court in Canada alleging that the
Company, Air Canada, American Airlines, Delta Air Lines, and United
Airlines colluded to restrict capacity and maintain higher fares
for Canadian residents traveling in the United States and for
travel between the United States and Canada.

Similar lawsuits were filed in the Supreme Court of British
Columbia on July 15, 2015, Court of Queen's Bench for Saskatchewan
on August 4, 2015, Superior Court of the Province of Quebec on
September 21, 2015, and Ontario Superior Court of Justice on
October 6, 2015.

In December 2015, the Company entered into Tolling and
Discontinuance agreements with putative class counsel in the
Federal Court, British Columbia, and Ontario proceedings and a
discontinuance agreement with putative class counsel in the Quebec
proceeding.

The other defendants entered into an agreement with the same
putative class counsel to stay the Federal Court, British Columbia,
and Quebec proceedings and to proceed in Ontario. On June 10, 2016,
the Federal Court granted plaintiffs' motion to discontinue that
action against the Company without prejudice and stayed the action
against the other defendants. On July 13, 2016, the plaintiff
unilaterally discontinued the action against the Company in British
Columbia.

On February 14, 2017, the Quebec Court granted the plaintiff's
motion to discontinue the Quebec proceeding against the Company and
to stay that proceeding against the other defendants.

On March 10, 2017, the Ontario Court granted the plaintiff's motion
to discontinue that proceeding as to the Company.

On September 29, 2017, the Company and the other defendants entered
into a tolling agreement suspending any limitations periods that
may apply to possible claims among them for contribution and
indemnity arising from the Canadian litigation.

The Saskatchewan claim has not been served on the Company, and the
time for the Company to respond to that complaint has not yet begun
to run. The plaintiff in that case generally seeks damages
(including punitive damages in certain cases), prejudgment
interest, disgorgement of any benefits accrued by the defendants as
a result of the allegations, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees
and other costs.

The Company denies all allegations of wrongdoing and intends to
vigorously defend this civil case in Canada. The Company does not
currently serve Canada.

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

Southwest Airlines Co. operates a passenger airline that provides
scheduled air transportation services in the United States and
near-international markets. Southwest Airlines Co. operates a
passenger airline that provides scheduled air transportation
services in the United States and near-international markets.
Southwest Airlines Co. was founded in 1967 and is based in Dallas,
Texas.


SPEEDY CASH: Faces Ascencio Suit in Los Angeles
-----------------------------------------------
MARTHA ASCENCIO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SPEEDY CASH; and DOES 1-10, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. BC715166 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., July
30, 2018) alleges violation of the California Translation Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff executed an Installment
Loan Promissory Note for a $2,600 loan. The Defendants required the
Plaintiff to sign an English-language contract. The Plaintiff
protested signing such a contract since the Plaintiff only spoke
Spanish. The Defendant did not provide the Plaintiff a Spanish
translation of the contract and the Defendant failed to mail a
Spanish translation of the contract to the Plaintiff at any time
thereafter.

The Plaintiff also received further written communications from the
Defendant in English. However, the Plaintiff was unable to decipher
these communications since the Plaintiff is unable to read
English.

In failing to provide a Spanish translation of the contract, the
Defendants violated the California Translation Act.

Speedy Cash, Inc. provides cash services. The Company offers loans,
payday, and title pawn cash advances. Speedy Cash serves customers
in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          Matthew M. Loker, Esq.
          Elizabeth A. Wager, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          245 Fischer Avenue, Suite 101
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
                  ml@kazlg.com
                  elizabeth@kazlg.com

               - and –

          Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
          HYDE & SWIGART
          2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 233-7770
          Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
          E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com


SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Boeing's Motion for Reargument Denied
---------------------------------------------------------
Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1,
2018, for the quarterly period ended June 28, 2018, that the
Delaware Supreme Court has denied Boeing Co.'s Motion for
Reargument and returned the dispute between the parties to the
state superior court.

On December 5, 2014, Boeing filed a complaint in Delaware Superior
Court, Complex Commercial Litigation Division, entitled The Boeing
Co. v. Spirit AeroSystems, Inc., No. N14C-12-055 (EMD) seeking
indemnification of approximately $139.0 million from Spirit for (a)
damages assessed against Boeing in International Union, United
Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Workers of America v. Boeing
Co., AAA Case No. 54 300 00795 07 ("UAW Arbitration"), which was
brought on behalf of certain former Boeing employees in Tulsa and
McAlester, Oklahoma, (b) claims that Boeing settled in Society of
Professional Engineering Employees in Aerospace v. Boeing Co., Nos.
05-1251-MLB, 07-1043-MLB (D. Kan.) ("Harkness Class Action"), and
(c) attorneys' fees Boeing alleges it expended to defend the UAW
Arbitration and Harkness Class Action, as well as reasonable fees,
costs and expenses Boeing expends litigating the case against
Spirit.

Boeing's Complaint asserts that the damages assessed against Boeing
in the UAW Arbitration and the claims settled by Boeing in the
Harkness Class Action are liabilities that Spirit assumed under an
Asset Purchase Agreement between Boeing and Spirit, dated February
22, 2005 (the "APA"). Boeing asserts claims for breach of contract
and declaratory judgment regarding its indemnification rights under
the APA.

Spirit asserted a Counterclaim against Boeing, on the ground that
the liabilities at issue were Boeing's responsibility under the
APA. Spirit's Counterclaim alleges breach of contract and seeks a
declaratory judgment regarding Spirit's right to indemnification
from Boeing under the APA. Spirit's Counterclaim seeks to recover
the amounts that Spirit spent litigating the Harkness Class Action,
responding to Boeing's indemnification demands concerning the
Harkness Class Action and UAW Arbitration, and also litigating the
current lawsuit against Boeing.

On December 20, 2016, Boeing and Spirit moved for summary judgment.
On June 27, 2017, the Delaware Superior Court (the "Superior
Court") issued an order denying Boeing's Motion for Summary
Judgment and granting Spirit's Motion for Summary Judgment, finding
that the liabilities at issue were excluded liabilities under the
APA and holding that Spirit is entitled to recover reasonable
attorneys' fees, costs and other expenses from Boeing. The Court
granted Spirit's motion as to fees, costs, and expenses incurred as
a result of the litigation and underlying matters and denied the
motion as to pre- and post-trial interest.

Boeing appealed the Superior Court's decision to the Supreme Court
of the State of Delaware (the "Supreme Court"). On July 12, 2018, a
unanimous three judge panel of the Supreme Court ruled in favor of
Spirit and on July 26, 2018, the Supreme Court denied Boeing's
Motion for Reargument and returned the case to the Superior Court.


Spirit will continue to pursue its recovery for attorneys' fees.

Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc., through its subsidiaries,
designs, manufactures, and supplies commercial aero structures
worldwide. It operates through three segments: Fuselage Systems,
Propulsion Systems, and Wing Systems. Spirit AeroSystems Holdings,
Inc. was founded in 1927 and is headquartered in Wichita, Kansas.


SPITZER ENGINEERING: Faces Fischler ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Spitzer Engineering
LLC. The lawsuit is styled as Brian Fischler, Individually and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Spitzer Engineering LLC doing business as: 420 Kent, the Defendant,
Case No. 1:18-cv-04624 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 16, 2018). The suit alleges
Americans with Disabilities Act violation.

Spitzer Engineering operates as a real estate agency that
specializes in the operation of apartments. The Company is located
in New York City, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


SPRINGFIELD, MA:  Disability Law Appeals Ruling to 1st Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Disability Law Center, Inc., M. W. and
Parent/Professional Advocacy League filed an appeal from a court
ruling in their lawsuit entitled Parent/Professional Advocacy
League, et al. v. City of Springfield, et al., Case No.
3:14-cv-30116-MGM, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, Springfield.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on August 20, 2018, the
District Court granted the Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings based on the Absence of IDEA Exhaustion in the case.

The one-count complaint alleged the Defendants violated Title II of
the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), with respect to S.S. and
members of the proposed class by failing to provide the educational
programs and services that would have allowed them equal access to
the educational resources offered students attending neighborhood
schools.  In the course of arguing that the Plaintiffs lack
standing, the Defendants raised concerns about IDEA exhaustion.

The appellate case is captioned as Parent/Professional Advocacy
League, et al. v. City of Springfield, et al., Case No. 18-1778, in
the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that Docketing
Statement, Transcript Report/Order form, and Appearance form are
due on September 4, 2018.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants PARENT/PROFESSIONAL ADVOCACY LEAGUE and
DISABILITY LAW CENTER, INC., and Plaintiff S. S., a minor, by his
mother, S.Y., on behalf of himself and other similarly situated
students, are represented by:

          Alison Barkoff, Esq.
          Deborah Alyse Dorfman, Esq.
          Sandra J. Staub, Esq.
          CENTER FOR PUBLIC REPRESENTATION
          22 Green St.
          Northampton, MA 01060-0000
          Telephone: (413) 586-6024
          E-mail: abarkoff@cpr-us.org
                  ddorfman@cpr-ma.org
                  sstaub@cpr-ma.org

               - and -

          Michael D. Blanchard, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          1 State Street
          Hartford, CT 06103-0000
          Telephone: (860) 240-2700
          E-mail: michael.blanchard@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          Matthew T. Bohenek, Esq.
          Elizabeth M. Bresnahan, Esq.
          Jeff Goldman, Esq.
          Robert E. McDonnell, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          1 Federal Street
          Boston, MA 02110-1726
          Telephone: (617) 951-8945
          E-mail: matthew.bohenek@morganlewis.com
                  elizabeth.bresnahan@morganlewis.com
                  jeff.goldman@morganlewis.com
                  robert.mcdonnell@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          Ira A. Burnim, Esq.
          Jennifer Mathis, Esq.
          BAZELON CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH LAW
          1101 15th St, NW, Suite 1212
          Washington, DC 20005-5002
          Telephone: (202) 467-5730
          E-mail: irab@bazelon.org
                  jenniferm@bazelon.org

Movant-Appellant M. W., a minor, by his parents, L.N. and A.N., on
behalf of himself and other similarly situated students, and
Interested Party S. B. are represented by:

          Elizabeth M. Bresnahan, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          1 Federal Street
          Boston, MA 02110-1726
          Telephone: (617) 951-8638
          E-mail: elizabeth.bresnahan@morganlewis.com

Defendant-Appellee SPRINGFIELD, MA, is represented by:

          Mary Ellen MacDonald, Esq.
          BULKLEY RICHARDSON & GELINAS LLP
          1500 Main Street, Suite 2700
          Springfield, MA 01115-5507
          Telephone: (413) 781-2820
          E-mail: mmacdonald@bulkley.com

               - and -

          Lisa Caryl deSousa, Esq.
          CITY OF SPRINGFIELD
          1600 E Columbus Ave.
          Springfield, MA 01103
          Telephone: (413) 886-5205
          E-mail: ldsousa@springfieldcityhall.com

Defendants-Appellees SPRINGFIELD, MA, and SPRINGFIELD PUBLIC
SCHOOLS are represented by:

          Stephen L. Holstrom, Esq.
          Mary Jane Kennedy, Esq.
          Melinda Marsh Phelps, Esq.
          BULKLEY RICHARDSON & GELINAS LLP
          1500 Main Street, Suite 2700
          Springfield, MA 01115-5507
          Telephone: (413) 781-2820
          E-mail: sholstrom@bulkley.com
                  mkennedy@bulkley.com
                  mphelps@bulkley.com

Defendants-Appellees SPRINGFIELD, MA; SPRINGFIELD PUBLIC SCHOOLS;
DOMENIC J. SARNO, JR., in his official capacity as Mayor of City of
Springfield; and DANIEL J. WARWICK, in his official capacity as
Superintendent of Springfield Public Schools, are represented by:

          Edward M. Pikula, Esq.
          CITY OF SPRINGFIELD
          36 Court St., Room 210
          Springfield, MA 01103-0000
          Telephone: (413) 787-6085
          E-mail: attyemp@aol.com

Defendant DOMENIC J. SARNO, JR., in his official capacity as Mayor
of City of Springfield, is represented by:

          Melinda Marsh Phelps, Esq.
          BULKLEY RICHARDSON & GELINAS LLP
          1500 Main Street, Suite 2700
          Springfield, MA 01115-5507
          Telephone: (413) 272-6237
          E-mail: mphelps@bulkley.com

Interested Party UNITED STATES is represented by:

          Karen L. Goodwin, Esq.
          US ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
          300 State St., Suite 230
          Springfield, MA 01105-2926
          Telephone: (413) 785-0269
          E-mail: karen.goodwin@usdoj.gov

               - and -

          Anne Langford, Esq.
          US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          950 Pennsylvania Ave NW
          Washington, DC 20530-0001
          Telephone: (202) 616-2727
          E-mail: anne.langford@usdoj.gov

               - and -

          Michelle L. Leung, Esq.
          Cynthia A. Young, Esq.
          US ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
          1 Courthouse Way, Suite 9200
          Boston, MA 02110-0000
          Telephone: (617) 748-3626
          E-mail: Michelle.Leung@usdoj.gov


STELLAR LLC: Faces Honeywell Suit in Northern Dist. of Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Stellar, LLC. The
lawsuit is captioned as CHERI HONEYWELL, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. STELLAR, LLC, a
Florida limited liability company, the Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-00154-MW-GRJ (N.D. Ga., Aug. 16, 2018). The suit alleges
Americans with Disabilities Act violation. The case is assigned to
the Hon. Judge Mark E. Walker.

Stellar is a digital design agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jessica Lynn Kerr Esq.
          JESSICA L KERR PA - FORT LAUDERDALE FL
          200 SE 6th Street, Suite 504
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 282 1858
          Facsimile: (844) 786 3694
          E-mail: service@advocacypa.com


SUNLIGHT MANAGEMENT: Faces Castillo Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sunlight Management
Corp.  The lawsuit is captioned as Evelyn Castillo, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Sunlight Management Corp., doing business as: Broadway Theatre, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-07456 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 16, 2018). The
suit alleges Americans with Disabilities Act violation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 465 1188
          Facsimile: (212) 465 1181
          E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com


SUNLIGHT MANAGEMENT: Faces Reyes ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sunlight Management
Corp. The lawsuit is styled as Jose Reyes, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Sunlight
Management Corp., doing business as: Winter Garden Theatre, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-07487 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 16, 2018). The
suit alleges Americans with Disabilities Act violation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 465 1188
          Facsimile: (212) 465 1181
          E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com


SUNPOWER CORP: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss California Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
SunPower Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended July 1, 2018, that a motion to dismiss a
second amended complaint in a class action lawsuit filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California remains
pending.

On August 16, 2016, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
Company and certain of its officers and directors (the
"Defendants") in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of a class consisting of those who
acquired the Company's securities from February 17, 2016 through
August 9, 2016 (the "Class Period").

On December 9, 2016, the court appointed a lead plaintiff.
Following the withdrawal of the original lead plaintiff, on August
21, 2017, the court appointed an investor group as lead plaintiff.
An amended complaint was filed on October 17, 2017. The complaint
alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act,
and Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") Rule 10b-5. The
complaints were filed following the issuance of the Company's
August 9, 2016 earnings release and revised guidance and generally
allege that throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made
materially false and/or misleading statements and failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects. On April 18, 2018, the court dismissed
the complaint for failure to state a claim, with leave to amend.
On May 8, 2018, a second amended complaint was filed. A motion to
dismiss is pending.

SunPower Corporation researches, develops, manufactures, and
delivers solar solutions worldwide. It operates through three
segments: Residential, Commercial, and Power Plant. The company was
incorporated in 1985 and is headquartered in San Jose, California.
SunPower Corporation is a subsidiary of Total Solar International
SAS.


SYNTEL INC: Tolapu Balks at Merger Deal with Atos
-------------------------------------------------
MAHESH VEER SATYA TOLAPU, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. SYNTEL, INC., BHARAT DESAI,
PRASHANT RANADE, ARITOSH CHOKSI, THOMAS DOEKE, RAKESH KHANNA,
RAJESH MASHRUWALA, VINOD K. SAHNEY, REX E. SCHLAYBAUGH, JR., NEERJA
SETHI, and GREEN MERGER SUB INC., the Defendants, Case No.
2:18-cv-12562-SJM-SDD (E.D. Mich., Aug. 16, 2018), seeks to enjoin
stockholder vote on a proposed stock and cash transaction valued at
approximately $3.57 billion.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated Sections 14(a) and
20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and breached
fiduciary duty as a result of Defendants' efforts to sell the
Company to Atos, S.E., and its affiliate Green Merger Sub Inc. as a
result of an unfair process for an unfair price.

The terms of the Proposed Transaction were memorialized in a July
23, 2018 filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Form
8-K attaching the definitive Agreement and Plan of Merger. Under
the terms of the Merger Agreement, Syntel will become an indirect
wholly-owned subsidiary of Atos, and Syntel stockholders will
receive $41.00 in cash for every share of Syntel Common stock they
own. Thereafter, on August 7, 2018, Syntel filed a Preliminary
Proxy Statement on Schedule PREM14A with the Securities and
Exchange Commission in support of the Proposed Transaction.

According to the complaint, the Proposed Transaction is an unfair
product of the actions of the Company's co-founders and controlling
stockholders, to manipulate or subvert the Company's complaint
Board of Directors into an agreement to sell the Company to Atos,
and only to Atos, for an inadequate price yet on terms that were
the most personally beneficial to themselves. In doing so, Syntel
co-founders, husband and wife, Bharat Desai and Neerja Sethi, who
together with affiliated entities, own collectively 51.07% of the
outstanding stock of Syntel, ensured that they would see maximum
personal enrichment from the Proposed Transaction.

Notably, at no point in the Preliminary Proxy, or in the previously
filed Annual Proxy Statement filed by the Company on form DEF14A on
April 27, 2018, did the Company disclose to its public stockholders
that it was a controlled company, and that one family, namely the
Co-Founders, controlled more than 50% of the voting stock of
Syntel. It appears as though the Co-Founders have caused the Board
to enter into the Proposed Transaction to procure for themselves
significant and immediate benefits with no thought to the Company's
public stockholders. For instance, pursuant to the terms of the
Merger Agreement, the Co-Founders will be able to immediately
convert their large illiquid holding in the Company into over $2.1
billion in cash.

While the Proposed Transaction was purportedly reviewed by a
special committee of "independent," non Syntel-employee directors,
the sales process that was conducted was flawed, and was
manipulated by the Co-Founders to achieve superior consideration
for themselves in the Proposed Transaction. Notably, the Committee
did not engage in any competitive bidding process or otherwise
conduct a proper market check. The "limited" sales process
undertaken was simply a smokescreen designed to feign compliance
with fiduciary duties while the Company ensures that Atos, and Atos
alone, would emerge as the successful bidder.

Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Company's
stockholders by agreeing to the Proposed Transaction which
undervalues Syntel and is the result of a flawed sales process.

Moreover, the Co-Founders, as Sytnel's controlling stockholder, was
required to pursue a transaction that is entirely fair with respect
to both price and process. However, the terms of the Proposed
Transaction clearly favor the Syntel Co-Founders, who are the
beneficiary of disparate treatment not afforded to public
stockholders. Moreover, among other defects in price and process of
the Proposed Transaction, the Proposed Transaction agreed to by
Defendants did not meet the express requirements for review for a
merger transaction involving a controlling stockholder.

Syntel, Inc. is a U.S.-based multinational provider of integrated
technology and business services. Headquartered in Troy, Michigan,
Syntel utilizes development centers in India. Syntel is a certified
minority-owned business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony L. DeLuca, Esq.
          ANTHONY L. DELUCA, PLC
          14950 East Jefferson Avenue, Suite 170
          Grosse Pointe Park, MI 48230
          Telephone: (313) 821 5905
          Facsimile: (313) 821 5906
          E-mail: anthony@aldplc.com

               - and -

          Evan J. Smith, Esq.
          Marc L. Ackerman, Esq.
          BRODSKY &SMITH, LLC
          Two Bala Plaza, Suite 510
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
          Telephone: (610) 667 6200
          Facsimile: (610) 667 9029
          E-mail: esmith@brodskysmith.com
                  mackerman@brodskysmith.com


TARGET ENTERPRISE: Carlson Suit Goes to Massachusetts Dist. Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit against Target Enterprise, Inc., has been
transferred to the federal district court in Worcester,
Massachusetts.  The lawsuit is entitled as Gabrielle Carlson, on
behalf or herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff,
v. Target Enterprise, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-40139
(D. Mass., Aug. 16, 2018). The suit alleges consumer credit
violation.  Target removed the case to federal court.

Target Enterprises manufactures and distributes plastic pipes and
fittings.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jordan S. O'Donnell, Esq.
          HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP
          53 State Street, 27th Floor
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: (617) 213 7000
          E-mail: jodonnell@hinshawlaw.com


TEREX CORP: Still Defends Sheet Metal Workers Pension Fund Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Terex Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the company continues to
defend itself in a consolidated class action suit entitled, Sheet
Metal Workers Local 32 Pension Fund and Ironworkers St. Louis
Council Pension Fund, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Terex Corporation, et al.

In 2010, the Company received complaints seeking certification of
class action lawsuits as follows:

A consolidated class action complaint for violations of securities
laws was filed in the United States District Court, District of
Connecticut on November 18, 2010 and is entitled Sheet Metal
Workers Local 32 Pension Fund and Ironworkers St. Louis Council
Pension Fund, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Terex Corporation, et al.

A stockholder derivative complaint for violation of the Securities
and Exchange Act of 1934, breach of fiduciary duty, waste of
corporate assets and unjust enrichment was filed on April 12, 2010
in the United States District Court, District of Connecticut and is
entitled Peter Derrer, derivatively on behalf of Terex Corporation
v. Ronald M. DeFeo, Phillip C. Widman, Thomas J. Riordan, G. Chris
Andersen, Donald P. Jacobs, David A. Sachs, William H. Fike, Donald
DeFosset, Helge H. Wehmeier, Paula H.J. Cholmondeley, Oren G.
Shaffer, Thomas J. Hansen, and David C. Wang, and Terex
Corporation.

These lawsuits generally cover the time period from February 2008
to February 2009 and allege, among other things, that certain of
the Company's SEC filings and other public statements contained
false and misleading statements which resulted in damages to the
Company, the plaintiffs and the members of the purported class when
they purchased the Company's securities and that there were
breaches of fiduciary duties. The stockholder derivative complaint
also alleges waste of corporate assets relating to the repurchase
of the Company's shares in the market and unjust enrichment as a
result of securities sales by certain officers and directors. The
complaints seek, among other things, unspecified compensatory
damages, costs and expenses.

As a result, the Company is unable to estimate a possible loss or a
range of losses for these lawsuits. The stockholder derivative
complaint also seeks amendments to the Company's corporate
governance procedures in addition to unspecified compensatory
damages from the individual defendants in its favor.

On March 31, 2018, the securities lawsuit was dismissed against all
of the named defendants except Mr. Riordan and Terex.

In addition, certain claims were also narrowed. However, as all
claims against Mr. Riordan were not dismissed, the case will
continue against both Mr. Riordan and as a result Terex as well.

The Company believes that the remaining allegations in the
securities suit and allegations in the stockholder derivative claim
are without merit, and Terex, its directors and the named
executives will vigorously defend against them. The Company
believes that it has acted, and continues to act, in compliance
with federal securities laws and Delaware law with respect to these
matters. However, the outcome of the lawsuits cannot be predicted
and, if determined adversely, could ultimately result in the
Company incurring significant liabilities.

Terex Corporation manufactures and sells aerial work platforms,
cranes, and materials processing machinery worldwide. The company
operates through three segments: Aerial Work Platforms (AWP),
Cranes, and Material Processing (MP). Terex Corporation was founded
in 1925 and is based in Westport, Connecticut.


TL TRANSPORTATION: Court Narrows Claims in T. Hickman's FLSA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania granted in part and denied in part Defendants' Motion
to Dismiss the case captioned TYHEE HICKMAN and SHANAY BOLDEN,
individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. TL TRANSPORTATION, LLC, SCOTT FOREMAN, HERSCHEL
LOWE, AMAZON.COM, LLC, and AMAZON LOGISTICS, INC., Defendants,
Civil Action No. 17-01038 (E.D. Pa.).

Those defendants have filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject
Matter Jurisdiction, arguing that their contacts with Pennsylvania
are not related to the Plaintiffs' claims arising under the Fair
Labor Standards Act and state wage and hour laws.

In their work for TL Transportation, the Plaintiffs drove delivery
trucks, and delivered packages from Amazon warehouses to its
customers. The Plaintiffs allege that they received payment for
their work based on a day rate and argue that this compensation did
not include overtime payment as required by the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) and applicable state wage and hour laws.

Personal Jurisdiction over Pennsylvania Plaintiffs' Claims

Defendants Foreman and Lowe assert that jurisdiction is not proper
because the Plaintiffs' claims do not arise from or relate to
either individual's contacts with Pennsylvania, largely relying on
the theory that the Plaintiffs' FLSA and Pennsylvania Minimum Wage
Act (PMWA) claims concern managerial decisions that Foreman and
Lowe made in Maryland.

Defendant Foreman

Defendant Foreman has had numerous contacts with Pennsylvania
related to TLT's expansion into the state. In his deposition,
Foreman stated that he traveled to Philadelphia over the last three
years at least twenty times for both personal and business reasons.
His contacts with Pennsylvania involved workforce management. TLT
decided to expand its operations into Pennsylvania, beginning with
a location in King of Prussia, PA.

Additionally, Foreman traveled to Pennsylvania to oversee the
company's daily operations. He states: "In order to get the King of
Prussia facility operating, I occasionally traveled to Pennsylvania
for TL Transportation LLC purposes from my home in Maryland. On
these trips, I usually meet with managers and other on-site
personnel. I do not usually meet with drivers, though I will
exchange pleasantries with drivers if I see them on my visit."

Given Foreman's conduct within Pennsylvania, jurisdiction over the
Plaintiffs' wage and hour claims is both reasonably proportional to
his contacts with the forum and a foreseeable outcome. When Foreman
traveled to Pennsylvania to oversee TLT's operations, he benefitted
from state laws that allowed the business to operate within the
forum. And by meeting with supervisors and greeting employees
during his visits to sites in Pennsylvania, Foreman engaged in
conduct that furthered TLT's management of its workforce. That
certainly related to" the wages that TLT's workforce receives.

In short, the Court persuaded that contacts with the forum that
influence hiring, the conditions of employment, and the hours an
employee works in a day or a week, are sufficiently related to wage
and hour clams to give rise to personal jurisdiction in that
forum.

Defendant Lowe

Admittedly, Defendant Lowe has had fewer contacts with Pennsylvania
than Defendant Foreman. Yet, given his role in establishing TLT's
pay policy and his position within the company, combined with his
business-related contacts with Pennsylvania, Lowe could fairly
anticipate defending himself in wage and hour litigation brought in
this forum. As explained above, a top-ranking manager need only
engage in management and supervisory activities in a forum to be
subject to personal jurisdiction for wage and hour claims.

Lowe has had two significant contacts with Pennsylvania.  He
traveled to Pennsylvania once in fall 2016 to interview a
prospective safety consultant, and another time in spring 2016 to
interview drivers to work at a TLT location in Swedesboro, New
Jersey. Lowe admitted that he met with the consultant in
Pennsylvania so he could watch the consultant present his training
program to TLT employees and decide whether it was useful. In
Pennsylvania, Lowe observed the consultant going over safety tips
with all of our drivers. In the session, the consultant discussed
various aspects of driver safety: Following distance. Blind spots.
Backing up. An array of safety things.  Lowe also indicated that
TLT decided to hire the consultant

As a TLT executive, Lowe benefited from the company's expansion
into the state, and he entered the forum in furtherance of that
interest. The Court thus find jurisdiction over Lowe proportional
to his contacts with Pennsylvania, and that he could fairly
anticipate defending himself against wage and hour litigation
initiated by Pennsylvania employees.

For the same reasons, jurisdiction over Defendant Lowe would also
comport with fair play and substantial justice. Lowe would not be
unduly inconvenienced by defending himself in this forum. The Court
therefore concludes that Lowe is subject to personal jurisdiction
in this action.

Personal Jurisdiction over the Maryland Plaintiffs' Claims

Relying on Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of
California, 137 S.Ct. 1773 (2017), Defendants Foreman and Lowe
further argue that this court does not have personal jurisdiction
over them for the Maryland Plaintiffs' claim arising under the
Maryland Wage and Hour Law in Count III.  

In Bristol-Myers, the Supreme Court considered whether a California
state court could exercise specific personal jurisdiction over
non-resident plaintiffs' products liability claims. Non-resident
plaintiffs had joined California residents in asserting that a
pharmaceutical product produced by the defendant had harmed their
health. While the Court recognized that the California court could
exercise personal jurisdiction over the resident plaintiffs'
claims, it held that California tribunals could not exercise
jurisdiction over the non-residents' claims.
Plaintiffs do not appear to have contested Defendants' arguments
for applying Bristol-Myers to the claim in Count III. Plaintiffs
have not presented any reason for distinguishing Bristol-Myers from
this action, and have otherwise asserted no arguments for finding
their state claim related to the contacts giving rise to
jurisdiction in Pennsylvania.

The Court will therefore dismiss Count III as to Defendants Foreman
and Lowe.

Venue

The Defendants have also moved to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims
against Foreman and Lowe under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(3), arguing that venue is improper as to the two individual
defendants. This argument lacks merit.

Because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the
Plaintiffs' claims in Counts I, II, and IV occurred in the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for
Lack of Venue is denied.

Accordingly, the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal
Jurisdiction is granted only as to the Maryland Plaintiffs' claim
in Count III against Defendants Foreman and Lowe. The Maryland
Plaintiffs nonetheless remain parties to this action, as Defendants
TLT, Amazon Logistics, and Amazon.com have not raised any
challenges to jurisdiction. The Defendants' Motions are denied in
all other respects.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 12, 2018 Memorandum
is available at https://tinyurl.com/yaumt8hv from Leagle.com.

TYHEE HICKMAN & SHANAY BOLDEN, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs, represented by RYAN ALLEN HANCOCK
-- rhancock@wwdlaw.com -- Willig, Williams & Davidson, SARAH
SCHALMAN-BERGEN -- sschalman-bergen@bm.net -- BERGER & MONTAGUE PC,
BRUCE M. LUDWIG -- bludwig@wwdlaw.com -- WILLING, WILLIAMS &
DAVIDSON, CAMILLE FUNDORA -- cfundora@bm.net -- BERGER & MONTAGUE,
P.C., LANE L. VINES -- lvines@bm.net -- BERGER & MONTAGUE, PC &
SHANON J. CARSON -- scarson@bm.net -- BERGER & MONTAGUE PC.

TL TRANSPORTATION, LLC, SCOTT FOREMAN & HERSCHEL LOWE, Defendants,
represented by JASON A. CABRERA -- cabrera@cozen.com -- COZEN
O'CONNOR & JEFFREY I. PASEK , COZEN, O'CONNOR.

AMAZON.COM, LLC & AMAZON LOGISTICS, INC., Defendants, represented
by JAMES P. WALSH, Jr. -- james.walsh@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN,
LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP, JUSTIN K. VICTOR --
justin.victor@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP &
RICHARD G. ROSENBLATT -- richard.rosenblatt@morganlewis.com --
MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP.


TRAVELEX INSURANCE: Faces Anderson Suit over Insurance Plans
------------------------------------------------------------
MICHELLE ANDERSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRAVELEX INSURANCE SERVICES INC.;
and TRANSAMERICA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants, Case No.
8:18-cv-00362-JMG-SMB (D. Neb., July 30, 2018) is an action for
damages and restitution for failure of the Defendants to return the
unused and unearned premium to purchasers of Travel Insurance
Plans.

According to the complaint, whenever a certificate holder informs
the Defendants that he or she is cancelling their trip for whatever
reason, the Defendants systematically refuse to return any portion
of the gross premium paid for the purchased Travel Insurance Plan.
This systematic refusal to refund any portion of the gross premium
includes even the failure by the Defendants to return the pro rata
portion of the gross premium which the insured paid exclusively for
coverage of post-departure risks -- which risks are never assumed
by, or transferred to the Defendants, when an insured cancels his
or her trip prior to commencement of actual travel.  The failure of
the Defendants to return the unused and unearned premium to
purchasers of the Travel Insurance Plans is unfair, unjust and
unlawful.

Travelex Insurance Services, Inc. provides travel insurance in
North America. It offers a range of travel protection plans that
provide travelers with trip cancellation, trip interruption, and
bankruptcy and terrorism coverage. The company was founded in 1996
and is based in Omaha, Nebraska. As of November 17, 2016, Travelex
Insurance Services, Inc operates as a subsidiary of Cover-More
Group Limited. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Burke Smith, Esq.
          BURKE SMITH LAW
          10730 Pacific St #100
          Omaha, NE 68114
          Telephone: (402) 718-8865
          Facsimile: (402) 218-4391
          E-mail: burke@burkesmithlaw.com

               - and -

          Peter R. Kahana, Esq.
          Lane L. Vines, Esq.
          Y. Michael Twersky, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
          E-mail: pkahana@bm.net
                  lvines@bm.net
                  mitwersky@bm.net

               - and -

          John G. Albanese, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          43 S.E. Main Street, Suite 505
          Minneapolis, MN 55414
          Telephone: (612) 594-5997
          Facsimile: (612) 584-4470
          E-mail: jalbanese@bm.net

               - and -

          Ingrid Evans, Esq.
          EVANS LAW FIRM, INC.
          3053 Fillmore Street, #236
          San Francisco, CA 94123
          Telephone: (415) 441-8669
          Facsimile: (888) 891-4906
          E-mail: ingrid@evanslaw.com


TRIANGLE CAPITAL: Awaits Court OK on Bid to Dismiss Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Triangle Capital Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2018, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the parties in the
consolidated Dagher and Holden class action suit awaits the court
decision on the defendants' motion to dismiss.

The Company and certain current and former executive officers have
been named as defendants in two putative securities class action
lawsuits, each filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York (and then transferred to the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina)
on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the
Company's common stock between May 7, 2014 and November 1, 2017.

The first lawsuit was filed on November 21, 2017, and was captioned
Elias Dagher, et al., v. Triangle Capital Corporation, et al., Case
No. 5:18-cv-00015-FL (the "Dagher Action").

The second lawsuit was filed on November 28, 2017, and was
captioned Gary W. Holden, et al., v. Triangle Capital Corporation,
et al., Case No. 5:18-cv-00010-FL (the "Holden Action").

The Dagher Action and the Holden Action were consolidated and are
currently captioned In re Triangle Capital Corp. Securities
Litigation, Master File No. 5:18-cv-00010-FL.  On April 10, 2018,
the plaintiff filed its First Consolidated Amended Complaint.

The complaint, as currently amended, alleges certain violations of
the securities laws, including, among other things, that the
defendants made certain materially false and misleading statements
and omissions regarding the Company's business, operations and
prospects between May 7, 2014 and November 1, 2017. The plaintiff
seeks compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs, among
other relief, but did not specify the amount of damages being
sought.

On May 25, 2018, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint. On July 9, 2018, the plaintiff filed its response in
opposition to the defendants' motion to dismiss. The motion to
dismiss was fully briefed as of July 31, 2018.

Triangle Capital Corporation, incorporated on October 10, 2006, is
an internally managed, non-diversified closed-end management
investment company. The Company is a specialty finance company that
provides customized financing to lower middle market companies
located primarily in the United States. The company is based in
Raleigh, North Carolina.


TRIANGLE CAPITAL: Preliminary Injunction Bid Denied in "Carlson"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Triangle Capital Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2018, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the court in
Carlson, et al. v. Triangle Capital Corporation, et al., has denied
the plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction.

The Company and the members the of Board of Directors have been
named as defendants in three other putative securities class action
lawsuits challenging the June 1, 2018 proxy statement seeking
shareholder approval of the Asset Purchase Agreement and the
Externalization Agreement.

The first lawsuit was filed on July 6, 2018 in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, and is
captioned Carlson, et al. v. Triangle Capital Corporation, et al.,
Case No. 5:18-cv-00332-FL (the "Carlson Action").

The second lawsuit was filed on July 9, 2018 in the United States
District Court for the District of Maryland, and is captioned
Hammer, et al. v. Triangle Capital Corporation, et al., Case No.
1:18-cv-02086-RDB (the "Hammer Action").

The third lawsuit was filed on July 12, 2018 in the United States
District Court for the District of Maryland, and is captioned Kent,
et al. v. Triangle Capital Corporation, et al., Case No.
1:18-cv-0237-ELH (the "Kent Action").

The complaints in the Carlson Action, the Hammer Action, and the
Kent Action each allege certain violations of the securities laws,
including, among other things, that the defendants made certain
material omissions in the proxy statement, and each sought to
enjoin the shareholder meeting scheduled for July 24, 2018, among
other relief.

On July 11, 2018, the plaintiff in the Carlson Action filed a
motion for preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the July 24,
2018 shareholder vote and to require that certain supplemental
disclosures be made.

On July 16, 2018, the court denied the plaintiff's motion for
preliminary injunction. The time for the defendants to respond to
the complaints in the Carlson Action, Hammer Action, and Kent
Action has not yet expired.

Triangle Capital Corporation, incorporated on October 10, 2006, is
an internally managed, non-diversified closed-end management
investment company. The Company is a specialty finance company that
provides customized financing to lower middle market companies
located primarily in the United States. The company is based in
Raleigh, North Carolina.


TRUEACCORD CORP: Faces Mercado Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against TrueAccord Corp. The
lawsuit is styled as Beatriz Mercado, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. TrueAccord Corp.,
the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-04646 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 16, 2018).
The suit alleges Fair Debt Collection Act violation.

TrueAccord Corp. provides an automated platform for debt
recovery.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


UNIQUE GUIDANCE: Wesley Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------
ONETHA WESLEY on Behalf of Herself and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. UNIQUE GUIDANCE PROVIDER
SERVICES, INC. and REGINA WRIGHT, the Defendant, Case No.
3:18-cv-01059 (W.D. La., Aug. 16, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid
wages and other damages owed under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants knowingly and
deliberately failed to compensate Plaintiff and the Class Members
at the rate of one and one half their regular rate of pay for all
hours worked over 40 in a workweek as required under the FLSA. The
Defendants violated the FLSA by paying their healthcare service
provider employees the same hourly rate for their straight time as
their overtime hours. Consequently, Defendants' compensation policy
violates the FLSA's mandate that non-exempt employees, such as the
Plaintiff and Class Members, be compensated at one and one-half
times their regular rate of pay for each hour worked over 40 in a
week.

The Defendants operate a healthcare company that places healthcare
service providers such as Plaintiff with patients to assist
individuals with developmental disabilities or illness with their
treatment.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff and Class Members:

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

               - and -

          Hugh P. Lambert, Esq.
          CAYCE C. PETERSON, Esq.
          The Lambert Firm, PLC
          701 Magazine Street
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 581 1750
          Facsimile: (504) 529 2931
          E-mail: hlambert@thelambertfirm.com
                  cpeterson@thelambertfirm.com


UNITED STATES: 4th Circuit Appeal Filed in Clarke Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Nigel Clarke filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit styled Nigel Clarke v. Fourth Circuit Court Judges, Case
No. 5:17-ct-03025-D, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina at Raleigh.

The lawsuit alleges violations of prisoner civil rights.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the class
action was filed on January 30, 2017, and assigned to Hon. Chief
Judge James C. Dever, III.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit is one of
twelve regional appellate courts within the federal judicial
system.

The appellate case is captioned as Nigel Clarke v. Fourth Circuit
Court Judges, Case No. 18-7035, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

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

   -- Record requested from Clerk of Court is due on September 4,
      2018;

   -- Fee due to District Court or PLRA application is due to
      Court of Appeals within 15 days;

   -- Informal Opening Brief is due on September 14, 2018; and

   -- Informal response brief, if any, is 14 days after informal
      opening brief filed.

Plaintiff-Appellant Nigel Clarke, who is currently incarcerated at
the Green Haven Correctional Facility, in Stormville, New York,
appears pro se.[BN]


US FOODS: Court Dismisses S. Frizziola's ERISA Suit
---------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
granted Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint in the
case captioned STEVEN FRIZZIOLA; PAUL AMERMAN; JAMES MAZZEO; SCOTT
HORN; and DAVID GREEN, Plaintiffs, v. U.S. FOODS, INC., TEAMSTERS'
LOCAL 282 PENSION TRUST FUND; TEAMSTERS' LOCAL UNION 282; THOMAS
GESUALDI; LOUIS BISIGNANO; ANTHONY D'AQUILA; MICHAEL O'TOOLE; FRANK
H. FINKEL; JOSEPH A. FERRARA, SR.; MARC HERBST; DENISE M.
RICHARDSON; and THOMAS F. CORBETT, Defendants, Civil Action No.
17-6864 (FLW) (DEA)(D.N.J.).

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants reduced the Plaintiffs'
pension benefits and seniority employment status, in violation of
the anti-cutback provision of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).

Count One: Violation of ERISA's Anti-Cutback Rule, 29 U.S.C.
Section 1054(g)

The Fund Defendants move to dismiss Count One, arguing that: (i)
the Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for violation of
ERISA's anti-cutback rule, because the Plaintiffs do not
sufficiently allege an amendment to the Fund that resulted in the
deprivation of an accrued benefit; and (ii) that the Plaintiffs
failed to exhaust their administrative remedies prior to filing
their ERISA claim.

In opposition, the Plaintiffs maintain that they have sufficiently
alleged a claim for violation of the anti-cutback rule.
Additionally, the Plaintiffs contend that they were not required to
exhaust their administrative remedies prior to filing a claim under
the anti-cutback rule, or, alternatively, that they either did
exhaust their administrative remedies or that exhaustion would be
futile.

Here, the Court need not reach the issue of whether there was an
amendment to the Fund, because the Plaintiffs have failed to
sufficiently alleged that any such amendment resulted in the
deprivation of an accrued benefit.  ERISA's anti-cutback rule only
prohibits those amendments that result in the deprivation of an
accrued benefit.   

Here, while the Plaintiffs baldly assert that the change in their
employment status from Tier 1 to 2nd Tier so reduced the value of
their pension benefit as to constitute a de facto prohibited
amendment, they fail to allege, in any concrete way, which benefits
were reduced, whether such benefits had actually accrued prior to
filing suit, and in what manner any such benefits were reduced.   

Indeed, while the Amended Complaint vaguely references Tier I and
2nd Tier employment status, it fails to define those terms, let
alone set forth the benefit entitlements that accompany
classification under the same. As the Third Circuit has repeatedly
observed, although courts are bound, on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, to
accept the factual allegations in a complaint as true, they are not
required to credit bald assertions or legal conclusions improperly
alleged in the complaint, and legal conclusions draped in the guise
of factual allegations may not benefit from the presumption of
truthfulness.

Simply put, without the requisite factual allegations regarding the
accrual of benefits and reduction of the same, as well as the
Plaintiffs' entitlement to benefits under the Fund, the Court
cannot determine whether any amendment to the Fund resulted in the
deprivation of an accrued benefit and thus, whether the amendment
falls within the ambit of the anti-cutback provision.

The Plaintiffs' anti-cutback claim is dismissed without prejudice
for failure to meet the pleading standard.

Count Two: Claim for Money Damages

In Count Two, the Plaintiffs assert a claim against all the
Defendants for money damages, alleging that as a direct result of
the actions of all the Defendants and reliance upon the
representations made to them by the Defendants.  

The Defendants raise a plethora of arguments as to why this Court
should dismiss Count Two. Principal amongst those arguments is U.S.
Foods' contention that Count Two must be dismissed because the
Plaintiffs' claim for money damages is not a cognizable cause of
action, and thus, violates the notice pleading standard.
Significantly, the Plaintiffs fail to respond to that argument or
in any way address Count Two in their Opposition brief.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief, in order to give the defendant fair notice of what the
claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.

Here, Count Two fails to meet even the liberal notice pleading
standard, because rge Plaintiffs request for money damages is
merely a request for a remedy, rather than a cognizable cause of
action. Indeed, as the broad range of arguments raised in the
Defendants' Motions illustrate, the paucity of factual allegations
contained in Count Two leads the Defendants to speculate as to what
the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests, including whether
the Plaintiffs are seeking to enforce a statutory right or one
provided under common law. By the same token, the vague manner in
which Count Two is asserted precludes this Court from undertaking
the first step of the three-step process that the Third Circuit has
instructed district courts to follow in reviewing the sufficiency
of a complaint; i.e., taking "note of the elements the plaintiff
must plead to state a claim."

Accordingly, Count Two is dismissed.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 2, 2018 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y7ml9uuk from Leagle.com.

STEVEN FRIZZIOLA, DAVE GREEN, PAUL AMERMAN, SCOTT HORN & JAMES
MAZZEO, Plaintiffs, represented by MICHAEL T. SCARAGGI , ORANSKY,
SCARAGGI, BORG & ABBAMONTE.

TEAMSTERS' LOCAL 282 PENSION TRUST FUND, THOMAS GESUALDI, LOUIS
BISIGNANO, ANTHONY PEROZZI, ANTHONY D'AQUILA, MICHAEL O'TOOLE,
FRANK H. FINKEL, JOSEPH A. FERRARA, SR., MARC HERBST, DENISE M.
RICHARDSON & THOMAS F. CORBETT, Defendants, represented by
CHRISTOPHER A. SMITH, TRIVELLA & FORTE, LLP.


VONAGE HOLDINGS: Still Defends Merkin & Smith Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Vonage Holdings Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the company continues to
defend itself in a class action suit initiated by Arthur Merkin and
James Smith.

On September 27, 2013, Arthur Merkin and James Smith filed a
putative class action lawsuit against Vonage America, Inc. in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles,
alleging that Vonage violated California's Unfair Competition Law
by charging its customers fictitious 911 taxes and fees. On October
30, 2013, Vonage filed a notice removing the case to the United
States District Court for the Central District of California. On
November 26, 2013, Vonage filed its Answer to the Complaint. On
December 4, 2013, Vonage filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration,
which the Court denied on February 4, 2014.

On March 5, 2014, Vonage appealed that decision to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On March 26, 2014,
the district court proceedings were stayed pending the appeal. On
February 29, 2016, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's
ruling and remanded with instructions to grant the motion to compel
arbitration.

On March 22, 2016, Merkin and Smith filed a petition for rehearing.
On May 4, 2016, the Ninth Circuit withdrew its February 29, 2016
decision and issued a new order reversing the district court's
order and remanded with instructions to compel arbitration. The
Ninth Circuit also declared as moot the petition for rehearing. On
June 27, 2016, the lower court stayed the case pending arbitration.


A joint status report was filed with the District Court on December
23, 2016. A second joint status report was filed with the District
Court on March 23, 2017. A third joint status report was filed with
the District Court on June 27, 2017. A fourth joint status report
was filed with the District Court on September 26, 2017. A fifth
joint status report was filed with the District Court on December
26, 2017.

Counsel for Vonage spoke with counsel for plaintiffs in
mid-February 2018, seeking voluntary dismissal. Plaintiff's counsel
advised they intended to seek public injunctive relief. The parties
are reviewing their respective positions. The parties will be
filing a status report once plaintiffs decide their next steps.

Vonage Holdings Corp. provides communications services connecting
people through cloud-connected devices worldwide. It offers various
business services, including basic dial tone, call queue,
conferencing, call groups, mobile functionality, CRM integration,
and detailed analytics, as well as Vonage Business Cloud and Vonage
Enterprise services. The company was incorporated in 2000 and is
headquartered in Holmdel, New Jersey.


WASHINGTON GAS: Continues to Defend Silver Spring Incident Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Washington Gas Light Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2018, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the company
continues to defend itself in a class action suit related to Silver
Spring, Maryland Incident.

Washington Gas continues to support the investigation by the NTSB
into the August 10, 2016 explosion and fire at an apartment complex
on Arliss Street in Silver Spring, Maryland, the cause of which has
not been determined.  Additional information will be made available
by the NTSB at the appropriate time.  

A total of 40 civil actions related to the incident have been filed
against WGL Holdings, Inc. (WGL) and Washington Gas in the Circuit
Court for Montgomery County, Maryland. All of these suits seek
unspecified damages for personal injury and/or property damage.

The one action seeking class action status has been amended to
assert property damage and loss of use claims.

Washington Gas said "We maintain excess liability insurance
coverage from highly-rated insurers, subject to a nominal
self-insured retention. We believe that this coverage will be
sufficient to cover any significant liability to it that may result
from this incident. Management is unable to determine a range of
potential losses that are reasonably possible of occurring and
therefore we have not recorded a reserve associated with this
incident."  

On August 14, 2017, the NTSB opened the public docket related to
its ongoing investigation.

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

Washington Gas Light Company, a regulated public utility, sells and
delivers natural gas to retail customers in the United States. The
company was incorporated in 1848 and is based in Washington, the
District of Columbia. Washington Gas Light Company is a subsidiary
of WGL Holdings, Inc.


WEN BY CHAZ DEAN: Court Won't Revise Bellwether Selection Protocol
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California denied Defendant's Motion to Revise Bellwether Plaintiff
Selection Protocol in the case captioned CARYN COLLAZO, ET AL.,
Plaintiff, v. WEN BY CHAZ DEAN, INC., ET AL., Defendants, Case No.
2:15-CV-01974-ODW-AGR (C.D. Cal.).

GAR now moves to revise the Plaintiff Selection Protocol agreed to
by the Plaintiffs and the other two defendants before GAR was added
to the action.

WEN Cleansing Conditioner hair care products (The Products) were
developed by Los Angeles-based hair stylist, Chaz Dean, in
collaboration with Guthy-Renker, a large direct marketing company.
The Plaintiffs allege that GAR Laboratories, Inc. (GAR) was
utilized by Dean and Guthy-Renker to manufacture, test and design
the Products. The Plaintiffs allege varying injuries related to the
use of the Products including hair loss and damage, scalp injury,
and rash.

The Plaintiffs filed their Third Amended Complaint (TAC), which
added GAR Laboratories, Inc. (GAR) as a defendant.

A bellwether trial is a trial of individual cases designed to
produce reliable information about other mass tort cases. These
trials can precipitate and inform settlement negotiations by
providing guidance on how similar claims may fare before subsequent
juries. Federal courts have the authority to conduct a bellwether
trial under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(b), which states:
:For convenience, to avoid prejudice, or to expedite and economize,
the court may order a separate trial of one or more separate
issues, or claims."

GAR makes numerous arguments as to why it believes the plaintiff
selection protocol is inappropriate.

Representativeness

One of GAR's chief arguments is that because the Category I
plaintiffs are the most severely injured, and are relatively few in
number, they are not representative of the group of plaintiffs as a
whole.

However, the plaintiffs from all categories are alleging similar
injuries, which vary in severity, from using the same products in
the same ways. Category I plaintiffs are not outliers, they merely
represent one end of the range of cases involved in this
litigation. A bellwether trial should include the entire range of
cases in order to determine the range of values the cases may
have.

The Plaintiff is correct to point out that various severities of
injury determine the range of damages, but this is precisely what a
bellwether trial attempts to discover. Thus, it is important to
include Category I plaintiffs in the first bellwether trial so that
the full range of cases is represented.

Separating cases into different trials based on different types of
injury makes sense because different injuries will require
different showings of evidence to prove causation. However, in a
case such as the present one, differing severities of similar
injuries will require the same evidence for causation, and the
differences in severity will be represented in the damages awarded.
Thus, it is proper to keep all three categories of plaintiffs in
this case together in one trial.

Proportionality of Proposed Cohort

GAR argues that the proposed 2-2-4 cohort does not provide the
requisite statistical reliability to allow the parties to draw
inferences about the remaining plaintiffs from the bellwether trial
cohort.

While there will be a greater percentage of Category I plaintiffs
at trial than there are in this action as a whole (25% at trial vs.
3% of total plaintiffs), GAR's proposed solution, to separate this
action into three separate trials, has already been rejected by the
Court. The Court cannot in one trial rectify this
disproportionality without trying upwards of 30 plaintiffs (one
Category I plaintiff would constitute 3% of a 30 plaintiff cohort),
and so many plaintiffs would result in an unmanageable trial.

GAR was Added After Negotiations Took Place

GAR also points out that it had not yet been added as a party in
this litigation when the selection process was negotiated, and
claims that had been it been a party it would not have agreed to
this process.

The Court is unwilling to throw out the agreement negotiated by
three of the four parties involved in this litigation because a
defendant was added later, and therefore denies GAR's Motion.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 12, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y7uopldr from Leagle.com.

Kym Hall, Cindy Peterson, Maya Abramson-Hords, Patricia Alexander,
Judith Allaire-Pitzz, Mary Jo Arrighi, Marcella Atkinson, Michelle
Baer, Latosha Baker, Danielle Barnhart, Maria Barcelona, Stephanie
Bechtel, Tiffany Bell, individually, Tiffany Bell, on behalf of her
minor child, P.B., Ginny Bender, Allison Berry, Jody Blanchard,
Tammy Blanchard, Amy Boyd, Lajeana Brooks, Virna Brown, Susan
Browning, Lyn Burns, Cynthia Butler, Brandon Callis, Christina
Campbell, Carmen Castang, Sandra Castellon, Sylvia Casitlla, Tressa
Clardy, Janice Clark, individually, Janice Clark, and on behlf of
her minor daughter,T.C., Joan Clark, Connie Clarke, Terri Cole,
Kris Connolly, Sara Cook, Rica Cunanan, Kimberly Davis, Joyce
Diamond, Roxie Drofiak, Dornice Dycus, Gilberta Escamilla,
Stephanie Everett, Alice Factor, Barbie Ferrese, Ramona Finn,
Cheryl Footman, Alison Franks, Nancy Gagliardi, Angie Ganns, on
behaff of her minor daughter, S.G., Christina Garces, Daniel X
Garcia, Jennie Gazzillo, Susan George, Randee Gerry, Patricia
Gomez, Eve Gray, Velma Green, Gloria Guest, Kelsy Gunby, Kristi
Hardenbrook, Kelly Harris, Reena Heenan, Paulette Holder,
individually, Paulette Holder, on behalf of her minor daughter,
T.H., Leyda Impson, Jessica Jones, Amanda Kolkana, Renee Krause,
Dana Lambrick, Anna Leonova, Sandra Lirette, Kellie Loges, Lainie
Lowery, Julia Magrath, Yesenia Maldonada-Diaz, Susan Maletz, Karen
Malone, Dorri Manchetti, Francisco Marroquin, Linda Mast, Linda
Mattli, Karan McClure, Rachel McGee, Adela McGrew, Sheila McKee,
Marusia Melackronis, Tanya Miller, Anita Montgomery, Terri Morgan,
Jill Morphew, Roxan Morris, Anthony Moser, Aviva Mrazik, Marianne
Muylaert, Candance Mudrak, Julie Nally, Tanya Norman, Lea Olivera,
Aly Nutter, Lea Oliviera, Linda Ortiz-Yaremko, Krista Osborn, Robyn
Osten, Mea Parks, Cristi Pechart, Adabel Pena, Lee Perkinson, Paula
Reynolds, Gilda Romaniello, Filipinas San Jose, Delinda Saye,
Cynthia Shuster, Tara Simko, Karen Smaha, Pamela Smallwood, Dena
Smith, Vanessa Stevens, Shirley Story, Crystal Telles, Sally
Tesoro, Connie Theiss, Venita Vance, Ronda Vencil, Kim Wallace,
Summer Warren, Shannon Wilkinson, Pamela Wynn, Alice Yoder, Sarah
Abbott, Marta Ablaza, Delores Ainsworth, Garine Alexis, Domenica
Aliberti, Linda Allen, Lesiie Alvarez-Correa, Tenage Ambaw,
Gwendolen Anderson, Tonya Anderson, Gerri Andra, Stacy Andria,
Sharon Applewhite, Bonnie Armor, Lori Arons, Duygu Arpinar, Emine
Arpinar, Devyn Ascher, Masae Ash, Melissa Atkisson, Sandra Avila,
Tomasa Avila, Anjail Abdul Badee, individually and on behalf of
Minor daughter I. A. B., Kellie Badger, on behalf of her minor
daughter, A.A., Jennifer Bachi, Kelly Baer, Nancy Baez, Laurie
Bailey, Sharon Baisden, Tina Bak, Debra Baker, Stephen Baker, Gerri
Barr, Tara Battisoni, Ann Baucom, Linda Bauman, Carlene Beasley,
Victoria Beliso, Michele Bennett, Tasha Blackmore, on behalf of her
minor daughte A.B., Brandi Blouch, Isabel Blumberg, Mary Bobbett,
Gloria Bodenheimer, Karen Boer, Debbie Bouras, Lolita Bowie, Amy
Bowman, Sharon Boyce-Werdebaugh, Marrissa Boylan, Arletta
Branchcomb, Teresa Brashear, Sian Braun, Aricka Britt, Jacqueline
Brodie, Judy Broussard, Patricia Brown, Beatrice Brown-Living, Anna
Brunello, Heather Burkett, Christine Burns, Jeanette Burton, Lyn
Burton, Theresa Burton-Konate, Patricia Byrge, Tina Cain, Deborah
Caine, Cheryl Calautti, Krista Calderon, Verna Cambre, Karen
Cameron, Carol Cantey, Pamela Cappello, Peggy Caraballo-McCarthy,
Helen Carr, Laura Carr, Linda Carrelli, Tracy Carson, Bette Carter,
Penny Castellano, Sylvai Castillo, Sylvia Castillo, Carolynn Cates,
Ivana Cavrag, Ritamarie Ciaccio, Taressa Clardy, Joanne Clark,
Tiffany Clark, Davanee Clawges, Christina Clayton, Ciaran Clayton,
Sue Clermont, Trisha Cobb, Gloria Cobian, Fran Coleman, Debra
Collins, Roseann Colluccio, Kristie Condie, Kathleen Connelly,
Jaime Cook, on behalf of her minor daughter C.C., Donna Cooper,
Shannon Cosminski, Cassie Crawford, Carol Crowley-Federicki, Robin
Cull, Mechelle Cummins, Lee Cunningham, Nicole Curel, Sheryl
Currey, Michelle Currier, Mary Cushman, Laura Dahma, Michele Dahma,
Barbara Damm, Betty Davenport, Annette Davis, Donna Deamicis, Jeane
Decosmo, Michele Dedomencico, Karla Delavergme, Beth Delbaugh,
Donna Dengate, Dana Denning, Judy Denny, Karen Denson-Hayes, Martha
Denton, Cindi Derichie, Wanda Desimone, Sonia Dillard-Foster,
Ameila Divinity, Anna Dobrowolski, Carol Dohm, Sharon Donaldson,
Jackie Donia, Debra Donner, Tammy Dudley, individually and on
behalf of minor daughter K.D., Charlotte Dugger, Andrea Duncan,
Maria Dunn, Angela Dunsin, Renee Durso, Irene Ekweozoh, Penelope
Elmers, Brina Elmore, Sharon Elzie, Gloria Emerson, Sharon Engel,
on behalf of her minor daughter, V.E., Roxanne Enriquez, Angela
Erviles-Molina, Zoe Erwin, Gilberto Escamilla, Allison Evans,
Patricia Evans, Cheryl Ewell, Claudia Faber, Jessica Fasman, Yazmin
Feliz, Donna Ferguson, Framces Finley, Michael Fitzsimmons, Tiffany
Foley, Michaela Fox, Jenny Francis, Allison Franks, Joyce
Froetschel, Alana Fromelius, Jacqueline Frontauria, Heather Fuller,
Kimmie Fuller, Kimberly Gallegos, Tina Garcia, Angel Garvais,
Azusena Gaspar, Jennifer Gauna, Jeannine Gazzillo, Joan Gerage,
Laurel Getchell, Patty Gibbs, Loria Gill, Shelly Gillaspie, Tiffany
Gillota, Autumn Givens, Catriona Glazebrook, Sara Gold, Jill
Goldberg, Rosetter Gomes, Debbie Gonsalves, Susan Goulet, Miriam
Graham, Lora Green, Marsha Greer, Patricia Greer, Cynthia Griffin,
Athena Guerrero, Nora Guerrero, Ingrid Gumbs-Diaz, Keisa Gunby,
Michelle Gutkind, Melissa Hackett, Kim Hadaway, Tricia Hal,
Angelina Hardiman, Samantha Harris, Diane Harris-Matsuda, Susan
Harrison, Shannon Hartz, Julie Hayden, Cheryl Hendricks, Chistina
Hernandez, Debra Hicks, Brenna Hill, Leslie Hills, Julia Hilton,
Lora Hindsley, Juiie Hinesley, Julie Hite, Rebecca Ho-On, Paulette
Holder, individually and on behalf of her minor daughter T.H.,
Renae Holmes, Susan Holt, Tanue Honore, Rosalind Hood, Thelma
Horne, Shawn House, on behalf of his minor daughter, L.H., Cimberly
Howard, Dena Howard-Walton, Joyce Huang, Kimberly Hubbard, Barbara
Hudak, Carla Huddleston, Concenttina Hudson, Annette Irby, Susan
Irvine, Mumtaz Ismail, Andie Jablon, Linda Jenkins, Jacque Johnson,
Kelley Johnson, Ruthie Johnson, Debbie Jones, Linda Jones, Melinda
Jones, Shana Jones, Michele Kennedy, Debra Kerbo, Denise Ketcham,
Summer Khdair, Nancy Kiley, Caroline Kim, Marjorie King, Pamela
Klauber, Bonita Kline, Andrea Klinger, Thomas Klinger, Carmela
Knueppel, Ivonne Kollas, Monique Kristjanson, Patricia Kubik, Nan
La Chapelle, Lisa Labatore, Laura Lafontaine, Rhonda Lamb, Maggie
Langford, Emily Lapointe, Lara Lauder, Gerridian Lean, Florence
Lee, Kathy Lee, Linda Lee, Sarah Leonard, Susan Levine, Jill
Lindsey, Maya Lipovetsky, Theresa Little, Nova Littrell, Maria Lena
Wilson, Rebecca Wood, on behalf of her minor daughter, A. J.,
Yamirle Lopez, Alisha Lovato, Maria Lovera, Andrea Lowe, Kimberly
Lozinski, Sandra Lyon, Monica MacDonald, Athena Madruga, Natalia
Maestre, Julie Magrath, Cheryl Mahoney, Cheryl Mallard, Rosaila
Mansour, Julie Marcaccio, Dorri Marchetti, Nancy Martin, Adeline
Martinez, Theresa Mascaro, Amy Mastrangelo, Destiny Mayeda, Beverly
McClendon, Pamela McCluske, Birgit McCray, Ethel McCullough, Dilan
McDaniel, Janie McDaniel, Jessica McDaniel, Tanakia McGinniss,
Janet McIntosh, Lisa McLain, Mitzie McLean, Debra McLelland, Chanel
McNair, Lenae McNair, Annetta McRae, Patricia McSorley, Valencia
Meade, Rhonda Meadows, Jennifer Medeiros, Wanda Merritt, Tracy
Metro, Sharon Miani, Beverly Miller, Anita Mills, Aviva Mirazik,
Sugey Mirsky, Antoinette Mitchell, Rosalind Mitchell, Kathy
Montuoro, Lori Moore, Sharon Moore, Marina Moran, Roxane Morris,
Shawn Morris, Karen Morrow, Betty Mosley, Julieann Moyer, Candy
Mudrak, Johana Muniz, Ora Munter, Vernell Murraine, Kim Myers,
Theresa Naana, Ashley Navarro, Katrina Necciai, Sandra Neels, Marie
Nelson, Renee Nelson, Kim Nett, Natalia Nikulina, Jessie Norton,
Joelle Nowak, Deborah Olivas, Wendy Opalinski, Diane Orcino,
Heather Owen, Lisa Palya, Alexandra Papgeorge, Cristyne Parker,
Jeanne Paschen, Nyzinga Patterson, Frances Payne, Annette
Pellicano, Alice Perez, Jennifer Perez, Martine Perez, Matilde
Perez, Misty Perez-Truedson, Rene Pettis, on behalf of he minor
daughter, T.P., Jill Pittman, Roberta Pittman, Amelia Place-Wolf,
Carol Pluta, Renee Podruchny, Susan Polillo, Kimberly Pollard,
Sarah Pope, Mary Porch, Teresa Porter, Nettie Powers, Starletta
Pratt, Regina Preto, Jennifer Pricci, Teresa Price-Gadient, Dana
Primmer, Monique Pugh, Yolanda Pugh, Suzanne Ralston, Michelle
Ramos, Vickie Reed, Noella Regis, Apollone Reid, Katherine Reyes,
Shannon Rice, Chiquita Richardson-Zachery, Laura Ritzko, Patricia
Rivas, Jade Roberson, Janeen Robinson, Andrea Robledo, Janette
Robles, Susan Rodden, Troy Romero, Tresa Rubert, Marquitta Russell,
Drexel Smiley, Judith Rutledge, Sally Ryan, Carol Schnure, Nanette
Schroeder, Jennifer Schultz, Karin Schwartz, Tricia Seidler,
Arazola Session, Brittany Shannon, Ollie Shannon, Michelle Shores,
Mary Shoucair, Judy Simkin, Carolyn Smith, Danielle Smith, Terry
Smoak, Kathryn Snyder, Rebecca Soos, Courtney Soter, Lisa Spears,
Jennifer Speer, Kay Speer, Dawne Spencer, Susan Spencer, Suzanne
Spencer, Linda Stephens, Mary Stewart, on behalf of her minor
daughter, A.S., Mary Stewart, Beverly Stribling, Elaine Strong,
Judy Stuckey, Gwendolyn Studstill, Kelly Sula, Yi-Le Sung, Chelci
Sutton, Meredith Tansey, Denise Tanski, Suzanne Taylor, Cerissa
Tee, Kathy Tevis, Tamra Thomas, Tisha Thomas, Pamela Thomason,
Vanessa Thompkins, Lisa Thompson, Judith Tidwell, Lucia Tilton,
Patricia Todaro, Bonnie Tomeoni, Marilyn Torres, Carol Underhill,
Gail Vagts, Marybeth Van Horn, Brandy Vance, Minazchi Vargas, Janet
Vasko, Ruby Vaughn, Veleka Vaughn, Yoania Vazquez, Georgina Vitale,
Megan Vornhold, Susie Wade, Dinah Waeghe, Vickie Wagner, Gina
Walker, Meshona Walker, Theresa Wallen, April Washington, Shirley
Watkins, Quentina Wells, Douglas West, Michelle Westfaill, Sandra
Whaley, Mary Whitacre, Linda White, Patricia Whitten, Tracy Wiley,
Shannon Wilkins, Cynthia Williams, Dona Williams, Edith Williams,
Joyce Williams, Linda Williams, Veronica Withers-Espree, Cynthia
Wombacker, Laurie Worden, Tracy Worth, Debbie Wright, Megan Yates,
Stephanie Yee, Elizabeth Yoder, Jennifer Young & Jasper Zachery,
Plaintiffs, represented by Amy E. Davis -- adavis@cdfirm.com --
Christiansen Davis LLC, pro hac vice & David E. Rosen --
drosen@murphyrosen.com -- Murphy Rosen LLP.

Nidia Jones, Lisa Vides, on behalf of minor, R.V. & Joelle
Zurilgen, Plaintiffs, represented byDavid E. Rosen , Murphy Rosen
LLP.

Theresa Mascaro, Sandra Kyker & Sherri Miller, Movants, represented
by Amy E. Davis , Christiansen Davis LLC, pro hac vice & David E.
Rosen , Murphy Rosen LLP.

Traci Williams, Petitioner, represented by Amy E. Davis ,
Christiansen Davis LLC, pro hac vice &David E. Rosen , Murphy Rosen
LLP.

Wen By Chaz Dean, Inc., Defendant, represented by Michael B.
Giaquinto -- mgiaquinto@hptylaw.com -- Hawkins Parnell Thackston
and Young LLP & Barry R. Schirm -- bschirm@hptylaw.com -- Hawkins
Parnell Thackston and Young LLP.

Guthy-Renker Ltd., Defendant, represented by Jonathan Michael
Jackson -- jonathan.jackson@lw.com -- Latham and Watkins LLP, Dina
M. Cox -- dcox@lewiswagner.com -- Lewis Wagner LLP & Kimberly S.
Adams -- kadams@lewiswagner.com -- Lewis Wagner LLC, pro hac vice.


WESTERN NEW YORK ARENA: Faces Reyes ADA Suit
--------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Western New York
Arena, LLC. The lawsuit is captioned as Jose Reyes, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Western New York Arena, LLC, doing business as: The Keybank Center,
the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-07448-JPO (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 16,
2018). The suit alleges Americans with Disabilities Act violation.
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge J. Paul Oetken.

KeyBank Center, formerly known as Marine Midland Arena, HSBC Arena
and First Niagara Center, is a multipurpose indoor arena located in
downtown Buffalo, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 465 1188
          Facsimile: (212) 465 1181
          E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com


WILLIAM A. HECHT: Faces Faust FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against William A. Hecht,
P.C. The lawsuit is styled as Fredrick Faust, individually and on
behalf of all those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. William
A. Hecht, P.C., the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-04647 (E.D.N.Y.,
Aug. 16, 2018). The suit alleges Fair Debt Collection Act
violation.

William A. Hecht, P.C. is headquartered in the United States. The
company's line of business includes providing full service legal
advice.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ZWICKER & ASSOCIATES: Faces Carrozza Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Zwicker & Associates,
P.C. The lawsuit is styled as Jennifer Carrozza, individually and
on behalf of all those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Zwicker & Associates, P.C., the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-04645
(E.D.N.Y., Aug. 16, 2018). The suit alleges Fair Debt Collection
Act violation.

Zwicker & Associates is a law firm whose primary business function
is debt collection.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



                            *********

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 ***