CAR_Public/180904.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, September 4, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 177

                            Headlines

79TH STREET GOURMET: Guerrero Sues Over Denial of Overtime Wages
829 SOUTHERN BLVD: Show Cause Order Entered in Amendolare Suit
ALL NIPPON AIRWAYS: Appeals Ruling in Wortman Suit to 9th Cir.
ALTISOURCE ASSET: Cambridge Retirement System Suit Ongoing
AMERICAN AIRLINES: 10th Cir. Affirms ADA Pre-emption Ruling

AMERICAN FINANCE: Appeal in Maryland Class Action Pending
AMERICAN FINANCE: Bid to Dismiss St. Clair-Hibbard Suit Pending
AMTRAK: Faces Chen Suit in East. Dist. of Penn.
APPLE FEDERAL: Liggio Class Suit Alleges Breach of Contract
ASSOCIATED COMMUNITY: 7th Cir. Affirms Summary Ruling in TCPA Suit

ATLANTIC CREDIT: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Yakubov Says
AVANGRID INC: Bid to Dismiss LDC Gas Transportation Suit Underway
BANK OF AMERICA: Duque Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
BFT LP: Ct. Denies AMP Automotive's Bid to Certify Class Under TCPA
BLUE APRON: Continues to Defend IPO-Related Class Action

CANADA: Quebec Court Gives Green Light to RCMP Suit
CARSON SMITHFIELD: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Roth Claims
CHAMBLESS MATH: Milner Alleges Wrongful Debt Collections
CLEAR RATE: Faces Dembski Class Suit in Michigan District Court
COASTWAY BANCORP: Paul Parshall Withdraws Class Action Complaint

COCA-COLA CO: Court Grants Bid to Quash in P. Fradella's Suit
COMSCORE INC: Parties Agree to Dismiss Oregon Sec. 11 Suit
CONAIR CORP: Faces Class Action on Faulty Cuisinart Pressure Cooker
CONSOL ENERGY: Continues to Defend Casey Suit in Virginia
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Seeks 9th Circuit Review of Canela Suit Ruling

COUNTRY FAIR: Budai Sues Over Fair Credit Reporting Act Violation
COVENTBRIDGE (USA): Eggnatz Seeks Cert. of Investigators Class
CREDIT SUISSE: Ex-Broker Appeals Dismissal of Class Action
DDC HOTELS: Honeywell Files ADA Suit in N.D. Fla.
DEFENDERS INC: Archer Moves to Certify Class of Security Advisors

DEUTSCHE BANK: Inks $21.9MM Deal to End 401(k) Fee Class Action
ECOCO INC: Violates Disabilities Act, Crosson Suit Alleges
EDISON INTERNATIONAL: 9th Circuit Appeal Filed in Wilson Suit
EJ'S CLEANING: Fails to Properly Pay Janitors, Walker Suit Says
ENHANCED RECOVERY: Accused by Collins Suit of Violating FDCPA

ESPERION THERAPEUTICS: Appeal in Dougherty Securities Suit Pending
ESPERION THERAPEUTICS: Faces Bailey Securities Action in Michigan
EUGENE STRASCHNOW: Faces Sermuks FLSA Suit in E.D. New York
EXXON MOBIL: Texas Judge Greenlights Securities Fraud Class Action
FACEBOOK INC: Overestimates Audience Size Lawsuit Claims

FCA US: Court Narrows Claims in Age Discrimination Suit
FCA US: Court Won't Certify Class in Defective Valve Stems Suit
FIAT CHRYSLER: Subpoena on Confidential Witness Deposition Quashed
FORD MOTOR: Loses Bid to Dismiss Defective F-150 Door Lock Suit
FORSTER & GARBUS: Kirilova Files Suit in N.Y. Over FDCPA Breach

FRONT YARD: Discovery in Martin Suit Still Ongoing
FTD COMPANIES: Continues to Defend EasySaver Rewards Suit
GEICO GENERAL: M. Stone's Suit Remains in Dist. Ct., 9th Cir. Says
GENERAL MOTORS: Court Allows Defendant Substitution in Sunroof Suit
GENIE ENERGY: Court Recommends Approval of Aks Settlement

GENIE ENERGY: Court Recommends Approval of Ferrare Settlement
GENIE ENERGY: Court Recommends Approval of McLaughlin Settlement
GENON ENERGY: Still Defends Natural Gas Litigation at June 30
GEO GROUP: Loses Bid to Dismiss U.G. Nwauzor's FAC
GEORGE TYNDALL: Hagens Berman Appointed to Chair Committee

GILBERT ROZON: To Challenge Class-Action Lawsuit
GLOBAL TEL LINK: Loses Summary Judgment Bid in B. James' Suit
GOODWILL INDUSTRIES: Haley Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
GOOGLE LLC: Wins Bid to Deny Class Certification in Woods Suit
GUARDIAN PROTECTION: 3rd Cir. Flips UTPCPL Suit Dismissal

HEALTH INSURANCE: Bid to Dismiss Florida Securities Suit Underway
HEALTH INSURANCE: Continues to Defend Multiple TCPA Suits
HERFF JONES: Faces Davidson Suit over Sale of Gold Rings
HIMALASALT-SUSTAINABLE: Faces Garcia Suit in C.D. California
HOSPITAL SERVICE: Consolidated Appeals in Billing Act Suits Junked

IBEW PACIFIC: Court Partly Grants 2nd Bid for Attorneys' Fees
INTERCEPT PHARMACEUTICALS: Still Defends "DeSmet" Suit in S.D.N.Y.
IOVANCE BIOTHERAPEUTICS: Still Defends Securities Class Lawsuit
JAI MA OF GAINESVILLE: Violates Disabilities Act, Honeywell Says
JAI SACHCHIDANAND: Honeywell Suit Asserts ADA Violation

JEREMY NELSON: Judge Expands Class-Action Lawsuit Against Janitor
JNV GLASS: Court Conditionally Certifies Workers' Class
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces Lara Suit over Sale of Talc Products
JOHNSON SERVICE: Brennan Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
KEURIG DR PEPPER: Awaits Court OK of Stockholder Suit Settlement

KEURIG DR PEPPER: Continues to Defend Antitrust Litigation
KEURIG DR PEPPER: Settlement of Sanchez Suit Wins Final Approval
KEURIG GREEN: Settlement in Associates' Suit Has Final Court OK
KINGSTON DATA: Accused by Perro Class Suit of Violating FDCPA
KODIAK TRUCKING: Faces Forste Employee Class Suit in California

LADENBURG THALMANN: Appeal from Nixed Texas Class Suit Underway
LADENBURG THALMANN: Bids for Class Status in Tenn. Suit Pending
LADENBURG THALMANN: Still Defends Class Suit vs. ARCP in New York
LAMUSE CAFE: Gomez Suit Alleges ADA Violation
LEADERS IN COMMUNITY: Faces Edwards Suit in N.D. California

LEGACY RESERVES: Sept. 12 Fairness Hearing Set for Settlement Pact
LGI HOMES: Faces Munson Class Lawsuit over Unpaid Overtime Wages
LIPOCINE INC: Securities Class Action Accord Gets Final Court OK
LIVANOVA PLC: Faces 135 Claims over 3T Device's Design Defect
LL BEAN: Calif. Judge Says Return Policy Not Harmful

LUNCH INT'L: Court Refuses to Decertify National Class
MALLINCKRODT PLC: City of Rockford Class Action Still Pending
MALLINCKRODT PLC: Parties Agree to Stay Employees' Securities Suit
MALLINCKRODT PLC: Still Defends MSP Recovery Suit in N.D. Illinois
MALLINCKRODT PLC: Still Faces Class Securities Litigation in D.C.

MARICOPA, AZ: Briggs Files Suit Asserting Civil Rights Violation
MARRIOTT VACATIONS: Bid to Dismiss Lennen Class Suit Underway
MATCH GROUP INC: Court to Dismiss McCloskey Suit
MATCH GROUP: Candelore Suit vs Tinder Remains Pending
MCCARTHY BURGESS: Piscazzi Files FDCPA Suit in E.D.N.Y.

MDC PARTNERS: Parties in Paniccia Consent to Dismissal of Suit
MDL 1566: 9th Cir. Reverses Summary Judgment Favoring CES
MDL 1566: 9th Cir. Vacates Denial of Class Certification
MERCK & CO: Rotavirus Vaccines Antitrust Litigation Underway
METLIFE INC: 9th Cir. Appeal from Martin Case Dismissal Underway

METLIFE INC: Faces Roycroft Suit over Group Annuity Contracts
METLIFE INC: Miller Class Suit  v. MLIC Still Pending in New York
METLIFE INC: MLIC Still Faces Newman Class Action in Illinois
METLIFE INC: Owens Suit v. Metropolitan Life Still Ongoing
METLIFE INC: Sales Practices Suits vs. Sun Life Still Pending

METLIFE INC: Still Defends Julian & McKinney Class Action
METLIFE INC: Still Defends Parchmann Class Lawsuit in E.D.N.Y.
METLIFE INC: Voshall Class Suit v. MLIC Still Ongoing in Calif.
METLIFE INC: Westland Police Lawsuit in S.D.N.Y. Still Pending
MIAMI-DADE, FL: Dismissal of Medallion Holders' Suit Partly Upheld

MIDLAND FUNDING: Warner Seeks Certification of Consumers Class
MOBILEIRON INC: Contributes $1.1M to Shareholder Suit Settlement
MONARCH RECOVERY: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Donaeva Says
MOSAIC COMPANY: Investigation on Labor Law Non-Compliance Pending
MRI INT'L: Court Orders Surrender of 7007184 Insurance

MS CHEEZIOUS: Gomez Suit Alleges ADA Breach
MS FIRE PROTECTION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Clark Suit Alleges
NAGLE & ZALLER: 4th Circuit Appeal Filed in Archie Suit
NATIONAL BEVERAGE: Kaskela Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
NEWPORT CORP: Former Directors Still Defend Securities Class Suit

NOMAX INC: 8th Cir. Vacates Dismissal of TCPA Suit
NOVUS THERAPEUTICS: Jackie888 and Wu Lawsuits Consolidated
OBALON THERAPEUTICS: Robbins Gellar Appointed Lead Counsel
OPTIO SOLUTIONS: Doughty Suit Alleges FDCPA Violation
ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL: Still Defends SEPTA Putative Class Action

OVASCIENCE INC: Bid to Dismiss Massachusetts Class Suit Pending
OVASCIENCE INC: State Court Dismisses Westmoreland Suit
P&B CAPITAL: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, D' Angelo Says
PBF ENERGY: Goldstein Bid to File 2nd Amended Complaint Granted
PBF HOLDING: 2nd Amended Complaint Filed in "Goldstein" Lawsuit

PBF HOLDING: Nov. 2018 Mini-Trial Scheduled in Caruso Lawsuit
PBF HOLDING: Thomas Suit over Chemical Exposure Still Ongoing
PECOS VALLEY: Sept. 12 Telephonic Conference in W. Rager's Suit
PIKOLINOS USA: Bunting Files Suit Over ADA Breach
PINDUODUO INC: Wei Files IPO-Related Securities Suit in N.Y.

POPULAR INC: Bid to Nix Saad Maura Class Action Still Pending
POPULAR INC: Bid to Revive Camacho Suit Pending
POPULAR INC: BPPR Still Defends "Torres" Class Action
POPULAR INC: Parties in Duncan Class Suit Reach Final Settlement
POPULAR INC: Perez Diaz Class Action in Discovery Stage

POPULAR INC: Valle Class Action Settlement Gets Final Court Okay
PPL CORPORATION: Class Action in Kentucky Still Underway
PRIMORIS SERVICES: Court OKs Accord in Suit over Wilbros Deal
PROPHET MANASSEH: Underpays Marketing Professionals, Person Says
PROTHENA CORP: Simon James Seeks Consolidation of Related Lawsuits

PTC THERAPEUTICS: Securities Suit Settlement Gets Initial Court OK
PURDUE PHARMA: Mercy House Files Suit Over RICO Act Violations
QUANTA SERVICES: Still Defends Benton Class Lawsuit in California
RECEIVABLE MANAGEMENT: Nadborski Sues over Debt Collection
RETAIL SERVICES: R. Bell's CPCA Suit Remanded to Calif. State Court

RINECO CHEMICAL: Worley Sues Over Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA
RIPPLE LABS: ICO Suit Moves to Federal Court
RUBIN LUBLIN: Shabani Files Suit Asserting FDCPA Breach
SAN DIEGO SERVICES: Garcia Suit Alleges FCRA Violation
SANDRIDGE MISSISSIPPIAN: Bid for Partial Judgment Underway

SANTA FE, NM: Court Won't Dismiss ACF Inmates' Tort Claims
SERES THERAPEUTICS: Time to Appeal Mazurek Case Dismissal Expires
SHAMROCK FOODS: Wins Bid for Summary Judgment in Ruiz Suit
SHARKNINJA OPERATING: Murillo Sues over Defective Blenders
SONIC STEVENS: Faces Fabello Suit over Defective Used BMW

SPROUTS FARMERS: Discovery Ongoing in Arizona Securities Action
SPROUTS FARMERS: Still Defends Phishing Scam Related Suits
SYNERGIES3 TEC: Court Issues TRO in S. Jones's FLSA Suit
TARGET CORP: H. Topete's Suit Remanded to Calif. State Court
TATORE LLC: Faces Gomez Suit Over ADA Violations

TESLA INC: Bernstein Liebhard Files Class Action Lawsuit
TESLA INC: Scott+Scott Attorneys Files Class Action Lawsuit
TETRAPHASE PHARMA: Bragar Eagel Files Class Action
TEXAS: TDCJ Inmate's Class Certification Bid Denied
THORIUM CAPITAL: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Smith Suit Claims

UNITED STATES: Hundreds Join in Suit Over Sevier County Wildfire
VIRGINIA COLLEGE: Fails to Pay OT to Instructors, Ransaw Alleges
WASHINGTON: Ct. Denies TRO in Suit Over State Workers' Union Dues
WEBSITE AFTERLIFE: Suit Gets Certification, Will Move Ahead
WELTMAN WEINBERG: Zaslavskiy Suit Asserts FDCPA Violation

WESTERN UNION: 11th Cir. Favors Speedpay in Pincus Suit
WESTERN UNION: Amended Complaint Filed in Frazier Suit
WESTERN UNION: Awaiting Court Approval of Douglas Case Settlement
WESTERN UNION: Bid to Dismiss Smallen Trust Suit Underway
WESTERN UNION: Suit Against Unit in Argentina Underway

WILLIAMS PARTNERS: Dismissal Order Affirmed in Unit Holder's Suit
XERIUM TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Akouka Suit over Andritz Merger

                            *********

79TH STREET GOURMET: Guerrero Sues Over Denial of Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 79th Street Gourmet &
Deli Inc., et al., doing business as Gourmet Deli & Grocery.  The
case is entitled Edgar Baizan Guerrero, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated v. 79th Street Gourmet & Deli Inc.
doing business as: Gourmet Deli & Grocery; New Utrecht Gourmet Deli
And Grocery Inc. doing business as: Gourmet Deli & Grocery;
Columbus Grocery And Deli Corp. doing business as: Gourmet Deli &
Grocery; Mohamed S. Muthana and Ahmed F. Mustafa, Case No.
1:18-cv-04761 (E.D.N.Y., August 22, 2018).

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
arising from denial of overtime compensation.

79th Street Gourmet & Deli Inc. is a domestic business corporation
in Kings County, New York.  The Defendants do business as Gourmet
Deli & Grocery.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.[BN]


829 SOUTHERN BLVD: Show Cause Order Entered in Amendolare Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
An Order to show cause was issued by Justice Robert T. Johnson of
the New York Supreme Court, Bronx County, on July 31, 2018, in the
case of ANGGELUZ AMENDOLARE; MARTINA DE LOS SANTOS; SANTOS
ECHEVARRIA; and MARIA SAAVEDRA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 829 SOUTHERN BLVD HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT FUND CORPORATION; WASHINGTON CHASJUAN; MAUREEN
MARTINEZ;INDIVIDUALLY, JOSE VAQUERO KATHERINE BERMUDEZ; PEDRO
MARTINEZ, JOHN DOE, JANE DOE, Defendants, Case No. 28890/2018 (N.Y.
Sup., July 31, 2018).

829 Southern Blvd Housing Development Fund Corporation is engaged
in the real estate business. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Samuel Viruet, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF SAMUEL VIRUET
          171 E. 163 St.
          BRONX, NY 10451
          Telephone: (718) 588-6400


ALL NIPPON AIRWAYS: Appeals Ruling in Wortman Suit to 9th Cir.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant All Nippon Airways filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit titled DONALD WORTMAN, ET AL., the Plaintiffs, v. AIR
NEW ZEALAND, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 3:07-cv-05634-CRB, in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
San Francisco.

The appellate case is captioned as Donald Wortman, et al. v. All
Nippon Airways, Case No. 18-80097, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on August 29, 2018, the
District Court certified two classes in 25 lawsuits initiated by
Donald Wortman.

Between 2007 and 2015, Donald Wortman commenced a total of 25
lawsuits against Air New Zealand, Japan Airlines International
Company, Ltd., and All Nippon Airways Corporation, Ltd. over the
sale of discounted airfare.  The Hon. Judge Charles R. Breyer has
entered an order certifying these classes:

* Japan Class:

   "all persons and entities that directly purchased tickets for
   passenger air transportation from Japan Airlines International
   Company, Ltd. ("JAL") or All Nippon Airways Corporation, Ltd.
   ("ANA"), or any predecessor, subsidiary or affiliate thereof,
   that originated in the United States and included at least one
   flight segment from the United States to Japan between the
   period beginning February 1, 2005 and ending December 31,
   2007."

   Excluded from the class are any tickets that did not include a
   fuel surcharge. Excluded from the class are any antitrust
   immunized fares agreed upon at IATA "Tariff Coordinating
   Conferences."

   Excluded from the class are tickets exclusively acquired
   through award or reward travel or any tickets acquired for
   infant travel with a 90% discount. Also excluded from the
   class are purchases by government entities, Defendants, any
   parent subsidiary or affiliate thereof, and Defendants' or any
   other commercial airline's officers, directors, employees,
   agents, and immediate families.

* Satogaeri Class:

   "all persons and entities that directly purchased satogaeri
   fares from JAL or ANA or any predecessor, subsidiary or
   affiliate thereof that originated in the United States and
   included at least one flight segment to Japan and does not
   include travel to countries other than the United States and
   Japan between the period beginning January 1, 2000 and ending
   April 1, 2006."

   Excluded from the class are purchases by government entities,
   Defendants, any parent subsidiary or affiliate thereof, and
   Defendants' officers, directors, employees and immediate
   families. Also excluded are purchases of "Satogaeri Special"
   and maerui satogaeri fares ("Satogaeri Class," and
   collectively with the Japan Class, the "Classes").[BN]

Plaintiffs-Respondents  KATHRYN LAVING, STEPHANIE JUNG, DONALD
WORTMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, ED PARK, WILLIAM ADAMS, Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, MARGARET GARCIA, Individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, BRENDEN G. MALOOF, ROBERT
CASTEEL III, MICAH ABRAMS, MARTIN KAUFMAN, RACHEL DILLER, LORI
BARRETT, CLYDE H. CAMPBELL, MATTHEW EVANS, THOMAS SCHELLY, MARK
FOY, JASON GREGORY TURNER, STEPHEN GAFFIGAN, BRUCE HUT, DICKSON
LEUNG, KEVIN MOY, RUFUS BROWNING, LOLLY RANDALL, CHRISTIAN DUKE,
ANDREW BARTON, TRACEY WADMORE SMITH, MICHAEL BENSON, TORI KITAGAWA,
WOODROW CLARK II, JAMES EVANS, MEOR ADLIN, JUSTIN LABARGE, SCOTT
FREDERICK, REIKO HIRAI, IREATHA DIANE MITCHELL, LARRY CHEN, DAVID
KUO, DAVID MURPHY and TITI TRAN are represented by:

          Christopher L. Lebsock, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3200
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 633-1908
          E-mail: clebsock@hausfeld.com

Plaintiff-Respondent CHEROKII VERDUZCO is represented by:

          Guido Saveri, Esq.
          SAVERI & SAVERI, INC.
          706 Sansome Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 217-6810
          Facsimile: (415) 217-6813
          E-mail: guido@saveri.com

Plaintiff-Respondent SARAH TRAN is represented by:

          Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN THOMPSON LLP
          1 California Street, Suite 900
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 291-2420
          E-mail: rrivas@zlk.com

Plaintiff-Respondent JAMES STEWART is represented by:

          Azra Zahoor Mehdi, Esq.
          THE MEHDI FIRM, PC
          One Market
          Spear Tower
          San Francisco, CA 94115
          Telephone: (415) 293-8039
          E-mail: Azram@themehdifirm.com

Plaintiff-Respondent LINDA WILLIAMS is represented by:

          Lawrence G. Papale, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF LAWRENCE G. PAPALE
          1308 Main Street
          St. Helena, CA 94574
          Telephone: (707) 963-1704
          E-mail: lgpapale@papalelaw.com

Plaintiff-Respondent LAX & COMPANY, INC., is represented by:

          Whitney Erin Street, Esq.
          BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
          520 Third St.
          Oakland, CA 94607
          Telephone: (415) 968-8999
          Facsimile: (617) 507-6020
          E-mail: whitney@blockesq.com

Defendant-Petitioner ALL NIPPON AIRWAYS is represented by:

          Ankur Kapoor, Esq.
          Gary Malone, Esq.
          CONSTANTINE CANNON LLP
          335 Madison Avenue, 9th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 350-2700
          E-mail: akapoor@constantinecannon.com
                  gmalone@constantinecannon.com


ALTISOURCE ASSET: Cambridge Retirement System Suit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
Altisource Asset Management Corporation said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
9, 2018, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the
company continues to defend the case, City of Cambridge Retirement
System v. Altisource Asset Management Corp., et al.

On January 16, 2015, a putative shareholder class action complaint
was filed in the United States District Court of the Virgin Islands
by a purported shareholder of Altisource Asset Management
Corporation (AAMC) under the caption City of Cambridge Retirement
System v. Altisource Asset Management Corp., et al., 15-cv-00004.

The action names as defendants AAMC, its former Chairman, William
C. Erbey, and certain officers of AAMC and alleges that the
defendants violated federal securities laws by failing to disclose
material information to AAMC shareholders concerning alleged
conflicts of interest held by Mr. Erbey with respect to AAMC's
relationship and transactions with Front Yard, Altisource Portfolio
Solutions S.A., Home Loan Servicing Solutions, Ltd., Southwest
Business Corporation, NewSource Reinsurance Company and Ocwen
Financial Corporation, including allegations that the defendants
failed to disclose (i) the nature of relationships between Mr.
Erbey, AAMC and those entities; and (ii) that the transactions were
the result of an allegedly unfair process from which Mr. Erbey
failed to recuse himself.

The action seeks, among other things, an award of monetary damages
to the putative class in an unspecified amount and an award of
attorney's and other fees and expenses. AAMC and Mr. Erbey are the
only defendants who have been served with the complaint.

On May 12, 2015, the court entered an order granting the motion of
Denver Employees Retirement Plan to be lead plaintiff, and lead
plaintiff filed an amended complaint on June 19, 2015.

AAMC and Mr. Erbey filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint
for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and
on April 6, 2017, the Court issued an opinion and order granting
defendants’ motion to dismiss.

On May 1, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend the
complaint and, at the same time, filed a proposed first amended
consolidated complaint. AAMC and Mr. Erbey opposed the motion, and
on July 5, 2017, the Court issued an opinion and order denying with
prejudice the motion of the Plaintiff for leave to file the first
amended consolidated complaint.

On July 7, 2017, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal with the Third
Circuit Court of Appeals with respect to the federal district
court's April 6, 2017 memorandum and order granting Defendants'
motion to dismiss, the April 6, 2017 order granting Defendants'
motion to dismiss and the July 5, 2017 order denying with prejudice
Plaintiff's motion for leave to file the first amendment
consolidated complaint in the matter. On September 18, 2017,
Appellant filed its appeal brief, and briefing on the appeal motion
was completed on November 15, 2017.

On May 24, 2018, the parties made oral arguments with respect to
the briefs in response to the Plaintiff’s appeal of the company's
successful motions to dismiss in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit.

Altisource said "We believe the amended complaint is without merit.
At this time, we are not able to predict the ultimate outcome of
this matter, nor can we estimate the range of possible loss, if
any."

Altisource Asset Management Corporation, an asset management
company, provides portfolio management and corporate governance
services to institutional investors in the United States. The
company offers its services under an asset management agreement to
Altisource Residential Corporation, which acquires and manages
single-family rental properties for working class families. It also
provides management services to NewSource Reinsurance Company Ltd.
The company was founded in 2012 and is headquartered in
Christiansted, Virgin Islands.


AMERICAN AIRLINES: 10th Cir. Affirms ADA Pre-emption Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit, affirmed the
district court's order holding that the Plaintiffs' claims in the
cases captioned LYNN ROBINSON; JUDITH ROBINSON, and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. AMERICAN AIRLINES,
INC., d/b/a American Airlines, Defendant-Appellee. PAUL STEWART;
MICHEL HICKS, and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO., d/b/a Southwest
Airlines, Defendant-Appellee, Nos. 17-6166, 17-6167 (10th Cir.),
were pre-empted by the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 (ADA).

In these related appeals, the plaintiffs filed putative class
actions against American Airlines and Southwest Airlines for not
fully refunding the price of non-refundable airline tickets they
had purchased but did not use.

The district court held that the Plaintiffs' claims were pre-empted
by the ADA, which states, in relevant part, that a State may not
enact or enforce a law, regulation, or other provision having the
force and effect of law related to a price, route, or service of an
air carrier. Therefore, the district court dismissed the complaints
with prejudice.

The Plaintiffs appeal, pursuing their claims for breach of
contract. The ADA's pre-emption prescription bars state-imposed
regulation of air carriers, but allows room for court enforcement
of contract terms set by the parties themselves.

Standards of Review

To withstand dismissal, a complaint must contain sufficient factual
matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face. A claim has facial plausibility when the
plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged.

Ambiguous Contracts

As in Martin, 727 F. App'x at 462-63, the Plaintiffs assert the
contracts at issue here are ambiguous.  The Robinsons contend that
American Airlines' Conditions of Carriage is ambiguous because,
although it states that an applicable change fee will be charged
when a non-refundable ticket is rebooked, the amount of the change
fee is not specified.

Under Texas contract law, a contract is not ambiguous simply
because the parties to a lawsuit offer conflicting interpretations
of the contract's provisions.

The Court concludes that neither contract is ambiguous. Both
contracts provided that the tickets were non-refundable and that
the airline travel had to be taken within one year of purchase.
Plaintiffs concede that they did not book airline flights within
one year. The Court turn to Plaintiffs' remaining arguments, which
are in essence an attempt to change the terms of the contracts.

Rule Against Forfeitures and Quasi-Estoppel

The Plaintiffs contend that the rule against forfeitures and the
doctrine of quasi-estoppel prevent the enforcement of the Airlines'
contracts.  

Both Oklahoma and Texas disfavor forfeitures, but neither state's
laws apply the doctrine to invalidate an unambiguous contract.  

The quasi-estoppel doctrine also does not apply. Quasi-estoppel
precludes a party from asserting, to another's disadvantage, a
right inconsistent with a position previously taken. Neither
Airline has taken a position inconsistent with an earlier
position.

Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

The Plaintiffs also invoke the covenant of good faith and fair
dealing in the context of contract construction, in contrast to
their claim noted above asserting a tort of violating the implied
covenant. But that covenant cannot impose terms that contravene the
express terms of the contract. Texas law similarly provides that
the agreement made by the parties and embodied in the contract
itself cannot be varied by an implied good-faith-and-fair-dealing
covenant. Thus, the implied covenant cannot be applied to change
the contract provisions stating that the tickets were
non-refundable

Accordingly, the Court affirms the district court's judgments of
dismissal.

A full-text copy of the Tenth Circuit's August 2, 2018 Order and
Judgment is available at  https://tinyurl.com/yajxyahz from
Leagle.com.


AMERICAN FINANCE: Appeal in Maryland Class Action Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
American Finance Trust, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2018, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the plaintiffs in
the Maryland putative class action suit have filed a notice of
appeal of the court's order, which appeal is pending.

On January 13, 2017, four affiliated stockholders of Retail Centers
of America, Inc. (RCA) filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland a putative class action lawsuit
against the company, RCA, Edward M. Weil, Jr., Leslie D. Michelson,
Edward G. Rendell (Weil, Michelson and Rendell, the "Director
Defendants"), and AR Global, alleging violations of Sections 14(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") by RCA
and the Director Defendants, violations of Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act by AR Global and the Director Defendants, breaches of
fiduciary duty by the Director Defendants, and aiding and abetting
breaches of fiduciary duty by AR Global and the company in
connection with the negotiation of and proxy solicitation for a
shareholder vote on the proposed merger of the company and RCA and
an amendment to RCA's charter.  

The complaint sought on behalf of the putative class rescission of
the merger transaction, which was voted on and approved by
stockholders on February 13, 2017, and closed on February 16, 2017,
together with unspecified rescissory damages, unspecified actual
damages, and costs and disbursements of the action.

On April 26, 2017, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff. Lead
plaintiff, along with other stockholders of RCA, filed an amended
complaint on June 19, 2017. The amended complaint named additional
individuals and entities as defendants (David Gong, Stanley Perla,
Lisa Kabnick ("Additional Director Defendants"), Nicholas Radesca
and American Realty Capital Retail Advisor, LLC), added counts
under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act in
connection with the Registration Statement for the proposed merger,
under Section 13(e) of the Exchange Act, and counts for breach of
contract and unjust enrichment.

American Finance said, "We, in addition to RCA, the Director
Defendants, the Additional Director Defendants and Nicholas Radesca
deny wrongdoing and liability and intend to vigorously defend the
action."

On August 14, 2017, defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint. On March 29, 2018, the Court granted defendants' motion
to dismiss and dismissed the amended complaint.

The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the court's order on
April 26, 2018.

American Finance said, "Due to the early stage of the litigation,
no estimate of a probable loss or any reasonable possible losses
are determinable at this time. No provisions for such losses have
been recorded in the accompanying consolidated financial statements
for the six months ended June 30, 2018 or the year ended December
31, 2017."

American Finance Trust, Inc. is a diversified REIT with a retail
focus. The company owns a diversified portfolio of commercial
properties comprised primarily of freestanding single-tenant
properties that are net leased to investment grade and other
creditworthy tenants and a portfolio of stabilized core retail
properties. Incorporated on January 22, 2013, the company is a
Maryland corporation that elected and qualified to be taxed as a
real estate investment trust for U.S. federal income tax purposes
("REIT") beginning with the taxable year ended December 31, 2013.


AMERICAN FINANCE: Bid to Dismiss St. Clair-Hibbard Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
American Finance Trust, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2018, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that a motion seeking
dismissal of the second amended complaint by Carolyn St.
Clair-Hibbard remains pending.

On February 8, 2018, Carolyn St. Clair-Hibbard, a purported
stockholder of the Company, filed a putative class action complaint
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York against the Company, AR Global, the Advisor, Nicholas S.
Schorsch and William D. Kahane. On February 23, 2018, the complaint
was amended to, among other things, assert some claims on the
plaintiff's own behalf and other claims on behalf of herself and
other similarly situated shareholders of the Company as a class.

On April 26, 2018, defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint. On May 25, 2018, plaintiff filed a second amended
complaint. The second amended complaint alleges that the proxy
materials used to solicit stockholder approval of the Merger at the
Company's 2017 annual meeting were materially incomplete and
misleading.

The complaint asserts violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange
Act against the Company, as well as control person liability
against the Advisor, AR Global, and Messrs. Schorsch and Kahane
under 20(a). It also asserts state law claims for breach of
fiduciary duty against the Advisor, and claims for aiding and
abetting such breaches, of fiduciary duty against the Advisor, AR
Global and Messrs. Schorsch and Kahane. The complaint seeks
unspecified damages, rescission of the Company's advisory agreement
(or severable portions thereof) which became effective when the
Merger became effective, and a declaratory judgment that certain
provisions of the Company's advisory agreement are void.

The Company believes the second amended complaint is without merit
and intends to defend vigorously. On June 22, 2018, defendants
moved to dismiss the second amended complaint. On August 1, 2018,
plaintiff filed an opposition to defendants' motions to dismiss.

American Finance said, "Due to the early stage of the litigation,
no estimate of a probable loss or any reasonably possible losses
are determinable at this time."

American Finance Trust, Inc. is a diversified REIT with a retail
focus. The company owns a diversified portfolio of commercial
properties comprised primarily of freestanding single-tenant
properties that are net leased to investment grade and other
creditworthy tenants and a portfolio of stabilized core retail
properties. Incorporated on January 22, 2013, the company is a
Maryland corporation that elected and qualified to be taxed as a
real estate investment trust for U.S. federal income tax purposes
("REIT") beginning with the taxable year ended December 31, 2013.


AMTRAK: Faces Chen Suit in East. Dist. of Penn.
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Amtrak and RWC, Inc.
The case is titled JENNY CHEN and BRIAN JORDAN, ON BEHALF OF
THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. AMTRAK and RWC,
INC., Case No. 2:18-cv-03617-JS (E.D. Pa., August 23, 2018).

The nature of suit is stated as "Real Property: Torts to Land."

National Railroad Passenger Corporation, doing business as Amtrak,
provides rail passenger transportation services to intercity travel
markets in the United States.  The organization also operates
commuter rail operations on behalf of states and transit agencies.
In addition, it is involved in the provision of equipment and
right-of-way maintenance services, as well as leases equipment,
primarily passenger cars and locomotives, and related maintenance
infrastructure under capital leasing arrangements.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Noah I. Axler, Esq.
          AXLER GOLDICH LLC
          1520 Locust Street, Suite 301
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (267) 534-7400
          Facsimile: (267) 534-7407
          E-mail: naxler@axgolaw.com


APPLE FEDERAL: Liggio Class Suit Alleges Breach of Contract
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Apple Federal Credit
Union.  The case is captioned as Jamie Liggio, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Apple Federal Credit
Union, Case No. 1:18-cv-01059-LO-MSN (E.D. Va., August 23, 2018).

The nature of suit is stated as breach of contract.

Apple Federal Credit Union provides financial products and
services.  The Company offers personal banking products and
services, which include savings, club, student savings, teacher
savings, and individual retirement accounts, as well as safe
deposit boxes; checking and checking comparison accounts, Visa
debit cards, Visa shopping discounts, direct deposits, and
overdraft protection.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Iris Figueroa Rosario, Esq.
          GRAY PLANT MOOTY MOOTY & BENNETT PA
          600 New Hampshire Avenue NW, Suite 700
          Washington, DC 20037
          Telephone: (202) 295-2204
          Facsimile: (202) 295-2254
          E-mail: Iris.Rosario@gpmlaw.com


ASSOCIATED COMMUNITY: 7th Cir. Affirms Summary Ruling in TCPA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, affirmed the
District Court's judgment granting Defendant's Motion for Summary
Judgment in the case captioned MARSHALL SPIEGEL,
Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ASSOCIATED COMMUNITY SERVICES, INC., et
al., Defendants-Appellees, No. 17-3344 (7th Cir.).

Marshall Spiegel appeals the entry of summary judgment for
Associated Community Services (ACS) in this suit under the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Spiegel contends that ACS violated the Act when it called him to
solicit donations to the Breast Cancer Society. On appeal the
parties debate whether the Breast Cancer Society is a tax exempt
nonprofit organization within the meaning of the Act.

The judge later entered summary judgment for ACS because the
undisputed evidence showed that ACS called on behalf of the Breast
Cancer Society. The judge added that Spiegel's claim also failed
because the Act's prohibition against telephone solicitation" does
not include requests for money donations. As the judge observed,
the Act prohibits calls to numbers on the Do Not Call list for the
purpose of telephone solicitation, a term the Act defines as the
initiation of a telephone call or message for the purpose of
encouraging the purchase or rental of, or investment in, property,
goods, or services.  Spiegel admitted at summary judgment that
ACS's calls did not seek the purchase of goods or services. Thus,
the judge concluded, ACS could not have violated the Act even if
the Breast Cancer Society does not qualify as a tax exempt
nonprofit organization.

The problem for Spiegel is that he never presented to the district
court the only argument that he advances on appeal. In arguing that
the Breast Cancer Society is not a tax exempt non-profit
organization within the meaning of the Act, he now relies almost
entirely on an extended comparison to Zimmerman v. Cambridge Credit
Counseling Corp., a case that interpreted a similar nonprofit
exemption in the Credit Repair Organizations Act. 409 F.3d 473, 475
(1st Cir. 2005). The Zimmerman court held that in order to qualify
for the exemption, a credit repair organization must actually
operate as a non-profit organization and be exempt from taxation
under section 501(c)(3). The court reversed the dismissal of the
complaint because it plausibly alleged that the tax-exempt
organization was not actually operating as a non-profit
organization.

Spiegel never advanced any argument under Zimmerman in the district
court. Instead he merely cited cases like Bob Jones University v.
United States, 461 U.S. 574 (1983), for the unremarkable
proposition that IRS findings are routinely challenged, revisited,
or reversed, by courts and by the IRS. That the IRS has authority
to revoke an organization's tax-exempt status for good cause says
nothing about whether the IRS's designation is controlling for
purposes of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act when, as here,
the IRS has taken no action to revoke that tax-exempt status. It
certainly does not support Spiegel's bold assertion that the IRS's
designation is irrelevant to the applicability of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act exemption.

Accordingly, the Court affirms the district court's judgment. ACS's
motion for leave to file a supplemental brief is denied.

A full-text copy of the Seventh Circuit's August 2, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y7wcpuwy from Leagle.com.

Vincenzo R. Chimera -- VChimera@matushek.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

Christopher V. Langone for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Eric S. Berman -- esberman@Venable.com -- for Defendant-Appellee.

Michael Daniel Martinez for Defendant-Appellee.


ATLANTIC CREDIT: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Yakubov Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Atlantic Credit &
Finance, Inc.  The case is captioned as Diana Yakubov, on behalf of
herself and all other similarly situated v. Atlantic Credit &
Finance, Inc., Case No. 1:18-cv-04745 (E.D.N.Y., August 22, 2018).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

Atlantic Credit & Finance, Inc., purchases and manages unsecured
and consumer-distressed assets.  The Company also purchases various
consumer-distressed asset types, including credit card receivables,
retail credit card receivables, automotive deficiencies, healthcare
receivables, telecommunication receivables, and utilities
receivables.  In addition, the Company offers compensation and
benefits packages, as well as manages consumer accounts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel C. Cohen, Esq.
          COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
          300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Telephone: (929) 575-4175
          Facsimile: (929) 575-4195
          E-mail: dan@cml.legal


AVANGRID INC: Bid to Dismiss LDC Gas Transportation Suit Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Avangrid, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that a motion to dismiss has
been heard in a class action lawsuit related to the LDC Gas
Transportation Service.

On November 16, 2017, a class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of
customers in New England against the Company and Eversource
alleging that certain of their respective subsidiaries that take
gas transportation service over the Algonquin Gas Transmission
(AGT), which for AVANGRID would be its indirect subsidiaries SCG
and CNG, engaged in pipeline capacity scheduling practices on AGT
that resulted in artificially increased electricity prices in New
England.

These allegations were based on the conclusions of a White Paper
issued by the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), an environmental
advocacy organization, on October 10, 2017, purporting to analyze
the relationship between the New England electricity market and the
New England local gas distribution companies.

The plaintiffs assert claims under federal antitrust law, state
antitrust, unfair competition and consumer protection laws, and
under the common law of unjust enrichment. They seek damages,
disgorgement, restitution, injunctive relief, and attorney fees and
costs.

The Company filed a Motion to Dismiss all of the claims on January
29, 2018. On February 27, 2018, the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC) released the results of a FERC staff inquiry into
the pipeline capacity scheduling practices on the AGT. The inquiry
arose out of the allegations made by the EDF in its White Paper.
FERC announced that, based on an extensive review of public and
non-public data, it had determined that the EDF study was flawed
and led to incorrect conclusions. FERC also stated that the staff
inquiry revealed no evidence of anticompetitive withholding of
natural gas pipeline capacity on the AGT and that it would take no
further action on the matter.

On March 28, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint, repeating the prior claims, except omitting the common
law claim of unjust enrichment. On April 27, 2018, the Company
filed a Motion to Dismiss all of the claims based on federal
preemption and lack of any evidence of antitrust behavior, citing,
among other reasons, the results of the FERC staff inquiry
conclusion.

The plaintiffs filed opposition to the motion to dismiss on May 25,
2018. The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
held a hearing on the motion on August 1, 2018.

Avangrid said, "We cannot predict the outcome of this class action
lawsuit."

Avangrid, Inc. operates as an energy services holding company in
the United States. It engages in the generation, transmission, and
distribution of electricity, as well as distribution,
transportation, and sale of natural gas. Avangrid, Inc. was founded
in 1852 and is headquartered in Orange, Connecticut. Avangrid, Inc.
is a subsidiary of Iberdrola, S.A.


BANK OF AMERICA: Duque Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
--------------------------------------------------
Luis Duque and Daniel Thibodeau, individually, on behalf of others
similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public v. Bank of
America National Association, and Does 1-50, Case No. 8:18-cv-01298
(C.D. Calif., July 26, 2018), seeks damages from the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff Luis Duque is an individual residing in Orange
County, California. The Defendant employed the Plaintiff from
approximately September 2009 through May 2015 as a Client Advocate.


The Plaintiff Daniel Thibodeau is an individual residing in Los
Angeles County, California. The Defendant employed the Plaintiff
from approximately March 2011 through August 2017 as a Client
Advocate.

The Client Advocates worked in Bank of America's Regulatory
Complaints and Social Media Servicing group.

The Defendant Bank of America, N.A. is a national banking
association with a principal place of business in North Carolina,
which does business in and maintains offices in many states
throughout the United States, including California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bryan J. Schwartz, Esq.
      Rachel M. Terp, Esq.
      DeCarol A. Davis, Esq.
      BRYAN SCHWARTZ LAW
      1330 Broadway, Ste 1630
      Oakland, CA 94612
      Tel: (510) 444-9300
      Fax: (510) 444-9301
      E-mail: bryan@bryanschwartzlaw.com
              rachel@bryanschwartzlaw.com
              decarol@bryanschwartzlaw.com


BFT LP: Ct. Denies AMP Automotive's Bid to Certify Class Under TCPA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Jay C. Zainey denied the motion for class certification
filed by the Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled AMP AUTOMOTIVE, LLC v.
B F T, LP d/b/a GREAT AMERICAN BUSINESS PRODUCTS, Case No.
2:17-cv-05667-JCZ-MBN (E.D. La.).

AMP alleges that the Defendant violated the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act by sending unsolicited faxes advertising Great
American products and services.  The Plaintiff moves to have a
class certified pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure consisting of:

     All persons and entities that are subscribers of telephone
     numbers to which within four years of the filing of this
     Complaint, Defendant sent unsolicited facsimile
     transmissions with content that discusses, describes,
     promotes products and/or services offered by Defendant, and
     does not contain the opt-out notice required by 47 U.S.C.
     Section 227(b)(2)(D) and by 47 C.F.R. Section 227(b)(2)(D)
     and by 47 C.F.R. Section 63.1200(a)(4)(iii).

The Court finds that AMP has failed to meet its burden of showing
that the requirements of Rule 23 have been met.  The Court is
unconvinced that AMP meets the typicality requirement of Rule
23(a)(3), Judge Zainey wrote in his Order and Reasons.

"The facts surrounding this matter do not make it amenable to class
wide resolution.  At the heart of this matter is the issue of
whether Great American's faxes to AMP were solicited or
unsolicited.  Again, the Court makes no findings regarding the
merit of Great American's defense that AMP consented or gave
permission to Great American in the past," Judge Zainey rules.
"However, the Court does foresee trial in this matter revolving
around the timing of AMP's formation and its relationship to past
entities involved with Marshall Bros. Collision Center."

"The Court is familiar with the strict-liability nature of the
TCPA, and has reviewed the case law cited by AMP.  However, that
issue is not before the Court today.  Rather, the Court foresees
theories of agency and authority being unique issues to the instant
parties that will not be typical to the proposed class as a whole,"
Judge Zainey adds.


BLUE APRON: Continues to Defend IPO-Related Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Blue Apron Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the company continues to
defend a consolidated putative class action lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York in connection
with the Company's initial public offering.

The Company is subject to a consolidated putative class action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York alleging federal securities law violations in connection with
the Company's June 2017 initial public offering, or the IPO. The
amended complaint alleges that the Company and certain current and
former officers and directors made material misstatements or
omissions in the Company's registration statement and prospectus
that caused the stock price to drop.  

Pursuant to a stipulated schedule entered by the parties,
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on May
21, 2018. Plaintiffs filed a response on July 13, 2018.
Defendants' replies are due on August 13, 2018.  

The Company is unable to provide any assurances as to the ultimate
outcome of this lawsuit or that an adverse resolution of this
lawsuit would not have a material adverse effect on the Company's
consolidated financial position or results of operations.

Blue Apron Holdings, Inc. operates an e-commerce marketplace that
delivers original recipes and fresh ingredients for making home
cooking accessible. It provides original recipes with the
pre-portioned ingredients to complement tastes and lifestyles of
college graduates, young couples, families, singles, and empty
nesters. Blue Apron Holdings, Inc. was incorporated in 2016 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.


CANADA: Quebec Court Gives Green Light to RCMP Suit
---------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports that Quebec Superior Court has approved a
class-action lawsuit filed by men and women who claim they were
bullied or harassed while employed by the RCMP in the province.

Justice Pierre C. Gagnon gave the go-ahead on August 15 for the
class action to proceed.

The suit could cover anyone who has ever worked for the RCMP,
whether as a police officer or civilian employee, and who suffered
through what then Commissioner Bob Paulson acknowledged in 2016 was
a "culture of bullying and intimidation and general harassment."

Alexander Duggan, Esq. -- alexander@dugganavocats.ca -- the
plaintiff's Montreal lawyer, says the Quebec suit could apply to
more than 1,000 RCMP members stationed in Quebec, but is eligible
to thousands more who were abused by Quebec-based superiors.

Those prejudices may include physical and psychological harassment,
reprisals, discrimination and abuse of power, the ruling states.

None of the allegations in the lawsuit has been tested in court.

2nd class action filed

Paul Dupuis, spokesperson of the Quebec Mounted Police Members'
Association, said the harassment has been life altering for some of
his members, who have had to take early retirement or suffered from
post-traumatic stress disorder.

"The impacts are pretty phenomenal on certain members that entered
the RCMP with the expectation that they would be taken care of," he
said.

In June, a second class action was filed in Ontario on behalf of
claimants in the rest of Canada. It seeks compensation for
thousands of employees, dating back decades, but still needs
approval to move ahead.

The Federal Court has only just received the Ontario claim. The
government and RCMP have not yet filed a response.

In 2016, the RCMP acknowledged a widespread culture of "bullying
and intimidation" when it reached a $100-million settlement with
3,100 female officers who claimed discrimination and sexual
harassment on the job.[GN]


CARSON SMITHFIELD: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Roth Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Carson Smithfield,
LLC.  The case is captioned as Erwin Roth, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Carson Smithfield, LLC,
Case No. 7:18-cv-07683 (S.D.N.Y., August 23, 2018).

The Plaintiff accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

Carson Smithfield, LLC, is a debt collection agency with its
principal offices located in Wilmington, Delaware.  Carson
Smithfield is engaged in the business of a collection agency, using
the mails and telephone to collect consumer debts originally owed
to others.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.[BN]


CHAMBLESS MATH: Milner Alleges Wrongful Debt Collections
--------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER MILNER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHAMBLESS MATH & CARR, P.C.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00700-ECM-WC (M.D. Ala., July 31, 2018)
seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to
collect a debt. The case is assigned to Honorable Judge Emily C.
Marks and referred to Honorable Judge Wallace Capel, Jr.

Chambless Math & Carr, P.C. represent commercial and consumer
creditors in foreclosure, collection and bankruptcy matters across
the state of Alabama. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David I. Schoen, Esq.
          DAVID I. SCHOEN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          2800 Zelda Rd-Ste 100-6
          Montgomery, AL 36106
          Telephone: (334) 395-6611
          Facsimile: (917) 591-7586
          E-mail: DSchoen593@aol.com

               - and -

          Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
          MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC
          701 Cookman Ave-Ste 300
          Asbury Park, NJ 77120
          Telephone: (845) 367-7146
          E-mail: yzelman@marcuszelman.com


CLEAR RATE: Faces Dembski Class Suit in Michigan District Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Clear Rate
Communications, Inc.  The case is titled as Fred Dembski,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Clear Rate Communications, Inc., Case No. 2:18-cv-12622 (E.D.
Mich., August 22, 2018).

Clear Rate Communications, Inc., provides telecommunications
service.  The Company offers voice, data and Internet solutions to
residential and business customers throughout the United
States.[BN]

The plaintiff is represented by:

     George T. Blackmore, Esq.
     Blackmore Law PLC
     21411 Civic Center Drive, Suite 200
     Southfield, MI 48076
     Telephone: 833-343-6743
     E-mail: george@blackmorelawplc.com


COASTWAY BANCORP: Paul Parshall Withdraws Class Action Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
Coastway Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that Paul Parshall has
voluntarily withdrawn his lawsuit against the company and its
officers and directors.

On May 24, 2018, Paul Parshall, a purported Corporation
stockholder, filed a complaint, on behalf of himself and all other
Corporation public stockholders, of a putative class action lawsuit
in the United States District Court for the District of Rhode
Island, captioned Parshall v. Coastway Bancorp, Inc., Mark E.
Crevier, Debra Paul, William A. White, Dennis M. Murphy, James P.
Fiore, Lynda Dickinson, Phillip Kydd, David P. DiSanto, Malcolm G.
Chace, Jr. and Angelo P. Lopresti, II (Case No. 1:18-cv-00279),
against the Corporation and certain of its directors.

The lawsuit alleged that the Corporation and the Individual
Parshall Defendants violated the federal securities laws by
omitting certain material information from Corporation's definitive
proxy statement for the Corporation special stockholders' meeting
to approve the merger that in turn rendered affirmative statements
made by the Corporation false and misleading. The relief sought by
the lawsuit included both a preliminary and permanent injunction
against the completion of the proposed merger, rescission and
rescissory damages if the proposed merger is completed, and costs,
including attorneys' and experts' fees. The plaintiff voluntarily
withdrew this lawsuit in July 2018.

Coastway Bancorp, Inc. operates as the bank holding company for
Coastway Community Bank that provides various financial services to
individuals, families, and businesses in Rhode Island. The company
was founded in 1920 and is headquartered in Warwick, Rhode Island.


COCA-COLA CO: Court Grants Bid to Quash in P. Fradella's Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PAM FRADELLA, Plaintiff, v. COCA-COLA COMPANY, ET AL.,
SECTION: "E" Defendants, Civil Action No. 17-9622 (E.D. La.), Judge
Susie Morgan of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana granted the Defendants' motion to quash.

On Sept. 1, 2017, the Plaintiff filed suit in the 24th Judicial
District Court for the Parish of Jefferson, State of Louisiana,
alleging she "became ill" after consuming a Gold Peak Tea
containing mold or some other deleterious substance.  On Sept. 26,
2017, the Defendants removed the case to the Court.

The Plaintiff brings the prospective class action on behalf of all
Louisiana residents who, any time from Sept. 1, 2016 to present,
purchased a bottle of Gold Peak Tea of any flavor and any size that
contained visible mold or some other visible deleterious substance,
and suffered economic loss.  According to the Plaintiff, there are
thousands of Louisiana residents who have purchased Gold Peak Tea
and been adversely effected by this unwholesome product.

On June 28, 2018, Court set a class certification hearing to take
place on July 19, 2018.  In connection with the hearing, the Court
ordered the parties to exchange and file witness and exhibit lists.


On July 3, 2018, the Plaintiff served the counsel for the
Defendants with a subpoena to appear and testify directed to the
"Corporate Representative of the Defendants.  The subpoena
purported to compel a corporate representative for the Defendants
to appear at the July 19, 2018 class certification hearing and to
bring any and all information related to issues the Plaintiff
identified in a document she attached to the subpoena as Exhibit
"A."  Exhibit A is a list of 17 requests for documents and other
information related to complaints of mold in Gold Peak Tea.

On July 9, 2018, the Defendants filed the instant motion to quash.
They contend the subpoena must be quashed for three reasons: (1) it
is untimely and improperly attempts to circumvent the Court's
Scheduling Order; (2) the subpoena is procedurally improper as it
violates the geographical limits set forth by Fed. R. Civ. P.
45(c); and (3) it violates the rules for proper service under Fed.
R. Civ. P. 45(b).

In opposition, the Plaintiff argues, (1) the Court's scheduling
order notwithstanding, there is no law that prevents the the
Plaintiff from calling a witness live at trial; (2) the Plaintiff's
subpoena is proper, as it seeks to command a party's officer in the
state where the party regularly transacts business; and (3) because
the corporate officers' attorney was served with the subpoena, it
was properly served on an agent authorized by law to accept
service.

Judge Morgan finds the subpoena does not comply with the
geographical limits set forth by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
45(c).  Rule 45 was amended in 2013.  The 2013 Amendment to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 45 resolved the competing authority that
debates whether courts have authority to subpoena witnesses who
reside more than 100 miles from the place of trial, including
parties and party officers.

In this case, the headquarters for both the Defendants is in
Atlanta, Georgia, which is greater than 100 miles from New Orleans,
Louisiana.  None of the Defendants' employees who might possess the
information requested in Exhibit A reside in Louisiana, nor do any
of the Defendants' employees who might possess this knowledge live
within 100 miles of the courthouse.  Thus, the Plaintiff's subpoena
falls outside of the scope of Rule 45(c).  As a result, the Judge
granted the Defendants' motion to quash pursuant to Rule
45(d)(3)(A)(ii).

A full-text copy of the Court's July 18, 2018 Order and Reasons is
available at https://is.gd/TNZe9W from Leagle.com.

Pam Fradella, Plaintiff, represented by John D. Sileo --
jack@johnsileolaw.com -- John D. Sileo, Attorney at Law, Casey
William Moll  -- casey@johnsileolaw.com -- Law Office of John D.
Sileo, LLC, Craig Stephen Sossaman -- sossamanlaw@bellsouth.net --
Law Offices of Craig S. Sossaman, John Paul Massicot, Law Office of
John Paul Massicot, LLC, & Michael W. Collins --
michael.collins@sossamanlaw.net -- Law Offices of Craig S.
Sossaman.

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

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

Rouses Enterprises, LLC, Defendant, represented by Nicholas Paul
Arnold -- nparnold@christovich.com -- Christovich & Kearney, LLP &
David B. Belk -- dbbelk@christovich.com -- Christovich & Kearney,
LLP.

Rouses Enterprises, LLC, Cross Claimant, represented by Nicholas
Paul Arnold, Christovich & Kearney, LLP & David B. Belk,
Christovich & Kearney, LLP.

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

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


COMSCORE INC: Parties Agree to Dismiss Oregon Sec. 11 Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
comScore, 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 parties in the
so-called Oregon Section 11 suit has filed a joint stipulation of
dismissal.

In October 2016, a class action complaint, Ira S. Nathan v. Serge
Matta et al., was filed in the Multnomah County Circuit Court in
Oregon against certain of the Company's current and former
directors and officers and Ernst & Young LLP ("EY").

The complaint alleged that the defendants provided untrue
statements of material fact in the Company's registration statement
on Form S-4 filed with the SEC and declared effective on December
23, 2015. The complaint sought a determination of the propriety of
the class, a finding that the defendants are liable and an award of
attorneys' and experts' fees.

On March 17, 2017, a separate action, John Hulme v. Serge Matta et
al., was filed in the Multnomah County Circuit Court in Oregon
alleging materially similar claims as the Nathan complaint against
the same defendants.

On April 18, 2017, the Nathan and Hulme cases were consolidated by
order of the court. On February 14, 2018, following a hearing, the
Court granted class certification only as to EY. On April 23, 2018,
the Court issued an order staying the case pending the final
approval hearing in the Fresno County Employees' Retirement
Association case, and following the final approval hearing on June
7, 2018, the parties filed a joint stipulation of dismissal.

The claims against the Company's current and former directors and
officers were dismissed with prejudice on July 17, 2018.

comScore, Inc. operates as an information and analytics company
that measures audiences, consumer behavior, and advertising across
media platforms worldwide. The company offers digital audience
products and services, including Media Metrix and Mobile Metrix,
Video Metrix, Plan Metrix, and comScore marketing solutions, which
provide person-centric insights across various devices and can
capture various types of content. comScore, Inc. was founded in
1999 and is headquartered in Reston, Virginia.



CONAIR CORP: Faces Class Action on Faulty Cuisinart Pressure Cooker
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Stefano DiPietrantonio, writing for Fox 19 Now, reports that
pressure cookers have been around since the 1600s. They became very
popular in the late 1930s after the World's Fair and have had a
huge resurgence in the past few years with high-tech electric
models now available.

But how safe are they?

Recently, a Cuisinart model was named in a class-action lawsuit.
Cuisinart's Model Number CPC-600 series is at the center of the
lawsuit after a woman claimed hers exploded and scalded her with
hot chili.

According to the machine's owner's manual, the appliance will not
start pressurizing until the lid is closed and locked properly.

The lawsuit names a defective lid-locking mechanism. It claims the
lid can be opened by the consumer causing scalding hot contents to
burst and erupt from the appliance.

Another defect, the lawsuit claims, involves the ability of the
pressure cooker to fully pressurize without the lid being securely
attached which can result in the lid explosively separating from
the cooker without warning.

According to Cuisinart's website, its pressure cookers are "safe,
easy to use, cooks up to 70 percent faster than conventional
methods."

The Cuisinart class action lawsuit states that the defective lid
locking mechanism gives users a false sense of safety since it does
appear to lock and since the product manual claims that this is a
primary feature that prevents injuries. The class action alleges
the company knew about the defect and failed to disclose it or
should have discovered the defect during the testing process.

FOX19 reached out to Cuisinart's parent company, Conair, for
comment on the lawsuit, but did not hear back from them by airtime.
If you think you've had similar trouble with your Cuisinart
Pressure Cooker, click here or here if you'd like to know more
about this class action lawsuit.

Here's an article that was just updated on the 9 best pressure
cookers to buy (Cuisinart is not among those listed).[GN]


CONSOL ENERGY: Continues to Defend Casey Suit in Virginia
---------------------------------------------------------
Consol Energy Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the company continues to
defend the so-called Casey class action lawsuit.

A class action lawsuit was filed on August 23, 2017 on behalf of
two nonunion retired coal miners against Consolidation Coal
Company, CONSOL of Kentucky Inc., CONSOL Buchanan Mining Co., LLC
and Kurt Salvatori in West Virginia Federal Court alleging
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act in
connection with the termination of retiree health care benefits.

Filed by the same lawyers who filed the Fitzwater litigation, and
raising nearly identical claims, the Plaintiffs contend they relied
to their detriment on oral promises of "lifetime health benefits"
allegedly made by various members of management during Plaintiffs'
employment and that they were not provided with copies of Summary
Plan Documents clearly reserving to the Company the right to modify
or terminate the Retiree Health and Welfare Plan.

Plaintiffs request that retiree health benefits be reinstated for
them and their dependents and seek to represent a class of all
nonunion retirees of any ParentCo subsidiary that operated or
employed individuals in McDowell or Mercer Counties, West Virginia,
or Buchanan or Tazewell Counties, Virginia whose retiree welfare
benefits were terminated.

On December 1, 2017, the trial court judge in Fitzwater signed an
order to consolidate Fitzwater with Casey. The Casey complaint was
amended on March 1, 2018 to add new plaintiffs, add defendant
CONSOL Pennsylvania Coal Company, LLC and eliminate defendant
CONSOL Buchanan Mining Co., LLC in an attempt to expand the class
of retirees.

CONSOL Energy Inc. produces and exports bituminous thermal and
crossover metallurgical coal. The company owns and operates its
mining operations in the Northern Appalachian Basin. CONSOL Energy
Inc. was founded in 1864 and is headquartered in Canonsburg,
Pennsylvania.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Seeks 9th Circuit Review of Canela Suit Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Costco Wholesale Corporation filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit entitled Liliana Canela v. COSTCO WHOLESALE
CORPORATION, Case No. 5:13-cv-03598-BLF, in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, San Jose.

The appellate case is captioned as Liliana Canela v. COSTCO
WHOLESALE CORPORATION, Case No. 18-16592, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on August 2, 2018, Costco
filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit.  That appellate
case is styled as LILIANA CANELA v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION,
Case No. 18-80072.

The class action alleges violation of California Wage Order 7-2001
by failing to provide seating to member service assistants, who act
as greeters and exit attendants in the Company's California
warehouses.  The complaint seeks relief under the California Labor
Code, including civil penalties and attorneys' fees.

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

   -- Mediation Questionnaire was due August 29, 2018;

   -- Transcript must be ordered by September 21, 2018;

   -- Transcript is due on October 22, 2018;

   -- Appellant Costco Wholesale Corporation's opening brief is
      due on November 30, 2018;

   -- Appellee Liliana Canela's answering brief is due on
      December 31, 2018; and

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

Plaintiff-Appellee LILIANA CANELA, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Kevin J. McInerney, Esq.
          MCINERNEY & JONES
          18124 Wedge Parkway
          Reno, NV 89511
          Telephone: (775) 849-3811
          E-mail: kevin@mcinerneylaw.net

Defendant-Appellant COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION is represented
by:

          David D. Kadue, Esq.
          Kiran A. Seldon, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW, LLP
          2029 Century Park East
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
          Telephone: (310) 201-1581
          E-mail: dkadue@seyfarth.com
                  kseldon@seyfarth.com

               - and -

          Emily Elizabeth Schroeder, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          333 South Hope Street, Suite 3900
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1406
          Telephone: (213) 270-9600
          E-mail: eschroeder@seyfarth.com


COUNTRY FAIR: Budai Sues Over Fair Credit Reporting Act Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Country Fair, Inc.
The case is styled as JORDAN BUDAI, ANDREA SCIOLA and ASHLEY
GENNOCK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. COUNTRY FAIR, INC., Case No. 2:18-cv-01120-MRH (W.D.
Pa., August 23, 2018).

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Country Fair, Inc., doing business as Country Fair, operates a
chain of convenience stores in northwestern and north central
Pennsylvania, eastern Ohio, and western New York.  The Company's
stores offer convenience and grocery items, and fuel products.  The
Company was incorporated in 1965 and is based in Erie,
Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH SWEET & KILPELA, LLP
          1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 322-9243
          E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com


COVENTBRIDGE (USA): Eggnatz Seeks Cert. of Investigators Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled KYLE EGGNATZ, and all others
similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. COVENTBRIDGE (USA)
INC. d/b/a COVENTBRIDGE GROUP, a foreign For-profit corporation,
DAVID MERRILL, individually, and JIM FRANCIS, individually, Case
No. 0:18-cv-61250-RNS (S.D. Fla.), moves the Court for an order:

   (1) granting conditional certification of the action as a
       collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act for
       this class:

       All Field Investigators in the Florida region that worked
       for Defendants at any time between June 5, 2015 and the
       present;

   (2) appointing the Plaintiff as the Representative of the
       Class with authority to negotiate and appear at settlement
       conferences/mediations on behalf of the class;

   (3) appointing the law firms of Jordan Richards, PLLC, and
       Eggnatz Pacucci, P.A., as counsel for the Class;

   (4) expediting discovery production from the Defendants,
       within 15 days of the Court's order granting this Motion,
       of a complete list, electronically in an Excel
       spreadsheet, of each and every person listed
       alphabetically from "A" to "Z" -- including their last
       known home address;

   (5) permitting the Plaintiff's counsel to send a
       Court-Approved Notice to all such persons about their
       rights to opt-in to this collective action by filing a
       Consent to Join Lawsuit; and

   (6) granting the putative class 60-days to submit the Consents
       to Join to the Plaintiff's Counsel.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jordan Richards, Esq.
          JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC
          401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 871-0050
          E-mail: Jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com

               - and -

          Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq.
          Michael J. Pascucci, Esq.
          EGGNATZ PASCUCCI
          5400 S. University Drive, Suite 417
          Davie, FL
          Telephone: (954) 889-3359
          E-mail: JEggnatz@JusticeEarned.com
                  Mpascucci@JusticeEarned.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Mary Beth Ricke, Esq.
          BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROOENY PC
          401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 2250
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301-4251
          Telephone: (954) 468-2300
          E-mail: Marybeth.ricke@bipc.com

               - and -

          Eric J. Holshouser, Esq.
          BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC
          50 North Laura Street, Suite 2800
          Jacksonville, FL 32202
          Telephone: (904) 598-3100
          E-mail: Eric.holshouser@bipc.com


CREDIT SUISSE: Ex-Broker Appeals Dismissal of Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Jed Horowitz, writing for Advisor Hub, reports that a California
broker is appealing the dismissal of his class-action lawsuit
seeking up to $300 million in deferred compensation for former
Credit Suisse Securities (USA) brokers who went to firms other than
Wells Fargo Advisors after the Swiss bank shut its U.S. operation.

Christopher Laver, one of scores of Credit Suisse brokers who now
work at UBS Wealth Management USA, filed the appeal in San
Francisco in July, according to a letter his lawyer sent on August
15 to a judge in New York. Credit Suisse is attempting to get the
New York court to compel arbitration in the case, a process that
Laver seeks to delay.

Even if Laver's appeal and subsequent arguments are successful,
brokers will have a long wait before receiving any of the alleged
money Credit Suisse held onto. The appeal process is likely to take
18-20 months to resolve, according to the letter from Roger Heller,
Esq. a partner at Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein in San
Francisco, who represents Laver.

The appeal of the class-action lawsuit, which a California judge
dismissed on June 21, has not previously been reported. Credit
Suisse has argued in court papers that an appeal is almost hopeless
in light of a U.S. Supreme Court decision in May that upholds
employers' right to include class-action waivers in employment
agreements.

Laver's lawsuit was one of dozens of actions former Credit Suisse
brokers have taken in arbitration and in court to receive deferred
stock awards and to defend against their former employer's attempt
to claw back some payments. None to date have been resolved, said
lawyers representing the brokers.

When the Swiss bank shuttered its U.S. retail brokerage operations
in 2015, it told its fewer than 400 advisors they would be able to
collect most of their deferred pay if they agreed to join Wells
Fargo. Wells ultimately hired about 110 of Credit Suisse's
approximately 335 brokers, while UBS landed about 100.

Credit Suisse has filed a raiding suit against its Swiss rival that
is ongoing.[GN]


DDC HOTELS: Honeywell Files ADA Suit in N.D. Fla.
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against DDC Hotels, Inc.  The
case is styled as CHERI HONEYWELL, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. DDC HOTELS, INC., a Missouri
corporation, Case No. 1:18-cv-00161-MW-GRJ (N.D. Fla., August 23,
2018).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.

DDC Hotels, Inc., is a Missouri corporation.  The Company provides
lodging, meals, and other services.[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: jkerr@advocacypa.com


DEFENDERS INC: Archer Moves to Certify Class of Security Advisors
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled TEDDY ARCHER, TREY BERNADOU, SEDETRIC
CHAMBLISS, ERVIN DESIR, BRODRICK FRANCIS, JAMES HUTCHINSON, DANIEL
MANOFSKY, DEVON SPRINGER, ERIC STEWART, JESSE SWANSON, ANDREW
WALLS, CALVIN WESLEY, CHRIS WOODRUFF, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. DEFENDERS, INC., Case No.
1:18-cv-00470-RGA (D. Del.), the Plaintiffs seek to bring the
action for unpaid overtime on behalf of:

     All Security Advisors employed by Defendant who, at any time
     during the period beginning three years before the filing of
     this Complaint up to and including the date of final
     judgment in this matter, installed homeowner security/alarm
     systems and/or performed service on those systems for
     Defendant ("Collective Class").

Teddy Archer, et al., filed this action on behalf of themselves and
other similarly situated current and former "Security Advisors"
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.  The Plaintiffs allege
that Defenders failed to properly compensate the Plaintiffs and the
proposed class for the overtime work they performed during the
relevant time period.  The allegations arise from work performed by
the Plaintiffs and the class in installing and servicing
residential security systems, for which they were paid by Defenders
under a piece rate system for each installation and service job
completed.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to authorize their counsel to
issue their proposed notice and to send a follow-up notice to any
class members, who have not responded 30 days after the mailing and
e-mailing of the initial notice, and to require Defenders to post
the notice and consents to sue in a conspicuous location in the
workplace.  The Plaintiffs further ask the Court to order Defenders
to provide their counsel with the last known addresses and e-mail
address of all putative class members and the telephone number and
other information.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brian D. Long, Esq.
          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 295-5310
          E-mail: BDL@rl-legal.com

               - and -

          Ted E. Trief, Esq.
          Shelly L. Friedland, Esq.
          Stan Gutgarts, Esq.
          TRIEF & OLK
          150 E. 58th Street, 34th Floor
          New York, NY 10155
          Telephone: (212) 486-6060
          E-mail: ttrief@triefandolk.com
                  sfriedland@triefandolk.com
                  sgutgarts@triefandolk.com

               - and -

          Peter S. Pearlman, Esq.
          COHN LIFLAND PEARLMAN HERRMANN & KNOPF LLP
          Park 80 Plaza West One,
          250 Pehle Avenue, Suite 401
          Saddle Brook, NJ 07663
          Telephone: (201) 845-9600
          E-mail: psp@njlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Macy D. Hanson, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF MACY D. HANSON, PLLC
          The Echelon Center
          102 First Choice Drive
          Madison, MS 39110
          Telephone: (601) 853-9521
          E-mail: macy@macyhanson.com


DEUTSCHE BANK: Inks $21.9MM Deal to End 401(k) Fee Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Carmen Castro-Pagan, writing for Bloomberg BNA, reports that
Deutsche Bank Americas Holding Corp. agreed to pay $21.9 million to
settle claims that it mismanaged its employees' retirement savings
by offering proprietary, expensive, and underperforming investment
options in its 401(k) plan.

The proposed settlement, if approved, would be the largest reached
by a financial company facing similar claims.

More than two dozen financial companies have been sued in the past
several years by workers accusing them of adding affiliated,
high-fee, poorly performing funds in the 401(k) plans at their
expense. Deutsche is the sixth company to settle similar claims,
following American Airlines Group Inc. ($22 million), Allianz SE
($12 million), TIAA ($5 million), New York Life Insurance Co. ($3
million), and Principal Life Insurance Co. ($3 million). So far,
Wells Fargo and Capital Group have been the only companies that
have defeated these lawsuits.

The settlement would provide relief to approximately 34,700
Deutsche workers and allow class counsel to seek up to $6.57
million in fees. Each class member would receive $631, according to
court documents filed Aug. 14.

The multimillion-dollar deal represents a recovery of more than 50
percent of the damages associated with the affiliated funds in the
plan and approximately 38.5 percent of the total investment damages
including nonaffiliated funds, the workers said.

The deal was reached one day before the parties were scheduled to
start trial. Judge Lorna G. Schofield of the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York gave them one month to
finalize the settlement terms and file their request for approval.

The agreement would provide significant prospective, non-monetary
relief to the workers. Deutsche agreed to delegate all decisions
regarding proprietary investments to an independent fiduciary. The
bank also agreed to seek guidance from an independent fiduciary
regarding whether any of the mutual funds in the plan should be
replaced with alternative investments such as separate accounts or
collective trusts.

Earlier this year, Schofield trimmed the workers' lawsuit, allowing
them to advance claims of fiduciary breach based on the offering of
in-house funds that carried excessive fees and performed poorly.
Last year, Schofield certified the class -- a ruling Deutsche was
unable to undo.

Nichols Kaster PLLP represents the class. Goodwin Procter LLP
represents Deutsche.

The case is Moreno v. Deutsche Bank Am. Holding Corp., E.D.N.Y.,
No. 1:15-cv-09936, plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of
class action settlement 8/14/18 [GN]


ECOCO INC: Violates Disabilities Act, Crosson Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ecoco, Inc.  The case
is entitled Aretha Crosson, Individually and as the representative
of a class of similarly situated persons v. Ecoco, Inc., Case No.
1:18-cv-04784 (E.D.N.Y., August 23, 2018).

The Plaintiff accuses the Defendant of violating the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

Ecoco, Inc., was founded in 1992 and is headquartered in Chicago,
Illinois.  The Company's line of business includes the
manufacturing of perfumes, cosmetics, and other toilet
preparations.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.[BN]


EDISON INTERNATIONAL: 9th Circuit Appeal Filed in Wilson Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Cassandra Wilson filed an appeal from a court ruling in
her lawsuit entitled Cassandra Wilson v. Theodore Craver, et al.,
Case No. 2:15-cv-09139-JAK-PJW, in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, Los Angeles.

The appellate case is captioned as Cassandra Wilson v. Theodore
Craver, et al., Case No. 18-56139, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff previously
filed an appeal from a court decision in her lawsuit.  That
appellate case is styled as Cassandra Wilson v. Theodore Craver, et
al., Case No. 18-55744.

Robert Boada and Theodore F. Craver are directors and officers of
Edison International.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of participants in, and
beneficiaries of the Edison 401(k) Savings Plan and who invested in
the Company Stock Fund during the class period.  The Plaintiff
alleges violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

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

   -- Mediation Questionnaire was due August 30, 2018;

   -- Transcript must be ordered by September 20, 2018;

   -- Transcript is due on October 22, 2018;

   -- Appellant Cassandra Wilson's opening brief is due on
      November 29, 2018;

   -- Appellees Robert Boada and Theodore F. Craver's answering
      brief is due on December 31, 2018; and

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

Plaintiff-Appellant CASSANDRA WILSON, and all other individuals
similarly situated, is represented by:

          Samuel E. Bonderoff, Esq.
          ZAMANSKY LLC
          50 Broadway
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 742-1414
          E-mail: samuel@zamansky.com

Defendants-Appellees THEODORE F. CRAVER and ROBERT BOADA are
represented by:

          John M. Gildersleeve, Esq.
          Jordan X. Navarrette, Esq.
          Henry Weissmann, Esq.
          MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
          350 South Grand Avenue, 50th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 683-9150
          E-mail: john.gildersleeve@mto.com
                  Jordan.Navarrette@mto.com
                  Henry.Weissmann@mto.com


EJ'S CLEANING: Fails to Properly Pay Janitors, Walker Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIE WALKER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. EJ'S CLEANING SERVICES, INC., and EDWIN JOHNSON, Case
No. 4:18-cv-00571-SWW (E.D. Ark., August 21, 2018), is brought on
behalf of janitors under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Arkansas Minimum Wage Act as a result of the Defendants' alleged
failure to pay them lawful minimum wages and overtime compensation
for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

EJ's Cleaning Services, Inc., is a domestic for-profit corporation,
registered and licensed to do business in the state of Arkansas.
Edwin Johnson, a resident of Arkansas, is the owner of EJ's
Cleaning.

The Defendants own and operate a commercial janitorial services
company that provides cleaning and custodial services to its
customers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher 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: chris@sanfordlawfirm.com
                  josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


ENHANCED RECOVERY: Accused by Collins Suit of Violating FDCPA
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Enhanced Recovery
Company LLC.  The case is captioned as Dontavius Collins,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Enhanced Recovery Company LLC, doing business as: ERC, Case No.
6:18-cv-01394-CEM-GJK (M.D. Fla., August 23, 2018).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

Enhanced Recovery Company LLC provides business process outsourcing
services that include recovery, outsourcing, and market research
primarily for Fortune 500 companies in the United States and
internationally.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jon Paul Dubbeld, Esq.
          BERKOWITZ & MYER
          4900 Central Ave.
          St. Petersburg, FL 33707
          Telephone: (727) 344-0123
          Facsimile: (727) 344-0185
          E-mail: Jon@Berkmyer.com


ESPERION THERAPEUTICS: Appeal in Dougherty Securities Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Esperion Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the appeal in the case
Kevin L. Dougherty v. Esperion Therapeutics, Inc., et al., has been
argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

On January 12, 2016, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan, against the Company and Tim
Mayleben, captioned Kevin L. Dougherty v. Esperion Therapeutics,
Inc., et al. (No. 16-cv-10089).

The lawsuit alleges that the Company and Mr. Mayleben violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
SEC Rule 10b-5 by allegedly failing to disclose in an August 17,
2015, public statement that the FDA would require a cardiovascular
outcomes trial before approving the Company's lead product
candidate. The lawsuit seeks, among other things, compensatory
damages in connection with an allegedly inflated stock price
between August 18, 2015 and September 28, 2015, as well as
attorneys' fees and costs.

On May 20, 2016, an amended complaint was filed in the lawsuit and
on July 5, 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint. On December 27, 2016, the court granted the Company's
motion to dismiss with prejudice and entered judgment in the
Company's favor. On January 24, 2017, the plaintiffs in this
lawsuit filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment.  

In May 2017, the court denied the plaintiff's motion to alter or
amend the judgment. On June 19, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a notice
of appeal to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals and on September
14, 2017, they filed their opening brief in support of the appeal.
The appeal was fully briefed on December 7, 2017, and it was argued
before the Sixth Circuit on March 15, 2018.

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

Esperion Therapeutics, Inc., a lipid management company, focuses on
developing and commercializing oral therapies for the treatment of
patients with elevated low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C).
Esperion Therapeutics, Inc. was founded in 2008 and is
headquartered in Ann Arbor, Michigan.


ESPERION THERAPEUTICS: Faces Bailey Securities Action in Michigan
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Esperion Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the company is defending
itself against a putative class action lawsuit entitled, Kevin
Bailey v. Esperion Therapeutics, Inc., et al.

On May 7, 2018, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan, against the Company, Tim
Mayleben, and Richard Bartram, captioned Kevin Bailey v. Esperion
Therapeutics, Inc., et al. (No. 18-cv-11438).

The lawsuit alleges that the Company, Mr. Mayleben and Mr. Bartram
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 by allegedly making false and misleading
statements about the facts and circumstances surrounding the Phase
3 trial results for bempedoic acid that the Company announced on
May 2, 2018.

The lawsuit seeks, among other things, compensatory damages in
connection with an allegedly inflated stock price between February
22, 2017, and May 1, 2018, as well as attorneys' fees and costs.

Esperion Therapeutics, Inc., a lipid management company, focuses on
developing and commercializing oral therapies for the treatment of
patients with elevated low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C).
Esperion Therapeutics, Inc. was founded in 2008 and is
headquartered in Ann Arbor, Michigan.


EUGENE STRASCHNOW: Faces Sermuks FLSA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Eugene Straschnow and
Tsila Polevetsky.  The case is styled as Edgar Sermuks,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated and Olga
Ozturk, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v.
Eugene Straschnow and Tsila Polevetsky, Case No. 1:18-cv-04753
(E.D.N.Y., August 22, 2018).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Labor Standards Act
over alleged denial of overtime compensation.

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.[BN]


EXXON MOBIL: Texas Judge Greenlights Securities Fraud Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Land, writing for Law.com, repots that a Texas judge has left
alive nearly all of a federal class action accusing Exxon Mobil
Corp. and former CEO Rex Tillerson of securities fraud related to
its alleged misstatements on the value of oil and gas reserves and
the potential costs of paying carbon taxes, which ultimately led to
its stock plummeting by 20 percent, erasing billions of dollars in
value.

Ruling on Exxon Mobil's motion to dismiss, U.S District Judge Ed
Kinkeade of Texas' Northern District Court struck portions of two
expert opinions attached to the amended complaint, but said the
plaintiffs sufficiently pleaded their allegations that the energy
giant knowingly kept its stock inflated by refusing to write down
the value of its assets, even as competitors were downgrading their
own values as the price of oil began to crater in 2014.

At the time, according to court filings, Exxon Mobile was trying to
maintain its AAA credit rating as it planned to issue a $12 billion
bond offering in 2016. One month after the bonds were issued, Exxon
Mobil's credit rating was downgraded to AA+. A few months later,
the company disclosed that almost 20 percent of its oil and gas
reserves were likely insufficient to meet Securities Exchange
Commission guidelines.   

Plaintiff Pedro Ramirez Jr. filed a class action alleging
securities fraud in 2016 naming Exxon Mobil, Tillerson and company
vice presidents Andrew Swiger and Jeffrey Woodbury as defendants.
The Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters Pension Fund was named lead
plaintiff the following year.

In upholding the bulk of the pension fund's "voluminous" amended
complaint, Kinkeade wrote that the plaintiffs had sufficiently
backed up their allegations that Exxon Mobile knowingly made
misstatements of material fact regarding the value of reserves in
the United States and Canada, and the per-ton carbon costs the
company faced.

The order said Tillerson, who left Exxon Mobile to serve as
secretary of state under President Donald Trump until he was
cashiered in March, signed off on SEC filings and was well aware of
internal differences in the cost calculations of
government-mandated carbon assessments related to global warming.

"The amended complaint contains numerous allegations to support
[the plaintiffs'] contention that Defendant Tillerson, chairman of
the board and chief executive officer, had knowledge of
ExxonMobil's alleged fraudulent activity," Kinkeade wrote.

As a member of the Board of Directors and the Management Committee,
"both of which allegedly received in-depth briefings on and
actively engaged in discussions on ExxonMobil's financial position
and risks of climate change," Tillerson "also allegedly had motive
to maintain ExxonMobil's AAA credit rating by using a lower,
internal proxy cost and not recognizing asset impairment so as to
receive sufficient funds to pay the shareholder dividends," the
order said.

Kinkeade did dismiss one count against Woodbury, the company's vice
president of investor relations and corporate secretary.

He also struck certain portions of the affidavits of two experts,
one off whom is an attorney with the New York Attorney General's
Office who had been investigating the company for "alleged
misrepresentations ExxonMobil made to investors and the public
about the impact of climate change on ExxonMobil's business."

The judge struck statements he deemed to be matters of opinion but
allowed factual statements to remain on the record.

The attorneys for Exxon Mobil include Nina Cortell, Esq. --
nina.cortell@haynesboone.com -- and Daniel Gold, Esq. --
daniel.gold@haynesboone.com -- with Haynes & Boone in Dallas, and
Jonathan Hurwitz, Esq. -- jhurwitz@paulweiss.com -- Daniel Kramer,
Esq. -- dkramer@paulweiss.com -- Gregory Laufer, Esq. --
glaufer@paulweiss.com -- and Daniel Toal, Esq. --
dtoal@paulweiss.com -- of Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison in
New York.  Tillerson is represented by Brian Gillett, Esq. of
Squire Patton Boggs in Dallas.

"We continue to believe the complaint is meritless and will
vigorously defend ourselves from these baseless claims," said Exxon
Mobil spokesman Scott Silvestri.

The plaintiffs' lawyers include Jeffrey Abraham, Esq. --
jabraham@aftlaw.com -- of New York's Abraham Fruchter & Twersky;
Balon Bradley, Esq. -- anneh@bbradleylaw.com -- of Dallas' Balon B.
Bradley Law Firm; Joe Kendall, Esq. -- jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com
-- of Dallas' Kendall Law Group; and Mary Blasy, Esq. --
mblasy@rgrdlaw.com -- Patrick Coughlin, Esq. -- patc@rgrdlaw.com --
John Herman, Esq. -- jherman@rgrdlaw.com -- Nathan Lindell, Esq. --
nlindell@rgrdlaw.com -- Erika Oliver, Esq. -- eoliver@rgrdlaw.com
-- Sara Polychron, Esq. -- spolychron@rgrdlaw.com -- and Darren
Robbins, Esq. -- darrenr@rgrdlaw.com -- of Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd.

"Our view is that the court's order upholding the adequacy of the
complaint is an important first step in holding one of the world's
most powerful corporations accountable," said Robbins in an
email.[GN]


FACEBOOK INC: Overestimates Audience Size Lawsuit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
Ross Todd, writing for The Recorder, reports that a new lawsuit
claims that Facebook Inc. overstates the potential reach of its
advertisements to boost ad sales and the prices it can charge.

The class action complaint filed on August 15 by a plaintiffs team
led by Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll in the Northern District of
California claims that based on publicly available research and the
plaintiffs' analysis, Facebook's estimated reach among the key 18-
to 34-year-old demographic exceeds the actual population of 18- to
34-year-olds in every state in the U.S.

Facebook representatives didn't respond to a request for comment
August 16 morning.

Plaintiffs allege that Facebook's inflation of the demographic,
coveted by advertisers since they have disposable income but little
brand loyalty, is even higher in some locales. They estimate that
Facebook's asserted "potential reach" among 18- to 34-year-olds in
Chicago is about four times higher than the number of actual
Facebook users in that bracket. The suit claims that the inflation
was "apparent" in other age categories as well.

"Because Facebook has inflated its potential reach, plaintiffs and
putative class members purchased more advertisements from Facebook
and paid a higher price for advertisements than they otherwise
would have," wrote the lawyers at Cohen Milstein, joined in the
complaint by Charles Reichmann of Kensington, California, and
Michael Rapp of Stecklein & Rapp in Kansas City.

The suit is seeking compensation and injunctive relief barring
Facebook from touting the allegedly inflated numbers and forcing
the company to audit the estimates under California's Unfair
Competition Law.

The named plaintiff in the lawsuit, Kansas resident Danielle
Singer, claims that she spent $14,000 on a national Facebook ad
campaign promoting her aromatherapy fashionwear company that
specifically targeted Chicago, Kansas City and other cities. The
complaint says that claims were based in part off of surveys
commissioned by the plaintiff of the percentage of Chicago and
Kansas City residents who use Facebook. The complaint also cites
three confidential witnesses alleged to have worked for Facebook,
including a former employee of the company's infrastructure/mapping
team who said the company "did not give a sh–" about the actual
number of people its ads reached.

Neither Cohen Milstein's Andrew Friedman, who has served as the
co-lead plaintiffs counsel in multidistrict litigation targeting
health insurance company Anthem with claims related to its massive
data breach, nor his co-counsel Reichmann responded to phone
messages on August 16 morning.[GN]


FCA US: Court Narrows Claims in Age Discrimination Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan, Southern Division, granted in part and denied in part
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case captioned DAN CERJANEC,
RODRIGO BRAVO, MARK MODLIN, and WILLIAM WINFREY, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. FCA
US, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 17-10619 (E.D. Mich.).

The Named Plaintiffs are current and former employees of Fiat
Chrysler Automobiles (FCA). They allege that an employee-evaluation
policy has a disparate impact on employees aged 55 and older. As a
result of this policy, the Plaintiffs, and others like them,
allegedly received lower evaluation scores which resulted in missed
career advancements, bonuses, placement on probation, and, in some
cases, termination. Plaintiffs additionally bring individual claims
of intentional age discrimination.

The Defendants raise six broad arguments: the Plaintiffs failed to
adequately plead their disparate impact claims; the Plaintiffs
propose a class of employees aged 55 and older which is not
permissible under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA);
the Plaintiffs failed to exhaust their disparate-impact claims; the
Plaintiffs will be unable to meet Rule 23 class action
prerequisites; the Plaintiffs' individual claims fail to state a
claim of age discrimination; and Bravo and Winfrey failed to
exhaust.

Under the ADEA, it is unlawful for an employer to take an adverse
employment action (e.g., termination) against someone because of
her age, or to limit or classify employees in a way that would
deprive employees of opportunities because of their age.

FCA alleges that the Plaintiffs are merely cobbling together five
different processes as one Forced Ranking/Calibration Process,
instead of identifying a single process that is causing the alleged
disparity.

But, as the Plaintiffs clarify in their response, this list
describes one particular process. FCA has a single calibration
process as part of its overall PLM scoring plan. It is during that
calibration process that managers are asked to force rank employees
so that a set percentage of employees receive high and low scores.
And it is during that forced ranking that managers have access to
employees' photos, their ages, and their employee ID numbers.

As the Plaintiffs have alleged: It is this forced ranking policy
implemented during the calibration process that is being
challenged. It is also what caused the disparate impact to the
Plaintiffs. Because the Plaintiffs have alleged that it is the
specific process in which the raw scores are adjusted to a forced
curve that causes the alleged disparate impact, the Court is
satisfied that the Plaintiffs have identified a
sufficiently-specific process to challenge.

FCA argues that the Plaintiffs' disparate-impact theory necessarily
relies on intentional discrimination and that intentionality is
fatal to a disparate-impact theory. FCA's argument takes three
forms.

FCA first asserts that, because the Plaintiffs bring individual
claims of intentional discrimination, their disparate-impact claims
are therefore actually claims of intentional discrimination.  

The Plaintiffs clarified, however, that they are arguing disparate
impact and disparate treatment in the alternative. Thus, the Court
finds that the allegations supporting the individual claims of
disparate treatment do not undermine their separate
disparate-impact claims.

FCA next points to the Plaintiffs' pleading that employee photos,
employee ID numbers, and actual ages are made known during the
forced ranking process.  According to FCA, this allegation suggests
that managers used the data to intentionally discriminate against
the Plaintiffs.

But the Plaintiffs' complaint does not have to be read that way
and, on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, it should not be. The Plaintiffs'
allegation that employees' photos and other age related data were
made known to the managers could simply mean that the age-related
data was available to the managers (to, for example, help them
better identify certain employees not necessarily that managers saw
the data and then made a conscious choice to discriminate on the
basis of age. Indeed, the allegation supports an inference that the
availability of the age data allowed unintentional stereotypes or
prejudices to affect managers' assignment of scores, which does
support a disparate impact claim. Nothing about the highlighted
statement suggests that the Plaintiffs' disparate impact claim
necessarily relies upon intentional discrimination, and, given that
FCA moves under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court should infer just the
opposite.

The Court finds that the Plaintiffs are not improperly relying on
intentional discrimination in their disparate impact claim.

FCA next asserts that the Plaintiffs failed to allege or articulate
any logical or factual causal connection between the challenged
policy and the lower ratings and, therefore, their claims should be
dismissed.

A plausible and natural read of as a result of is that the forced
ranking process caused the plaintiffs to receive scores of five and
below. The Plaintiffs allege that they all received scores of 5 and
below (and provide precise scores), they also allege that they
received these low scores because of the forced ranking, and these
scores resulted in adverse employment actions, including
termination. These are factual allegations that the Court must
accept as true. Doing so, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs have
pled a plausible causal connection between the challenged policy
and the identified disparity.

FCA also asserts that the Plaintiffs' proposed class of employees
aged 55 and older is an impermissible subgroup within the ADEA
because it excludes and thus necessarily compares Plaintiffs to
employees aged 40 to 54.

According to FCA, because the ADEA protects employees aged 40 and
over from age discrimination, 29 U.S.C. Section 631(a), any class
disparate impact claim must include employees aged 40 and older and
thus the proposed class of 55 and older cannot support a
disparate-impact claim.

The Court disagrees.

The Eighth Circuit holds that if disparate-impact claims were
cognizable under the statute, a plaintiff could bring a
disparate-impact claim despite the fact that the statistical
evidence indicated that an employer's policy had a very favorable
impact upon the entire protected group of employees aged 40 and
older, compared to those employees outside th[at] protected group.
The Court do not believe that Congress could have intended such a
result. But as the Supreme Court had earlier clarified in O'Connor
(O'Connor v. Consolidated Coin Caterers Corp., 517 U.S. 308(1996)),
Congress sought to protect people against age discrimination, not
protect people aged 40 and older. The Eighth Circuit also voiced
concerns that allowing subgroups would require employers to achieve
statistical parity among the virtually infinite number of age
subgroups in its work force. But the ADEA does not require parity.
In fact, for a plaintiff to be successful in a disparate-impact
claim, she must allege statistics that demonstrate a significant
disparate impact on an age group, not just an impact.  

The Court is also unpersuaded by the Second Circuit's rationale
that allowing subgroups that allege a disparity in treatment among
those 40 and older, would not support the inference of
discrimination that the disparate impact approach permits. But
courts weigh whether a disparate impact claim raises an inference
of discrimination based on statistical data demonstrating a
significant disparity based on age. If a plaintiff can produce that
for a subgroup of employees aged 60 and older, the Court sees no
reason why that data's inferential value is any less than if the
data was used for employees aged 40 and older.

The Court finds that the Plaintiffs' proposed subgroup is
permissible.

FCA next argues that the Plaintiffs failed to exhaust their
disparate-impact claim. In his EEOC complaint, Cerjanac charged
that he and similarly situated other co-workers, 55 years and over,
have been routinely subjected to unwarranted lower PLM/Performance
Ratings.

FCA has not shown that Cerjanec's charge failed to exhaust the
forced-ranking claims. In particular, FCA does not explain how
Plaintiffs are bringing a new claim outside of the reach of
Cerjanec's charge because they are now challenging a specific
practice within the PLM process. Instead, it simply asserts that to
support an ADEA disparate impact claim, a plaintiff must have
alleged to the EEOC a specific facially neutral policy. But that
does not explain why the charge is insufficient to exhaust
plaintiffs' claim.

FCA asserts that the Plaintiffs will be unable to meet Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23 requirements for a class action and therefore
dismissal is warranted. Specifically, FCA asserts that Plaintiffs
will be unable to meet the commonality, typicality, and
adequacy-of-representation requirements.

Here, FCA argues that the Plaintiffs, too, have alleged nothing
more than a policy of discretion and therefore will be unable to
satisfy the commonality standards articulated in Dukes. (R. 39, PID
1417). FCA further points to Ross v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 267
F.Supp.3d 174 (D.D.C. 2017) and asserts that, since a court failed
to find commonality in a case with a similar calibration process to
the one Plaintiffs challenge, a similar finding is warranted here.

FCA's second argument also fails to persuade. Although the
plaintiffs in Ross, 267 F. Supp.3d at 182, challenged a similar
calibration process to the one Plaintiffs challenge here,
Plaintiffs' claims differ in an important way. In Ross, the
plaintiffs asserted that, as part of a performance appraisal
system, a calibration process resulted in African-American
employees receiving lower scores, which, in turn, affected
employment opportunities and benefits. Plaintiffs pointed to the
inadequate information each manager had about each employee during
this calibration process as the flaw causing the disparate impact.


But, the court reasoned, in order to make a plausible charge that a
companywide evaluation method is infected with bias, it is clear
that a plaintiff must provide some detail about how that
examination operated in a biased way. The contention that the
companywide evaluation procedures often resulted in ratings that
were poorly correlated with job performance, however plausible,
does not supply an account of how those procedures themselves
resulted in the racially disparate outcomes that Plaintiffs have
observed in Lockheed's overall workforce.

But here, Plaintiffs allege that the calibration process includes
managers having access to employees' photos, and other information
that can be a proxy for an employee's age. While a nuanced
distinction, this information could explain how the procedure
operated in a biased way because the information signaled a
characteristic someone's age that can form the basis of unlawful
discrimination.

Given the factual uncertainty at this stage, and the absence of any
discovery, Plaintiffs' pleadings are sufficient and FCA has not
shown that Plaintiffs will be unable to establish adequacy.

FCA next challenges the sufficiency of Plaintiffs' individual
claims of disparate treatment. FCA alleges that Cerjanec, Bravo,
and Winfrey plead nothing more than labels and conclusion and a
formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action.

Absent direct evidence of discrimination, a plaintiff asserting a
claim of age discrimination must show or at this stage allege facts
that it make it plausible that (1) he was at least 40 years old at
the time of the alleged discrimination; (2) he was subjected to an
adverse employment action; (3) he was otherwise qualified for the
position; and (4) he was replaced by a younger worker.

Plaintiffs have pled facts supporting these four elements.
Cerjanec, Bravo, and Winfrey each plead their age, that they was
qualified for their position at FCA, that they received lower PLM
scores because of their age, and that, based on those lower scores
they suffered consequences such as termination, reduced
compensation/bonuses and lesser opportunities for advancement.
While their amended complaint is certainly not rife with factual
allegations, the Court finds that Cerjanec, Bravo, and Winfrey have
pled enough factual allegations to nudge their claims into
plausibility.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 6, 2018 Opinion and
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yby8gj6e from
Leagle.com.

DAN CERJANEC, RODRIGO BRAVO, WILLIAM WINFREY & MARK MODLIN,
Plaintiffs, represented by Adam Shereef Abu-Akeel, Akeel &
Valentine, PLC, Beth M. Rivers, Pitt, Dowty, Cary S. McGehee, Pitt,
McGehee, Hasan Kaakarli, Akeel & Valentine, PLC, Megan Bonanni,
Pitt, McGehee, Michael L. Pitt, Pitt, McGehee, Robert W. Palmer,
Pitt, McGehee, Palmer & Rivers & Shereef H. Akeel, Akeel &
Valentine.

FCA US LLC, Defendant, represented by Daniel E. Turner --
dturner@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C., Jacqueline Phipps
Polito -- jpolito@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson P.C., Jerome R.
Watson -- Watson@millercanfield.com -- Miller, Canfield, Muhammad
Misbah Shahid -- shalid@millercanfield.com -- Miller Canfield
Paddock & Stone & Tasha Inegbenebor -- tinegbenebor@littler.com --
Littler Mendeslon P.C.


FCA US: Court Won't Certify Class in Defective Valve Stems Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of New
York denied Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification in the case
captioned ROBERT TOMASSINI, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FCA US LLC, Defendant, No.
3:14-cv-1226 (MAD/DEP)(N.D.N.Y.).

The Plaintiff's only remaining claim is for deceptive business
practices under New York General Business Law (NYGBL) Section 349
arising out of Chrysler's alleged failure to disclose a defect in
the valve stems of certain Chrysler minivans.

The Proposed Class

The Plaintiff defines the proposed class as all persons who
purchased and/or leased Chrysler and Dodge Minivans manufactured
after June 10, 2009 through May 25, 2010, in the State of New
York.

Standing

A plaintiff bears the burden of establishing the three irreducible
constitutional minimum elements of Article III standing. The
plaintiff must have (1) suffered an injury in fact, (2) that is
fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendant, and
(3) that is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial
decision.

Standing of the Putative Class

Although Chrysler does not contest Tomassini's standing, it argues
that class certification must be denied because the proposed class
definition encompasses class members who lack standing to sue in
their own right.

Of these potential class members, Chrysler objects to the standing
of three different groups: (1) individuals who purchased vehicles
with AL2000 valve stems and had them replaced with AL6000 valve
stems for free under warranty; (2) individuals who resold their
vehicles before experiencing any problems with their valve stems;
and (3) individuals who purchased their vehicles used after the
AL2000 valve stems had already been replaced with AL6000 valve
stems.

As for the first and second groups, those individuals have standing
because they purchased vehicles with AL2000 valve stems. The Court
already addressed this issue in the November Order and explained
that allegations that a plaintiff purchased a product at an
inflated price as a result of the defendant's deception is a
sustainable injury under Section 349. Regardless of whether the
valve stems were replaced for free under warranty or the vehicle
was resold before any valve stem problems occurred, individuals who
purchased a vehicle with defective valve stems have an inflated
price claim and would be entitled to at least statutory damages.

But the third group individuals who purchased used vehicles after
the AL2000 valve stems had been replaced with AL6000 valve stems
does not have standing. Plaintiff does not argue that the AL6000
valve stems were defective; therefore, those individuals did not
suffer an inflated-price injury.

Indeed, since they never owned a vehicle with the allegedly
defective valve stems, it is not clear how those individuals could
have suffered any injury that could provide standing in this case.
The question, then, is whether there are members of the proposed
class who purchased vehicles in which all four of the original
valve stems were replaced with AL6000 valve stems.

In this case, however, there is no obvious modification to the
class definition that would solve Plaintiff's standing problems
without introducing other problems fatal to Plaintiff's motion.

Narrowing the class to include only individuals who purchased or
leased new vehicles would resolve the standing concern because it
would ensure that all class members purchased vehicles with AL2000
valve stems. But that definition would exclude the named class
representative in this case, who bought his car used.
Alternatively, narrowing the class to only vehicles that were
purchased with AL2000 valve stems would also solve Plaintiff's
standing problem. But such a definition would create individualized
questions of fact that would predominate over common questions, and
the Court would not certify the class under Rule 23(b)(3), as the
Court explains in the following section.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff's motion for class certification is
denied. Even if the Court were to follow the lead of other courts
and consider the standing issue as part of its Rule 23 analysis,
the Plaintiff's motion for class certification would be denied.

In a motion for class certification, a plaintiff must establish the
Rule 23 requirements by a preponderance of the evidence. The
determination of whether the plaintiff has satisfied his or her
burden may sometimes overlap with merits issues, though the
determination as to a Rule 23 requirement is not binding on the
trier of fact in its determination of the merits.

Rule 23(b)(3) - Predominance

This predominance' requirement is satisfied if: (1) resolution of
any material legal or factual questions. can be achieved through
generalized proof and (2) these common issues are more substantial
than the issues subject only to individualized proof.

In this case, there are two main issues that lead the Court to
conclude that individual issues predominate over common ones: (1)
the question of whether individual class members owned vehicles
with the AL2000 valve stems; and (2) the individualized calculation
of damages.

Standing

Here, in order to ensure that each potential class member has
standing, the Court will need to determine whether each individual
purchased a vehicle with at least one AL2000 valve stem. Since more
than half of potential class members purchased their vehicles used
and many used vehicles were resold a second time it will be
difficult, if not impossible, to determine whether a vehicle had
original valve stems at the time it was resold. Even if each used
vehicle purchaser were to provide an affidavit, the purchaser may
not actually know whether the valve stems had been replaced, or
which type of replacement stems were used. The individualized
inquiry necessary to determine whether individual used car
purchasers have standing in this case would overwhelm questions
common to the proposed class.  

Damages

Here, a great deal of individualized inquiry would be necessary in
order to calculate damages for different class members. For new car
purchasers, the Court would need to determine the amount of the
inflated price damages at the point of purchase, but that is just
the beginning. New car purchasers who resold their vehicles would
be entitled to different amounts of damages depending on whether
they replaced some or all of the original valve stems prior to
selling their vehicle, and whether any repairs were covered under
warranty. Additionally, depending on which TPMS component was in
use at the time, a single broken valve stem may have required the
replacement of the entire TPMS component. The Court will face
similar problems in calculating damages for used car purchasers,
whose damages will depend on the number of original valve stems on
the car at the time of purchase.

Furthermore, it is also possible that some used car purchasers were
aware of the valve stem issues and negotiated the vehicle's resale
price accordingly. Answering these questions would entail a great
deal of difficult, individualized inquiry for each class member,
which weighs against a finding of predominance.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff's motion for class certification is
denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 6, 2018 Memorandum
Decision and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yaalqo2e
from Leagle.com.

Robert Tomassini, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel C. Calvert --
dcalvert@yourlawyer.com -- Parker Waichman LLP, pro hac vice, Elmer
R. Keach, III, Law Offices of Elmer Robert Keach, III, P.C., Jason
S. Rathod -- jrathod@classlawdc.com -- Migliaccio & Rathod LLP, pro
hac vice, Jennifer S. Goldstein -- jgoldstein@wbmllp.com --
Whitfield Bryson & Mason, LLP, pro hac vice, Jordan L. Chaikin --
jchaikin@yourlawyer.com -- Parker, Waichman Law Firm, pro hac vice,
Gary S. Graifman, Kantrowitz, Goldhammer & Graifman, P.C., Gary E.
Mason -- gmason@wbmllp.com -- Whitfield, Bryson Law Firm, Jay I.
Brody, Kantrowitz, Goldhammer & Graifman, P.C., & Nicholas A.
Migliaccio -- nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com -- Migliaccio & Rathod
LLP.

David R Homer, Mediator (Mandatory Program), pro se.

FCA US LLC, formerly known as, Defendant, represented by Alan J.
Pope -- APope@psplawfirm.com -- Pope, Schrader & Pope, LLP, Kathy
A. Wisniewski -- kwisniewski@thompsoncoburn.com -- Thompson, Coburn
Law Firm, pro hac vice, Sharon B. Rosenberg --
srosenberg@coburnthompson.com -- Thompson, Coburn LLP, pro hac vice
& Stephen A. D'Aunoy -- sdaunoy@thompsoncoburn.com -- Thompson,
Coburn Law Firm, pro hac vice.


FIAT CHRYSLER: Subpoena on Confidential Witness Deposition Quashed
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs' Motion to Quash
Subpoenas in the case captioned VICTOR PIRNIK, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FIAT
CHRYSLER AUTOMOBILES, N.V., et al., Defendants, No. 15-CV-7199
(JMF)(S.D.N.Y.).

The Court entered a Memorandum Opinion and Order in this securities
fraud class action, granting the motion of Fiat Chrysler
Automobiles, N.V. (FCA) and the other Defendants to compel the Lead
Plaintiffs to disclose the identities of those who had communicated
with purported Confidential Witnesses (CWs) referenced in the
Fourth Amended Complaint (FAC). That decision was based on a sworn
declaration from Alex Crabb (Crabb Declaration) identified in the
FAC as CW1 that statements attributed to him in the FAC did not
accurately reflect what he had said to a man identifying himself as
a counselor for the Plaintiffs.

At the Court's direction, the Plaintiffs disclosed that two of
their investigators, Patrick Maio and Stephanie Stanley, had
communicated with the CWs, and the Defendants then served subpoenas
seeking the investigators' testimony and documents relating to
their communication with the CWs.

The Plaintiffs press some new arguments, and those arguments do
warrant quashing the Defendants' subpoenas in part. In the first
instance, the disparities the Defendants have identified are
limited to CW1 and the investigator who spoke with him, Mr. Maio.


In their opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion, the Defendants elide
the distinctions among the three CWs and between the two
investigators, but they ultimately identify no specific concerns
with the other CWs whose statements were used to bolster the
Plaintiffs' allegations in the FAC or any inconsistencies arising
out of interviews conducted by Ms. Stanley. Accordingly, the
Defendants fail to show that the subpoenas it directed to Ms.
Stanley are relevant and the Court grants the Plaintiffs' motion to
quash those subpoenas. Similarly, the Defendants fail to show the
need for discovery with respect to communications with the other
CWs.

Accordingly, the subpoenas directed to Mr. Maio are quashed to the
extent that they seek information concerning his communications
with anyone other than CW1.  

With regard to Mr. Maio, the Court continues to be of the view that
further inquiry into the discrepancies between the statements
attributed to CW1 in the FAC and the allegations in the Crabb
Declaration is warranted, and the discovery sought is proportional
to the needs of the case.

The Defendants' request for documents requires more analysis, as
such items are categorically protected by the work product doctrine
to the extent that they tend to reveal the mental impressions,
conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of a party's attorney or
other representative concerning the litigation.  The Court agrees
with the Plaintiffs that the work product doctrine protects Mr.
Maio's interview notes and memoranda.

And the Court concludes that the Plaintiffs did not waive
protection of the doctrine by using CW1's statements rather than
affirmatively relying on the interview notes and memoranda
themselves in the FAC. The Plaintiffs do not justify quashing the
request for documents beyond interview notes and memoranda, as they
barely address other such documents at all, and there is no reason
to conclude that any and all responsive documents would necessarily
be covered by the work product doctrine. To the extent the
Plaintiffs believe that other responsive documents are privileged
or covered by the work product doctrine, they may seek to protect
them through a privilege log in the normal course.

They may not refrain from complying altogether.

Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' motion to quash is granted in part and
denied in part.  

The Plaintiffs' motion is granted to the extent that Defendants'
subpoenas seek testimony or documents from Ms. Stanley, testimony
or documents from Mr. Maio pertaining to CWs other than Crabb, and
interview notes and memoranda from Mr. Maio. By contrast,
Plaintiffs' motion is denied to the extent that they seek Mr.
Maio's deposition regarding his communications with Crabb and
responsive documents other than interviews notes and memoranda.  

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 2, 2018 Memorandum
Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yd8bsl2o from
Leagle.com.

Gary Koopman & Timothy Kidd, Lead Plaintiffs, represented by
Phillip C. Kim -- pkim@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm P.A.,
Jeremy Alan Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP,
Laurence Matthew Rosen -- lrosen@roselegal.com -- The Rosen Law
Firm, P.A., Sara Esther Fuks -- sfuks@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen
Law Firm, P.A., Veronica Valeria Montenegro --
vvmontenegro@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP & Michael Jonathan Wernke
-- mjwernke@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP.

Victor Pirnik, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Jonathan Wernke ,
Pomerantz LLP, Joseph Alexander Hood, II -- ahood@pomlaw.com --
Pomerantz LLP, Sara Esther Fuks , The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.,
Veronica Valeria Montenegro , Pomerantz LLP & Jeremy Alan Lieberman
, Pomerantz LLP.

Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V. & Sergio Marchionne, Defendants,
represented by Anil Karim Vassanji -- vassanjia@sullcrom.com --
Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, Bradley Adams Harsch
--harschb@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP, Darrell Scott
Cafasso -- cafassod@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP,
Jonathan Michael Sedlak -- sedlakj@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan &
Cromwell, LLP, Joshua Seth Levy -- evyjo@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan &
Cromwell, LLP, Robert Joseph Giuffra, Jr. -- giuffrar@sullcrom.com
-- Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP, Theodore Edelman --
edelmant@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP, Thomas Charles
White -- whitet@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP, Victoria
Alterman Coyle , Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP & William Brian Monahan
-- monahanw@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP.


FORD MOTOR: Loses Bid to Dismiss Defective F-150 Door Lock Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of New
York denied Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case captioned
BRANDON KOMMER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant, No.
1:17-CV-0296 (LEK/DJS).

Kommer decided to purchase his truck after seeing Ford's
advertisements on television and the Internet. Kommer claims that
he was led to believe the door technology would work because Ford's
advertisements for the F-150 highlighted the truck's durability and
toughness. Soon after Kommer purchased his vehicle, however, the
doors malfunctioned. Specifically, when the temperature fell below
freezing, the doors would not latch closed, the locks would not
open, and the door handles would not move.

Ford's Knowledge of the Defect

Ford argues that (1) the 2015 and 2016 Technical Service Bulletin
(TSBs) do not establish its knowledge; and (2) Ford did not
exclusively possess information about the defect because TSBs are
public documents.

Adequacy of a TSB for Pleading Knowledge

First, Davisson concluded only that the TSB at issue in that case
did not provide particularized allegations regarding how or when
Ford knew of the alleged defects. By contrast, claims brought
pursuant to Sections 349 and 350 are not subject to the
pleading-with-particularity requirements of Rule 9(b) but need only
meet the bare-bones notice-pleading requirements of Rule 8(a).
Because Kommer need not comply with the heightened pleading
standard at issue in Davisson, Ford's reliance on this case is
unavailing.

Second, Ford cites a District of New Jersey opinion for the
proposition that TSBs cannot support an allegation of knowledge,
because TSBs "are generally the result of consumer complaints and
accepting these advisories as a basis for consumer fraud claims may
discourage manufacturers from responding to their customers in the
first place. This concern is misplaced at the motion to dismiss
stage. As a later District of New Jersey opinion stated when
evaluating an identical argument, even if there is a public policy
rationale for excluding TSBs as evidence of a defect or an
admission of liability, the Court will not now stretch that
rationale to raise the bar that Kommer must meet at the pleading
stage. The existence of the 2015 TSB creates a plausible inference
that Ford, the TSB's author, knew of the defects in Kommer's F-150
when Kommer purchased the truck. This is all that Rule 8 requires.


Accordingly, the Court rejects the Defendant's public policy
argument.

Ford's Sole Knowledge of the Defect

Ford argues that TSBs are public documents, which means that they
cannot constitute exclusive knowledge. But in Darne, the TSBs Ford
issued were publicly available. By contrast, Kommer alleges that
Ford alone knew about the door lock and latch defects, and
plausibly suggests that the TSBs discussing those defects were sent
quietly and only distributed among dealership service departments."
  The Court must accept as true the factual allegations in the FAC
and resolve all plausible inferences in Kommer's favor. Since
Kommer alleges that the 2015 TSB was only disclosed to Ford
dealerships and was not distributed to anyone outside the company,
it is plausible that Ford had exclusive information regarding the
door latches and locks defect when Kommer purchased his truck.

Ford's Onerous Disclosure Arguments

Ford argues that the FAC should be dismissed because requiring
disclosures for all potential issues within a given vehicle would
lead to long lists of issues that might never arise, diminishing
the usefulness of any information the buyer receives.

First, Sections 349 and 350 only require a defendant to disclose
material information to consumers and an omission is only material
if the business's failure to disclose is likely to mislead a
reasonable consumer acting reasonably under the circumstances.
Therefore, contrary to Ford's assertion, it is not required to
disclose all potential issues within a given vehicle.

Second, the Court rejects Ford's argument that the existence of a
warranty agreement obviated the need for Ford to disclose to Kommer
the existence of the F-150's potential defects. Ford sold Kommer
his F-150 with a warranty that advised Kommer that the vehicle was
not defect free and promised to remedy newly discovered defects
during the warranty period. Ford argues, with no analytical or
legal support, that the existence of this warranty means that no
reasonable consumer would expect point-of-sale disclosures, and no
reasonable consumer would be deceived by the absence of
point-of-sale disclosures.

Accordingly, Ford argues, its failure to disclose the door and
latch defect to Kommer was immaterial. The Court will not accept
that, as a matter of law, consumers are indifferent to potential
vehicle defects, even significant defects, so long as the vehicle
manufacturer promises to repair the defect. Further undermining
Ford's assertion, numerous courts have permitted plaintiffs to
bring misrepresentation-by-omission claims against vehicle
manufacturers based on the manufacturer's failure to disclose
product defects at the point-of-sale.

For these reasons, Ford's Motion is denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 6, 2018 Decision
and Order is available at  
https://tinyurl.com/ych2h43k from Leagle.com.

Brandon Kommer, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey I. Carton --
jcarton@denleacarton.com -- Denlea & Carton LLP, Myles K. Bartley
-- mbartley@denleacarton.com -- Denlea & Carton LLP & Robert J.
Berg -- rberg@denleacarton.com -- Denlea & Carton LLP.

Ford Motor Company, Defendant, represented by Andrew John Trask --
andrew.trask@gmail.com -- McGuire Woods, pro hac vice & Peter J.
Fazio -- pjfazio@arfdlaw.com -- Aaronson, Rappaport Law Firm.


FORSTER & GARBUS: Kirilova Files Suit in N.Y. Over FDCPA Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Forster & Garbus,
LLP, Mark A. Garbus and Ronald Forster.  The case is titled
Kristina Kirilova, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Forster & Garbus, LLP, Mark A. Garbus and Ronald
Forster, Case No. 2:18-cv-04802 (E.D.N.Y., August 23, 2018).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

Forster & Garbus LLP provides legal services.  The Company
specializes in collecting debts.  The Individual Defendants are
owners, directors and officers of the Company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mitchell L. Pashkin, Esq.
          MITCHELL PASHKIN ATTORNEY AT LAW
          775 Park Avenue, Suite 255
          Huntington, NY 11743
          Telephone: (631) 335-1107
          E-mail: mpash@verizon.net


FRONT YARD: Discovery in Martin Suit Still Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------
Front Yard Residential Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9,
2018, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that discovery
is underway in the case, Martin v. Altisource Residential
Corporation et al.

On March 27, 2015, a putative shareholder class action complaint
was filed in the United States District Court of the Virgin Islands
by a purported shareholder of the Company under the caption Martin
v. Altisource Residential Corporation, et al., 15-cv-00024.

The action names as defendants the Company, its former Chairman,
William C. Erbey, and certain officers and a former officer of the
Company and alleges that the defendants violated federal securities
laws by, among other things, making materially false statements
and/or failing to disclose material information to the Company's
shareholders regarding the Company's relationship and transactions
with AAMC, Ocwen Financial Corporation ("Ocwen") and Home Loan
Servicing Solutions, Ltd.

These alleged misstatements and omissions include allegations that
the defendants failed to adequately disclose the Company's reliance
on Ocwen and the risks relating to its relationship with Ocwen,
including that Ocwen was not properly servicing and selling loans,
that Ocwen was under investigation by regulators for violating
state and federal laws regarding servicing of loans and Ocwen's
lack of proper internal controls.

The complaint also contains allegations that certain of the
Company's disclosure documents were false and misleading because
they failed to disclose fully the entire details of a certain asset
management agreement between the Company and AAMC that allegedly
benefited AAMC to the detriment of the Company's shareholders. The
action seeks, among other things, an award of monetary damages to
the putative class in an unspecified amount and an award of
attorney's and other fees and expenses.

In May 2015, two of our purported shareholders filed competing
motions with the court to be appointed lead plaintiff and for
selection of lead counsel in the action. Subsequently, opposition
and reply briefs were filed by the purported shareholders with
respect to these motions. On October 7, 2015, the court entered an
order granting the motion of Lei Shi to be lead plaintiff and
denying the other motion to be lead plaintiff.

On January 23, 2016, the lead plaintiff filed an amended
complaint.

On March 22, 2016, defendants filed a motion to dismiss all claims
in the action. The plaintiffs filed opposition papers on May 20,
2016, and the defendants filed a reply brief in support of the
motion to dismiss the amended complaint on July 11, 2016.

On November 14, 2016, the Martin case was reassigned to Judge Anne
E. Thompson of the United States District Court of New Jersey. In a
hearing on December 19, 2016, the parties made oral arguments on
the motion to dismiss, and on March 16, 2017 the Court issued an
order that the motion to dismiss had been denied. On April 17,
2017, the defendants filed a motion for reconsideration of the
Court’s decision to deny the motion to dismiss. On April 21,
2017, the defendants filed their answer and affirmative defenses.
Plaintiff filed an opposition to defendants’ motion for
reconsideration on May 8, 2017. On May 30, 2017, the Court issued
an order that the motion for reconsideration had been denied.
Discovery has commenced and is ongoing.

Front Yard said, "We believe this complaint is without merit. At
this time, we are not able to predict the ultimate outcome of this
matter, nor can we estimate the range of possible loss, if any."

Front Yard Residential Corporation is an industry leader in
providing quality, affordable rental homes to America's families.
The company's mission is to provide its tenants with affordable
houses they are proud to call home.


FTD COMPANIES: Continues to Defend EasySaver Rewards Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
FTD Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the company continues to
defend itself in a class action suit entitled, In re EasySaver
Rewards Litigation.

Commencing on August 19, 2009, the first of a series of putative
consumer class action lawsuits was brought against Provide
Commerce, Inc. and co-defendant Regent Group, Inc. d/b/a Encore
Marketing International ("EMI").

These cases were ultimately consolidated during the next three
years into Case No. 09 CV 2094 in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California under the title In re
EasySaver Rewards Litigation.

Plaintiffs' claims arise from their online enrollment in
subscription based membership programs known as EasySaver Rewards,
RedEnvelope Rewards, and Preferred Buyers Pass (collectively, the
"Membership Programs"). Plaintiffs claim that after they ordered
items from certain of Provide Commerce's websites, they were
presented with an offer to enroll in one of the Membership
Programs, each of which is offered and administered by EMI.
Plaintiffs purport to represent a nationwide class of consumers
allegedly damaged by Provide Commerce's purported unauthorized or
otherwise allegedly improper transferring of billing information to
EMI, who then posted allegedly unauthorized charges to their credit
or debit card accounts for membership fees for the Membership
Programs.

In the operative fourth amended complaint, plaintiffs asserted ten
claims against Provide Commerce and EMI: (1) breach of contract
(against Provide Commerce only); (2) breach of contract (against
EMI only); (3) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing; (4) fraud; (5) violations of the California Consumers
Legal Remedies Act; (6) unjust enrichment; (7) violation of the
Electronic Funds Transfer Act (against EMI only); (8) invasion of
privacy; (9) negligence; and (10) violations of the Unfair
Competition Law. Plaintiffs seek damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs.

After motion practice regarding the claims asserted and numerous
settlement conferences and mediations in an effort to informally
resolve the matter, the parties reached an agreement on the high
level terms of a settlement on April 9, 2012, conditioned on the
parties negotiating and executing a complete written agreement.

In the weeks following April 9, 2012, the parties negotiated a
formal written settlement agreement (the "Settlement"), which the
court preliminarily approved on June 13, 2012. After notice to the
purported class and briefing by the parties, the court conducted a
final approval hearing (also known as a fairness hearing) on
January 28, 2013, but did not rule. On February 4, 2013, the court
entered its final order approving the Settlement, granting
plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees, costs, and incentive
awards, and overruling objections filed by a single objector. The
court entered judgment on the Settlement on February 21, 2013.

The objector filed a notice of appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals on March 4, 2013. After the completion of briefing, the
Ninth Circuit set oral argument for February 2, 2015. But on
January 29, 2015, the Ninth Circuit entered an order deferring
argument and resolution of the appeal pending the Ninth Circuit's
decision in a matter captioned Frank v. Netflix, No. 12 15705+. On
March 19, 2015, the Ninth Circuit entered an order vacating the
judgment in this matter and remanding it to the district court for
further proceedings consistent with its opinion in Frank v. Netflix
issued on February 27, 2015.

The district court ordered supplemental briefing on the issue of
final Settlement approval May 21, 2015. After briefing, the
district court conducted a hearing on July 27, 2016 and took the
matter under submission. On August 9, 2016, the district court
entered an order reapproving the Settlement without any changes,
and accordingly entered judgment and dismissed the case with
prejudice.

On September 6, 2016, the objector filed a notice of appeal. On
November 22, 2016, plaintiffs filed a motion for summary affirmance
of the district court's judgment, to which the objector responded
and filed a cross-motion for sanctions. Plaintiffs' motion for
summary affirmance temporarily stayed briefing on the appeal. On
March 2, 2017, the Ninth Circuit denied plaintiffs' motion for
summary affirmance and objector's cross-motion for sanctions, and
reset the briefing schedule. The Objector filed his opening brief
on May 1, 2017.

Thirteen state Attorneys General filed an amicus brief in support
of the Objector on May 8, 2017. The parties filed their answering
briefs on June 30, 2017. Various legal aid organizations filed an
amicus brief in support of no party regarding cy pres relief also
on June 30, 2017. The Objector's optional reply brief was filed on
August 14, 2017. The Ninth Circuit heard oral arguments on May 17,
2018, but has not yet made its ruling.

FTD Companies, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
floral and gifting company primarily in the United States, Canada,
the United Kingdom, and the Republic of Ireland. It operates
through four segments: Provide Commerce, Consumer, Florist, and
International. FTD Companies, Inc. was founded in 1910 and is
headquartered in Downers Grove, Illinois.


GEICO GENERAL: M. Stone's Suit Remains in Dist. Ct., 9th Cir. Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MEGAN STONE; CHRISTINE CAROSI, individually and as the
representatives of all persons similarly situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE CO., Appellee,
Case No. 18-35502 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of the
Plaintiffs' renewed motion to remand the action to state court and
their motion for reconsideration.

Stone and Carosi appeal the district court's denial of their
renewed motion to remand the action to state court and their motion
for reconsideration.  They contend that the district court lacked
subject matter jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act
("CAFA").

The Ninth Cuircuit finds that in determining the amount in
controversy, the district court did not clearly err in its implied
finding that attorney's fees for coverage-related issues --
so-called "Olympic Steamship fees" -- might not be segregable from
other attorney's fees.  If it is impossible to reasonably segregate
recoverable and non-recoverable fees, then the entirety of the fees
are recoverable.  Thus, for jurisdictional purposes, if it is
possible that such segregation will not be feasible, the entire
amount of attorney's fees should be included in calculating the
amount in controversy.

The amount of damages that the Plaintiffs' proposed class could
potentially recover inherently depends on "who is insured," a
coverage issue.  Moreover, unlike other litigation where coverage
questions and damages questions are litigated in distinct phases,
in the case, they have been litigated together.  While it is
possible that, prior to the end of litigation, the district court
could easily dispose of any coverage issue favorably to the
Plaintiffs through summary judgment, it is also possible that
coverage issues will continue to be litigated through trial.

Therefore, the district court did not err by including all
potential attorney's fees in the amount in controversy.  Nor did
the district court clearly err in finding, based on the amount of
attorney's fees at stake in a similar case involving the same
attorneys and the same Defendant, that the fees could exceed the
difference between the damages at issue and CAFA's $5 million
threshold.

The Appellate Court also holds that the district court properly
determined that removal was timely.  While it is now clear that the
potential damages are much higher than the Plaintiffs originally
alleged, GEICO had no duty to investigate its own records to
determine the accuracy of the Plaintiffs' damages estimate.  That
GEICO did in fact investigate -- and may have realized five months
before removal that damages could exceed $5 million -- is
irrelevant.  At the earliest, GEICO received a copy of an amended
pleading, motion, order or other paper from which it may first be
ascertained that the case is one which is or has become removable,
thereby triggering the 30-day removal period, when the Plaintiffs
moved for class certification.

Finally, the Court denied the parties' overbroad motions to seal
various documents (docket entry nos. 13, 14, 18, 21, 28, 30).
These documents will be made public 30 days from the date of this
disposition unless the parties submit versions which limit the
redactions to two types of information: the number of GEICO UIM
claimants (in total or a subset meeting certain criteria) and the
average amount that GEICO paid per claimant for rental car
reimbursement.  It granted the Plaintiffs' motion to supplement the
record (docket entry no. 12).

A full-text copy of the Court's July 18, 2018 Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/uJpWJ8 from Leagle.com.


GENERAL MOTORS: Court Allows Defendant Substitution in Sunroof Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
California granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs' Motion
for Leave to Amend in the case captioned KELLEY GAINES, Plaintiff,
v. GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 17cv1351-LAB
(JLB)(S.D.Cal.).

Gaines has moved for leave to amend, in order to correct the
identity of the Defendant, to add a claim under the California
Consumer Legal Remedies Act and a claim for unjust enrichment, and
most significantly to add five new sets of class claims, along with
a class representative for each one.

This is a putative class action arising from the sale of Cadillac
SRX vehicles with allegedly defective sunroofs. Plaintiff Kelley
Gaines alleges that she bought a Cadillac SRX whose sunroof leaked.
She alleges General Motors, through its Cadillac subdivision,
improperly refused coverage under the car's warranty. The putative
class consists of people who lease or bought model year 2010
through 2013 Cadillac SRX vehicles with defective sunroofs. Gaines
brings class claims under California law.

General Motors, LLC acknowledges that Gaines erroneously sued
General Motors Company. It does not oppose the amendment naming it
as the new Defendant, and has agreed to accept service of the
amended complaint when it is filed.  

The request to substitute Defendants is GRANTED and General Motors,
LLC is SUBSTITUTED in as Defendant in place of General Motors
Company, effective immediately.

In Bristol-Myers, a group of plaintiffs, most of whom were not
California residents, sued Bristol-Myers in California state court
over claims that the drug Plavix had damaged their health.

Bristol-Myers, which was not a California citizen, argued the state
court lacked specific personal jurisdiction over the
non-Californians' claims, sufficient to satisfy constitutional due
process.

The Supreme Court, noting that the non-Californians' claims did not
arise in California or out of any of Bristol-Myers' activities in
California, agreed. For a court to exercise specific jurisdiction,
there must be an affiliation between the forum and the underlying
controversy, principally an activity or an occurrence that takes
place in the forum state. Specific jurisdiction is limited to
adjudication of issues deriving from, or connected with, the very
controversy that establishes jurisdiction.

Gaines argues that the five new plaintiffs and new subclasses
claims arise out of the same controversy. In doing so, however, she
broadly defines the controversy as including all claims arising
from a common nucleus of operative facts, which she in turn defines
as GM's refusal to treat leaking sunroofs as covered by warranties.
She then relies on the Ninth Circuit's three-part test for specific
personal jurisdiction articulated in Bancroft & Masters, Inc. v.
Augusta Nat'l, Inc., 223 F.3d 1082. The salient factor for purposes
of this analysis is that the claim must arise out of or result from
a defendant's forum-related activities.

Gaines argues that Bristol-Myers is distinguishable because that
was not a class action. But whether an action is brought as a class
action has no real effect on whether a defendant can challenge a
court's exercise of personal jurisdiction over it.  

But the presence of unnamed plaintiff class members is not the
issue here. Though courts seem to be divided as to unnamed parties
in class actions, most courts that have had considered the question
appear to have concluded that Bristol-Myers applies to named
parties.  

And this is not a case where Gaines could just as easily have
sought to represent a nationwide class, as in Fitzhenry-Russell.
California's consumer protection laws do not create a right of
action arising from events that occurred entirely outside
California between non-California parties, and with no connection
to California.  

The Court agrees with the many other federal courts that have found
no reason Bristol-Myers' limitation on personal jurisdiction would
not apply to named parties in putative class actions. Because there
is no basis for the Court to exercise personal jurisdiction over
the proposed out-of-state named plaintiffs' claims against GM
arising entirely from out-of-state activities, leave to amend the
complaint to add these claims is denied.

The motion for leave to amend is granted as to the request to
substitute in General Motors LLC as the sole Defendant, and to add
the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act claim. Leave to add
parties, claims by out-of-state parties, and claims arising under
the laws of other states is denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 6, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ybehouhq from Leagle.com.

Kelley Gaines, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Robert A. Waller, Jr., Law
Offices of Robert A. Waller, Jr.

General Motors, LLC, Defendant, represented by Gregory R. Oxford --
goxford@icclawfirm.com -- Isaacs Clouse Crose & Oxford LLP.


GENIE ENERGY: Court Recommends Approval of Aks Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
Genie Energy Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that a magistrate court judge
has recommended approval of the settlement in the putative class
action lawsuit filed by Kimberly Aks.

On July 15, 2014, named plaintiff, Kimberly Aks, commenced a
putative class-action lawsuit against IDT Energy, Inc. in New
Jersey Superior Court, Essex County, contending that she and other
class members were injured as a result of IDT Energy's alleged
unlawful sales and marketing practices.

The named plaintiff filed the suit on behalf of herself and all
other New Jersey residents who were IDT Energy customers at any
time between July 11, 2008 and the present. The parties
participated in mediation, and subsequently entered into a
Settlement Agreement.

On July 31, 2018, the Magistrate Court issued a report that
recommended approval of the settlement. The Settlement Agreement is
subject to entry of a final order by the Court approving the
Settlement Agreement.

Genie Energy Ltd., through its subsidiaries, operates as a retail
energy provider; and an oil and gas exploration company. The
company operates through three segments: Genie Retail Energy; Afek
Oil and Gas, Ltd.; and Genie Oil and Gas. Genie Energy Ltd. Genie
Energy Ltd. was incorporated in 2001 and is headquartered in
Newark, New Jersey.


GENIE ENERGY: Court Recommends Approval of Ferrare Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Genie Energy Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that a magistrate court judge
has recommended approval of the settlement in the putative class
action lawsuit filed by Anthony Ferrare.

On March 13, 2014, named plaintiff, Anthony Ferrare, commenced a
putative class-action lawsuit against IDT Energy, Inc. in the Court
of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. The complaint
was served on IDT Energy on July 16, 2014.

The named plaintiff filed the suit on behalf of himself and other
former and current electric customers of IDT Energy in Pennsylvania
with variable rate plans, whom he contends were injured as a result
of IDT Energy's allegedly unlawful sales and marketing practices.
On August 7, 2014, IDT Energy removed the case to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The parties participated in mediation, and subsequently entered
into a Settlement Agreement. On July 31, 2018, the Magistrate Court
issued a report that recommended approval of the settlement.

The Settlement Agreement is subject to entry of a final order by
the Court approving the Settlement Agreement.

Genie Energy Ltd., through its subsidiaries, operates as a retail
energy provider; and an oil and gas exploration company. The
company operates through three segments: Genie Retail Energy; Afek
Oil and Gas, Ltd.; and Genie Oil and Gas. Genie Energy Ltd. was
incorporated in 2001 and is headquartered in Newark, New Jersey.


GENIE ENERGY: Court Recommends Approval of McLaughlin Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Genie Energy Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that a magistrate court judge
has recommended approval of the settlement in the putative class
action lawsuit filed by Louis McLaughlin.

On July 2, 2014, named plaintiff, Louis McLaughlin, filed a
putative class-action lawsuit against IDT Energy, Inc. in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York,
contending that he and other class members were injured as a result
of IDT Energy's allegedly unlawful sales and marketing practices.

The named plaintiff filed the suit on behalf of himself and two
subclasses: all IDT Energy customers who were charged a variable
rate for their energy from July 2, 2008, and all IDT Energy
customers who participated in IDT Energy's rebate program from July
2, 2008.

On January 22, 2016, the named plaintiff filed an amended complaint
on behalf of himself and all IDT Energy customers in New York State
against IDT Energy, Inc., Genie Retail Energy, Genie Energy
International Corporation, and Genie Energy Ltd. (collectively,
"IDT Energy").

The parties participated in mediation, and subsequently entered
into a Settlement Agreement.

On July 31, 2018, the Magistrate Court issued a report that
recommended approval of the settlement.

The Settlement Agreement is subject to entry of a final order by
the Court approving the Settlement Agreement.

Genie Energy Ltd., through its subsidiaries, operates as a retail
energy provider; and an oil and gas exploration company. The
company operates through three segments: Genie Retail Energy; Afek
Oil and Gas, Ltd.; and Genie Oil and Gas. Genie Energy Ltd. Genie
Energy Ltd. was incorporated in 2001 and is headquartered in
Newark, New Jersey.


GENON ENERGY: Still Defends Natural Gas Litigation at June 30
-------------------------------------------------------------
GenOn Energy, Inc. is still defending itself against Natural Gas
Litigation, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2018.

GenOn has been a party to several lawsuits, certain of which are
class action lawsuits, in state and federal courts, of which four
remain pending involving plaintiffs in Kansas, Missouri and
Wisconsin.  These lawsuits were filed in the aftermath of the
California energy crisis in 2000 and 2001 and the resulting FERC
investigations and relate to alleged conduct to increase natural
gas prices in violation of state antitrust law and similar laws.
The lawsuits seek treble or punitive damages, restitution and/or
expenses.

The lawsuits also name as parties a number of energy companies
unaffiliated with GenOn.

In July 2011, the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada,
which was handling four of the five cases, granted the defendants'
motion for summary judgment and dismissed all claims against GenOn
in those cases.  The plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, or the Ninth Circuit, which reversed
the decision of the District Court.  GenOn along with the other
defendants in the lawsuit filed a petition for a writ of certiorari
to the U.S. Supreme Court challenging the Ninth Circuit's decision
and the U.S. Supreme Court granted the petition.  On April 21,
2015, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit's holding
that plaintiffs' state antitrust law claims are not field-preempted
by the federal Natural Gas Act and the Supremacy Clause of the U.S.
Constitution.

The U.S. Supreme Court left open whether the claims were preempted
on the basis of conflict preemption.  The U.S. Supreme Court
directed that the case be remanded to the U.S. District Court for
the District of Nevada for further proceedings.

On March 7, 2016, class plaintiffs filed their motions for class
certification.  On March 30, 2017, the court denied the plaintiffs'
motions for class certification, which the plaintiffs appealed to.
The plaintiffs petitioned the Ninth Circuit for interlocutory
review.  On July 12, 2018, the Ninth Circuit heard oral arguments
and the case is under submission pending a decision.

On February 26, 2018, GenOn filed objections to the proofs of claim
filed in the Chapter 11 Cases by all of the plaintiffs in each of
the four cases.  GenOn filed that same day a motion asking the
Bankruptcy Court to estimate all of the proofs of claim at zero
dollars, to which the plaintiffs objected.  The Bankruptcy Court
denied the plaintiffs' objection, ruling that it had the authority
to consider GenOn's objections to the proofs of claim and to
estimate the claims, but has certified its decision for review by
either the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals or the District Court.

In June 2018, GenOn reached a settlement with plaintiffs in three
of the four remaining suits, which leaves only the one purported
class action involving plaintiffs in Wisconsin.  CenterPoint Energy
Services is a defendant in that case, and GenOn has agreed to
indemnify CenterPoint against certain losses relating to the
lawsuit.  The Nevada District Judge granted summary judgment in
favor of CenterPoint in that lawsuit, and the plaintiffs appealed
that decision to the Ninth Circuit.  The appeal was argued on
February 16, 2018, and the case is under submission pending a
decision.

GenOn Energy, Inc. is a wholesale power generation subsidiaries of
NRG, which is a competitive power company that produces, sells and
delivers electricity and related services, primarily in major
competitive power markets in the U.S. GenOn is an indirect wholly
owned subsidiary of NRG. GenOn was incorporated as a Delaware
corporation on August 9, 2000, under the name Reliant Energy
Unregco, Inc. The company is engaged in the ownership and operation
of power generation facilities; the trading of energy, capacity and
related products; and the transacting in and trading of fuel and
transportation services.


GEO GROUP: Loses Bid to Dismiss U.G. Nwauzor's FAC
--------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington, Tacoma, denied Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint in the case captioned UGOCHUKWU
GOODLUCK NWAUZOR and FERNANDO AGUIRRE-URBINA, individually and on
behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. THE GEO
GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-05769-RJB (W.D. Wash.).

The Defendant's motion first raises the issue of whether it should
be entitled to derivative sovereign immunity under Yearsley v. W.A.
Ross Constr. Co., 309 U.S. 18 (1940) and its progeny, because if
so, the Defendant argues, the Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1).

The Defendant is shielded from liability as contractor providing
services to the federal government, if: (1) the government
authorized the contractor's actions, and (2) the government validly
conferred that authorization, meaning it acted within its
constitutional power.

Applied here, as to the first Yearsley prong, a relevant inquiry
for immunity to attach is whether the government must have
authorized only a $1 per day wage rate for detainees participating
in the Volunteer Worker Program (VWP) at the Northwest Detention
Center (NWDC), or if, in addition, whether the government must have
also authorized an exception to the requirement that GEO must abide
by the most stringent of applicable federal, state and local labor
laws and if so, whether that authority was validly conferred. Also
relevant is whether the government did, in fact, authorize the $1
per day wage rate.

Because the Court should not reach the merits of the first Yearsley
prong, the Court respectfully declines to reach the merits of the
second Yearsley prong. On the issue of whether dismissal is
warranted on grounds of derivative sovereign immunity under
Yearsley, the Defendant's motion should be denied without
prejudice.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 6, 2018 Order is
available at  https://tinyurl.com/yb8u6aqg from Leagle.com.

Ugochukwu Goodluck Nwauzor, Plaintiff, represented by Devin T.
Theriot-Orr -- devin@sunbird.law.com -- SUNBIRD LAW PLLC, Jamal N.
Whitehead -- whitehead@sgb-law.com -- SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER,
Adam J. Berger -- berger@sgb-law.com -- SCHROETER GOLDMARK &
BENDER, Lindsay Halm -- halm@sgb-law.com -- SCHROETER GOLDMARK &
BENDER, Meena Pallipamu Menter , MENTER IMMIGRATION LAW PLLC & R.
Andrew Free -- andrew@immigrantcivilrights.com -- LAW OFFICE OF R.
ANDREW FREE, pro hac vice.

Fernando Aguirre-Urbina, individually, and on behalf of all those
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Devin T. Theriot-Orr,
SUNBIRD LAW PLLC, Jamal N. Whitehead, SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER,
Adam J. Berger, SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER, Lindsay Halm,
SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER & R. Andrew Free, LAW OFFICE OF R.
ANDREW FREE, pro hac vice.

The GEO Group Inc, a Florida corporation, Defendant, represented by
Joan K. Mell, III BRANCHES LAW PLLC, Andrea D'Ambra --
andrea.dambra@nortonrosefulbright.com -- NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US
LLP, pro hac vice, Charles A. Deacon --
charlie.deacon@nortonrosefulbright.com -- NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US
LLP, pro hac vice & Mark Emery --
mark.emery@nortonrosefulbright.com -- NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP,
pro hac vice.

The GEO Group Inc, a Florida corporation, Counter Claimant,
represented by Joan K. Mell , III BRANCHES LAW PLLC, Andrea
D'Ambra, NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP, pro hac vice,Charles A.
Deacon , NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP, pro hac vice, Mark Emery ,
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP, pro hac vice, Andrea D'Ambra, NORTON
ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP, Charles A. Deacon , NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US
LLP & Mark Emery , NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP.


GEORGE TYNDALL: Hagens Berman Appointed to Chair Committee
----------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman, a national leader in class-action litigation has
been selected by U.S. District Court Judge Stephen V. Wilson to
chair the committee prosecuting the lawsuit brought against the
University of Southern California and its former gynecologist, Dr.
George Tyndall, following news that the university covered up Dr.
Tyndall's decades of sexual violations and abuse of his patients.

If you were in any way violated or treated inappropriately by USC's
Dr. Tyndall during a medical examination, find out more about the
lawsuit and your rights.

On June 22, 2018, the firm submitted documents proposing that the
court consolidate the many filed cases against USC and Dr. Tyndall,
in order to streamline the lawsuit. In consolidating class-action
cases, the court routinely appoints leadership positions. Hagens
Berman will be in charge of prosecuting the case on behalf of the
class in federal court and will lead the court-appointed
Plaintiffs' Steering Committee consisting of Hagens Berman and two
other prominent firms.

On June 22, 2018, the firm submitted documents proposing that the
court consolidate the many filed cases against USC and Dr. Tyndall,
in order to streamline the lawsuit. In consolidating class-action
cases, the court routinely appoints leadership positions. Hagens
Berman will be in charge of prosecuting the case on behalf of the
class in federal court and will lead the court-appointed
Plaintiffs' Steering Committee consisting of Hagens Berman and two
other prominent firms.

"We are pleased that the court has appointed Hagens Berman to lead
the committee's class prosecution of USC and Dr. Tyndall, and our
attorneys intend to fight for the very best outcome for each and
every woman," said Steve Berman, managing partner and co-founder of
Hagens Berman. "This case and the MeToo movement are watershed
moments in the fight for women's rights, and we are proud to join
that fight."

"No stone will go unturned in our gathering and analysis of
evidence in this case against USC and Dr. Tyndall," Berman added.
"Our firm is second to none in its level of dedication, resources
and ability to achieve real results for our clients."

Hagens Berman's latest class-action complaint was filed on Aug. 9,
2018, and the firm now represents more than 40 women who were
patients of Dr. Tyndall.

Hagens Berman has a long history of supporting victims of sexual
harassment and abuse and achieving justice. Attorneys at the law
firm achieved a nationwide sexual harassment settlement on behalf
of 16,000 women and also tried the first ever sexual harassment
case in Washington state in 1985. The firm also represents multiple
women on behalf of a class of all victims who were harassed or
otherwise assaulted by Harvey Weinstein.

Online Victims' Resource Center

Hagens Berman's expert legal team has compiled an extensive Online
Victims' Resource Center to help you sort through the confusion and
emotion of this case to find strength, empowerment and clarity. Use
our helpful and straightforward guides designed by our women
attorneys fighting for the rights of women who were violated by Dr.
Tyndall and silenced by USC:

-- USC and Dr. Tyndall Sexual Harassment FAQ -- Find out the facts
of the case, what the lawsuit seeks and what you need to know about
your rights

-- What to Expect When You Come Forward -- Considering stepping
forward to share your story? Learn what you can expect if you join
the class action

-- Anonymity & Protection -- Hagens Berman's legal team is here to
ensure your safety, above all else. Read more about our firm's
commitment to your privacy

-- You Are Not Alone -- Dozens of you have bravely stepped forward
already. Read this comprehensive guide to understand what it means
to come forward

"We want the women affected by this case -- both those who have
come forward already and those who have not -- to be fully prepared
and armed with all of the tools, protection and power of the law,"
added Elizabeth Fegan, partner at Hagens Berman representing the
proposed class of women against USC and Dr. Tyndall. "The
defendants in this case tried to get away with unspeakable
injustices, and together with our clients, we will fight for what's
right."
         
         Ashley Klann, Esq.
         Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
         Telephone: 206-268-9363
         Email: ashleyk@hbsslaw.com [GN]


GILBERT ROZON: To Challenge Class-Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Marin, writing for The Globe and Mail, reports that
Quebec's top court will allow Just For Laughs founder Gilbert Rozon
to appeal a decision that authorized a class-action lawsuit brought
against him by several women for alleged harassment and sexual
assault.

Quebec Court of Appeal Justice Mark Schrager ruled on august 15
that three of his colleagues will hear Rozon's legal challenge on a
priority basis.

The 63-year-old impresario is being sued for $10-million by a group
of women known as "Les Courageuses" ("The Courageous Ones"), who
allege he abused at least 20 women between 1982 and 2016.

Aside from actress Patricia Tulasne, the lead plaintiff in the
case, the women's identities have not been made public.

The allegations against Rozon have yet to be tested in court and he
has not been charged criminally.

"We are very happy and we will surely have a very important (legal)
debate when the case will be heard," said Raymond Doray, Esq. --
rdoray@lavery.ca -- one of Rozon's lawyers.

In their motion seeking leave to appeal, his lawyers argued that
Quebec Superior Court Justice Donald Bisson, who authorized the
class-action last May, erred in doing so because class-actions are
only permitted under specific conditions.

His defence team argued that for a collective action to be
permitted, the reason for the action must be the same for all
alleged victims.

They argued that wasn't the case here and that a proof of the
absence of consent will have to be established for each individual
allegation.

Robert Kugler, Esq. -- rkugler@kklex.com -- the women's lawyer,
argued his clients were all allegedly assaulted or sexually
harassed under the same modus operandi by someone who abused his
power.

Kugler also noted not all the victims are known and others could be
added as the case plays out.

Rozon stepped down as president of Just For Laughs last year and an
investor group bought the company in the spring.

He wasn't present in court on August 15.[GN]


GLOBAL TEL LINK: Loses Summary Judgment Bid in B. James' Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
denied Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment in the case
captioned BOBBY JAMES, et al., on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. GLOBAL TEL*LINK CORP.,
INMATE TELEPHONE SERVICE, and DSI-ITI LLC, Defendants, No. 13-4989
(D.N.J.).

GTL moves for summary judgment of all four remaining claims
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56.

The Plaintiffs bring this class action against Defendant Global
Tel*Link and its subsidiaries (GTL) in connection with the
company's provision of inmate calling services (ICS) to state and
county correctional facilities in New Jersey.

The remaining claims include:

Count One: Violation of CFA, N.J.S.A. Section 56:8-2, for
unconscionable business practices;

Count Two: Violation of CFA Disclosure Requirements, N.J.S.A.
Section 56:8-176(h);

Count Four: Unjust Enrichment and Count Six: Violation of the
Takings Clause, brought under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.

GTL moves for summary judgment on all claims. Plaintiffs oppose and
crossmove for summary judgment on their Takings claim. This Opinion
disposes of both motions.

GTL seeks judgment as to all remaining claims against it. It
argues:

Conflicts between the CFA and State and Federal Statutes

Two related arguments form the bulwark of GTL's motion for summary
judgment: (1) applying the CFA to GTL would encroach upon the
Board's exclusive authority to regulate alternate operator service
(AOS) providers pursuant to the AOSP Act, and (2) permitting
private actions against GTL under the CFA would create actual and
potential conflicts with existing state and federal ICS regulatory
schemes. Both arguments fail.

The AOSP Act does not Prohibit CFA Claims

GTL's argument falls short for two reasons. First, genuine issues
of material fact remain as to whether GTL violated the Takings
Clause by imposing excessive fees and rates. If the jury finds that
compliance with BPU's regulations was nevertheless
unconstitutional, then the Board was not acting in a manner
consistent with federal law when it passed these regulations, and
was therefore not acting within its statutory limits.

Second, the Court is skeptical that the legislature intended the
AOSP Act to pre-empt CFA actions against ICS providers. When New
Jersey's Legislature wishes to create exclusive jurisdiction, it
usually does so expressly.

Purported Conflict with State ICS Regulation

A functioning administrative state cannot subject an entity to
conflicting regulations. Thus, a direct and unavoidable conflict
with another regulatory scheme renders the CFA inapplicable. To
overcome the presumption of CFA's applicability, however, the Court
"must be convinced that the other source or sources of regulation
deal specifically, concretely, and pervasively with the particular
activity, implying a legislative intent not to subject parties to
multiple regulations that, as applied, will work at
cross-purposes.

Purported Conflict with Federal ICS Regulation

Finally, GTL argues that the CFA claims potentially interfere with
the FCC's authority to regulate interstate calls, which account for
about 10% of GTL's calls.   The FCC has authority to set rate caps
on interstate calls to ensure that charges are just and reasonable.
The FCC made no attempt to set rate caps until its 2013 interim
Order, which GTL and other ICS providers petitioned to the D.C.
Circuit. The caps set by the FCC's final Order in 2015 were struck
down by the D.C. Circuit.

Thus, to date, the FCC has not established valid rate caps for ICS
of any kind, and for most of its history has been inclined to leave
ICS regulation to the states. It is possible that the FCC will
someday preempt state regulation of interstate ICS by imposing rate
caps that survive judicial review. Even so, rates deemed just and
reasonable under the Telecommunications Act, are unlikely to be
unconscionable under the CFA. For these reasons, the prospect of
federal pre-emption is overstated and offers no basis for summary
judgment.

Unconscionable Commercial Practices under the CFA do not Require
Deception (Count One)

Unconscionability Presents a Genuine Question of Material Fact

The Court will not determine whether the rates and fees were so
excessive as to be unconscionable. That is a question of fact that
should be decided by a jury. Because GTL incorrectly assumed that
the CFA requires deception, its papers failed to adequately address
Plaintiffs' argument that rates and fees are grossly excessive in
relation to GTL's costs. The inquiry should consider both the
commission rates and ancillary fees the total financial burden
imposed on Plaintiffs in relation to the costs of providing those
services. The record is rife with contradictory statements about
the costs of providing ICS as well as the security and monitoring
costs specific to individual state and county facilities serviced
by GTL in New Jersey. GTL's motion for summary judgment as to Count
One under N.J.S.A. Section 56:8-2 is DENIED.

CFA Disclosure Requirements, N.J.S.A. Section 56:8-176 (Count Two)

Count Two alleges that GTL failed to comply with certain disclosure
requirements applicable to prepaid calling service providers and
prepaid calling card distributors pursuant to a 2009 amendment of
the CFA.  GTL moves for summary judgment on the ground that it is
not a prepaid calling service provider and thus not subject to
regulation under N.J.S.A. Section 56:8-176.  

While the individual Plaintiffs concede that GTL provided access to
certain information as to rates, charges, and deposit fees,
material questions of fact remain as to whether GTL disclosed all
necessary information regarding surcharges under N.J.S.A. Section
56:8-176 (h). The motion for summary judgment as to Count Two is
DENIED. Of course, Defendants may be found liable only for those
violations taking place after the provision's 2009 enactment.
Liability will depend on the individual circumstances of each
Plaintiff; this is not a classwide claim.

Takings Claim under Section 1983 (Count Six)

Plaintiffs' Section 1983 claim alleges that GTL violated the
Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment by extracting "excessive and
unconscionable charges without just compensation." GTL argues for
summary judgment on two distinct grounds. First, GTL alleges that
it cannot be liable under § 1983 because it is not a state actor.
Second, it argues that the claims are not ripe because Plaintiffs
have not exhausted all administrative remedies. Both arguments
fail.

The record clearly shows that GTL was a willful participant with
the government in setting rates and fees for New Jersey
correctional facilities. GTL made a calculated business decision to
provide ICS to New Jersey facilities. The State and counties
provided significant encouragement by awarding contracts based
largely on which provider could generate the most revenue through
site commissions.

The Defendants further argue that the claims are not ripe because
the Plaintiffs have not exhausted all administrative remedies. Yet
there does not appear to be any state administrative remedy
available.  Plaintiff Mark Skladany attempted unsuccessfully to
file written grievances at multiple facilities regarding what he
perceived to be excessive phone rates. And although the BPU has
authority to fix rates, it does not appear authorized to provide
the sort of compensatory relief sought by Plaintiffs. To the extent
a petition for a rulemaking qualifies as administrative relief, the
BPU already rejected a Petition that closely tracked the claims in
this case. Without an administrative process by which putative
class members may apply for just compensation, to require
Plaintiffs to exhaust administrative remedies would be futile.

GTL's motion for summary judgment is denied as to Count Six, the
Plaintiffs' Takings claim. The Court finds as a matter of law that
GTL was a state actor here, and thus a person amenable to suit
under Section 1983.

Unjust enrichment (Count Four)

GTL argues that summary judgment is appropriate because (1) there
is no evidence of any unjust conduct, since the Plaintiffs received
exactly what they bargained for and (2) the voluntary payment
doctrine bars the claim.  

First, because there are genuine questions of material fact as to
GTL's costs, it is impossible for the Court to decide whether GTL's
conduct was unjust. That question will be answered by a jury.  

Second, the voluntary payment doctrine is an exception to unjust
enrichment that applies where a party, without mistake of fact, or
fraud, duress or extortion, voluntarily pays money on a demand
which is not enforcible against him, so he cannot recover it back.
The Court finds that questions remain as to whether Plaintiffs were
under duress at the time of payment. Accordingly, GTL's motion for
summary judgment as to unjust enrichment is denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 6, 2018 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y92uto3a from Leagle.com.

BOBBIE JAMES, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, CRYSTAL GIBSON, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, BETTY KING, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, BARBARA SKLADANY, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, MARK SKLADANY, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, MILAN
SKLADANY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
& DR. JOHN F. CROW, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by JAMES E. CECCHI --
JCecchi@carellabyrne.com -- CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY &
AGNELLO, P.C., JAMES ATKINSON PLAISTED --
jplaisted@pashmanstein.com -- PASHMAN STEIN WALDER HAYDEN, JOSEPH
H. MELTZER -- jmeltzer@ktmc.com -- KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK,
LLP, JUSTIN P. WALDER -- jpwalder@pashmanstein.com -- PASHMAN STEIN
WALDER HAYDEN, LIN CLAIRE SOLOMON, PASHMAN STEIN WALDER HAYDEN,
LINDSEY H. TAYLOR, CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY &
AGNELLO, & PETER A. MUHIC -- pmuhic@ktmc.com -- KESSLER TOPAZ
MELTZER & CHECK, LLP.

GLOBAL TEL*LINK CORPORATION & DSI-ITI LLC, Defendants, represented
by AARON VAN NOSTRAND -- vannostranda@gtlaw.com -- GREENBERG
TRAURIG LLP.


GOODWILL INDUSTRIES: Haley Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
-------------------------------------------------------
Orval Haley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Goodwill Industries of Arkansas, Inc., Case No.
4:18-cv-00485 (E.D. Ark., July 26, 2018), is brought against the
Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.

The Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of Lonoke County. The
Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a salaried retail store
manager at one of Defendant's retail stores in Little Rock.  

The Defendant owns and operates several Goodwill retail thrift
stores throughout the state of Arkansas.  [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher Burks, Esq.
      Josh Sanford, Esq.
      SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
      One Financial Center
      650 South Shackleford, Ste. 411
      Little Rock, AR 72211
      Tel: (501) 221-0088
      Fax: (888) 787-2040
      E-mail: chris@sanfordlawfirm.com
              josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


GOOGLE LLC: Wins Bid to Deny Class Certification in Woods Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Edward J. Davila entered an order in the lawsuit captioned
RICK WOODS v. GOOGLE LLC, Case No. 5:11-cv-01263-EJD (N.D. Cal.):

   -- denying Mr. Woods' motion for class certification;

   -- granting Google's motion to deny class certification;

   -- denying as moot the parties' motions to strike and
      Mr. Woods' administrative motion; and

   -- granting Mr. Woods' motion for leave to file a third
      amended class action complaint.

The parties were directed to submit a proposed case schedule no
later than August 30, 2018.

Plaintiff Rick Woods is the sole class representative in this
putative class action against Google.  He contends that Google
bilked him and his fellow advertisers into overpaying for
advertising services.  His lawsuit focuses on Google's alleged
promises and misrepresentations as to two particular features of
its AdWords program -- the "Smart Pricing" feature and the
"Location Targeting" feature.

The Court agrees with Google that class certification is
inappropriate at this juncture because a conflict of interests
prevents Mr. Woods from adequately representing the interests of
the absent class members.  Nevertheless, Judge Davila notes, Mr.
Woods has demonstrated good cause to amend his complaint and add a
new class representative.


GUARDIAN PROTECTION: 3rd Cir. Flips UTPCPL Suit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, reversed the
District Court's judgment granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
the case captioned JOBE DANGANAN, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Appellant, v. GUARDIAN PROTECTION
SERVICES, No. 16-3379. (3rd Cir.)

After Danganan appealed, the Third Circuit certified two questions
to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, which accepted the
certification and then issued a written opinion rejecting the
District Court's sufficient nexus test.

Appellant Jobe Danganan initiated this action on behalf of himself
and a putative nationwide class of similarly situated individuals
against Appellee Guardian Protection Services seeking relief under
Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law
(UTPCPL) and Pennsylvania's Fair Credit Extension Uniformity Act
(FCEUA).

The District Court granted Guardian's motion to dismiss for failure
to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, having concluded that Danganan was unable to
assert a UTPCPL or FCEUA claim because he was a non-resident of
Pennsylvania who had failed to allege a sufficient nexus with the
Commonwealth.

The two questions certified to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
are:

   (1) Whether a non-Pennsylvania resident may bring suit under the
UTPCPL against a business headquartered in and operating from
Pennsylvania, based on transactions which occurred outside
Pennsylvania?

   (2) If the UTPCPL does not allow a non-Pennsylvania resident to
invoke its protections, whether the parties can, through a
choice-of-law-provision, expand its protections to parties to the
contract who are non-Pennsylvania resident consumers?

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court accepted the certification and, in a
thorough opinion, held that the UTPCPL's prescription against
deceptive practices employed by Pennsylvania-based businesses may
encompass misconduct that has occurred in other jurisdictions. In
so concluding, the court reasoned that the statute's plain language
evidences no geographic limitation or residency requirement
relative to the Law's application. As such, the court rejected the
sufficient nexus test as employed by the District Court and
advanced by Guardian. This holding rendered the second certified
question moot.

Because that court concluded, contrary to the District Court, that
the UTPCPL may provide a cause of action to non-residents in
circumstances like those alleged by Danganan, the Court will
reverse the decision of the District Court dismissing his complaint
and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion and
the decision of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

The Court will reverse the decision of the District Court and
remand for further proceedings.

A full-text copy of the Third Circuit's August 6, 2018 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y7kqzykf from Leagle.com.


HEALTH INSURANCE: Bid to Dismiss Florida Securities Suit Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Health Insurance Innovations, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2,
2018, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the motion
to dismiss the complaint filed in In re Health Insurance
Innovations Securities Litigation, is pending.

In September 2017, three putative securities class action lawsuits
were filed against the Company and certain of its current and
former executive officers. The cases were styled Cioe Investments
Inc. v. Health Insurance Innovations, Inc., Gavin Southwell, and
Michael Hershberger, Case No. 1:17-cv-05316-NG-ST, filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on
September 11, 2017; Michael Vigorito v. Health Insurance
Innovations, Inc., Gavin Southwell, and Michael Hershberger, Case
No. 1:17-cv-06962, filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York on September 13, 2017; and Shilpi
Kavra v. Health Insurance Innovations, Inc., Patrick McNamee, Gavin
Southwell, and Michael Hershberger, Case No. 8:17-cv-02186-EAK-MAP,
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida
on September 21, 2017.

All three of the foregoing actions (the "Securities Actions") were
filed after a decline in the trading price of the Company's common
stock following the release of a report authored by a short-seller
of the Company's common stock raising questions about, among other
things, the Company's public disclosures relating to the Company's
regulatory examinations and regulatory compliance.

All three of the Securities Actions, which were based substantially
on the allegations raised in the short-seller report, contained
substantially the same allegations, and alleged that the Company
made materially false or misleading statements or omissions
relating to regulatory compliance matters, particularly regarding
to the Company's application for a third-party administrator
license in the State of Florida.

In November and December 2017, the Cioe Investments and Vigorito
cases were transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida, and on December 28, 2017, they were
consolidated with the Kavra matter under the case caption, In re
Health Insurance Innovations Securities Litigation, Case No.
8:17-cv-2186-EAK-MAP (M.D. Fla.).

On February 6, 2018, the court appointed Robert Rector as lead
plaintiff and appointed lead counsel, and lead plaintiff filed a
consolidated complaint on March 23, 2018. The consolidated
complaint, which dropped Patrick McNamee as a defendant and added
Michael Kosloske as a defendant, largely sets forth the same
factual allegations as the initially filed Securities Actions filed
in September 2017 and adds allegations relating to alleged
materially false statements and omissions relating to the
regulatory proceeding previously initiated against the Company by
the Montana State Auditor, Commissioner of Securities and Insurance
(the "CSI"), which proceeding was dismissed on October 31, 2017 in
light of CSI's decision to join the Indiana Multistate Examination.


The complaint also adds allegations regarding insider stock sales
by Messrs. Kosloske and Hershberger. The consolidated complaint
alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), SEC Rule 10b-5, and
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

According to the consolidated complaint, the plaintiffs in the
action are seeking an undetermined amount of damages, interest,
attorneys' fees and costs on behalf of putative classes of
individuals and entities that acquired shares of the Company's
common stock on periods ending September 11, 2017.

On May 7, 2018, the Company and the co-defendants filed a motion to
dismiss call claims set forth in the complaint, and as of August 2,
2018, the motion has been fully briefed and is awaiting the court's
decision.

Health Insurance said "At this time, the Company cannot predict the
probable outcome of this action, and, accordingly, no amounts have
been accrued in the Company's condensed consolidated financial
statements."

Health Insurance Innovations, Inc. operates as a cloud-based
technology platform and distributor of individual and family health
insurance plans, and supplemental products in the United States.
Health Insurance Innovations, Inc. was founded in 2008 and is based
in Tampa, Florida.


HEALTH INSURANCE: Continues to Defend Multiple TCPA Suits
---------------------------------------------------------
Health Insurance Innovations, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2,
2018, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the
company is facing multiple suits related to its alleged violations
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA").

The Company has received a number of private-party claims relating
to alleged violations of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection
Act ("TCPA") by its independently owned and operated licensed-agent
distributors, alleging that their marketing activities were
potentially unlawful.

The Company has been named as a defendant in multiple lawsuits
relating to alleged TCPA matters, including claims styled, but not
yet certified, as class actions.

There are two primary cases filed in the courts by Plaintiffs Craig
Cunningham and Kenneth Moser, each styled as a class action but not
yet certified, and each Plaintiff alleging or seeking damages
ranging from $160,000 to over $5,000,000.

In a third similar case, filed by Plaintiff Amandra Hicks, the
Company was successful at obtaining a ruling from the federal court
that the case could not proceed as a class action.

The Company is defending these claims and has filed motions to
dismiss or the equivalent in each matter.

On February 13, 2018, the Company successfully obtained a dismissal
from the Cunningham case however, Cunningham refiled his complaint
and the second case was dismissed on March 1, 2018. Making a third
attempt, Cunningham refiled his complaint on April 16, 2018, in a
now-third venue, the Middle District of Florida.

In the Moser case, on April 19, 2018, a court-ordered Early Neutral
Evaluation occurred with all parties in attendance. Settlement
discussions were unproductive and the case has entered the
discovery stage.

In the Hicks case on July 25, 2018, the Court ruled that the case
could not proceed as a class action and instead will only proceed
as an individual claim.

A similar case, known as Foote, was filed on March 22, 2018, and
also styled but not yet certified as class action. The Company is
reviewing the matter.

Similarly, the Company has received claims for alleged TCPA
violations from claimants Trenton Harris (June 28, 2018), Jeremy
Glapion (June 19, 2018), and James Shelton (June 3, 2018), and
others. None of these aforementioned claims have resulted in
litigation yet, and it should be noted that the Company believes
these individuals to be professional plaintiffs and not common
consumers.

Health Insurance said, "While these types of claims have previously
settled, been dismissed, or resolved without any material effect on
the Company, there is a possibility in the future that one or more
could have a material effect. While it is possible that a loss may
arise from these cases, the amount of such loss is not known or
estimable at this time. The Company requires that its independently
owned and operated licensed-agent distributors reimburse or
indemnify it for any such settlements."

Health Insurance Innovations, Inc. operates as a cloud-based
technology platform and distributor of individual and family health
insurance plans, and supplemental products in the United States.
Health Insurance Innovations, Inc. was founded in 2008 and is based
in Tampa, Florida.


HERFF JONES: Faces Davidson Suit over Sale of Gold Rings
--------------------------------------------------------
LISA MARIE DAVISON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HERFF JONES, LLC; and HERFF JONES,
INC., Defendants, Case No. 5:18-cv-04617-SVK (N.D. Cal., July 31,
2018) alleges that the Defendants violated the Gold Labeling Act of
1976, the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, California Consumer
Legal Remedies Act, California Unfair Competition Law.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant committed
wrongful conduct in designing, manufacturing, marketing, and
selling class rings to consumers that did not contain the
represented gold content. The Plaintiff also contends that the
Defendants breached its contracts with customers by providing rings
with less gold content than promised in the underlying contracts.

Herff Jones, LLC manufactures and designs educational products,
recognition awards, and graduation related products. The Company
offers class rings, medals, awards, online yearbooks, caps, gowns,
choir apparel, college jewelry, diploma frames, school photography
services, and other multimedia products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert Ahdoot, Esq.
          Tina Wolfson, Esq.
          Bradley K. King, Esq.
          AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
          10728 Lindbrook Drive
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (310) 474-9111
          Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
          E-mail: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
                  twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
                  bking@ahdootwolfson.com


HIMALASALT-SUSTAINABLE: Faces Garcia Suit in C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against
Himalasalt-Sustainable Sourcing, LLC.  The case is titled Erika
Garcia, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Himalasalt-Sustainable Sourcing, LLC, a Massachusetts
limited liability company and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No.
2:18-cv-07410 (C.D. Cal., August 23, 2018).

The nature of suit is stated as "Torts - Personal Property - Other
Fraud".

Himalasalt-Sustainable Sourcing, LLC, is a Massachusetts limited
liability company.  Himalasalt produces and sells table salt.  The
company is headquartered in Great Barrington, Massachusetts.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.[BN]


HOSPITAL SERVICE: Consolidated Appeals in Billing Act Suits Junked
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Allison Penzato of the Court of Appeal of Louisiana for the
First Circuit dismissed the consolidated appeals in the case,
MATTHEW A. DEPHILLIPS, INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. HOSPITAL SERVICE DISTRICT NO. 1 OF
TANGIPAHOA PARISH, DOING BUSINESS AS NORTH OAKS MEDICAL
CENTER/NORTH OAKS HEALTH SYSTEM. EARNEST WILLIAMS, INDIVIDUALLY AND
ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. HOSPITAL SERVICE
DISTRICT NO. 1 OF TANGIPAHOA PARISH D/B/A NORTH OAKS HEALTH SYSTEM
AND NORTH OAKS MEDICAL CENTER, AND LOUISIANA HEALTH SERVICE &
INDEMNITY COMPANY D/B/A BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF LOUISIANA, Case
No. 2017 CA 1423, Consolidated with No. 2017 CA 1424 (La. App.).

The consolidated matter involves alleged violations of the Health
Care Consumer Billing and Disclosure Protection Act.  Plaintiffs
DePhillips and Earnest Williams attempt to appeal the trial court's
judgments granting exceptions raising the objection of prescription
filed by Defendant Hospital District No. 1 of Tangipahoa Parish,
doing business as North Oaks Medical Center/North Oaks Health
System, finding that such claims are subject to a one year
prescriptive period.

On April 28, 2015, DePhillips filed a putative class action against
North Oaks.  DePhillips alleged that he was treated at North Oaks
as a result of a Feb. 9, 2015 motor vehicle accident.  He further
alleged that at the time of the accident, he was insured by Blue
Cross Blue Shield of Louisiana ("BCBS").  

DePhillips, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, sought damages arising from North Oaks' refusal to submit
and/or accept payment from his insurer for such treatment, instead
seeking to collect directly from DePhillips by maintaining an
action at law for payment.  DePhillips's petition asserted two
causes of action: (1) a violation of the Billing Act; and (2) a
breach of contract involving the Member Provider Agreement between
North Oaks and BCBS.

On May 8, 2015, Williams filed a similar class action petition for
damages, naming as the Defendants both North Oaks and BCBS.
Williams alleged that he was involved in a motor vehicle accident
on Feb. 26, 2011, for which he received medical treatment from
North Oaks.  According to the petition, Williams was insured under
an insurance policy administered by BCBS at the time of the
accident.  He alleged that North Oaks filed a claim with BCBS and
was paid for his charges, then attempted to collect amounts from
him in violation of its Member Provider Agreement and the Billing
Act by asserting a lien against his liability insurance claim for
the full and undiscounted charges.

Williams, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, asserted that North Oaks' actions violated the Billing
Act, that BCBS was solidarily liable with North Oaks, and that
Williams relied to his detriment on the promises of BCBS that North
Oaks would perform in accordance with the insurance contract.

On June 10, 2015, North Oaks filed a motion to consolidate the
DePhillips and Williams matters.  Prior to the hearing on the
motion to consolidate, BCBS removed the Williams case to federal
court.  North Oaks then filed peremptory exceptions in the
DePhillips matter raising the objections of no right of action for
breach of contract, no cause of action for claims arising before
the effective date of the Billing Act, and prescription.

Following a hearing on Oct. 13, 2015, the trial court granted the
exception raising the objection of no cause of action for claims
arising before the effective date of the Billing Act, but denied
North Oaks' exceptions raising the objections of no right of action
for breach of contract and prescription.  A judgment was signed on
Nov. 2, 2015.

North Oaks filed an application for supervisory writs seeking
review of this ruling.  On March 8, 2016, the Appellate Court
granted the writ in part.  Accordingly, the judgment denying the
exception raising the objection of no right of action for breach of
contract was reversed, and the exception was sustained.  The writ
was denied with respect to the peremptory exception raising the
objection of prescription.

Thereafter, on March 31, 2016, North Oaks reasserted its peremptory
exception raising the objection of prescription, contending that a
one year prescriptive period applied to the claims of both
DePhillips and Williams arising from the Billing Act.  The matter
came for hearing on Oct. 11, 2016, at which time the trial court
granted the exception, and indicated that it would issue written
reasons.  The written reasons for judgment signed October 24, 2016,
stated that the court was "bound by the First Circuit's ruling" of
March 8, 2016, and accordingly, that the DePhillips claims are
confined to billings occurring within one year from the filing of
his suit, and that the Williams claims are barred in their entirety
by prescription.  Two separate judgments were signed on Nov. 16,
2016.

On Dec. 2, 2016, Plaintiffs DePhillips and Williams filed a motion
for new trial from the judgment of Nov. 16, 2016, that limited all
claims to acts or transactions that occurred within one year from
the filing of the DePhillips lawsuit.  The motion stated that the
clerk of court mailed notice of the signing of said judgment on
Nov. 17, 2016.  The motion for new trial came for hearing on Jan.
9, 2017, and was denied.  A judgment in accordance therewith was
signed on Jan. 19, 2017.  Thereafter, DePhillips and Williams filed
a motion for appeal from the judgment rendered on Jan.9, 2017, and
signed on Jan. 19, 2017.

On Oct. 16, 2017, the Appellate Court, ex proprio motu, issued rule
to show cause orders in each of the consolidated appeals concerning
several issues that may render the matter non-appealable.  The
parties were directed to show cause as to whether the appeal should
or should not be dismissed.  Plaintiffs DePhillips and Williams
responded, arguing that in appeal number 2017-1423, the judgment
subject to the appeal is the DePhillips judgment captioned
"Judgment on Exception of Prescription," and that in appeal number
2017-1424, the judgment subject to the appeal is the Williams
judgment captioned "Judgment on North Oaks' Exception of
Prescription." The Plaintiffs agree that the DePhillips judgment is
an interlocutory order which does not contain decretal language and
cannot be certified as final.  They suggest that appeal number
2017-1423 be dismissed, and that appeal number 2017-1424 be
permitted to proceed with both Williams and DePhillips as
appellants.  On March 5, 2018, the rules to show cause were
referred to the panel assigned to hear the consolidated appeals.

Judge Penzato finds that the motion for appeal clearly states that
DePhillips and Williams are appealing the judgment rendered on Jan.
9, 2017, and signed on Jan. 19, 2017, which is the denial of the
motion for new trial.  However, the circumstances indicate that
they sought to appeal from the judgment granting the exception of
prescription filed by North Oaks.  The Judge must therefore
determine which judgment was the subject of the motion for new
trial to which the order of appeal applies.

The motion for new trial filed on Dec. 2, 2016 referenced the
judgment of Nov. 16, 2016 that limited all claims to acts or
transactions that occurred within one year from the filing of the
DePhillips lawsuit.  It further indicated that the clerk mailed
notice of the signing of the judgment at issue on Nov. 17, 2016.
While there were two judgments signed on Nov. 16, 2016, notice of
judgment was mailed by the clerk on Nov. 17, 2016 only as to the
judgment captioned "Judgment on Exception of Prescription"
(DePhillips judgment).  Notice of judgment regarding the judgment
captioned "Judgment on North Oaks' Exception of Prescription"
(Williams judgment) was mailed by the clerk on Nov. 22, 2016.
Thus, the motion for new trial sought reconsideration of the
DePhillips judgment only.  The Judge finds that the record contains
no order of appeal showing that the DePhillips and Williams
appealed the Williams judgment.  Thus, the Court does not have
jurisdiction over the Williams judgment in appellate docket number
2017-1424.

With regard to the DePhillips judgment in appellate docket number
2017-1423, the Judge notes that DePhillips and Williams concede
that it is an interlocutory order which does not contain decretal
language and cannot be certified as final.  DePhillips filed suit
within one year of his treatment at North Oaks, and therefore the
ruling on the exception of prescription has no effect on his claim.
Thus, the Court does not have jurisdiction over the DePhillips
judgment.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Penzato dismissed these
consolidated appeals.  The costs of these appeals are assessed
against Plaintiffs-Appellants DePhillips and Williams.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 18, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/DNX8Ew from Leagle.com.

J. Lee Hoffoss, Jr., Claude P. Devall, Donald W. McKnight , Lake
Charles, Louisiana, and Derrick G. Earles, David C. Laborde,
Marksville, Louisiana, and Jeffery P. Berniard, Scott R. Bickford
-- info@mbfirm.com -- Lawrence J. Centola, III , Norman F. Hodgins,
III, New Orleans, Louisiana, Attorneys for Plaintiffs/Appellants,
Matthew A. DePhillips and Earnest Williams, Individually, and on
Behalf of All Similarly Situated.

Harry J. Philips, Jr. -- skip.philips@taylorporter.com -- Amy C.
Lambert -- amy.lambert@taylorporter.com -- Caroline K. Darwin --
caroline.darwin@taylorporter.com -- Baton Rouge, Louisiana,
Attorneys for Defendant/Appellee, Hospital Service District No. 1
of Tangipahoa Parish, d/b/a North Oaks Medical Center/North Oaks
Health System.


IBEW PACIFIC: Court Partly Grants 2nd Bid for Attorneys' Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington, Seattle, granted in part Plaintiffs' Second Motion for
Attorneys Fees and Costs in the case captioned RICHARD LEHMAN on
behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
WARNER NELSON; WILLIAM BECK, JR.; BRIAN BISH; KLAAS A. DeBOER;
MICHAEL G. MARSH; ROCKY SHARP; RICHARD BAMBERGER; DENNIS CALLIES;
CLIF DAVIS; TIM DONOVAN; HARRY THOMPSON; GARY YOUNGHANS; CLINT
BRYSON; MICHAEL CHURCH; MICHAEL DOYLE; GREG ELDER; GLEN FRANZ; GARY
GONZALES; CARL D. HANSON; PATRICK POWELL; GARY PRICE; SCOTT
STEPHENS; ROGER TOBIN; and GRANT ZADOW, in their capacity as
Trustees of the IBEW Pacific Coast Pension Plan, Defendants. Case
No. C13-1835RSM. (W.D. Wash.)

This matter comes before the Court on the Plaintiffs' second Motion
for Attorneys' Fees and Costs. The Plaintiffs seek a total of
$804,995.50 in statutory attorneys' fees, $289,276 in Common Fund
fees, and $27,465.69 in costs, as well as $15,000 and $5,000 for
class representatives.

The Court awarded fees at a combined hourly rate of $350, basing
this decision both on the Plaintiffs' absence of proper evidence
and the Court's own review of comparable cases. The Court also cut
certain billed time as improper, found that no lodestar multiplier
was warranted, and made other related rulings. The Court awarded
$10,000 to the named Plaintiff in this case.

Attorneys' fees and costs are warranted for Plaintiffs in this
case, as they have prevailed and obtained all relief sought. The
legal basis and test used by the Court for calculating fees has
already been set forth in detail in the Court's prior Order on
attorneys' fees. This time around, the Plaintiffs submit
significantly more factual and legal support for their requested
rates of $665 for attorney Richard Birmingham, $460 for attorney
Joseph Hoag, and $385 for attorney Christine Hawkins.  

Specifically, the declarations of attorneys Cliff Cantor, Derek W.
Loeser, and Richard E. Spoonemore are from attorneys practicing
this type of law in this legal community, and they support the
requested rates. The Defense counsel declarations demonstrating
that they charge significantly lower rates are not dispositive, as
the work performed by the Plaintiffs' counsel in this case differed
in complexity and risk. The parties also duel over awarded rates in
comparable cases, however many of the ERISA cases cited by
Defendants for lower awarded rates are not comparable because they
involved individual plaintiffs or were otherwise not as complex as
this one.

The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have submitted satisfactory
evidence to support their requested rates. Although the Court
previously awarded Plaintiffs a lower rate of $350, the Court is
not aware of any legal basis to hold Plaintiffs to that rate from a
vacated award, in the process ignoring the additional evidence
provided by Plaintiffs.

The Defendants do not oppose the incentive awards of $15,000 and
$5,000. The Court finds that these awards are reasonable. Class
Representative Richard Lehman undertook a risk in initiating this
litigation in 2013, and has remained active throughout this case,
including appeal. Class Representative Michael Puterbaugh likewise
undertook risk by consenting to being named as a second Class
Representative. The parties agree that Mr. Puterbaugh's addition to
the litigation mooted an issue that Defendants were pursuing before
this Court. In light of the Class Representatives' risk and service
to the Class, an award of $15,000 to Mr. Lehman and $5,000 to Mr.
Puterbaugh, payable from the Common Fund, is appropriate.

Having reviewed the relevant briefing, the declarations and
exhibits attached thereto, and the remainder of the record, the
Court finds and orders:

   (1) The Plaintiffs' second Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs
is granted in part.

   (2) The Defendants, in their capacities as Trustees of the IBEW
Pacific Coast Pension Fund, are to cause the IBEW Pacific Coast
Pension Fund to pay Class Counsel $769,665.43 in fees and
$27,465.69 in costs under 29 U.S.C. Section1132(g)(1).

   (3) The Class Counsel are further to be paid 25% of the Common
Fund, or $289,276, as a reasonable attorneys' fee, which is made up
of earnings on contributions that this Court has required the
Defendants to transfer to the Class Members' home pension funds.

   (4) Class Representative Richard Lehman is to be paid $15,000
from the Common Fund, and Class Representative Michael Puterbaugh
is to be paid $5,000 from the Common Fund, for their services as
Class Representatives.

   (5) Class Counsel is to be further paid 25% of any additional
earnings that accrue on the Common Fund on or after December 31,
2017, until the date the Defendants or the Pacific Coast Pension
Fund distributes all funds as required by this Order.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 6, 2018 Order is
available at  https://tinyurl.com/y6w9leur from Leagle.com.

Richard Lehman, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, represented by Joseph P. Hoag -- josephhoag@dwt.com --
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE, Richard J. Birmingham --
richbirmingham@dwt.com -- DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE & Christine Hawkins
-- christinehawkins@dwt.com -- DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE.

Michael Puterbaugh, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph P. Hoag --
josephhoag@dwt.com -- DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE & Richard J. Birmingham
-- richbirmingham@dwt.com -- DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE.

Warner Nelson, William Beck, Jr, Brian Bish, Klaas A DeBoer,
Michael G Marsh, Rocky Sharp, Richard Bamberger, Dennis Callies,
Clif Davis, Tim Donovan, Harry Thompson & Gary Younghans, in their
capacity as Trustees of the IBEW Pacific Coast Pension Plan,
Defendants, represented by Michael A. Urban, THE URBAN LAW FIRM &
Nathan R. Ring, THE URBAN LAW FIRM.


INTERCEPT PHARMACEUTICALS: Still Defends "DeSmet" Suit in S.D.N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. still faces a purported shareholder
class action filed by Judith DeSmet in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018.

The Company states, "On September 27, 2017, a purported shareholder
class action, initially styled DeSmet v. Intercept Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., et al, was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, naming us and certain of our
officers as defendants.  The Court appointed lead plaintiffs in the
lawsuit on June 1, 2018, and the lead plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint on July 31, 2018, captioned Hou Liu and Amy Fu v.
Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. The lead plaintiffs claim
to be suing on behalf of anyone who purchased or otherwise acquired
our common stock between June 9, 2016 and September 20, 2017.  This
lawsuit alleges that material misrepresentations and/or omissions
of material fact were made in our public disclosures during the
period from June 9, 2016 to September 20, 2017, in violation of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.  The alleged improper disclosures relate to
statements regarding Ocaliva dosing, use and
pharmacovigilance-related matters, as well as our operations,
financial performance and prospects.  The plaintiffs seek
unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the putative class, an
award of costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, and
rescissory damages.

"On January 5, 2018, a follow-on derivative suit, styled Davis v.
Pruzanski et al., was filed in New York state court by shareholder
Gregg Davis based on substantially the same allegations as those
set forth in the securities case.  On December 1, 2017, a purported
shareholder demand was made on the Company based on substantially
the same allegations as those set forth in the securities case.

"While we believe that we have a number of valid defenses to the
claims described above and intend to vigorously defend ourselves,
the matters are in the early stages of litigation and no assessment
can be made as to the likely outcome of the matters or whether they
will be material to us.  Accordingly, an estimate of the potential
loss, or range of loss, if any, to us relating to the matters is
not possible at this time."

Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company
focused on the development and commercialization of novel
therapeutics to treat progressive non-viral liver diseases,
including primary biliary cholangitis ("PBC"), nonalcoholic
steatohepatitis ("NASH"), primary sclerosing cholangitis ("PSC")
and biliary atresia.  The Company currently has one marketed
product, Ocaliva (obeticholic acid or "OCA").  Founded in 2002 in
New York, Intercept has operations in the United States, Europe and
Canada.


IOVANCE BIOTHERAPEUTICS: Still Defends Securities Class Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Iovance Biotherapeutics, Inc. is still facing a class action
lawsuit related to alleged violations of federal securities laws,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2018.

The Company said, "On April 10, 2017, the SEC announced settlements
with us and with other public companies and unrelated parties in
the In the Matter of Certain Stock Promotion investigation.  Our
settlement with the SEC is consistent with our previous disclosures
(including in our Annual Report on Form 10-K that we filed with the
SEC on March 9, 2017).

"On April 14, 2017, a purported shareholder filed a complaint
seeking class action status in the United States District Court,
Northern District of California for violations of the federal
securities laws (Leonard DeSilvio v. Lion Biotechnologies, Inc., et
al., Case No. 3:17-cv-2086) against our company and three of our
former officers and directors.

"On April 19, 2017, a second class action complaint (Amra Kuc vs.
Lion Biotechnologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-2188) was
filed in the same court.  Both complaints allege, among other
things, that the defendants violated the federal securities laws by
making materially false and misleading statements, or by failing to
make certain disclosures, regarding the actions taken by Manish
Singh, our former CEO, and our former investor relations firm that
were the subject of the In the Matter of Certain Stock Promotions
investigation.

"On July 20, 2017, the plaintiff in the Kuc case filed a notice to
voluntarily dismiss that case.  The court entered an order
dismissing the Kuc complaint on July 21, 2017.

"On July 26, 2017, the court appointed a movant as lead plaintiff.
On September 8, 2017, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint
(Jay Rabkin v. Lion Biotechnologies, Inc., et al., Case No.
3:17-cv-2086) seeking class action status that alleges, among other
things, that the defendants violated federal securities laws by
making materially false and misleading statements, or by failing to
make certain disclosures, regarding the actions taken by Manish
Singh and our former investor relations firm that were the subject
of the In the Matter of Certain Stock Promotions SEC
investigation.

"On February 5, 2018, the court entered an order dismissing two of
plaintiff's six claims."

Iovance Biotherapeutics, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company
focused on the development and commercialization of novel cancer
immunotherapy products designed to harness the power of a patient's
own immune system to eradicate cancer cells.  On June 1, 2017, the
Company reincorporated to become a Company governed by Delaware
corporation laws.  On June 27, 2017, we changed our name to Iovance
Biotherapeutics, Inc from Lion Biotechnologies, Inc.


JAI MA OF GAINESVILLE: Violates Disabilities Act, Honeywell Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jai Ma Of
Gainesville, Inc.  The case is entitled CHERI HONEYWELL, on his own
and on behalf of all other individuals similarly situated v. JAI MA
OF GAINESVILLE, INC., a Florida Corporation, Case No.
1:18-cv-00160-MW-GRJ (N.D. Fla., August 23, 2018).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.

Jai Ma Of Gainesville, Inc., is a Domestic for Profit Corporation.
The Company has a principal place of business in Gainesville,
Florida.[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: jkerr@advocacypa.com


JAI SACHCHIDANAND: Honeywell Suit Asserts ADA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jai Sachchidanand
Hospitality, Inc.  The case is styled as CHERI HONEYWELL,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JAI
SACHCHIDANAND HOSPITALITY, INC., a Florida corporation, Case No.
1:18-cv-00159-MW-GRJ (N.D. Fla., August 23, 2018).

The Plaintiff accuses the Defendant of violating the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

Jai Sachchidanand Hospitality, Inc., is a Florida corporation
founded in 2003.  The Company's line of business includes operating
public hotels and motels.[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: jkerr@advocacypa.com


JEREMY NELSON: Judge Expands Class-Action Lawsuit Against Janitor
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chelsea Brentzel, writing for WHNT News 19, reports that a Madison
County Judge has approved the expansion of a class-action lawsuit
filed against a man who pleaded guilty to planting cameras in the
restrooms and changing areas of several businesses.

In October 2014, Jeremy Nelson was arrested after police learned he
placed video cameras in the restroom and changing areas of Ann's
Dance Studio, Bentley Cadillac Car Dealership and WHNT News 19.
Nelson was working as a janitor for James Starkey, owner of
Sanitary Solutions at the time.

Nelson pleaded guilty in 2015 in federal court to four counts of
sexual exploitation of a child, two counts of possession of child
pornography, and one count of distribution of child pornography. He
was sentenced to 140 years in prison.

Now a judge has expanded a class-action lawsuit against Nelson and
his former employer. The recently amended court order adds WHNT
News 19 to the class-action.

Court documents say Nelson installed and placed cameras in the
restrooms at WHNT in April of 2013. Those cameras stayed in place
until his arrest more than a year later. Court records indicate
cameras were installed at Ann's Dance Studio for 6 months and
Bentley Cadillac Dealership for a month.

The class already includes as many as 300 people from Ann's Dance
Studio and Bentley Cadillac.

A trial date for the class-action suit is tentatively set for
January 2019.[GN]


JNV GLASS: Court Conditionally Certifies Workers' Class
-------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana granted Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification in the
case captioned JOSE ADRIAN GUEVARA, v. JNV GLASS INSTALLATION AND
REPAIR LLC, et al., SECTION A(3), Civil Action No. 17-10625 (E.D.
La.).

The Plaintiff's Amended Complaint alleges that the Defendants
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), by failing to
compensate the Plaintiff and those employees similarly situated
with overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of forty hours in
a workweek. The Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid wages, interest,
liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs on behalf of
himself and other similarly situated employees who worked for the
Defendants during the past three years.

The FLSA creates a cause of action for employees against employers
who violate the Act's requirements. The FLSA provides in pertinent
part: "An action may be maintained against any employer by any one
or more employees for and on behalf of himself or themselves and
other employees similarly situated. No employee shall be a party
plaintiff to any such action unless he gives his consent in writing
to become such a party and such consent is filed in the court in
which such action is brought."

The Plaintiff asks the Court to conditionally certify a class of
the Defendants' employees, limited to:

     All individuals who worked or are working performing manual
labor for JNV Glass Installation and Repair LLC and/or Zinsel Glass
and Mirror, LLC during the previous three years, and who are
eligible for overtime pay pursuant to the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. Section
207 and who did not receive full overtime compensation.

The Plaintiff alleges, "I worked alongside other laborers like
myself. JNV Glass and Zinsel employed several other manual laborers
(coworkers) at each jobsite. We all performed the same basics tasks
and were supervised by Zinsel employees." The Plaintiff
additionally provides the Court with JNV invoices that appear to
evidence other JNV employees being paid at similar rates as the
Plaintiff without the FLSA required overtime compensation. Although
paid with a JNV check, the Plaintiff urges that during his time
working on Zinsel jobsites, he and several other manual laborers
performed the same basic tasks and were supervised by Zinsel
employees.

The Court finds it necessary to allow discovery based on
Plaintiff's broader proposed class definition. If the alleged
illegal pay scheme does exist, discovery based on Plaintiff's
proposed class definition will uncover the extent and depth of such
a scheme, whether Zinsel engaged in any violations of the FLSA or
whether the alleged violations were confined to JNV. While the
Court recognizes Zinsel's concerns, the Court again notes the
lenient standard applied at this notice stage. At the notice stage,
courts appear to require nothing more than substantial allegations
that the putative class members were together the victims of a
single decision, policy, or plan infected by discrimination.

The Court finds that at this stage conditional certification is
appropriate. Defendants may later file a motion for decertification
after a more extensive discovery process has been conducted, if it
is determined at that stage that Plaintiff has failed to carry his
burden of establishing that he and members of the proposed class
are similarly situated.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Class
Certification is granted, and that the matter is conditionally
certified as a collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section
216(b)

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 6, 2018 Order and
Reasons is available at https://tinyurl.com/y9cogxwe from
Leagle.com.

Jose Adrian Guevara, on behalf of himself and other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Roberto L. Costales
-- costaleslawoffice@gmail.com -- Costales Law Office, Emily
Westermeier, Costales Law Office & William Henry Beaumont --
whbeaumont@gmail.com -- William H. Beaumont Law.

JNV Glass Installation and Repair LLC & Rudy Vasquez, Defendants,
represented by Ivan A. Orihuela -- silvalaw@bellsouth.net -- Riguer
Silva, PLC, Arthur O. Schott, III, Riguer Silva, LLC, Henry M.
Weber, Riguer Silva, PLC, Joseph Abraham Interiano, Riguer Silva,
LLC & Ryan A. Creel, Riguer Silva, PLC.

Zinsel Glass and Mirror, LLC, Defendant, represented by Daniel
Lund, III -- daniel.lund@phelps.com -- Phelps Dunbar, LLP,
Alexander R. Saunders -- asaunders@irwinllc.com -- Irwin Fritchie
Urquhart & Moore, LLC, Carys A. Arvidson --
carys.arvidson@phelps.com -- Phelps Dunbar, LLP & Stuart Glen
Richeson -- stuart.richeson@phelps.com -- Phelps Dunbar, LLP.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces Lara Suit over Sale of Talc Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTINE ANN LARA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JOHNSON &
JOHNSON CONSUMER, INC.; IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC.; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC715169 (Cal. Super.,
Los Angeles Cty., July 31, 2018) seeks recovery for damages as a
result of the Plaintiffs' ovarian and fallopian tube cancer, which
was directly and proximately caused by the wrongful conduct of the
Defendants, the false and fraudulent representations, omissions,
and concealments of the defective nature of talcum powder, the main
ingredient of the Defendants' product.

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark P. Robinson, Jr., Esq.
          ROBINSON CALCAGNIE, INC.
          19 Corporate Plaza Drive
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 720-1288

               - and -

          Ted G. Meadows, Esq.
          BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN
          PORTIS & MILES, PC
          218 Commerce Street
          Montgomery, AL 36104
          Telephone: (800) 898-2034

               - and –

          R. Allen Smith, Jr.
          THE SMITH LAW FIRM, P.L.L.C.
          681 Towne Center Boulevard, Suite B
          Ridgeland, MS 39157
          Telephone: (601) 952-1422


JOHNSON SERVICE: Brennan Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Brennan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Johnson Service Group, Inc., Case No. 1:18-cv-05098
(N.D. Ill., July 26, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages
and other damages owed under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff worked as an hourly employee of Defendant.

The Defendant provides "cross-industry staffing solutions" to its
clients. In order to provide these services, Defendant hires
employees it pays on an hourly basis. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
      Maureen A. Salas, Esq.
      Sarah J. Arendt, Esq.
      WERMAN SALAS P.C.
      77 W. Washington St., Ste 1402
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Tel: (312) 419-1008

          - and -

      Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
      Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq.
      JOSEPHSON DUNLAP
      11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
      Houston, TX 77046
      Tel: (713) 352-1100
      Fax: (713) 352-3300
      E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
              litkin@mybackwages.com


KEURIG DR PEPPER: Awaits Court OK of Stockholder Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Keurig Dr Pepper Inc., f/k/a Dr Pepper Snapple Group, Inc.,
disclosed in its Form 10-QT filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 7, 2018, for the transition period
from September 30, 2017 to December 31, 2017, that the settlement
of a stockholder lawsuit remains subject to review and court
approval.

The pending putative securities fraud class action, captioned
Louisiana Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System ("LAMPERS")
v. Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc., et al., Civ. No.
2:11-cv-00289, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Vermont before the Honorable William K. Sessions, III.

Plaintiffs' amended complaint alleged violations of the federal
securities laws in connection with the Company's disclosures
relating to its revenues and its inventory accounting practices.
The amended complaint seeks compensatory damages, attorneys' fees,
costs, and such other relief as the court should deem just and
proper, on behalf of a class of all purchasers of the Company's
common stock between February 2, 2011 and November 9, 2011.

The initial complaint filed in the action on November 29, 2011,
included counts for alleged violations of (1) Sections 11, 12(a)(2)
and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, (the "Securities
Act") against the Company, certain of its officers and directors,
and the Company's underwriters in connection with a May 2011
secondary common stock offering; and (2) Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 against the Company and the officer
defendants, and for violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act
against the officer defendants.  Pursuant to the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (the "PSLRA"), 15 U.S.C. Sec.
78u-4(a)(3), plaintiffs had until January 30, 2012 to move the
court to serve as lead plaintiff of the putative class.

Competing applications were filed and the court appointed Louisiana
Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System, Sjunde AP-Fonden,
Board of Trustees of the City of Fort Lauderdale General Employees'
Retirement System, Employees' Retirement System of the Government
of the Virgin Islands, and Public Employees' Retirement System of
Mississippi as lead plaintiffs' counsel on April 27, 2012.

Pursuant to a schedule approved by the court, plaintiffs filed
their amended complaint on October 22, 2012, and plaintiffs filed a
corrected amended complaint on November 5, 2012.  Plaintiffs'
amended complaint did not allege any claims under the Securities
Act against the Company, its officers and directors, or the
Company's underwriters in connection with the May 2011 secondary
common stock offering.

Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on March 1, 2013,
and on December 20, 2013, the court issued an order dismissing the
amended complaint with prejudice.  On January 21, 2014, plaintiffs
filed a notice of appeal of the court's December 20, 2013 order in
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.  Pursuant to a
schedule entered by the appeals court, briefing on the appeal was
completed on June 23, 2014.  The Second Circuit heard oral argument
on the appeal on December 1, 2014.  On July 24, 2015, the Second
Circuit issued an opinion vacating the district court's dismissal
of the amended complaint and remanding the action to the district
court.

On September 29, 2015, defendants answered the complaint.  On July
21, 2017, the court certified the class as requested.  On March 9,
2018, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the
case.

On June 18, 2018, the parties executed a Final Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement.  On June 19, 2018, plaintiffs filed an
unopposed motion seeking preliminary approval of the settlement
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.  The settlement remains
subject to review and court approval.

Keurig Dr Pepper Inc. was formerly known as Dr Pepper Snapple
Group, Inc. and was renamed on July 9, 2018 upon consummation of
its merger agreement with Maple Parent Holdings Corp. and Salt
Merger Sub, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of DPSG.


KEURIG DR PEPPER: Continues to Defend Antitrust Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------
Keurig Dr Pepper Inc., f/k/a Dr Pepper Snapple Group, Inc., said in
its Form 10-QT filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 7, 2018, for the transition period from
September 30, 2017 to December 31, 2017, that it intends to
"vigorously defend" all of the pending antitrust litigation.

On February 11, 2014, TreeHouse Foods, Inc., Bay Valley Foods, LLC,
and Sturm Foods, Inc. filed suit against Green Mountain Coffee
Roasters, Inc. and Keurig in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York (TreeHouse Foods, Inc. et al. v.
Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc. et al., No.
1:14-cv-00905-VSB).  The TreeHouse complaint asserted claims under
the federal antitrust laws and various state laws, contending that
the Company has monopolized alleged markets for single serve coffee
brewers and single serve coffee pods, including through its
contracts with suppliers and distributors and in connection with
the launch of the Keurig(R) 2.0.  The TreeHouse complaint sought
monetary damages, declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and
attorneys' fees.

On March 13, 2014, JBR, Inc. (d/b/a Rogers Family Company) filed
suit against Keurig Green Mountain, Inc. in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of California (JBR, Inc. v. Keurig Green
Mountain, Inc., No. 2:14-cv-00677-KJM-CKD).  The claims asserted
and relief sought in the JBR complaint were substantially similar
to the claims asserted and relief sought in the TreeHouse
complaint.

Additionally, beginning on March 10, 2014, 27 putative class
actions asserting similar claims and seeking similar relief were
filed on behalf of purported direct and indirect purchasers of the
Company's products in various federal district courts.  On June 3,
2014, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the "JPML")
granted a motion to transfer these various actions, including the
TreeHouse and JBR actions, to a single judicial district for
coordinated or consolidated pre-trial proceedings.  An additional
class action on behalf of indirect purchasers, originally filed in
the Circuit Court of Faulkner County, Arkansas (Julie Rainwater et
al. v. Keurig Green Mountain, Inc., No. 23CV-15-818), was similarly
transferred on November 10, 2015.  The actions are now pending
before Judge Vernon S.  Broderick in the Southern District of New
York (In re: Keurig Green Mountain Single-Serve Coffee Antitrust
Litigation, No. 1:14-md-02542-VSB) (the "Multidistrict Antitrust
Litigation").

On August 11, 2014, JBR filed a motion for a preliminary
injunction, which the Company opposed.  After a hearing, the
district court in the Multidistrict Antitrust Litigation denied
JBR's motion by order dated September 19, 2014.  JBR appealed, and
on October 26, 2015, the Court of Appeals affirmed the district
court's denial of JBR's motion for a preliminary injunction.

Consolidated putative class action complaints by direct purchaser
and indirect purchaser plaintiffs were filed on July 24, 2014.  The
Company filed motions to dismiss these complaints and the
complaints in the TreeHouse and JBR actions on October 6, 2014.  On
November 25, 2014, all plaintiffs filed amended complaints and on
February 2, 2015 the Company again moved to dismiss.  On November
29, 2017, the district court denied the Company's motions to
dismiss the amended complaints in the TreeHouse, JBR, and direct
purchaser actions.  The district court, by the same order,
partially granted the Company's motion to dismiss the amended
complaint in the indirect purchaser action and dismissed five
claims seeking injunctive relief.  The district court has not yet
issued a decision on the remaining claims asserted in the indirect
purchaser action.  Discovery in the Multidistrict Antitrust
Litigation has commenced.

On September 30, 2014, a statement of claim was filed against the
Company and Keurig Canada Inc. in Ontario, Canada by Club Coffee
L.P. ("Club Coffee"), a Canadian manufacturer of single serve
beverage pods, claiming damages of CDN US$600 million and asserting
a breach of competition law and false and misleading statements by
the Company.  Following the filing by the Company and Keurig Canada
(a subsidiary of KDP), of a notice of motion for a motion to strike
the claims made by Club Coffee for failure to state a reasonable
cause of action, on August 31, 2015 Club Coffee filed a second
amended statement of claim against the Company and Keurig Canada
Inc. claiming the same amount of damages as in the original
statement of claim.

KDP said it intends to vigorously defend all of the pending
lawsuits.  At this time, the Company is unable to predict the
outcome of these lawsuits, the potential loss or range of loss, if
any, associated with the resolution of these lawsuits or any
potential effect they may have on the Company or its operations.

Keurig Dr Pepper Inc. was formerly known as Dr Pepper Snapple
Group, Inc. and was renamed on July 9, 2018 upon consummation of
its merger agreement with Maple Parent Holdings Corp. and Salt
Merger Sub, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of DPSG.


KEURIG DR PEPPER: Settlement of Sanchez Suit Wins Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Edward J. Davila entered on August 2, 2018, an order granting
final approval of the settlement agreement in the case, Sanchez v.
Keurig Green Mountain, Inc., Case No. 5:15-cv-04657 (N.D. Cal.).
The Court finds the settlement fair, adequate and reasonable and
approves the Settlement.

The Court orders that Defendant pay $23,125.00 to Class Counsel for
reasonable attorneys' fees. The Settlement Administrator shall pay
the fee award to Fitzpatrick & Swanston from the Gross Settlement
Fund, pursuant to the order granting an award of attorneys' fees
and within the time period specified in the Settlement and shall
issue an IRS Form 1099 to Fitzpatrick & Swanston for Class
Counsels' payment.

In addition to the fee award, Class Counsel, Fitzpatrick & Swanston
is awarded $3,042.66 for reimbursement of litigation expenses. The
Settlement Administrator will remit this expense reimbursement
amount to Class Counsel from the Gross Settlement Fund pursuant to
the terms of the Settlement.  The Settlement Administrator shall
make this payment to Fitzpatrick & Swanston within the time period
specified in the Settlement and shall issue an IRS Form 1099 to
Fitzpatrick & Swanston for payment of the expense reimbursement.

The Court finds and determines that the Class Representative
Service Payment of $5,000.00 to Plaintiff Alvaro Sanchez, as the
Class Representative, is fair and reasonable considering the risks
taken and the effort he made in assisting Class Counsel in
furthering the interests of the Class.

The Court further finds that the $7,300.00 fee charged by the
Settlement Administrator is reasonable.

Keurig Dr Pepper Inc., f/k/a Dr Pepper Snapple Group, Inc.,
disclosed in its Form 10-QT filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 7, 2018, for the transition period
from September 30, 2017 to December 31, 2017, that a putative
employment class action, captioned Alvaro Sanchez v. Keurig Green
Mountain, Inc. and Docs 1 - 100, was filed against Keurig in the
Superior Court of California County of Monterey on July 14, 2015.
The complaint alleges that the Company failed to pay proper wages
and provide certain breaks to non-exempt temporary employees
assigned by a temporary staffing agency to the Company's processing
plant located in Castroville, California during the class period
(which is defined as the period of time beginning four years before
the commencement of the action through the date on which judgment
on the action becomes final).  The complaint seeks alleged damages,
attorneys' fees, penalties, and injunctive and equitable relief on
behalf of the putative class.

KDP filed its Answer denying all substantive allegations and
removed the lawsuit to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.  Although KDP strongly denies the
allegations, it participated in a mediation in July 2017 and
reached a settlement to resolve all claims on a classwide basis
(subject to court approval) for approximately US$92,000, inclusive
of attorneys' fees.

On April 6, 2018, the U.S. district court preliminarily approved
the settlement on a class-wide basis.

The Company said, "Barring any unforeseen circumstances (such as
objections to the settlement), it is expected that the U.S.
district court will issue its final approval in approximately July
2018."

Keurig Dr Pepper Inc. was formerly known as Dr Pepper Snapple
Group, Inc. and was renamed on July 9, 2018 upon consummation of
its merger agreement with Maple Parent Holdings Corp. and Salt
Merger Sub, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of DPSG.


KEURIG GREEN: Settlement in Associates' Suit Has Final Court OK
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division, granted Final Approval of the Class
Settlement in the case captioned ALVARO SANCHEZ on behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated employees, Plaintiff, v.
KEURIG GREEN MOUNTAIN, INC.; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 15-CV-04657-EJD (N.D.Cal.).

Accordingly, the Court approves the settlement and finds that the
settlement is, in all respects, fair, reasonable, adequate, and in
the best interests of the entire Class and directs implementation
of all remaining terms, conditions, and provisions of the
Settlement. The Court also finds that settlement now will avoid
additional and potentially substantial litigation costs, as well as
delay and risks if the parties were to continue to litigate the
case. Additionally, after considering the monetary recovery
provided as part of the settlement in light of the challenges posed
by continued litigation, the Court concludes that the settlement
confers significant relief on Class Members.

Final approval is with respect to the following class,
certification for which is granted:

     All former non-exempt, hourly associates who worked for
temporary staffing agencies, including but not limited to Select
Staffing, at any time between July 14, 2011 and July 3, 2017 (the
Class Period), who were assigned by such temporary staffing
agencies to work at Defendant's Castroville Plant. Notwithstanding
the foregoing, any temporary staff person who performed work and/or
allegedly suffered violations of any law occurring while such
person was in the employ of either Manpower US Inc. and/or any
Manpower franchise and assigned to work at Defendant's Castroville
Plant during the applicable period shall not be considered a Class
Member.

The Court orders that the Defendant pay $23,125.00 to the Class
Counsel for reasonable attorneys' fees. The Settlement
Administrator will pay the fee award to Fitzpatrick & Swanston from
the Gross Settlement Fund, pursuant to the order granting an award
of attorneys' fees and within the time period specified in the
Settlement and will issue an IRS Form 1099 to Fitzpatrick &
Swanston for Class Counsels' payment.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 2, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ybwu6fnm from Leagle.com.

Alvaro Sanchez, Plaintiff, represented by Bernard James Fitzpatrick
-- Bjfitzpatrick@fandslegal.com -- Fitzpatrick Spini & Swanston &
Charles Swanston -- Cswanston@fandslegal.com -- Fitzpatrick Spini &
Swanston Attorneys at Law.

Keurig Green Mountain, Inc., Defendant, represented by Laura P.
Worsinger -- lworsinger@dykema.com -- Dykema Gossett & Jon David
Cantor -- jdcantor@dykema.com -- Dykema Gossett, LLP.


KINGSTON DATA: Accused by Perro Class Suit of Violating FDCPA
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kingston Data and
Credit International, Inc., and John Does 1-25.  The case is
entitled Sunita Perro, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Kingston Data and Credit International, Inc.,
and John Does 1-25, Case No. 1:18-cv-03991-CAP-JFK (N.D. Ga.,
August 22, 2018).

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

Kingston Data and Credit is an accounts receivable management firm
that provides credit management and collection agency services in
Clearwater, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


KODIAK TRUCKING: Faces Forste Employee Class Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kodiak Trucking, Inc.
The case is captioned as JOE FORSTE, INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF
OF OTHER MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC SIMILARLY SITUATED AND ON
BEHALF OF AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES PURSUANT TO THE PRIVATE ATTORNEYS
GENERAL ACT ("PAGA") v. KODIAK TRUCKING, INC., A CALIFORNIA
CORPORATION, Case No. BCV-18-102092 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty.,
August 23, 2018).

The lawsuit arises from employment-related issues.

Kodiak Trucking Inc. is a California corporation.  Kodiak is a
licensed and bonded freight shipping and trucking company running
freight hauling business from Bakersfield, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas Han, Esq.
          JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
          411 N Central Avenue, Suite 500
          Glendale, CA 91203-2095
          Telephone: (818) 230-7502
          Facsimile: (818) 230-7259
          E-mail: dhan@justicelawcorp.com


LADENBURG THALMANN: Appeal from Nixed Texas Class Suit Underway
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs' appeal from a court order dismissing a securities
class action against Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. in Texas
remains pending, according to Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services
Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018

In January 2016, an amended complaint was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas against Plains
All American Pipeline, L.P. and related entities as well as their
officers and directors.  The amended complaint added Ladenburg and
other underwriters of securities offerings in 2013 and 2014 that in
the aggregate raised approximately US$2,900,000 as defendants to
the purported class action.

Ladenburg was one of the underwriters of the October 2013 initial
public offering.  The complaints allege, among other things, that
the offering materials were misleading based on representations
concerning the maintenance and integrity of the issuer's pipelines,
and that the underwriters are liable for violations of federal
securities laws.

In April 2018, the court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss
the second amended complaint with prejudice and entered final
judgment for the defendants.

In May 2018 the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the
dismissal order.

The Company said that if the plaintiffs' appeal is successful,
Ladenburg intends to vigorously defend against these claims.

Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc. is a diversified
financial services company engaged in independent advisory and
brokerage services, asset management services, investment research,
investment banking, institutional sales and trading, wholesale life
insurance and annuity brokerage and trust services through its
principal subsidiaries, Securities America ("Securities America"),
Triad Advisors ("Triad"), Securities Service Network ("SSN"),
Investacorp ("Investacorp"), KMS Financial Services ("KMS"),
Ladenburg Thalmann & Co. ("Ladenburg"), Ladenburg Thalmann Asset
Management ("LTAM"), Premier Trust ("Premier Trust"), Highland
Capital Brokerage ("Highland") and Ladenburg Thalmann Annuity
Insurance Services ("LTAIS"). The company is based in Miami,
Florida.


LADENBURG THALMANN: Bids for Class Status in Tenn. Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services 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'
motions for class certification in a consolidated class action suit
in Tennessee remains pending.

In November 2015, two purported class action complaints were filed
in state court in Tennessee against Miller Energy Resources, Inc.'s
("Miller") officers, directors, auditors and nine firms that
underwrote six securities offerings by Miller in 2013 and 2014,
which offerings raised approximately US$151,000.

Ladenburg was one of the underwriters of two of the offerings.  The
complaints allege, among other things, that the offering materials
were misleading based on the purportedly overstated valuation of
certain assets, and that the underwriters are liable for violations
of federal securities laws.

The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory damages,
as well as other relief.  In December 2015 the defendants removed
the complaints to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Tennessee; in November 2016, the cases were consolidated.  In
August 2017, the court granted in part and denied in part the
underwriters' motion to dismiss the complaint.  The plaintiffs'
motions for class certification and to remand the case to state
court are pending.

Ladenburg said it intends to vigorously defend against these
claims.

Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc. is a diversified
financial services company engaged in independent advisory and
brokerage services, asset management services, investment research,
investment banking, institutional sales and trading, wholesale life
insurance and annuity brokerage and trust services through its
principal subsidiaries, Securities America ("Securities America"),
Triad Advisors ("Triad"), Securities Service Network ("SSN"),
Investacorp ("Investacorp"), KMS Financial Services ("KMS"),
Ladenburg Thalmann & Co. ("Ladenburg"), Ladenburg Thalmann Asset
Management ("LTAM"), Premier Trust ("Premier Trust"), Highland
Capital Brokerage ("Highland") and Ladenburg Thalmann Annuity
Insurance Services ("LTAIS"). The company is based in Miami,
Florida.


LADENBURG THALMANN: Still Defends Class Suit vs. ARCP in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc. continues to defend
itself in a class action suit relating to American Realty Capital
Partners, Inc., according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2018.

In December 2014 and January 2015, two purported class action suits
were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York against American Realty Capital Partners, Inc.  ("ARCP"),
certain affiliated entities and individuals, ARCP's auditing firm,
and the underwriters of ARCP's May 2014 US$1,656,000 common stock
offering ("May 2014 Offering") and three prior note offerings.  The
complaints have been consolidated.

Ladenburg was named as a defendant as one of 17 underwriters of the
May 2014 Offering and as one of eight underwriters of ARCP's July
2013 offering of US$300,000 in convertible notes.  The complaint
alleges, among other things, that the offering materials were
misleading based on financial reporting of expenses,
improperly-calculated AFFO (adjusted funds from operations), and
false and misleading Sarbanes-Oxley certifications, including
statements as to ARCP's internal controls, and that the
underwriters are liable for violations of federal securities laws.

The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory damages,
as well as other relief.  In June 2016, the court denied the
underwriters' motions to dismiss the complaint.  In August 2017,
the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
Ladenburg intends to vigorously defend against these claims.

Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc. is a diversified
financial services company engaged in independent advisory and
brokerage services, asset management services, investment research,
investment banking, institutional sales and trading, wholesale life
insurance and annuity brokerage and trust services through its
principal subsidiaries, Securities America ("Securities America"),
Triad Advisors ("Triad"), Securities Service Network ("SSN"),
Investacorp ("Investacorp"), KMS Financial Services ("KMS"),
Ladenburg Thalmann & Co. ("Ladenburg"), Ladenburg Thalmann Asset
Management ("LTAM"), Premier Trust ("Premier Trust"), Highland
Capital Brokerage ("Highland") and Ladenburg Thalmann Annuity
Insurance Services ("LTAIS"). The company is based in Miami,
Florida.


LAMUSE CAFE: Gomez Suit Alleges ADA Violation
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lamuse Cafe Epic,
LLC.  The case is styled as Andres Gomez, on his own and on behalf
of all other individuals similarly situated v. Lamuse Cafe Epic,
LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-23413-DPG (S.D. Fla., August 22, 2018).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.

Lamuse Cafe Epic, LLC, operates a restaurant, LaMuse Cafe, located
in Miami, Florida.[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: jkerr@advocacypa.com


LEADERS IN COMMUNITY: Faces Edwards Suit in N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Leaders in Community
Alternatives, Inc. The case is captioned as WILLIAM EDWARDS; ROBERT
JACKSON; JAMES BROOKS; and KYSER WILSON, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LEADERS IN COMMUNITY
ALTERNATIVES, INC.; SUPERCOM, INC.; LINDA CONNELLY; DIANE
HARRINGTON; KENT BOROWICK; RAELENE RIVAS; JEANETTE ARGUELLO-RAMOS;
BELINDA DOE; ALAMEDA COUNTY; WYNNE CARVILL; and WENDY STILL,
Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-04609-JSC (N.D. Cal., July 31, 2018).
The case is assigned to Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley.

Leaders in Community Alternatives, Inc. provides community-based
services and electronic monitoring programs. The Company offers a
holistic approach with programs addressing cognitive and behavioral
issues, and alcohol and substance abuse. Leaders in Community
Alternatives serves communities in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Phil Telfeyan, Esq.
          EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW
          400 7th Street NW, Suite 602
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 505-2058
          E-mail: ptelfeyan@equaljusticeunderlaw.org


LEGACY RESERVES: Sept. 12 Fairness Hearing Set for Settlement Pact
------------------------------------------------------------------
The hearing for the settlement agreement in a consolidated class
action suit related to the merger agreement of Legacy Reserves LP
("Partnership") with Legacy Reserves GP, LLC ("LRGPLLC") is set for
September 12, 2018, according to Partnership's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2018.

On March 26, 2018, the Partnership announced its intent to
consummate a transaction, pursuant to an agreement and plan of
merger (the "Initial Merger Agreement"), that would result in the
Partnership and LRGPLLC becoming subsidiaries of a newly formed
Delaware corporation, Legacy Reserves Inc.  ("New Legacy"), and the
Partnership's unitholders and preferred unitholders becoming common
stockholders of New Legacy (such Transaction referred to herein
collectively as the "Corporate Reorganization").

On March 28, 2018, a purported holder of the Partnership's
Preferred Units filed a putative class action challenging the
Merger against the Partnership, the General Partner and New Legacy
(the "Doppelt Action").  The Doppelt Action contains two causes of
action challenging the Merger, including breach of the Fifth
Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited Partnership of the
Partnership (the "Partnership Agreement") and breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing.  The plaintiff in the
Doppelt Action seeks injunctive relief prohibiting consummation of
the Merger or, in the event the Merger is consummated, rescission
or rescissory damages, as well as reasonable attorneys' and
experts' fees and expenses.

Additionally, on April 4, 2018, a motion to expedite was filed in
connection with the Doppelt Action, by which the plaintiff sought a
hearing on a motion for a preliminary injunction prior to the close
of the Merger and requested that the court set an expedited
discovery schedule prior to any such hearing.  The plaintiff in the
Doppelt Action also filed a lawsuit against the Partnership and the
General Partner in 2017 for breach of the Partnership Agreement
based on the treatment of the accrued but unpaid preferred
distributions as "guaranteed payments" for tax purposes (the
"Doppelt Tax Action").

A second putative class action lawsuit challenging the Merger was
filed on April 3, 2018 against the Partnership, the Partnership GP
and New Legacy (the "Chammah Ventures Action").  The Chammah
Ventures Action contains the same causes of action and that
plaintiff seeks substantially the same relief as the plaintiff in
the Doppelt Action.

On April 13, 2018, the Court issued an order consolidating the
Doppelt and Chammah actions (together, the "Consolidated Action")
and appointing Plaintiff Doppelt as lead plaintiff and his counsel
as lead counsel for the putative class action.  On April 13, 2018,
the Court also granted the motion to expedite the consolidated
action.  On April 23, 2018 Plaintiff Doppelt filed an Amended
Complaint, adding an additional count for breach of the Partnership
Agreement.  A hearing on Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary
injunction and Legacy's motion to dismiss occurred on June 4,
2018.

On June 22, 2018, the Partnership, New Legacy, the General Partner
and the plaintiff in the Consolidated Action reached an agreement
in principle to settle the Consolidated Action.  The parties
submitted the Settlement Agreement to the Court on July 6, 2018
and, on July 11, 2018, the Court entered a scheduling order for
consideration of the Settlement Agreement (the "Scheduling
Order").

The Scheduling Order sets September 12, 2018 as the date for the
hearing at which the Court will consider (i) the fairness of the
Settlement Agreement; (ii) whether a judgment should be entered
dismissing the Consolidated Action with prejudice; (iii) the
plaintiff's counsel's application for fees and expenses; and (iv)
any objections to the Settlement Agreement.

The Settlement Agreement, if approved by the Court, will grant
holders of Series A Preferred Units and Series B Preferred Units
approximately 10,730,000 shares of common stock in New Legacy in
addition to the approximately 16,913,592 shares those holders would
collectively receive pursuant to the exchange ratios that were
included in the Initial Merger Agreement.  In exchange, the class
of holders of Preferred Units (dating back to January 21, 2016
through the consummation of the Merger) have agreed to release the
Partnership, the General Partner and New Legacy, and any of their
parent entities, controlling persons, associates, affiliates,
including any person or entity owning, directly or indirectly, any
portion of the General Partner, or subsidiaries and each and all of
their respective officers, directors, stockholders, employees,
representatives, advisors, consultants and other released parties,
from liability for any claims related to or arising out of the
rights inhering to the Preferred Units (subject to limited
exceptions related to tax liabilities), including all claims
brought in the Consolidated Action.  As part of the Settlement
Agreement, the Doppelt Tax Action will be dismissed.  Each of the
administrative agent for the Revolving Credit Agreement and the
majority lenders under the Term Loan Credit Agreement have
consented to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, as required
pursuant to the terms of the Current Credit Agreement and the Term
Loan Credit Agreement, respectively.

A third putative class action lawsuit challenging the Merger was
filed against the Partnership, the General Partner, New Legacy and
Merger Sub on April 27, 2018 by Patrick Irish in the District Court
in Midland County, Texas (the "Irish Action").  The Irish Action
contains the same general causes of action as the initial complaint
filed in the Doppelt Action and the Chammah Ventures Action and
seeks the same relief.  The Partnership, the General Partner, New
Legacy and the plaintiff's counsel in the Consolidated Action have
agreed to coordinate efforts to obtain a dismissal of the Irish
Action following the consummation of the Merger.

Legacy Reserves LP is a master limited partnership headquartered in
Midland, Texas, focused on the development of oil and natural gas
properties primarily located in the Permian Basin, East Texas,
Rocky Mountain and Mid-Continent regions of the United States.


LGI HOMES: Faces Munson Class Lawsuit over Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
LGI Homes, Inc. defends itself against a putative opt-in class
action was filed by Christopher Munson for alleged violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018.

On May 11, 2018, a putative opt-in class action was filed by
Christopher Munson, a former employee, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, in the United States District Court,
Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division (8:18-cv-01154-EAK-JSS),
against LGI Homes Corporate, LLC, a subsidiary of the Company,
alleging failure to pay overtime wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.  The plaintiff in the lawsuit is requesting as
liquidated damages unpaid back wages of the plaintiff and all
opt-in members of the class (who would need to proactively join
this lawsuit in order to become a member of the class) at the
applicable overtime rate, as well as prejudgment interest on such
amounts.

The Company said, "We do not anticipate that additional plaintiffs
will join the lawsuit.  We have responded to the complaint and
intend to defend ourselves vigorously against the allegations."

LGI Homes, Inc. engages in the design, construction, and sale of
new homes in Texas, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, New Mexico, South
Carolina, North Carolina, Colorado, Washington, Tennessee, and
Minnesota markets.  It offers entry-level homes, such as detached
and townhomes, as well as move-up homes under the LGI Homes brand
name; and luxury series homes under the Terrata Homes brand name.
LGI Homes, Inc. was founded in 2003 and is headquartered in The
Woodlands, Texas.


LIPOCINE INC: Securities Class Action Accord Gets Final Court OK
----------------------------------------------------------------
On July 2, 2018 the court signed a final order approving the
parties' agreement to settle the purported securities class action
litigation captioned In re Lipocine Inc. Securities Litigation,
2:17CV00182 DB (D. Utah) which was originally filed against the
Company on July 1, 2016.  

Lipocine Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2018, that the final order issued by the court specifically finds
that the settlement set forth in the parties' stipulation is fair,
reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the Class, and
resolves all of the claims that were or could have been brought in
the action being settled.

The Company maintains insurance for claims of this nature.  When
the Company signed the memorandum of understanding to settle the
purported securities class action litigation, the potential
liability became probable and estimable.  The Company recorded a
litigation settlement liability for US$4.3 million as of December
31, 2017.

Additionally, the Company recorded a litigation insurance
settlement recovery receivable of US$3.6 million as of December 31,
2017 which represented the estimated insurance claims proceeds from
the Company's insurance carrier in excess of the Company's
retention.  As of June 30, 2018, the Company and the insurance
carrier have deposited the full balance of the litigation
settlement into escrow and, as such, the litigation settlement
liability and litigation insurance receivable have zero balances.

Lipocine is a specialty pharmaceutical company focused on applying
oral drug delivery technology for the development of pharmaceutical
products in the area of men's and women's health.


LIVANOVA PLC: Faces 135 Claims over 3T Device's Design Defect
-------------------------------------------------------------
LivaNova PLC, said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the company is involved
in approximately 135 claims worldwide involving its 3T device.

The Company is currently involved in litigation involving its 3T
device. The litigation includes a class action complaint in the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania,
federal multi-district litigation in the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Pennsylvania, various U.S. state court cases
and cases in jurisdictions outside the U.S.

As of July 31, 2018, the company is involved in approximately 135
claims worldwide, with the majority of the claims in various
federal or state courts throughout the United States. The
complaints generally seek damages and other relief based on
theories of strict liability, negligence, breach of express and
implied warranties, failure to warn, design and manufacturing
defect, fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation/concealment,
unjust enrichment, and violations of various state consumer
protection statutes.

The class action consists of all Pennsylvania residents who
underwent open heart surgery at WellSpan York Hospital and Penn
State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center between 2011 and 2015 and
who currently are asymptomatic for NTM infection. Members of the
class seek declaratory relief that the 3T devices are defective and
unsafe for intended uses, medical monitoring, damages, and
attorneys' fees.

LivaNova has filed a petition for permission to appeal the class
certification order with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit.

LivaNova PLC said, "We have not recognized an expense related to
damages in connection with these matters because any potential loss
is not currently probable or reasonably estimable. In addition, we
cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential loss, if any, that
may result from these matters."

LivaNova PLC, a medical device company, designs, develops,
manufactures, and sells therapeutic solutions worldwide. The
company operates in two segments, Cardiac Surgery and
Neuromodulation. LivaNova PLC was founded in 1987 and is
headquartered in London, the United Kingdom.


LL BEAN: Calif. Judge Says Return Policy Not Harmful
----------------------------------------------------
Lori Valigra, writing for Bangor Daily News, reports that a federal
judge in California on August 14 granted L.L. Bean's motion to
dismiss a potential class action lawsuit against the Maine-based
retailer but at the same time gave the plaintiff a chance to amend
his complaint.

The case is one of four potential class action lawsuits that were
filed against L.L. Bean for changing its unlimited returns policy
in February.

The lead plaintiff in the California case, William. A. Shirley, in
May became the fourth person to file for class action status
against L.L. Bean over the policy change. The three other cases are
in New York, Massachusetts and Chicago.

The Chicago case has been dismissed. U.S. District Court Judge for
the Northern District of Illinois Robert W. Gettleman ruled on June
28 that plaintiff Victor Bondi failed to state a claim against L.L.
Bean.

In an Oakland, California, court, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers told
Shirley's counsel that she doesn't think anyone was harmed by L.L.
Bean's new return policy. She also said during a hearing that the
lawsuit "makes no sense."

But Shirley's counsel Michael Liskow, Esq. -- liskow@whafh.com --
of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz argued that customers paid
a premium for L.L. Bean's products because of its extraordinary
lifetime guarantee.

While the judge did grant L.L. Bean's motion to dismiss the
lawsuit, she left an opening to give the plaintiff a second chance
to amend his complaint.

She chastised Liskow for the manner in which their briefs were
written, notably multiple footnotes that added five pages of
arguments.

An L.L. Bean spokesperson was not immediately available for
comment.[GN]


LUNCH INT'L: Court Refuses to Decertify National Class
------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York denied Defendants' Motion for Decertification in the case
captioned CHRISTINE RODRIGUEZ, individually and for all others
similarly situated, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. IT'S JUST LUNCH
INTERNATIONAL, ET AL., Defendants, No. 07-cv-9227 (SHS)(S.D.N.Y.).

The Defendants move to decertify both classes in this action for
failure to maintain compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3)'s
predominance requirement as interpreted by the United States
Supreme Court in Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 133 S.Ct. 1426 (2013).

The Plaintiffs filed the lawsuit because they are dissatisfied
customers of the defendants' allegedly fraudulent dating service
(IJL).

Class Decertification

By the familiar dictates of Rule 23, class action plaintiffs must
demonstrate compliance with all four requirements of Rule 23(a)
numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation
and at least one of the three provisions of Rule 23(b). Both the
National Class and the New York Class were certified pursuant to
Rule 23(b)(3), which requires the Court to find that questions of
law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions
affecting only individual members and that a class action is
superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently
adjudicating the controversy.

Predominance

The Defendants' decertification motion focuses on the predominance
requirement of Rule 23(b)(3). This provision tests whether proposed
classes are sufficiently cohesive to warrant adjudication by
representation.

A court assessing predominance must determine whether resolution of
some of the legal or factual questions that qualify each class
member's case as a genuine controversy can be achieved through
generalized proof, and these particular issues are more substantial
than the issues subject only to individualized proof.

Here, however, plaintiffs strenuously maintain that damages are
provable on a classwide basis. For that to be so, plaintiffs must
present a model for determining class-wide damages that will
actually measure damages that result from the class's asserted
theory of injury. Accordingly, the Court must examine the proposed
damages methodology at the certification stage to ensure that it is
consistent with the class-wide theory of liability and capable of
measurement on a class-wide basis. Proceeding to trial on the basis
of a vague inquiry into damages, without any meaningful means of
estimating the injuries to class members, is prohibited.

Motion to Decertify the National Class

The Defendants raise a variety of objections that they argue defeat
predominance and require decertification of the National Class.
Some of these arguments have merit, but modification not
decertification of the National Class will suffice to remedy its
ills and allow it to proceed to trial.

Plaintiffs Present a Viable Model of National Class Damages Only
Under the Out-of-Pocket Rule

Plaintiffs May Seek Full Refund Out-of-Pocket Damages.

In the first instance, plaintiffs seek repayment of the entire
membership price paid by each class member, because they allege
that defendants' services were worthless and thus that all class
members received the same actual value: zero.  They will be
permitted to argue that as a method of computing damages for class
members in states that apply the out of pocket measure of damages.

Here, plaintiffs are entitled to maintain a class seeking
out-of-pocket damages returning the consideration paid the cost of
membership fees minus the actual value plaintiffs claim they
received, which is zero. In other words, the class members may seek
to recover the full membership fees they paid to defendants as
damages. Plaintiffs will succeed or fail on this theory based on
whether they are able to prove defendants' service is worthless.
Plaintiffs claim they were promised personalized, customized
matchmaking services and received nothing in return except a
valueless, arbitrary grouping of individuals for dates.

Plaintiffs Fail to Present Any Viable Partial Refund Damages
Model.

Alternatively, plaintiffs argue that even if defendants' service
did provide class members with some minimal benefit, its value was
uniform across the class. In that case, plaintiffs contend they
should be permitted to seek to recover the amount by which the fees
for those services were overpriced in comparison to the actual
value delivered.

The Plaintiffs may be right in theory that the arbitrary grouping
provided by defendants' dating service held a uniform nonzero value
for all class members. But they provide no method to calculate that
value and hence no tenable partial refund model of class-wide
damages. Plaintiffs suggest obscurely that the jury can look to
other similar services, for example any of the popular online
dating applications, for comparative pricing of such similar
arbitrary screening services.

Accordingly, because plaintiffs' full refund theory successfully
models only out-of-pocket damages, while the partial refund theory
fails under the rules for both the out of pocket states and the
benefit of the bargain states, the National Class will be limited
in scope to include members to whom defendants allegedly made
misrepresentations only in those states that permit recovery of
out-of-pocket damages for fraud.

The Class Period Will Terminate at the Date of the Original Class
Certification

The Defendants raise a number of other asserted differences between
class members that they claim independently defeat predominance.
They argue that class members' claims will diverge based on changes
in defendants' own business practices over the class period sixteen
years and counting as well as variations between the practices of
different It's Just Lunch franchises.

In this case, closing the class period at the original
certification date avoids the thorny questions of geographical and
temporal variation among class members raised by defendants in
their motion to decertify, because the Court has already decided on
the basis of the evidence to date as of May 14, 2014 that
defendants' conduct from 2001 to 2014, across all franchise
locations, was sufficiently cohesive to support class
certification. 2014 Class Cert. at 130-36.

Accordingly, the Court will cut the Gordian knot by modifying the
class period in the National Class definition to cover individuals
who purchased defendants' services on or after October 15, 2001, up
through and including May 14, 2014.

Motion to Decertify the New York Class

The New York Class brings claims pursuant to the state's General
Business Law and common law unjust enrichment. GBL Section 349
provides a private right of action for those injured by deceptive
acts or practices in the conduct of business. As elaborated by the
courts, a claim under this provision has three elements: (1) the
defendant's challenged acts or practices must have been directed at
consumers, (2) the acts or practices must have been misleading in a
material way, and (3) the plaintiff must have sustained injury as a
result.

The Defendants' motion for decertification mounts three distinct
attacks on the New York Class. The Court concludes that none of
these arguments has merit and will allow the New York Class to
proceed to trial as a class action on their GBL Section 349 claim
and their unjust enrichment claim.

Defendants' Motion to Decertify the National and New York Classes
is denied;

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(1)(C), the certification of the
National Class is amended to consist of all individuals who signed
a membership contract with IJL in Arkansas, California, Delaware,
Florida, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Minnesota,
Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Texas,
Vermont, or Wyoming, and purchased IJL's services on or after
October 15, 2001, up through and including May 14, 2014;

As to the National Class, plaintiffs may present only their full
refund damages model to the jury; i.e., they may argue that
plaintiffs received nothing of value from IJL and are entitled to
the return of their full membership fees;

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(1)(C), the certification of the
New York Class is amended to consist of all individuals who became
IJL clients in New York and who, on or after October 15, 2001, up
through and including May 14, 2014, paid more than $1,000 for a
year's worth of IJL services;

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 6, 2018 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yb72puez from Leagle.com.

Christine Rodriquez, individually and for all others similarly
situated, Sandra Burga, individually and for all others similarly
situated, Karen McBride, individually and for all others similarly
situated & Andrew Woolf, individually and for all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Bennitta Lisa Joseph --
bennittaj@gmail.com -- Joseph & Norinsberg LLC, Chaya Mushke
Gourarie, Joseph & Norinsberg, LLC, John Balestriere --
john.balestriere@balestrierefariello.com -- Balestriere, Fariello,
Jon Louis Norinsberg, Law Offices of Jon L. Norinsberg & Stefan
Savic -- stefan.savic@balestrierefariello.com -- Balestriere
Fariello.

It's Just Lunch International, Defendant, represented by Adam
Edward Collyer, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani LLP, John J. Doody --
John.Doody@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith
LLP, Bari Robyn Klein -- Elise.Klein@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis
Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, Brian Pete --
Brian.Pete@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith &
Peter T. Shapiro -- Peter.Shapiro@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis
Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP.

It's Just Lunch, Inc. & Harry and Sally, Inc., Defendants,
represented by John J. Doody, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP,
Bari Robyn Klein, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, Brian Pete,
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith & Peter T. Shapiro, Lewis Brisbois
Bisgaard & Smith LLP.


MALLINCKRODT PLC: City of Rockford Class Action Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mallinckrodt public limited company continues to defend itself in a
putative class action suit entitled, City of Rockford v.
Mallinckrodt ARD, Inc., et al., according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended June 29, 2018.

On April 6, 2017, the putative class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company and United BioSource Corporation ("UBC") in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.  The
complaint was subsequently amended, most recently on December 8,
2017, to include an additional named plaintiff and additional
defendants.  As amended, the complaint purports to be brought on
behalf of all self-funded entities in the U.S. and its Territories,
excluding any Medicare Advantage Organizations, related entities
and certain others, that paid for H.P. Acthar Gel from August 2007
to the present.

The lawsuit alleges that the Company engaged in anticompetitive,
unfair, and deceptive acts to artificially raise and maintain the
price of H.P. Acthar Gel.

To this end, the suit alleges that the Company unlawfully
maintained a monopoly in a purported ACTH product market by
acquiring the U.S. rights to Synacthen Depot; conspired with UBC
and violated anti-racketeering laws by selling H.P. Acthar Gel
through an exclusive distributor; and committed a fraud on
consumers by failing to correctly identify H.P. Acthar Gel's active
ingredient on package inserts.

The Company said it intends to vigorously defend itself in this
matter.

Mallinckrodt public limited company is a global business that
develops, manufactures, markets and distributes specialty
pharmaceutical products and therapies.


MALLINCKRODT PLC: Parties Agree to Stay Employees' Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Employee Stock Purchase Plan Securities Litigation filed
against the Company, among other defendants, has been stayed by
agreement of the parties pending resolution of the putative class
action securities litigation by Patricia A. Shenk, according to
Mallinckrodt's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 29, 2018.

On July 20, 2017, a purported purchaser of Mallinckrodt stock
through Mallinckrodt's Employee Stock Purchase Plans ("ESPPs"),
filed a derivative lawsuit in the Federal District Court in the
Eastern District of Missouri, captioned Solomon v. Mallinckrodt
plc, et al., against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer Mark
C. Trudeau ("CEO"), its Chief Financial Officer Matthew K. Harbaugh
("CFO"), its Controller Kathleen A. Schaefer, and current and
former directors of the Company.

On September 6, 2017, plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its complaint
in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri
and refiled virtually the same complaint in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia.  The complaint purports to be brought
on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
Mallinckrodt stock between November 25, 2014, and January 18, 2017,
through the ESPPs.

In the alternative, the plaintiff alleges a class action for those
same purchasers/acquirers of stock in the ESPPs during the same
period.

The complaint asserts claims under Section 11 of the Securities
Act, and for breach of fiduciary duty, misrepresentation,
non-disclosure, mismanagement of the ESPPs' assets and breach of
contract arising from substantially similar allegations as those
contained in the "Patricia A. Shenk" putative class action
securities litigation.  Stipulated co-lead plaintiffs were approved
by the court on March 1, 2018.

On July 6, 2018, this matter was stayed by agreement of the parties
pending resolution of the Shenk matter.

Mallinckrodt public limited company is a global business that
develops, manufactures, markets and distributes specialty
pharmaceutical products and therapies.


MALLINCKRODT PLC: Still Defends MSP Recovery Suit in N.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mallinckrodt public limited company continues to defend itself in a
putative class action litigation styled MSP Recovery Claims, Series
II LLC, et al. v. Mallinckrodt ARD, Inc., et al., according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 29, 2018.

On October 30, 2017, the putative class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company and United BioSource Corporation ("UBC") in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.  The
complaint purports to be brought on behalf of two classes: all
Medicare Advantage Organizations and related entities in the U.S.
who purchased or provided reimbursement for H.P. Acthar Gel
pursuant to (i) Medicare Part C contracts (Class 1) and (ii)
Medicare Part D contracts (Class 2) since January 1, 2011, with
certain exclusions.  The complaint alleges that the Company engaged
in anticompetitive, unfair, and deceptive acts to artificially
raise and maintain the price of H.P. Acthar Gel.

To this end, the complaint alleges that the Company unlawfully
maintained a monopoly in a purported ACTH product market by
acquiring the U.S. rights to Synacthen Depot and reaching
anti-competitive agreements with the other defendants by selling
H.P. Acthar Gel through an exclusive distribution network.  The
complaint purports to allege claims under federal and state
antitrust laws and state unfair competition and unfair trade
practice laws.  Pursuant to a motion filed by defendants, this case
has been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois.

The Company said it intends to vigorously defend itself in this
matter.

Mallinckrodt public limited company is a global business that
develops, manufactures, markets and distributes specialty
pharmaceutical products and therapies.


MALLINCKRODT PLC: Still Faces Class Securities Litigation in D.C.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mallinckrodt public limited company continues to defend class
action litigation over alleged false or misleading statements
related to H.P. Acthar Gel and Synacthen to artificially inflate
the price of the Company's stock, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended June 29, 2018.

On January 23, 2017, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company and its CEO in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia, captioned Patricia A. Shenk v. Mallinckrodt
plc, et al. The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of all
persons who purchased Mallinckrodt's publicly traded securities on
a domestic exchange between November 25, 2014 and January 18, 2017.
The lawsuit generally alleges that the Company made false or
misleading statements related to H.P. Acthar Gel and Synacthen to
artificially inflate the price of the Company's stock.  In
particular, the complaint alleges a failure by the Company to
provide accurate disclosures concerning the long-term
sustainability of H.P. Acthar Gel revenues, and the exposure of
H.P. Acthar Gel to Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement rates.

On January 26, 2017, a second putative class action lawsuit,
captioned Jyotindra Patel v. Mallinckrodt plc, et al. was filed
against the same defendants named in the Shenk lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia.  The Patel complaint
purports to be brought on behalf of shareholders during the same
period of time as that set forth in the Shenk lawsuit and asserts
claims similar to those set forth in the Shenk lawsuit.

On March 13, 2017, a third putative class action lawsuit, captioned
Amy T.  Schwartz, et al., v. Mallinckrodt plc, et al., was filed
against the same defendants named in the Shenk lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia.  The Schwartz
complaint purports to be brought on behalf of shareholders who
purchased shares of the Company between July 14, 2014 and January
18, 2017 and asserts claims similar to those set forth in the Shenk
lawsuit.

On March 23, 2017, a fourth putative class action lawsuit,
captioned Fulton County Employees' Retirement System v.
Mallinckrodt plc, et al., was filed against the Company and its CEO
and CFO in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
The Fulton County complaint purports to be brought on behalf of
shareholders during the same period of time as that set forth in
the Schwartz lawsuit and asserts claims similar to those set forth
in the Shenk lawsuit.

On March 27, 2017, four separate plaintiff groups moved to
consolidate the pending cases and to be appointed as lead
plaintiffs in the consolidated case.  Since that time, two of the
plaintiff groups have withdrawn their motions.  Lead plaintiff was
designated by the court on March 9, 2018.

The Company said it intends to vigorously defend itself in this
matter.

Mallinckrodt public limited company is a global business that
develops, manufactures, markets and distributes specialty
pharmaceutical products and therapies.


MARICOPA, AZ: Briggs Files Suit Asserting Civil Rights Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against William Montgomery,
et al.  The case is entitled Deshawn Briggs, Mark Pascale and Taja
Collier, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
v. William Montgomery, in his official capacity as County Attorney
of Maricopa County; County of Maricopa; and Treatment Assessment
Screening Center Incorporated, Case No. 2:18-cv-02684-JAT (D.
Ariz., August 23, 2018).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Civil Rights Act.

Maricopa County is a county in the south-central part of the U.S.
state of Arizona.  As of the 2010 census, its population was
3,817,117, making it the state's most populous county, and the
fourth-most populous in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          A Dami Animashaun, Esq.
          Katherine Chamblee-Ryan, Esq.
          CIVIL RIGHTS CORPS
          910 17th St. NW, 2nd Floor
          Washington, DC 20002
          Telephone: (202) 656-5189
          E-mail: dami@civilrightscorps.org
                  katie@civilrightscorps.org

               - and -

          Joshua David R. Bendor, Esq.
          Timothy Joel Eckstein, Esq.
          OSBORN MALEDON PA
          P.O. Box 36379
          Phoenix, AZ 85067-6379
          Telephone: (602) 640-9000
          Facsimile: (602) 640-9050
          E-mail: jbendor@omlaw.com
                  teckstein@omlaw.com


MARRIOTT VACATIONS: Bid to Dismiss Lennen Class Suit Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------
Marriott Vacations Worldwide Corporation said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
2, 2018, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the
motion to dismiss a putative class action lawsuit initiated by
Anthony and Beth Lennen is still pending.

In May 2016, the company, certain of its subsidiaries, and certain
third parties were named as defendants in an action filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida by Anthony
and Beth Lennen.

The case is filed as a putative class action; the plaintiffs seek
to represent a class consisting of themselves and all other
purchasers of  Marriott Vacation Club Destinations (MVCD) points,
from inception of the MVCD program in June 2010 to the present, as
well as all individuals who own or have owned weeks in any resorts
for which weeks have been added to the MVCD program.

Plaintiffs challenge the characterization of the beneficial
interests in the MVCD trust that are sold to customers as real
estate interests under Florida law. They also challenge the
structure of the trust and associated operational aspects of the
trust product. The relief sought includes, among other things,
declaratory relief, an unwinding of the MVCD product, and punitive
damages.

In September 2016, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint and a motion to stay the case pending referral of certain
questions to Florida state regulators, and the Court granted the
motion to dismiss and denied the motion to stay. The Court granted
leave to plaintiffs to file an amended complaint, which plaintiffs
filed in October 2017. In November 2017, the company filed a motion
to dismiss the amended complaint, which remains pending.

Marriott Vacations said "We dispute the plaintiffs' material
allegations and continue to defend against the action vigorously.
Given the early stages of the action and the inherent uncertainties
of litigation, we cannot estimate a range of the potential
liability, if any, at this time."

Marriott Vacations Worldwide Corporation develops, markets, sells,
and manages vacation ownership and related products under the
Marriott Vacation Club, Grand Residences by Marriott, and Marriott
Vacation Club Pulse brands. It operates through three segments:
North America, Asia Pacific, and Europe.  Marriott Vacations
Worldwide Corporation is headquartered in Orlando, Florida.


MATCH GROUP INC: Court to Dismiss McCloskey Suit
------------------------------------------------
Match Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the defendants in the
case, Mary McCloskey et ano. v. Match Group, Inc. et al., have
submitted a proposed order formalizing the court's dismissal
ruling.

On February 26, 2016, a putative nationwide class action was filed
in federal court in Texas against the Company, five of its officers
and directors, and twelve underwriters of the Company's initial
public offering in November 2015.  See David M. Stein v. Match
Group, Inc. et al., No. 3:16-cv-549 (U.S. District Court, Northern
District of Texas).  

The complaint alleged that the registration statement and
prospectus issued in connection with the Company's initial public
offering were materially false and misleading given their failure
to state that: (i) Match Group's Non-dating business would miss its
revenue projection for the quarter ended December 31, 2015, and
(ii) the Average Revenue per Subscriber (ARPU) would decline
substantially in the quarter ended December 31, 2015.  

The complaint asserted that these alleged failures to timely
disclose material information caused Match Group's stock price to
drop after the announcement of its earnings for the quarter ended
December 31, 2015. The complaint pleaded claims under the
Securities Act of 1933 for untrue statements of material fact in,
or omissions of material facts from, the registration statement,
the prospectus, and related communications in violation of Sections
11 and 12 and, as to the officer/director defendants only,
control-person liability under Section 15 for the Company's alleged
violations. The complaint sought among other relief class
certification and damages in an unspecified amount.

On March 9, 2016, a virtually identical class action complaint was
filed in the same court against the same defendants by a different
named plaintiff.  See Stephany Kam-Wan Chan v. Match Group, Inc. et
al., No. 3:16-cv-668 (U.S. District Court, Northern District of
Texas).

On April 25, 2016, Judge Boyle in the Chan case issued an order
granting the parties' joint motion to transfer that case to Judge
Lindsay, who is presiding over the earlier-filed Stein case. On
April 27, 2016, various current or former Match Group shareholders
and their respective law firms filed motions seeking appointment as
lead plaintiff(s) and lead or liaison counsel for the putative
class.

On April 28, 2016, the Court issued orders: (i) consolidating the
Chan case into the Stein case, (ii) approving the parties'
stipulation to extend the defendants' time to respond to the
complaint until after the Court has appointed a lead plaintiff and
lead counsel for the putative class and has set a schedule for the
plaintiff's filing of a consolidated complaint and the defendants'
response to that pleading, and (iii) referring the various motions
for appointment of lead plaintiff(s) and lead or liaison counsel
for the putative class to a United States Magistrate Judge for
determination.

On June 9, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued an order appointing
two lead plaintiffs, two law firms as co-lead plaintiffs' counsel,
and a third law firm as plaintiffs' liaison counsel. In accordance
with this order, the consolidated case is now captioned Mary
McCloskey et ano. v. Match Group, Inc. et al., No. 3:16-CV-549-L.

On July 27, 2016, the parties submitted to the Court a joint status
report proposing a schedule for the plaintiffs' filing of a
consolidated amended complaint and the parties' briefing of the
defendants' contemplated motion to dismiss the consolidated
complaint. On August 17, 2016, the Court issued an order approving
the parties' proposed schedule.  

On September 9, 2016, in accordance with the schedule, the
plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint. The new
pleading focuses solely on allegedly misleading statements or
omissions concerning the Match Group's Non-dating business. The
defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended consolidated
complaint on November 8, 2016. The plaintiffs filed oppositions to
the motions on December 23, 2016, and the defendants filed replies
to the oppositions on February 6, 2017. The court delivered its
decision on September 27, 2017, in which it denied the company's
motion to dismiss without prejudice and provided the plaintiffs an
opportunity to amend their claims to state an articulable cause of
action by October 30, 2017.

The plaintiffs amended their complaint prior to the deadline, and
the company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint
on December 15, 2017, the plaintiffs filed an opposition to the
motions on January 29, 2018, and the defendants filed replies to
the opposition on February 20, 2018.

On March 8, 2018, the court issued an order transferring the case
from Judge Lindsay to newly appointed Judge Scholer. On June 19,
2018, the court heard oral arguments on the motions, issued an oral
ruling from the bench dismissing the second amended consolidated
complaint without leave to amend, and indicated that a written
opinion and order would be forthcoming.

On July 10, 2018, pursuant to the court's suggestion at oral
argument, the defendants submitted a proposed order formalizing the
court's dismissal ruling.

Match Group, Inc. provides dating products. It operates a portfolio
of brands, including Tinder, Match, PlentyOfFish, Meetic, OkCupid,
OurTime, and Pairs. Match Group, Inc. offers its dating products
through its Websites and applications in 42 languages approximately
in 190 countries. The company was incorporated in 2009 and is
headquartered in Dallas, Texas. Match Group, Inc. is a subsidiary
of IAC/InterActiveCorp.


MATCH GROUP: Candelore Suit vs Tinder Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
Match Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that Tinder, Inc. continues
to defend against the case entitled, Allan Candelore v. Tinder,
Inc., No. BC583162 (Superior Court of California, County of Los
Angeles).

The putative state-wide class action was filed against Tinder in
state court in California on May 28, 2015.  The complaint
principally alleged that Tinder violated California's Unruh Civil
Rights Act by offering and charging users age 30 and over a higher
price than younger users for subscriptions to its premium Tinder
Plus service. The complaint sought certification of a class of
California Tinder Plus subscribers age 30 and over and damages in
an unspecified amount.  

On September 21, 2015, Tinder filed a demurrer seeking dismissal of
the complaint. On October 26, 2015, the court issued an opinion
sustaining Tinder's demurrer to the complaint without leave to
amend, ruling that the age-based pricing differential for Tinder
Plus subscriptions did not violate California law in essence
because offering a discount to users under age 30 was neither
invidious nor unreasonable in light of that age group's generally
more limited financial means.  

On December 29, 2015, in accordance with its ruling, the court
entered judgment dismissing the action. On February 1, 2016, the
plaintiff filed a notice of appeal from the judgment. On January
29, 2018, the California Court of Appeal (Second Appellate
District, Division Three) issued an opinion reversing the judgment
of dismissal, ruling that the lower court had erred in sustaining
Tinder's demurrer because the complaint, as pleaded, stated a
cognizable claim for violation of the Unruh Act.  

Match Group said, "Because we believe that the appellate court's
reasoning was flawed as a matter of law and runs afoul of binding
California precedent, on March 12, 2018, Tinder filed a petition
with the California Supreme Court seeking interlocutory review of
the Court of Appeal's decision.  

On May 9, 2018, the California Supreme Court denied the petition.
The case has been returned to the trial court for further
proceedings.

Match Group said, "We believe that the allegations in this lawsuit
are without merit and will continue to defend vigorously against
it."

Match Group, Inc. provides dating products. It operates a portfolio
of brands, including Tinder, Match, PlentyOfFish, Meetic, OkCupid,
OurTime, and Pairs. Match Group, Inc. offers its dating products
through its Websites and applications in 42 languages approximately
in 190 countries. The company was incorporated in 2009 and is
headquartered in Dallas, Texas. Match Group, Inc. is a subsidiary
of IAC/InterActiveCorp.


MCCARTHY BURGESS: Piscazzi Files FDCPA Suit in E.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against McCarthy, Burgess &
Wolff, Inc.  The case is titled Corrado Piscazzi, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. McCarthy, Burgess &
Wolff, Inc., Case No. 1:18-cv-04805 (E.D.N.Y., August 23, 2018).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

McCarthy, Burgess & Wolff, Inc., provides bankruptcy services.  The
Company offers outsourcing, third party collection, reporting, and
analystic services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel C. Cohen, Esq.
          COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
          300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Telephone: (929) 575-4175
          Facsimile: (929) 575-4195
          E-mail: dan@cml.legal


MDC PARTNERS: Parties in Paniccia Consent to Dismissal of Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
MDC Partners 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 parties in the "Paniccia" class action
litigation in Canada have consented to the dismissal of the action
with prejudice (and without costs), subject to the Court's formal
approval.

On August 7, 2015, Roberto Paniccia issued a Statement of Claim in
the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in the City of Brantford,
Ontario seeking to certify a class action suit naming the following
as defendants: MDC, former CEO Miles S. Nadal, former CAO Michael
C. Sabatino, CFO David Doft and BDO U.S.A. LLP.  The Plaintiff
alleged violations of section 138.1 of the Ontario Securities Act
(and equivalent legislation in other Canadian provinces and
territories) as well as common law misrepresentation based on
allegedly materially false and misleading statements in the
Company's public statements, as well as omitting to disclose
material facts with respect to the SEC investigation.

On June 4, 2018, the Court dismissed (with costs) the putative
class members' motion for leave to proceed with the Plaintiff's
claims for misrepresentations of material facts pursuant to the
Ontario Securities Act.

Following the Court's decision, on June 18, 2018, the Plaintiff,
MDC and each of the other defendants consented to the dismissal of
the action with prejudice (and without costs), subject to the
Court's formal approval.

MDC Partners Inc. is an advertising and marketing holding company
based in New York City. MDC is structured as a partnership model,
in which it initially acquires a majority stake in its partner
agency, leaving a percentage of ownership with the founder.  It has
more than 50 partner firms worldwide.


MDL 1566: 9th Cir. Reverses Summary Judgment Favoring CES
---------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, reversed the
District Court's judgment granting Defendant CenterPoint Energy
Services, Inc. (CES)'s Motion for Summary Judgment in the case
captioned ARANDELL CORP.; BRIGGS AND STRATTON CORPORATION; CARTHAGE
COLLEGE; LADISH CO., INC.; MERRICK'S INC.; SARGENTO FOODS, INC.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CENTERPOINT ENERGY SERVICES, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee, No. 16-17099 (9th Cir.).

Here the Ninth Circuit has a wholly owned subsidiary company which
sold natural gas to the Plaintiffs. It asserts that it acted
innocently and without knowledge of its parent company's
price-fixing scheme, which had pumped up the price of that gas.
Yes, the subsidiary company sold the gas at prices previously
rigged by the parent, and yes, the subsidiary sent the profits back
to the parent. But the subsidiary asserts there is no evidence that
it knew the prices were inflated or that it had the purpose to
carry out the price-fixing scheme.

The Plaintiffs argue the district court erred in: (1) determining
that the Plaintiffs needed to produce evidence that CES
intentionally conspired with RES to inflate gas prices in order to
raise a triable issue, (2) failing to consider record evidence that
CES purposely or knowingly furthered the alleged inter-enterprise
conspiracy by selling gas at rigged prices and channeling the
proceeds to Old Reliant, and (3) granting summary judgment without
considering the Plaintiffs' Rule 56(d) motion for additional
discovery.

Anticompetitive Intent

Purpose

Here, the Plaintiffs submitted evidence that the Reliant economic
unit had an anticompetitive purpose during the Class Period. Such
anticompetitive purpose can sustain liability under the Sherman Act
with or without an additional finding of knowledge. Therefore,
because the Reliant enterprise's alleged illegal purposes are
imputed to CES's coordinated activities, the district court erred
in granting summary judgment on the basis that Plaintiffs failed to
raise a triable issue of CES's intent.

Knowledge

Furthermore, the Plaintiffs' evidence was sufficient to raise a
triable issue of whether CES knowingly acted to further the alleged
price-fixing scheme. The Plaintiffs submitted evidence of
substantial overlap, during the Class Period, between the directors
and officers of CES, on one hand, and the directors and officers of
Old Reliant, RES, and other commonly owned Reliant entities.

Any knowledge of the alleged price-fixing scheme that CES's
directors and officers acquired while concurrently acting as
directors or officers of the other Reliant companies is imputable
to CES as a matter of Wisconsin law. The Plaintiffs submitted
evidence that Reliant traders engaged in manipulative trade
practices at the direction of Reliant management. Plaintiffs also
submitted evidence that such manipulative practices were a matter
of common knowledge within Reliant.

Drawing all rational inferences in favor of the Plaintiffs, these
facts permit a reasonable finding that CES's directors or officers
acquired knowledge of Reliant's manipulative trading practices
while concurrently serving as directors or officers of other
Reliant companies. Because such knowledge would be imputed to CES
as a matter of Wisconsin law, Plaintiffs raised a genuine issue of
material fact as to CES's knowledge of the alleged price-fixing
scheme.

Anticompetitive Acts

To be liable on a Section 1 claim, a defendant must have conspired
or agreed or combined, etc. to restrain trade. It is not necessary
to find an express agreement, either oral or written, in order to
find a conspiracy, but it is sufficient that a concert of action be
contemplated and that defendants conform to the arrangement. Any
conformance to an agreed or contemplated pattern of conduct will
warrant an inference of conspiracy. Therefore, CES's alleged
contributions to the conspiracy selling gas to Wisconsin consumers
at the inflated prices and disbursing the profits to Reliant, would
be adequate circumstantial evidence of conspiracy, if proved, to
permit a finding of liability.

The remaining question is whether the Plaintiffs submitted
sufficient evidence to raise a genuine issue as to whether CES in
fact participated in coordinated activity in furtherance of the
alleged inter-enterprise price-fixing conspiracy. The Plaintiffs
submitted evidence that, during the Class Period, CES sold gas at
rigged prices and then distributed the proceeds up to its parent's
coffers. CES does not deny that it sold gas it purchased from RES
to consumers in Wisconsin.

The Plaintiffs also submitted evidence that the profits from CES's
natural gas sales rolled up to Reliant and its shareholders, and
that Reliant would report those distributions as revenues in its
consolidated financial reports.

This evidence suffices to create a triable issue of liability under
the Sherman Act, and thus it suffices under Wisconsin Statute
Section 133.03(1) as well. Crediting the Plaintiffs' evidence,
CES's role was essential to securing the benefit of the other
Reliant defendants' price-fixing at least in Wisconsin, and CES's
acts were the immediate cause of the Plaintiffs' injuries. In
selling gas at rigged prices and distributing the inflated profits
to its parent, CES helped to carry out the inter-enterprise
conspiracy with the other gas companies just as Reliant allegedly
carried out the conspiracy by reporting sham sales to the trade
publications. CES's role was not only helpful to the conspirators,
it was crucial: Until CES sold the gas to consumers, the rigged and
inflated prices were not passed on to buyers outside of the Reliant
economic unit and there was no gain to the Reliant enterprise.

The conspiracy contemplated and embraced, at least by clear
implication, sales to consumers at the enhanced prices. The making
of those sales supplied part of the 'continuous cooperation'
necessary to keep the conspiracy alive.

A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's August 6, 2018 Opinion is
available at  https://tinyurl.com/yb72puez from Leagle.com.

Ryan M. Billings -- rbillings@kmksc.com -- (argued), Amy Irene
Washburn, Melinda A. Bialzik, and Robert L. Gegios, Kohner Mann &
Kailas S.C., for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Mark Russell Robeck -- mrobeck@kelleydrye.com -- (argued) and
Travis G. Cushman -- tcushman@kelleydrye.com -- Kelley Drye &
Warren LLP, Washington, D.C. for Defendants-Appellees.


MDL 1566: 9th Cir. Vacates Denial of Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, vacated the
District Court's judgment denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification in the case captioned In re: WESTERN STATES WHOLESALE
NATURAL GAS ANTITRUST LITIGATION. ARANDELL CORP.; et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CANTERA RESOURCES, INC.; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees. No. 17-16227. (9th Cir.)

This third appeal is from the district court's order denying
motions for class certification in four actions.

The plaintiffs in each of these actions are commercial and
industrial purchasers of natural gas, who allege that the defendant
natural gas traders conspired between 2000 and 2002 to manipulate
prices.  

The center-piece of the district court's brief rationale was that
the class members in these cases are not small consumers whose
damages constitute a straightforward calculation but rather are
sophisticated industrial and commercial consumers who used varying
and complex strategies for purchasing natural gas such that it is
difficult to calculate their damages in most cases.

However, the amount of damages is invariably an individual question
and does not defeat class action treatment.

To the extent that the district court's order can be read as
finding that common questions of law or fact did not predominate
with respect to antitrust injury, it was similarly sparse. The
court simply noted, without citation to the record or further
explanation, that Plaintiffs' own experts have used different
methods to calculate injury resulting in disparate estimations of
what percentage of class members were even harmed. The court then
concluded by stating that although there are some common questions
of law and fact, they simply do not predominate over individual
issues, without clearly identifying either the common or the
individual issues.

The plaintiffs ask the Ninth Circuit to order class certification.
This Court declines to do so. These cases are decades old, with
extensive records, and the issue is better analyzed by the district
court in the first instance. This Court therefore vacates the
orders denying class certification and remands to the district
court to conduct an appropriate analysis of the Rule 23(b)(3) issue
in the first instance, with particular focus on the potential
differences between each of the four actions.

A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's August 6, 2018 Memorandum
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yba8khgp from
Leagle.com.


MERCK & CO: Rotavirus Vaccines Antitrust Litigation Underway
------------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., 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 case styled In re Rotavirus Vaccines
Antitrust Litigation is ongoing.

The Company said, "On April 25 and May 2, 2018, Sugartown
Pediatrics, LLC and Schwartz Pediatrics, respectively, filed
putative class actions against Merck in the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania on behalf of all direct purchasers of RotaTeq from
April 25, 2014 through present, alleging that Merck violated
Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act.  On June 15, 2018, plaintiffs
filed a consolidated amended complaint, substituting MSD as the
defendant, and on July 23, Margiotti & Kroll Pediatrics, P.C. filed
a substantially similar complaint in the consolidated proceeding.
Plaintiffs allege that MSD has implemented an anticompetitive
vaccine bundling scheme whereby MSD leverages its monopoly power in
multiple pediatric vaccine markets to maintain its monopoly power
in the U.S. market for rotavirus vaccines.  Plaintiffs seek to
recover unspecified overcharge damages on their purchases of
RotaTeq, trebled, and fees and costs."

Merck & Co., Inc. provides healthcare solutions worldwide.  It
operates in four segments: Pharmaceutical, Animal Health,
Healthcare Services, and Alliances.  The Company was founded in
1891 and is headquartered in Kenilworth, New Jersey.


METLIFE INC: 9th Cir. Appeal from Martin Case Dismissal Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff's appeal from the dismissed "Martin" putative class
action suit remains pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit, according to MetLife, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2018.

The case is styled, Martin v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company,
(Superior Court of the State of California, County of Contra Costa,
filed December 17, 2015).

Plaintiffs filed this putative class action lawsuit on behalf of
themselves and all California persons who have been charged
compound interest by MLIC in life insurance policy and/or premium
loan balances within the last four years.  Plaintiffs allege that
MLIC has engaged in a pattern and practice of charging compound
interest on life insurance policy and premium loans without the
borrower authorizing such compounding, and that this constitutes an
unlawful business practice under California law.

Plaintiffs assert causes of action for declaratory relief,
violation of California's Unfair Competition Law and Usury Law, and
unjust enrichment.  Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive
relief, restitution of interest, and damages in an unspecified
amount.

On April 12, 2016, the court granted MLIC's motion to dismiss.
Plaintiffs have appealed this ruling to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The Company said it intends to defend this action vigorously.

MetLife, Inc. engages in the insurance, annuities, employee
benefits, and asset management businesses. It operates through five
segments: U.S.; Asia; Latin America; Europe, the Middle East and
Africa; and MetLife Holdings. The company is based in New York.


METLIFE INC: Faces Roycroft Suit over Group Annuity Contracts
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case styled, Roycroft v. MetLife, Inc., et al. (S.D.N.Y.,
filed June 18, 2018), the Plaintiff alleges that the Company held
and profited from monies owed to beneficiaries of group annuity
contracts by releasing reserves after failing to locate the
beneficiaries, according to MetLife, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2018.

Plaintiff filed this putative class action on behalf of all persons
due benefits under group annuity contracts and whose annuity
benefits were released from reserves.  Plaintiff asserts claims for
conversion, unjust enrichment, constructive trust and accounting
based on allegations that the Company held and profited from monies
owed to beneficiaries of group annuity contracts by releasing
reserves after failing to locate the beneficiaries.  Plaintiff
seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as unspecified
compensatory and punitive damages, and other relief.

The Company said it intends to defend this action vigorously.

MetLife, Inc. engages in the insurance, annuities, employee
benefits, and asset management businesses. It operates through five
segments: U.S.; Asia; Latin America; Europe, the Middle East and
Africa; and MetLife Holdings. The company is based in New York.


METLIFE INC: Miller Class Suit  v. MLIC Still Pending in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company continues to defend itself
against the "Miller" putative class action in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York, according to MetLife,
Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018.  The
lawsuit was initially filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California and styled Miller, et al. v.
MetLife, Inc., et al. (C.D. Cal., filed April 7, 2017).

Plaintiff filed this putative class action against MetLife, Inc.
and MLIC in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, purporting to assert claims on behalf of all persons
who replaced their MetLife Optional Term Life or Group Universal
Life policy with a Group Variable Universal Life policy wherein
MetLife allegedly charged smoker rates for certain non-smokers.
Plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, as
well as other relief.

On September 25, 2017, plaintiff dismissed the action and refiled
the complaint in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York.  On November 9, 2017, plaintiff dismissed MetLife, Inc.
without prejudice from the action.

The Company said, "MLIC intends to defend this action vigorously."

MetLife, Inc. engages in the insurance, annuities, employee
benefits, and asset management businesses. It operates through five
segments: U.S.; Asia; Latin America; Europe, the Middle East and
Africa; and MetLife Holdings. The company is based in New York.


METLIFE INC: MLIC Still Faces Newman Class Action in Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, 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 case styled Newman v. Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company (N.D. Ill., filed March 23, 2016) is still
ongoing.  This class action has been previously dismissed but was
revived by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging causes of
action for breach of contract, fraud, and violations of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, based
on MLIC's class-wide increase in premiums charged for long-term
care insurance policies.  Plaintiff alleges a class consisting of
herself and all persons over age 65 who selected a Reduced Pay at
Age 65 payment feature and whose premium rates were increased after
age 65.  Plaintiff asserts that premiums could not be increased for
these class members and/or that marketing material was misleading
as to MLIC's right to increase premiums.  Plaintiff seeks
unspecified compensatory, statutory and punitive damages, as well
as recessionary and injunctive relief.

On April 12, 2017, the court granted MLIC's motion, dismissing the
action with prejudice.  Plaintiff appealed this ruling to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (the
"Seventh Circuit") and on February 6, 2018, the Seventh Circuit
reversed and remanded for further proceedings, ruling that
Plaintiff is entitled to relief on her contract claim.

Following MLIC's petition for rehearing, the Seventh Circuit issued
an amended opinion on March 22, 2018, holding that plaintiff's
claim survived MLIC's motion to dismiss but finding that the policy
is ambiguous as to MLIC's right to raise plaintiff's premiums.  The
Seventh Circuit held that on remand to the district court, the
parties may introduce evidence to try to resolve this ambiguity.

MetLife, Inc. engages in the insurance, annuities, employee
benefits, and asset management businesses. It operates through five
segments: U.S.; Asia; Latin America; Europe, the Middle East and
Africa; and MetLife Holdings. The company is based in New York.


METLIFE INC: Owens Suit v. Metropolitan Life Still Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, 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 case, Owens v. Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company (N.D. Ga., filed April 17, 2014), is still ongoing.

Plaintiff filed this class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons
for whom MLIC established a TCA to pay death benefits under an
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") plan.
The action alleges that MLIC's use of the TCA as the settlement
option for life insurance benefits under some group life insurance
policies violates MLIC's fiduciary duties under ERISA.  As damages,
plaintiff seeks disgorgement of profits that MLIC realized on
accounts owned by members of the class.  In addition, plaintiff, on
behalf of a subgroup of the class, seeks interest under Georgia's
delayed settlement interest statute, alleging that the use of the
TCA as the settlement option did not constitute payment.

On September 27, 2016, the court denied MLIC's summary judgment
motion in full and granted plaintiff's partial summary judgment
motion.  On September 29, 2017, the court certified a nationwide
class.  The court also certified a Georgia subclass.

The Company said it intends to defend this action vigorously.

MetLife, Inc. engages in the insurance, annuities, employee
benefits, and asset management businesses. It operates through five
segments: U.S.; Asia; Latin America; Europe, the Middle East and
Africa; and MetLife Holdings. The company is based in New York.


METLIFE INC: Sales Practices Suits vs. Sun Life Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, 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 Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada continues
to face sales practices lawsuits.

In 2006, Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada ("Sun Life"), as
successor to the purchaser of MLIC's Canadian operations, filed a
lawsuit in Toronto, seeking a declaration that MLIC remains liable
for "market conduct claims" related to certain individual life
insurance policies sold by MLIC that were subsequently transferred
to Sun Life.

In January 2010, the court found that Sun Life had given timely
notice of its claim for indemnification but, because it found that
Sun Life had not yet incurred an indemnifiable loss, granted MLIC's
motion for summary judgment.  Both parties agreed to consider the
indemnity claim through arbitration.  In September 2010, Sun Life
notified MLIC that a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against Sun Life in Toronto alleging sales practices claims
regarding the policies sold by MLIC and transferred to Sun Life.

On August 30, 2011, Sun Life notified MLIC that another purported
class action lawsuit was filed against Sun Life in Vancouver, BC
alleging sales practices claims regarding certain of the same
policies sold by MLIC and transferred to Sun Life.  Sun Life
contends that MLIC is obligated to indemnify Sun Life for some or
all of the claims in these lawsuits.

These sales practices cases against Sun Life are ongoing, and the
Company is unable to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range
of loss arising from this litigation.

MetLife, Inc. engages in the insurance, annuities, employee
benefits, and asset management businesses. It operates through five
segments: U.S.; Asia; Latin America; Europe, the Middle East and
Africa; and MetLife Holdings. The company is based in New York.


METLIFE INC: Still Defends Julian & McKinney Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc. continues to face the class action styled, Julian &
McKinney v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (S.D.N.Y., filed
February 9, 2017), according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2018.

Plaintiffs filed this putative class and collective action on
behalf of themselves and all current and former long-term
disability ("LTD") claims specialists between February 2011 and the
present for alleged wage and hour violations under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the Connecticut Minimum
Wage Act.  The suit alleges that MetLife improperly reclassified
the plaintiffs and similarly situated LTD claims specialists from
non-exempt to exempt from overtime pay in November 2013.  As a
result, they and members of the putative class were no longer
eligible for overtime pay even though they allege they continued to
work more than 40 hours per week.

On March 22, 2018, the Court conditionally certified the case as a
collective action, requiring that notice be mailed to LTD claims
specialists who worked for the Company from February 8, 2014 to the
present.

The Company said it intends to defend this action vigorously.

MetLife, Inc. engages in the insurance, annuities, employee
benefits, and asset management businesses. It operates through five
segments: U.S.; Asia; Latin America; Europe, the Middle East and
Africa; and MetLife Holdings. The company is based in New York.


METLIFE INC: Still Defends Parchmann Class Lawsuit in E.D.N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled, Parchmann v. MetLife, Inc., et al. (E.D.N.Y.,
filed February 5, 2018), remains ongoing, according to MetLife,
Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018.

Seeking to represent a class of persons who purchased MetLife, Inc.
common stock from February 27, 2013 through January 29, 2018, the
plaintiff alleges that MetLife, Inc., its Chief Executive Officer
and Chairman of the Board, and its CFO violated Section 10(b) of
the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by issuing
materially false and/or misleading statements because the
defendants failed to disclose that MetLife's practices and
procedures used to estimate its reserves set aside for annuity and
pension payments were inadequate, and that MetLife had inadequate
internal control over financial reporting.  The plaintiff seeks
unspecified compensatory damages and other relief.

The Company said, "The defendants intend to defend this action
vigorously."

MetLife, Inc. engages in the insurance, annuities, employee
benefits, and asset management businesses. It operates through five
segments: U.S.; Asia; Latin America; Europe, the Middle East and
Africa; and MetLife Holdings. The company is based in New York.


METLIFE INC: Voshall Class Suit v. MLIC Still Ongoing in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled Voshall v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
(Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles,
April 8, 2015) is still ongoing, according to MetLife, Inc.'s Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018.

Plaintiff filed this putative class action lawsuit on behalf of
himself and all persons covered under a long-term group disability
income insurance policy issued by MLIC to public entities in
California between April 8, 2011 and April 8, 2015.  Plaintiff
alleges that MLIC improperly reduced benefits by including cost of
living adjustments and employee paid contributions in the employer
retirement benefits and other income that reduces the benefit
payable under such policies.

Plaintiff asserts causes of action for declaratory relief,
violation of the California Business & Professions Code, breach of
contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing.

The Company said it intends to defend this action vigorously.

MetLife, Inc. engages in the insurance, annuities, employee
benefits, and asset management businesses. It operates through five
segments: U.S.; Asia; Latin America; Europe, the Middle East and
Africa; and MetLife Holdings. The company is based in New York.


METLIFE INC: Westland Police Lawsuit in S.D.N.Y. Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc. continues to defend itself in a class action lawsuit
filed by the City of Westland Police and Fire Retirement System,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2018.

The case is styled, City of Westland Police and Fire Retirement
System v. MetLife, Inc., et al. (S.D.N.Y., filed January 12,
2012).

Seeking to represent a class of persons who purchased MetLife, Inc.
common shares between February 2, 2010, and October 6, 2011, the
plaintiff alleges that MetLife, Inc. and several current and former
directors and executive officers of MetLife, Inc. violated the
Securities Act of 1933, as well as the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 ("Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by
issuing, or causing MetLife, Inc. to issue, materially false and
misleading statements concerning MetLife, Inc.'s potential
liability for millions of dollars in insurance benefits that should
have been paid to beneficiaries or escheated to the states.
Plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief.

On September 22, 2017, the Court granted plaintiff's motion to
certify its proposed class of persons who purchased or acquired
MetLife, Inc. common stock in the Company's August 3, 2010 offering
or the Company's March 4, 2011 offering.

The Company said that the defendants intend to defend this action
vigorously.

MetLife, Inc. engages in the insurance, annuities, employee
benefits, and asset management businesses. It operates through five
segments: U.S.; Asia; Latin America; Europe, the Middle East and
Africa; and MetLife Holdings. The company is based in New York.


MIAMI-DADE, FL: Dismissal of Medallion Holders' Suit Partly Upheld
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, affirmed in
part and vacated in part the District Court's judgment granting
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case captioned  CHECKER CAB
OPERATORS, INC., a Florida Corporation, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated, B&S TAXI CORP., a Florida
Corporation, MIADECO CORP., a Florida Corporation,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, a political
subdivision of the State of Florida, Defendant-Appellee, No.
17-11955 (11th Cir.).

The district court held that the Medallion Holders failed to state
either a takings or an equal protection claim.

Certain medallion holders filed suit (Medallion Holders), attacking
the TNE Ordinance's constitutionality. They claimed that, by
disrupting their market exclusivity, the TNE Ordinance effected a
taking of their medallions without just compensation in violation
of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States
Constitution and Article X Section 6 of the Florida Constitution.
They also claimed that, because it subjected them to more stringent
regulations than those governing TNEs, the TNE Ordinance
discriminated against medallion holders in violation of the Equal
Protection Clause.  

First, the court held that the Medallion Holders failed to state a
takings claim. Although the medallions enabled their holders to
provide for-hire transportation services, they conferred no right
to block competition in the relevant market. Since the diminution
of the medallions' value derived solely from exposure to new
competition, their takings claims could not succeed.

The trial court also rejected their equal protection claims,
explaining that the regulatory distinctions identified by the
Medallion Holders simply reflected the important differences found
in the taxicabs' and TNEs' respective business models.

Thus, for example, while taxicabs operate primarily through street
hails and flat fare rates, TNEs are summoned through smartphone
applications and calibrate fares according to fluctuations in
supply and demand. The district court further denied the Medallion
Holders' request for leave to amend their complaint, holding that
any amendment would be futile.

To withstand a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint
must include enough facts to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face. A claim has facial plausibility when the
plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged.

The Medallion Holders argue, and the County does not dispute that
Section 627.748, Florida Statutes (2018) does not moot this appeal
even though it pre-empted the TNE Ordinance. It is well established
that under Article III of the Constitution, federal courts may
adjudicate only actual, ongoing cases or controversies.

In order to invoke the jurisdiction of an Article III court, a
litigant must have suffered, or be threatened with, an actual
injury traceable to the defendant and likely to be redressed by a
favorable judicial decision.

The Medallion Holders sought declaratory and injunctive relief for
their equal protection claims. They also requested damages for both
their takings and equal protection claims. All of the allegations
were exclusively directed at the County's TNE Ordinance. Yet three
months after the district court dismissed this case, the Florida
legislature enacted Section 627.748, which pre-empted the TNE
Ordinance. The Medallion Holders do not dispute the pre-emptive
effect of the Florida statute. Since it has been pre-empted by
state law, the TNE Ordinance is incapable of sowing future harm,
mooting the Medallion Holders' claims for declaratory and
injunctive relief.  

Consequently, the Court is obliged to vacate the judgment of the
district court dismissing the Medallion Holders' claims for
declaratory and injunctive relief on the merits and remand with
instructions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
However, because the Medallion Holders also sought damages for
their takings and equal protection claims, those claims are not
moot. The prospect of recovering retrospective monetary relief for
injuries allegedly inflicted on them by the County ensures a live
controversy between the parties. The Court turn, therefore, to the
merits of those claims.

The Medallion Holders say that the district court erroneously
dismissed their takings claims because they lacked a property right
in excluding competitors from the relevant market. It is undisputed
that the Code characterized the medallions as intangible property
and, before the TNE Ordinance's passage, conditioned the provision
of for-hire transportation services on the possession of a
medallion.

To state a Takings claim under federal law, a plaintiff must first
demonstrate that he possesses a property interest' that is
constitutionally protected. Only if the plaintiff actually
possesses such an interest will a reviewing court then determine
whether the deprivation or reduction of that interest constitutes a
taking.

The main purpose behind the County's medallion policy was not to
enrich medallion holders, but rather to enhance consumer welfare.
The County sought to license and regulate the use of for-hire
transportation vehicles to assure the passengers thereof, as well
as others utilizing the streets of Miami-Dade County, that the
vehicles are fit and that their operators and chauffeurs are
competent to provide such services, and to improve the quality,
efficiency and economy of for-hire transportation] service.

The County hoped that the medallion system would serve as "an
incentive for the taxi driver, who frequently constitutes a
traveler's first and last impression of Miami-Dade County, to
provide courteous, safe and efficient transportation service in a
very busy tourist destination.  It was entirely foreseeable that
the County might erode those restrictions if consumer welfare and
demographic changes demanded it. Once new technologies, including
TNE reservation and dispatch applications for wireless devices were
developed to permit more efficient reservation, dispatch, payment
and utilization of for-hire vehicles, the Medallion Holders should
have anticipated that the County would authorize the TNEs' market
entry in order to benefit consumers, particularly since they have
become extremely popular across the United States. The Medallion
Holders' claim to a perpetual monopoly based on historical
exclusivity is unpersuasive.

The Medallion Holders' intangible property did not include the
right to bar competition and the district court properly dismissed
their takings claims.

The Medallion Holders also say that the TNE Ordinance violated
their right to the equal protection of the laws under both the
United States and Florida Constitutions. They contend that the TNE
Ordinance created separate sets of regulations for the taxicab
industry and the TNEs, resulting in unfair and arbitrary
disparities between groups engaged in identical business
activities, i.e. the business of providing transportation services
to the public in exchange for payment.

In the absence of any allegation that the government discriminated
on the basis of a suspect classification, including race, alienage,
national origin, gender, or illegitimacy, we evaluate equal
protection claims under rational basis review and ask only whether
the challenged statutes or ordinances are rationally related to the
achievement of some legitimate government purpose. A challenged
ordinance will survive rational basis review if it could have been
directed toward some legitimate government purpose, even if that
purpose did not actually motivate the enacting legislature. The
ordinance will likewise overcome rational basis review if it is not
so attenuated from that purpose as to be arbitrary or irrational.
Those attacking the rationality of a legislative classification
have the burden to negate every conceivable basis which might
support it. Not surprisingly, rational basis scrutiny is easily
met. Moreover, the Florida Constitution's equal protection clause
overlaps entirely with its federal counterpart.  

The Medallion Holders neither assert that the TNE Ordinance
employed a suspect classification nor dispute the applicability of
rational basis review. Under that standard, their equal protection
claims fail for two reasons: first, they overstate the differences
in the regulatory treatment afforded taxicabs and TNEs; and,
second, those regulatory distinctions that were significant were
rationally related to legitimate government interests.

Affirmed in part. Vacated in part and remanded in part.

A full-text copy of the Eleventh Circuit's August 6, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y8recvgv from Leagle.com.

Bernard Pastor, for Defendant-Appellee.

Ralph G. Patino -- rpatino@patinolaw.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellant.

Ralph Oliver Anderson, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Karen Jill Barnet-Backer, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Annery Pulgar Alfonso -- annery@miamidade.gov -- for
Defendant-Appellee.


MIDLAND FUNDING: Warner Seeks Certification of Consumers Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned CURTIS WARNER, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC,
MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., and SMITH DEBNAM NARRON DRAKE
SAINTSING & MYERS, LLP, Case No. 1:18-cv-00727 (M.D.N.C.), asks the
Court to certify this class:

     All consumers with North Carolina addresses, who: (a) on or
     after August 24, 2015; (b) were sent a letter by Defendant
     Smith Debnam Narron Drake Saintsing & Myers, LLP ("Smith
     Debnam") in a form materially identical or substantially
     similar to the letter attached to Plaintiff's Complaint as
     Exhibit C sent to the Plaintiff; (c) Smith Debnam attached
     to the letter account statement(s) or document(s) resembling
     account statement(s) that included "previous balances" not
     broken down into purchases, interest, fees, payments, etc.;
     (d) the debt sought to be collected by the letter was
     allegedly owed to Defendant Midland Funding, LLC
     ("Midland"); (e) Midland has not, as of August 23, 2018,
     filed a lawsuit or arbitration to collect the debt that was
     the subject of the letter; and (f) the letter was not
     returned by the postal service as undelivered.

Mr. Warner also asks the Court to appoint him as Class
Representative and to appoint attorneys Brian L. Bromberg, Esq.,
and Jonathan R. Miller, Esq., as Class Counsel.  He further asks
the Court to preliminarily enjoin Midland and Midland Credit
Management, Inc., from filing any lawsuit or arbitration against
him or any class member until at least 30 days after they receive
amended notices of intent, as required by N.C. Gen. Stat. Section
58-70-115(6), that fully itemize the amounts allegedly due.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan R. Miller, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN R. MILLER, PLLC
          d/b/a SALEM COMMUNITY LAW OFFICE
          301 N. Main Street, Suite 2412
          Winston-Salem, NC 27101
          Telephone: (336) 837-4437
          Facsimile: (336) 837-4436
          E-mail: jmiller@salemcommunitylaw.com

               - and -

          Brian L. Bromberg, Esq.
          BROMBERG LAW OFFICE, P.C.
          26 Broadway, 21st Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 248-7906
          Facsimile: (212) 248-7908
          E-mail: brian@bromberglawoffice.com


MOBILEIRON INC: Contributes $1.1M to Shareholder Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
MobileIron, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that company has contributed
$1.1 million to the settlement in the case entitled, In re
MobileIron Shareholder Litigation.

On August 5, 2015, August 21, 2015 and August 24, 2015, purported
stockholder class action lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court
of California, Santa Clara County against the Company, certain of
its officers, directors, underwriters and investors, captioned
Schneider v. MobileIron, Inc., et al., Kerley v. MobileIron, Inc.,
et al. and Steinberg v. MobileIron, Inc., et al, which were
subsequently consolidated under the case caption In re MobileIron
Shareholder Litigation.

The actions are purportedly brought on behalf of a putative class
of all persons who purchased the Company's securities issued
pursuant or traceable to the Company's registration statement and
the June 12, 2014 initial public offering.

The lawsuits assert claims for violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2)
and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. The complaint sought, among
other things, compensatory damages and attorney's fees and costs on
behalf of the putative class. On April 12, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a
corrected consolidated complaint, which no longer named the
underwriters or investors as defendants. On August 8, 2016 the
Company filed a demurrer to the corrected consolidated complaint.
The court overruled the demurrer on October 4, 2016.

On March 8, 2017, the Company reached an agreement in principle to
settle the above-described actions and the court granted
preliminary approval of that settlement on June 9, 2017. The court
approved the settlement on August 21, 2017 and entered final
judgment in the case on October 11, 2017 releasing all parties.  

The settlement called for a payment of $7.5 million to the
plaintiffs in resolution of all claims against the Company, its
officers, directors and the other defendants. The Company
contributed $1.1 million to the settlement in the three months
ended September 30, 2017. This amount represented the remainder of
the Company's retention amount under its Director & Officer
liability insurance policy. The balance was paid by the Company's
Director & Officer liability insurance.

While the Company and the other defendants continue to deny each of
the plaintiffs' claims and deny any liability, the Company agreed
to the settlement solely to resolve the disputes, to avoid the
costs and risks of further litigation and to avoid further
distractions to management.

MobileIron, Inc. provides a purpose-built mobile IT platform that
enables enterprises to manage and secure mobile applications,
content, and devices while offering their employees with device
choice, privacy, and a native user experience in the United States
and internationally. MobileIron, Inc. was founded in 2007 and is
headquartered in Mountain View, California.


MONARCH RECOVERY: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Donaeva Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Monarch Recovery
Management, Inc.  The case is titled as Anastasiya Donaeva, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Monarch
Recovery Management, Inc., Case No. 1:18-cv-04809 (E.D.N.Y., August
23, 2018).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

Monarch Recovery Management, Inc., an accounts receivable
management company, provides financial recovery solutions.  The
Company offers collection and payment processing services in
various asset classes and industry sectors, including auto
deficiencies, commercial paper, credit union accounts, government
receivables, student loan receivables, bank credit card
receivables, retail credit card receivables, sub-prime credit card
receivables and debt buyer paper.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel C. Cohen, Esq.
          COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
          300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Telephone: (929) 575-4175
          Facsimile: (929) 575-4195
          E-mail: dan@cml.legal


MOSAIC COMPANY: Investigation on Labor Law Non-Compliance Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the Uberaba EHS Class Action, investigation of whether The
Mosaic Company has committed any non-compliance with labor
regulations in Brazil is still pending, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018.

The Company said, "In 2013, the public prosecutor filed a class
action claiming that our predecessor company in Brazil should be
compelled to comply with labor safety rules and respect the
provisions related to working hours set in Brazilian legislation.
This claim was based on an inspection conducted by the Labor and
Employment Ministry in 2010, following which we were fined for not
complying with several labor regulations.  We filed our defense,
claiming that we complied with labor regulations and that the
assessment carried out by the inspectors in 2010 was abusive,
requesting an expert examination to confirm the facts.  Upon the
initial hearing, the court determined to order an examination to
determine whether there has been any non-compliance with labor
regulations.  The examination is currently pending.  The amount
involved in the proceeding is US$32.2 million."

The Mosaic Company, through its subsidiaries, produces and markets
concentrated phosphate and potash crop nutrients worldwide.  The
company operates through three segments: Phosphates, Potash, and
International Distribution.  The Mosaic Company was founded in 2004
and is headquartered in Plymouth, Minnesota.


MRI INT'L: Court Orders Surrender of 7007184 Insurance
------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Nevada issued
an Order regarding Liquidation of Life Insurance Policy and Payment
of Funds Pursuant to Final Approval of Class Action Settlement in
the case captioned SHIGE TAKIGUCHI, et al, Individually and On
Behalf of All Others Similarity Situated, Plaintiffs, v. MRI
INTERNATIONAL, INC., EDWIN J. FUJINAGA, JUNZO SUZUKI, PAUL MUSASHI
SUZUKI, LVT, INC., d/b/a STERLING ESCROW, and DOES 1-500,
Defendants. Case No. 2:13-cv-01183-HDM-NJK. (D. Nev.)

The Suzuki Defendants entered into a Settlement Agreement with
Plaintiffs by which they agreed to surrender and liquidate certain
life insurance policies and pay the surrender value to Plaintiffs
as consideration for resolution this action;

Pacific Guardian Life is ordered to process the surrender of Policy
No. 0007005184 owned by Keiko Suzuki, and transfer the entire
surrender value to the qualified settlement account designated by
Heffler Claims Group; and

The Suzuki Defendants are ordered to reasonably cooperate with
Plaintiffs and the life insurance policy issuers as necessary in
effectuating the surrender of the above policies.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 6, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yae6emzn from Leagle.com.

Shige Takiguchi, Fumi Nonaka, Kaoruko Koizumi, Tatsuro Sakai,
Mitsuaki Takita & Naomi Ukei, ECF No. 805 Order, Plaintiffs,
represented by James Edwin Gibbons -- jeg@manningllp.com -- Manning
& Kass Ellrod, Ramirez, Trester LLP, James R. Olson , Olson,
Cannon, Gormley, Angulo & Stoberski, Mariko Taenaka --
mt@robertwcohenlaw.com -- Law Offices of Robert W. Cohen, Robert W.
Cohen -- rwc@robertwcohenlaw.com -- Law Offices of Robert W. Cohen,
APC & Steven Jeff Renick -- sjr@manningllp.com -- Manning & Kass,
Ellrod, Ramirez, Trester LLP.

Shizuuko Ishimori, Yoko Hatano, Yuko Nakamura, Hidehito Miura,
Yoshiko Tazaki, Masaaki Moriya, Hatsune Hatano, Satoru Moriya,
Hidenao Takama, Shigeru Kurisu, Saka Ono, Kazuhiro Matsumoto, Kaya
Hatanaka, Hiroka Yamajiri, Kiyoharu Yamamoto, Junko Yamamoto,
Koichi Inoue, Akiko Naruse, Toshimasa Nomura & Ritsu Yurikusa,
Plaintiffs, represented by James Edwin Gibbons , Manning & Kass
Ellrod, Ramirez, Trester LLP, James R. Olson , Olson, Cannon,
Gormley, Angulo & Stoberski, Mariko Taenaka , Law Offices of Robert
W. Cohen, Robert W. Cohen , Law Offices of Robert W. Cohen, APC &
Steven Jeff Renick , Manning & Kass, Ellrod, Ramirez, Trester LLP,
pro hac vice.

Kazuya Fujimura, Plaintiff, represented by James Edwin Gibbons ,
Manning & Kass Ellrod, Ramirez, Trester LLP.

MRI International, Inc. & Edwin J Fujinaga, Defendants, represented
by Daniel L. Hitzke -- Daniel.hitzke@hitzkelaw.com -- Hitzke &
Associates & Erick M. Ferran.

First Hawaiian Bank, as Trustee of the Junzo Suzuki Irrevocable
Trust UAD 7/12/2013, First Hawaiian Bank, as Trustee of the Keiko
Suzuki Irrevocable Trust UAD 7/12/2013 & First Hawaiian Bank, as
Trustee of the Junzo Suzuki and Keiko Suzuki Irrevocable Life
Insurance Trust U/A dtd 5/1/2008, Defendants, represented by
Christopher R. Ramos -- cramos@vedderprice.com -- Vedder Price
(CA), LLP, pro hac vice, Rex Garner -- rex.garner@akerman.com --
Akerman LLP, Ariel E. Stern -- ariel.stern@akerman.com -- Akerman
LLP & Lisa M. Simonetti -- lsimonetti@vedderprice.com -- Vedder
Price, LLP.


MS CHEEZIOUS: Gomez Suit Alleges ADA Breach
-------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ms. Cheezious.  The
case is captioned as Andres Gomez, on his own and on behalf of all
other individuals similarly situated v. MS. CHEEZIOUS, Case No.
1:18-cv-23400-JEM (S.D. Fla., August 22, 2018).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.

Ms. Cheezious(R) operates brick and mortar restaurants and food
trucks.[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: jkerr@advocacypa.com


MS FIRE PROTECTION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Clark Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL A. CLARK, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MS FIRE PROTECTION, INC.; and Does
1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 18CECG02823 (Cal.
Super., Fresno Cty., July 31, 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. Clark was employed by the Defendants as an hourly, non-exempt
employee from February 8, 2016 to December 7, 2016.

MS Fire Protection, Inc. is a California corporation engage in
installing fire sprinklers in the State of California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lenden F. Webb, Esq.
          Brooke B. Nevels, Esq.
          WEBB LAW GROUP, APC
          466 W. Fallbrook Ave., Suite 102
          Fresno, CA 93711
          Telephone: (559) 431-4888
          Facsimile: (559) 821-4500
          E-mail: LWebb@WBLawGroup.com
                  BNevels@WBLawGroup.com


NAGLE & ZALLER: 4th Circuit Appeal Filed in Archie Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Suzette Archie and Om Sharma filed an appeal from a
court ruling in the lawsuit titled Suzette Archie, et al. v. Nagle
& Zaller, P.C., Case No. 8:17-cv-02524-GJH, in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Maryland at Greenbelt.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on August 20, 2018, the
District Court granted the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case.

On behalf of two classes of plaintiffs, Archie and Sharma allege
that N&Z is liable for filing Writs of Garnishment that
impermissibly sought post-judgment enforcement costs (Garnishment
Class), and for filing Statements of Lien that included language
improperly stating that the liens could increase or decrease in
value (Lien Class).  The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant's
conduct violates the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The appellate case is captioned as Suzette Archie, et al. v. Nagle
& Zaller, P.C., Case No. 18-1979, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants SUZETTE ARCHIE, Individually and on behalf of
three classes of similarly situated persons, and OM SHARMA are
represented by:

          Scott C. Borison, Esq.
          LEGG LAW FIRM, LLC
          1900 South Norfolk Road
          San Mateo, CA 94403
          Telephone: (301) 620-1016
          E-mail: borison@legglaw.com

               - and -

          Peter Albert Holland, Esq.
          Emanwel Josef Turnbull, Esq.
          HOLLAND LAW FIRM, PC
          914 Bay Ridge Road
          Annapolis, MD 21403
          Telephone: (410) 280-6133
          E-mail: peter@hollandlawfirm.com
                  eturnbull@hollandlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Phillip R. Robinson, Esq.
          CONSUMER LAW CENTER LLC
          8737 Colesville Road
          Silver Spring, MD 20910-0000
          Telephone: (301) 637-6270
          E-mail: phillip@marylandconsumer.com

Defendant-Appellee NAGLE & ZALLER, P.C., is represented by:

          Maria Iliadis, Esq.
          Stacey Ann Moffet, Esq.
          ECCLESTON & WOLF, PC
          7240 Parkway Drive
          Hanover, MD 21076
          Telephone: (410) 752-7474
          E-mail: iliadis@ewmd.com
                  moffet@ewmd.com


NATIONAL BEVERAGE: Kaskela Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
Kaskela Law LLC disclosed that a shareholder class action lawsuit
has been filed against National Beverage Corp. (NASDAQ: FIZZ)
("National Beverage" or the "Company") on behalf of purchasers of
the Company's securities between July 17, 2014 and July 3, 2018,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

IMPORTANT DEADLINE: Investors who purchased National Beverage's
securities during the Class Period may, no later than September 17,
2018, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of
the class.  Investors seeking to take a proactive role in the
litigation -- including current holders of the Company's stock --
are encouraged to contact Kaskela Law LLC (D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.)
at (888) 715-1740 or skaskela@kaskelalaw.com, or online at
http://kaskelalaw.com/case/national-beverage-corp/,for additional
information.

On June 26, 2018, The Wall Street Journal published an article
entitled "The SEC Has Had Its Own Questions About LaCroix," which
reported that National Beverage had "declined to provide," in
response to an SEC request, "requested figures to clarify sales
claims."   On this news, National Beverage's share price fell
$9.75, or 8.87%, to close at $100.19 on June 27, 2018.

Then, on July 3, 2018, The Wall Street Journal published an article
entitled "Billionaire Behind LaCroix Accused of Improper Touching
by Two Pilots."  That article reported that "[t]wo pilots have
filed lawsuits alleging sexual harassment . . . claiming
82-year-old Nick A. Caporella inappropriately touched them on
multiple trips while they were flying with him in the cockpit of
his business jet," and that "[t]he suits claim the unwanted
touching occurred on more than 30 trips from 2014 to 2016."

The shareholder class action complaint alleges that defendants made
false and misleading statements during the Class Period and failed
to disclose to investors that: (i) National Beverage's sales claims
and its supposed underlying "proprietary techniques" lacked a
verifiable basis; (ii) National Beverage's Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer, Nick A. Caporella, engaged in a pattern of
sexual misconduct between 2014 and 2016; and (iii) therefore,
National Beverage's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.  The complaint further alleges
that, as a result of the foregoing, investors purchased National
Beverage's securities at artificially inflated prices during the
Class Period and have sustained investment losses.

National Beverage investors who seek to take a proactive role in
the litigation -- including current holders of the Company's stock
-- are encouraged to:

         D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.
         KASKELA LAW LLC
         201 King of Prussia Road, Suite 650
         Radnor, PA 19087
         Telephone: (888) 715-1740
         Email: skaskela@kaskelalaw.com [GN]


NEWPORT CORP: Former Directors Still Defend Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Certain members of Newport Corporation's former board of directors
continue to defend themselves in a securities putative class action
suit in Nevada, according to MKS Instruments, Inc.'s Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018.

On March 9, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit captioned Dixon
Chung v. Newport Corp., et al., Case No. A-16-733154-C, was filed
in the District Court, Clark County, Nevada on behalf of a putative
class of stockholders of Newport for claims related to the Merger
Agreement between the Company, Newport, and Merger Sub.

On March 25, 2016, a second putative class action complaint
captioned Hubert C. Pincon v. Newport Corp., et al., Case No.
A-16-734039-B, was filed in the District Court, Clark County,
Nevada, on behalf of a putative class of Newport's stockholders for
claims related to the Merger Agreement.

The lawsuits named as defendants the Company, Newport, Merger Sub,
and certain then current and former members of Newport's board of
directors.  Both complaints alleged that the directors breached
their fiduciary duties to Newport's stockholders by agreeing to
sell Newport through an inadequate and unfair process, which led to
inadequate and unfair consideration, by agreeing to unfair deal
protection devices, and by omitting material information from the
proxy statement.  The complaints also alleged that the Company,
Newport, and Merger Sub aided and abetted the directors' alleged
breaches of their fiduciary duties.  The complaints sought
injunctive relief, including to enjoin or rescind the Merger
Agreement, and an award of attorneys' and other fees and costs,
among other relief.

On April 14, 2016, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion to
consolidate the Pincon and Chung actions.

On October 19, 2016, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
captioned In re Newport Corporation Shareholder Litigation, Case
No. A-16-733154-B, in the District Court, Clark County, Nevada, on
behalf of a putative class of Newport's stockholders for claims
related to the Merger Agreement.  The complaint named as defendants
the Company, Newport, and the then-current members of Newport's
former board of directors.  It alleged that the named directors
breached their fiduciary duties to Newport's stockholders by
agreeing to sell Newport through an inadequate and unfair process,
which led to inadequate and unfair consideration, by agreeing to
unfair deal protection devices, and by omitting material
information from the proxy statement.  The complaint also alleged
that the Company and Newport aided and abetted the named directors'
alleged breaches of their fiduciary duties.  The complaint sought
monetary damages, including pre- and post-judgment interest.

On December 9, 2016, defendants filed motions to dismiss the
amended complaint, which plaintiffs opposed.  On June 22, 2017, the
Court dismissed the amended complaint against all defendants but
granted plaintiffs leave to amend.

On July 27, 2017, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint,
which names as defendants certain former directors of Newport.  On
August 8, 2017, the Court dismissed the Company and Newport from
the action pursuant to stipulations among the parties.

The second amended complaint alleges that the directors breached
their fiduciary duties to Newport's stockholders by agreeing to
sell Newport through an inadequate and unfair process, which led to
inadequate and unfair consideration, and by omitting material
information from the proxy statement.  The second amended complaint
seeks monetary damages, including pre- and post-judgment interest.

On September 1, 2017 the Newport directors filed a motion to
dismiss the second amended complaint, which plaintiffs opposed.
The Court held a hearing on the motion to dismiss on December 7,
2017.  On January 5, 2018, the Court entered an order denying the
motion to dismiss.

The Newport directors answered the second amended complaint,
denying the material allegations of the complaint and asserting
defenses, on February 20, 2018.  On May 17, 2018, plaintiff Hubert
C. Pincon filed a motion to certify a putative class of former
Newport stockholders and appoint Mr. Pincon as the sole
representative of the proposed class.

On June 11, 2018, plaintiff Dixon Chung was voluntarily dismissed
from the litigation.

On July 3, 2018, Mr. Pincon filed an amended motion for class
certification seeking to have purported class member Locals 302 and
612 of the International Union of Operating Engineers-Employers
Construction Industry Retirement Trust appointed as an additional
class representative.

MKS is a global provider of instruments, subsystems and process
control solutions that measure, control, power, deliver, monitor
and analyze critical parameters of advanced manufacturing processes
to improve process performance and productivity.


NOMAX INC: 8th Cir. Vacates Dismissal of TCPA Suit
--------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, vacated the
District Court's judgment granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
the case captioned St. Louis Heart Center, Inc., Individually and
on behalf of all others similarly-situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.
Nomax, Inc., Defendant-Appellee, No. 17-1794 (8th Cir.).

The district court ruled that the Heart Center lacked standing and
dismissed the action with prejudice.

St. Louis Heart Center, Inc., brought a putative class action
against Nomax, Inc., in Missouri state court, alleging that Nomax
violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The
complaint alleged that Nomax transmitted twelve advertisements to
the Heart Center by facsimile without including a proper opt-out
notice on each advertisement.

The TCPA makes it unlawful for a person to fax an unsolicited
advertisement to another unless the unsolicited advertisement has
an opt-out notice that meets certain requirements.

Section 227(b)(3) of the TCPA creates a private right of action to
enjoin a violation of the above provisions, or to recover for
actual monetary loss from such a violation, or to receive $500 in
damages for each such violation, whichever is greater.

The district court found that the Heart Center both invited and did
not rebuke the challenged faxes. This finding is not clearly
erroneous. Dr. Weiss admitted that he requested samples of Nomax's
Effer-K product on at least four occasions. While Dr. Weiss first
testified that he did not consent to receive Nomax's faxes, he
eventually acknowledged that the lawsuit is not based upon the fact
that consent was not given.

The district court found that the opt-out notice that Nomax
included did convey to recipients the means and opportunity to
opt-out of receiving future faxes. This finding is not clearly
erroneous.

Whatever technical deficiencies might have appeared in the opt-out
notices, all twelve faxes contained a box that the recipient could
check if he did not wish to receive future faxes, and a domestic
fax number to which the form could be returned. All twelve faxes
also contained a phone number and an e-mail address for a Nomax
representative.

Yet Dr. Weiss testified that he never attempted to opt-out of
receiving future faxes from Nomax, and there is no evidence that
Nomax would have ignored such a request. The Heart Center had the
means and opportunity to opt out from receiving future facsimiles,
but simply declined to do so. Any technical violation in the
opt-out notices thus did not cause actual harm or create a risk of
real harm. Accordingly, the Court agrees with the district court
that the Heart Center lacked Article III standing.

Having concluded that there was no case or controversy, the
district court opted to dismiss the action with prejudice. The
Heart Center argues that the court instead should have remanded the
case to state court. Under the removal statute, if at any time
before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.

In support of its approach, the district court cited Hargis v.
Access Capital Funding, LLC, 674 F.3d 783 (8th Cir. 2012), where
this court ruled that the plaintiff in a removed case lacked
standing and directed the district court to dismiss the case for
lack of jurisdiction. Hargis, however, did not squarely address the
effect of the removal statute. In Wallace v. ConAgra Foods, Inc.,
747 F.3d 1025 (8th Cir. 2014), this court did directly address the
issue and ruled that when there is no Article III case or
controversy, and "the case did not originate in federal court but
was removed there by the defendants, the federal court must remand
the case to the state court from whence it came.

As the Court explained in City of Kansas City v. Yarco Co., 625
F.3d 1038 (8th Cir. 2010), a pre-Hargis decision, the lack of
federal jurisdiction does not obviate the remand requirement of §
1447(c), because state courts are not bound by the limitations of
an Article III case or controversy. While the district court
understandably identified Hargis as a decision with an analogous
procedural posture, Wallace and Yarco Co. squarely address the
remand issue, and they establish the law of the circuit.

Although the Court agrees with the district court's conclusion that
St. Louis Heart Center lacks Article III standing, the Court
vacates the judgment dismissing the action with prejudice and
remand with directions to return the case to state court. St. Louis
Heart Center's unopposed motion for judicial notice is granted.

A full-text copy of the Eighth Circuit's August 6, 2018 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y8uwqehc from Leagle.com.

David P. Stoeberl -- dps@carmodymacdonald.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

Max G. Margulis -- MaxMargulis@margulislaw.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellant.

Brian J. Wanca -- bwanca@andersonwanca.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellant.

Ryan M. Kelly -- RYAN@KELLYKELLY.COM -- for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Tina N. Babel -- tnb@carmodymacdonald.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

Glenn L. Hara -- ghara@andersonwanca.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellant.

Laura Bailey Brown, for Defendant-Appellee.

Sarah J. Klebolt -- sjk@carmodymacdonald.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.


NOVUS THERAPEUTICS: Jackie888 and Wu Lawsuits Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------
The Jackie888 and Wu lawsuits have been consolidated, Novus
Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2018.  Pursuant to the schedule for defendants' motions to
dismiss, defendants were required to file a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint by or on August 15, 2018, plaintiffs will
oppose by or on, September 30, 2018, and defendants will file any
replies in support of their motions on October 19, 2018.  The court
set a hearing for November 15, 2018 on defendants' motions to
dismiss.

On August 19, 2016, a purported stockholder of Tokai filed a
putative class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of San Francisco, entitled Jackie888, Inc. v.
Tokai Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. CGC-16-553796.  The
plaintiff sought to represent a class of purchasers of Tokai common
stock in or traceable to Tokai's IPO.  On October 19, 2016, the
defendants moved to dismiss or stay the action on grounds of forum
non conveniens, and certain individual defendants moved to quash
the plaintiff's summons for lack of personal jurisdiction.  On
February 27, 2017, the Superior Court entered an order granting
defendants' motion to stay the lawsuit.

On September 29, 2016, two purported stockholders of Tokai filed a
putative class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, entitled Garbowski, et al. v. Tokai
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 1:16-cv-11963 ("Garbowski
Action"). In addition to the Securities Act claims, this lawsuit
also alleges that the defendants made false and misleading
statements and omissions about Tokai's clinical trials for
galeterone, in violation of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. The plaintiffs sought to represent a class
of purchasers of Tokai common stock in or traceable to Tokai's IPO
as well as a class of purchasers of Tokai common stock between
September 17, 2014, and July 25, 2016.

On December 5, 2016, a putative securities class action was filed
in the Massachusetts State Court, entitled Wu v. Tokai
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., 16-3725 BLS ("Wu Action"). The
plaintiff seeks to represent a class of purchasers of Tokai common
stock in or traceable to Tokai’s IPO. On December 19, 2016,
defendants removed the Wu Action to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, where it was captioned Wu v. Tokai
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., 16-cv-12550, and assigned to the
same judge presiding over the Doshi and Garbowski Actions.

On December 22, 2016, the Wu defendants filed a motion to
consolidate the Wu Action with the Doshi and Garbowski Actions. On
January 6, 2017, plaintiff filed a motion to remand the Wu Action
to Massachusetts State Court.

On September 28, 2017, the court stayed the Wu case pending a
decision by the United States Supreme Court in Cyan, Inc. v. Beaver
County Employees Retirement Fund, S. Ct. Case No. 15-1439.

On September 28, 2017, the Garbowski Action was consolidated with
the Doshi Action.

On March 20, 2018, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Cyan
that state courts have subject matter jurisdiction over covered
class actions alleging only Securities Act claims and that such
actions are not removable to federal court. On March 22, 2018, the
Wu plaintiff moved for leave to submit the Cyan decision in support
of plaintiff's remand motion. On March 27, 2018 the Wu Action was
remanded to the Massachusetts State Court.

On April 26, 2018, the Court found that the Garbowski Action could
not proceed as a putative class action because it lacked a lead
plaintiff. On May 9, 2018, the plaintiffs dismissed the Garbowski
Action without prejudice.

On May 3, 2018, the Wu plaintiff filed an amended class action
complaint.

On May 24, 2018, the Jackie888 plaintiff dismissed its complaint in
the Superior Court of the State of California and refiled its
complaint in the Business Litigation Session of the Superior Court
Department of the Suffolk County Trial Court, Massachusetts
("Massachusetts State Court").

On June 28, 2018, plaintiff Wu moved to consolidate the Jackie888
Action with the Wu Action.

On June 29, 2018, plaintiffs Jackie888 and Wu filed a consolidated
complaint.  On July 6, 2018, the Jackie888 Action was consolidated
with the Wu Action.

Novus Therapeutics is a specialty pharmaceutical company focused on
developing products for disorders of the ear, nose, and throat
(ENT). The company is based in Irvine, California.


OBALON THERAPEUTICS: Robbins Gellar Appointed Lead Counsel
----------------------------------------------------------
Obalon Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the court has:

     -- consolidated the cases, Hustig v. Obalon Therapeutics,
Inc., et al., and Cook v. Obalon Therapeutics, Inc. et al., and

     -- appointed Inter-Local Pension Fund GCC/IBT as lead
plaintiff, and their counsel Robbins Gellar as lead counsel.

On February 14 and 22, 2018, plaintiff stockholders filed class
action lawsuits against the Company and certain of its executive
officers in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California (Hustig v. Obalon Therapeutics, Inc., et
al., Case No. 3:18-cv-00352-AJB-WVG, and Cook v. Obalon
Therapeutics, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-00407-CAB-RBB). The
complaints allege that the Company and certain of its executive
officers made false and misleading statements and failed to
disclose material adverse facts about its business, operations, and
prospects in violation of Sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Cook
complaint also alleges violations of Section 11 of the Exchange Act
arising out of the Company's initial public offering.

The plaintiffs seek damages, interest, costs, attorneys' fees, and
other unspecified equitable relief. On July 24, 2018, the court
consolidated the lawsuits and appointed Inter-Local Pension Fund
GCC/IBT as lead plaintiff, and their counsel Robbins Gellar as lead
counsel.

The cases are at a preliminary stage and the Company intends to
vigorously defend against them.

Obalon Therapeutics, Inc., a vertically integrated medical device
company, focuses on developing and commercializing medical devices
to treat obese and overweight people by facilitating weight loss.
It offers the Obalon balloon system designed to provide weight loss
in obese patients. Obalon Therapeutics, Inc. was founded in 2008
and is headquartered in Carlsbad, California.


OPTIO SOLUTIONS: Doughty Suit Alleges FDCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------
Teana Doughty, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Optio Solutions, LLC dba Qualia Collection Services,
and Credit Control, LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-02292 (S.D. Ind., July
26, 2018), seeks to recover damages pursuant to the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff Teana Doughty is a citizen of the State of Indiana,
residing in the Southern District of Indiana.

The Defendants Qualia and Credit Control are licensed debt
collection agencies in the State of Indiana. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David J. Philipps, Esq.
      PHILIPPS & PHILLIPS, LTD.
      9760 S. Roberts Road, Ste One
      Palos Hills, IL 60465
      Tel: (708) 974-2900
      Fax: (708) 974-2907
      E-mail: davephillips@aol.com


ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL: Still Defends SEPTA Putative Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Orrstown Financial Services, Inc. continues to defend itself
against a putative class action complaint initiated by The
Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA),
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2018.

On May 25, 2012, SEPTA filed a putative class action complaint in
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
against the Company, the Bank and certain current and former
directors and executive officers (collectively, the "Defendants").
The complaint alleges, among other things, that (i) in connection
with the Company's Registration Statement on Form S-3 dated
February 23, 2010 and its Prospectus Supplement dated March 23,
2010, and (ii) during the purported class period of March 24, 2010
through October 27, 2011, the Company issued materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's lending practices and
financial results, including misleading statements concerning the
stringent nature of the Bank's credit practices and underwriting
standards, the quality of its loan portfolio, and the intended use
of the proceeds from the Company's March 2010 public offering of
common stock.  The complaint asserts claims under Sections 11,
12(a) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, and seeks class certification, unspecified
money damages, interest, costs, fees and equitable or injunctive
relief.  Under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995
("PSLRA"), motions for appointment of Lead Plaintiff in this case
were due by July 24, 2012.  SEPTA was the sole movant and the Court
appointed SEPTA Lead Plaintiff on August 20, 2012.

Pursuant to the PSLRA and the Court's September 27, 2012 Order,
SEPTA was given until October 26, 2012 to file an amended complaint
and the Defendants until December 7, 2012 to file a motion to
dismiss the amended complaint.  SEPTA's opposition to the
Defendant's motion to dismiss was originally due January 11, 2013.
Under the PSLRA, discovery and all other proceedings in the case
were stayed pending the Court's ruling on the motion to dismiss.
The September 27, 2012 Order specified that if the motion to
dismiss were denied, the Court would schedule a conference to
address discovery and the filing of a motion for class
certification.  On October 26, 2012, SEPTA filed an unopposed
motion for enlargement of time to file its amended complaint in
order to permit the parties and new defendants to be named in the
amended complaint time to discuss plaintiff's claims and
defendants' defenses.  On October 26, 2012, the Court granted
SEPTA's motion, mooting its September 27, 2012 scheduling Order,
and requiring SEPTA to file its amended complaint on or before
January 16, 2013 or otherwise advise the Court of circumstances
that require a further enlargement of time.  On January 14, 2013,
the Court granted SEPTA's second unopposed motion for enlargement
of time to file an amended complaint on or before March 22, 2013.

On March 4, 2013, SEPTA filed an amended complaint.  The amended
complaint expands the list of defendants in the action to include
the Company's independent registered public accounting firm and the
underwriters of the Company's March 2010 public offering of common
stock.  In addition, among other things, the amended complaint
extends the purported 1934 Exchange Act class period from March 15,
2010 through April 5, 2012.  Pursuant to the Court's March 28, 2013
Second Scheduling Order, on May 28, 2013 all defendants filed their
motions to dismiss the amended complaint, and on July 22, 2013
SEPTA filed its "omnibus" opposition to all of the defendants'
motions to dismiss.  On August 23, 2013, all defendants filed reply
briefs in further support of their motions to dismiss.  On December
5, 2013, the Court ordered oral argument on the Orrstown
Defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint to be heard on
February 7, 2014.  Oral argument on the pending motions to dismiss
SEPTA's amended complaint was held on April 29, 2014.

The Second Scheduling Order stayed all discovery in the case
pending the outcome of the motions to dismiss, and informed the
parties that, if required, a telephonic conference to address
discovery and the filing of SEPTA's motion for class certification
would be scheduled after the Court's ruling on the motions to
dismiss.

On April 10, 2015, pursuant to Court order, all parties filed
supplemental briefs addressing the impact of the U.S. Supreme
Court's March 24, 2015 decision in Omnicare, Inc. v. Laborers
District Council Construction Industry Pension Fund on defendants'
motions to dismiss the amended complaint.

On June 22, 2015, in a 96-page Memorandum, the Court dismissed
without prejudice SEPTA's amended complaint against all defendants,
finding that SEPTA failed to state a claim under either the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended.  The Court ordered that, within 30 days, SEPTA
either seek leave to amend its amended complaint, accompanied by
the proposed amendment, or file a notice of its intention to stand
on the amended complaint.

On July 22, 2015, SEPTA filed a motion for leave to amend under
Local Rule 15.1, and attached a copy of its proposed second amended
complaint to its motion.  Many of the allegations of the proposed
second amended complaint are essentially the same or similar to the
allegations of the dismissed amended complaint.  The proposed
second amended complaint also alleges that the Orrstown Defendants
did not publicly disclose certain alleged failures of internal
controls over loan underwriting, risk management, and financial
reporting during the period 2009 to 2012, in violation of the
federal securities laws.  On February 8, 2016, the Court granted
SEPTA's motion for leave to amend and SEPTA filed its second
amended complaint that same day.

On February 25, 2016, the Court issued a scheduling Order
directing: all defendants to file any motions to dismiss by March
18, 2016; SEPTA to file an omnibus opposition to defendants'
motions to dismiss by April 8, 2016; and all defendants to file
reply briefs in support of their motions to dismiss by April 22,
2016.  Defendants timely filed their motions to dismiss the second
amended complaint and the parties filed their briefs in accordance
with the Court-ordered schedule.  The February 25, 2016 Order stays
all discovery and other deadlines in the case (including the filing
of SEPTA's motion for class certification) pending the outcome of
the motions to dismiss.

The allegations of SEPTA's proposed second amended complaint
disclosed the existence of a confidential, non-public, fact-finding
inquiry regarding the Company being conducted by the SEC.  As
disclosed in the Company's Form 8-K filed on September 27, 2016, on
that date the Company entered into a settlement agreement with the
SEC resolving the investigation of accounting and related matters
at the Company for the periods ended June 30, 2010, to December 31,
2011.  As part of the settlement of the SEC's administrative
proceedings and pursuant to the cease-and-desist order, without
admitting or denying the SEC's findings, the Company, its Chief
Executive Officer, its former Chief Financial Officer, its former
Executive Vice President and Chief Credit Officer, and its Chief
Accounting Officer, agreed to pay civil money penalties to the SEC.
The Company agreed to pay a civil money penalty of US$1,000,000.
The Company had previously established a reserve for that amount
which was expensed in the second fiscal quarter of 2016.  In the
settlement agreement with the SEC, the Company also agreed to cease
and desist from committing or causing any violations and any future
violations of Securities Act Sections 17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) and
Exchange Act Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A) and 13(b)(2)(B), and Rules
12b-20, 13a-1 and 13a-13 promulgated thereunder.

On September 27, 2016, the Orrstown Defendants filed with the Court
a Notice of Subsequent Event in Further Support of their Motion to
Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, regarding the settlement with
the SEC.  The Notice attached a copy of the SEC's cease-and-desist
order and briefly described what the Company believed were the most
salient terms of the neither-admit-nor-deny settlement.  On
September 29, 2016, SEPTA filed a Response to the Notice, in which
SEPTA argued that the settlement with the SEC did not support
dismissal of the second amended complaint.

On December 7, 2016, the Court issued an Order and Memorandum
granting in part and denying in part defendants' motions to dismiss
SEPTA's second amended complaint.  The Court granted the motions to
dismiss the Securities Act claims against all defendants, and
granted the motions to dismiss the Exchange Act Section 10(b) and
Rule 10b-5 claims against all defendants except Orrstown Financial
Services, Inc., Orrstown Bank, Thomas R. Quinn, Jr., Bradley S.
Everly, and Jeffrey W. Embly.  The Court also denied the motions to
dismiss the Exchange Act Section 20(a) claims against Quinn,
Everly, and Embly.

On January 31, 2017, the Court entered a Case Management Order
establishing the schedule for the litigation and, on August 15,
2017, it entered a revised Order that, among other things, set the
following deadlines: all fact discovery closes on March 1, 2018,
and SEPTA's motion for class certification is due the same day;
expert merits discovery closes May 30, 2018; summary judgment
motions are due by June 26, 2018; the mandatory pretrial and
settlement conference is set for December 11, 2018; and trial is
scheduled to begin on January 7, 2019.

Document discovery has begun in the case and is ongoing.  To date,
one deposition, of a non-party, has been concluded.

On December 15, 2017, the Orrstown Defendants and SEPTA exchanged
expert reports in opposition to and in support of class
certification, respectively.  On January 15, 2018, the parties
exchanged expert rebuttal reports.  SEPTA's motion for class
certification was due March 1, 2018, with the Orrstown Defendants'
opposition due April 2, 2018, and SEPTA's reply due April 23,
2018.

On February 9, 2018, SEPTA filed a Status Report and Request for a
Telephonic Status Conference asking the Court to convene a
conference to discuss the status of discovery in the case and
possible revisions to the case schedule.  On February 12, 2018, the
Orrstown Defendants filed their status report to provide the Court
with a summary of document discovery in the case to date.  On
February 27, 2018, SEPTA filed an unopposed motion for a
continuance of the existing case deadlines pending a status
conference with the Court or the issuance of a revised case
schedule.  On February 28, 2018, the Court issued an Order
continuing all case management deadlines until further order of the
Court.

On March 27, 2018, the Court held a telephonic status conference
with the parties to discuss outstanding discovery issues and case
deadlines.  On May 2, 2018, the parties filed a joint status
report.  On May 10, 2018 the Court held a follow-up telephonic
status conference at which the parties reported on the progress of
discovery to date.  Document discovery in the case continues and no
further depositions have been scheduled.

The Company said it believes that the allegations of SEPTA's second
amended complaint are without merit and intends to vigorously
defend itself against those claims.  It is not possible at this
time to estimate reasonably possible losses, or even a range of
reasonably possible losses, in connection with the litigation.

Orrstown Financial Services, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation, is
the holding company for its wholly-owned subsidiaries Orrstown Bank
and Wheatland Advisors, Inc. The Company's principal executive
offices are located at 77 East King Street, Shippensburg,
Pennsylvania, 17257, with additional executive and administrative
offices at 4750 Lindle Road, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, 17111. The
Parent Company was organized on November 17, 1987, for the purpose
of acquiring the Bank and such other banks and bank-related
activities as are permitted by law and desirable. The Company
provides banking and bank-related services through branches located
in south central Pennsylvania, principally in Berks, Cumberland,
Dauphin, Franklin, Lancaster, and Perry Counties and in Washington
County, Maryland. Wheatland was acquired in December 2016 and
provides services as a registered investment advisor through its
office in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania.


OVASCIENCE INC: Bid to Dismiss Massachusetts Class Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
OvaScience, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the parties in the
purported shareholder class action lawsuit filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts are awaiting the
court's ruling on a motion to dismiss.

On March 24, 2017, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
against the Company and certain of its present and former officers
alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  

On July 5, 2017, the Court entered an order approving the
appointment of Freedman Family Investments LLC as lead plaintiff,
the firm of Robins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as lead counsel, and
the Law Office of Alan L. Kovacs as local counsel. Plaintiff filed
an amended complaint on August 25, 2017.  

The company has filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint,
which is pending.

OvaScience said, "We believe that the complaint is without merit
and intend to defend against the litigation. There can be no
assurance, however, that we will be successful. A resolution of
this lawsuit adverse to the Company or the other defendants could
have a material effect on our consolidated financial position and
results of operations in the period in which the lawsuit is
resolved. At present, we are unable to estimate potential losses,
if any, related to the lawsuit."

OvaScience, Inc., a fertility company, discovers, develops, and
commercializes fertility treatment options for women and families
struggling with infertility worldwide. Its patented technology is
based on the discovery about the existence of egg precursor (EggPC)
cells to transform the treatment landscape for women's fertility.
OvaScience, Inc. was founded in 2011 and is headquartered in
Waltham, Massachusetts.


OVASCIENCE INC: State Court Dismisses Westmoreland Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
OvaScience, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that a Massachusetts state
court has entered final judgment dismissing claims by Westmoreland
County Employee Retirement System, without prejudice.  Westmoreland
will continue to pursue its claims in its lawsuit pending in
federal district court.

On October 9, 2015, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the Suffolk County Superior Court in the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts against the company, several of its officers and
directors and certain of the underwriters from the company's
January 2015 follow-on public offering of its common stock.

The plaintiffs purported to represent those persons who purchased
shares of the company's common stock pursuant or traceable to its
January 2015 follow-on public offering. The plaintiffs alleged,
among other things, that the Company made false and misleading
statements and failed to disclose material information in the
Company's January 2015 Registration Statement and incorporated
offering materials. Plaintiffs allege violations of Sections 11, 12
and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and seek, among
other relief, unspecified compensatory damages, rescission, pre-and
post-judgment interest and fees, costs and disbursements.

On December 7, 2015, the OvaScience defendants filed a notice of
removal with the Federal District Court for the District of
Massachusetts. On December 30, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion to
remand the action to the Superior Court. Oral argument on the
motion to remand was held on February 19, 2016. On February 23,
2016, the District Court granted plaintiffs' motion to remand the
action to the Superior Court.

On February 26, 2016, a second putative class action suit was filed
in the Suffolk County Superior Court in the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts against the Company, several of the company's
officers and directors and certain of the underwriters from the
January 2015 follow-on public offering of the Company's common
stock. The complaint is substantially similar to the complaint
filed in October 2015.

The two actions subsequently were consolidated and plaintiffs filed
a First Amended Class Action Complaint on June 17, 2016. Defendants
filed motions to dismiss the complaint. Those motions were denied
by order dated December 22, 2016.

On August 17, 2016, an additional plaintiff, Westmoreland County
Employee Retirement System ("Westmoreland") moved to intervene in
the consolidated action. The defendants opposed Westmorelan's
motion to intervene. The Superior Court granted Westmoreland's
motion to intervene on October 27, 2017.

On August 7, 2017, the plaintiffs filed their motion for class
certification, which the defendants opposed. Oral argument on the
motion for class certification was held on September 29, 2017. On
November 7, 2017, the Superior Court denied the plaintiffs' motion
for class certification.

On August 14, 2017, the defendants filed their motion for summary
judgment against plaintiffs Heather Carlson, Cesar Castellanos,
Philipp Hofmann, and Carlos Rivas, which the plaintiffs opposed.
Oral argument on the motion for summary judgment was held on
October 18, 2017. On November 21, 2017, the Superior Court allowed
the defendants' motion for summary judgment, and the claims
asserted by plaintiffs Heather Carlson, Cesar Castellanos, Philipp
Hofmann, and Carlos Rivas in the consolidated actions were
dismissed, leaving Westmoreland as the sole remaining plaintiff.

On November 22, 2017, Westmoreland filed a putative class action
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts against the same defendants alleging the same claims
as are alleged in the state court case (the "Westmoreland Federal
Action"). On January 17, 2018, the lead plaintiff in a different
case, a purported shareholder class action alleging violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Dahhan Action") filed a motion to intervene in the
Westmoreland Federal Action and to consolidate the Westmoreland
Federal Action with the Dahhan Action. On July 16, 2017, the court
denied the motions to intervene and consolidate the actions.

In the Westmoreland Federal Action, on January 22, 2018,
Westmoreland moved for appointment of lead plaintiff and approval
of lead and liaison counsel. On July 16, 2018, the Court granted
the motion, appointing Westmoreland as lead plaintiff and approved
lead and liaison counsel.

On January 22, 2018, Westmoreland filed a motion to voluntarily
dismiss the Superior Court action without prejudice. The defendants
opposed that motion. Oral argument on Westmoreland's motion for
voluntary dismissal was held on April 3, 2018. On April 5, 2018,
the Superior Court allowed Westmoreland's motion for voluntary
dismissal with prejudice.

The Superior Court entered final judgment on April 10, 2018,
dismissing Westmoreland's claims without prejudice and dismissing
the claims of plaintiffs Heather Carlson, Cesar Castellanos,
Philipp Hofmann, and Carlos Rivas with prejudice.

OvaScience said, "We believe that the complaints in the remaining
Westmoreland Federal Action are without merit and intend to defend
against litigation. There can be no assurance, however, that we
will be successful. A resolution of this lawsuit adverse to the
Company or the other defendants could have a material effect on our
consolidated financial position and results of operations in the
period in which the lawsuit is resolved. At present, we are unable
to estimate potential losses, if any, related to the lawsuit."

OvaScience, Inc., a fertility company, discovers, develops, and
commercializes fertility treatment options for women and families
struggling with infertility worldwide. Its patented technology is
based on the discovery about the existence of egg precursor (EggPC)
cells to transform the treatment landscape for women's fertility.
OvaScience, Inc. was founded in 2011 and is headquartered in
Waltham, Massachusetts.


P&B CAPITAL: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, D' Angelo Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against P&B Capital Group,
LLC, and Crown Asset Management, LLC.  The case is styled as Caruso
D' Angelo, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. P&B Capital Group, LLC, and Crown Asset Management, LLC, Case
No. 2:18-cv-04755 (E.D.N.Y., August 22, 2018).

The Plaintiff alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

P&B Capital Group, LLC's line of business includes collection and
adjustment services on claims and other insurance related issues.

Crown Asset Management, LLC, provides receivables and debt
management services.  The Company offers receivables, credit cards,
consumer loans, and deficiency balances trading services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mitchell L. Pashkin, Esq.
          MITCHELL PASHKIN ATTORNEY AT LAW
          775 Park Avenue, Suite 255
          Huntington, NY 11743
          Telephone: (631) 335-1107
          E-mail: mpash@verizon.net


PBF ENERGY: Goldstein Bid to File 2nd Amended Complaint Granted
---------------------------------------------------------------
PBF Energy Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the Court has granted
plaintiffs in the case, Arnold Goldstein, et al. v. Exxon Mobil
Corporation, et al., leave to file a Second Amended Complaint.

On February 17, 2017, PBF Energy Inc. and PBF Energy Company LLC,
and its subsidiaries, PBF Energy Western Region LLC and Torrance
Refining Company LLC and the manager of the company's Torrance
refinery along with Exxon Mobil Corporation were named as
defendants in a class action and representative action complaint
filed on behalf of Arnold Goldstein, John Covas, Gisela Janette La
Bella and others similarly situated.

The complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles and alleges negligence, strict
liability, ultrahazardous activity, a continuing private nuisance,
a permanent private nuisance, a continuing public nuisance, a
permanent public nuisance and trespass resulting from the February
18, 2015 electrostatic precipitator ("ESP") explosion at the
Torrance refinery which was then owned and operated by Exxon. The
operation of the Torrance refinery by the PBF entities subsequent
to the company's acquisition in July 2016 is also referenced in the
complaint. To the extent that plaintiffs' claims relate to the ESP
explosion, Exxon has retained responsibility for any liabilities
that would arise from the lawsuit pursuant to the agreement
relating to the acquisition of the Torrance refinery.

On July 2, 2018, the Court granted leave to plaintiffs' to file a
Second Amended Complaint alleging groundwater contamination. With
the filing of the Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs' added an
additional plaintiff.

PBF Energy said, "This matter is in the initial stages of discovery
and we cannot currently estimate the amount or the timing of its
resolution. We presently believe the outcome will not have a
material impact on our financial position, results of operations or
cash flows."

PBF Energy Inc., together with its subsidiaries, engages in the
refining and supply of petroleum products. The company operates
through two segments, Refining and Logistics. BF Energy Inc. was
founded in 2008 and is based in Parsippany, New Jersey.


PBF HOLDING: 2nd Amended Complaint Filed in "Goldstein" Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
PBF Holding Company LLC disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2018, that with the filing of the Second Amended
Complaint in the "Goldstein" lawsuit, the plaintiffs added an
additional plaintiff.

The Company said, "On February 17, 2017, in Arnold Goldstein, et
al. v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, et al., we and PBF Energy Company
LLC, and our subsidiaries, PBF Energy Western Region LLC and
Torrance Refining Company LLC and the manager of our Torrance
refinery along with Exxon Mobil Corporation were named as
defendants in a class action and representative action complaint
filed on behalf of Arnold Goldstein, John Covas, Gisela Janette La
Bella and others similarly situated.  The complaint was filed in
the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los
Angeles and alleges negligence, strict liability, ultrahazardous
activity, a continuing private nuisance, a permanent private
nuisance, a continuing public nuisance, a permanent public nuisance
and trespass resulting from the February 18, 2015 electrostatic
precipitator ("ESP") explosion at the Torrance refinery which was
then owned and operated by Exxon.  The operation of the Torrance
refinery by the PBF entities subsequent to our acquisition in July
2016 is also referenced in the complaint.  To the extent that
plaintiffs' claims relate to the ESP explosion, Exxon has retained
responsibility for any liabilities that would arise from the
lawsuit pursuant to the agreement relating to the acquisition of
the Torrance refinery.  On July 2, 2018, the Court granted leave to
plaintiffs' to file a Second Amended Complaint alleging groundwater
contamination.  With the filing of the Second Amended Complaint,
Plaintiffs' added an additional plaintiff.  This matter is in the
initial stages of discovery and we cannot currently estimate the
amount or the timing of its resolution.  We presently believe the
outcome will not have a material impact on our financial position,
results of operations or cash flows."

PBF Holding Company LLC is one of the largest independent petroleum
refiners and suppliers of unbranded transportation fuels, heating
oil, petrochemical feedstocks, lubricants and other petroleum
products in the United States. The company sells its products
throughout the Northeast, Midwest, Gulf Coast and West Coast of the
United States, as well as in other regions of the United States and
Canada, and is able to ship products to other international
destinations. The company is based in Parsippany, New Jersey.


PBF HOLDING: Nov. 2018 Mini-Trial Scheduled in Caruso Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
PBF Holding Company LLC 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 trial court has set a new mini-trial
of two plaintiffs for November 2018 in the case styled in Vincent
Caruso, et al. v. Chalmette Refining, L.L.C.

On September 2, 2011, prior to the Company's ownership of the
Chalmette refinery, the plaintiff in the "Caruso" suit filed an
action on behalf of himself and potentially several thousand other
Louisiana residents who live or own property in St. Bernard Parish
and Orleans Parish and whose property was allegedly contaminated
and who allegedly suffered any property damages and clean-up costs
as a result of an emission of spent catalyst from the Chalmette
refinery on September 6, 2010.

Plaintiffs claim to have suffered injuries, symptoms, and property
damage as a result of the release, although the trial court has
limited recovery to property damages and clean-up expenses.
Plaintiffs seek to recover unspecified damages, interest and costs.
In 2016, there was a mini-trial for four plaintiffs for property
damage relating to home and vehicle cleaning and the trial court
rendered judgment awarding damages related to the cost for home
cleaning and vehicle cleaning to the four plaintiffs.  The trial
court found Chalmette Refining and co-defendant Eaton Corporation
("Eaton"), to be solidarily liable for the damages.

Chalmette Refining and Eaton filed an appeal in August 2016 of the
judgment on the mini-trial and on June 28, 2017, the appellate
court unanimously reversed the judgment awarding damages to the
plaintiffs, and plaintiffs request for rehearing was later denied.
As a result of the appellate court's judgment, the potential amount
of the claims is not determinable.  The trial court has set a new
mini-trial of two plaintiffs for November 2018.

The Company said, "Depending upon the ultimate class size, the
nature of the claims, or the results from the forthcoming
mini-trial, the outcome may have a material adverse effect on our
financial position, results of operations, or cash flows."

PBF Holding Company LLC is one of the largest independent petroleum
refiners and suppliers of unbranded transportation fuels, heating
oil, petrochemical feedstocks, lubricants and other petroleum
products in the United States. The company sells its products
throughout the Northeast, Midwest, Gulf Coast and West Coast of the
United States, as well as in other regions of the United States and
Canada, and is able to ship products to other international
destinations. The company is based in Parsippany, New Jersey.


PBF HOLDING: Thomas Suit over Chemical Exposure Still Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
The mass action styled, Adam Thomas, et al. v. Exxon Mobil
Corporation and Chalmette Refining, L.L.C., is still ongoing,
according to PBF Holding Company LLC's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2018.

On December 5, 1990, prior to the Company's ownership of the
Chalmette refinery, the plaintiff in Adam Thomas, et al. v. Exxon
Mobil Corporation and Chalmette Refining, L.L.C., filed an action
on behalf of himself and potentially thousands of other individuals
in St. Bernard Parish and Orleans Parish who were allegedly exposed
to hydrogen sulfide and sulfur dioxide as a result of more than 100
separate flaring events that occurred between 1989 and 2007.  This
litigation is proceeding as a mass action with individually named
plaintiffs as a result of a 2008 trial court decision, affirmed by
the court of appeals, that denied class certification.

The plaintiffs claim to have suffered physical injuries, property
damage, and other damages as a result of the releases.  Plaintiffs
seek to recover unspecified compensatory and punitive damages,
interest, and costs.  Although no trial date has been set by the
state trial court, the parties are preparing for a mini-trial of up
to 10 plaintiffs, relating to 5 separate flaring events that
occurred between 2002 and 2007.

The Company said, "Because of the number of potential claimants is
unknown and the differing events underlying the claims, the
potential amount of the claims is not determinable.  It is possible
that an adverse outcome may have a material adverse effect on our
financial position, results of operations, or cash flows."

PBF Holding Company LLC is one of the largest independent petroleum
refiners and suppliers of unbranded transportation fuels, heating
oil, petrochemical feedstocks, lubricants and other petroleum
products in the United States. The company sells its products
throughout the Northeast, Midwest, Gulf Coast and West Coast of the
United States, as well as in other regions of the United States and
Canada, and is able to ship products to other international
destinations. The company is based in Parsippany, New Jersey.


PECOS VALLEY: Sept. 12 Telephonic Conference in W. Rager's Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico
issued an Initial Scheduling Order in the case captioned WILLIAM
RAGER, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons,
Plaintiff, v. PECOS VALLEY PIZZA, INC. and BRIAN BAILEY,
Defendants, No. 2:18-cv-00571-GJF-KRS (D.N.M.).

This case is before the Court for scheduling, case management,
discovery, and other non-dispositive matters.

A telephonic Rule 16 scheduling conference will be conducted on
September 12, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. Counsel and parties pro se shall
call (505) 348-2694 to be connected to the conference. The
referenced conference telephone line can only accommodate up to
five (5) telephone calls at once, including the call-in to the
telephone conference by the Court. In the event the number of calls
into the telephonic scheduling conference will exceed four (4) from
counsel and parties, counsel or parties pro se must contact the
Court immediately so that alternative arrangements can be made.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 2, 2018 Order is
available at   https://tinyurl.com/y785uf55 from Leagle.com.

William Rager, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff, represented by Jesse Hamilton Forester,
Forester Haynie PLLC.

Pecos Valley Pizza, Inc. & Brian Bailey, Defendants, represented by
David M. Wesner, Civerolo, Gralow & Hill, P.A. & Lisa Entress
Pullen, Civerolo, Gralow & Hill, P.A.


PIKOLINOS USA: Bunting Files Suit Over ADA Breach
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pikolinos USA, Corp.
The case is styled as Rasheta Bunting, Individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v.
Pikolinos USA, Corp., Case No. 1:18-cv-04792 (E.D.N.Y., August 23,
2018).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.

Pikolinos USA, Corp., sells footwear and accessories.  The Company
is a part of Grupo Pikolinos, a footwear and accessories holding
company: Martinelli, Pikostore, Pies Cuadrados and Vabene.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.[BN]


PINDUODUO INC: Wei Files IPO-Related Securities Suit in N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
JIAXIANG WEI, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. PINDUODUO INC., ZHENG HUANG, TIAN XU, LEI CHEN, ZHENWEI
ZHENG, JUNYUN XIAO, HAIFENG LIN, ZHEN ZHANG, NANPENG SHEN, AND
JIANMING YU, Case No. 1:18-cv-07625 (S.D.N.Y., August 21, 2018), is
a federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting
of all persons other than Defendants, who purchased or otherwise
acquired the securities of Pinduoduo pursuant and/or traceable to
its July 26, 2018 initial public offering.

On July 26, 2018, Pinduoduo completed its IPO, offering 85.6
million American depositary shares priced at $19.00 per share and
raising $1.63 billion.

In the Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection
with Pinduoduo's IPO, the Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational
and compliance policies, according to the complaint.  Specifically,
the Defendants failed to disclose that: (i) Pinduoduo's controls
were ineffective to present third-party vendors from selling
counterfeit goods on the Company's online platform; (ii)
consequently, Pinduoduo's revenues and the number of active
merchants using its platform were traceable in part to unlawful
conduct and thus unsustainable; and (iii) as a result, Pinduoduo's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

Pinduoduo is incorporated in the Cayman Islands, with principal
executive offices located in Shanghai, People's Republic of China.
The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the
Company.

Pinduoduo is an e-commerce platform allowing users to participate
in group buying deals.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
          E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  ahood@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 377-1181
          Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
          E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com


POPULAR INC: Bid to Nix Saad Maura Class Action Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Banco Popular de Puerto Rico's motions to dismiss the "Saad Maura"
putative class action complaint and to oppose class certification
are still pending, according to Popular, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2018.

BPPR has been named a defendant in two separate putative class
actions captioned Costa Dorada Apartment Corp., et al. v. Banco
Popular de Puerto Rico, et al., and Yiries Josef Saad Maura v.
Banco Popular, et al., filed by the same counsel who filed the
Gonzalez Camacho action, on behalf of commercial and residential
customers of the defendant banks who have allegedly been subject to
illegal foreclosures and/or loan modifications through their
mortgage servicers.

As in Gonzalez Camacho, plaintiffs contend that when they sought to
reduce their loan payments, defendants failed to provide them with
such reduced loan payments, instead subjecting them to lengthy loss
mitigation processes while filing foreclosure claims against them
in parallel (dual tracking), all in violation of TILA, the Real
Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA"), the Equal Credit
Opportunity Act ("ECOA"), the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"),
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") and other
consumer-protection laws and regulations.  They demand
approximately US$1 billion (in Costa Dorada) and unspecified
damages (in Saad Maura).

Banco Popular was never served with summons in relation to the
Costa Dorada Matter and Plaintiffs filed a notice of voluntary
dismissal on March 12, 2018.

On January 3, 2018, plaintiffs in the Saad Maura case requested
that Banco Popular waive service of process, which it agreed to do
on February 1, 2018.

BPPR subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the
same grounds as those asserted in the Gonzalez Camacho action (as
did most co-defendants, separately).  BPPR further filed a motion
to oppose class certification.  These motions are still pending.

Popular, Inc. is a diversified, publicly-owned financial holding
company subject to the supervision and regulation of the Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve System. The Corporation has
operations in Puerto Rico, the United States and the Caribbean.  In
Puerto Rico, the Corporation provides retail, mortgage, and
commercial banking services through its principal banking
subsidiary, Banco Popular de Puerto Rico ("BPPR"), as well as
investment banking, broker-dealer, auto and equipment leasing and
financing, and insurance services through specialized subsidiaries.
In the U.S. mainland, the Corporation operates Banco Popular North
America ("BPNA"). BPNA focuses efforts and resources on the core
community banking business. BPNA operates branches in New York, New
Jersey and South Florida under the name of Popular Community Bank.



POPULAR INC: Bid to Revive Camacho Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of the
"Camacho" putative class action suit remains pending before the
Court, according to Popular, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2018.

The Company's subsidiary, Banco Popular de Puerto Rico ("BPPR"),
has been named a defendant in the putative class action captioned
Lilliam Gonzalez Camacho, et al. v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico,
et al., filed before the United States District Court for the
District of Puerto Rico on behalf of mortgage-holders who have
allegedly been subjected to illegal foreclosures and/or loan
modifications through their mortgage servicers.

Plaintiffs maintain that when they sought to reduce their loan
payments, defendants failed to provide them with such reduced loan
payments, instead subjecting them to lengthy loss mitigation
processes while filing foreclosure claims against them in parallel.
Plaintiffs assert that such actions violate the Home Affordable
Modification Program ("HAMP"), the Home Affordable Refinance
Program ("HARP") and other federally sponsored loan modification
programs, as well as the Puerto Rico Mortgage Debtor Assistance Act
and the Truth in Lending Act ("TILA").

For the alleged violations, Plaintiffs request that all Defendants
(over 20, including all local banks), be held jointly and severally
liable in an amount no less than US$400 million.  BPPR waived
service of process in June and filed a motion to dismiss in August
2017, as did most co-defendants.

On March 28, 2018, the Court dismissed the complaint in its
entirety.  On April 9, 2018, plaintiffs filed a motion for
reconsideration of such dismissal, which is still pending before
the Court.

Popular, Inc. is a diversified, publicly-owned financial holding
company subject to the supervision and regulation of the Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve System. The Corporation has
operations in Puerto Rico, the United States and the Caribbean.  In
Puerto Rico, the Corporation provides retail, mortgage, and
commercial banking services through its principal banking
subsidiary, Banco Popular de Puerto Rico ("BPPR"), as well as
investment banking, broker-dealer, auto and equipment leasing and
financing, and insurance services through specialized subsidiaries.
In the U.S. mainland, the Corporation operates Banco Popular North
America ("BPNA"). BPNA focuses efforts and resources on the core
community banking business. BPNA operates branches in New York, New
Jersey and South Florida under the name of Popular Community Bank.



POPULAR INC: BPPR Still Defends "Torres" Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Popular, Inc.'s subsidiary, Banco Popular de Puerto Rico ("BPPR")
continues to defend itself in the "Torres" putative class action
complaint, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2018.

BPPR has been named a defendant in a putative class action
complaint captioned Ramirez Torres, et al. v. Banco Popular de
Puerto Rico, et al, filed before the Puerto Rico Court of First
Instance, San Juan Part.  The complaint seeks damages and
preliminary and permanent injunctive relief on behalf of the
purported class against the same Popular Defendants, as well as
other financial institutions with insurance brokerage subsidiaries
in Puerto Rico.

Plaintiffs essentially contend that in November 2015, Antilles
Insurance Company obtained approval from the Puerto Rico Insurance
Commissioner to market an endorsement that allowed its customers to
obtain reimbursement on their insurance deductible for good
experience, but that defendants failed to offer this product or
disclose its existence to their customers, favoring other products
instead, in violation of their duties as insurance brokers.
Plaintiffs seek a determination that defendants unlawfully failed
to comply with their duty to disclose the existence of this new
insurance product, as well as double or treble damages (the latter
subject to a determination that defendants engaged in
anti-monopolistic practices in failing to offer this product).

Between late March and early April, co-defendants filed motions to
dismiss the complaint and opposed the request for preliminary
injunctive relief.  A co-defendant filed a third-party Complaint
against Antilles Insurance Company.  A preliminary injunction and
class certification hearing originally scheduled for April 6th was
subsequently postponed, pending resolution of the motions to
dismiss.

On July 31, 2017, the Court dismissed the complaint with prejudice.
In August 2017, plaintiffs appealed this judgment and, on March
21, 2018, the Court of Appeals reversed the Court of First
Instance's dismissal.

On May 18, 2018, defendants each filed Petitions of Certiorari to
the Puerto Rico Supreme Court.  The Petitions of Certiorari were
all denied on June 26, 2018 and all parties but BPPR filed a timely
Motion for Reconsideration of such denial.  Those Motions for
Reconsideration are still pending.

Popular, Inc. is a diversified, publicly-owned financial holding
company subject to the supervision and regulation of the Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve System. The Corporation has
operations in Puerto Rico, the United States and the Caribbean.  In
Puerto Rico, the Corporation provides retail, mortgage, and
commercial banking services through its principal banking
subsidiary, Banco Popular de Puerto Rico ("BPPR"), as well as
investment banking, broker-dealer, auto and equipment leasing and
financing, and insurance services through specialized subsidiaries.
In the U.S. mainland, the Corporation operates Banco Popular North
America ("BPNA"). BPNA focuses efforts and resources on the core
community banking business. BPNA operates branches in New York, New
Jersey and South Florida under the name of Popular Community Bank.



POPULAR INC: Parties in Duncan Class Suit Reach Final Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Popular, 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 parties in the putative class action styled
Eugene Duncan v. Popular North America have reached a final
settlement in the second quarter of 2018.

Popular North America was named a defendant in a putative class
action complaint captioned Duncan v. Popular North America, filed
on January 29, 2018 in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York.  The complaint generally asserted
that Popular North America ("PNA") failed to design, construct,
maintain and operate its website to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people, and that PNA's denial of full and equal
access to its website, and therefore to its products and services,
violates the Americans with Disabilities Act.  Plaintiff sought a
permanent injunction to cause a change in defendant's allegedly
unlawful corporate policies, practices and procedures so that its
website becomes and remains accessible to blind and visually
impaired customers.  The parties reached a final settlement
regarding this matter in the second quarter of 2018.

Popular, Inc. is a diversified, publicly-owned financial holding
company subject to the supervision and regulation of the Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve System. The Corporation has
operations in Puerto Rico, the United States and the Caribbean.  In
Puerto Rico, the Corporation provides retail, mortgage, and
commercial banking services through its principal banking
subsidiary, Banco Popular de Puerto Rico ("BPPR"), as well as
investment banking, broker-dealer, auto and equipment leasing and
financing, and insurance services through specialized subsidiaries.
In the U.S. mainland, the Corporation operates Banco Popular North
America ("BPNA"). BPNA focuses efforts and resources on the core
community banking business. BPNA operates branches in New York, New
Jersey and South Florida under the name of Popular Community Bank.



POPULAR INC: Perez Diaz Class Action in Discovery Stage
-------------------------------------------------------
Popular, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2018, that the putative class action complaint captioned Perez Diaz
v. Popular, Inc., et al, is in its discovery stage.

Popular, Inc., BPPR and Popular Insurance, LLC (the "Popular
Defendants") have been named defendants in the putative class
action complaint filed before the Court of First Instance, Arecibo
Part.  The complaint seeks damages and preliminary and permanent
injunctive relief on behalf of the purported class against the
Popular Defendants, as well as Antilles Insurance Company and
MAPFRE-PRAICO Insurance Company (the "Defendant Insurance
Companies").  Plaintiffs allege that the Popular Defendants have
been unjustly enriched by failing to reimburse them for commissions
paid by the Defendant Insurance Companies to the insurance agent
and/or mortgagee for policy years when no claims were filed against
their hazard insurance policies.  They demand the reimbursement to
the purported "class" of an estimated US$400 million plus legal
interest, for the "good experience" commissions allegedly paid by
the Defendant Insurance Companies during the relevant time period,
as well as injunctive relief seeking to enjoin the Defendant
Insurance Companies from paying commissions to the insurance
agent/mortgagee and ordering them to pay those fees directly to the
insured.

A hearing on the request for preliminary injunction and other
matters was held on February 15, 2017, as a result of which
plaintiffs withdrew their request for preliminary injunctive
relief.  A motion for dismissal on the merits, which the Defendant
Insurance Companies filed shortly before hearing, was denied with a
right to replead following limited targeted discovery.  On March
24, 2017, the Popular Defendants filed a certiorari petition with
the Puerto Rico Court of Appeals seeking a review of the lower
court's denial of the motion to dismiss.  The Court of Appeals
denied the Popular Defendant's request, and the Popular Defendants
appealed this determination to the Puerto Rico Supreme Court, which
declined review.

Separately, a class certification hearing was held in June and the
Court requested post-hearing briefs on this issue.  On October 26,
2017, the Court entered an order whereby it broadly certified the
class.  At a hearing held on November 2, 2017, the Court encouraged
the parties to reach agreement on discovery and class notification
procedures.  The Court further allowed defendants until January 4,
2018 to answer the complaint.  On December 21, 2017, the Popular
Defendants filed a certiorari petition before the Puerto Rico Court
of Appeals in relation to the class certification, which plaintiffs
opposed on January 9, 2018.  On March 4, 2018, the Court of Appeals
declined to entertain the certiorari petition.  Plaintiffs sought
to amend the complaint and defendants filed an answer thereto.  A
follow-up hearing was held on March 6, 2018 where discovery
procedures were discussed; another hearing was set for August 2018.
The case is now in its discovery stage.

Popular, Inc. is a diversified, publicly-owned financial holding
company subject to the supervision and regulation of the Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve System. The Corporation has
operations in Puerto Rico, the United States and the Caribbean.  In
Puerto Rico, the Corporation provides retail, mortgage, and
commercial banking services through its principal banking
subsidiary, Banco Popular de Puerto Rico ("BPPR"), as well as
investment banking, broker-dealer, auto and equipment leasing and
financing, and insurance services through specialized subsidiaries.
In the U.S. mainland, the Corporation operates Banco Popular North
America ("BPNA"). BPNA focuses efforts and resources on the core
community banking business. BPNA operates branches in New York, New
Jersey and South Florida under the name of Popular Community Bank.



POPULAR INC: Valle Class Action Settlement Gets Final Court Okay
----------------------------------------------------------------
Popular, 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 on August 6, 2018, the Court granted its final
approval of the settlement agreement for the case styled, Josefina
Valle v. Popular Community Bank (now Popular Bank).

The Company's New York-chartered banking subsidiary, Popular Bank
(PB), has been named a defendant in a putative class action
complaint captioned Josefina Valle, et al. v. Popular Community
Bank, filed in November 2012 in the New York State Supreme Court
(New York County).  Plaintiffs, PB customers, allege among other
things that PB has engaged in unfair and deceptive acts and trade
practices in connection with the assessment of overdraft fees and
payment processing on consumer deposit accounts.  The complaint
further alleges that PB improperly disclosed its consumer overdraft
policies and that the overdraft rates and fees assessed by PB
violate New York's usury laws.  Plaintiffs seek unspecified
damages, including punitive damages, interest, disbursements, and
attorneys' fees and costs.

A motion to dismiss was filed on September 9, 2013.  After several
procedural steps that included a ruling partially granting PB's
motion to dismiss and the filing of an amended complaint that was
also partially dismissed, on August 12, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a
second amended complaint.  On September 17, 2015, PB filed a motion
to dismiss the second amended complaint and on February 18, 2016,
the Court granted it in part and denied it in part, dismissing
plaintiffs' unfair and deceptive acts and trade practices claim to
the extent it sought to recover overdraft fees incurred prior to
September 2011.

On March 28, 2016, PB filed an answer to the second amended
complaint.  On April 7, 2016, PB filed a notice of appeal on the
partial denial of PB's motion to dismiss and after briefing and the
holding of oral argument, on April 25, 2017, the Appellate Division
issued an order denying PB's appeal.

On November 13, 2017, the parties reached an agreement in
principle.  Under this agreement, subject to certain customary
conditions including court approval of a final settlement agreement
in consideration for the full settlement and release of defendant,
an amount up to US$5.2 million will be paid to qualified
claimants.

In March 2018, the Court entered an order for the preliminary
approval of the settlement.  On July 23, 2018, the claims process
closed and, on August 6, 2018, the Court granted its final approval
of the settlement agreement.

Popular, Inc. is a diversified, publicly-owned financial holding
company subject to the supervision and regulation of the Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve System. The Corporation has
operations in Puerto Rico, the United States and the Caribbean.  In
Puerto Rico, the Corporation provides retail, mortgage, and
commercial banking services through its principal banking
subsidiary, Banco Popular de Puerto Rico ("BPPR"), as well as
investment banking, broker-dealer, auto and equipment leasing and
financing, and insurance services through specialized subsidiaries.
In the U.S. mainland, the Corporation operates Banco Popular North
America ("BPNA"). BPNA focuses efforts and resources on the core
community banking business. BPNA operates branches in New York, New
Jersey and South Florida under the name of Popular Community Bank.



PPL CORPORATION: Class Action in Kentucky Still Underway
--------------------------------------------------------
Proceedings are currently underway regarding potential class
certification in a class action complaint against LG&E and KU
Energy LLC filed in Kentucky, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018.

In December 2013, six residents, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, filed a class action complaint against LG&E and
PPL Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Kentucky alleging violations of the Clean Air Act, RCRA, and
common law claims of nuisance, trespass and negligence.  These
plaintiffs seek injunctive relief and civil penalties, plus costs
and attorney fees, for the alleged statutory violations.  Under the
common law claims, these plaintiffs seek monetary compensation and
punitive damages for property damage and diminished property values
for a class consisting of residents within four miles of the Cane
Run plant, which had three coal-fired units retired in 2015.  In
their individual capacities, these plaintiffs sought compensation
for alleged adverse health effects.

In July 2014, the court dismissed the RCRA claims and all but one
Clean Air Act claim, but declined to dismiss the common law tort
claims.  In November 2016, the plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint removing the personal injury claims and removing certain
previously named plaintiffs.  In February 2017, the District Court
issued an order dismissing PPL as a defendant and dismissing the
final federal claim against LG&E.  On April 13, 2017, the federal
District Court issued an order declining to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction on the state law claims and dismissed the case in its
entirety.

On June 16, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a class action complaint in
Jefferson Circuit Court, Kentucky, against LG&E alleging state law
nuisance, negligence and trespass tort claims.  The plaintiffs seek
compensatory and punitive damages for alleged property damage due
to purported plant emissions on behalf of a class of residents
within one to three miles of the plant.  Proceedings are currently
underway regarding potential class certification, for which a
decision may occur in late 2018 or in 2019.

LG&E and KU Energy LLC supplies natural gas and electricity.  The
Company generates electricity from coal, oil and gas, and hydro
energy sources. LG&E and KU operates in the United States.


PRIMORIS SERVICES: Court OKs Accord in Suit over Wilbros Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas has
approved the settlement agreement resolving class action cases
related to Primoris Services Corporation's acquisition of Willbros
Group, Inc., according to Form 10-Q filing of Primoris Services
Corporation with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018.

In the fourth quarter of 2014, Willbros announced a restatement of
its Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements for the March 2014
and June 2014 quarters.  On October 28, 2014, a complaint was filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Texas seeking class action status on behalf of purchasers of
Willbros' stock and alleging damages on their behalf arising from
the matters that led to the restatement.

On February 16, 2018, Willbros reached an agreement in principle,
which, if approved by the Court, would settle all claims against
the defendants and be fully funded by Willbros' insurance carriers.
On April 17, 2018, the Court signed an Order Preliminarily
Approving Settlement and Providing Notice, preliminarily approving
the settlement.

On August 2, 2018, at a hearing to determine whether the parties'
settlement was fair, reasonable and adequate to the Settlement
Class Members, the Court approved the settlement and entered the
Order on August 3, 2018.

Primoris Services Corporation, a specialty contractor and
infrastructure company, provides a range of construction,
fabrication, maintenance, replacement, water and wastewater, and
engineering services in the United States and internationally.  It
operates through Power, Pipeline, Utilities, and Civil segments.
Primoris Services Corporation is headquartered in Dallas, Texas.


PROPHET MANASSEH: Underpays Marketing Professionals, Person Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
ANALYSE PERSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PROPHET MANASSEH JORDAN MINISTRIES; and
PROPHET YAKIM MANASSEH JORDAN, Defendants, Case No. 75733054 (Fla.
Cir., Miami-Dade Cty., July 31, 2018) seeks to recover from the
Defendants overtime compensation, retaliatory relief, liquidated
damages, costs and reasonable attorneys' fees, under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Ms. Person was employed by the Defendants as marketing professional
from March 10, 2015 to September 15, 2017.

Prophet Manasseh Jordan Ministries is a religious and faith based
ministry doing business in the State of Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andres F. Rey, Esq.
          EPGD ATTORNEYS AT LAW, P.A.
          777 SW 37th Ave., Suite 510
          Miami, FL 33135
          Telephone: (786) 837-6787
          Facsimile: (305) 718-0687
          E-mail: andres@epgdlaw.com


PROTHENA CORP: Simon James Seeks Consolidation of Related Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Prothena Corporation plc disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2018, that on July 16, 2018, the plaintiff in the
Simon James lawsuit filed a motion with the court seeking to
consolidate that lawsuit and the Arkansas Teacher Retirement System
and Ramezani lawsuits (notwithstanding the prior dismissal of those
cases), and have Simon James serve as the lead plaintiff.

On May 17, 2018, a purported class action lawsuit entitled Arkansas
Teacher Retirement System v. Prothena Corporation plc, et al.,
Civil Action No. 18-cv-2865-WHA, was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California against the Company
and certain of its current and former officers; the plaintiff
voluntarily dismissed that case on July 10, 2018.

On July 5, 2018, another purported class action lawsuit, entitled
Michael Ramezani v. Prothena Corporation plc, et al., Civil Action
No. 3:18-cv-04035-WHA, was filed in the same court against the same
parties; the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed that case on July 13,
2018.

On July 16, 2018, two additional purported class action lawsuits
were filed against the same parties: Simon James v. Prothena
Corporation plc, et al., Civil Action No. 18-cv-04261-JST, filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California;
and Granite Point Capital v. Prothena Corporation plc, et al.,
Civil Action No. 18-cv-06425, filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York.  The plaintiff in each of these
cases seeks compensatory damages, costs and expenses in an
unspecified amount on behalf of a putative class of persons who
purchased the Company's ordinary shares between October 15, 2015
and April 20, 2018, inclusive.

The complaints allege that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by allegedly making false and misleading statements
and omitting certain material facts in certain public statements
and in the Company's filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission during the putative class period, regarding the clinical
trial results and prospects for approval of the Company's NEOD001
drug development program.

The Company said, "Because the Company is in the early stages of
these proceedings, the Company is not able to estimate a reasonably
possible loss or range of loss, if any, that could result from
these proceedings."

Prothena Corporation plc, a late-stage clinical biotechnology
company, focuses on the discovery, development, and
commercialization of novel immunotherapies for the treatment of
diseases in the neuroscience and orphan categories.  Prothena
Corporation plc was incorporated in 2012 and is headquartered in
Dun Laoghaire, Ireland.


PTC THERAPEUTICS: Securities Suit Settlement Gets Initial Court OK
------------------------------------------------------------------
PTC Therapeutics, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey has provided preliminary approval of
the settlement agreement for the case entitled, In re PTC
Therapeutics, Inc. Securities Litigation.

In March 2016, three purported securities class action lawsuits
were commenced in the United States District Court for the District
of New Jersey (one each on March 3, 10, and 11), naming as
defendants the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, and its former
Chief Financial Officer.  The lawsuits have been consolidated into
one action captioned In re PTC Therapeutics, Inc. Securities
Litigation, No. 16-1224 (KM) (the "Securities Class Action").  A
consolidated amended complaint was filed on January 13, 2017.

The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and
Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection
with allegedly false and misleading statements made by the Company
about its business, operations, and prospects as it relates to the
NDA for Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD that the Company
submitted to the FDA in December 2015.  The plaintiffs seek, among
other things, compensatory damages for purchasers of the Company's
common stock between November 6, 2014 and February 23, 2016, as
well as attorneys' fees and costs.

On February 14, 2017, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint.  On August 28, 2017, the motion to
dismiss was granted in part and denied in part.  On September 25,
2017, defendants filed an answer and affirmative defenses to the
consolidated amended complaint.

On January 10, 2018, the parties agreed to a settlement in
principle of all legal claims, subject to court approval, which
will be funded by the Company's insurance subject to the applicable
deductible.  The Court preliminarily approved the settlement on May
15, 2018.

PTC Therapeutics, Inc. is a science-led global biopharmaceutical
company focused on the discovery, development and commercialization
of clinically-differentiated medicines that provide benefits to
patients with rare disorders. The company is based in South
Plainfield, New Jersey.


PURDUE PHARMA: Mercy House Files Suit Over RICO Act Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Purdue Pharma L.P.,
et al.  The case is styled as Mercy House Teen Challenge, a
not-for-profit Corporation on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated v. Purdue Pharma L.P., Purdue Pharma, Inc., The
Purdue Frederick Company, Inc., Teva Pharmaceutical Industries,
Ltd., Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Cephalon, Inc., Johnson &
Johnson, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Ortho-McNeil-Janssen
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. n/k/a Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Janssen
Pharmaceutica Inc. n/k/a Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Noramco,
Inc., Endo Health Solutions Inc., Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
Allergan PLC formerly known as: Actavis PLC, Watson
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. n/k/a Actavis, Inc., Watson Laboratories,
Inc., Actavis LLC, Actavis Pharma, Inc. formerly known as: Watson
Pharma, Inc., Mallinckrodt PLC, Mallinckrodt LLC, McKesson
Corporation, Cardinal Health, Inc., and Amerisourcebergen Drug
Corporation, Case No. 3:18-cv-00584-HTW-LRA (S.D. Miss., August 23,
2018).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act.

Purdue Pharma L.P. is engaged in the research, development,
production, and distribution of prescription and over-the-counter
(prescription and non-prescription) medicines and healthcare
products.  The company offers a portfolio of medical products in
various categories, including prescription opioids, sleep,
laxatives, antiseptics, and dietary supplement.  The Company serves
healthcare professionals, patients, and caregivers in the United
States and internationally.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Arthur Eaves, Jr., Esq.
          JOHN ARTHUR EAVES ATTORNEYS AT LAW
          101 North State Street
          Jackson, MS 39201
          Telephone: (601) 355-7961
          Facsimile: (601) 355-0530
          E-mail: johnjr@eaveslawmail.com


QUANTA SERVICES: Still Defends Benton Class Lawsuit in California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Quanta Services, Inc. continues to face the class action complaint
styled, Lorenzo Benton v. Telecom Network Specialists, Inc., et
al., according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2018.

In June 2006, plaintiff Lorenzo Benton filed a class action
complaint in the Superior Court of California, County of Los
Angeles, alleging various wage and hour violations against Telecom
Network Specialists (TNS), a former subsidiary of Quanta.  Quanta
retained liability associated with this matter pursuant to the
terms of Quanta's sale of TNS in December 2012.  Benton represents
a class of workers that includes all persons who worked on certain
TNS projects, including individuals that TNS retained through
numerous staffing agencies.  The plaintiff class in this matter is
seeking damages for unpaid wages, penalties associated with the
failure to provide meal and rest periods and overtime wages,
interest and attorneys' fees.  In January 2017, the trial court
granted a summary judgment motion filed by the plaintiff class and
found that TNS was a joint employer of the class members and that
it failed to provide adequate meal and rest breaks and failed to
pay overtime wages.  In February 2018, a hearing was held on a
final motion for summary judgment on damages filed by the plaintiff
class seeking approximately US$11.1 million for its claims;
however, a final determination regarding the amount of damages was
not made.  Quanta believes the court's decision on liability is not
supported by controlling law and continues to contest its liability
and the damage calculation asserted by the plaintiff class in this
matter.

Additionally, in November 2007, TNS filed cross complaints for
indemnity and breach of contract against the staffing agencies,
which employed many of the individuals in question.  In December
2012, the trial court heard cross-motions for summary judgment
filed by TNS and the staffing agencies pertaining to TNS's demand
for indemnity.  The court denied TNS's motion and granted the
motions filed by the staffing agencies; however, the California
Appellate Court reversed the trial court's decision in part and
instructed the trial court to reconsider its ruling.  In February
2017, the court denied a new motion for summary judgment filed by
the staffing companies and has since stated that the staffing
companies would be liable to TNS for any damages owed to the class
members that the staffing companies employed.

The final amount of liability, if any, payable in connection with
this matter remains the subject of pending litigation and will
ultimately depend on various factors, including the outcome of
Quanta's appeal of the trial court's ruling on liability, the final
determination with respect to any damages owed by Quanta, and the
solvency of the staffing agencies.  Based on review and analysis of
the trial court's rulings on liability, Quanta does not believe, at
this time, that it is probable this matter will result in a
material loss.  However, if Quanta is unsuccessful in this
litigation and the staffing agencies are unable to fund damages
owed to class members, Quanta believes the range of reasonably
possible loss to Quanta upon final resolution of this matter could
be up to approximately US$11.1 million, plus attorneys' fees and
expenses of the plaintiff class.

Quanta Services, Inc. a leading provider of specialty contracting
services, offering infrastructure solutions primarily to the
electric power, oil and gas and communications industries in the
United States, Canada, Australia, Latin America and select other
international markets.  The company is based in Houston, Texas.


RECEIVABLE MANAGEMENT: Nadborski Sues over Debt Collection
----------------------------------------------------------
LECH NADBORSKI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE RECEIVABLE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-05205 (N.D. Ill.,  July
31, 2018) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable
means to collect a debt. The case is assigned to Honorable Ronald
A. Guzman.

The Receivable Management Services Corporation provides debt
recovery services to companies from a range of industries. The
company was founded in 1841 and is based in Bethlehem,
Pennsylvania. As of November 1, 2010, The Receivable Management
Services Corporation operates as a subsidiary of iQor Holdings Inc.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bryan Paul Thompson, Esq.
          Robert W. Harrer, Esq.
          CHICAGO CONSUMER LAW CENTER, P.C.
          111 W. Washington St., Suite 1360
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 858-3239
          E-mail: bryan.thompson@cclc-law.com
                  rob.harrer@cclc-law.com


RETAIL SERVICES: R. Bell's CPCA Suit Remanded to Calif. State Court
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California granted Bell's motion to remand the
case, RICHARD BELL, Plaintiff, v. RETAIL SERVICES & SYSTEMS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-02825-PJH (N.D. Cal.) to the Alameda
County Superior Court.

This is a putative class action brought under California's Unruh
Civil Rights Act and the California Disabled Persons Act ("CDPA").
The Plaintiff, a citizen of California and confined to a
wheelchair, alleges that on Oct. 2, 2017, he patronized the Total
Wine & More located at 6232 Topanga Canyon Blvd., Woodland Hills,
CA to purchase red wine and suffered discrimination as a result of
being denied full and equal access to the store's parking lot.

The Plaintiff seeks to represent a California class of similarly
situated people who have patronized one of at least 15 Total Wine
stores, including the Woodland Hills location, that are allegedly
in violation of the Unruh Act and the CDPA.  The complaint contains
only two causes of action.  Count 1 alleges that the Defendant has
violated the Unruh Act by, inter alia, denying the Plaintiff and
the members of the proposed class full and equal accommodations by
violating the ADA, and by violating Title 24 of the California
regulatory code.  Count 2 alleges that the Defendant has violated
the CDPA for similar reasons.

The Plaintiff seeks remedies as set forth in California law.  As
relevant, he specifically seeks declaratory and injunctive relief,
minimum statutory damages on behalf of the named Plaintiff, and an
award of attorneys' fees.

The Defendant timely removed the action on May 14, 2018, and the
Plaintiff's motion to remand is now before the Court.

The parties agree that the court's diversity jurisdiction under
Section 1441 turns on whether the amount in controversy exceeds the
jurisdictional threshold of $75,000.  The Defendant makes two
arguments in support of its position: (i) the complaint (actually)
seeks damages for each of the 15 Total Wine stores that allegedly
are in violation of California's antidiscrimination laws; and (ii)
the Plaintiff's attorneys' fees either alone or in combination push
the amount in controversy over the jurisdictional threshold.

Judge Hamilton disagrees.  He says the death knell to the
Defendant's first argument is that the complaint does not seek
monetary damages on behalf of the class.  The only monetary damages
the complaint seeks is minimum statutory damages on behalf of the
Plaintiff, i.e., $4,000.  The Defendant's second argument fails
because it relies on speculation and not evidence.  The Defendant
is correct that the amount in controversy includes attorneys' fees
that are recoverable by statute.  It, however, is still required to
offer non-speculative evidence about those attorneys' fees that
establishes, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000.

For these reasons, the Judge granted the Plaintiff's motion and
remanded the action to the Alameda County Superior Court.

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

Richard Bell, Plaintiff, represented by Evan Jason Smith --
esmith@brodskysmith.com -- Brodsky & Smith LLC.

Retail Services & Systems, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jerri
Kamaria Kay-Phillips -- jkay-phillips@hansonbridgett.com -- Hanson
Bridgett LLP & Kurt A. Franklin -- kfranklin@hansonbridgett.com --
Hanson Bridgett LLP.


RINECO CHEMICAL: Worley Sues Over Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES WORLEY, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. RINECO CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES, INC., and HERITAGE
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 4:18-cv-00570-SWW (E.D. Ark.,
August 21, 2018), alleges that the Defendants fail to pay the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals proper overtime
compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas
Minimum Wage Act.

Headquartered in Benton, Arkansas, Rineco Chemical Industries,
Inc., is a for-profit, domestic corporation, created and existing
under and by virtue of the laws of the state of Arkansas.  Rineco
provides waste management and environmental services.  Rineco
operated as a subsidiary of Heritage.

Heritage Environmental Services, LLC, is an Indiana limited
liability company, providing waste management and recycling
services.  Heritage's principal address is in Indianapolis,
Indiana.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          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: chris@sanfordlawfirm.com
                  josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


RIPPLE LABS: ICO Suit Moves to Federal Court
--------------------------------------------
Cali Haan, writing for Crowdfund Insider, reports that a motion by
plaintiffs in a class action suit against Ripple Labs to keep the
case in California courts was denied by a judge.

The case will now move to federal court.

Lawyers for class action plaintiff Ryan Coffey, Esq. filed the suit
against Ripple in May alleging the company engaged in a
"never-ending ICO" (initial coin offering) when it issued 100
billion XRP tokens then distributed 67.51 billion of those tokens
"to the general public and wholesale to larger investors" and
retained 32.49 billion tokens for founders.

Ripple says it sold its digital XRP tokens to pay for the
development of a fast interbank transaction network it has been
developing.

Plaintiffs are arguing that the mass issuance of tokens and
pre-distribution to founders means the Ripple token sale closely
resembles the sale of a unregistered security.

Plaintiff's are seeking ". . . . rescission of all XRP purchases,
damages, and a constructive trust over the proceeds of defendants'
alleged sales of XRP," wrote Judge Phyllis J Hamilton, in
background to the decision.

Ripple has hired former SEC chairperson Mary Jo White and former
SEC director of enforcement Andrew Ceresney as counsel.

Coindesk has reported that this is third class action brought
against Ripple claiming that the company sold unregistered
securities.

Although in her decision to allow the latest case to proceed to
federal court, Judge Hamilton acknowledged, "the defendant always
has the burden of establishing that removal (to federal court) is
proper," she also found that:

". . . . (A) defendant may remove an action under…if the amount
in controversy exceeds $5 million, the putative class has more than
100 members, and the parties are minimally diverse."

A so-called "removal bar" that prevents moving securities class
actions to federal court  if a  company sold securities "on a
national stock exchange," also did not apply to Ripple, wrote the
judge. XRP tokens are typically sold on cryptocurrency exchanges.

Ultimately, the provision for "jurisdictional diversity" proved a
strong argument for Ripple. The judge wrote, "removal in this
situation accords with Congress' 'overall intent' . . . to strongly
favor the exercise of federal diversity jurisdiction over class
actions with interstate ramifications."

According to Cornell Law School's Law Information Institute,
'diversity jurisdiction' refers to,  "A federal court's power to
hear any case where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and
no plaintiff shares a state of citizenship with any defendant."
Lawyer Max Kennerly, Esq. has written in a blog post that
defendants in class actions often seek to be tried in federal
courts because:

-- "federal juries, by virtue of their larger geographic range,
include fewer urban jurors and more rural jurors, and thus
(according to lawyers' lore) will award lower verdicts"

-- "the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure place express limits on
the amount of discovery available"

-- federal courts are . . . more prone to grant motions to dismiss
(and motions for summary judgment) than state courts"

'Discovery' refers to, "an exchange of legal information so that
all sides can find out and know the facts of the case."[GN]


RUBIN LUBLIN: Shabani Files Suit Asserting FDCPA Breach
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rubin Lublin LLC,
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, Franklin Credit Management
Corp. and John Does 1-25.  The case is entitled Falo Shabani,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Rubin Lublin LLC, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, Franklin
Credit Management Corp. and John Does 1-25, Case No.
1:18-cv-04011-CAP-AJB (N.D. Ga., August 23, 2018).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

Rubin Lublin, LLC is a boutique real estate law firm providing
services throughout Georgia, Tennessee, Mississippi and Alabama in
these areas: residential and commercial closings, mortgage
compliance, mortgage default, loss mitigation, bankruptcy,
landlord/tenant and all facets of real estate and title
litigation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SAN DIEGO SERVICES: Garcia Suit Alleges FCRA Violation
------------------------------------------------------
Andres Garcia, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. San Diego Services, LLC, Paragon Services Engineering, and Does
1 thru 50, Case No. 3:18-cv-01710 (S.D. Calif., July 26, 2018), is
brought against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act and the labor code.

The Plaintiff was hired through the Defendant's San Diego office
and performed work for Defendant in San Diego, California as a
maintenance attendant from May 16, 2017.

The Defendant provides engineering services such as preventative
maintenance, property and equipment surveys, tenant service
requests, and 24 hours emergency repairs. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eric B. Kingsley, Esq.
      Kelsey M. Szamet, Esq.
      KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY, APC
      16133 Ventura Blvd., Ste. 1200
      Encino, CA 91436
      Tel: (818) 990-8300
      Fax: (818) 990-2903
      E-mail: eric@kingsleykingsley.com
              kelsey@kingsleykingsley.com


SANDRIDGE MISSISSIPPIAN: Bid for Partial Judgment Underway
----------------------------------------------------------
SandRidge Mississippian Trust I said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2018, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the defendants in
the putative class action lawsuit filed by the Duane & Virginia
Lanier Trust have sought partial judgment on pleadings.

On June 9, 2015, the Duane & Virginia Lanier Trust, on behalf of
itself and all other similarly situated unitholders of the Trust,
filed a putative class action complaint in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Oklahoma against the Trust, SandRidge
and certain current and former executive officers of SandRidge,
among other defendants (the "Securities Litigation").

The complaint, which was amended on November 11, 2016 (adding Ivan
Nibur, Lawerence Ross, Jase Luna, and Mathew Willenbuncher as lead
plaintiffs) and supplemented on May 1, 2017, asserts a variety of
federal securities claims on behalf of a putative class of (a)
purchasers of common units of the Trust in or traceable to its
initial public offering on or about April 7, 2011, and (b)
purchasers of common units of SandRidge Mississippian Trust II
("SDR") in or traceable to its initial public offering on or about
April 17, 2012.  

The claims are based on allegations that SandRidge and certain of
its current and former officers and directors, among other
defendants, including the Trust, are responsible for making false
and misleading statements, and omitting material information,
concerning a variety of subjects, including oil and gas reserves.

The plaintiffs seek class certification, an order rescinding the
Trust's initial public offering and an unspecified amount of
damages, plus interest, attorneys' fees and costs. As a result of
its reorganization in bankruptcy in 2016, SandRidge is a nominal
defendant only.

On August 30, 2017, the Court entered an order dismissing the
plaintiffs' claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933. As a result of the Court's order, the only
claims remaining in the litigation are the plaintiffs' claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder (the "Exchange Act Claims"). In
addition, because of the Court's order, the only remaining
defendants in the litigation are the Trust, James D. Bennett,
Matthew K. Grubb, Tom L. Ward, and SandRidge as a nominal defendant
only.

On September 11, 2017, the Court entered a subsequent order
granting in part and denying in part the remaining defendants'
motions to dismiss the Exchange Act Claims and finding that the
plaintiffs may pursue certain of the Exchange Act Claims against
the respective remaining defendants. In November 2017, the
plaintiffs' counsel informed counsel to the Trust that,
notwithstanding the dismissal of all claims against SDR, the
remaining claims in the litigation against the Trust are being
asserted not only by purchasers of common units of the Trust, but
also by purchasers of common units of SDR.

On January 19, 2018, the Trust filed a Motion for Partial Judgment
on the Pleadings as to any claims against it brought by purchasers
of common units of SDR, arguing that non-purchasers of common units
in the Trust lack statutory standing to pursue claims against the
Trust. That motion is fully briefed and is awaiting a decision from
the Court.

On February 15, 2018, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification, which has been fully briefed and is awaiting a
decision from the Court.

On July 2, 2018, defendants filed a motion for partial judgment on
the pleadings, arguing that all claims asserted on behalf of the
members of the putative class are barred by the statute of
limitations.

SandRidge Mississippian Trust I said, "Regardless of the outcome of
the litigation, the Trust may incur expenses in defending the
litigation, and any such expenses may increase the Trust's
administrative expenses significantly. The Trust will estimate and,
if the Trustee deems it appropriate, begin reserving funds for
potential losses that may arise out of litigation to the extent
that such losses are probable and can be reasonably estimated.
Significant judgment will be required in making any such estimates
and any final liabilities of the Trust may ultimately be materially
different than any estimates. The Trust is currently unable to
assess the probability of loss or estimate a range of any potential
loss the Trust may incur in connection with the Securities
Litigation, and has not established any reserves relating to the
Securities Litigation. The Trust may withhold estimated amounts
from future distributions to cover future costs associated with the
litigation if determined necessary. The Trust has not yet fully
analyzed any rights it may have to indemnities that may be
applicable or any claims it may make in connection with the
Securities Litigation."

The Trust is a statutory trust created under the Delaware Statutory
Trust Act. The business and affairs of the Trust are administered
by the Trustee and, as necessary, the Delaware Trustee. The Trust's
purpose is to hold the Royalty Interests, to distribute to the
Trust unitholders cash that the Trust receives in respect of the
Royalty Interests and to perform certain administrative functions
in respect of the Royalty Interests and the Trust units.


SANTA FE, NM: Court Won't Dismiss ACF Inmates' Tort Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico
denied Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiffs' Third Cause of
Action (Claims Arising Under the New Mexico Tort Claims Act) in the
case captioned GABRIEL ARMENDARIZ, ERIC DION COLEMAN, JACOB GOMEZ,
TONY LOVATO, MATTHEW J. LUCERO, EDWARD R. MANZANARES, JOE MARTINEZ,
CHRISTOPHER MAVIS, PHILIP TALACHY, FELIPE J. TRUJILLO, and JOSEPH
VIGIL, on their own behalf and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. SANTA FE COUNTY BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS, and MARK GALLEGOS, in his individual and official
capacity, and INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL COATINGS, LLC, Defendants, Case
No. 1:17-cv-00339-WJ-LF (D.N.M.).

This case is a putative class action arising from the Defendants'
renovation of the shower facilities at the Santa Fe Adult
Correctional Facility (ACF) in 2014 when the Plaintiffs and the
class members were inmates at the ACF. The Plaintiffs allege that
they were exposed to dust, debris, and hazardous chemicals, which
caused them injury.

This motion concerns only the claims in the Third Cause of Action
brought under the New Mexico Tort Claims Act, against the County
Defendants, with these defendants seeking dismissal of those claims
because they are barred by the two-year statute of limitations. The
Defendants argue:

   -- the Plaintiffs' state law claims under the Tort Claims Act
against the County Defendants are barred by the statute of
limitations;

   -- the two-year statute of limitations was not tolled by the
prior state court action filed by the Plaintiffs Mavis and
Martinez; and

   -- Even if a principle of cross-jurisdictional class action
tolling applied, it would apply only to subsequent individual
lawsuits by putative class members and not to successive class
actions.

The Plaintiffs contend that class action tolling principles apply
to their state law claims and if not, the Court should find that
Defendants have either waived the limitations defense or that they
should be estopped from asserting it.

The Plaintiffs' alleged injuries occurred in the spring of 2014,
and so to be timely under the Tort Claims Act, the complaint should
have been filed before the end of spring 2016, within the two-year
limitations period of the Tort Claims Act. Instead, the complaint
was filed on March 14, 2017, almost three years after the date of
the alleged incidents resulting in harm and one year too late.

Class Action Tolling Principles

Relevant Law

In American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538, 544,
552-53 (1974), the Supreme Court concluded that a timely-filed
complaint seeking relief on behalf of a class under Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure suspends the running of the
statute of limitations for potential class members, and that, upon
the denial of class certification, members of the unsuccessful
class may intervene in the original case without erosion of their
claims to the statute of limitations.

Tolling Argument

It is undisputed that this federal action was filed in March 2017,
three years after the alleged injuries occurred and one year past
the two-year limitations period under the Tort Claims Act. The
question is whether the initial state court action tolled the
running of the clock under the American Pipe rule.

The Defendants contend that the Plaintiffs have no basis for any
claimed tolling because the federal tolling rule in American Pipe
does not provide that a state law class action filed in state court
tolls the limitations period of a later cause of action filed
outside that state's judicial system, that is, in another state or
in the federal courts.

The Plaintiffs would not get the relief they seek even if New
Mexico courts would apply American Pipe Plaintiffs' state law
claims. This is because tolling under American Pipe/Crown (Crown,
Cork & Seal Co. v. Parker, 462 U.S. 345, 350, 353-54 (1983))  would
preserve claims of putative class members in the state court case
so that they could either intervene or file individual lawsuits if
class certification was denied although here, the state court case
was dismissed by stipulation.

Neither American Pipe nor Crown addressed the specific issue of
whether tolling applies to subsequent class actions, and so
Defendants are correct that Plaintiffs would benefit from tolling
only as to their individual claims. Moreover, China Agritech 138
S.Ct. 1800, forecloses any arguments offered by the Plaintiffs that
tolling should include class action claims. The best American Pipe
offers the Plaintiffs if it applies at all is a tolling of the
individual claims of putative class members; it would not allow a
successive class action claim based on the state law claims.

The Defendants are also correct that Plaintiffs Mavis and Martinez,
the two named Plaintiffs in the state court class action, would not
be able to benefit from tolling under American Pipe, for two
reasons:

First, the Plaintiffs stipulated to dismissal without prejudice
under NMRA 1-41(A)(1)(b). However, a dismissal without prejudice is
treated as a dismissal with prejudice when the statute of
limitations has run on the claims. Based on the Plaintiffs'
assertions regarding the alleged injuries, the statute of
limitations appears to have run on the state law claims by the time
the federal case was filed in 2017.

Second, as the actual named parties to the previously filed class
action, Mavis and Martinez do not enjoy the benefits of tolling,
which is meant for all asserted members of the class who would have
been parties.

The legal conclusions reached by the Court here is not unduly
unfair or draconian. The situation envisioned by American Pipe is
that putative class members who have not yet joined the lawsuit
should be able to preserve their claims until the class nature of
the action is determined. Because this tolling principle does not
apply to unnamed class members who knowingly opt out of a timely
filed suit, there is no reason to think it should not apply to
named plaintiffs like Mavis and Martinez who choose to voluntarily
dismiss their claims.  

Thus, the Court finds that the Defendants' motion is meritorious on
purely legal grounds; however, it ultimately fails for the
following reasons.

Equitable Estoppel/Equitable Tolling/Waiver

The Plaintiffs urge the Court to deny the Defendants' motion
because granting the motion would be contrary to the procedure the
County Defendants proposed and the agreement they brokered with the
Plaintiffs to transfer the state law claims to this action so that
all state and federal claims could be litigated in a single forum.
The Plaintiffs contend that the County Defendants either implicitly
waived the statute of limitations defense they now assert or worse,
actively misled the Plaintiffs by causing them to believe that the
Defendants would not raise this defense.

Relevant Law

Under both federal and New Mexico law, the statute of limitations
is an affirmative defense that can be waived.

The doctrine of equitable estoppel applies where a party has (1)
made a statement or action that amounted to a false representation
or concealment of material facts, or intended to convey facts that
are inconsistent with those a party subsequently attempts to
assert, with (2) the intent to deceive the other party, and (3)
knowledge of the real facts other than conveyed and the other party
does (1) not know the real facts, and (2) changes his or her
position in reliance on the estopped party's representations.

Counsel for County Defendants sent back revisions to the proposed
motion to amend and clarified that they were not opposing the
motion rather than consenting because they did not want to risk
somehow suggesting that my clients are waiving its affirmative or
other defenses by consenting or agreeing to the amended complaint.
Counsel for ICC agreed with counsel for the County Defendants.

The Plaintiffs contend that it would be improper to dismiss the
state law causes of action against the County Defendants.  

The Plaintiffs elected to dismiss the state lawsuit.

The County Defendants were obviously not happy about the
Plaintiffs' claim splitting, which prompted them to approach the
Plaintiffs and suggest moving both cases into the one federal case.
However, it certainly appears that after getting the Plaintiffs to
agree to dismiss the state court case, which is what actually
happened, the Defendants then turned around and moved to dismiss
the very claims that were moved into the federal case, which was
not any part of the agreement.

Thus, if the Plaintiffs elected to dismiss the state lawsuit, it
was at the behest of County Defendants and in in reliance on their
representations.

Plaintiffs Cannot Show Extraordinary Circumstance to Justify
Equitable Tolling

The Defendants' motion to dismiss runs counter to their
representations in their correspondence with the Plaintiffs, and on
which the Plaintiffs relied. The Defendants represented to the
Plaintiffs that they intended to keep defenses to federal claims
with no mention of defenses to state law claims and yet it is the
state law claims they seek to dismiss here. Under any plain
reading, the phrase, that are different from and in addition to
those raised in the state court proceeding (and that were not
applicable in the state court proceeding), refers to defenses to
the new federal claim(s) and/or to the additional plaintiffs.

There is no reasonable way to construe this language as referring
to statute of limitations defenses to either federal claims or the
plaintiffs in the state court case. In the same vein, the phrase
"otherwise unavailable defences" could only mean those defenses
that would not be available to the Defendants without the dismissal
of the state court lawsuit such as the statute of limitations
defense on which Defendants now rely.

Plaintiffs' Attempt to Avoid Consequences of Limitations Defense

The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint alleged
tolling of the statute of limitations, presumably in an attempt to
avoid the natural consequences of the County Defendants' Tort
Claims Act limitations defense.  

The Defendants also contend that the Plaintiffs should have
expected the Defendants to raise a statute of limitations defense
because it had been asserted in: (1) the then-existing state court
litigation as well as (2) in the Answer to the Amended Complaint.

The Court rejects both of these contentions for two reasons.

First, the Answer to the state court complaint does not assert a
statute of limitations defense in connection with Tort Claims Act
claims. Instead, it asserts the following: the Plaintiffs' claims
are barred and limited by the New Mexico Tort Claims Act and New
Mexico common law and/or their failure to satisfy the prerequisites
to suit.

Second, the Answer to the federal Amended Complaint includes a
statute of limitations defense in that the Defendants assert that
the Plaintiffs claims are barred by the applicable statutes of
limitations. However, the chronology does not fit into the
Defendants' argument. The Answer to the Amended Complaint was filed
on October 20, 2017, more than two weeks after the state court case
was dismissed by stipulation of the parties.  

Therefore, there was no reason for the Plaintiffs to expect
Defendants to raise a statute of limitations defense as a result of
agreeing to dismiss the state court case.

Findings and Conclusions on Equitable Tolling/Estoppel and Waiver

The Court finds and concludes that, inter alia:

   1. the Defense counsel's communications with the Plaintiffs is
tantamount to waiver of the affirmative defense of the statute of
limitations for the Plaintiffs' state court claims. The Defense
counsel appeared to be agreeing to the dismissal of the Plaintiffs'
state court case without pursing that defense on the Plaintiffs'
state court claims. The County Defendants have therefore waived the
statute of limitations defense for those claims.

   2. The representations of counsel for the County Defendants to
the Plaintiffs' counsel regarding retained defenses were relayed in
such a way as to induce the Plaintiffs to believe that the state
court case could be dismissed without adverse consequences
occurring as a result of the dismissal. The Court further finds
that in response to the Plaintiffs' good faith inquiry for
assurances and specifics, counsel for the County Defendants avoided
a direct answer and instead made a deliberately obtuse comment
about not being sure of the meaning of otherwise available, when
the meaning should have been perfectly clear.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 6, 2018 Memorandum
Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ycrem5fc from
Leagle.com.

Gabriel Armendariz, Eric Dion Coleman, Jacob Gomez, Tony Lovato,
Matthew J. Lucero, Edward R. Manzanares, Christopher Mavis, Philip
Talachy, Felipe J. Trujillo, Joseph Vigil & James M. Wheeler, on
their own behalf and on similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs,
represented by Mark H. Donatelli, Rothstein Law Firm, John C.
Bienvenu, Bienvenu Law Office, Kristina Martinez, Egolf, Ferlic &
Harwood, LLC & Paul M. Linnenburger, Rothstein Donatelli LLP.

Santa Fe County Board of Commissioners, Defendant, represented by
Alisa Wigley-Delara -- awd@conklinfirm.com -- Conklin, Woodcock &
Ziegler, PC, Christa M. Hazlett -- cmh@conklinfirm.com -- Conklin,
Woodcock & Ziegler. P.C., Jennifer A. Noya, Modrall Sperling Roehl
Harris & Sisk PA, Tiffany L. Roach Martin, Modrall, Sperling,
Roehl, Harris & Sisk, PA & Alex Cameron Walker, Modrall, Sperling,
Roehl, Harris & Sisk, P.A.


SERES THERAPEUTICS: Time to Appeal Mazurek Case Dismissal Expires
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Seres Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that plaintiff did not appeal
the dismissal of the case entitled, Mazurek v. Seres Therapeutics,
Inc., et al., and the period for appeal has lapsed.

On March 30, 2018, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts granted the Company's motion to dismiss the putative
class action lawsuit filed September 28, 2016, entitled Mazurek v.
Seres Therapeutics, Inc., et al., alleging violations of Sections
10(b), 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, by making allegedly false and misleading statements and
omissions about the Company's clinical trials for its product
candidate SER-109 in the Company's public disclosures between June
25, 2015 and July 29, 2016.

The plaintiff did not appeal the decision and the period for appeal
has lapsed.

The Company did not accrue any liabilities related to legal
contingencies in its consolidated financial statements as of June
30, 2018 or December 31, 2017.

Seres Therapeutics, Inc., a microbiome therapeutics platform
company, engages in developing biological drugs designed to restore
health by repairing the function of a dysbiotic microbiome. Seres
Therapeutics, Inc. was founded in 2010 and is headquartered in
Cambridge, Massachusetts.


SHAMROCK FOODS: Wins Bid for Summary Judgment in Ruiz Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Stephen V. Wilson grants the Defendant's motion for
summary judgment and moots the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class
in the lawsuit titled Mario Ruiz, et al. v. Shamrock Foods Company,
Case No. 2:17-cv-06017-SVW-AFM (C.D. Cal.).

According to its civil minutes, the Court grants the Defendant's
Motion for Summary Judgment because the named Plaintiffs lack
standing to pursue the one claim in this case.  Thus, the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification is moot.

Plaintiffs Mario Ruiz, Raul Guerrero and Robert Torres, commercial
drivers who were employed by Shamrock in California, have filed a
class action lawsuit, alleging on their behalf and the putative
class, a single claim for a procedural violation of the disclosure
requirements under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The Defendant moved for summary judgment for two reasons: (1) the
Plaintiffs' individual claims are barred by the statute of
limitations and (2) the Plaintiffs cannot establish Article III
standing, which requires a concrete injury.

Judge Wilson opines, among other things, that the Plaintiffs have
failed to demonstrate that they suffered a concrete injury
sufficient to satisfy Article III standing requirements.


SHARKNINJA OPERATING: Murillo Sues over Defective Blenders
----------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL MURILLO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SHARKNINJA OPERATING LLC., Defendant, Case
No. 2:18-cv-06594-RGK-JC (C.D. Cal., July 31, 2018) alleges that
the Defendant designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed, and
sold, a defective blenders.

According to the complaint, the stacked blade assembly fails to
lock in place inside the Defendant's blender pitchers and,
consequently, dislodges during use and cleaning, exposing consumers
to unexpected and sudden direct contact with the sharp blades,
resulting in safety hazards, such as lacerations.

SharkNinja Operating LLC designs and manufactures cleaning and
kitchen appliances. The company was formerly known as Euro-Pro
Operating LLC and changed its name to SharkNinja Operating LLC in
October 2017. The company was founded in 1995 and is based in
Needham, Massachusetts. It has additional offices in the United
States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and China. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jordan L. Lurie, Esq.
          Tarek H. Zohdy, Esq.
          Cody R. Padgett, Esq.
          Trisha K. Monesi, Esq.
          CAPSTONE LAW APC
          1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 556-4811
          Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
          E-mail: Jordan.Lurie@capstonelawyers.com
                  Tarek.Zohdy@capstonelawyers.com
                  Cody.Padgett@capstonelawyers.com
                  Trisha.Monesi@capstonelawyers.com


SONIC STEVENS: Faces Fabello Suit over Defective Used BMW
---------------------------------------------------------
JOHN FABELLO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SONIC STEVENS CREEK B INC. d/b/a STEVENS
CREEK BMW; and DOES 1 through 500, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
18CV332480 (Cal. Super., Sana Clara Cty., July 31, 2018) alleges
violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act.

According to the complaint, in November 2017 the Plaintiff
purchased a used, Certified Pre-Owned BMW 550ii for $46,984. The
Plaintiff bought the said motor vehicle free from any defects, had
clean CarFax and AutoCheck reports, and that the vehicle had a very
minor accident causing the front side panel to be repainted.

When the Plaintiff had the motor vehicle detailed at a car wash and
the detailer showed the Plaintiff problems with the paint on the
hold, roof, and truck. The detailer showed the Plaintiff extensive
undisclosed repaired damage including streaks in the paint with the
brush marks.

The Plaintiff returned to the Defendants and they provided a Work
Order/Repair Order. The Work Order/Repair Order has no cost on it
but a sublet bill, and Purchase Oder showing a $2,000 bill from A &
Wiltz Auto Body which is not a BMW Factory Certified Paint Body
Shop. The work order shows the paint job was to be completed on one
day.

The Defendant intentionally withheld material prior damage
information by subletting the repair to A & Wiltz so the repair
would not show up on CarFax nor AutoCheck, and the Defendants saved
money by not using its own factory trained technicians and BMW
approved paint and paint systems.

Sonic Stevens Creek B Inc. d/b/a Stevens Creek BMW is a California
corporation engaged in the business of buying and selling
automobiles in Santa Clara County. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Louis A. Liberty, Esq.
          LOUIS LIBERTY & ASSOCIATES, APLC
          553 Pilgrim Drive, Suite A
          Foster City, CA 94404
          Telephone: (650) 341-0300
          E-mail: lou@carlawyer.com


SPROUTS FARMERS: Discovery Ongoing in Arizona Securities Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2018, for
the quarterly period ended July 1, 2018, that discovery is ongoing
in a class action lawsuit filed in Superior Court for the State of
Arizona.

On March 4, 2016, a complaint was filed in the Superior Court for
the State of Arizona against the company and certain of its
directors and officers on behalf of a purported class of purchasers
of shares of the company's common stock in its underwritten
secondary public offering which closed on March 10, 2015 (the
"March 2015 Offering").

The complaint purports to state claims under Sections 11, 12 and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, based on an alleged
failure by the company to disclose adequate information about
produce price deflation in the March 2015 Offering documents.

The complaint seeks damages on behalf of the purported class in an
unspecified amount, rescission, and an award of reasonable costs
and attorneys' fees.

After removal to federal court, the plaintiff sought remand, which
the court granted in March 2017. On May 25, 2017, the company filed
a Motion to Dismiss in the Superior Court for the State of Arizona,
which the court granted in part and denied in part by order entered
August 30, 2017.  The company answered the complaint on September
28, 2017. The parties are engaged in discovery at this time.

Sprouts Farmers said, "We intend to defend this case vigorously,
but it is not possible at this time to reasonably estimate the
outcome of, or any potential liability from, the case."

Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc., a healthy grocery store, provides
fresh, natural, and organic food products in the United States. Its
stores offer fresh produce, meat and seafood, deli and baked goods,
packaged groceries, vitamins and supplements, bulk foods, dairy and
dairy alternatives, frozen foods, beer and wine, and natural body
care and household items. Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc. was founded
in 2002 and is based in Phoenix, Arizona.


SPROUTS FARMERS: Still Defends Phishing Scam Related Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2018, for
the quarterly period ended July 1, 2018, that the company continues
to defend itself in Phishing Scam Related Class Action Suits

In April 2016, four complaints were filed, two in the federal
courts of California, one in the Superior Court of California and
one in the federal court in the District of Colorado, each on
behalf of a purported class of our current and former team members
whose personally identifiable information (referred to as "PII")
was inadvertently disclosed to an unauthorized third party that
perpetrated an email "phishing" scam against one of our team
members.

The complaints allege that the company failed to properly safeguard
the PII in accordance with applicable law. The complaints seek
damages on behalf of the purported class in unspecified amounts,
attorneys' fees and litigation expenses.

In June 2016, a motion was filed before the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation (referred to as "JPML") to transfer and
consolidate all four of the cases to the federal court in the
District of Arizona. The JPML granted the motion on October 6,
2016. On May 24, 2017, the JPML granted the company's motion to
stay proceedings in the case pending a U.S. Supreme Court ruling on
the question of whether arbitration agreements like those signed by
each of the named plaintiffs are enforceable.

On May 21, 2018, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Epic
Systems Corp. v. Lewis and upheld enforceability of arbitration
agreements containing class action waivers, like the ones the named
plaintiffs signed in this matter. Subsequent to the stay, it
remains to be seen what strategy plaintiffs will pursue following
Epic Systems.  

Sprouts Farmers said, "We intend to defend these cases vigorously,
but it is not possible at this time to reasonably estimate the
outcome of, or any potential liability from, the cases."

Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc., a healthy grocery store, provides
fresh, natural, and organic food products in the United States. Its
stores offer fresh produce, meat and seafood, deli and baked goods,
packaged groceries, vitamins and supplements, bulk foods, dairy and
dairy alternatives, frozen foods, beer and wine, and natural body
care and household items. Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc. was founded
in 2002 and is based in Phoenix, Arizona.


SYNERGIES3 TEC: Court Issues TRO in S. Jones's FLSA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case, STEPHEN JONES, Plaintiff, v. SYNERGIES3 TEC SERVICES,
LLC, ERIC ATCHLEY, AND BENTON ODOM, Defendants, Case No.
4:18-cv-01161-JAR (E.D. Mo.), Judge John A. Ross of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern
Division, granted Jones' motion for temporary restraining order.

On July 15, 2018, the Plaintiff filed the lawsuit seeking a
collective action under Section 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards
Act ("FLSA").  Motions for temporary restraining order and class
certification were also filed.

The Plaintiff asserts that the suit is at least the fourth suit
filed against Synergies3 seeking a collective action under the
FLSA.  The Plaintiff asserts that it is also the third suit filed
against Synergies3 seeking a class action under the Missouri
Minimum Wage Law and Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.  All of these claims
similarly allege that Synergies3 fails to pay overtime wages to its
satellite television installation technicians.

In his motion for temporary restraining order, the Plaintiff
contends that Synergies3 has exhibited a pattern of conduct in
which it, upon learning that an FLSA lawsuit had been filed against
it, circumvented the counsel to obtain "settlement" with the named
plaintiffs in exchange for the dismissal of the suit.  He submits
various affidavits in support of his motion, including the
affidavit of one of the plaintiffs' attorneys in the first case
filed against Synergies3 and a plaintiff in one of the Missouri
state cases.  The Plaintiff now seeks an order from the Court
prohibiting the Defendants from any settlement attempts outside the
participation of the Plaintiff's counsel.

At the hearing, the counsel for the Plaintiff reiterated the
arguments set forth in his motion for temporary restraining order.
The Counsel for Defendants first disputed the Court's jurisdiction
to enter a temporary restraining order against the Defendants.  The
Defense counsel also argued that the Plaintiff failed to present
sufficient evidence of actual or threatened misconduct by the
Defendants.

Judge Ross finds that there is undisputed evidence that Synergies3,
through its agents or representatives, has on three prior occasions
approached the named plaintiff of an FLSA lawsuit and entered into
settlement negotiations in an effort to avoid litigation.  The
strategy worked on those three occasions, as the named plaintiffs
each entered into a "settlement agreement" with Syngergies3 and
then directed the counsel to dismiss their FLSA claims.

The Judge finds that Synergies3's actions constitute misconduct of
a serious nature with the potential to interfere with the rights of
the parties in the class action lawsuit, and that they undermine
the purpose of collective actions and Rule 23.  He notes that the
acceptance of a purported settlement by the named Plaintiffs
without Court review and approval was also improper and threatened
the rights of the potential class members.

Therefore, he will grant the Plaintiff's motion for TRO.  He is
cognizant of the fact that such an Order will limit the parties'
right to free speech.  Therefore, the TRO is narrowly tailored to
only limit specific speech for a short period of time.  He will
prohibit Synergies3 and any agents or representatives acting on its
behalf from communicating or engaging in -- outside the presence of
counsel -- settlement discussions with any named plaintiff or any
potential class member to this FLSA action.  The TRO will expire on
Aug. 1, 2018, at which time the Court will hold a preliminary
injunction hearing.

Lastly, although the Order is issued under the Court's inherent
authority under Rule 23, Rule 65 guides the Court as to form.
After due consideration, the Judge believes that a $1,000 bond is
sufficient to cover the costs and damages that may be incurred or
suffered by the Defendants if it is found that they have been
wrongfully enjoined.

Accordingly, Judge Ross granted the Plaintiff's motion for TRO.
Synergies3, and any agents or representatives acting on behalf of
Synergies3, be temporarily enjoined, until further order from the
Court, from communicating or engaging in -- outside the presence of
counsel -- settlement discussions with any named Plaintiff or any
potential class member to the action.  The Order is also
specifically binding upon Benton Odom Jr. and Eric Atchley, who
appear to exercise operational control over Synergies3.

Jones shall provide a surety bond or deposit in the amount of
$1,000 as security for the payment of such costs and damages (if
any) as may be incurred or suffered by Synergies3 if Synergies3
found to have been wrongfully restrained.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 18, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/zDr3d7 from Leagle.com.

Stephen Jones, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
Employees, Plaintiff, represented by Mark A. Potashnick --
markp@wp-attorneys.com -- WEINHAUS AND POTASHNICK.

Synergies3 TEC Services, LLC, Eric Atchley & Benton Odom,
Defendants, represented by Jeremy Michael Brenner --
jbrenner@armstrongteasdale.com -- ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP.


TARGET CORP: H. Topete's Suit Remanded to Calif. State Court
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Hector Topete, an individual, Estuardo Ruiz, an
individual, Juan Perez, an individual, Enrique Bernal, an
individual, Tulio Poggio, an individual, Robert Campbell, an
individual, Jesus Granados, an individual, Claudia Zepeda, an
individual, Civel Rodriguez Lenus, an individual, Tomas Zavala
Perez, an individual, Ricardo Pimentel, an individual, Ricardo
Jaime Silverio, an individual, Rafael Oropeza, an individual,
Alfredo Yepez Garibay, an individual, Rodolfo Reveles, an
individual, Victor M. Baez, an individual, Karl Cleveland, an
individual, and Alfonso Abrego, an individual, Plaintiffs, v.
Target Corporation, a Minnesota Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Defendants, No. 1:18-CV-00833-LJO-JLT (E.D. Cal.), Judge
Lawrence J. O'Neill of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California remanded the action to the Superior Court of
California for Kern County.

On May 14, 2018, the Plaintiffs commenced the action in the
Superior Court, where it was case number BCV-18-101145.

On June 18, 2018, Target removed the action to the Court, based on
asserted diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction over Plaintiff Karl
Cleveland's claims and supplemental jurisdiction over the other
Plaintiffs' claims.  The Plaintiffs have disputed that the Court
has removal jurisdiction over the action.  

To resolve the dispute, the parties have agreed and stipulated
that:

     a. Plaintiffs Hector Topete, Estuardo Ruiz, Juan Perez,
Enrique Bernal, Tulio Poggio, Robert Campbell, Jesus Granados,
Claudia Zepeda, Civel Rodriguez Lenus, Tomas Zavala Perez, Ricardo
Pimentel, Ricardo Jaime Silverio, Rafael Oropeza, Alfredo Yepez
Garibay, Rodolfo Reveles, Victor M. Baez, Karl Cleveland, and
Alfonso Abrego do not seek, will not seek, and will not accept
recovery in the action of an amount, including damages, penalties
and attorneys' fees, that exceed $75,000 per Plaintiff.

     b. Based on the Plaintiffs' representation, Target agrees that
the action may be remanded to the Superior Court.

     c. Based on Target's agreement, the Plaintiffs will not seek
attorneys' fees and costs in connection with the remand.

     d. The stipulation does not preclude a future removal of this
action should the Plaintiffs add a claim over which the Court has
jurisdiction, such as a claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act or
a class action claim subject to the Class Action Fairness Act.

Based on the foregoing, the parties respectfully request the Court,
and Judge O'Neill granted, to remand the action to the Superior
Court of California for Kern County.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 18, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/l7jCHH from Leagle.com.

Hector Topete, an individual, Estuardo Ruiz, an individual, Juan
Perez, an individual, Enrique Bernal, an individual, Tulio Poggio,
an individual, Robert Campbell, an individual, Jesus Granados, an
individual, Claudia Zepeda, an individual, Civel Rodriguez Lenus,
an individual, Tomas Zavala Perez, an individual, Ricardo Pimentel,
an individual, Ricardo Jaime Silverio, an individual, Rafael
Oropeza, an individual, Alfredo Yepez Garibay, an individual,
Rodolfo Reveles, an individual, Victor M. Baez, an individual, Karl
Cleveland, an individual & Alfonso Abrego, an individual,
Plaintiffs, represented by Craig Justin Ackermann --
cja@ackermanntilajef.com -- Ackermann & Tilajef, PC & Jonathan
Melmed -- jm@melmedlaw.com -- Melmed Law Group P.C.

Target Corporation, a Minnesota Corporation, Defendant, represented
by Andrea Ballar Dicolen -- andreadicolen@paulhastings.com -- Paul
Hastings LLP, Anna Marie Skaggs -- annaskaggs@paulhastings.com --
Paul Hastings LLP, Jeffrey D. Wohl -- jeffwohl@paulhastings.com --
Paul Hastings LLP, Paul D. Kind -- paulkind@paulhastings.com --
Paul Hastings LLP & Ryan David Derry -- ryanderry@paulhastings.com
-- Paul Hastings LLP.


TATORE LLC: Faces Gomez Suit Over ADA Violations
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tatore LLC.  The case
is titled ANDRES GOMEZ, on his own and on behalf of all other
individuals similarly situated v. TATORE LLC, Case No.
1:18-cv-23409-MGC (S.D. Fla., August 22, 2018).

The Plaintiff accuses the Defendant of violating the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

Tatore LLC is a Florida Limited Liability in the state of Florida.
The Company operates a restaurant, Tatore Ristorante Italiano,
located in North Miami Beach, Florida.  The restaurant serves
Argentinean-inspired Italian fare with casual indoor and patio
seating.[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: jkerr@advocacypa.com


TESLA INC: Bernstein Liebhard Files Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, announces that a new a securities class action lawsuit has
been filed on behalf of those who purchased or acquired the
securities of Tesla, Inc. ("Tesla" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:TSLA)
between August 7, 2018 and August 14, 2018, both dates inclusive
(the "Class Period"). The lawsuit, which expands the class period
asserted in recent lawsuits filed against the Company concerning
Tesla's proposed "going private transaction," seeks to recover
Tesla shareholders' investment losses.

If you purchased Tesla securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options, please visit Tesla Shareholder
Investigation or contact Daniel Sadeh toll free at (877) 779-1414
or dsadeh@bernlieb.com.

According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Tesla had not secured funding for the Company's proposed
"going-private transaction"; (2) the proposed "going-private
transaction" required the approval of Tesla's shareholders' and not
just Tesla's Board of Directors; (3) Tesla's Board of Directors
were unaware whether Tesla secured funding for the proposed
transaction; (4) the status and likelihood of the proposed
"going-private transaction" was misrepresented to the market
because the financing for the proposed transaction had not been
secured and because the transaction required the approval of both
Tesla's Board of Directors and shareholders; and (5) as a result of
the foregoing, Defendants' statements about Tesla's business,
operations, and prospects, were materially false and/or misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

According to the lawsuit, on August 8 and 9, 2018, the markets
learned that Tesla's proposed "going private transaction" was still
being evaluated and could be rejected by Tesla's Board. This
allegedly contradicted Elon Musk's statements the prior day that
the proposed "going private transaction" was all but certain, with
only a shareholder vote needed to complete it. The markets also
learned that Mr. Musk's tweet was now the subject of an SEC
inquiry.

On this news, Tesla's shares fell $9.23 per share, or 2.4%, to
close at $370.34 per share on August 8, 2018, and on August 9,
2018, Tesla shares fell $17.89 per share, nearly 5%, to close at
$352.45 per share, resulting in a two-day decline of more than 7%
per share.

The lawsuit further alleges that on August 13, 2018, during
aftermarket hours, Mr. Musk tweeted that "I'm excited to work with
Silver Lake and Goldman Sachs as financial advisors, plus Wachtell,
Lipton, Rosen & Katz and Munger, Tolles & Olson as legal advisors,
on the proposal to take Tesla private." However, according to the
lawsuit, on August 14, 2018, Bloomberg published an article
entitled "Goldman Is Said to Have No Mandate When Musk Tweeted,"
stating that neither Goldman Sachs or Silver Lake were yet working
with Mr. Musk pursuant to a signed agreement or in an official
capacity when Musk stated on Twitter late Monday, August 13, 2018,
that both firms were working with him as financial advisers.

On this news, Tesla's shares fell $8.77 per share, or nearly 2.5%,
to close at $347.64 per share on August 14, 2018, damaging
investors.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than October 9, 2018. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.

If you purchased Tesla securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options, please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/tesla-inc-tsla-lawsuit-class-action-fraud-stock-77/.


         Daniel Sadeh, Esq.
         Bernstein Liebhard LLP
         Website: http://www.bernlieb.com
         Telephone: (877) 779-1414
         Email: dsadeh@bernlieb.com [GN]


TESLA INC: Scott+Scott Attorneys Files Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP ("Scott+Scott"), a national
securities and consumer rights litigation firm, disclosed that it
has filed a class action lawsuit (the "Complaint") against Tesla,
Inc. ("Tesla" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: TSLA) and its Chief
Executive Officer, Elon Musk (collectively, "Defendants").

The action, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, asserts claims under Sections
10(b) and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act"), 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b) and 78t(a), and SEC Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5, on behalf of
all persons and entities, other than Defendants and their
affiliates, who had open short positions or put options for Tesla
as of August 7, 2018 or August 8, 2018 (the "Class Period"), and
who suffered damages as a result of the misconduct alleged in the
Complaint (the "Class")

The Complaint alleges that defendant Elon Musk ("Musk") violated
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing false and misleading
statements regarding Musk taking the Company private. In
particular, on August 7, 2018, Musk issued a statement via Twitter
that "funding" for the deal to go private had been "secured"
("Funding secured").

In reaction to Musk's Tweet, the price of Tesla stock soared to an
intra-day high of $387.46, $45.47 above the previous day's closing
price. It then closed at $379.57 on August 7, 2018.

Musk's Tweet, however, was misleading. Moreover, the Tweet injured
short-sellers and put options investors who were forced to cover
their positions at artificially-inflated prices. The price of Tesla
stock remained inflated throughout the next day, August 8, 2018.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from the date of this notice, or October 15,
2018. Any member of the Class may move the Court to serve as lead
plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do
nothing and remain a member of the proposed class.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning
this notice or your rights or interests, please:

         Joe Pettigrew, Esq.
         Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP
         Telephone: 844-818-6982
         Email: jpettigrew@scott-scott.com [GN]


TETRAPHASE PHARMA: Bragar Eagel Files Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired Tetraphase Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: TTPH)
securities between March 8, 2017 and February 12, 2018, (the "Class
Period").  Investors have until September 25, 2018 to apply to the
Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects.  Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose: (1)
Tetraphase was increasing the patient enrollment in its IGNITE3
trial from 1,000 patients to 1,200 patients to meet the trials
primary endpoints (within the 10% non-inferiority margin); (2) The
enrollment of more patients in the trial indicated that the
existing population was inadequate to meet the trials primary
endpoints; and (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants
statements about Tetraphase's business, operations, and prospects,
were materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.

If you purchased Tetraphase securities during the Class Period or
continue to hold shares purchased before the Class Period, have
information, would like to learn more about these claims, or have
any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or
interests with respect to these matters, please:

         Brandon Walker, Esq.
         Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
         Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
         Telephone: (212) 355-4648
         Website: www.bespc.com
         Email; fortunato@bespc.com
                walker@bespc.com [GN]


TEXAS: TDCJ Inmate's Class Certification Bid Denied
---------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas
denied Plaintiffs' motion for appointment of counsel and class
certification in the case captioned KENNETH TAYLOR, TDCJ #
00828757, Plaintiff, v. BRYAN COLLER, et al, Defendants, Civil
Action No. 3:17-CV-0358(S.D. Tex.).

Plaintiff Kenneth Taylor, an inmate at the Texas Department of
Criminal Justice-Correctional Institutions Division, proceeds pro
se and in forma pauperis. He filed this lawsuit under 42 U.S.C.
Section 1983 alleging that extreme heat at TDCJ's Terrell Unit
violates his Eighth Amendment rights. The parties have filed
cross-motions for summary judgment, which are pending before the
Court. The Plaintiff recently filed two motions seeking emergency
relief based on the summer heat.  He also has filed a motion for
discovery, a motion for appointment of counsel and class
certification, and a "special request" for the undersigned to visit
the Terrell Unit "on a day when the heat is above 90 [degrees]."

The Court orders as follows:

   1. the Plaintiff's motions for emergency relief are denied.  The
parties' summary judgment motions remain under advisement.

   2. the Plaintiff's motion for discovery, motion for appointment
of counsel and class certification, and motion for special request
are denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 6, 2018 Memorandum
Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y92hx8fo from
Leagle.com.

Kenneth Taylor, Plaintiff, pro se.

Bryan Coller, Jacqueline Jones & Eric C. Miller, Defendants,
represented by Briana Marie Webb , Office of the Attorney General.


THORIUM CAPITAL: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Smith Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM SMITH, on behalf of himself, and all others similarly
situated, and all aggrieved employees v. THORIUM CAPITAL, LLC, DBA
CALIFORNIA BOTTLING COMPANY, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case
No. RG18917598 (Cal. Super. Ct., Placer Cty., August 21, 2018),
challenges the Defendants' alleged violation of the Labor Code by
failing to pay overtime wages to employees, who were subject to an
alternative workweek schedule and worked more than 10 hours in a
day.

Thorium Capital, LLC, doing business as California Bottling
Company, is a California limited liability company doing business
throughout California.  Thorium has a principal place of business
located in Placer County in Roseville, California.  The Plaintiff
is ignorant of the true names and capacities of the Doe
Defendants.

Thorium operates a water bottling plant in Roseville,
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric A. Grover, Esq.
          Robert W. Spencer, Esq.
          KELLER GROVER LLP
          1965 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94103
          Telephone: (415) 543-1305
          Facsimile: (415) 543-7861
          E-mail: eagrover@kellergrover.com
                  rspencer@kellergrover.com

               - and -

          Scot Bernstein, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SCOT D. BERNSTEIN,
          A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
          101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 1100
          Folsom, CA 95630
          Telephone: (916) 447-0100
          Facsimile: (916) 933-5533
          E-mail: swampadero@sbernsteinlaw.com


UNITED STATES: Hundreds Join in Suit Over Sevier County Wildfire
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ABC's News Channel 9 reports that a Trenton man is one of hundreds
involved in a class-action lawsuit seeking damages from the federal
government after wildfires in Sevier County destroyed their
properties.

Bill Smith is asking for two million dollars after losing his
Sevier County vacation rental home, which was left in ruin after
the 2016 fires.

Smith has joined hundreds of survivors in suing the federal
government for not doing enough to protect lives and property.

"This lawsuit is about the people who lost their homes and their
properties and some of them lost their lives," says Knoxville-based
attorney Sidney Gilreath -- gilknox@sidgilreath.com

Gilreath represents the plaintiffs in this multi-million dollar
case.

He says the lawsuit accuses the Park Service of negligence and a
disregard for public safety by having too few people fighting the
flames and not bringing in enough resources -- like tankers -- to
stop the fire's spread.

"These people feel like that the government was negligent in
monitoring the fire, they didn't monitor the fire, they didn't
apply the resources to stop the fire in the beginning, they didn't
keep the fire from spreading and so as a result of that, people had
damages."

The lawsuit also claims the government failed to adhere to
mandatory fire management policies and provide adequate, timely
warnings to people in the fire's path.

"Fire was almost on top of them so they couldn't escape, some of
them couldn't escape, so we feel the government is legally liable
and they can be sued for that," says Gilreath.

Gilreath says it's still to early to predict the outcome of the
cases, but he hopes his clients get justice for their emotional and
financial suffering.

"These people expect to be compensated for their loss, that's the
legal system in this country, that you get compensated if your
property is destroyed by somebody else's negligence."

The federal government already announced it will file a motion to
dismiss the lawsuit.

The plaintiffs will then have a chance to respond before a federal
judge decides whether the lawsuit will move forward in court.

A decision is expected by the end of the year.[GN]


VIRGINIA COLLEGE: Fails to Pay OT to Instructors, Ransaw Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
DAMARIUS RANSAW, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. VIRGINIA COLLEGE, LLC; ANTHONY DITOMASO; and
DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
37-2018-00038716-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Super., San Diego Cty., July 31,
2018) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime compensation, provide rest and meal periods, and provide
compliant wage statements.

The Plaintiff Ransaw was employed by the Defendants as instructor
from May 11, 2015 to February 21, 2018.

Virginia College, LLC operates as an educational institution. The
College offers bachelor degree in animation, business
administration, criminal justice, health service management,
management information systems, and network management, as well as
master degree in paralegal, health care, and information
technology. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas E. German, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DOUGLAS E. GERMAN
          750 B Street. Suite 2870
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 232-3533
          Facsimile: (619) 232-3593
          E-mail: douglas@geyman.sdcoxmail.com


WASHINGTON: Ct. Denies TRO in Suit Over State Workers' Union Dues
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington, Tacoma, denied, without prejudice, Plaintiffs' Motion
for Temporary Restraining Order in the case captioned MELISSA
BELGAU, DONNA BYBEE, RICHARD OSTRANDER, KATHRINE NEWMAN, MIRIAN
TORRES, GARY HONC, and MICHAEL STONE, Plaintiffs, v. JAY INSLEE, in
his official capacity as governor of the State of Washington, DAVID
SCHUMACHER, in his official capacity as Director of the Washington
Office of Financial Management, JOHN WEISMAN, in his official
capacity as Director of the Washington Department of Health, CHERYL
STRANGE, in her official capacity as Director of the Washington
Department of Social and Health Services, ROGER MILLAR, in his
official capacity as Director of the Washington Department of
Transportation, JOEL SACKS, in his official capacity as Director of
the Washington Department of Labor and Industries, and WASHINGTON
FEDERATION OF STATE EMPLOYEES (AFSCME, COUNSEL 28) a labor
corporation, Defendants, Case No. 18-5620 RJB (W.D. Wash.).

The Plaintiffs, who are Washington State employees, filed this
putative class action asserting that the Defendants are violating
their first amendment rights by continuing to deduct union
dues/fees from their wages even after the U.S. Supreme Court issued
Janus v. AFSCME, Council 31, on June 27, 2018, despite the fact
that the Plaintiffs have not clearly and affirmatively consented to
the deductions by waiving the constitutional right to not fund
union advocacy.

The first test requires the Plaintiffs to show: (1) that they are
likely to succeed on the merits (2) that they are likely to suffer
irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief (3) the
balance of equities tips in their favour and (4) an injunction is
in the public interest.

The Plaintiffs' motion for a TRO should be denied. The Plaintiffs
assert that they are paid on the 10th and 25th of every month. They
maintain that absent injunctive relief the State will continue to
deduct union dues/fees from their wages and that those deductions
violate their first amendment rights resulting in irreparable harm.


The Defendants state in their response that the union has agreed to
place the Plaintiffs' dues/fees in escrow in an interest-bearing
account until this lawsuit is decided. The Plaintiffs' money will
not be used by the union in any manner until the case is decided.
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that they
are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary
relief.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 6, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ybyusdl3 from Leagle.com.

Melissa Belgau, Donna Bybee, Richard Ostrander, Katherine Newman,
Miriam Torres, Gary Honc & Michael Stone, Plaintiffs, represented
by Caleb Jon Fan Vandenbos, FREEDOM FOUNDATION, Christi C. Goeller,
FREEDOM FOUNDATION, Hannah S. Sells, FREEDOM FOUNDATION & James
Gideon Abernathy, FREEDOM FOUNDATION.

Jay Inslee, in His Official Capacity as Governor of the State of
Washington, David Schumacher, in His Official Capacity as Director
of the Washington Office of Financial Management, John Weisman, in
His Official Capacity as Director of the Washington Department of
Health, Cheryl Strange, in Her Official Capacity as Director of the
Washington Department of Social Health and Services, Roger Millar,
in His Official Capacity as Director of the Washington Department
of Transportation & Joel Sacks, in His Official Capacity as Dir. of
Washington Department of Labor and Industries, Defendants,
represented by Alicia O. Young, COMPLEX LITIGATION DEPARTMENT
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE & Kelly Woodward , WASHINGTON STATE
ATTORNEY GENERAL.

Washington Federation of State Employees (AFSCME, Council 28), a
labor corporation, Defendant, represented by Edward Earl Younglove,
III, YOUNGLOVE & COKER PLLC.


WEBSITE AFTERLIFE: Suit Gets Certification, Will Move Ahead
-----------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports that a class-action lawsuit filed against the
website Afterlife has been certified by the Federal Court of
Canada.

Afterlife has made waves over the last year by aggregating
obituaries from other websites and profiting on them by selling
virtual candles and flowers to mourners on its own website.

St. John's lawyer Erin Best, Esq. -- ebest@stewartmckelvey.com --
is handling the suit.

"They were posting obituaries, and photos along with those
obituaries, that they had copied directly from a funeral home
website and sites where the writers had allowed the obituaries to
go up," Best told CBC News.

For family and friends of the deceased, it was a shock to see
Afterlife had copied and pasted their loved one's obituary to their
website. Several people across the country spoke out, taking their
stories to the media.

Best says this is an infringement on copyright.

"So we filed the class action, and the next stage then was to get
the class action certified. You go before the court and ask the
court to look at the way you defined the class," Best said.

Afterlife hasn't had much to say since the suit was filed,
according to Best.

"I don't think they had a great defence, so they've just stepped
back and they're just going to let the action proceed," Best said.

"I think we have a good case. Clearly under our copyright act, an
obituary is a literary work, and attracts copyright protection.
Certainly a photograph is an artistic work that attracts copyright
protection, and they were copying both of those things, both of
those works, without permission from the copyright owner."

Similar operation

Afterlife has since shut down its website, but a similar service
has popped up. Anyone trying to access Afterlife will be redirected
to Everhere.

"They were announcing people's recent deaths, but they were not
including a photo and they were using a generic death
announcement," Best said.

"But we have sued that corporate entity, so if it's owned by the
same corporate entity then there may be an issue. But either way,
they've altered what they're doing as a result of our lawsuit."

There will now be an opting-out period, where anyone involved in
the suit can exit. After that, Best said they should see results
quickly, potentially by Christmas.

"I think that the class will be somewhere between one million and
two million people. It's huge," Best said of the amount of people
potentially involved in the suit.

"I don't think the company had a lot of money to begin with, and so
I don't think we're going to be able to collect a large sum of
money. In which case it makes zero sense to try and split a very
small amount of money between one to two million people."

Best says they've asked the court to allow for them to donate the
money to a relevant charity.[GN]


WELTMAN WEINBERG: Zaslavskiy Suit Asserts FDCPA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Weltman, Weinberg &
Reis Co., LPA.  The case is styled as Alexander Zaslavskiy, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Weltman,
Weinberg & Reis Co., LPA, Case No. 1:18-cv-04747 (E.D.N.Y., August
22, 2018).

The Plaintiff accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Company, L.P.A., provides legal services.
The Company offers bankruptcy, consumer and commercial collection,
compliance, litigation, and real estate default services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel C. Cohen, Esq.
          COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
          300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Telephone: (929) 575-4175
          Facsimile: (929) 575-4195
          E-mail: dan@cml.legal


WESTERN UNION: 11th Cir. Favors Speedpay in Pincus Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
The Western Union Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2018, that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit has affirmed the grant of the summary judgment in
favor of Speedpay.

On February 10, 2015, Caryn Pincus filed a purported class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida against Speedpay, Inc. ("Speedpay"), a
subsidiary of the Company, asserting claims based on allegations
that Speedpay imposed an unlawful surcharge on credit card
transactions and that Speedpay engages in money transmission
without a license.

The complaint requests certification of a class and two subclasses
generally comprised of consumers in Florida who made a payment
through Speedpay's bill payment services using a credit card and
were charged a surcharge for such payment during the four-year and
five-year periods prior to the filing of the complaint through the
date of class certification. On April 6, 2015, Speedpay filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint.

On April 23, 2015, in response to the motion to dismiss, Pincus
filed an amended complaint that adds claims (1) under the Florida
Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices Act, which authorizes civil
remedies for certain criminal conduct; and (2) for violation of the
federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
("RICO").

On May 15, 2015, Speedpay filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint. On October 6, 2015, the Court entered an order denying
Speedpay's motion to dismiss.

On October 20, 2015, Speedpay filed an answer to the amended
complaint. On December 1, 2015, Pincus filed a second amended
complaint that revised her factual allegations, but added no new
claims. On December 18, 2015, Speedpay filed an answer to the
second amended complaint. On May 20, 2016, Speedpay filed a motion
for judgment on the pleadings as to Pincus' Florida Civil Remedies
for Criminal Practices Act and federal RICO claims.

On June 7, 2016, Pincus filed an opposition to Speedpay's motion
for judgment on the pleadings. On June 17, 2016, Speedpay filed a
reply brief in support of the motion. On October 28, 2016, Pincus
filed a motion seeking class certification. The motion seeks the
certification of a class consisting of "All (i) persons in Florida
(ii) who paid Speedpay, Inc. a fee for using Speedpay, Inc.’s
electronic payment services (iii) during the five-year period prior
to the filing of the complaint in this action through the
present."

Pincus also filed a motion to file her motion under seal. On
November 4, 2016, the Court denied Pincus' motion for class
certification without prejudice and motion to seal and ordered her
to file a new motion that redacts proprietary and private
information. Later that day, Pincus filed a redacted version of the
motion. On November 7, 2016, Speedpay filed a motion for summary
judgment on Pincus’ remaining claims. On December 15, 2016,
Speedpay filed an opposition to Pincus' class certification motion.
The same day, Pincus filed an opposition to Speedpay's summary
judgment motion and requested summary judgment on her individual
and class claims.

On January 12, 2017, Speedpay filed a reply in support of its
summary judgment motion and Pincus filed a reply in support of her
class certification motion. On March 28, 2017, the Court granted
Speedpay's motion for judgment on the pleadings as to Pincus'
Florida Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices Act and federal RICO
claims. On June 27, 2017, the Court granted Speedpay's summary
judgment motion, entered judgment in favor of Speedpay and ordered
the Court clerk to close the case.

On October 19, 2017, Pincus filed an appeal brief in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ("Eleventh Circuit
Appeals Court"), seeking reversal of the summary judgment, to which
the Company filed an opposition on December 4, 2017. On July 11,
2018, the Eleventh Circuit Appeals Court affirmed the grant of the
summary judgment in the matter.

The Western Union Company provides money movement and payment
services worldwide. The company operates in two segments,
Consumer-to-Consumer and Business Solutions. The Western Union
Company was incorporated in 2006 and is headquartered in Englewood,
Colorado.


WESTERN UNION: Amended Complaint Filed in Frazier Suit
------------------------------------------------------
The Western Union Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2018, that an amended complaint has been filed in
the case, Frazier et al. v. The Western Union Company et al.

On April 26, 2018, the Company, its Western Union Financial
Services, Inc. (WUFSI) subsidiary, its President and Chief
Executive Officer, and various "Doe Defendants" (purportedly
including Western Union officers, directors, and agents) were named
as defendants in a purported class action lawsuit asserting claims
for alleged violations of civil RICO and the Colorado Organized
Crime Act, civil theft, negligence, unjust enrichment, and
conversion under the caption Frazier et al. v. The Western Union
Company et al., Civil Action No. 1:18-cv-00998-KLM (D. Colo.).

The complaint alleges that, during the purported class period of
January 1, 2004 to the present, and based largely on the admissions
and allegations relating to the DPA, the FTC Consent Order, and the
NYDFS Consent Order, the defendants engaged in a scheme to defraud
customers through Western Union's money transfer system. The
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on July 17, 2018.

The amended complaint is similar to the original complaint,
although it adds additional named plaintiffs and additional counts,
including claims on behalf of putative California, Florida,
Georgia, Illinois, and New Jersey subclasses for alleged violations
of the California Unfair Competition Law, the Florida Deceptive and
Unfair Trade Practices Act, the Georgia Fair Business Practices
Act, the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices
Act, and the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.

Western Union said "The action is in a preliminary stage and the
Company is unable to predict the outcome, or the possible loss or
range of loss, if any, which could be associated with it. The
Company and the other defendants intend to vigorously defend
themselves in this matter."

The Western Union Company provides money movement and payment
services worldwide. The company operates in two segments,
Consumer-to-Consumer and Business Solutions. The Western Union
Company was incorporated in 2006 and is headquartered in Englewood,
Colorado.


WESTERN UNION: Awaiting Court Approval of Douglas Case Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the class action lawsuit filed by Jason Douglas
against The Western Union Company are awaiting court approval of a
settlement agreement, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2018.

On March 12, 2014, Douglas filed a purported class action complaint
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois asserting a claim under the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227, et seq., based on allegations that
since 2009, the Company has sent text messages to class members'
wireless telephones without their consent.

During the first quarter of 2015, the Company's insurance carrier
and the plaintiff reached an agreement to create an $8.5 million
settlement fund that will be used to pay all class member claims,
class counsel's fees and the costs of administering the settlement.
The agreement has been signed by the parties and, on November 10,
2015, the Court granted preliminary approval to the settlement.

On January 9, 2018, plaintiff filed a motion requesting decisions
on its pending motion to approve the settlement and motion for
attorneys' fees, costs, and incentive award. On July 27, 2018, the
Court indicated that it intends to rule on the pending matters by
August 31, 2018.

The Company accrued an amount equal to the retention under its
insurance policy in previous quarters and believes that any amounts
in excess of this accrual will be covered by the insurer. However,
if the Company's insurer is unable to or refuses to satisfy its
obligations under the policy or the parties are unable to reach a
definitive agreement or otherwise agree on a resolution, the
Company's financial condition, results of operations, and cash
flows could be adversely impacted. As the parties have reached an
agreement in this matter, the Company believes that the potential
for additional loss in excess of amounts already accrued is
remote.

The Western Union Company provides money movement and payment
services worldwide. The company operates in two segments,
Consumer-to-Consumer and Business Solutions. The Western Union
Company was incorporated in 2006 and is headquartered in Englewood,
Colorado.


WESTERN UNION: Bid to Dismiss Smallen Trust Suit Underway
---------------------------------------------------------
The Western Union Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2018, that the parties in the case, Lawrence Henry
Smallen and Laura Anne Smallen Revocable Living Trust et al. v. The
Western Union Company et al., are awaiting a court ruling on a
motion to dismiss the complaint.

On February 22, 2017, the Company, its President and Chief
Executive Officer, its Chief Financial Officer, and a former
executive officer of the Company were named as defendants in two
purported class action lawsuits, both of which asserted claims
under section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Securities and Exchange
Commission rule 10b-5 and section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

On May 3, 2017, the two cases were consolidated by the United
States District Court for the District of Colorado under the
caption Lawrence Henry Smallen and Laura Anne Smallen Revocable
Living Trust et al. v. The Western Union Company et al., Civil
Action No. 1:17-cv-00474-KLM (D. Colo.). On September 6, 2017, the
Court appointed Lawrence Henry Smallen and Laura Anne Smallen
Revocable Living Trust as the lead plaintiff.

On November 6, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint ("Amended Complaint") that, among other things, added two
other former executive officers as defendants, one of whom
subsequently was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs. The
Amended Complaint asserts claims under section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act and Securities and Exchange Commission rule 10b-5 and
section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and alleges that, during the
purported class period of February 24, 2012, through May 2, 2017,
the defendants made false or misleading statements or failed to
disclose purported adverse material facts regarding, among other
things, the Company’s compliance with AML and anti-fraud
regulations, the status and likely outcome of certain governmental
investigations targeting the Company, the reasons behind the
Company's decisions to make certain regulatory enhancements, and
the Company's premium pricing.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on January
16, 2018. The plaintiffs filed an opposition on April 5, 2018. The
defendants filed a reply on June 5, 2018. The consolidated action
is in a preliminary stage and the Company is unable to predict the
outcome, or the possible loss or range of loss, if any, which could
be associated with it.

The Company and the individual defendants intend to vigorously
defend themselves in this matter.

The Western Union Company provides money movement and payment
services worldwide. The company operates in two segments,
Consumer-to-Consumer and Business Solutions. The Western Union
Company was incorporated in 2006 and is headquartered in Englewood,
Colorado.


WESTERN UNION: Suit Against Unit in Argentina Underway
------------------------------------------------------
The Western Union Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2018, that a lawsuit in Argentina against Western
Union Financial Services Argentina S.R.L., is still ongoing.

In October 2015, Consumidores Financieros Asociacion Civil para su
Defensa, an Argentinian consumer association, filed a purported
class action lawsuit in Argentina's National Commercial Court No.
19 against the Company's subsidiary Western Union Financial
Services Argentina S.R.L. ("WUFSA").

The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that WUFSA's fees for
money transfers sent from Argentina are excessive and that WUFSA
does not provide consumers with adequate information about foreign
exchange rates.

The plaintiff is seeking, among other things, an order requiring
WUFSA to reimburse consumers for the fees they paid and the foreign
exchange revenue associated with money transfers sent from
Argentina, plus punitive damages. The complaint does not specify a
monetary value of the claim or a time period.

In November 2015, the Court declared the complaint formally
admissible as a class action. The notice of claim was served on
WUFSA in May 2016, and in June 2016 WUFSA filed a response to the
claim and moved to dismiss it on statute of limitations and
standing grounds. In April 2017, the Court deferred ruling on the
motion until later in the proceedings.

The Court finalized a notification process for potential class
members. After the notification process is completed, the case will
move to the evidentiary stage.

Western Union said, "Due to the stage of this matter, the Company
is unable to predict the outcome or the possible loss or range of
loss, if any, associated with this matter.

WUFSA intends to defend itself vigorously."

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

The Western Union Company provides money movement and payment
services worldwide. The company operates in two segments,
Consumer-to-Consumer and Business Solutions. The Western Union
Company was incorporated in 2006 and is headquartered in Englewood,
Colorado.


WILLIAMS PARTNERS: Dismissal Order Affirmed in Unit Holder's Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Williams Partners L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that an appellate court has
affirmed the order dismissing a unit holder's class action
lawsuit.

On March 7, 2016, a purported unit holder of the company filed a
putative class action on behalf of certain purchasers of the
company's units in U.S. District Court in Oklahoma. The action
names as defendants the company, Williams, Williams Partners GP
LLC, Alan S. Armstrong, and former Chief Financial Officer Donald
R. Chappel and alleges violations of certain federal securities
laws for failure to disclose Energy Transfer Equity, L.P.'s
intention to pursue a purchase of Williams conditioned on Williams
not closing the May 2015 agreement for a unit-for-stock transaction
whereby Williams would have acquired all of our publicly held
outstanding common units in exchange for shares of Williams' common
stock when announcing the May 2015 agreement.

The complaint seeks, among other things, damages and an award of
costs and attorneys' fees. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint
on August 31, 2016.

On October 17, 2016, the company requested the court to dismiss the
action, and on March 8, 2017, the court dismissed the complaint
with prejudice. On April 7, 2017, the plaintiff filed a notice of
appeal. On May 22, 2018, the appellate court affirmed the dismissal
of plaintiff's complaint.

Williams Partners L.P. operates as an energy infrastructure
company. It operates through Northeast G&P, Atlantic-Gulf, and West
segments. The company was founded in 2005 and is based in Tulsa,
Oklahoma. Williams Partners L.P. is a subsidiary of Williams Gas
Pipeline Company, LLC.


XERIUM TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Akouka Suit over Andritz Merger
----------------------------------------------------------
GUILLAUME AKOUKA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. XERIUM TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; ROGER
A. BAILEY; APRIL H. FOLEY; JAY J. GURANDIANO; JOHN F. MCGOVERN;
MITCHELL I. QUAIN; MARK STATON; ALEXANDER TOELDTE; and JAMES F.
WILSON, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01116-UNA (D. Del., July 30,
2018) is an action against the Defendants for authorizing the
filing of a materially incomplete and misleading proxy statement
with the Securities and Exchange Commission, in violation of the
Securities Exchange Act, in connection with the proposed
acquisition of Xerium by Andritz AG, through its wholly owned
subsidiary, XYZ Merger Sub, Inc.

According to the complaint, on June 24, 2018, the Board caused the
Company to enter into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with Andritz
AG, through its wholly owned subsidiary, XYZ Merger Sub, Inc.,
pursuant to which each common share of Xerium will be converted
into the right to receive $13.50 in cash. On July 16, 2018, in
order to convince Xerium's shareholders to vote in favor of the
Proposed Transaction, the Defendants authorized the filing of a
materially incomplete and misleading proxy statement with the SEC,
in violation of the Exchange Act.

In particular, the Proxy contains materially incomplete and
misleading information concerning: (i) financial projections for
Xerium; and (ii) the valuation analyses performed by Xerium's
financial advisor, TN Capital Advisors LLC and the TN Capital
Division of Stone Key Securities LLC, in support of its fairness
opinion.

With respect to the Discounted Cash Flow Analysis, the Proxy fails
to disclose the following key components used in the analysis: (i)
Xerium's projected unlevered after-tax free cash flows, including
the period of time covered by the "projection horizon"; (ii)
Xerium's terminal value at the end of the projection horizon; (iii)
the inputs and assumptions underlying the calculation of the
discount rate range of 11.1% to 12.8%; (iv) the inputs and
assumptions underlying the calculation of the perpetual growth
rates of 0.0% to 2.0%; and (v) the inputs and assumptions
underlying the selection of the terminal enterprise value/trailing
Adjusted EBITDA multiples of 6.0x to 8.0x.

Xerium Technologies, Inc. provides industrial consumable products
and services. The Company markets its products to the paper
industry worldwide through its direct sales force under the Huyck
Wangner, Weavexx, Stowe Woodward, Mount Hope, Robec, IRGA,
Xibe/Stowe, JJ Plank, and Spencer Johnston brands. The company was
founded in 1999 and is headquartered in Youngsville, North
Carolina. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
          Miles D. Schreiner, Esq.
          MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
          The Empire State Building
          350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4405
          New York, NY 10118
          Telephone: (212) 971-1341
          Facsimile: (212) 202-7880
          Email: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
                 mschreiner@monteverdelaw.com

               - and -

          Blake A. Bennett, Esq.
          COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A.
          The Brandywine Building
          1000 West Street, 10th Floor
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 984-3800



                            *********

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 ***