CAR_Public/180906.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, September 6, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 179

                            Headlines

127 EAST 23RD STREET: Faces Castillo Suit in New York
536 SPRUCE CORP: Perry Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages, Hits Tip Pool
7-ELEVEN INC: Mass. Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Labor Suit
ACADIA PHARMACEUTICALS: Barglow Sues over Drop in Share Prices
ALDER HOLDINGS: Faces Personal Injury Suit in Utah Dist. Ct.

ALTICE USA: Faces Securities Class Action Over 2017 IPO
AMERICAN EQUITY: Slivak Files Suit in E.D. Pa. Over ADA Violation
AMERICAN RACING: Violates Disabilities Act, Mendez Suit Says
AMERICOLLECT INC: Faces Beyer Suit in E.D. Wisconsin
AMERISOURCEBERGEN: Masiowski RICO Suit Transferred to N.D. Ohio

AMPIO PHARMA: Rosen Law Firm Probes Securities Claims
AT&T MOBILITY: Faces Allen Suit over Pregnancy Discrimination
BABCOCK & WILCOX: Court Stays Shareholder Derivative Litigation
BASF SE: Era Polymers Suit Alleges Antitrust Violation
BEST BUY: Harris Appeals N.D. California Decision to 9th Circuit

BLACKROCK INST'L: Joint Discovery Letters Order in "Baird" Issued
BMW: FTC Pursuing Adoption of Class Action System for Consumers
BROADHURST THEATRE: Faces Reyes Suit in S.D. New York
BROWN OLCOTT: Sandoval Hits Retaliation, Seeks Unpaid OT Wages
CA INC: Faces Shareholder Class Action Over Broadcom Merger

CAMBREX CORP: Reaches Settlement with Remaining Plaintiffs
CARNIVAL CORP: Faces Wolfe Suit Over Insurance-Related Issues
CBS CORP: 9th Cir. Reverses Summary Ruling in Copyrights Suit
CBS CORP: Defending Against Westmoreland Employees' Suit
CBS CORP: Faces Shareholder Class Action Over 6% Stock Drop

CHESAPEAKE EXPLORATION: Court Certifies Ohio Landowners Class
CHICAGO ATHLETIC: Faces Class Action Over Breach of Contract
CHRYSLER: Judge Stays uConnect Technology Class Action
CMRE FINANCIAL: Santomauro Suit Asserts FDCPA Violation
COMENITY BANK: Riley Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls

COMFORT TECHNOLOGY: Faces Kiler Suit in NewYork for ADA Breach
COOK COUNTY, IL: Zimmerman Law Offices Files Class Action
CRA SOLUTIONS: Denied Payment of OT Wages, MacAlpine Suit Says
DAIRYAMERICA INC: Court Grants Request to Seal Document
DALLAS MORNING: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Call Campaign

DELICIOUS HOSPITALITY: Martinez Suit Alleges ADA Violations
DIRECTV LLC: Flynn's Bid to Certify Landlords Class Denied
DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE: Continues to Defend Garland, TX Class Suit
DUCK WALK: Violates Disabilities Act, Martinez Suit Alleges
DUKE UNIVERSITY: Lucas Files ERISA Class Suit in N.C.

ELDERS VENTURES: Lore Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages
ENTERTAINMENT CRUISES: Violates Disabilities Act, Diaz Suit Says
EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Faces Parker FCRA Suit in Florida
EVENKO: Disappointed Music Fan Pursues Class Action
F5 PRODUCTIONS: Biennescar Action to Recover Unpaid OT Wages

FACEBOOK INC: Data Privacy Class Action Lawsuits Consolidated
FACEBOOK INC: Faces Class Action Over Users' Private Data-Sharing
FARMLAND MUTUAL: Court Dismisses S. Mejia's Class Action Claims
FLEX LTD: Court Extends Time to Respond in California Class Suit
FLINT, MI: Wurfel Appeals Ruling in Waid Suit to 6th Cir.

FREEDOM CRUISES: Diaz Sues Over Disabilities Act Breach
GATES CORP: Lundine Sues Over Unpaid Overtime
GENERAL CABLE: 6th Circuit Appeal Filed in Eley's ERISA Suit
GEO GROUP: Judge Certifies Wage Theft Class-Action
GLENCORE PLC: Levi & Korsinsky Files Securities Class Action

GRANT & WEBER: Court Denies Dismissal of FDCPA Suit
GRAY TELEVISION: Clay Massey Suit Alleges Sherman Act Violation
GUARANTY BANCORP: Parshall Hits Merger Deal, Seeks More Info
HARVARD UNIV: Judge Urged to Back Asian-American Students' Case
HCP INC: Bid to Dismiss Firefighters' Pension Fund Suit Pending

HERBALIFE INT'L: Awaits Decision in "Circle of Success" Class Suit
HGC CONSTRUCTION: Sullivan Sues Over ADA Violations
HORNBLOWER YACHTS: Faces Diaz Sues Alleging ADA Violation
HOUSTON, TX: 2 Women to Appeal Dismissal of Rape Kit Lawsuit
HUSKY ENERGY: Faces Class Action Over Asphalt Refinery Blast

IDERA PHARMA: Merger-Related Suits Voluntarily Dismissed
IMPAC MORTGAGE: Judgment Order in "Timm" Suit Under Appeal
IMPERVA INC: Court Certifies Settlement Class in "Poinsignon" Case
JC WASHINGTON: Bavaro et al. Seek to Certify Class of Drivers
JERSEY STRONG: Sullivan Files ADA Suit in S.D.N.Y.

KANYE WEST: Class Action Lawsuit From Disgruntled Fan Over Tweet
KAPSTONE PAPER: Faces Class Action Over WestRock Merger Deal
KAPSTONE PAPER: Pill Files Suit Over WestRock Merger Deal
KNORR-BREMSE AG: Employee's Anti-trust Row Transferred to W.D. Pa.
KNORR-BREMSE: Fricia Suit over No-Poach Deal Moved to Pennsylvania

KPMG LLP: Must Face Class Action Over Shoddy Miller Energy Audit
LA LOCHE: Shooting Victim Considers Class-Action Lawsuit
LABORATORY CORP: Mendez ADA Suit Filed in S.D. New York
LAFAYETTE STEEL: Court Conditionally Certifies Collective Action
LAVECCHIA SURFACE: Rivera Action Seeks Unpaid Overtime

LIFECARE MISSOURI: McCulley Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
LLR INC: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in Webster et al. Suit
LOGMEIN INC: Gainey McKenna Files Class Action Lawsuit
MAVENIR INC: Wayne Retirement System Balks at Merger Deal
MBG TAVERNS: Underpays Cooks & Sous-Chefs, Morales & Cortes Claim

MCCORMICK & SCHMICK: Morris Sues Over Illegal Tip Pool
MDL 2709: Class Certification Sought in Dollar General Litigation
MDL 2785: Court Narrows Claims in EpiPen Antitrust Suit
MEDNAX INC: Faces Securities Suit over Anesthesiology Business
MERCEDES BENZ: Faces Class Action Over 590 Mars Red Paint Defect

MID-AMERICA TAPING: Vega's Bid to Certify Class Denied as Moot
MINNESOTA: Class-Action Suit Over Civil Commitment Program
MONTGOMERY, NY: Class & Subclasses Certified in Hill & Rogers Suit
MORRIS FARMERS: Castellon Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
NANTKWEST INC: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Ruling in "Sudunagunta"

NATURA MIRACLES: Miller Sues Over Illegal SMS Ad Blasts
NEVRO CORP: Saxena White Files Securities Fraud Class Action
NEW ORLEANS REGIONAL: Jones et al. Seek to Certify Employees Class
NIELSEN HOLDINGS: Pomerantz Law Files Class Action
NIGHTGALLERIE LLC: Hanna Hits Missed Breaks, Unpaid OT, Paystubs

P.F. CHANG'S: Motion for Conditional Certification Granted in Part
PARISH OF PLAQUEMINES: Underpays Paramedics, Babin et al. Allege
PERKINS & MARIE: Violates Disabilities Act, Slivak Suit Claims
PHILLY TRAMPOLINE: Faces Slivak Suit Alleging ADA Violation
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Bid for Reconsideration in Hogan Suit Pending

PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Bid to Transfer Associated Wholesale Suit Pending
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Still Defends Broiler Chicken Grower Suit
PINNACLE FOODS: Wolf Popper Files Class Action Lawsuit
POST UNIVERSITY: Davis Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
PURDUE PHARMA: 2 Law Firms Ally in Class Action Against Pharma Cos.

PURDUE PHARMA: Faces Personal Injury Suit in in Penn.
PURDUE PHARMA: MSI Corp. Seeks Damages in RICO Class Action
PURE BEAUTY: Mendoza Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Mendez Sues Over Disabilities Act Violations
RAMOS FURNITURE: Court Grants Default Judgment on Individual Claims

REDSTONE FEDERAL: Court Narrows Claims in Caldwell FDCPA Suit
RENT-A-CENTER INC: "Hall" Class Certification Hearing on Sept. 19
RENT-A-CENTER INC: Blair Class Action Still Ongoing
RIDGE NATURAL: Bridges et al. Allege RICO Violation
RINGCENTRAL INC: Motion to Dismiss "Hurley" Lawsuit Still Pending

RIPPLE LABS: Plaintiff Withdraws Class Action Lawsuit
ROADRUNNER TRANSPORT: Bids to Nix Securities Class Lawsuit Pending
ROSENTHAL MORGAN: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Bunch Claims
RUSH STREET: Mendez Suit Assert ADA Breach
S&F COMMUNICATIONS: Snell Action Seeks Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA

SAFELITE FULFILLMENT: 9th Cir. Dismisses Appeal in Wage Suit
SCANA CORP: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit Pending
SCANA CORP: Bid to Dismiss Pennington Suit Denied
SCANA CORP: Continues to Defend Turner Class Action
SCHMIDT BAKING: "Schilling" Class of DSMs Conditionally Certified

SCI DIRECT: Romano Bid to Certify Class Taken under Submission
SEARS HOLDINGS: Faces Siu Suit in Calif. Dist. Ct.
SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Class Action
SETERUS INC: Baxa's Bid to Certify Class Denied without Prejudice
SHELL OIL: Saltzman Labor Suit to Recover Unpaid OT Wages

SHELLY ENTERPRISE: Desta Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
STERICYCLE INC: Awaits Court OK on Bid to Dismiss Illinois Suit
STERICYCLE INC: Continues to Defend Ibrahim TCPA Class Suit
STERICYCLE INC: Pays Final Settlement Sum in Contract Class Suit
STEVENS BUSINESS: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Koenig Says

SUPERFEET WORLDWIDE: Violates Disabilities Act, Kiler Suit Says
SUPERVALU INC: Faces Shareholder Class Action Over United Deal
TERMINIX INT'L: Can Compel Arbitration in Salesperson's Suit
TEVA PHARMA: Baker Consolidated with Grodko & Moved to Connecticut
TEVA PHARMA: Bid to Dismiss Ontario Teachers Suit Due Sept. 14

TEVA PHARMA: Court Puts Off OZ ELS Master Fund Suit
TEVA PHARMA: Grodko Suit Transferred to District of Connecticut
TEVA PHARMA: PROVIGIL(R) Suit Against Unit Still Ongoing
TEVA PHARMA: Suit over Employee Stock Purchase Plan Remains Stayed
TOP SHIPS: Court Consolidates 2 Securities Suits

TRIPLE T TRADING: Violates Disabilities Act, Bunting Suit Says
TROON GOLF: Merlin Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Premium
TWIN DRAGONS: Underpays Kitchen Staff, Rood Bobo Suit Alleges
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Set To Pay $34K+ Per Person in Settlement
ULTIMATE HOME SERVICES: Installers Suit to Recover Unpaid OT Wages

UNITED STATES: Calif. Court Narrows Claims in Asylum Seekers' Suit
VCG HOLDING: Court Certifies Question on Arbitration Nonsignatory
VS NESHAMINY: Slivak Suit Asserts ADA Breach
[*] NLRB Might Strengthen Class Action Waivers

                            *********

127 EAST 23RD STREET: Faces Castillo Suit in New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 127 East 23rd Street
LLC. The lawsuit is captioned as Evelyn Castillo, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. 127
East 23rd Street LLC doing business as: Gramercy Theatre, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-07474 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 16, 2018). The
suit alleges Americans with Disabilities violation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


536 SPRUCE CORP: Perry Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages, Hits Tip Pool
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Perry, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. 536 Spruce Corp., Cindy Chu and Jack Chu,
Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-01650, (M.D. Pa., August 20, 2018),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
unlawfully withheld wages, statutory penalties and damages under
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage
Act.

Defendants operate as Osaka Japanese Restaurant where Perry worked
as a server. During the course of their employment, Plaintiffs
regularly worked more than forty hours per work week without
overtime compensation and was forced to participate in an illegal
tip pool, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Murphy, Esq.
      Eight Penn Center, Suite 1803
      1628 John F. Kennedy Blvd.
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Tel: (267) 273-1054
      Fax: (215) 525-021
      murphy@phillyemploymentlawyer.com


7-ELEVEN INC: Mass. Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Labor Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Dhananjay Patel, Safdar Hussain, vatsal Chokshi,
Dhaval Patel and Niral Patel, and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. 7-Eleven, Inc., Mary Cadigan and Andrew Brothers,
Defendants, Civil Action No. 17-11414-NMG (D. Mass.), Judge
Nathaniel M. Gorton of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts (i) denied the Plaintiffs' motion to remand;
(ii)denied 7-Eleven's motion to dismiss; (iii) granted the
individual Defendants' motion to dismiss; and (iv) denied without
prejudice the Plaintiffs' emergency motion to enjoin the Defendant
from obtaining releases from putative class members.

The case is a putative class action brought by the Named Plaintiffs
on behalf of individuals who have acquired franchises from 7-Eleven
and performed services as store managers and convenience store
clerks in Massachusetts.  The Plaintiffs allege that 7-Eleven and
two 7-Eleven market managers, Mary Cadigan and Andrew Brothers, the
individual Defendants, (1) misclassified its franchisee convenience
store workers in Massachusetts as independent contractors instead
of employees in violation of the Massachusetts Independent
Contractor Law; (2) violated the Massachusetts Wage Act; and (3)
violated the Massachusetts Minimum Wage Law.

The named Plaintiffs are residents of Massachusetts who acquired
7-Eleven franchises and work as store managers and convenience
store clerks in Massachusetts.  The Plaintiffs allege that 7-Eleven
dictates how franchisees do their jobs.  7-Eleven also determines
store hours, controls the payroll system and requires that
franchisees make daily monetary deposits into an account that it
controls.

According to the Plaintiffs, they perform services exclusively for
7-Eleven, are misclassified as independent contractors instead of
employees and therefore have been deprived of benefits to which
employees are entitled under Massachusetts law, including a minimum
wage and protection from improper wage deductions.  They allege
that Cadigan and Brothers, two 7-Eleven market managers who reside
in Massachusetts, exercised extensive control over the Plaintiffs'
work.

The Plaintiffs filed their statutory claims with the Office of the
Attorney General and received a right to sue letter, as required by
M.G.L. c. 149 Section 50.  Thereafter they filed the action in
Massachusetts Superior Court for Middlesex County and the
Defendants promptly removed the case to the Court.

On June 15, 2018, 7-Eleven distributed 2019 franchise renewal
contracts to all Massachusetts franchisees, including franchisees
who do not have agreements expiring in 2019.  On page 208 of that
641-page document, the contract contains a "Release of claims and
termination" section that requires renewing franchisees to release
their claims in the case.  On June 29, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed
an emergency motion seeking to enjoin 7-Eleven from soliciting
those releases.

Also pending before the Court are the Plaintiffs' motion to remand,
7-Eleven's motion to dismiss and the individual Defendants' motion
to dismiss.

Judge Gorton finds that the complaint alleges only that the
individual Defendants exercised extensive control over the
Plaintiffs' work.  That allegation is insufficient to state a claim
under any statute and does not satisfy the pleading requirements of
Massachusetts Courts.  Because there is no reasonable probability
that the SJC would find that the Plaintiffs' barebones complaint
states a cause of action against the individual Defendants, the
Judge finds that they were fraudulently joined.  Diversity
jurisdiction exists and the Plaintiff's motion to remand is
denied.

Because he has found that it possesses jurisdiction under the
diversity statute, the Judge declined to address the Defendant's
argument that the Court has federal question jurisdiction under the
local controversy exception to the CAFA.

The Defendant submits that the complaint does not adequately allege
that any Plaintiff ever received less than the minimum wage.  The
Judge disagrees.  He finds that the Plaintiffs provide a multitude
of allegations that plausibly support their contention that they
are employees, not independent contractors.  The complaint alleges
that franchisees generally work more than 50 hours per week while
receiving take-home pay of less than the minimum wage.  The
complaint further alleges that 7-Eleven deducts certain fees and
payments from plaintiffs' wages.  Hence, the motion to dismiss of
7-Eleven is denied.

Because the complaint alleges no facts about the individual
Defendants besides their title of market manager and that they
"exercised extensive control over the Plaintiffs' work, the Judge
allowed the individual Defendants' motion to dismiss.  He finds
that it would be futile for the Plaintiffs to amend their complaint
with respect to the individual Defendants and dismissed those
Defendants with prejudice.

Finally, after a careful comparison of the potential abuse by
7-Eleven with the rights of both parties, the Judge concludes that
the Plaintiff's emergency request for injunctive relief is
premature and unwarranted under the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.  Therefore, the Plaintiffs' emergency motion is denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 20, 2018 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/N7VNbt from Leagle.com.

Dhananjay Patel, Safdar Hussain, Vatsal Chokshi, Dhaval Patel &
Niral Patel, Plaintiffs, represented by Adelaide H. Pagano --
apagano@llrlaw.com -- Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C. & Shannon E.
Liss-Riordan -- sliss@llrlaw.com -- Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C.

7-ELEVEN, INC., Mary Carrigan & Andrew Brothers, Defendants,
represented by Matthew J. Iverson -- matthew.iverson@dlapiper.com
-- DLA Piper US LLP, Jennifer Brown -- jennifer.brown@dlapiper.com
-- DLA Piper US LLP & Norman M. Leon -- norman.leon@dlapiper.com --
DLA Piper LLP, pro hac vice.


ACADIA PHARMACEUTICALS: Barglow Sues over Drop in Share Prices
--------------------------------------------------------------
BENJAMIN BARGLOW, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. ACADIA PHARMACEUTICALS INC.,
STEPHEN R. DAVIS, and TODD S. YOUNG, Defendants, Case No.
3:18-cv-01812-DMS-WVG (S.D. Cal., Aug. 3, 2018) alleges violation
of the Securities Exchange Act.

According to the complaint, on April 29, 2016, Acadia issued a
press release announcing that that the FDA approved NUPLAZID for
the treatment of hallucinations and delusions associated with
Parkinson's disease psychosis. Acadia further stated that the FDA
approval of NUPLAZID was based on data from the pivotal Phase III
Study-020 and other supportive studies, representing the largest
research and development program in Parkinson's disease psychosis
to date.

On February 27, 2018, Acadia announced fourth quarter 2017 NUPLAZID
sales of $43.6 million, which was approximately $720,000 below
consensus estimates. On this news, Acadia's stock price fell $6.24
per share, or 20%, to close at $24.92 per share on February 28,
2018, on unusually heavy trading volume.

On April 9, 2018, CNN reported that physicians, medical researchers
and other experts told CNN that they worried that NUPLAZID had been
approved too quickly, based on too little evidence that it was safe
or effective. And given these mounting reports of deaths, they say
that more needs to be done to assess Nuplazid's true risks. On this
news, Acadia's stock price fell $5.03 per share, or 23.4%, to close
at $16.50 per share on April 9, 2018, on unusually heavy trading
volume.

On April 25, 2018, CNN reported that the FDA was re-examining the
safety of NUPLAZID. On this news, Acadia's stock price fell $4.27
per share, or 21.9%, to close at $15.20 per share on April 25,
2018, on unusually heavy trading volume.

On July 9, 2018, the Southern Investigative Reporting Foundation
published a report entitled "Acadia Pharmaceuticals: This Is Not a
Pharmaceuticals Company. Therein, SIRF stated that "evidence is
mounting that something is horribly wrong with Acadia's sole drug,
Nuplazid, an antipsychotic for Parkinson's disease patients who
experience episodic hallucinations and delusions" and that "Acadia
has accomplished its growth in ways that have attracted intense
regulatory scrutiny for other drug companies" including "dispensing
wads of cash to doctors to incentivize prescription writing and
downplaying mounting reports of patient deaths." On this news,
Acadia's stock price fell $1.21 per share, or 6.8%, to close at
$16.63 per share on July 9, 2018, on unusually heavy trading
volume.

As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages.

ACADIA Pharmaceuticals Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, focuses
on the development and commercialization of small molecule drugs
that address unmet medical needs in central nervous system
disorders. ACADIA Pharmaceuticals Inc. was founded in 1993 and is
headquartered in San Diego, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
          POMERANTZ, LLP
          468 North Camden Drive
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: (818) 532-6499
          E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          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
          Ten South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 377-1181
          Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
          E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
          BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 697-6484
          E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com


ALDER HOLDINGS: Faces Personal Injury Suit in Utah Dist. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alder Holdings and
Alarm Protection Technology.  The case is entitled Security
Systems, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Alder Holdings and Alarm Protection Technology, Case
No. 2:18-cv-00664-CW (D. Utah, August 24, 2018).

The cause of suit is stated as personal injury.

Alarm Protection Technology provides electronic security and other
related alarm monitoring services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jon V. Harper, Esq.
          M. Denise Dalton, Esq.
          HARPER LAW PLC
          PO Box 581468
          Salt Lake City, UT 84158
          Telephone: (801) 910-4357
          E-mail: jharper@jonharperlaw.com


ALTICE USA: Faces Securities Class Action Over 2017 IPO
-------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP on Aug. 7 disclosed  that
a securities class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of all
persons or entities that purchased Altice USA, Inc. (NYSE:ATUS)
("Company") publicly traded securities pursuant to the Company's
initial public offering ("IPO") on June 21, 2017 at $30.00 per
share.

All investors who have incurred losses in shares of Altice USA,
Inc. are urged to contact the firm immediately at
classmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774. You may
obtain additional information about the firm on our website,
www.whafh.com.

The filed litigation concerns whether Altice USA's filings with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in connection with
the IPO contained untrue statements of material fact or omitted
material information, specifically regarding the Company's
relationship with its parent company, Altice N.V.

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

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


AMERICAN EQUITY: Slivak Files Suit in E.D. Pa. Over ADA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Equity
Properties, Inc.  The case is styled as JESSICA SLIVAK,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v.
AMERICAN EQUITY PROPERTIES, INC., Case No. 2:18-cv-03626-GAM (E.D.
Pa., August 24, 2018).

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

American Equity Properties, Inc., is a privately held company in
Plano, Texas.  The Company is categorized under business management
consultants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Arkady Eric Rayz, Esq.
          KALIKHMAN & RAYZ LLC
          1051 County Line Road, Suite A
          Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006
          Telephone: (215) 364-5030
          Facsimile: (215) 364-5029
          E-mail: erayz@kalraylaw.com


AMERICAN RACING: Violates Disabilities Act, Mendez Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Racing and
Entertainment, LLC.  The case is titled as Himelda Mendez, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. American
Racing and Entertainment, LLC, doing business as: Vernon Downs
Casino, Case No. 1:18-cv-07730 (S.D.N.Y., August 24, 2018).

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

American Racing and Entertainment, LLC, owns and operates horse
racing, casinos, resort, and gaming facilities in New York.  The
Company owns Tioga Downs and Vernon Downs which operate as gaming
and horse racing casinos.  The Company was founded in 2005 and is
based in Nichols, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AMERICOLLECT INC: Faces Beyer Suit in E.D. Wisconsin
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Americollect, Inc.
The lawsuit is styled as Victoria L. Beyer, Teresa M. Bishop,
Maggie J. Bohn, Tom E. Bremer, Michelle R Bremer, Scott M.
Broekman, Jason J. Coggon, Colleen Heitpas, Timothy J. Mossberger,
Emily J. Switz, and Paula Verrett, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Americollect,
Inc., a Wisconsin Corporation and John Does, the Defendants, Case
No. 1:18-cv-01271-WCG (E.D. Wis., Aug. 16, 2018). The suit alleges
Fair Debt Collection Act violation. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge William C Griesbach.  Americollect provides debt
collection services to healthcare industry. The company offers
hospital collection, radiology collection, and medical
collection.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AMERISOURCEBERGEN: Masiowski RICO Suit Transferred to N.D. Ohio
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Michael Masiowski, M.D. on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, v. Amerisourcebergen Drug
Corporation, Cardinal Health, Inc., Mckesson Corporation, 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., Orthomcneil- Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
(now Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.), Janssen Pharmaceutica Inc.
(now Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.), Noramco, Inc., Endo Health
Solutions Inc., Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Allergan PLC (formerly
Actavis PLS), Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (now Actavis, Inc.),
Watson Laboratories, Inc., Actavis LLC, Actavis Pharma, Inc.
(formerly Watson Pharma, Inc.), Insys Therapeutics, Inc.
Mallinckrodt PLC and Mallinckrodt LLC, Defendants, Case No.
18-cv-02080 (D. S.C., March 27, 2018), was transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio on August 20,
2018, under Case No. 18-op-45985.

Masiowski, an emergency room physician, seeks redress over
violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act. Defendants are pharmaceutical companies that are into
developing, marketing, advertising promoting and selling
prescription pharmaceuticals that allegedly contain opioids which
have narcotic effects and may cause addiction. [BN]

Michael Masiowski is represented by:

      Dean Anthony Hayes, Esq.
      MCCABE TROTTER AND BEVERLY
      PO Box 212069
      4500 Fort Jackson Boulevard, Suite 250
      Columbia, SC 29221
      Tel: (803) 724-5000
      Fax: (803) 724-5001
      Email: dean.hayes@mccabetrotter.com


AMPIO PHARMA: Rosen Law Firm Probes Securities Claims
-----------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Aug. 8
disclosed that it is investigating potential securities claims on
behalf of shareholders of Ampio Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NYSE: AMPE)
resulting from allegations that Ampio may have issued materially
misleading business information to the investing public.

On August 7, 2018, during aftermarket hours, Ampio filed a Form 8-K
with the SEC providing a regulatory update on the FDA's review of
Ampion, including the AP-003-A and AP-003-C trials. Ampio disclosed
that it met with the FDA in July 2018 and received a response
letter thereto, which stated that "as a single trial[,] the
AP-003-A study alone does not appear to provide sufficient evidence
of effectiveness to support [the Biologics License Application]."
The FDA further provided that "the FDA does not consider the
AP-003-C trial to be an adequate and well-controlled clinical
trial." On this news, shares of Ampio's stock fell sharply during
intraday trading on August 8, 2018.

Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action lawsuit to recover
losses suffered by Ampio investors. If you purchased shares of
Ampio please visit the firm's website at
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1397.htmlto join the class action.
You may also contact Phillip Kim or Zachary Halper of Rosen Law
Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via email at pkim@rosenlegal.com
or zhalper@rosenlegal.com.

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

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 3 each year since 2013. [GN]


AT&T MOBILITY: Faces Allen Suit over Pregnancy Discrimination
-------------------------------------------------------------
CYNTHIA ALLEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AT&T MOBILITY SERVICES LLC a/k/a AT&T
MOBILITY LLC, and AT&T SERVICES, INC., Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-03730-MHC-JKL (N.D. Ga., Aug. 3, 2018) alleges violation of
the Pregnancy Discrimination Act and the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

Ms. Allen alleges in the complaint that she faced discrimination
and suffered adverse employment consequences—including,
ultimately, termination, when the Defendants refused to excuse
absences for pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions
under their Sales Attendance Guidance policy.

AT&T Mobility LLC provides wireless voice and data communications
services and products to individual and business users in the
United States. AT&T Mobility LLC was formerly known as Cingular
Wireless LLC and changed its name to AT&T Mobility LLC in January
2007. The company was founded in 2000 and is based in Atlanta,
Georgia. AT&T Mobility LLC operates as a subsidiary of AT&T, Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sean J. Young, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
          FOUNDATION OF GEORGIA, INC.
          P.O. Box 77208
          Atlanta, GA 30357
          Telephone: (678) 981-5295
          E-mail: syoung@acluga.org

               - and -

          Kalpana Kotagal, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          1100 New York Avenue, Suite 500
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 408-4600
          Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
          E-mail: kkotagal@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          Lenora M. Lapidus, Esq.
          Gillian L. Thomas, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
          WOMEN'S RIGHTS PROJECT
          125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 549-2500
          E-mail: llapidus@aclu.org
                  gthomas@aclu.org


BABCOCK & WILCOX: Court Stays Shareholder Derivative Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of North
Carolina, Charlotte Division, granted Parties' Joint Motion for
Stay of Litigation in the case captioned IN RE BABCOCK & WILCOX
ENTERPRISES, INC. SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE LITIGATION, This Document
Relates To: ALL ACTIONS. Lead No. 3-18-CV-347-MOC-DCK,,
Consolidated with Nos. 3:18-CV-349-MOC-DCK and 3:18-CV-350-MOC-DCK.
(W.D.N.C;)

This matter before the Court on the Joint Motion For Stay Of
Litigation And Related Matters, filed by Plaintiffs Mike DeAngelis,
Dan Hegeman, and Bud and Sue Frashier Family Trust (Plaintiffs),
Jenny L. Apker, Daniel W. Hoehn, Leslie Kass, E. James Ferland,
Stephen G. Hanks, Larry L. Weyers, Thomas A. Christopher, Brian K.
Ferraioli, Anne R. Pramaggiore, and Cynthia S. Dubin (Individual
Defendants), and nominal defendant Babcock & Wilcox Enterprises,
Inc. (B&W or the Company, and together with the Individual
Defendants, the Defendants).

Having carefully considered the motion and the record, and noting
the parties' agreement, the undersigned will grant the motion.

All proceedings and deadlines in this consolidated derivative
action (Action) are hereby stayed until the earlier of (i) the
close of discovery in Ollila v. Babcock & Wilcox Enterprises, Inc.
et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-109-MOC-DCK (W.D.N.C.) (Securities Class
Action), or (ii) the deadline for appealing a judgment entered in
the Securities Class Action.

This Order shall apply to each purported derivative action arising
out of the same or substantially the same transactions or events as
this Action that is subsequently filed in, removed to, or
transferred to this Court.

Notwithstanding the stay of this Action, if a case that properly
belongs as part of this consolidated Action is hereafter filed in
this Court or transferred here from another court, Plaintiffs'
Co-Lead counsel shall promptly call to the attention of the Court
the filing or transfer of any case that might properly be
consolidated as part of this Action.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 13, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ycn2on7g from Leagle.com.

Mike Deangelis, Derivatively on Behalf of Babcock & Wilcox
Enterprises, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Craig W. Smith --
csmith@robbinsarroyo.com -- Robbins Arroyo LLP, pro hac vice, Kurt
F. Hausler , Hausler Law Firm, PLLC, Steven R. Wedeking --
swedeking@robbinsarroyo.com -- Robbins Arroyo LLP, pro hac vice,
Shane P. Sanders -- ssanders@robbinsarroyo.com -- Robbins Arroyo
LLP, pro hac vice & Timothy W. Brown , The Brown Law Firm, P.C.,
pro hac vice.

Dan Hegeman, Derivatively on Behalf of Babcock & Wilcox
Enterprises, Inc. & Bud and Sue Frashier Family Trust, Derivatively
on Behalf of Babcock & Wilcox Enterprises, Inc., Plaintiffs,
represented by Craig W. Smith , Robbins Arroyo LLP, pro hac vice,
Kurt F. Hausler , Hausler Law Firm, PLLC, Steven R. Wedeking ,
Robbins Arroyo LLP, pro hac vice & Shane P. Sanders , Robbins
Arroyo LLP, pro hac vice.

E. James Ferland, Jenny L. Apker, Daniel W. Hoehn, Leslie Kass,
Thomas A. Christopher, Cynthia S. Dubin, Brian K. Ferraioli,
Stephen G. Hanks, Anne R. Pramaggiore & Larry L. Weyers,
Defendants, represented by Jason R. Outlaw --
jason.outlaw@alston.com -- Alston & Bird, LLP, pro hac vice, John
Ludlow Latham -- jlatham@alston.com -- Alston & Bird, LLP, pro hac
vice, Susan E. Hurd -- susan.hurd@alston.com -- Alston & Bird, pro
hac vice & Thomas G. Walker -- thomas.walker@alston.com -- Alston &
Bird, LLP.


BASF SE: Era Polymers Suit Alleges Antitrust Violation
------------------------------------------------------
Era Polymers Propriety Ltd., on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated v. BASF SE, BASF Corporation, Bayer A.G., Bayer
Corporation, Covestro AG, Covestro LLC, DowDuPont Inc., The Dow
Chemical Company, Huntsman International LLC, Wanhua Chemical Group
Co., Ltd., and Wanhua Chemical (America) Co., Ltd., Case No.
2:18-cv-12357 (E.D. Mich., July 30, 2018), is brought against the
Defendants for violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act.

The Plaintiff alleges a conspiracy among Defendants and certain
unnamed co-conspirators, starting no later than July 1, 2016 and
continuing through the present, to fix, raise, maintain or
stabilize prices for Isocyanates sold in the United States, its
territories and the District of Columbia.

The Plaintiff Era Polymers Proprietary Limited is an Australian
company with its principal place of business in New South Wales,
Australia. Plaintiff also has offices in the United States in
Texas, North Carolina, and Connecticut. Plaintiff purchased
Isocyanates in the United States directly from one or more of the
Defendants during the Class Period.

The Defendants manufactured and sold Isocyanates to purchasers in
the United States and elsewhere, directly or through predecessors,
affiliates and subsidiaries. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Patrick E. Cafferty, Esq.
      CAFFERTY CLOBES
      MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
      220 Collingwood Drive, Ste 130
      Ann Arbor, MI 48103
      Tel: (734) 769-2144
      E-mail: pcafferty@caffertyclobes.com

          - and -

      Jeffrey B. Gittleman, Esq.
      Chad Carder, Esq.
      BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
      3300 Two Commerce Square
      2001 Market Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Tel: (215) 963-0600
      E-mail: jgittleman@barrack.com
              ccarder@barrack.com


BEST BUY: Harris Appeals N.D. California Decision to 9th Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Starvona Harris filed an appeal from a court ruling in
her lawsuit styled Starvona Harris v. Best Buy Stores, L.P., Case
No. 4:17-cv-00446-HSG, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, Oakland.

The appellate case is captioned as Starvona Harris v. Best Buy
Stores, L.P., Case No. 18-80100, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, on Feb. 11,
2015, Plaintiff Harris filed a Fair Labor Standards Act collective
action and California class action lawsuit against her former
employer, Best Buy, for violations of wage and hour laws.  The
district court granted summary judgment as to Ms. Harris's unpaid
overtime claim under FLSA and California law, because, during the
fiscal months she earned Monthly STI Bonuses, she did not work
overtime hours in the same workweek she earned a Path to Excellence
bonus.  As a result, Ms. Harris' federal and state overtime claims
were dismissed, and, ultimately, the district court declined to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law
claims, and dismissed the case without prejudice.

On Dec. 29, 2016, Plaintiffs Harris and Jonathan Strickland filed
the instant lawsuit in state court alleging violations of
California unpaid wage and overtime law.  The case was removed to
federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act.[BN]

Plaintiff-Petitioner STARVONA HARRIS, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Kevin Francis Woodall, Esq.
          WOODALL LAW OFFICES
          580 California Street
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 439-4803
          E-mail: kevin@kwoodalllaw.com

               - and -

          Page R. Barnes, Esq.
          FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
          555 California Street
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 434-4484
          E-mail: page@pbarneslaw.com

Defendant-Respondent BEST BUY STORES, L.P., is represented by:

          Barbara Jean Miller, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1800
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (714) 830-0600
          E-mail: barbara.miller@morganlewis.com


BLACKROCK INST'L: Joint Discovery Letters Order in "Baird" Issued
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California has issued an order regarding
the parties' four joint discovery letters on June 7, 2018, and a
fifth joint discovery letter on June 8, 2018, in the case, CHARLES
BAIRD, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BLACKROCK INSTITUTIONAL TRUST
COMPANY, N.A., et al., Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-01892-HSG (KAW)
(N.D. Cal.).

On April 5, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed the instant putative class
action against the Defendants, alleging violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act's ("ERISA") fiduciary duty and
prohibited transactions provisions.  The Plaintiffs bring the case
on behalf of two classes: the BlackRock Plan Class, which consists
of participants and beneficiaries in the BlackRock Retirement
Savings Plan; and the CTI Class, which includes participants whose
individual accounts were invested in BlackRock proprietary
collective trust investment funds ("CTIs").

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants violated their fiduciary
duties under ERISA in two ways.  First, they allege that Defendant
BlackRock sponsored a 401(k) plan for its employees, in which it
offers an investment menu consisting almost entirely of BlackRock
proprietary funds, and charges participants excessive, hidden fees,
expenses and other compensation paid to BlackRock and its
affiliates, through a layered fund structure.  Second, the
Plaintiffs allege that Defendant BlackRock Institutional Trust Co.
("BTC"), which provides management services, gave itself and its
affiliates preferential treatment as to compensation paid by the
BlackRock CTIs.  This alleged preferential treatment included
paying itself excessive fees for securities lending services.

Joint Discovery Letter No. 1 concerns the Plaintiff's Request for
Production No. 33, which seeks documentation and communications
concerning changes to revenue sharing splits between Defendant
BlackRock and investors in iShares1 ETFs and mutual funds for
securities lending revenue.  These ETFs and mutual funds are not at
issue in the case.  The Magistrate Judge orders the parties to
engage in further meet and confer, so that the Plaintiffs can more
clearly define what documents they really want from the request,
taking into account proportionality and burden.

Joint Discovery Letter No. 2 concerns the Plaintiff's Request for
Production No. 34, which seeks documents concerning the gross and
net profits that Defendant BlackRock and its affiliates earn from
providing securities lending services to the BlackRock CTIs.  The
Plaintiffs assert that this goes to whether the fees charged for
the securities lending fees are reasonable.  Whether the fees are
reasonable, in turn, goes to the Defendants' argument in their
motion to dismiss that the securities lending fee is permitted
because it is reasonable compensation under Section 408(b)(8).

The Magistrate Judge finds that information regarding the cost of
the securities lending services provided by BTC is relevant to
whether the fees are reasonable.  To the extent the Defendants
assert that they do not perform a profitability analysis and that
calculations of gross and net profits do not exist, the Defendants
are not required to create or produce documents that do not already
exist.  They are, however, required to produce the information that
does exist.

Joint Discovery Letter No. 3 concerns the Defendants' privilege
log.  The parties dispute whether certain entries should have been
produced per the fiduciary exception to attorney-client privilege.
The Magistrate Judge finds that these documents do not concern
legal advice; instead, they are brief descriptions of the general
topic that in-house counsel will be providing at an upcoming
meeting. The redacted information does not describe what the legal
advice is.  Therefore, Entry Nos. 61-70 must be produced.

Joint Discovery Letter No. 4 concerns the Defendants' Request for
Production Nos. 12-14, which seek discovery related to the
Plaintiff's typicality and adequacy as class representatives.  The
Plaintiffs have identified three non-privileged documents that are
"arguably responsive" to Defendants' Requests, but refuse to
produce them because they are "not relevant."  The Magistrate Judge
holds that the documents must be produced.  It is not clear why the
responsive documents would not have some relevance as well.
Further, the production of three documents is significantly lower
than the forensic imaging of a party's electronic device, the
latter of which would involve a multitude of documents that would
be completely immaterial to the instant case.

Finally, Joint Discovery Letter No. 5 concerns the Plaintiffs'
Request for Production No. 20, which seeks documents concerning the
investment of securities lending cash collateral for the BlackRock
CTIs.  The Magistrate Judge concludes that the requested discovery
is permissible.  She will, however, limit the discovery of how the
STIFs' investments were selected and monitored to the synthetic
STIFs only, as Plaintiffs have only alleged that there was undue
risk as to those particular STIFs.  Otherwise, the Plaintiffs'
allegations regarding the investment in BTC-proprietary STIFs are
concerned with the expenses charged, not the specific investments
chosen by the non-synthetic STIFs.

Magistrate Judge Westmore required production of the following
discovery: (i) all responsive documents to the Plaintiffs' Request
for Production No. 34, to the extent such documents already exist;
(ii) privilege log Entry Nos. 39 and 61-70; (iii) the three
non-privileged documents in response to the Defendants' Request for
Production Nos. 12-14; and (iv) all responsive documents to the
Plaintiffs' Request for Production No. 20, excluding documents
concerning the selection and monitoring of investments in
non-synthetic STIFs.

As to the Plaintiffs' Request for Production No. 33, the parties
are ordered to meet and confer (preferably in person) to narrow the
request, taking into consideration both proportionality and the
Court's finding that the documents requested are relevant to the
Plaintiffs' case.  If the parties are unable to reach an agreement
regarding the scope of the document production, the parties will
file another joint letter (not to exceed five pages) explaining
each issue remaining in dispute, each party's final substantive
position, and final proposed compromise on each issue, including
relevant legal authority.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 20, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/fPzATT from Leagle.com.

Charles Baird, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, and on behalf of the BlackRock Retirement Savings Plan,
Plaintiff, represented by Nina Rachel Wasow --
nina@feinbergjackson.com -- Feinberg, Jackson, Worthman & Wasow
LLP, Daniel Ryan Sutter, Cohen Milstein Sellers and Toll, PLLC, pro
hac vice, Julia Horwitz -- jhorwitz@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen
Milstein Sellers Toll, Julie S. Selesnick, Cohen Milstein Sellers &
Toll, PLLC, Karen L. Handorf -- khandorf@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen
Milstein Sellers and Toll PLLC, pro hac vice, Mary Joanne
Bortscheller , Cohen Milstein Sellers Toll PLLC, Michelle C. Yau --
myau@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, pro
hac vice & Todd F. Jackson -- todd@feinbergjackson.com -- Feinberg,
Jackson, Worthman and Wasow LLP.

Lauren Slayton, Plaintiff, represented by Nina Rachel Wasow,
Feinberg, Jackson, Worthman & Wasow LLP, Daniel Ryan Sutter, Cohen
Milstein Sellers and Toll, PLLC, pro hac vice, Julia Horwitz, Cohen
Milstein Sellers Toll & Mary Joanne Bortscheller, Cohen Milstein
Sellers Toll PLLC.

BlackRock Institutional Trust Company, N.A., Blackrock, Inc., The
BlackRock, Inc. Retirement Committee & The Investment Committee of
the Retirement Committee, Defendants, represented by Brian David
Boyle -- bboyle@omm.com -- O'Melveny Myers LLP, Adam Manes Kaplan
-- akaplan@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Meaghan McLaine VerGow
-- mvergow@omm.com -- OMelveny and Myers LLP & Randall W. Edwards
-- edwards@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP.

Catherine Bolz, Chip Castille, Paige Dickow, Daniel A. Dunay,
Jeffrey A. Smith, Anne Ackerley, Any Engel, Nancy Everett, Joseph
Feliciani, Jr., Ann Marie Petach, Michael Fredericks, Corin Frost,
Daniel Gamba, Kevin Holt, Chris Jones, Philippe Matsumoto, John
Perlowski, Andy Phillips, Kurt Schansinger & Tom Skrobe,
Defendants, represented by Brian David Boyle, O'Melveny Myers LLP,
Randall W. Edwards, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Meaghan McLaine VerGow,
OMelveny and Myers LLP & Michael John McCarthy, Boies Schiller and
Flexner LLP.

Amy Engel, Defendant, represented by Brian David Boyle, O'Melveny
Myers LLP & Meaghan McLaine VerGow, OMelveny and Myers LLP.


BMW: FTC Pursuing Adoption of Class Action System for Consumers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kwack Jung-soo and Heo Seung, writing for Hankyoreh, report that
the Fair Trade Commission (FTC) is actively pursuing the adoption
of a class action system to improve the efficacy of restitution for
consumers after a recent string of fires involving BMW vehicles.

The Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport (MOLIT) is also
considering adoption of a punitive damage system as a measure to
improve current automobile recall practices. Speaking on Aug. 7
about plans for improving customer restitution measures after the
BMW fires, an FTC senior official explained, "Restitution for
damages is not easy under the current law, as the consumer
[plaintiff] is responsible for proving everything including defects
in the products, loss of life, injury, property damage, and the
causal relationship between the product defect and damages to the
consumer."

"A class action system will need to be introduced to improve the
efficacy of restitution for consumer damages," the official said.

Under a class action system, a legal victory for one victim in a
case involving damages to multiple people due to a company's error
entitles the other victims to restitution from the perpetrator
without separate legal action. It is an efficient approach in cases
that involve large numbers of victims but relatively small
individual damages. It has been introduced in countries such as the
US, the UK, and Canada; in South Korea, it was introduced in the
area of securities in 2005 to protect the interests of small
shareholders.

Regarding areas where the class action system could be adopted
first for consumer compensation, the FTC suggested the Product
Liability Act and the Act on Fair Indication and Advertisement.
Kim Gyeong-wook, director of the MOLIT transportation and
distribution office, said the ministry planned to "consult with the
FTC and other authorities on whether to introduce a punitive damage
system for automobiles."

"If it is not possible to introduce it through the Product
Liability Act regulating the general punitive damage system, we are
also considering doing it through the Automobile Management Act or
new legislation," Kim added.

A punitive damage system was previously introduced in April through
the Product Liability Act. But with its targets restricted to
"companies that ignored product defects despite being aware of
them," observers have suggested it is inadequate to apply to
incidents involving automobile recalls. Under a punitive damage
system, offenders are subject to far larger penalties than actual
damages – up to three times in South Korea -- in cases of actions
deemed malicious or antisocial.

MOLIT is also considering steps to establish a legal basis for
penalties in cases where a manufacturer deliberately conceals or
minimizes a vehicle defect that it is aware of. Under the current
system, penalties of up to 1 percent of sales for the automobile in
question are possible only in cases of "belated recalls," with
provisions for criminal punishment only in cases of deliberate
concealment or minimization.

South Korea has experienced a number of cases where manufacturers
have responded halfheartedly to automobile defect issues due to the
lack of an adequate system for damages in connection with them. BMW
has explained that it was investigating the occurrence of fires in
its diesel models in Europe in 2016 and happened to rectify the
issue with improvements to its EGR model that December.

In South Korea, however, it ignored the issue until nearly 30 fires
had occurred this year, belatedly announcing a recall only after a
recommendation from MOLIT. [GN]


BROADHURST THEATRE: Faces Reyes Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Broadhurst Theatre.
The lawsuit is styled as Jose Reyes, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Broadhurst Theatre,
LLC, doing business as: Broadhurst Theatre, the Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-07481 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 16, 2018). The suit alleges Americans
with Disabilities Act violation.

Broadhurst Theatre is a Broadway theatre located at 235 West 44th
Street in Midtown Manhattan. It was designed by architect Herbert
J. Krapp.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BROWN OLCOTT: Sandoval Hits Retaliation, Seeks Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Sandoval and Debbie Miller, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Brown Olcott PLLC, and
Philip Brown, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00423, (D. Ariz., August
21, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, costs and attorneys' fees under the provisions
of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Sandoval and Brown worked for the Defendants as legal assistant,
collector and paralegal. They claim to have regularly worked more
than 40 hours per work week without overtime compensation.
Sandoval, through counsel, pursued these claims and in direct
response and retaliation, Defendants threatened to file and
prosecute claims against her so that she would face substantial
liability.  On August 20, 2018, the Defendants filed a lawsuit in
United States District Court for the District of Arizona against
Sandoval alleging violations of the Defend Trade Secrets Act and
the Stored Communications Act and state law claims for breach of
contract in retaliation. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jonathan A. Dessaules, Esq.
      DESSAULES LAW GROUP
      5353 North 16th Street, Suite 110
      Phoenix, AZ 85016
      Tel. (602) 274-5400
      Fax (602) 274-5401
      Email: jdessaules@dessauleslaw.com


CA INC: Faces Shareholder Class Action Over Broadcom Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
directors are selling CA Inc. too cheaply through an unfair process
to Broadcom, for $44.50 a share or $18.9 billion, shareholders of
the software company say in a federal class action.


CAMBREX CORP: Reaches Settlement with Remaining Plaintiffs
----------------------------------------------------------
Cambrex 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 Mylan Laboratories,
Inc., Gyma Laboratories, Inc., and Cambrex have reached a
settlement with the remaining plaintiffs in the class action
lawsuit related to Lorazepam and Clorazepate.

In 1998, the Company and a subsidiary were named as defendants
along with Mylan Laboratories, Inc. ("Mylan") and Gyma
Laboratories, Inc. ("Gyma") in a proceeding instituted by the
Federal Trade Commission in the United States District Court for
the District of Columbia (the "District Court").

Suits were also commenced by several State Attorneys General and
class action complaints by private plaintiffs in various state
courts. The suits alleged violations of the Federal Trade
Commission Act arising from exclusive license agreements between
the Company and Mylan covering two APIs (Lorazepam and
Clorazepate).  

In 2003, Cambrex paid $12,415 to Mylan in exchange for a release
and full indemnity against future costs or liabilities in related
litigation brought by the purchasers of Lorazepam and Clorazepate,
as well as potential future claims related to the ongoing matter.

Following trial in 2008 in the sole remaining case brought by four
health care insurers, the District Court entered judgment against
Mylan, Gyma and Cambrex. The judgment was appealed to the United
States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the
"D.C. Circuit") in 2011, resulting in a remand to the District
Court.  

On remand, the District Court dismissed certain self-funded
customer plaintiffs due to their failure to satisfy the
requirements of federal jurisdiction. Subsequently, the District
Court entered an order remitting certain damages. Without fees,
costs, or post-judgment interest, the current judgment against
Mylan, Gyma, and Cambrex was $67,260.  

Mylan, Gyma, and Cambrex again appealed to the D.C. Circuit. In
July 2018, Mylan, Gyma, and Cambrex reached a settlement with the
remaining plaintiffs.  

After the settlement is finalized, Mylan, Gyma, and Cambrex will
file a motion to vacate the judgment.  Cambrex has been fully
indemnified by Mylan for the settlement payments.      

Cambrex Corporation, a life sciences company, provides various
products and services for the development and commercialization of
new and generic therapeutics worldwide. Its products comprise
active pharmaceutical ingredients and pharmaceutical intermediates
that are used in the production of prescription and
over-the-counter drug products, as well as other fine chemicals.
Cambrex Corporation was founded in 1981 and is headquartered in
East Rutherford, New Jersey.


CARNIVAL CORP: Faces Wolfe Suit Over Insurance-Related Issues
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Carnival Corporation,
doing business as Carnival Cruise Lines.  The case is titled James
Wolfe, Sonia Hernandez, Miguel Hernandez, Erika Bruce, Shivon
Harris and Samad Rainey, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. Carnival Corporation, doing business as:
Carnival Cruise Lines, a foreign corporation, Case No.
1:18-cv-23463-KMW (S.D. Fla., August 24, 2018).

The lawsuit is brought over insurance-related issues.

Carnival Corporation operates as a leisure travel and cruise
company.  The Company offers cruises under the Carnival Cruise
Line, Holland America Line, Princess Cruises, and Seabourn brands
in North America; and AIDA, Costa, P&O Cruises (Australia), Cunard,
and P&O Cruises (UK) brands in Europe, Australia, and Asia.  The
Company operates approximately 100 cruise ships and owns Holland
America Princess Alaska Tours, a tour company in Alaska; and the
Canadian Yukon, which owns and operates hotels, lodges, glass-domed
railcars, and motor coaches.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Howard Mitchell Bushman, Esq.
          Joseph M. Kaye, Esq.
          THE MOSKOWITZ LAW FIRM, PLLC
          2 Alhambra Plaza, Suite 601
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 740-1423
          E-mail: howard@moskowitz-law.com
                  joseph@moskowitz-law.com

               - and -

          Kimberly Lambert Adams, Esq.
          LEVIN PAPANTONIO THOMAS MITCHELL ECHSNER & PROCTER
          316 S Baylen Street, Suite 600
          Pensacola, FL 32502
          Telephone: (850) 435-7056
          Facsimile: (850) 435-7019
          E-mail: Klambert@levinlaw.com

               - and -

          William F. Merlin, Jr., Esq.
          MERLIN LAW GROUP PA
          777 S Harbour Island Boulevard, Suite 950
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 229-1000
          Facsimile: (813) 229-3692
          E-mail: cmerlin@merlinlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Adam M. Moskowitz, Esq.
          THE MOSKOWITZ LAW FIRM, PLLC
          2 Alhambra Plaza, Suite 601
          Coral Gables, FL 33134-6036
          Telephone: (305) 740-1423
          E-mail: adam@moskowitz-law.com


CBS CORP: 9th Cir. Reverses Summary Ruling in Copyrights Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, reversed the
District Court's judgment granting Defendants' Motion for Summary
Judgment in the case captioned ABS ENTERTAINMENT, INC., an Arkansas
corporation; BARNABY RECORDS, INC., a New York corporation;
BRUNSWICK RECORD CORPORATION, a New York PA-AGR corporation; MALACO
INC., a Mississippi corporation, each individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CBS
CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; CBS RADIO, INC., a Delaware
corporation; DOES, 1 through 10, Defendants-Appellees, No. 16-55917
(9th Cir.).

Appellants ABS Entertainment, Inc., Barnaby Records, Inc.,
Brunswick Record Corp. and Malaco, Inc. (ABS) appeal from the grant
of summary judgment by the Central District of California in favor
of CBS Corporation and CBS Radio, Inc. (CBS), holding that CBS did
not violate any state law copyrights possessed by ABS in sound
recordings originally fixed before 1972.

ABS filed a putative class action against CBS in the Central
District of California, alleging that CBS's transmission and
distribution of the remastered sound recordings violated California
state law specifically, California Civil Code Section 980(a)(2)
,protecting the property rights of an author of a sound recording
fixed prior to February 15, 1972); misappropriation and conversion;
and unfair competition, under California Business and Professions
Code Section 17200.

The district court decided two important evidentiary issues and
granted summary judgment to CBS. The district court excluded
Geluso's testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert
v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 589-90 (1993) as
unscientific and unnecessary to aid a fact finder capable of
listening to the sound recordings on his or her own and
alternatively because Geluso's testimony was irrelevant. The court
reasoned that Geluso limited his forensic analysis to only the
first five seconds of each sound recording, which was clearly
inadequate to rule out the possibility that non-trivial differences
exist between the pre-1972 and remastered sound recordings.

The court also rejected Geluso's reliance on critical listening as
undefined and unscientific, and objected to Geluso's failure to
include in his report the results of his phase inversion testing,
which the court categorized as adverse to Plaintiffs' position.

The district court concluded that the Triton Reports were hearsay
and did not fall within the business records exception because
Plaintiffs have failed to establish any one of the requirements
necessary for them to be admitted under the business records
exceptions. The district court thus concluded that ABS had failed
to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to CBS's transmission
or broadcast in California of all but the 48 samples both parties
agree CBS transmitted.

The constitutional purpose of copyright law is to promote the
Progress of Science and the useful Arts by securing to authors the
right to their original expression, but encouraging others to build
freely upon the ideas and information conveyed by a work. A product
of independent creation is distinguished from a copy in that it
contains something which owes its origin to the independent
creator. A copy, on the other hand, is not a separate work, but a
mere representation or duplication of a prior creative expression.


A derivative work is defined in the Copyright Act as a work based
upon one or more preexisting works that recasts, transforms, or
adapts a preexisting work and consists of editorial revisions,
annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a
whole, represent an original work of authorship.

A derivative work is copyrightable when it meets two criteria: (1)
the original aspects of a derivative work must be more than trivial
and (2) the original aspects of a derivative work must reflect the
degree to which it relies on preexisting material and must not in
any way affect the scope of any copyright protection in that
preexisting material.

In this case, the district court determined that at least some
perceptible changes were made to Plaintiff's Pre-1972 Sound
Recordings and that these changes were not merely mechanical or
trivial. Therefore, the district court held, there was no genuine
dispute of material fact that the remastered works performed by CBS
were sufficiently original.

This conclusion was legal error.

Here, there is no dispute that all of the sounds contained in the
remastered sound recordings the vocals, instruments, inflection,
dynamics, rhythms, and sequences were initially fixed in a studio
before 1972. There is also no dispute that the remastering
engineers did not add or remove any sounds and did not edit or
resequence the fixed performances. For these reasons, the remasters
presumptively lacked the originality necessary to support copyright
protection as derivative works.

The district court, in ruling otherwise and concluding that no
genuine issues of material fact exist on the originality of the
digital remasters, applied an incorrect test. In doing so, the
district court placed critical reliance on the testimony of CBS's
expert, Begault. Begault explained that the digitally perceptible
changes to timbre, spatial imagery, sound balance, and loudness
range" that he identified in the remastered sound recordings were
measures of sound quality.7Such technical improvements associated
with the translation of the analog pre-1972 sound recordings into a
digital medium, however, do not support a finding of originality.

The district court excluded several paragraphs of Geluso's
declaration as unscientific, based on unreliable methodology,
lacking adequate foundation as expert testimony, unnecessary and
irrelevant. The district court found Geluso's critical listening
methods to be unscientific, and unexplained in Mr. Geluso's
declaration. But in his declaration, Geluso cited an FBI report on
forensic sound recording analysis that held out critical listening
as an essential component of forensic audio analysis.

Also, despite Geluso's testimony that he critically listened to all
of the recordings he examined, the district court found fatally
deficient the fact that Geluso limited his waveform and spectral
analysis to the first five seconds of each recording. While the
shortness of the technical analysis impacts the weight of that
testimony, there is no reason to question the science behind or the
methodology of such testing for whatever it may show. And the
district court failed to explain why five seconds of waveform
analysis was insufficient to determine whether the pre-1972 and
remastered sound recordings embodied the same performances.

Moreover, Geluso's testimony, offered in rebuttal to the testimony
of CBS's expert, Begualt, addressed the nature and extent of the
differences between the original analog recordings and the
digitally remastered sound recordings and was thus directly
relevant to the issue of originality before the court. The district
court also found deficient the fact that Geluso excluded from his
report a phase inversion test from the first test he attempted. But
that is not an adequate basis to exclude Geluso's testimony. That
test merely identifies the fact of difference something that ABS
and Geluso do not contest exists between the pre-1972 and
remastered sound recordings.

The district court's exclusion of Geluso's testimony was an abuse
of discretion, and his testimony should be considered in full by
the district court on remand.

The second prong of the U.S. Auto Parts/Durham test requires that a
copyright-eligible derivative work must reflect the degree to which
it relies on preexisting material and must not in any way affect
the scope of any copyright protection in that preexisting material.
U.S. Auto Parts, 692 F.3d at 1016.

The district court's failure to fully consider this second prong
here was legal error. Moreover, applying that prong, there is at
least a genuine issue of material fact whether granting copyright
protection for the remastered sound recordings here would undermine
ABS's rights in the pre-1972 sound recordings to authorize
additional derivative works. Were ABS intent on granting an
authorization to create an intentionally derivative work, for
example by authorizing use of the underlying works as samples or
remixes, those authorized works would be at high risk of
infringement suits from the remastered sound recording copyright
holders. This risk would, in effect, grant the remastered sound
recording copyright holder a de facto monopoly on derivative works.


Indeed, in this case, where the underlying and derivative works are
both sound recordings with few, if any, readily discernable
differences, and the derivative work is the only one available in
the vastly more accessible and marketable digital medium, the
danger that the copyright holder of the derivative work could bring
suit against a potential licensee of the underlying work is
particularly acute.

If, on remand, the factfinder concludes that any or all of the
remastered sound recordings here do manifest a change sufficient to
create a derivative, copyrightable work, the factfinder should also
consider the effect of recognizing a copyright in the remastered
sound recording on ABS's ability to exercise whatever copyrights it
may possess in the pre-1972 sound recording.

The Court concludes that the district court erred in holding that
there were no genuine issues of material fact that the remastered
sound recordings used by CBS were independently copyright eligible.
The Courts therefore reverses the grant of summary judgment to CBS
as to that issue.

CBS argues that Mr. Neiman, a CBS employee relied upon by ABS to
provide the foundation for the business records exception, did not
know how the Triton Reports were made or maintained and was not a
Triton employee.

The Court agrees with ABS that First Termite Control is inapposite
here. First Termite Control held that business records, to be
admissible under the business records exception, must be supported
by testimony of a witness knowledgeable about the creation and
maintenance of those records. But in that case, the accuracy of the
records was contested. NLRB v. First Termite Control Co., 646 F.2d
424, 427 (9th Cir. 1981)

Here, CBS itself relied on the reports to establish its royalty
payments to Sound Exchange in the ordinary course of business. The
accuracy of the records is not in question. In a similar situation,
we have held that third party reports of this kind fall within the
business records exception. CBS has presented no evidence or
argument showing that the Triton Reports were unreliable or
inaccurate.

The Court concludes that the district court here erroneously
decided a genuine issue of material fact at summary judgment. The
Court agrees with ABS that the Triton Reports contain an album
title, and sometimes the company label, and so would be sufficient
for a jury to infer that the records CBS performed were the
versions captured in Plaintiffs' pre-1972 sound recordings. The
Triton Reports were used by CBS to govern the royalties paid to
recording artists via Sound Exchange; CBS has failed to present
evidence that these same reports were not sufficient to identify
the recording artists or the versions performed.

The district court erred in finding the absence of a genuine issue
of material fact with respect to the samples listed in the Triton
Reports.

Accordingly, the Court reverses the district court's grant of
summary judgment. The Court also reverses the district court's
striking of ABS's class action motion as untimely, and the
exclusion of Geluso's testimony.

A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's August 20, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yd74pcyd from Leagle.com.

Robert Edward Allen -- rallen@mckoolsmith.com -- (argued), Alan P.
Block -- ablock@mckoolsmith.com -- Roderick G. Dorman --
rdorman@mckoolsmith.com -- and Lawrence M. Hadley --
lhadley@mckoolsmith.com -- McKool Smith Hennigan P.C., Los Angeles,
California; Kathleen E. Boychuck , Andrew Szot , andMarvin A.
Miller , Miller Law LLC, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Robert M. Schwartz -- rschwartz@irell.com -- (argued), Amit Q.
Gressel , Andrew J. Strabone -- astrabone@irell.com -- and Victor
Jih -- Vjih@irell.com -- Irell & Manella LLP, Los Angeles,
California, for Defendants-Appellees.

Richard S. Mandel -- rsm@cll.com -- Cown Liebowitz & Latman P.C.,
New York, New York; George M. Borowsky , Recording Industry
Association of America Inc., Washington, D.C.; for Amicus Curiae
Recording Industry Association of America Inc.

Morgan E. Pietz , Gerard Fox Law P.C., Katrina Novak --
Katrina@lowelaw.com -- Lowe & Associates P.C., Los Angeles,
California; for Amicus Curiae California Society of Entertainment
Lawyers.


CBS CORP: Defending Against Westmoreland Employees' Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
CBS Corporation continues to defend against a class action lawsuit
by Westmoreland County Employees' Retirement System, the Company
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.

On May 31, 2018, Westmoreland County Employees' Retirement System,
a purported beneficial owner of the Company's Class B Common Stock,
filed a class action complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery
against NAI, NAIEH, Mr. David R. Andelman, Mr. Robert N. Klieger
and Ms. Shari Redstone, alleging breaches of contractual
obligations, implied obligations and fiduciary duties to the
Company's Class B Common Stock holders in connection with the
Purported Bylaw Amendments and interference with the issuance by
the Company's Board of Directors of the May 2018 Stock Dividend.

Westmoreland's complaint seeks a declaratory judgment that the
Company's certificate of incorporation authorizes the May 2018
Stock Dividend, that Westmoreland and the class are entitled to the
May 2018 Stock Dividend, that the Purported Bylaw Amendments are
invalid and other relief.

On June 6, 2018, Westmoreland filed a motion to consolidate its
lawsuit with the aforementioned actions filed by the Company and
certain of its independent directors and by National Amusements,
Inc. (NAI), NAI Entertainment Holdings LLC (NAIEH) and Ms. Shari
Redstone.

On June 11, 2018, NAI, NAIEH and Ms. Shari Redstone opposed that
motion and simultaneously filed a motion to stay the lawsuit filed
by Westmoreland in favor of the pending consolidated action
captioned In re CBS Corporation Litigation.

On June 20, 2018, the Delaware Court of Chancery denied both
motions, but directed the Westmoreland lawsuit to proceed on the
same timetable as, and to be coordinated with respect to discovery
and trial with, the aforementioned consolidated action.

CBS Corporation operates as a mass media company worldwide. The
company operates through four segments: Entertainment, Cable
Networks, Publishing, and Local Media. The company was founded in
1986 and is headquartered in New York, New York.


CBS CORP: Faces Shareholder Class Action Over 6% Stock Drop
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that blaming CBS for a 6 percent
stock drop, a shareholder claims in a federal class action that the
company concealed details about the widespread workplace sexual
harassment committed by CEO Les Moonves.

CHESAPEAKE EXPLORATION: Court Certifies Ohio Landowners Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ZEHENTBAUER FAMILY LAND LP, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
CHESAPEAKE EXPLORATION, L.L.C., et al., Defendants, Case No.
4:15CV2449 (N.D. Ohio), Judge Benita Y. Pearson of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division,
granted in part the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification.

Zehentbauer; Hanover Farms, LP; and Evelyn Frances Young, Successor
Trustee of The Robert Milton Young Trust, filed suit against
Defendants Chesapeake Exploration L.L.C. ("CELLC"), Chesapeake
Operating L.L.C., CHK Utica, L.L.C., Total E&P USA, Inc.
("TEPUSA"), Pelican Energy L.L.C., and Jamestown Resources L.L.C.

The Defendants are in the business of oil and gas exploration and
production.  The Plaintiffs are landowners located throughout
eastern and southeastern Ohio who entered into oil and gas lease
agreements with Ohio Buckeye Energy, LLC and CELLC.  CELLC later
merged with Buckeye and acquired Buckeye's lease rights.  CELLC
then leased those rights to the various Defendants.  

Though the leases changed hands, the obligations remained
unchanged.  Under these agreements, the Defendants obtained the
Plaintiffs' oil and gas rights in exchange for a combination of
fees and royalty payments of varying percentages.  The Plaintiffs
allege that the Defendants have improperly reduced royalty payments
by selling hydrocarbons with greater sale price deductions than is
allowable under the agreements.

The Plaintiffs split the leases into three subclasses or Groups:
Group A, Group B, and Group C.  Royalty provisions dictating
payments for oil and gas products are common to each lease in the
proposed class, although the royalty language varies among the
subclasses.  Group A's royalty provisions both contain language
governing the sale price and royalty percentage, but the gas
royalty provisions of the subclass contain a definitional clause
and a comparable sales requirement ("CSR") that the oil royalty
provision does not.  The definitional clause outlines the
substances governed by the provision and the CSR governs
hydrocarbon sales to corporate affiliates.  Both of Group B's
royalty provisions contain a CSR and the definitional clause.  And
finally, Group C's provisions both have the definitional clause,
but no CSR.

Zehentbauer and Hanover have lease agreements that are a part of
Group A and Young has an agreement in Group B. None of the named
Plaintiffs, however, have leases in Group C.  The Plaintiffs have
moved to merge their claims and the claims of the other lessors
into one action based upon the common claim that the Defendants
improperly reduced the royalties due.

Pending is the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification.  The
class moving to be certified has been defined as all persons
entitled to royalty payments from Chesapeake Exploration, LLC,
Chesapeake Operating, Inc., CHK Utica, LLC, Total E&P USA, Inc.,
Pelican Energy, L.L.C., and/or Jamestown Resources, L.L.C. at any
time during the years of 2011 to the present under uniform oil and
gas leases, known generally as Gross Royalty Leases, (some
originally entered by Buckeye Exploration Corp.) which state that
the lessors royalty will be the stated percentage of the gross
proceeds received by the lessee without any deductions except for a
pro-rata share of governmentally imposed taxes and fees, in return
for granting rights to produce oil, natural gas, and the
constituents thereof from real property located in Ohio.

The Defendants do not challenge either the proposed class
definition or that each of the named Plaintiffs own "Gross Royalty
Leases" that fall within the stated definition.

Judge Pearson finds that given the size of the proposed class and
the nature of the claims the numerosity requirement is satisfied.
The common questions of fact and law presented have satisfied the
commonality requirement.  The Plaintiffs have also satisfied the
typicality requirement of Rule 23(a)(3) with regard to Group A and
Group B, but Group C cannot be certified.  The adequacy of
representation requirement is satisfied given that there are no
conflicts of interest present, the Plaintiffs have demonstrated
sufficient knowledge of the litigation and their obligations, and
their counsel is competent.  The Plaintiffs have satisfied the
ascertainability requirement implied by Rule 23(a).  For the
foregoing reasons, she finds that the Plaintiffs have satisfied the
numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy, and ascertainability
requirements of Rule 23(a).  The Judge also finds that the
Plaintiffs have satisfied the 23(b)(3) requirements.  

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Pearson granted in part the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification.  She certified the
class of all persons entitled to royalty payments from Chesapeake
Exploration, L.L.C., Chesapeake Operating, L.L.C., CHK Utica,
L.L.C., Total E&P USA, Inc., Pelican Energy, L.L.C., and/or
Jamestown Resources, L.L.C. at any time during the years of 2011 to
the present under uniform oil and gas leases, known generally as
Gross Royalty Leases, (some originally entered by Buckeye
Exploration Corp.) which state that the lessors royalty will be the
stated percentage of the gross proceeds received by the lessee
without any deductions except for a pro-rata share of
governmentally imposed taxes and fees, in return for granting
rights to produce oil, natural gas, and the constituents thereof
from real property located in Ohio.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 20, 2018 Memorandum of Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/Sy5IMV from Leagle.com.

Zehentbauer Family Land LP & Hanover Farms LP, Plaintiffs,
represented by Dennis E. Murray, Jr., Murray & Murray, Gregory W.
Watts -- gwatts@kwgd.com -- Krugliak, Wilkins, Griffiths &
Dougherty, Scott M. Zurakowski -- szurakowski@kwgd.com -- Krugliak,
Wilkins, Griffiths & Dougherty, Terry A. Moore -- tmoore@kwgd.com
-- Krugliak, Wilkins, Griffiths & Dougherty & William H. Bartle,
Murray & Murray.

Evelyn Frances Young, Successor Trustee of, other Robert Milton
Young Trust, Plaintiff, represented by Dennis E. Murray, Jr.,
Murray & Murray.

Evelyn Frances Young, Successor Trustee of, other Robert Milton
Young Trust Plaintiff, represented by Gregory W. Watts, Krugliak,
Wilkins, Griffiths & Dougherty, Scott M. Zurakowski, Krugliak,
Wilkins, Griffiths & Dougherty, Terry A. Moore, Krugliak, Wilkins,
Griffiths & Dougherty & William H. Bartle, Murray & Murray.

Chesapeake Exploration, L.L.C., Chesapeake Operating, Inc. & CHK
Utica, L.L.C., Defendants, represented by Daniel T. Donovan --
daniel.donovan@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis, Jessica Knopp
Cunning -- jkcunning@vorys.com -- Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease,
Peter A. Lusenhop -- palusenhop@vorys.com -- Vorys, Sater, Seymour
& Pease, Seamus C. Duffy, Drinker Biddle & Reath, pro hac vice,
Timothy B. McGranor -- tbmcgranor@vorys.com -- Vorys, Sater,
Seymour & Pease & William M. Connolly -- william.connolly@dbr.com
-- Drinker Biddle & Reath.

Total E&P USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Christopher A. Brown
-- Chris.Brown@klgates.com -- Winstead, David H. Ammons, Winstead,
J. Nicholas Ranjan -- nicholas.ranjan@klgates.com -- K&L Gates,
Jeffrey C. King -- Jeffrey.C.King@klgates.com -- K&L Gates, Jessica
Knopp Cunning, Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, Timothy B. McGranor,
Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease & Travis L. Brannon --
travis.brannon@klgates.com -- K&L Gates.

Pelican Energy, L.L.C. & Jamestown Resources, L.L.C., Defendants,
represented by Jessica Knopp Cunning, Vorys, Sater, Seymour &
Pease, Peter A. Lusenhop, Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease & Timothy
B. McGranor, Vory, Sater, Seymour & Pease.


CHICAGO ATHLETIC: Faces Class Action Over Breach of Contract
------------------------------------------------------------
Jenie Mallari-Torres, writing for Cook County Record, reports that
a club member has filed a class action lawsuit against Chicago
Athletic Clubs LLC and several other athletic clubs, citing alleged
breach of contract and violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud
and Deceptive Business Practices Act.

Lead plaintiff Andy Ambrosius filed a complaint July 30 in Cook
County Circuit Court against Chicago Athletic Clubs, Evanston
Athletic Club Inc., Lincoln Park Athletic Club Inc., LPAC Holdings
LLC, Westloop Athletic Club LLC, Lakeview Athletic Club Inc.,
Lincoln Square Athletic Club LLC, Wicker Park Athletic Club LLC,
Bucktown Athletic Club LLC and Webster Club Athletic Club LLC.

According to the complaint, the club abruptly terminated their
reward points in connection with the termination of the rewards
program, but did not provide the necessary warning.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks a certification of
their class action and an award of actual damages, attorney's fees,
costs, interest, and other relief the court deems just. The class
is represented by attorneys Thomas Zimmerman Jr., Sharon Harris,
Matthew De Re and Nicholas Hagman of Zimmerman Law Offices PC in
Chicago.

Cook County Circuit Court case number 18-CH-09598 [GN]


CHRYSLER: Judge Stays uConnect Technology Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
William Sassani, writing for Madison - St. Clair Record, reports
that a federal judge put a class action lawsuit against Chrysler on
hold pending an appeal.

Chief Judge Michael J. Reagan of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois made the decision on July 23 after
the car company filed an appeal with the Seventh Circuit Court of
Appeals over class certification.

Former U.S. Attorney Stephen Wigginton, on behalf of Belleville
city attorney Brian Flynn, filed the lawsuit in 2015 against
Chrysler over the company's uConnect technology. The suit claims
hackers can override the controls of a vehicle and remotely drive
it. A Wired magazine article shows a demonstration of a computer
operator taking over a Jeep remotely.

Chrysler recalled over 1 million vehicles due to the issue.
However, the plaintiffs argue this did not solve the problem.

Mr. Flynn, along with other plaintiffs, allege Chrysler violated
the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and state laws protecting consumers.


Earlier in August, Judge Reagan ruled the plaintiffs provided
evidence of faulty design and installation of the uConnect devices,
but threw out fraud and false advertising claims. He also did not
find the car company unjustly enriched itself.

Judge Reagan also removed Mr. Flynn as the class leader and
appointed other car owners in his place.

The company that manufactured uConnect for Chrysler, Harman
International Industries, faced potential legal action. However,
Judge Reagan ruled that the company did not know their systems
presented a potential security risk. [GN]


CMRE FINANCIAL: Santomauro Suit Asserts FDCPA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CMRE Financial
Services, Inc.  The case is captioned Mark Santomauro, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CMRE Financial
Services, Inc., Case No. 2:18-cv-04819 (E.D.N.Y., August 24,
2018).

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

Headquartered in Brea, California, CMRE Financial Services, Inc.,
provides accounts receivables management services to healthcare
organizations.  The Company offers collection; self-pay accounts
receivables management; insurance and worker's compensation
follow-up and rebilling; electronic funds transfer; and managed
care services.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.[BN]


COMENITY BANK: Riley Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
----------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the case captioned Susie Riley, on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Comenity Bank,
Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-01159 (W.D. Tenn., August 21, 2018),
seeks to recover damages and obtain injunctive relief for injuries
caused under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Defendant is a Delaware State FDIC-insured bank and a
limited-purpose credit card bank located in Delaware, offering
credit programs with affiliated retail stores. Beginning in late
2017 or early 2018, Defendant placed more than 10 telephone calls
to Riley's cellular telephone number using an automatic telephone
dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice in an attempt
to solicit credit card applications, notes the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Aaron D. Radbil, Esq.
      GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
      106 East Sixth Street, Suite 913
      Austin, TX 78701
      Telephone: (512) 322-3912
      Fax: (561) 961-5684
      Email: aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com

COMFORT TECHNOLOGY: Faces Kiler Suit in NewYork for ADA Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Comfort Technology
Systems, LLC.  The case is entitled Marion Kiler, Individually and
as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v.
Comfort Technology Systems, LLC doing business as: Therafit Shoe,
Case No. 1:18-cv-04826 (E.D.N.Y., August 24, 2018).

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

Comfort Technology Systems, LLC, doing business as Therafit Shoe,
sells footwear, including shoes, sandals and boots.  The Company
operates the Web site https://therafitshoe.com/.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


COOK COUNTY, IL: Zimmerman Law Offices Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Attorney Thomas Zimmerman of the Chicago-based Zimmerman Law
Offices on Aug. 8 filed a class action lawsuit against Cook County
Sheriff Tom Dart, and the County of Cook, Illinois. The suit
alleges the Cook County Sheriff's Office has a policy of mandating
that its Sheriff's deputies secretly monitor in real time and video
record all pretrial detainees while they use the toilets in holding
cells. The video recordings can be viewed by Sheriff's deputies for
30 days.

The case, Elizabeth Alicea, et al. v. County of Cook, et al., was
filed in the federal U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois.

Pretrial detainees are temporarily held in Cook County holding
cells while they wait to see a judge to post bail after an arrest.
Every holding cell has a toilet, and there are solid partitions or
dividing walls that separate the toilet area from the rest of the
holding cell so that the person cannot be seen by anyone else in
the cell.

However, according to the suit, hidden cameras installed in the
holding cells have an unobstructed view of the toilet and a
person's genitals when he/she is using the toilet. The video feeds
from the holding cell cameras are continually monitored by Cook
County Sheriff's deputies from a monitoring room that is staffed by
both male and female Sheriff's deputies who monitor all pretrial
detainees -- regardless of whether they are male or female -- in
the holding cells. The complaint alleges that all pretrial
detainees are searched prior to being placed in a holding cell, and
there are no oral or written notifications that the people are
being monitored while they are using the toilet.

According to the complaint, the Sheriff's conduct of monitoring
pretrial detainees when using the toilet constitutes an
unconstitutional search in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendments, and also constitutes an invasion of privacy. The
lawsuit seeks to halt this secret monitoring and compensate the
pretrial detainees for their humiliation and embarrassment.

According to Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., counsel for the plaintiffs,
"Even when they are in the Sheriff's custody, people retain an
expectation of privacy in their naked bodies, genitals, and bodily
functions, and they have a right to prevent their naked bodies from
be viewed by members of the opposite sex."

At the press conference, two of the plaintiffs will be present for
comment, and copies of the class action lawsuit and a photograph of
a toilet from a holding cell camera feed will be distributed.

Contacts:

          Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr.
          Zimmerman Law Offices, P.C.
          77 West Washington Street, Suite 1220
          Chicago, Illinois 60602
          Telephone: (312) 440-0020
          E-mail: tom@attorneyzim.com
          Website: http://www.attorneyzim.com[GN]


CRA SOLUTIONS: Denied Payment of OT Wages, MacAlpine Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jaime MacAlpine, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. CRA Solutions, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
18-cv-61986, (S.D. Fla., August 22, 2018), seeks damages and other
relief relating to violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act for
failing to pay overtime at one and one-half the regular rate of pay
for all overtime hours worked within a workweek.

CRA provides monitoring and study management services to medical
device, pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. MacAlpine
worked for Defendant as a clinical research associate and claims to
have been misclassified as independent contractor and denied
overtime compensation for hours worked over forty per week. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard Celler, Esq.
      Noah E. Storch, Esq.
      RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A
      7450 Griffin Road, Suite 230
      Davie, FL 33314
      Telephone: (866) 344-9243
      Facsimile: (954) 337-2771
      Email: richard@floridaovertimelawyer.com
             noah@floridaovertimelawyer.com


DAIRYAMERICA INC: Court Grants Request to Seal Document
-------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California granted Plaintiffs' Request to Seal Document and File
Redacted Version in the case captioned GERALD CARLIN, JOHN RAHM,
PAUL ROZWADOWSKI and DIANA WOLFE, individually and on behalf of
themselves and all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
DAIRYAMERICA, INC., and CALIFORNIA DAIRIES, INC., Defendants, Case
No. 1:09-CV-0430 AWI-EPG (E.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiffs are permitted to file a redacted version of the
Confidential Side Letter, attached as Exhibit B to Plaintiffs'
Memorandum in Support of the Unopposed Motion for Preliminary
Approval of Class Action Settlement on the public docket. The
Plaintiffs will email the unredacted version of the document to
ApprovedSealed@caed.uscourts.gov for filing under seal. Only the
parties' counsel of record, the Court and its staff shall have
access to the unredacted document.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 13, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y8yukkfd from Leagle.com.

Gerald Carlin, individually and on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, John Rahm, individually and on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated & Paul Rozwadowski,
individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, represented by A. Chowning Poppler --
cpoppler@bermantabacco.com -- Berman Tabacco, Anthony David
Phillips -- aphillips@bermandevalerio.com -- Berman DeValerio,
Benjamin Doyle Brown -- bbrown@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein
Sellers & Toll PLLC, Brent W. Johnson -- bjohnson@cohenmilstein.com
-- Cohen Milstein Hausfeld and Toll PLLC, pro hac vice, Cari C.
Laufenberg -- claufenberg@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback
L.L.P., pro hac vice, Christopher Heffelfinger --
cheffelfinger@bermantabacco.com -- Berman Tabacco, George F. Farah
-- gfarah@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Hausfeld and Toll
PLLC, pro hac vice, Juli E. Farris -- jfarris@kellerrohrback.com --
Keller Rohrback LLP, Justin N. Saif -- jsaif@berman tobacco.com --
Berman DeValerio, pro hac vice, Leslie M. Kroeger --
lkroeger@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC,
pro hac vice & Ryan McDevitt -- rmcdevitt@kellerohrback.com --
Keller Rohrback L.L.P., pro hac vice.

Diana Wolfe, Plaintiff, represented by A. Chowning Poppler , Berman
Tabacco, Anthony David Phillips , Berman DeValerio, Benjamin Doyle
Brown , Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Brent W. Johnson ,
Cohen Milstein Hausfeld and Toll PLLC, pro hac vice, Cari C.
Laufenberg , Keller Rohrback L.L.P., pro hac vice, Christopher
Heffelfinger , Berman Tabacco, George F. Farah , Cohen Milstein
Hausfeld and Toll PLLC, pro hac vice, Juli E. Farris , Keller
Rohrback LLP, Justin N. Saif , Berman DeValerio, pro hac vice &
Ryan McDevitt , Keller Rohrback L.L.P., pro hac vice.

DairyAmerica, Inc., Defendant, represented by Charles Morton
English -- joannemorton@dwt.com -- Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, pro
hac vice, E. John Steren -- esteren@ebglaw.com -- Ober Kaler, pro
hac vice, John D. Seiver -- johnseiver@dwt.com -- Davis Wright
Tremaine LLP, pro hac vice, Joseph Michael Marchini --
jmarchini@bakermanock.com -- Baker, Manock & Jensen, Wendy M.
Yoviene -- wyoviene@ober.com -- Ober Kaler, pro hac vice, Allison
Ann Davis -- allisondavis@dwt.com -- Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, Joy
G. Kim , Davis Wright Tremaine LLP & Sanjay Mohan Nangia , Davis
Wright Tremaine LLP.


DALLAS MORNING: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Call Campaign
-------------------------------------------------------------
Eric J. Troutman, writing for TCPAland, reports that its not easy
running a newspaper these days. Half the country will think you're
fake news and the other half will wonder why you're even printing
stuff on paper anymore (even the picture of the newspapers above
makes me think of something old and dusty). And then there's those
pesky class action lawsuits.

In a new suit titled Fred Dembski v. The Dallas Morning News, Inc.
Case No. 3:18-cv-02042-G (Filed Aug. 7, 2018) the Plaintiff sues in
federal district court for the Northern District of Texas
contending that the Dallas Morning News is making illegal
telemarketing calls to landlines (what are those?) registered on
the DNC. The suit can be found here: Dallas Morning News Complaint.
The Plaintiff makes no secret of the paper's purported motive: Mr.
Dembski alleges that the paper's circulation has crumbled recently
resulting in the need for an aggressive telemarketing campaign to
prop up its numbers:

Dallas Morning News has seen a considerable drop in their newspaper
subscription base as consumers are turning away from print media in
favor of digital news media.

Dembski Complaint at par. 2.

The Complaint even provides this handy graph to prove the point:

Colorful.

The Complaint goes on to allege that the dropping circulation has
lead to the telemarketing efforts that "regularly result in
repeated calls to consumers whose phone numebrs are registered on
the National Do Not Call Registry."  The Plaintiff himself alleges
that he received 7 unsolicited calls to his landline phone without
his consent even though his number was on the DNC. Compl. par. 4.

Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of:

All persons in the United States who from four years prior to the
filing of is action (1) Defendant (or an agent acting on behalf of
Defendant) called more than one time on his/her cellular telephone;
(2) within any 12-month period (3) where the cellular telephone
number had been listed on the National Do Not Call Registry for at
least thirty days; (4) for the purpose of selling Defendant's
products and services; and (5) for whom Defendant claims (a) it
obtained prior express written consent in the same manner as
Defendant claims it supposedly obtained prior express written
consent to call the Plaintiff, or (b) Defendant did not obtain
prior express written consent.

Compl. par. 21.

It remains to be seen whether any of these allegations have merit.
As the suit was just filed yesterday the Daily Morning News has no
yet appeared through counsel. Notably, these DNC suits might be the
new wave of TCPA litigation following recent court decisions
suggesting that predictive dialers are no longer subject to the
TCPA. (Purported DNC violations often do not require the use of an
ATDS to trigger TCPA and/or Telemarketing Sales Rule s (TSR)
coverage.)

Plaintiff is represented by Stefan Coleman of the Law Offices of
Stefan Coleman, P.A., Dana Opitz, and Avi R. Kaufman of Kaufman
P.A. [GN]


DELICIOUS HOSPITALITY: Martinez Suit Alleges ADA Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Delicious
Hospitality, LLC, and Legacy Records NYC, LLC.  The case is styled
as Pedro Martinez, Individually and as the representative of a
class of similarly situated persons v. Delicious Hospitality, LLC,
and Legacy Records NYC, LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-04848 (E.D.N.Y.,
August 27, 2018).

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

Delicious Hospitality, LLC, is a New York domestic limited
liability company with businesses in New York City.  The Defendants
provide restaurant and bar services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DIRECTV LLC: Flynn's Bid to Certify Landlords Class Denied
----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned JEAN M. FLYNN, et al., the Plaintiffs, v.
DIRECTV, LLC, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 3:15-cv-01053-JAM
(D. Conn.), the Hon. Judge Jeffrey Alker Meyer entered an order
denying Plaintiffs' motion for class certification of:

      "all persons and/or entities ("Landlords") that own and lease
residential multiple dwelling units ("MDU’s") in the State of
Connecticut, upon which Defendants, by their agents, servants
and/or employees have, on at least one occasion during the
applicable statutory period, without first receiving prior written
Landlord authorization and/or permission, installed DIRECTV
satellite dish model Ka/Ku, on the roof of said MDU."

The Court said, "Accordingly, because of individualized issues of
landlord consent, plaintiffs have not carried their burden to
establish the predominance requirement. See e.g., Sandusky Wellness
Ctr., LLC v. ASD Specialty Healthcare, Inc., 863 F.3d 460, 468–69
(6th Cir. 2017) (affirming district court's determination that
predominance requirement not established for class certification of
action under Telephone Consumer Protection Act involving alleged
unsolicited faxes in light of individualized issue of consent to
such faxes); Ung v. Universal Acceptance Corp., 319 F.R.D. 537, 539
(D. Minn. 2017) (predominance requirement not established for class
certification of action under Telephone Consumer Protection Act
involving alleged marketing calls in light of individualized issue
of consent to such calls). My conclusion is reinforced by
defendants' arguments that individualized proof will also be
required as to the terms of specific lease agreements and the
amount of damages incurred from property to property. See Doc. No.
97 at 29–35."


DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE: Continues to Defend Garland, TX Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Diversicare Healthcare Services, 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 and its subsidiary, Garland Nursing & Rehabilitation
Center, continue to defend a purported class action suit filed in
the Circuit Court of Garland County, Arkansas.

In January 2009, a purported class action complaint was filed in
the Circuit Court of Garland County, Arkansas against the Company
and certain of its subsidiaries and Garland Nursing &
Rehabilitation Center (the "Center").

The Company answered the original complaint in 2009, and there was
no other activity in the case until May 2017.

At that time, plaintiff filed an amended complaint asserting new
causes of action. The amended complaint alleges that the defendants
breached their statutory and contractual obligations to the
patients of the Center over a multi-year period by failing to meet
minimum staffing requirements, failing to otherwise adequately
staff the Center and failing to provide a clean and safe living
environment in the Center.

The Company has filed an answer to the amended complaint denying
plaintiffs' allegations and has asked the Court to dismiss the new
causes of action asserted in the amended complaint because the
Company was prejudiced by plaintiff's long delay in filing the
amended complaint.

The Court has not yet ruled on the motion to dismiss, so the
lawsuit remains in its early stages and has not yet be certified by
the court as a class action. The Company intends to defend the
lawsuit vigorously.

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

Diversicare Healthcare Services, Inc. provides post-acute care
services to skilled nursing center, patients, and residents
primarily in the Southeast, Midwest, and Southwest United States.
Diversicare Healthcare Services, Inc. was founded in 1994 and is
based in Brentwood, Tennessee.


DUCK WALK: Violates Disabilities Act, Martinez Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Duck Walk Vineyards,
Inc.  The case is styled as Pedro Martinez, Individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Duck
Walk Vineyards, Inc., Case No. 1:18-cv-04847 (E.D.N.Y., August 27,
2018).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violations of the Americans
with Disabilities Act.

Duck Walk Vineyards is a family owned winery & vineyard in Long
Island, New York.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.[BN]


DUKE UNIVERSITY: Lucas Files ERISA Class Suit in N.C.
-----------------------------------------------------
Kathi Lucas, Jorge Lopez and Keith A. Feather, individually and as
representatives of a class of participants and beneficiaries on
behalf of the Duke Faculty and Staff Retirement Plan, Plaintiffs,
v. Duke University, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00094 (M.D. N.C.,
August 20, 2018), seeks damages resulting from breach of fiduciary
duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

Duke Faculty and Staff Retirement Plan is a defined contribution,
individual account, employee pension benefit plan for faculty and
staff members of Duke University eligible to participate. Duke
engaged four bookkeepers for the Plan and allowed each of those
providers to put their own proprietary investment funds in mutual
funds and insurance company variable annuity. Said Plan's
investment options were providing revenue sharing that overpaid for
the Plan's recordkeeping services. Instead of recovering excess
revenue sharing for the Plan, Duke arranged to pay Plan expenses
and to reimburse Duke for its own expenses putatively in
administering the Plan, including paying salaries and fringe
benefits of employees in Duke's Human Resources department and
other expenses Duke previously had been paying itself, notes the
complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     David B. Puryear, Jr., Esq.
     PURYEAR AND LINGLE, PLLC
     5501-E Adams Farm Lane
     Greensboro, NC 27407
     Tel: (336) 218-0227
     Email: puryear@puryearandlingle.com

            - and -

     Jerome J. Schlichter, Esq.
     Michael A. Wolff, Esq.
     Kurt C. Struckhoff, Esq.
     SCHLICHTER BOGARD & DENTON LLP
     100 South Fourth Street, Ste. 1200
     St. Louis, MO 63102
     Phone: (314) 621-6115
     Fax: (314) 621-5934
     Email: jschlichter@uselaws.com
            mwolff@uselaws.com
            kstruckhoff@uselaws.com


ELDERS VENTURES: Lore Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------
Steven Lore, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Elders Ventures LLC, Massage Envy
Franchising LLC, Christopher Elders and Jaqueline Elders,
Defendants, Case No. 18-CV-004692, (E.D. N.Y., August 20, 2018),
seeks to recover damages for egregious violations of New York State
labor laws and the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff further
seeks compensatory and liquidated damages, interest, attorneys'
fees, costs and all other legal and equitable remedies.

Defendants operate as "Massage Envy," a massage parlor located at
680 Stewart Avenue, Garden City, New York 11350 where Lore worked
as a massage therapist.

According to the complaint, the Defendants owe the Plaintiff unpaid
wages for the additional half hour of massage therapy services for
each 1.5 hour massage, for which he was not compensated. Moreover,
the Defendants willfully failed to post notices of the minimum wage
and overtime wage requirements in a conspicuous place at the
location of their employment and failed to keep payroll records.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
      HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC
      69-12 Austin Street
      Forest Hills, NY 11375
      Telephone: (718) 263-9591
      Fax: (718) 263-9598
      Email: HFDalton6912@Gmail.com


ENTERTAINMENT CRUISES: Violates Disabilities Act, Diaz Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Entertainment Cruises
Inc.  The case is titled as Edwin Diaz, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Entertainment Cruises Inc., Case
No. 1:18-cv-07817 (S.D.N.Y., August 27, 2018).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violations of the Americans
with Disabilities Act.

Entertainment Cruises, Inc., operates dining and sightseeing
cruises in Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, New Jersey, New York,
Norfolk, Philadelphia, South Florida, and Washington D.C.  The
Company operates day and evening cruises, excursions and private
charters, all-glass ships, skyline tours, private yachts, yacht
charters, and speedboat excursions; offers wedding and group
packages; and provides cruise packages for events ranging from
business meetings to holiday parties.  The Company was founded in
2006 and is based in Chicago, Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Faces Parker FCRA Suit in Florida
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equifax Information
Services, LLC, and John Does 1-25.  The case is titled as Lisa
Parker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. Equifax Information Services, LLC, and John Does 1-25, Case No.
0:18-cv-62022-FAM (S.D. Fla., August 27, 2018).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Equifax Information Services LLC collects and reports consumer
information to financial institutions.  The Company was formerly
known as Equifax Credit Information Services Inc. and changed its
name to Equifax Information Services LLC in June 2004.  The Company
was incorporated in 1937 and is based in Atlanta, Georgia.  Equifax
operates as a subsidiary of Equifax Inc.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin E. Zeig, Esq.
          ZEIG LAW FIRM, LLC
          3595 Sheridan Street, Suite 103
          Hollywood, FL 33021
          Telephone: (754) 217-3084
          E-mail: justin@zeiglawfirm.com


EVENKO: Disappointed Music Fan Pursues Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Matthew Lapierre, writing for Montreal Gazette, reports that a
disappointed music fan is pursuing a class action lawsuit against
the organizer of Montreal's Osheaga music festival because the
performer she came to see was almost an hour and a half late.

Megan Le Stum is a university student and avid fan of rapper Travis
Scott. She bought a three-day pass to Osheaga expecting to see the
mega-star perform, but Scott was late. Many people, including Le
Stum, left the festival before he finally performed.

The class action request, filed at the Montreal courthouse on Aug.
6, argues that Le Stum and anyone else who bought a ticket to
Osheaga for Aug. 3, the day Scott performed, should be reimbursed
by event organizer Evenko.

Scott is a world-famous rapper. His songs frequently top the charts
on music-streaming apps like Spotify. He was scheduled to headline
the Montreal festival on Friday, Aug. 3.

Scott was scheduled to play from 9:45 p.m. to 10:55 p.m., but the
festival announced on social media that he was delayed at the
border. The announcement drew anger from fans online, some of whom
stood for hours waiting for the rapper to arrive. Many demanded
refunds.

"My feet hurt," one festival-goer tweeted. "I want my money back,
he's going to play like two songs," tweeted another. Several people
said that after waiting for hours they gave up and left.

According to the class action request, the crowd grew impatient and
aggressive. Le Stum grew tired of waiting and left at 10:30 p.m.

Scott arrived just after 11 p.m and performed a short, 40-minute
set.

The class action request says Le Stum works part-time, had to save
up money to buy her three-day pass to Osheaga and wouldn't have
bought tickets to the music festival if Scott was not performing.
She and her friends were extremely disappointed that they didn't
get to see him take the stage.

"The crowd was euphoric to see the rapper for the last show of the
day, however the spectacle didn't start on time" the class action
request reads. It argues that Evenko had a responsibility to
respect the schedule of the event.

The 2018 edition of Osheaga drew sellout crowds of 45,000 people
for each of its three days. Day passes to the event ranged in price
from $115 to $235. Three-day passes ranged from $320 to $1,150.

If the class action lawsuit is approved by a Quebec Superior Court
judge, it will likely take years to wind its way through the
courts.

Evenko did not respond to a request for comment. [GN]


F5 PRODUCTIONS: Biennescar Action to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Dimitri Biennescar, Randy Saget and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. F5 Productions Inc., Defendant, Case No.
18-cv-81126, (S.D. Fla., August 22, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, costs and attorneys'
fees under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

F5 Productions does business as McKenna's Place, a restaurant
located at 4068 Forest Hills Boulevard, Palm Springs, Florida where
Biennescar and Saget were employed as dishwasher and cook,
respectively, working customarily in excess of forty hours per week
without overtime. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Neil D. Kodsi, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF NEIL D. KODSI
      1666 J.F. Kennedy Causeway, Suite 420
      North Bay Village, FL 33141
      Telephone: (786) 464-0841
      Facsimile: (954) 790-6722
      Email: nkodsi@ndkodsilaw.com

             - and -

      Michael S. Elstein, Esq.
      ELSTEIN LAW FIRM
      8401 Lake Worth Road, Suite 107
      Wellington, FL 33467
      Telephone: (954) 928-0990
      Facsimile: (954) 491-4555
      Email: michael@elsteinlaw.com


FACEBOOK INC: Data Privacy Class Action Lawsuits Consolidated
-------------------------------------------------------------
Many consumers are concerned by the handling of their data by
Facebook, Inc. (FB). Now there's a way for their voices to be
heard.

On July 27, 2018, Judge Vince Chhabria appointed Lesley E. Weaver
of Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP and Derek W. Loeser of Keller
Rohrback L.L.P. as Co-Lead Counsel to prosecute claims against
Facebook, Inc. in one of the largest and most publicized data
privacy lawsuits to date. The litigation concerns a new, digital
version of an invasion of privacy made worse by the ability of
companies to obtain individuals' personally identifiable
information and use it to manipulate them.

The lawsuit alleges that Facebook disregarded its users' privacy by
exploiting their personally identifiable information. The alleged
misuse includes, among other things, the misuse of Facebook users'
photographs, names, locations, and biographical information as well
as intimate details about users' religious and political beliefs,
moods, race, gender, familial status, locations, and shopping
habits.

Facebook's alleged exploitation of its users' information came to
the public's attention in the wake of the Cambridge Analytica
scandal. Cambridge Analytica worked with a third-party app called
"This Is Your Digital Life" to obtain over 87 million Facebook
users' personally identifiable information and went on to use that
data to create detailed profiles or dossiers of Facebook users.

Evidence suggests that Facebook gave many other third-party app
developers access to users' personal information without obtaining
users' consent and in violation of state and federal laws.

         Ardua Harris, Esq.
         Keller Rohrback L.L.P.
         Telephone: 888-684-6575
         Email: aharris@kellerrohrback.com

         or

         Kasey Sullivan, Esq.
         Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP
         Telephone: 415-445-4014
         Email: ksullivan@bfalaw.com [GN]


FACEBOOK INC: Faces Class Action Over Users' Private Data-Sharing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
two class action lawsuits filed on Aug. 30 seek billions of dollars
in damages from Facebook for sharing users' private data with
device makers, adding to the woes of the social media behemoth
already rocked by scandal and a recently plunging stock price.

One of the lawsuits, filed by lead plaintiff Velma Rankins of
Oakland, California, claims that Facebook created a "secret back
door" to share millions of users' private data with more than 60
device makers, including Apple, Samsung, and Amazon, starting in
2007.

"These data-sharing partnerships have enabled device makers to
obtain substantial sensitive and personal information, directly
from a user as well as from his or her friends," the 25-page
complaint states.

According to the lawsuit, Facebook concealed its sharing of
personal data with device makers until April 2018 when it updated
its data policy, a few weeks before the New York Times published an
investigative piece revealing the practice.

Ms. Rankins claims the data-sharing arrangements violate the terms
of a 2011 consent decree Facebook signed with the Federal Trade
Commission -- effective for 20 years -- that requires Facebook to
disclose all categories of user data shared with third parties and
the types of third parties receiving that data.

Facebook did not immediately return a request for comment on
Aug. 30, but in a June 3 response to the New York Times piece, the
company said data was shared solely to enable device makers to
"recreate the Facebook experience" for users. Each device maker, or
"partner," signed contracts forbidding the use of Facebook data for
any other purpose, according to the company's statement on its
website.

Facebook announced in April that it was "winding down" its
data-sharing partnerships with device makers. As of June 3, 2018,
the company said it had ended 22 such partnerships.

But according to Ms. Rankins, that doesn't let Facebook off the
hook for concealing the data-sharing agreements for more than a
decade.

The lawsuit cites violations of the Stored Communications Act,
California privacy rights and business laws, intrusion upon
seclusion, trespass to personal property, and nuisance.

Ms. Rankins seeks a permanent injunction barring Facebook from
sharing such data, class certification, disgorgement, punitive
damages, and statutory damages of $1,000 for each violation of the
Stored Communications Act. With a proposed class of millions of
Facebook users, the social media network could be liable for
billions of dollars in damages.

Ms. Rankins is represented by Sabita Soneji of Tycko & Zavareei in
Oakland.

A second, similar class action was also filed against Facebook on
Aug. 30 by lead plaintiff Susan Hwang, a California resident
represented by attorney Clayeo Arnold of Sacramento.

The lawsuits comes after a major scandal rocked Facebook earlier
this year for sharing 87 million users' private data with a
data-mining firm affiliated with Donald Trump's presidential
campaign. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg testified before Congress
amidst a series of privacy class actions related to the scandal. A
separate flood of litigation accused the company of collecting
Android phone users' contacts, call histories and text message data
without consent.

In July, Facebook's market value dropped $119 billion in one day --
one of the biggest one-day losses by any company in U.S. stock
market history -- after Facebook announced that its user base and
revenue grew more slowly than expected in its second quarter.

Facebook remains the world's largest online social network with
1.47 billion daily active users and more than 2 billion monthly
active users as of June 30, 2018.

The company has a total market value close to $511 billion, which
exceeds the annual gross domestic product of countries like Poland,
Belgium and Iran, according to the Associated Press.


FARMLAND MUTUAL: Court Dismisses S. Mejia's Class Action Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California dismissed the Class Action Claims With Prejudice in the
case captioned SCARLETTE MEJIA, as an individual and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. FARMLAND MUTUAL
INSURANCE COMPANY, an Iowa corporation; FARMLAND MUTUAL INSURANCE
CO, an unincorporated association; NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE
COMPANY, an Ohio corporation; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 2:17-CV-00570-TLN-KJN (E.D. Cal.).

This Stipulation and Proposed Order is entered into between
Plaintiff SCARLETTE MEJIA (Plaintiff) and Defendants FARMLAND
MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, FARMLAND MUTUAL INSURANCE CO, and
NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY (Defendants).

The parties agreed that the PAGA claims alleged in the Plaintiff's
First Amended Complaint be dismissed without prejudice; that the
claims of any putative class member, class claims, and/or class
allegations will be dismissed without prejudice; that the
Plaintiff's individual claims will be dismissed with prejudice; and
all parties shall bear their own attorney's fees and costs.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 13, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ybg767j9 from Leagle.com.

Scarlette Mejia, Plaintiff, represented by Galen T. Shimoda --
attorney@shimodalaw.com -- Shimoda Law Corp. & Justin Paul
Rodriguez -- jrodriguez@shimodalaw.com -- Shimoda Law Corp.

Farmland Mutual Insurance Company & Nationwide Mutual Insurance
Company, Defendants, represented by Barbara Allyn Blackburn --
bblackburn@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson & Britney Noelle Torres
-- btorres@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C..


FLEX LTD: Court Extends Time to Respond in California Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Flex Ltd. 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 extended the time for
defendants to respond to the putative class action complaint
pending in the Northern District of California, until after a lead
plaintiff is appointed and an amended complaint is filed by the
lead plaintiff.

On May 8, 2018, a putative class action was filed in the Northern
District of California against the Company and certain officers
alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder,
alleging misstatements and/or omissions in certain of the Company's
financial results, press releases and SEC filings made during the
putative class period of January 26, 2017 through April 26, 2018.
The deadline for applications for appointment as lead plaintiff was
July 9, 2018.

There are two pending motions for appointment as lead plaintiff,
which are scheduled to be heard by the Court on October 11, 2018.

The Court has extended the time for Defendants to respond to the
complaint until after a lead plaintiff is appointed and an amended
complaint is filed by the lead plaintiff.

Flex Ltd. provides design, engineering, manufacturing, and supply
chain services and solutions to original equipment manufacturers
worldwide. It operates through Communications & Enterprise Compute,
Consumer Technologies Group, Industrial and Emerging Industries,
and High Reliability Solutions segments. Flex Ltd. was founded in
1990 and is based in Singapore.


FLINT, MI: Wurfel Appeals Ruling in Waid Suit to 6th Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Bradley Wurfel filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit entitled Luke Waid, et al. v. Rick Snyder, et al., Case No.
5:16-cv-10444, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Michigan at Ann Arbor.

The appellate case is captioned as Luke Waid, et al. v. Rick
Snyder, et al., Case No. 18-1960, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

Bradley Wurfel is sued in his official capacity as Director of
Communications for the Michigan Department of Environmental
Quality.  Richard Dale Snyder is sued in his official capacity as
Governor of the state of Michigan.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
one of the eight cases consolidated for all purposes, including
trial, in the case captioned In re Flint Water Cases, Case No.
5:16-cv-10444-JEL-MKM (E.D. Mich.).

The Plaintiffs seek recovery from the Defendants for alleged
injuries, damages and losses suffered by the Plaintiffs as a result
of exposure to the introduction of lead and other toxic substances
from the Defendants' ownership, use, management, supervision,
storage, maintenance, disposal and release of highly corrosive
water from the Flint River into the drinking water of Flint,
Michigan.[BN]

The Plaintiffs-Appellees are represented by:

          Conrad J. Benedetto, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF CONRAD J. BENEDETTO
          1615 South Broad Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19148
          Telephone: (215) 389-1900
          E-mail: cjbenedetto@benedettolaw.com

               - and -

          Esther Berezofsky, Esq.
          BEREZOFSKY LAW GROUP, LLC
          210 Lake Drive East, Suite 101
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08002
          Telephone: (856) 667-0500
          E-mail: eberezofsky@wcblegal.com

               - and -

          Jayson Edward Blake, Esq.
          Mark McAlpine, Esq.
          MCALPINE LAW OFFICE
          3201 University Drive, Suite 100
          Auburn Hills, MI 48326
          Telephone: (248) 373-3700
          E-mail: jeblake@mcalpinepc.com
                  mlmcalpine@mcalpinepc.com

               - and -

          John McNeill Broaddus, Esq.
          WEITZ & LUXENBERG PC
          220 Lake Drive E.
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08002
          Telephone: (856) 755-1115
          E-mail: jbroaddus@weitzlux.com

               - and -

          Paul Francis Novak, Esq.
          Gregory Stamatopoulos, Esq.
          WEITZ & LUXENBERG PC
          719 Griswold, Suite 620
          Detroit, MI 48226
          Telephone: (313) 800-4166
          E-mail: pnovak@weitzlux.com
                  gstamatopoulos@weitzlux.com

               - and -

          Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
          BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN LLC
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 697-6484
          E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com

               - and -

          Jordan W. Connors, Esq.
          SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3800
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 516-3814
          E-mail: jconnors@susmangodfrey.com

               - and -

          Deborah A. LaBelle, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DEBORAH A. LABELLE
          221 N. Main Street, Suite 300
          Ann Arbor, MI 48104-0000
          Telephone: (734) 996-5620

               - and -

          Emmy L. Levens, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS AND TOLL PLLC
          1100 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 500-W
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 408-4600
          E-mail: elevens@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          David J. Shea, Esq.
          SHEA, AIELLO & DOXSIE
          26200 American Drive, Third Floor
          Southfield, MI 48034
          Telephone: (248) 354-0224
          E-mail: david.shea@sadplaw.com

               - and -

          Hunter J. Shkolnik, Esq.
          NAPOLI SHKOLNIK PLLC
          400 Broadhollow Road, Suite 305
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (212) 397-1000
          E-mail: hunter@napolilaw.com

               - and -

          Jessica B. Weiner, Esq.
          U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
          231 W. Lafayette Boulevard
          Theodore Levin U.S. Courthouse, Room 611
          Detroit, MI 48226
          Telephone: (313) 226-0003

Defendant-Appellant BRADLEY WURFEL is represented by:

          Charles Edward Barbieri, Esq.
          FOSTER, SWIFT, COLLINS & SMITH PC
          313 S. Washington Square
          Lansing, MI 48933
          Telephone: (517) 371-8100
          E-mail: cbarbieri@fosterswift.com

               - and -

          Jay M. Berger, Esq.
          CLARK HILL PLC
          500 Woodward Avenue, Suite 3500
          Detroit, MI 48226
          Telephone: (313) 965-8300
          E-mail: jberger@clarkhill.com

               - and -

          Jordan Seth Bolton, Esq.
          CLARK HILL PLC
          151 S. Old Woodward Avenue, Suite 200
          Birmingham, MI 48009
          Telephone: (248) 642-9692
          E-mail: jbolton@clarkhill.com

               - and -

          Christopher Bradley Clare, Esq.
          CLARK HILL PLC
          1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 1300, S.
          Washington, DC 27713
          Telephone: (202) 572-8671
          E-mail: cclare@clarkhill.com


FREEDOM CRUISES: Diaz Sues Over Disabilities Act Breach
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Freedom Cruises, LLC.
The case is styled as Edwin Diaz, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Freedom Cruises, LLC, Case No.
1:18-cv-07821 (S.D.N.Y., August 27, 2018).

The Plaintiff alleges violations of the Americans with Disabilities
Act.

Freedom Cruises, LLC, is a business entity registered in the state
of New York under the legal form of domestic limited liability
company.[BN]


GATES CORP: Lundine Sues Over Unpaid Overtime
---------------------------------------------
Peggy Lynn Lundine, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Gates Corporation, Defendant, Case No.
18-cv-01235, (D. Kan., August 21, 2018), seeks damages and other
relief relating to violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the Kansas Wage Payment Act for failing to pay overtime at one and
one-half the regular rate of pay for all overtime hours worked
within a workweek.

The Defendant is a manufacturer of fluid power and power
transmission solutions such as hydraulic hoses and belts and
operates a manufacturing facility at 1450 Montana Road, Iola, Allen
County, Kansas 66749, where Plaintiff worked the mandrel lube,
warehouse, and assembly. He routinely worked in excess of forty
hours per workweek without receiving proper overtime compensation
for all overtime hours worked, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brendan J. Donelon, Esq.
      420 Nichols Road, Suite 200
      Kansas City, MO 64112
      Tel: (816) 221-7100
      Fax: (816) 709-1044
      Email: brendan@donelonpc.com

             - and -

      Daniel W. Craig, Esq.
      6614 Clayton Rd., #320
      St. Louis, MO 63117
      Tel: (314) 297-8385
      Fax: (816) 709-1044
      Email: dan@donelonpc.com


GENERAL CABLE: 6th Circuit Appeal Filed in Eley's ERISA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Lonnie E. Eley filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in his lawsuit titled Lonnie Eley v. General Cable
Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-00045, in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky at Covington.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on August 21, 2018, the
District Court granted the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case.

Plaintiff Lonnie M. Eley, on behalf of a putative class of
participants in the General Cable Savings and Investment Plan
(Plan), brings this action under Sections 404, 405, 409 and 502 of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended,
for the Defendants' alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. Count One
of the Amended Class Action Complaint alleges breach of the duty of
prudence; Count Two alleges breach of the duty of loyalty; and
Count Three alleges breach of the duty to monitor.

The Defendants have moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint, arguing
that it fails to state a claim under applicable law.

The appellate case is captioned as Lonnie Eley v. General Cable
Corporation, et al., Case No. 18-5892, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant LONNIE E. ELEY, on behalf of the General Cable
Savings and Investment Plan, himself, and a class consisting of
similarly situated participants of the Plan, is represented by:

          Michael Klein, Esq.
          STULL, STULL & BRODY
          6 E. 45th Street, Suite 500
          New York, NY 10017-0000
          Telephone: (212) 687-7230
          E-mail: mklein@ssbny.com

Defendants-Appellees GENERAL CABLE CORPORATION, THE RETIREMENT
PLANS FINANCE COMMITTEE OF GENERAL CABLE CORPORATION, THE
RETIREMENT PLANS ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE OF GENERAL CORPORATION,
ELIZABETH MLEKUSH, ROBERT J. SIVERD, DON KATCHMAN, THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF GENERAL CABLE CORPORATION, GREGORY B. KENNY, MICHAEL
T. MCDONNELL, GREGORY E. LAWTON, CRAIG P. OMTVEDT, PATRICK M.
PREVOST, ROBERT L. SMIALEK, JOHN E. WELSH, III, SALLIE B. BAILEY
and EDWARD CHILDS HALL, III, are represented by:

          Brian T. Ortelere, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          1701 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 963-5000
          E-mail: brian.ortelere@morganlewis.com


GEO GROUP: Judge Certifies Wage Theft Class-Action
--------------------------------------------------
Democracy Now reports that in a victory for immigrant rights
organizers, a federal judge in Washington state has certified a
class-action lawsuit alleging systematic wage theft at GEO Group's
for-profit Northwest Detention Center. Detained immigrants are paid
only $1 a day to work inside the facility. Judge Robert Bryan's
ruling comes as GEO Group is facing increasing scrutiny over its
role of profiting off detention and family separation. On Aug. 7,
the human rights group Dream Defenders held a national day of
action to protest the for-profit prison company, which is the
Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency's largest contractor. At
least 16 actions took place in more than a dozen cities, including
in Boca Raton, Florida, where more than 100 people protested
outside of the GEO Group's headquarters. [GN]


GLENCORE PLC: Levi & Korsinsky Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, disclosed that class action lawsuit has
commenced on behalf of shareholders of Glencore plc. Shareholders
interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the deadlines
listed to petition the court and further details about the cases
can be found at the links provided. There is no cost or obligation
to you.

Glencore plc (OTCMKTS: GLNCY, GLCNF)
Class Period: September 30, 2016 - July 2, 2018
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 7, 2018
Join the action: http://www.zlk.com/pslra-d/glencore?wire=3

Allegations: Glencore plc made materially false and/or misleading
statements throughout the class period and/or failed to disclose
that: (i) Glencore's conduct would subject it to heightened
scrutiny by U.S. and foreign government bodies resulting in
investigations into the company's compliance with money laundering
and bribery laws, as well as the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act; and
(ii) as a result, defendants' statements about Glencore's business,
operations, and prospects were materially false and/or misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. On May 18,
2018, Bloomberg reported that the U.K.'s Serious Fraud Office was
preparing to open a formal bribery investigation into Glencore.
Then on July 3, 2018, Glencore disclosed that the U.S. Department
of Justice issued its subsidiary a subpoena to produce documents
and other records in connection with its compliance with U.S. money
laundering statutes and the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

To learn more about the GLNCY, GLCNF class action contact
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com.

You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request the court
appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

         Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
         Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
         30 Broad Street - 24th Floor
         New York, NY 10004
         Telephone: (212) 363-7500
         Toll Free: (877) 363-5972
         Fax: (212) 363-7171
         Website: www.zlk.com
         Email: jlevi@levikorsinsky.com [GN]


GRANT & WEBER: Court Denies Dismissal of FDCPA Suit
---------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, denied Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
the case captioned CHRISTY McCURDY, Plaintiff, v. GRANT & WEBER,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 17 C 7073 (N.D. Ill.).

The Plaintiff filed this suit, alleging that Grant & Weber, Inc.
(G&W) violated Section 1692e(16) of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act (FDCPA) when it sent the letter to the plaintiff and
stated that it is a Member of Experian. The Plaintiff contends
that, by stating that it is a member of Experian, G&W made a
materially false representation or implication that it operates or
is employed by a consumer reporting agency.

The Plaintiff argues that G&W's use of the phrase Member of
Experian is a violation of Section 1692e(16) of the FDCPA, which
prohibits the use of a debt collector from falsely representing or
implying that a debt collector operates or is employed by a
consumer reporting agency.

The FDCPA broadly prohibits the use of any false, deceptive, or
misleading representation or means in connection with the
collection of any debt.

G&W moves to dismiss, arguing that the letter, when viewed in its
entirety, does not violate the FDCPA because the word member does
not falsely state or give the unsophisticated consumer the
impression that G&W is owned or operated by Experian.

G&W urges the Court to look at the letter as a whole, arguing that
it is clear that the letter was sent from a debt collector, not
Experian or part of Experian. While G&W does identify itself as a
debt collector or collection agency several times in the letter,
G&W also states that it is a Member of Experian. Nowhere in the
letter does G&W clarify or explain what it means to be a Member of
Experian. An unsophisticated consumer could reasonably believe
that, by including the phrase Member of Experian in the letter, G&W
falsely implied that G&W operates or is employed by a consumer
reporting agency, namely Experian. At this stage of the
proceedings, G&W has not shown that not even a significant fraction
of the population would be misled by by the letter and the phrase
Member of Experian.

The Court finds that the plaintiff has plausibly alleged a
violation of the FDCPA.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 13, 2018 Memorandum
Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y938jqes from
Leagle.com.

Christy McCurdy, on behalf of herself and other similarly situated,
Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Finko , Andrew Finko P.C., Celetha
Chatman -- cchatman@communitylawyersgroup.com -- Community Lawyers
Group, Ltd. &Michael Jacob Wood -- mwood@communitylawyersgroup.com
-- Community Lawyers Group, Ltd.

Grant & Weber, Inc., Defendant, represented by David M. Schultz --
dschultz@hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP & Brandon S.
Stein -- bstein@hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP.


GRAY TELEVISION: Clay Massey Suit Alleges Sherman Act Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Clay, Massey & Associates, P.C., on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated v. Gray Television, Inc., Hearst Communications,
Nextstar Media Group, Inc., Tegna Inc., Tribune Media Company, and
Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc., Case No. 1:18-cv-05197 (N.D. Ill.,
July 30, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for violation of
Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

The lawsuit arises from unlawful coordination between advertisement
sales teams of independent local television station owners to
artificially inflate prices of local TV advertisements.

Plaintiff is a law firm located in Mobile, Alabama. During the
Class Period, the Plaintiff purchased advertisement time directly
from one or more of the Defendants or their co- conspirators and
has suffered monetary loss as a result of the antitrust violations
alleged herein.

The Defendants operate broadcasting companies in the United
States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Steven A. Kanner, Esq.
      Michael J. Freed, Esq.
      Robert J. Wozniak, Esq.
      FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
      2201 Waukegan Road, Ste 130
      Bannockburn, IL 60015
      Tel: (224) 632-4500
      E-mail: skanner@fklmlaw.com
              mfreed@fklmlaw.com
              rwozniak@fklmlaw.com

          - and -

      Hollis Salzman, Esq.
      Kellie C. Lerner, Esq.
      Nahid A. Shaikh, Esq.
      ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
      399 Park Avenue, Suite 3600
      New York, NY 10022
      Tel: (212) 980-7400
      E-mail: hsalzman@robinskaplan.com
              klerner@robinskaplan.com
              nshaikh@robinskaplan.com


GUARANTY BANCORP: Parshall Hits Merger Deal, Seeks More Info
------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Parshall, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Guaranty Bancorp, Edward B. Cordes, John M.
Eggemeyer, Keith R. Finger, Stephen D. Joyce, Gail H. Klapper,
Stephen G. Mcconahey, Paul W. Taylor, W. Kirk Wycoff, Suzanne R.
Brennan and Independent Bank Group, Inc., Defendants, Case No.
18-cv-02150 (D. Colo., August 22, 2018), seeks to enjoin defendants
and all persons acting in concert with them from proceeding with,
consummating or closing the acquisition of Guaranty Bancorp by
Independent Bank Group, Inc., rescinding it in the event defendants
consummate the merger, rescissory damages, costs of this action,
including reasonable allowance for plaintiff's attorneys' and
experts' fees and such other and further relief under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Under the merger, Guaranty stockholders will receive 0.45 shares of
Independent common stock for each share of Guaranty common stock
they own.

The complaint asserts that merger documents omitted material
information regarding CVB Financial and Community Bank's financial
projections, as well as the valuation analyses performed by Keefe,
Bruyette & Woods, Inc.  Said disclosure of projected financial
information is material because it provides stockholders with a
basis to project the future financial performance of a company, and
allows stockholders to better understand the financial analyses in
support of its fairness opinion, says the complaint.

Guaranty is a financial services company that operates as the bank
holding company for Guaranty Bank and Trust Company. It provides
comprehensive financial solutions to consumers and small to
medium-sized businesses, loans and depository services, wealth
management solutions, including trust and investment management
services through its subsidiary registered investment advisory
firm. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Karen Cody-Hopkins, Esq.
      CODY-HOPKINS LAW FIRM
      4610 S. Ulster Street
      Denver, CO 80237
      Tel: (303) 221-4666
      Fax: (303) 221-4374
      Email: karen@codyhopkinslaw.com

             - and -

      RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
      300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220
      Wilmington, DE 19801
      Tel: (302) 295-5310

             - and -

      RM LAW, P.C.
      1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
      Berwyn, PA 19312
      Tel: (484) 324-6800


HARVARD UNIV: Judge Urged to Back Asian-American Students' Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Zack Huffman, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that in
a case set to be the nation's next big test on affirmative action,
the Department of Justice urged a federal judge on Aug. 30 to side
with Asian-American students accusing Harvard of discrimination.

"Harvard has failed to carry its demanding burden to show that its
use of race does not inflict unlawful racial discrimination on
Asian Americans," the United States wrote in a 40-page statement of
interest. "To the contrary, the record evidence demonstrates that
Harvard's race-based admissions process significantly disadvantages
Asian-American applicants compared to applicants of other racial
groups -- including both white applicants and applicants from other
racial minority groups."

Harvard is seeking summary judgment in the suit by the group
Students for Fair Admissions Inc., and the American Civil Liberties
Union was quick this morning to criticize the Trump
administration's input.

"In its latest move to dismantle progress in racial equity, the
Department of Justice has inserted itself into the Harvard
University admissions lawsuit, challenging Harvard's consideration
of race as part of a whole-person admissions process," the ALCU
said in a statement. "This argument comes on the heels of the
administration's decision to reverse the Obama-era guidance on
affirmative action."

Several other groups have filed their own briefs in support of
Harvard since the release by the Department of Justice.

The Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund argued that the
university's admissions policies actually benefit Asian-American
applicants. Predicting that removing Harvard's policy would
primarily benefit white students, the fund said that comparing
admissions among all Asians as a monolithic group fails to consider
diversity among Asians.

While Harvard's challengers have cited an expert whose research
purportedly shows a racial bias against Asian Americans in
Harvard's admissions, this study has been labeled illegitimate in
one brief by a group of 15 economics professors and statisticians,
and another coalition of 531 social scientists and scholars on
college.

Students for Fair Admissions brought the underlying suit in 2014,
saying that Harvard discriminates against prospective white and
Asian students by allowing race to be one of several different
factors in admission acceptance.

The DOJ previous filed a notice of interest in the case on April 6,
supporting a motion from SFFA to keep Harvard's admissions
practices and records unsealed when they were submitted evidence.

At the time, the department said that the information would be
useful as part of the department's own investigation into Harvard's
use of race in admissions practice, which began when Attorney
General Jeff Sessions took over in 2017.

"No American should be denied admission to school because of their
race. As a recipient of taxpayer dollars, Harvard has a
responsibility to conduct its admissions policy without racial
discrimination by using meaningful admissions criteria that meet
lawful requirements," Attorney General Sessions in a statement on
Aug. 30. "The Department of Justice has the responsibility to
protect the civil rights of the American people. This case is
significant because the admissions policies at our colleges and
universities are important and must be conducted lawfully."


HCP INC: Bid to Dismiss Firefighters' Pension Fund Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
HCP, 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 parties in the case, Boynton Beach
Firefighters' Pension Fund v. HCP, Inc., et al., are awaiting a
court ruling on the motion to dismiss the complaint.

On May 9, 2016, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
putative class action complaint, Boynton Beach Firefighters'
Pension Fund v. HCP, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-01106-JJH, in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio against
the Company, certain of its officers, HCR ManorCare, Inc.
("HCRMC"), and certain of its officers, asserting violations of the
federal securities laws.

The suit asserts claims under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act")
and alleges that the Company made certain false or misleading
statements relating to the value of and risks concerning its
investment in HCRMC by allegedly failing to disclose that HCRMC had
engaged in billing fraud, as alleged by the U.S. Department of
Justice ("DoJ") in a suit against HCRMC arising from the False
Claims Act that the DoJ voluntarily dismissed with prejudice.

The plaintiff in the class action suit demands compensatory damages
(in an unspecified amount), costs and expenses (including
attorneys' fees and expert fees), and equitable, injunctive, or
other relief as the Court deems just and proper. On November 28,
2017, the Court appointed Societe Generale Securities GmbH (SGSS
Germany) and the City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief Systems
(Birmingham) as Co-Lead Plaintiffs in the class action. The motion
to dismiss was fully briefed on May 21, 2018.

The Company believes the suit to be without merit and intends to
vigorously defend against it.

HCP, Inc. is a fully integrated real estate investment trust (REIT)
that invests in real estate serving the healthcare industry in the
United States. HCP owns a large-scale portfolio primarily
diversified across life science, medical office and senior housing.



HERBALIFE INT'L: Awaits Decision in "Circle of Success" Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Pickett, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
federal judge in Miami may soon decide if a class action lawsuit
against nutritional supplement giant Herbalife will continue to
trial.

U.S. District Judge Marcia Cooke in the Southern District of
Florida was scheduled to preside over a hearing on Wednesday, Aug.
22, on two motions filed by the publicly traded company to change
venue from Florida to California and force the plaintiffs into
arbitration.

Eight former distributors filed the complaint against Herbalife in
September 2017, alleging the company duped them into attending
"Circle of Success" events that cost thousands to attend.

"Herbalife business opportunity participants are told that they
must 'attend every event' if they want to be successful," the
complaint states," and that they must 'qualify for special
treatment at these events by making large monthly purchases of
Herbalife's products."

The complaint details former distributors' unsuccessful efforts to
achieve financial success through the company.

Jeff and Patricia Rodgers say they attended almost every event from
2011-2015 to no avail.

"Yet religious adherence to the Circle of Success did not lead to
financial success for Jeff and Patti Rodgers," the complaint
states. "They didn't quit Herbalife; after years of fruitless toil,
they simply ran out of money to lose."

The couple claims to have lost more than $100,000.

The plaintiffs also named dozens of the top distributors in the
company as defendants.

The plaintiffs claim hundreds of thousands of former distributors
could join the class action and damages could top $1 billion.

Herbalife has been beset by lawsuits for years by some who consider
the multi-level marketing business model a pyramid scheme.

In 2015, the company settled with some distributors for $15 million
over allegations they could not sell their products for a profit
and a restrictive return policy.

A year later, Herbalife settled with the Federal Trade Commission
for $200 million after an investigation into claims the company was
essentially a pyramid scheme (though the FTC never actually used
such language).

The company agreed to several measures as part of the settlement
including a promise to not misrepresent how much income
distributors can make and extending the return policy for the
initial membership shipment.

But the Miami lawsuit contends the FTC's actions left in place the
events, which it called the "most effective fraud in the arsenal of
Herbalife."

In pretrial motions filed with the court, Herbalife attorneys
argued the former distributors signed contracts mandating
arbitration of any disputes. One motion states the agreements
"could hardly be broader."

"They apply to all disputes or claims between Herbalife and the
plaintiffs as well as disputes arising from or relating to
plaintiffs' relationships with other distributors, such as the
individual defendants," according to the motion.

Herbalife, headquartered in Los Angeles, also maintains the lawsuit
should be transferred to California.

Herbalife has 4 million members, according to its website, with net
sales of $4.4 billion in 2017.

The company's communications department did not immediately respond
to a request for comment.


HGC CONSTRUCTION: Sullivan Sues Over ADA Violations
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against HGC Construction Co.
The case is entitled Phillip Sullivan, Jr., on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. HGC Construction Co., Case No.
1:18-cv-07752 (S.D.N.Y., August 24, 2018).

The Plaintiff alleges violations of the Americans with Disabilities
Act.

HGC Construction Co. operates as a construction company.  The
Company offers pre construction, construction management,
designing, building, and historic preservation services. Hgc
Construction serves commercial, health care, recreational, retail,
and religious industries.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HORNBLOWER YACHTS: Faces Diaz Sues Alleging ADA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hornblower Yachts,
Inc.  The case is captioned as Edwin Diaz, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Hornblower Yachts, Inc., Case No.
1:18-cv-07816 (S.D.N.Y., August 27, 2018).

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

Hornblower Yachts, Inc., doing business as Hornblower Cruises &
Events, operates a dining cruise and yacht charter.  The Company
offers services for weddings, corporate outings, gala events, and
family vacations in San Francisco, San Diego, Sacramento, Berkeley,
New York, Marina del Rey, Newport Beach, Long Beach, and Corpus
Christi.  The Company also operates ferry concessioners business to
Alcatraz Island, the Statue of Liberty, and Ellis Island.  The
Company was founded in 1980 and is based in San Francisco,
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HOUSTON, TX: 2 Women to Appeal Dismissal of Rape Kit Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that two women will appeal a federal
judge's recent dismissal of their class-action lawsuit against
Houston and the city's officials over delays in testing rape kits.

The pair are among about 6,000 women and several hundred minors
represented in the 2017 lawsuit who said they were harmed when the
Houston Police Department failed to submit rape kits to a crime lab
for years. A judge ruled the lawsuit was filed too late and didn't
cite any civil rights violations to hold officials responsible.

An attorney for the women, Randall Kallinen, tells the Houston
Chronicle the women's legal claims aren't too late because they
didn't know about issues with their rape kits until police told
them.

The city says private labs eliminated a rape kit backlog in 2013
and 2014. [GN]


HUSKY ENERGY: Faces Class Action Over Asphalt Refinery Blast
------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Kelly, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
class claims in a federal lawsuit that the owners of a northern
Wisconsin asphalt refinery did not take steps to prevent an
explosion in April that forced locals to flee their homes and fear
for their lives.

The complaint -- filed on Aug. 20 in Madison, Wisconsin, federal
court by lead attorney Patricia Bloodgood on behalf of three named
residents -- claims Husky Energy and Superior Refining failed to
exercise routine prudence and take proper maintenance measures
leading up to the explosion in Superior, forcing the plaintiffs and
their families to evacuate the area.

They allege claims of negligence, nuisance, trespass and strict
liability, and seek damages not limited to evacuation-related
expenses, lost wages and interference with property rights.

The April 26 incident involved a series of explosions and a massive
asphalt fire that began around 10 a.m., according to the
complaint.

Debris that flew from the largest explosion, which went up to about
200 feet in the air, punctured an asphalt storage tank, spilling
roughly 15,000 barrels of asphalt into the refinery and starting a
massive fire.

Six injured workers were taken to the hospital, while seven others
were treated at the scene. Local hospitals claimed there were 16
patients in all treated for evacuation-related injuries.

The evacuation zone spanned more than 70 square miles, affecting
over 27,000 Superior-area residents, including the plaintiffs, the
lawsuit states.

They say they were forced to flee their homes and places of work
with their families, having to buy food and other supplies on their
way to safer accommodations. Superior Mayor Jim Paine lifted the
evacuation order the following day.

One Superior resident said the explosion "felt like a bomb," while
a contractor at the Husky Superior Refinery quoted in the complaint
said he was "emotional. I thought I was going to die."

The U.S. Chemical Safety Board arrived on the scene the day of the
explosion. On Aug. 2, after months of interviews with workers and
residents, pouring over documents and analyzing evidence, the CSB
issued a report finding that the cause of the explosion was
equipment failure.

The particular pieces of equipment that reportedly failed were
slide valves in a fluid catalytic cracking unit that are designed
to keep hydrocarbons from mixing with oxygen during the asphalt and
gasoline refining process. Internal wear in at least one of these
slide valves caused a pressure drop. For roughly 25 minutes, the
complaint states, this created conditions that would allow the
oxygen and the hydrocarbons to blend, resulting in a flammable
mixture.

The Husky Superior Refinery, built in 1950, is Wisconsin's only
refinery of gasoline, asphalt and other petroleum products. It has
allegedly been fined in the past for safety violations, including
in 2008 when it paid a $179,000 fine to settle more than 30 federal
safety violations. The refinery was owned by Murphy Oil at that
time. The Alberta, Canada-based Husky Energy bought the refinery
last November.

In January 2015, another Husky Energy refinery exploded in Lima,
Ohio, although no one had to be evacuated, according to the
complaint.

"Despite the January explosion at the Lima refinery, Husky Energy
Inc. continued operations and another fire broke out at the Lima
refinery just eight months later on September 20, 2015. Then, in
January 2018, a large fireball erupted from the Lima refinery,
terrifying residents who were still wary after the past two fires,"
the lawsuit states.

According to Center for Public Integrity numbers cited in the
complaint, up to 180,000 people living in the Superior region could
have been injured or killed if a tank of hydrogen fluoride located
at the refinery had been compromised during the explosion and
subsequent blaze.

The complaint says there continues to be environmental and safety
concerns from the incident: The Environmental Protection Agency is
still trying to recover any residual chemicals, including
firefighting foam, from the local water supply; The U.S. Coast
Guard had to use booms to try and prevent any petroleum or related
contaminants from polluting the waters of nearby Lake Superior;
Toxic chemical compounds from the plume contaminated soil for miles
southeast of the refinery; And a University of Minnesota professor
advised residents not to plant vegetable gardens in backyards near
the refinery.

The complaint says Husky Energy and Superior Refining have
reimbursed some Superior residents for accommodations, food and
transportation costs related to the incident, but many others have
not been paid.

The plaintiffs' attorney and representatives of Husky Energy could
not be reached for comment on Aug. 21.


IDERA PHARMA: Merger-Related Suits Voluntarily Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------
Idera Pharmaceuticals, 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 these cases have been
voluntarily dismissed without prejudice:

     -- Cohen v. Idera Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.,
     -- Klein v. BioCryst Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., and
     -- Lisa Raatz v. Idera Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.

In January 2018, BioCryst Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ:BCRX), and
Idera Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ:IDRA), announced that they have
signed a definitive merger agreement to form a new enterprise
focused on the development and commercialization of medicines to
serve more patients suffering from rare diseases.

In connection with a Merger Agreement, three putative class action
complaints were filed challenging the proposed merger transaction.
On March 6, 2018 plaintiff Melvin Klein filed a lawsuit captioned
Klein v. BioCryst Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 1:18-cv-00358,
against BioCryst, along with the BioCryst board, Idera, Holdco,
Island Merger Sub, Inc. and Boat Merger Sub, Inc. in United States
District Court for the District of Delaware.

On March 14, 2018, plaintiff Lisa Raatz filed a lawsuit captioned
Raatz v. Idera Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 1:18-cv-10485,
against Idera, along with the members of the Idera board, BioCryst,
Holdco, Island Merger Sub, Inc. and Boat Merger Sub, Inc. in United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

On March 22, 2018 plaintiff Ricky Cohen filed a lawsuit captioned
Cohen v. Idera Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 1:18-cv-00428,
against Idera, along with the members of the Idera board in United
States District Court for the District of Delaware.

All three lawsuits allege violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and SEC Rule 14a-9, for
alleged material misstatements or omissions in connection with the
proposed merger transaction.

The complaints included demands for, among other things, an
injunction preventing defendants from closing the proposed merger
transaction absent certain disclosures of information identified in
the complaints.

Following the termination of the Merger Agreement, on July 11, July
20, and July 26, 2018, respectively, the Cohen,  Klein and Raatz
complaints were voluntarily dismissed without prejudice.

Idera Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical
company, focuses on the discovery, development, and
commercialization of oligonucleotide therapeutics for oncology and
rare diseases in the United States. The company was founded in 1989
and is based in Cambridge, Massachusetts.


IMPAC MORTGAGE: Judgment Order in "Timm" Suit Under Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------
Impac Mortgage Holdings, 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 has
taken an appeal from the Judgment Order in the case entitled, Timm,
v. Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc., and intends to seek a stay of the
order requiring the Company to hold a special meeting for the
election of two directors pending the outcome of appeals.

On December 7, 2011, a purported class action was filed in the
Circuit Court of Baltimore City, entitled Timm, v. Impac Mortgage
Holdings, Inc., purportedly on behalf of holders of the Company's
9.375% Series B Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock (Preferred B)
and 9.125% Series C Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock
(Preferred C) who did not tender their stock in connection with the
Company's 2009 completion of its Offer to Purchase and Consent
Solicitation.

The action sought the payment of certain quarterly dividends for
the Preferred B and C holders, the unwinding of the consents, and
reinstatement of all rights under the 2004 Preferred Stock Articles
Supplementary, including the cumulative dividend on the Preferred B
and C stock, and the election of two directors by the Preferred B
and C holders. The action also sought punitive damages and legal
expenses.

On July 16, 2018, the Court entered a Judgement Order whereby it
(1) declared and entered judgment in favor of all defendants on all
claims related to the Preferred C holders and all claims against
all individual defendants thereby affirming the validity of the
2009 amendments to the Series B Articles Supplementary; (2)
declared its interpretation of the voting provision language in the
Preferred B Articles Supplementary to mean that consent of
two-thirds of the Preferred B stockholders was required to approve
the 2009 amendments to the Preferred B Articles Supplementary,
which consent was not obtained, thus rendering the amendments
invalid and leaving the 2004 Preferred B Articles Supplementary in
effect; (3) ordered the Company to hold a special election within
sixty days for the Preferred B stockholders to elect two directors
to the Board of Directors pursuant to the 2004 Preferred B Articles
Supplementary (which Directors will remain on the Company's Board
of Directors until such time as all accumulated dividends on the
Preferred B have been paid or set aside for payment) and, (4)
declared that the Company is required to pay three quarters of
dividends on the Preferred B stock under the 2004 Articles
Supplementary (approximately, $1.2 million, but did not order the
Company to make any payment at this time).

The Court declined to certify any class pending the outcome of
appeals and certified its Judgment Order for immediate appeal.  

The Company has appealed the Judgment Order and intends to seek a
stay of the order requiring the Company to hold a special meeting
for the election of two directors pending the outcome of appeals.

As a result of the Judgement Order, the following terms of
Preferred B are also deemed to be reinstated: 1) unpaid cash
dividends on the Series B at a rate of 9.375% per year will accrue
and be cumulative on a quarterly basis, 2) dividends and
distributions on, and the repurchase of stock ranking junior (such
as the company's common stock) or on parity to the Preferred B are
prohibited (except the dividends in the form of shares of stock)
unless full cumulative dividends on the Preferred B stock have been
paid or set aside for payment, 3) the Company may not redeem less
than all of the outstanding Preferred B stock unless full
cumulative dividends on the Preferred B stock are paid or set aside
for payment, 4) the Company may not, without approval of at least
two thirds of the Preferred B create or authorize any class or
series of capital stock ranking senior to the Preferred B or amend
provisions of the Company's charter so as to materially and
adversely affect the terms of the Preferred B, subject to certain
exceptions, and 5) upon any liquidation, dissolution or winding up
of the Company, the Preferred B are entitled to be paid before any
distribution of assets to the common stock or junior preferred
stock.

Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. operates as an independent
residential mortgage lender in the United States. It operates
through three segments: Mortgage Lending, Real Estate Services, and
Long-Term Mortgage Portfolio. Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. was
founded in 1995 and is headquartered in Irvine, California.


IMPERVA INC: Court Certifies Settlement Class in "Poinsignon" Case
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JULIEN POINSIGNON, on behalf of himself, all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. IMPERVA, INC., a
Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-05653-EMC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Edward M. Chen entered an order:

   1. granting preliminary approval to parties settlement as it
      meets the criteria for preliminary settlement approval;

   2. certifying a settlement class of:

      "all applicants for employment, employees or other agents
      of Defendant Imperva, Inc. in the United States who were
      subject to any background, credit, consumer, or
      investigatory check or report between August 25, 2012 and
      November 3, 2017";

   3. preliminarily approving a revised release language for
      dissemination to Class Members, for purposes of this
      Agreement, the "Released Claims" in the Lawsuit are defined
      as:

      "All claims, demands, rights, liabilities, and causes of
      action of every nature and description whatsoever, whether
      known or unknown, based on the facts or allegations
      asserted in the Complaint or First Amended Complaint or
      that relate to or arise out of the procurement by Defendant
      Imperva, Inc. or its agents of any credit, consumer,
      investigatory, or background report that were or could have
      been asserted in the Lawsuit, including but not limited to
      any and all claims under 15 U.S.C. sections 1681b(b)(2)(A),
      1681d(a)(1), and 1681g(c) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act,
      any analogous state law claims, including but not limited
      to any and all claims under Cal. Civ. Code sections 1785 et
      seq. and 1786 et seq., and any and all claims under Cal.
      Bus. & Prof. Code sections 17200, et seq., or that relate
      to or arise out of the procurement by Defendant Imperva,
      Inc. or its agents of any credit, consumer, investigatory,
      or background report. The newly proposed language is
      highlighted and removed text is shown in strikethrough
      font.";

   4. directing Plaintiff to file a motion for final approval of
      the settlement, and directing Class Counsel to file a
      motion for an award of attorneys' fees, costs, and the
      enhancement award;

   5. appointing Simpluris, Inc. to act as the Settlement
      Administrator;

   6. appointing Julien Poinsignon as Class Representativem
      appointing  Setareh Law Group, Shaun Setareh and H. Scott
      Leviant as Class Counsel;

   7. directing Defendant to provide Settlement Administrator not
      later than 30 days after the date of this order the name,
      most recent known mailing address, and any other
      information required in accordance with the Agreement;

   8. directing Settlement Administrator to mail the approved
      Class Notice by first class mail to the Class Members in
      accordance with the Agreement; and

   9. scheduling final approval hearing on February 7, 2019, at
      1:30 p.m., to determine whether the settlement should be
      granted final approval as fair, reasonable, and adequate as
      to the Class Members.


JC WASHINGTON: Bavaro et al. Seek to Certify Class of Drivers
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled Julia Bavaro, et al., the Plaintiffs, v. JC
Washington Inc.; et al., the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-00982-RCM
(W.D. Pa.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order authorizing
notice of this action to be sent to these individuals:

   "all similarly situated current and former delivery drivers
   employed at the Domino's stores owned, operated, and
   controlled by Defendants, during the three years prior to the
   filing of this Class Action and the date of final judgment in
   this matter who elect to opt-in to the action."

Counsel for Plaintiffs and the putative class:

          Gregory G. Paul, Esq.
          MORGAN PAUL
          100 First Avenue, Suite 1010
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 259-8375
          Facsimile: (888) 822 9421
          E-mail: gregpaul@morgan-paul.com

               - and -

          Andrew Biller, Esq.
          MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC
          www.msdlegal.com
          3825 Edwards Road, Suite 650
          Cincinnati, OH 45209
          Telephone: (513) 651 3700
          Facsimile: (513) 665 0219
          E-mail: abiller@msdlegal.com
                  akimble@msdlegal.com


JERSEY STRONG: Sullivan Files ADA Suit in S.D.N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jersey Strong
Licensing LLC.  The case is captioned as Phillip Sullivan, Jr., on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Jersey
Strong Licensing LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-07753 (S.D.N.Y., August 24,
2018).

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

Jersey Strong Licensing LLC is a domestic limited liability company
in New Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


KANYE WEST: Class Action Lawsuit From Disgruntled Fan Over Tweet
----------------------------------------------------------------
Peter A. Berry, writing for XXL Mag, reports that two years ago
Kanye West tweeted that his The Life of Pablo album would only be
available on Tidal, a streaming platform he helped launch with
Jay-Z the year prior. Now, he could be facing some bizarre legal
consequences as a disgruntled fan who purchased Tidal to access the
album is pursuing a class action lawsuit.

"My album [The Life of Pablo] will never never, never be on Apple,"
Yeezy wrote at the time. "And it will never be for sale....You can
only get it on Tidal."

Whether it was directly caused by 'Ye's tweet or not, Tidal's
membership proceeded to grow from 1,000,000 to 3,000,000 in the
months that followed. One of those new Tidal subscribers was a fan
by the name of Justin Baker-Rhett, who was apparently displeased
when he found that Yeezy's seventh LP ended up on all major
streaming platforms. Rhett was so displeased, in fact, that he
ended up filing a lawsuit against Kanye and Aspiro, which is the
brand that owns Tidal.

For his part, 'Ye and his legal team mounted their defense against
Rhett's lawsuit last summer, claiming that because Yeezy had
altered his album after its release, the original version of the
album had only existed on the streaming platform.

According to The Hollywood Reporter, a judge allowed Rhett to move
forward with his fraudulent inducement case, and now the
disgruntled fan is also pursuing a class action lawsuit against
Kanye and Aspiro.

Rhett's attorneys say that his case falls directly in line with
grounds for class action, which are defined as creating situations
in which a group of people afflicted by the same "injury" brought
on by a "product" or "action" can collectively sue a defendant. In
this case, Kanye and Aspiro are the defendants and the people who
purchased a Tidal membership because they believed that to be the
only way to listen to the The Life of Pablo are the group
experiencing the "injury."

"All persons in the United States who both (1) subscribed to the
Tidal streaming service between February 15, 2016 and April 1,
2016, and (2) streamed any track from The Life of Pablo within the
first 24 hours after initiating his or her subscription," reads
part of Rhett's claim, which attempts to set some measurable
parameters for determining who subscribed to Tidal as a result of
Yeezy's tweet.

Though this could be a viable a case, docs obtained by THR
spotlight the key questions that will determine whether or not a
this Rhett's lawsuit gets a class action certification.

Kanye has yet to comment on the matter. [GN]


KAPSTONE PAPER: Faces Class Action Over WestRock Merger Deal
------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
shareholders say in a federal class action that directors are
selling KapStone Paper and Packaging too cheaply through an unfair
process to WestRock Co./Whiskey Holdco, for $35 a share, or 0.4981
shares of Holdco, in a $4.9 billion deal.




KAPSTONE PAPER: Pill Files Suit Over WestRock Merger Deal
---------------------------------------------------------
David Pill, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Kapstone Paper And Packaging Corporation,
Roger W. Stone, Matthew Kaplan, Robert J. Bahash, John M. Chapman,
Paula H. J. Cholmondeley, Jonathan R. Furer, David G. Gabriel,
Brian R. Gamache, Matthew H. Paull, Maurice S. Reznik and David P.
Storch, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-01290, (D. Del., August 22,
2018), seeks to enjoin defendants and all persons acting in concert
with them from proceeding with, consummating or closing the
acquisition of KapStone Paper and Packaging Corporation by WestRock
Company through its wholly owned subsidiary, Whiskey Holdco, Inc.,
rescinding it in the event defendants consummate the merger,
rescissory damages, costs of this action, including reasonable
allowance for plaintiff's attorneys' and experts' fees and such
other and further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

WestRock will acquire all of the outstanding shares of KapStone for
$35.00 per share and will assume approximately $1.36 billion in net
debt, for a total enterprise value of approximately $4.9
billion.

The complaint says merger documents omitted material information
regarding CVB Financial and Community Bank's financial projections,
as well as the valuation analyses performed by Rothschild & Co. and
Moelis and Company LLC. Said disclosure of projected financial
information is material because it provides stockholders with a
basis to project the future financial performance of a company, and
allows stockholders to better understand the financial analyses in
support of its fairness opinion, it adds.

KapStone produces containerboard, corrugated products and specialty
paper. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
      Brian D. Long, Esq.
      Gina M. Serra, Esq.
      Jeremy J. Riley, Esq.
      RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
      2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
      Wilmington, DE 19803
      Tel: (302) 295-531
      Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
      Email: bdl@rl-legal.com
             gms@rl-legal.com

             - and -

      Carl L. Stine, Esq.
      Fei-Lu Qian, Esq.
      WOLF POPPER LLP
      845 Third Avenue
      New York, NY 10022
      Tel: (212) 759-4600
      Fax: (212) 486-2093
      Email: cstine@wolfpopper.com
             fqian@wolfpopper.com


KNORR-BREMSE AG: Employee's Anti-trust Row Transferred to W.D. Pa.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Janis McNeal, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. Knorr-Bremse AG, Knorr
Brake Company LLC, New York Air Brake LLC, Bendix Commercial
Vehicle Systems LLC, Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies
Corporation, Faiveley Transport North America Inc., Railroad
Controls L.P., Richard Bowie and Does 1-20, Defendant, Case No.
18-cv-01667 (D. Md., June 6, 2018), was transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on August
20, 2018, under Case No. 18-cv-01087.

Plaintiffs seeks to recover damages and obtain injunctive relief
for injuries caused under Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

Defendants and their related subsidiaries are rail equipment used
in freight and passenger rail applications suppliers who are
alleged of restraining competition in the labor markets in which
they compete for employees. Defendants are each other's top
competitors for rail equipment, including for skilled employees.
However, rather than compete to attract the best employees by
offering more attractive salary and benefits packages to
prospective job seekers, they instead conspired to enter into a
series of agreements intended to circumvent competition for
employees and suppress wages and job opportunities, thus
suppressing compensation and potential new job opportunities and
restraining competition in the market for their employees'
services, notes the complaint.

Janis McNeal worked for Defendant Knorr Brake from April 2014 to
October 2016 and held the position of Document Control
Coordinator.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alicia Leigh Shelton, Esq.
      Cyril Vincent Smith, III, Esq.
      ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP
      100 E Pratt St Ste 2400
      Baltimore, MD 21202
      Tel: (410) 332-0444
      Fax: (410) 659-0436
      Email: ashelton@zuckerman.com
             csmith@zuckerman.com

             - and -

      Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq.
      Kimberly Justice, Esq.
      Zachary Arbitman, Esq.
      KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
      280 King of Prussia Road
      Radnor, PA 19087
      Tel: (610) 667-7706
      Fax: (610) 667-7056
      Email: jmeltzer@ktmc.com
             kjustice@ktmc.com
             zarbitman@ktmc.com

Defendants are represented by:

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


KNORR-BREMSE: Fricia Suit over No-Poach Deal Moved to Pennsylvania
------------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled KNORR-BREMSE AG; KNORR BRAKE
COMPANY LLC; NEW YORK AIR BRAKE LLC; WESTINGHOUSE AIR BRAKE
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; FAIVELEY TRANSPORT S.A.; FAIVELEY
TRANSPORT NORTH AMERICA INC.; and DOES 1-20, Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-01674, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania (Pittsburgh) on Aug. 16, 2018. The Western
District of Pennsylvania Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:18-cv-01093-JFC to the proceeding. The Case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Joy Flowers Conti.

According to the complaint, without the knowledge or consent of
their employees, Defendants and senior executives at these
companies entered into express agreements to eliminate or reduce
competition among them for skilled labor. This conspiracy consists
of at least three agreements -- between Wabtec and Knorr Brake,
between Knorr Brake and Faiveley North America, and between Wabtec
and Faiveley North America -- that each company would not hire or
attempt to hire employees from the other company without prior
consent from that company.

The intended and actual effect of this Conspiracy is to suppress
employee compensation, and to impose unlawful restrictions on
employee mobility. During the relevant period, Knorr, Wabtec, and
Faiveley were the three largest rail equipment suppliers in the
world and often each other's direct competitors. Their employees
possessed skills that were particularly valuable to each other, and
so their no-poach agreements were an effective means of reducing
competition for employees and suppressing employee pay below
competitive levels. The Defendants' Conspiracy restrained trade and
is per se unlawful under federal law. The Plaintiff seeks
injunctive relief and damages for violations of Section 1 of the
Sherman Act.

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

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

Attorneys for KNORR-BREMSE AG; KNORR BRAKE COMPANY LLC; and NEW
YORK AIR BRAKE LLC:

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


KPMG LLP: Must Face Class Action Over Shoddy Miller Energy Audit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Bramwell, writing for goingconcern, reports that a federal
judge in Tennessee on Aug. 2 declined to throw out a securities
class-action lawsuit against KPMG, in which investors are accusing
the Big 4 firm of screwing up the audit of now-defunct oil and gas
company Miller Energy Resources Inc.

In Lewis Cosby et al. v. KPMG L.L.P., the investors say they got
duped when Miller Energy overstated the value of its oil and gas
interests in Alaska. The lawsuit also condemns Miller Energy and
its auditors of using "a plethora of false statements, fraudulent
accounting, and other fraudulent reporting devices to falsify the
financial results of Miller Energy, conspiring to perpetrate a
massive fraud on plaintiff and others in member of the investing
public."

The investors claim that KPMG violated Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 by making material
misrepresentations in relation to the sale or purchase of
securities. And they argue that KPMG's review of Miller Energy's
quarterly financial statements were not in compliance with GAAP,
GAAS, and Public Company Accounting Oversight Board standards.

As Caleb mentioned last August, Miller Energy bought a bunch of
land in Alaska in late 2009 for next to nothing (well, roughly
$4.25 million) and then told investors that it was worth $480
million.

KPMG was hired by Miller Energy in 2011 and issued an unqualified
audit report despite the value of the Alaskan assets being grossly
overstated, according to the Securities and Exchange Commission:

KPMG and the engagement partner John Riordan failed to properly
assess the risks associated with accepting Miller Energy as a
client and did not properly staff the audit, which overlooked the
overvaluation of certain oil and gas interests that the company had
purchased in Alaska the previous year. Among other audit failures,
KPMG and Riordan did not adequately consider and address facts
known to them that should have raised serious doubts about the
company's valuation, and they failed to detect that certain fixed
assets were double-counted in the company's valuation.

KPMG settled SEC charges for $6.2 million on Aug. 15, 2017, due to
its shoddy Miller Energy audit. Riordan also settled charges
against him, agreeing to a $25,000 fine and a suspension to
practice before the SEC. KPMG did not admit or deny any
wrongdoing.

In his Aug. 2 ruling, Judge Thomas Varlan of the U.S. District
Court Eastern District of Tennessee said after KPMG was hired by
Miller Energy in 2011, it failed to complete an independent audit
but instead relied on previous reports and defended the valuation
of the assets:

Even after a report from TheStreetSweepers questioned the valuation
of Miller Energy's assets, defendant represented to shareholders
that the valuation was accurate and that the article was
inaccurate.

The 2011 blog from The Street Sweeper, which was published on the
financial markets news website Seeking Alpha, was skeptical of the
value of assets that Miller Energy purchased in late 2009. At the
time, Miller Energy said the assets were valued at more than $327
million, but The Street Sweeper quoted an energy executive who
estimated the assets were worth "only $25 million to $30 million
and were offset by $40 million worth of liabilities," according to
an article by the Knoxville News Sentinel.

The judge also said that the investors "adequately alleged that
defendant's conduct was an 'egregious refusal to see the obvious,
or to investigate the doubtful.'"

In a statement emailed to Going Concern, Steven Toll, a managing
partner at law firm Cohen Milstein, who represents the investors in
the case, said:

"We are very pleased by Chief Judge Varlan's opinion as he ruled
upon some very important issues affecting auditor liability.
Specifically, he ruled that we had alleged sufficient facts to give
rise of a strong inference of 'scienter,' which involves showing
knowledge or recklessness by the defendant. The court also found
that we had adequately pled loss causation, that is a causal link
between the investors' loss and the alleged misrepresentation.
Finally, the court rejected their effort to dismiss the case on
statute of limitations ground, upheld our argument that the claims
related back to the original complaint, and denied KPMG's argument
that the Section 11 claim was barred by the statute of repose.
Thus, it was a very good ruling for the investors in this case."

KPMG has yet to respond to a request for comment. [GN]


LA LOCHE: Shooting Victim Considers Class-Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
Taylor MacPherson, writing for 650 CKOM, reports that a teacher who
was blinded in a school shooting in La Loche says she's considering
a lawsuit after receiving what she called inadequate compensation
for her pain and suffering.

Charlene Klyne was shot with a shotgun during the shooting at the
Dene High School in La Loche on Jan. 22, 2016. The then-17-year-old
shooter killed brothers Dayne and Drayden Fontaine at their home
before killing a teacher and teaching assistant at the school and
injuring seven other people.

The shooter has since pleaded guilty to four counts of first-degree
murder and seven counts of attempted murder, and was handed a life
sentence.

On August 22, Saskatchewan Ombudsman Mary McFadyen announced she
had completed her investigation into the supports Klyne was
provided after the shooting and declined to make any
recommendations to the Workers' Compensation Board or Ministry of
Justice.

"Through no fault of her own, Ms. Klyne was badly injured at work
in a horrific event," McFadyen said in a statement.

"We looked at the government agencies within our jurisdiction and
found they provided her the supports that were within their
authority to provide."

The benefits provided to Klyne did not include compensation for
pain and suffering, the obmudsman's statement noted.

Klyne said she has spoken with a lawyer about a potential lawsuit
together with other victims of the shooting. Although no statement
of claim has been filed with the courts at this stage, Klyne said
she has every intention of proceeding.

"I'm going forward with this class-action," she said. "Ninety per
cent of the victims are on board as far as I know."

Klyne, who now lives in Saskatoon, said she feels she was not
properly supported after the shooting. Although she received funds
through the Workers' Compensation Board, she said money is still
very tight and her expenses have increased substantially.

"They help, but I don't think they help enough," she said.

Klyne said her husband has also been unable to work since the
shooting, and the couple supports a 34-year-old son with special
needs and a 21-year-old son who is attending university.

She is still awaiting a cornea transplant, she said, and has
numerous shotgun pellets still lodged inside her body which cause
her to suffer from speech difficulties and other issues.

Klyne would not say who she intends to name as defendants in the
lawsuit, but said it would likely be multiple groups.[GN]


LABORATORY CORP: Mendez ADA Suit Filed in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings is facing a class action
lawsuit in New York.  The case is titled Himelda Mendez, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated v. Laboratory
Corporation of America Holdings doing business as: Labcorp, Case
No. 1:18-cv-07733 (S.D.N.Y., August 24, 2018).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violations of the Americans
with Disabilities Act.

Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings operates as an
independent clinical laboratory company worldwide.  The Company
operates through two segments, LabCorp Diagnostics and Covance Drug
Development.  The Company offers a range of clinical laboratory
tests, such as blood chemistry analyses, urinalyses, blood cell
counts, thyroid tests, Pap tests, hemoglobin A1C, prostate-specific
antigen, tests for sexually-transmitted diseases, hepatitis C
tests, vitamin D, microbiology cultures and procedures, and alcohol
and other substance-abuse tests that are used by hospitals,
physicians and other healthcare providers and commercial clients to
assist in the diagnosis, monitoring and treatment of diseases.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LAFAYETTE STEEL: Court Conditionally Certifies Collective Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JUAN GALINDO, individually and on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
LAFAYETTE STEEL ERECTOR, INC. d/b/a LSE CRANE AND TRANSPORTATION,
the Defendant, Case No. 7:18-cv-00069-DC (W.D. Tex.), the Hon.
Judge David Counts entered an order on August 20, 2018:

   1. conditionally certifying case as a collective action;

   2. No later than 10 days from the date of this Order,
      directing Defendant to provide to Class Counsel in Excel
      (.xlsx) format the following information regarding all
      Putative Class Members: full name; last known mailing
      address(es) with city, state, and Zip Code; all known
      personal email address(es); all known cell phone number(s);
      beginning date(s) of employment; and ending date(s) of
      employment (if applicable);

   3. approving the form and content of the Notice of Collective
      Action and Consent Form as well as the expedited issuance
      of the Text Message Notice, and disseminating Notice in
      accordance with the parties' stipulation;

   4. within 30 days of receiving the contact information for all
      Putative Class Members, directing Class Counsel to send a
      copy of the Court-approved Notice and Consent Form to the
      Putative Class Members by First Class U.S. Mail and
      electronic mail;

   5. within three days of the initial mailing and emailing
      of the Notice of Collective Action, directing Class Counsel
      to file an Advisory with the Court indicating the date of
      delivery of the Notice of Collective Action and Consent
      Form.

   6. directing the Putative Class Members to have 60 days from
      the initial mailing and emailing of Notice and Consent
      Forms to Potential Class Members to return their signed
      Consent forms to Class Counsel for filing with the Court.

   7. directing Class Counsel to deactivate the dedicated website
      for notice by the end of the same 60 day Notice Period date
      and directing counsel to file an Advisory with the Court.

   8. approving terms and conditions agreed to by the parties in
      their Stipulation, to the extent not otherwise
      inconsistent with this Order,;

   9. approving and adopting the parties' Stipulation, and
      rendering Plaintiff's Motion for Expedited Conditional
      Certification of Collective Action and Judicially-
      Supervised Notice Under Section 216(b) and Brief in Support
      as moot.


LAVECCHIA SURFACE: Rivera Action Seeks Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------
Richard Rivera and Richard Rivera, Jr. on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Lavecchia Surface
Preparation Corp., Robert Lavecchia, Frank Lavecchia and Debra
Lavecchia, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-04703 (E.D. N.Y., August 20,
2018), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage, unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest and
attorneys' fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act and unpaid
spread of hours premium and statutory damages for failure to
provide required wage and hour law notices pursuant to New York
Labor Laws and the New York State Wage Theft Prevention Act.

Lavecchia Surface Preparation is in the business of surface
preparation, providing flooring to commercial clients and repairing
concrete floors in large commercial buildings.

Plaintiffs' work involved picking up and dropping off materials,
operating floor scrapers to prepare floors for concrete
installation, installing concrete floors and polishing, maintaining
and repairing concrete floors. [BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Mohammed Gangat, Esq.
      675 3rd Avenue, Suite 1810
      New York, NY
      Tel: (718) 669-0714
      Email: mgangat@gangatllc.com


LIFECARE MISSOURI: McCulley Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Marsha McCulley on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Lifecare Missouri, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 18-CV-01387 (E.D. Mo., August 21, 2018), seeks to recover
overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their
regular rates of pay for the hours they worked over 40 each
workweek in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Missouri Minimum Wage Laws.

Defendant is a home health care business where McCulley was
employed as a home health aide. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ryan M. Furniss, Esq.
      222 S. Central Avenue, Suite 1004
      Saint Louis, MO 63105
      Tel: (314) 899-9101
      Fax: (314) 627-5891
      Email: rfurniss@furnisslaw.com

             - and -

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


LLR INC: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in Webster et al. Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned RACHAEL WEBSTER, LAUREN PORSCH, HOLLY
LEDERER, SARA GATES, DONNA NEWMAN, CHRISTINE PROKOP, LORRAINE
SNODGRASS, ALISON WHITEHEAD, MELISSA HILL, MAUREEN MCGUINNESS and
AMANDA CLOSE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. LLR, INC., d/b/a LuLaRoe, the
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00225-DSC (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge
David Stewart Cercone entered an order:

   1. denying a motion to strike;

   2. directing Defendant to amend its answer and affirmative
      defenses within 14 days of the date of this Order;

   3. denying Plaintiffs' motion to certify class; and

   4. directing Plaintiffs to show cause why the action should
      not be dismissed after 21 days of the date of this Order,
      and directing Defendant to respond 14 days thereafter.

The Court explained that the Plaintiffs have failed to meet their
burden of demonstrating predominance of common questions or law or
and that a class action is superior to other available methods for
fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy as required by
Fed.R.Civ.Proc. Rule 23(b)(3). The Court, therefore, will deny
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. With such denial, no
federal issues remain in this case. The Court may, sua sponte,
consider whether it has jurisdiction, personal and/or subject
matter, over the named plaintiffs and the remaining state claims.
See 28 U.S.C. section 1447(c) ("If at any time before final
judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded."); FED. R. CIV. P.
12(h)(3) ("If the court determines at any time that it lacks
subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.").
In this instance, the Court will give the remaining Plaintiffs 21
days to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for lack
of jurisdiction.


LOGMEIN INC: Gainey McKenna Files Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against LogMeIn, Inc. ("LogMeIn" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: LOGM) in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on behalf of a class consisting of investors
who purchased or otherwise acquired LogMeIn securities on the open
market from March 1, 2017 and July 26, 2018, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), seeking to recover compensable damages caused by
Defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On February 1, 2017, LogMeIn announced that it had completed its
merger with the GoTo business of Citrix Systems, Inc.

On July 26, 2018, LogMeIn reported quarterly financial and
operational results for the second quarter of fiscal 2018 and
reduced its financial guidance for fiscal 2018.  During a follow up
conference call, management disclosed that LogMeIn's performance
during the quarter failed to meet expectations in part due to the
"combination of imperfect execution and some hangover effects of
last year's merger with the GoTo business led to disappointing
renewal rates."  Following this disclosure, shares of the Company's
stock declined $26.60 per share, or over 25% in value, to close on
July 27, 2018 at $77.85.

The Complaint alleges that Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements during the Class Period and failed to
disclose to investors that LogMeIn's business practices had
negatively impacted renewal rates for certain services it provides.
The Complaint further alleges that investors purchased LogMeIn's
securities at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period
and sustained significant investment losses.

Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares during the
Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the October 19, 2018
lead plaintiff motion deadline.  A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.  If you wish to discuss your rights or
interests regarding this class action, please;

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


MAVENIR INC: Wayne Retirement System Balks at Merger Deal
---------------------------------------------------------
WAYNE COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, on behalf of itself and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MAVENIR, INC.
F/K/A XURA, INC., PHILIPPE TARTAVULL, HENRY R. NOTHHAFT, SUSAN D.
BOWICK, JAMES BUDGE, NICCOLO DE MASI, MATTHEW A. DRAPKIN, DORON
INBAR, and MARK C. TERRELL, the Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-01229-UNA (D. Del., Aug. 10, 2018), alleges that the
Defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act by providing false and misleading proxy materials in
relation to a merger transaction.

According to the complaint, the class action arises from a
transaction announced on May 23, 2016, pursuant to which Xura, Inc.
was acquired by Sierra Private Holdings II Ltd. through its wholly
owned subsidiary, Sierra Private Merger Sub Inc., both of which are
affiliates of Siris Capital Group, LLC. The action is brought on
behalf of all Xura shareholders of record as of July 11, 2016, the
record date for Xura shareholders to be eligible to vote on the
Merger. The claims asserted are alleged against Xura, Xura's former
President and Chief Executive Officer, as well as a director,
Philippe Tartavull and the remaining members of Xura's Board of
Directors for their violations of Sections 14(a) and/or 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On May 23, 2016, Xura's Board of Directors caused Xura to enter
into an agreement and plan of merger. Pursuant to the terms of the
Merger Agreement, stockholders of Xura received $25.00 per share in
cash. The Merger was approved by a shareholder vote on August 16,
2016 and closed on August 19, 2016. Prior the shareholder vote,
Defendants issued a Preliminary Proxy Statement on June 28, 2016, a
Final Proxy Statement on July 12, 2016, and on July 26, 2016, a
supplemental Proxy Statement, all filed with the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Merger.
The Proxy and Supplemental Proxy contained materially incomplete
and misleading disclosures. The Proxy and Supplemental Proxy are
deficient and misleading in that they fail to provide adequate
disclosure of all material information related to the Merger.

In particular, the Proxy failed to disclose:

     (a) material communications between Tartavull and Siris,
including ones in which Tartavull discussed certain merger terms
without authorization by the Board or the Board subcommittee that
had been formally provided with extensive authority with respect to
consideration of the Merger, the Strategic Committee, and
undermined Xura's negotiating leverage,

     (b) the fact that the Strategic Committee played no meaningful
role in the process that led to the Merger, contrary to the
representations in the Proxy,

     (c) the fact that Siris and Tartavull repeatedly cut the
Board's financial advisor, Goldman Sachs, out of the loop of the
Merger negotiations, notwithstanding the role the Proxy claimed
Goldman played in that process,

     (d) the fact that Xura imposed conditions on an interested
bidder that all relevant participants in the process acting on
behalf of the Company knew were unreasonable and unnecessary,
leading it to further participation in the bidding, and

     (e) the fact that, while the Proxy emphasized purported
contacts to prospective buyers and claimed that none expressed an
interest in buying Xura, another potential bidder had in fact
expressed such interest to Tartavull but somehow learned that Siris
was Xura’s counterparty, notwithstanding provisions of the
non-disclosure agreement signed by Siris and Xura barring such
disclosure, and instead of making a bid reached out to Siris
seeking a role as a co-investor.

The Supplemental Proxy emphasized that Xura and Siris had "not
reached any agreements about the continuing employment of the
executive officers of the Company". This was a misleading
representation as regardless of whether there had been any formal
negotiations as to Tartavull's employment after the Merger, it was
always clear that Siris' intent had been for Tartavull to continue
in his role as CEO of the post-merger company. As a result of these
material misrepresentations and omissions, Xura shareholders were
misled into accepting consideration from the Merger that was well
below fair value for their Xura shares.

Mavenir is a technology company headquartered in Richardson, Texas,
in the United States.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Ned Weinberger, Esq.
          Thomas Curry, Esq.
          Christopher J. Keller, Esq.
          Eric J. Belfi, Esq.
          Ira A. Schochet, Esq.
          Francis P. McConville
          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 907 0700
          Facsimile: (212) 818 0477


MBG TAVERNS: Underpays Cooks & Sous-Chefs, Morales & Cortes Claim
-----------------------------------------------------------------
OMAR BAUTISTA MORALES, and JOSE LUIS YANEZ CORTES, individually and
on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MBG TAVERNS
INC D/B/A THE STOREHOUSE; MICHAEL GRALTON; and BERNARD GRALTON,
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-06431 (S.D.N.Y., July 17, 2018) is an
action against the Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime
hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods.

The Plaintiff Bautista Morales was employed by the Defendants as a
cook from February 2014 to June 10, 2018.

The Plaintiff Yanez Cortes was employed by the Defendants as a
sous-chef from January 2014 to February 28, 2018.

MBG Taverns Inc d/b/a The Storehouse is a corporation organized
under the laws of the State of New York. The Company own and
operates a sports bar. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MCCORMICK & SCHMICK: Morris Sues Over Illegal Tip Pool
------------------------------------------------------
Candace Morris on her own behalf and on behalf of other similarly
situated persons, Plaintiff, v. McCormick & Schmick Restaurant
Corp. and Landry's, Inc., Case No. 18-cv-00094 (M.D. N.C., August
20, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, and related
penalties and damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff currently works as a server for Defendants' restaurant
business located at 448 West 47th Street, Kansas City, MO 64112.
Morris claims to have participated in an illegal tip pool thus
rendering her pay below minimum wage rates. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     John J. Ziegelmeyer III, Esq.
     HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP
     1501 Westport Road
     Kansas City, MO 64111
     Tel: (816) 875-3332
     Email: jziegelmeyer@hkm.com
     Website: www.hkm.com

            - and -

     Eric L. Dirks, Esq.
     John F. Doyle, Esq.
     WILLIAMS DIRKS DAMERON LLC
     1100 Main Street, Suite 2600
     Kansas City, MO 64105
     Tel: (816) 945-7165
     Email: dirks@williamsdirks.com
            jdoyle@williamsdirks.com

            - and -

     Michael Hodgson, Esq.
     THE HODGSON LAW FIRM, LLC
     3699 SW Pryor Rd.
     Lee's Summit, MO 64082
     Tel: (816) 600-0117
     Email: mike@thehodgsonlawfirm.com


MDL 2709: Class Certification Sought in Dollar General Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In re: DOLLAR GENERAL CORP. MOTOR OIL MARKETING AND
SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION with Master Case No. 16-02709-MD-W-GAF,
the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order certifying these 26
lawsuits as class actions:

     Case No. 4:16-cv-00105-GAF;
     Case No. 4:16-cv-00517-GAF;
     Case No. 4:16-cv-00518-GAF;
     Case No. 4:16-cv-00519-GAF;
     Case No. 4:16-cv-00520-GAF;
     Case No. 4:16-cv-00521-GAF;
     Case No. 4:16-cv-00522-GAF;
     Case No. 4:16-cv-00523-GAF;
     Case No. 4:16-cv-00524-GAF;
     Case No. 4:16-cv-00525-GAF;
     Case No. 4:16-cv-00526-GAF;
     Case No. 4:16-cv-00528-GAF;
     Case No. 4:16-cv-00529-GAF;
     Case No. 4:16-cv-00530-GAF;
     Case No. 4:16-cv-00531-GAF;
     Case No. 4:16-cv-00532-GAF;
     Case No. 4:16-cv-00533-GAF;
     Case No. 4:16-cv-00534-GAF;
     Case No. 4:16-cv-00606-GAF;
     Case No. 4:16-cv-00607-GAF;
     Case No. 4:16-cv-00868-GAF;
     Case No. 4:16-md-02709-GAF;
     Case No. 4:17-cv-00413-GAF;
     Case No. 4:17-cv-00584-GAF;
     Case No. 4:17-cv-00831-GAF; and
     Case No. 4:17-cv-00832-GAF.

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Kenneth B. McClain, Esq.
          Kenneth B. McClain, Esq.
          Kevin D. Stanley, Esq.
          Colin W. McClain, Esq.
          J'Nan C. Kimak, Esq.
          Andrew K. Smith, Esq.
          HUMPHREY FARRINGTON & MCCLAIN, P.C.
          221 West Lexington, Suite 400
          Independence, MO 64050
          Telephone: (816) 836 5050
          Facsimile: (816) 836 8966
          E-mail: kbm@hfmlegal.com
                  kds@hfmlegal.com
                  cwm@hfmlegal.com
                  jck@hfmlegal.com
                  aks@hfmlegal.com

               - and -

          Allan Kanner, Esq.
          Cynthia St. Amant, Esq.
          KANNER & WHITELEY, LLC
          701 Camp Street
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 524 5777
          Facsimile: (504) 524 5763
          E-mail: a.kanner@kanner-law.com
                  c.stamant@kanner-law.com


MDL 2785: Court Narrows Claims in EpiPen Antitrust Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Kansas granted
in part and denied in part Myland Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the
case captioned IN RE: EpiPen (Epinephrine Injection, USP)
Marketing, Sales Practices and Antitrust Litigation. This Document
Applies to Consumer Class Cases. MDL No. 2785, Case No.
17-md-2785-DDC-TJJ (D. Kan.).

The EpiPen is a disposable, prefilled automatic injection device
that delivers epinephrine also known as adrenaline to treat severe
allergic reactions known as anaphylaxis. Anaphylaxis is a
life-threatening allergic reaction that can occur rapidly after
exposure to an allergen.

Anaphylaxis manifests in a variety of symptoms, including swelling
of the tongue and throat, vomiting, reduced blood pressure,
difficulty breathing, and, if untreated, death. The Class Complaint
alleges that the Mylan and Pfizer Defendants have maintained a
monopoly over the EpiPen market and its profitable revenues by
devising an illegal scheme to monopolize the market for EAI
devices. The Class Complaint asserts that defendants carried out
their illegal scheme through several different avenues.

The Class Complaint asserts nine claims against the Mylan
Defendants: (1) Sherman Act Sections 1 and 2 violations (Count I);
(2) Clayton Act Section 3 violations (Count II); (3) conspiracy
violating state antitrust statutes (Count III); (4) monopolization
violating state antitrust statutes (Count IV); (5) attempted
monopolization violating state antitrust statutes (Count V); (6)
tying violating state antitrust statutes (Count VI); (7) RICO Act
violations (Count VII); (8) violation of state consumer protection
laws (Count VIII); and (9) unjust enrichment (Count IX).

The Class Complaint asserts just Counts I-V and VII jointly against
the Mylan and Pfizer Defendants.

Antitrust Claims

The Defendants assert eight different arguments why the class
plaintiffs' factual allegations never state a plausible antitrust
claim under either federal or state law.  

Have the class plaintiffs alleged a plausible tying claim based on
the EpiPen 2-Pak?

The court recognizes that the class plaintiffs have alleged a tying
relationship based on two products that are functionally identical.
The Mylan Defendants assert that the two products thus are
interchangeable. For example, a patient could use either one of the
two EpiPens in a 2-Pak as the primary device and the other one as
the back-up device. The Mylan Defendants thus argue that it is not
plausible that the primary EAI device and backup EAI device belong
to separate markets.

Indeed, the Tenth Circuit has defined the "relevant product market
in any given case as one composed of products that have reasonable
interchangeability for the purposes for which they are produced
price, use and qualities considered."  Although the two products
here have the same qualities, the Class Complaint defines how
patients use them in a functional sense as two separate products. A
patient uses one EpiPen as the primary EAI device and the other as
the back-up device.

The parties do not cite, and the court's research has not revealed,
any tying cases involving identical products with different and
distinct uses what the class plaintiffs allege here. The Mylan
Defendants cite two cases where courts refused to find two separate
products to support a tying claim, but those cases involved
preliminary injunction motions where the factual record failed to
demonstrate the existence of two separate product markets.  

In contrast here, the Class Complaint asserts facts that plausibly
allege two separate product markets one for EAI primary devices and
the other for back-up devices. These allegations are sufficient to
state a claim at this stage of the litigation. Ultimately, to
prevail on their tying claim, the class plaintiffs must adduce
admissible evidence to support a reasonable finding that two
separate product markets exist. But, to survive the Motions to
Dismiss, plaintiffs need only make plausible factual allegations of
two different product markets. They have satisfied that
requirement.

Have the class plaintiffs alleged plausible exclusive dealing
claims based on Mylan's exclusive dealing contracts with PBMs and
schools?

The class plaintiffs assert that the Class Complaint plausibly
alleges facts capable of supporting a finding or inference of
substantial market foreclosure. The Class Complaint alleges that
Mylan's exclusionary contracts with PBMs prevented competitors from
accessing formularies covering more than 50% of the PBM market in
the U.S. Also, the Class Complaint alleges that Mylan created a
substantial, additional need for EpiPens by adding school districts
to the market for EAI devices.

More than 67,000 school districts now purchase EpiPens, and the
districts usually are bulk purchasers.  For example, the public
schools in Fairfax County, Virginia, order about 1,100 EpiPen
2-Paks annually to have them on hand for their 180,000 students.
The Class Complaint also alleges that Mylan gained another
advantage by opening up the school market -- gaining access to
nursing staff and creating familiarity with the EpiPen among
parents.  

Although these allegations never assert definitively that the
EpiPen4Schools program's exclusionary contracts foreclosed a
substantial share of the market, the court declines to conclude at
the motion to dismiss stage that these facts fail to plead adequate
foreclosure. Indeed, our court has recognized that Tampa Electric
provides a number of other factors which may be relevant to a rule
of reason analysis in an exclusive dealing claim and thus it has
refused to decide at the pleading stage that plaintiff had failed
to plead adequate foreclosure levels to state an exclusive dealing
claim.   

The court comes to the same conclusion here. To determine whether
the EpiPen4Schools program's exclusionary contracts foreclosed a
substantial share of the market, the court must weigh the various
factors outlined in Tampa Electric. The court cannot engage in such
an analysis at the pleading stage. Instead, the court considers the
Class Complaint's allegations in the light most favorable to the
class plaintiffs. And it concludes that the class plaintiffs
plausibly have alleged facts supporting a finding or inference that
the probable effect of Mylan's exclusionary contracts in the
EpiPen4Schools program substantially foreclosed competition. The
court thus concludes that the class plaintiffs have stated a
plausible exclusive dealing claim based on Mylan's EpiPen4Schools
program.

Have the class plaintiffs alleged causation to support their
antitrust claims based on the patent litigation settlements?

The Class Complaint alleges that Mylan created a substantial,
additional need for EpiPens by adding school districts to the
market for EAI devices. More than 67,000 school districts now
purchase EpiPens, and the districts usually are bulk purchasers.
The Class Complaint also alleges that Mylan gained another
advantage by opening up the school market gaining access to nursing
staff and creating familiarity with the EpiPen among parents.  

Although these allegations never assert definitively that the
EpiPen4Schools program's exclusionary contracts foreclosed a
substantial share of the market, the court declines to conclude at
the motion to dismiss stage that these facts fail to plead adequate
foreclosure. Indeed, our court has recognized that Tampa Electric
Co. v. Nashville Coal Co., 365 U.S. 320, 327 (1961), provides a
number of other factors which may be relevant to a rule of reason
analysis in an exclusive dealing claim, and thus it has refused to
decide at the pleading stage that plaintiff had failed to plead
adequate foreclosure levels" to state an exclusive dealing claim.


The court comes to the same conclusion here. To determine whether
the EpiPen4Schools program's exclusionary contracts foreclosed a
substantial share of the market, the court must weigh the various
factors outlined in Tampa Electric. The court cannot engage in such
an analysis at the pleading stage. Instead, the court considers the
Class Complaint's allegations in the light most favorable to the
class plaintiffs. And it concludes that the class plaintiffs
plausibly have alleged facts supporting a finding or inference that
the probable effect of Mylan's exclusionary contracts in the
EpiPen4Schools program substantially foreclosed competition. The
court thus concludes that the class plaintiffs have stated a
plausible exclusive dealing claim based on Mylan's EpiPen4Schools
program.

Have the class plaintiffs alleged causation to support their
antitrust claims based on the patent litigation settlements?

Recently, the Massachusetts federal district court denied summary
judgment against an antitrust claim based on a reverse payment
settlement. Analyzing the causation issue, that court noted, the
Supreme Court has explained that it is normally not necessary to
litigate patent validity to answer the antitrust question unless,
perhaps, to determine whether the patent litigation is a sham
because an unexplained large reverse payment itself would normally
suggest that the patentee has some serious doubts about the
patent's survival. The Massachusetts court thus concluded that, on
summary judgment, the standard requiring Plaintiffs to produce
`some evidence' of invalidity or non-infringement does not require
Plaintiffs `to prove that the generic defendant would have won,
only that it could have.

Applying that reasoning here,7 the class plaintiffs need not allege
that Teva would have prevailed in the patent litigation it merely
needs to allege that it could have. The Class Complaint's
allegations assert plausibly that Teva could have prevailed in the
patent litigation if the parties has not resolved the case through
an alleged reverse payment settlement. These allegations thus
sufficiently assert that Pfizer's patents did not bar a generic
competitor from entering the market. And the class plaintiffs have
stated a plausible antitrust claim based on the alleged unlawful
reverse payment settlements.  

Have the class plaintiffs alleged a plausible conspiracy between
Mylan and Pfizer?

Here, the Class Complaint alleges parallel conduct by asserting,
plausibly, that both the Mylan and Pfizer Defendants participated
in a scheme to secure invalid EpiPen patents, initiate patent
infringement litigation, and then settle those lawsuits with
reverse payment settlements. The court also concludes that the
Class Complaint, construed in the class plaintiffs' favor, alleges
sufficient "plus factors" and thus allows one to infer plausibly
that an actionable agreement existed. The class plaintiffs allege
facts supporting a plausible inference that defendants were
motivated to enter an agreement to exclude competitors from
entering the EAI market. The class plaintiffs also allege that
defendants worked together to effectuate this scheme by securing
patents, litigating patent infringement lawsuits, and entering into
reverse payment settlements.

The court recognizes that each of these allegations of
circumstantial agreement standing alone may not be sufficient to
imply agreement but taken together, they provide a sufficient basis
to plausibly contextualize the agreement necessary for pleading a
Section 1 claim.

The Defendants argue that the Class Complaint asserts no
allegations supporting at least one of the plus factors, that
defendants acted against their own economic interest. The
Defendants assert that the Class Complaint alleges that the Mylan
and Pfizer Defendants had a unified interest in protecting the
EpiPen monopoly and worked collaboratively to enhance the product's
sales volume and profitability. According to defendants, these
allegations allow only an inference of lawful parallel
conduct—not an unlawful agreement. But the class plaintiffs
respond that the Class Complaint alleges that Pfizer also
participates in the EAI market through its generic division
Greenstone's distribution of the Adrenaclick generic EAI. So, the
class plaintiffs contend, Pfizer was able to control a portion of
the small amount of the EpiPen's competition. From these
allegations, one could reasonably infer that Pfizer acted against
its own interests by conspiring with Mylan to exclude EpiPen
competition competition that includes the generic Adrenaclick that
Pfizer also distributes through its Greenstone division.

The court thus concludes that the Class Complaint sufficiently
alleges facts capable of supporting a finding or inference of
requisite plus factors. Combined with defendants' alleged parallel
business behavior, they state a plausible antitrust claim. The
court thus denies defendants' Motions to Dismiss on this basis.

Have the class plaintiffs alleged a viable antitrust claim based on
the reverse patent litigation settlements?

Although the class plaintiffs cannot provide the precise terms of
the Sandoz agreement without the benefit of discovery, one
plausibly can infer from Sandoz's actions that it received
significant consideration in exchange for its actions, i.e.,
agreeing to stay its ANDA application for its generic product.
Indeed, one also could infer the opposite conclusion that Sandoz
agreed to stay its ANDA application because it considered the
patent infringement claims valid and appreciated the risk that it
would lose the patent infringement litigation. But, at the pleading
stage, the court cannot make that determination. Instead, the court
must consider the facts alleged in the class plaintiffs' favor and
draw reasonable inferences from them.

Applying that standard here, the court concludes that the class
plaintiffs have asserted a plausible antitrust claim based on their
allegations that the Sandoz settlement involved an unlawful reverse
payment settlement.

Have the class plaintiffs stated a plausible antitrust claim based
on the FDA Citizen Petition?

The Class Complaint also alleges that Mylan waited just weeks
before the FDA was required to respond to the ANDA to supplement
its Citizen Petition by submitting a study. The Class Complaint
asserts that this study had numerous flaws that demonstrate that
Mylan was not acting in good faith by submitting it to the FDA. The
Class Complaint identifies specific flaws: the study lacked a
control group; it did not use the actual generic device, but a
prototype; it used a small number of participants; the researchers
failed to provide proper instructions to the study's participants
for using the prototype; and the researchers told the participants
to watch a video instead of actually use the prototype.

The Mylan Defendants respond with various arguments attacking these
allegations. They explain the legitimacy of the filings' timing,
the doctor's medical statement, the payments the doctor received
noting that the doctor received payments from other pharmaceutical
companies, including Teva, and the supplemental study. But these
arguments present disputed fact issues that the court cannot decide
at the pleading stage. On a motion to dismiss, the court considers
the allegations in the class plaintiffs' favor and concludes they
sufficiently allege that Mylan's FDA Citizen Petition was
objectively baseless.    

The court also finds that the Class Complaint plausibly alleges
that Mylan used the process of filing the FDA Citizen Petition not
the outcome of that proceeding to restrain competition. The Class
Complaint repeatedly alleges that Mylan used the FDA Citizen
Petition process as a means to delay Teva's market entry. These
allegations suffice to state an antirust claim based on Mylan's
Citizen Petition that falls within the sham exception to the
Noerr-Pennington doctrine.

Have the class plaintiffs alleged a plausible antitrust claim based
on allegedly misleading statements?

The Mylan Defendants contend that the class plaintiffs' allegations
fail to assert that Mylan's allegedly deceptive statements were
clearly false, as the first factor of the six-factor test requires.
The court disagrees. One plausibly can infer from the Class
Complaint's allegations that Mylan's statements about Auvi-Q were
clearly false. Although the Class Complaint does not use those
precise words, it calls the statements misinformation and so
misleading that they ensured that physicians would think that the
EpiPen was the only realistic choice for their patients. Of course,
to prevail on their speech-based claims, the class plaintiffs must
come forward with evidence showing that these alleged statements
produced anticompetitive effects in violation of the antitrust
laws. But, at the pleading stage, the court applies Ayerst's
rationale and concludes that the class plaintiffs should be allowed
to go forward with the discovery process to substantiate their
claim" that Mylan's allegedly deceptive speech violated the
antitrust laws. Ayerst Labs., 850 F.2d at 917.

Also, following Ayerst, the court need not decide whether the Class
Complaint alleges facts capable of supporting each factor before it
could overtake the de minimis presumption. The Ayerst plaintiff did
not satisfy such an obligation at the pleading stage. The court
finds persuasive Ayerst's conclusion that these factors require
factual development through the discovery process.

Here, the court cannot evaluate several of the factors adequately
without the facts that discovery may or may not produce. So, the
court denies the motion to dismiss the class plaintiffs' deceptive
speech claim at the pleading stage.  

Have the class plaintiffs stated plausible claims for relief under
state antitrust laws?
The class plaintiffs cite only one case where a federal court has
permitted antitrust claims asserted under the Tennessee Trade
Practices Act to survive a motion to dismiss. Asacol Antitrust
Litig., No. 15-12730-DJC, 2016 WL 4083333, at *15 (D. Mass. July
20, 2016). The Asacolcourt relied on two Tennessee cases allowing
antitrust claims to proceed under the Act. But, as Asacol
recognized, the two Tennessee cases never addressed whether the
statute permits claims based on unilateral conduct. The court is
not persuaded by Asacol's reasoning, at least not as applied to the
unilateral conduct claimed here. Instead, it finds persuasive the
federal district court cases cited above. These cases considered
the plain language of the Tennessee statute, specifically addressed
whether it applies to unilateral conduct, and determined that it
does not reach such claims.

For this reason, the court dismisses the class plaintiffs'
Tennessee antitrust claims based on unilateral conduct, as asserted
in Counts IV, V, and VI.

RICO Claim

The court now considers whether the class plaintiffs have asserted
a plausible RICO claim against defendants. Subsection 1962(c) of
RICO makes it:

unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any
enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect,
interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly
or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise's affairs through
a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt.

RICO Enterprise

The Class Complaint describes how the RICO Defendants and PBM
Conspirators advanced the goals of the EpiPen Pricing Enterprise
allegedly by affirmatively misrepresent[ing] or conceal[ing] the
existence of the inflated and fraudulent nature of these list price
increases as well as the existence, amount, and purpose of the
discounts given to the PBM Conspirators to Plaintiffs, the Classes,
consumers, health care payers, and the general public.

The Defendants characterize these allegations as a commercial
negotiation, where the parties have their own independent business
interests and one party demands higher rebates and lower prices
from the other. And, they contend, to recognize a RICO enterprise
here would be tantamount to holding that negotiating strategies by
PBMs, insurers, state Medicaid agencies, and other healthcare
payors throughout the U.S. amount to organized criminal conduct
which obviously cannot be, and is not, the law. Perhaps a
factfinder would accredit defendants' characterization of these
interactions. But it might not, and the court cannot accept
defendants' characterization of the allegations at the pleading
stage. Instead, when one accepts the allegations as true and views
them in the class plaintiffs' favor, one reasonably can infer that
the PBMs' alleged conduct amounted to far more than a commercial
negotiation. Instead, the Class Complaint alleges that the PBMs
formed relationships with defendants sufficient to plead a
plausible RICO enterprise.
And finally, the Class Complaint alleges an enterprise with
longevity sufficient to permit the associates to pursue the
enterprise's purpose. The class plaintiffs assert that, beginning
at least on January 1, 2009, to the present, the associates have
engaged in various activities to pursue the enterprise's purpose.
The Class Complaint plausibly pleads a RICO enterprise.

Conducted the Affairs of a RICO Enterprise

The Class Complaint alleges that the Mylan Defendants committed
various acts as part of a scheme to defraud the public about the
EpiPen's pricing, the medical necessity, quality, and
characteristics of the EpiPen, and the EpiPen 2-Pak. And the Class
Complaint alleges that the Mylan and Pfizer Defendants, working
together, participated in various conduct designed to stifle
generic competition, e.g., filing patent infringement lawsuits and
then resolving those lawsuits through unlawful reverse payment
settlements. These alleged facts permit a reasonable inference that
both the Mylan and Pfizer Defendants played some part even a bit
part in conducting the enterprise's affairs. And these allegations
suffice to support a plausible RICO claim.

RICO Causation

The class plaintiffs are suing to recover for their own injuries as
EpiPen consumers or third-party payors from having to pay the
inflated prices for the EpiPen.  And one plausibly can infer from
the Class Complaint that the class plaintiffs' alleged injuries
were a foreseeable and natural consequence of defendants' scheme to
defraud the public about the EpiPen's price.  The court finds the
class plaintiffs' allegations sufficient to allege RICO causation.

RICO Conspiracy

Subsection 1962(d) makes it unlawful for any person to conspire to
violate subsection 1962(c). . Defendants assert that the Class
Complaint fails to state a plausible RICO claim under Section
1962(c), and so, it also fails to state a plausible RICO conspiracy
claim under Section 1962(d). For reasons already explained, the
court rejects defendants' arguments that the Class Complaint fails
to state a RICO conspiracy claim under Section 1962(c). Instead,
the court concludes that the class plaintiffs have alleged a
plausible RICO claim under Section 1962(c) sufficient to survive
Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal. The class plaintiffs also allege that
defendants violated Section 1962(d) by conspiring to violate
Section 1962(c). The class plaintiffs thus have stated a plausible
claim for RICO conspiracy.

Mylan Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Consolidated Class
Action Complaint  is granted in part and denied in part as set
forth in this Order.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 20, 2018 Memorandum
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y86ync2n from
Leagle.com.

All Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs, represented by Lynn Lincoln Sarko ,
Keller Rohrback, LLC, Paul J. Geller -- Pgeller@kellerrohrback.com
-- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP, Rex A. Sharp --
rsharp@midwest-law.com -- Rex A. Sharp, PA, Ryan C. Hudson --
rhudson@midwest-law.com -- Rex A. Sharp, PA & Warren T. Burns --
wburns@burnscharest.com -- Burns Charest, LLP.

Consumer Class Cases Plaintiffs, (For Filings as to All Consumer
Class Cases Plaintiffs), Plaintiffs, represented by Alison
Elizabeth Chase -- achase@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback,
LLP, Arthur L. Shingler, III -- ashingler@rgrd.com -- Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP, Brian O. O'Mara -- bomara@rgrdlaw.com --
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Daniel E. Gustafson --
dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com -- Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Daniel C.
Hedlund -- dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com -- Gustafson Gluek PLLC,
Eric Fierro -- efierro@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback LLP,
Joseph C. Bourne -- jbourne@gustafsongluek.com -- Gustafson Gluek
PLLC, Lynn Lincoln Sarko -- lsarko@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller
Rohrback, LLC, Mahde Youssef Abdallah -- mya@miller.law.com -- The
Miller Law Firm, PC, Rex A. Sharp , Rex A. Sharp, PA, Ryan C.
Hudson , Rex A. Sharp, PA, Ryan McDevitt --
rmcdevitt@kellerohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback, LLC, Sharon S.
Almonrode -- ssa@miller.law.com -- The Miller Law Firm, PC, pro hac
vice, Stuart A. Davidson -- sdavidson@kellerrohrback.com -- Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP, Tanya Korkhov --
tkorkhov@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback, LLP & William L.
Kalas -- WK@miller.law.com -- The Miller Law Firm, PC.

Mylan N.V., Defendant, represented by Adam K. Levin --
adam.levin@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US LLP, pro hac vice,
Benjamin Frederick Holt -- benjamin.holt@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan
Lovells US LLP, Brian C. Fries -- bfries@lathropgage.com -- Lathrop
Gage LLP, Brian R. Richichi -- brian.richichi@hoganlovells.com --
Hogan Lovells US LLP, Carolyn Anne DeLone --
carrie.delone@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US LLP, Chad E.
Blomberg -- cblombe@lathropgage.com -- Lathrop Gage, LLP,
Christopher D. Edelman , Hogan Lovells US LLP, Daniel Thomas Graham
-- dgraham@clarkhill.com -- Clark Hill, PLC, pro hac vice, David M.
Foster -- david.foster@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US LLP,
pro hac vice, James Moloney -- jmaloney@lathropgage.com -- Lathrop
Gage LLP, Jon Myer Talotta -- jon.talotta@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan
Lovells US LLP, Justin Bernick ,Kathryn M. Ali , Hogan Lovells US
LLP, pro hac vice, Sue Lin -- tony.lin@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan
Lovells US LLP, Timothy Robert Herman -- therman@clarkhill.com --
Clark Hill, PLC, pro hac vice & Yuri Fuchs --
yuri.fuchs@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US, LLP.


MEDNAX INC: Faces Securities Suit over Anesthesiology Business
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mednax, 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 against a
securities class action suit related to the company's
anesthesiology business.

On July 10, 2018, a securities class action lawsuit was filed
against the company and certain of its officers and a director in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Case
No. 0:18-cv-61572-WPD) that purports to state a claim for alleged
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and
Rule 10b-5 thereunder, based on statements made by the defendants
primarily concerning the company's anesthesiology business.

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

Mednax, Inc. said, "We believe this lawsuit to be without merit and
intend to vigorously defend against it. The lawsuit is in the very
early stages and, at this time, no assessment can be made as to its
likely outcome or whether the outcome will be material to us."

Mednax, Inc. together with its subsidiaries, provides newborn,
anesthesia, maternal-fetal, radiology, pediatric cardiology, and
other pediatric subspecialties physician services in the United
States and Puerto Rico. The company was founded in 1979 and is
based in Sunrise, Florida.


MERCEDES BENZ: Faces Class Action Over 590 Mars Red Paint Defect
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
Mercedes Benz owner claims in a federal class action that vehicles
painted with 590 Mars red have "a serious defect that causes the
exterior surface of the vehicles to microblister, peel, and
bubble."





MID-AMERICA TAPING: Vega's Bid to Certify Class Denied as Moot
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned Javier Vega, et al., the Plaintiffs, v.
Mid−America Taping & Reeling, Inc., et al., the Defendant, Case
No. 1:16-cv-08158 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Thomas M. Durkin
entered an order denying Plaintiffs' motions to certify class as
moot.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on August 20, 2018,
the Court entered an order on June 12 explaining that Plaintiffs
had failed to show they had Article III standing to bring their
case. The Court granted Plaintiffs an opportunity to amend their
complaint by July 3, 2018. Plaintiffs then sought an extension
until July 17, 2018 to file their amended complaint, which the
Court granted. The Plaintiffs have now failed to file their amended
complaint or seek another extension. Plaintiffs' case is dismissed
for failure to allege Article III standing. Plaintiffs' motions to
certify class are denied as moot.


MINNESOTA: Class-Action Suit Over Civil Commitment Program
----------------------------------------------------------
ABC 5 Eyewitness News reports that a long-running class action over
the constitutionally of Minnesota's civil commitment program for
sex offenders has come to an end.

U.S. District Judge Donovan Frank ugust 23 the final remaining
claims.

He cited a decision by the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which
overturned his earlier declaration that the program was
unconstitutional because few people had ever been released from it.
The U.S. Supreme Court then declined to hear the case.

The dismissed claims dealt mostly with allegations of other rights
violations, which had been put on hold.

The judge said he stands by his conclusions that some of the facts
revealed during the trial are shocking to the conscience. And he
urges the public and all stakeholders to carefully consider the
complex issued raised by the case.[GN]


MONTGOMERY, NY: Class & Subclasses Certified in Hill & Rogers Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned PERRY HILL and JAMES ROGERS, both
individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated,
the Plaintiffs, v. COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY, MICHAEL AMATO, and MICHAEL
FRANKO, the Defendants, Case No. 9:14-cv-00933-BKS-DJS (N.D.N.Y.),
the Hon. Judge Brenda K. Sannes entered an order on August 20,
2018:

   1. granting Plaintiffs' motion for class certification as
      to a liability class under Fed.R.Civ.Proc. Rules 23(b)(3)
      and (c)(4) and certifying following Primary Class and
      Sub-Classes:

      Primary Class:

      "all detainees who have been or will be placed into the
      custody of the Montgomery County Jail and were detained for
      at least two consecutive weeks. The class period commences
      on July 24, 2011, and extends to the date on which
      Montgomery County is enjoined from, or otherwise ceases,
      enforcing its policy, practice and custom of refusing to
      provide an appropriate amount of nutritional sustenance to
      all detainees admitted to the Montgomery County Jail.
      Specifically excluded from the class are Defendant and any
      and all of its respective affiliates, legal representatives,
      heirs, successors, employees or assignees.

      Pre-Trial Detainee Sub-Class:

      "all members of the Primary Class but who were housed as a
      Pre-Trial Detainee, in that they had not yet been convicted
      of their charges"; and

      Post-Trial Detainee Sub-Class:

      "all members of the Primary Class, but who were housed as a
      Post-Trial Detainee, in that they had been convicted of
      their charges, either by a plea or jury trial";

   2. appointing Perry Hill and James Rogers as class
      representatives; and

   3. appointing Plaintiffs' attorneys of record as class
      counsel.

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Elmer Robert Keach, III, Esq.
          Maria K. Dyson, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ELMER ROBERT KEACH, III, P.C.
          One Pine West Plaza, Suite 109
          Albany, NY 12205

               - and -

          Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
          Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
          MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
          412 H Street N.E., Suite 302
          Washington, DC 20002

Attorneys for Defendants:

          Jonathan M. Bernstein, Esq.
          GOLDBERG SEGALLA LLP
          8 Southwoods Boulevard, Suite 300
          Albany, NY 12211


MORRIS FARMERS: Castellon Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------
Maria Castellon, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated v. Morris Farmers Market, LLC, Case No. 2:18-cv-12186 (D.
N.J., July 30, 2018), is brought against the Defendant for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Jersey Wage
Payment Law.

The Plaintiff Maria Castellon is a resident of Morris County, New
Jersey. In or about April 2017, the Defendant hired the Plaintiff
as a floor associate. The Plaintiff's job duties included
organizing produce and conducting inventory.

The Defendant, Morris Farmers Market, LLC, is a New Jersey limited
liability company which has a principal place of business at 30
Lafayette Avenue, Morristown, Morris County, New Jersey.  [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Graham F. Baird, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF ERIC A. SHORE, P.C.
      Two Penn Center 1500 JFK Blvd., Ste 1240
      Philadelphia, PA 19110
      Tel: (267) 546-0131
      Fax: (215) 944-6124
      E-mail: grahamb@ericshore.com


NANTKWEST INC: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Ruling in "Sudunagunta"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants NantKwest, Inc., et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit titled Sunil Sudunagunta, et al. v.
NantKwest, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-01947-MWF-JEM, in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Los
Angeles.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks to recover damages caused by the Defendants' alleged
violations of the federal securities laws, and to pursue remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements regarding the Company's business,
operational and compliance policies.  Specifically, the Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: NantKwest's financial statements contained errors related to
stock-based awards to the Company's Chief Executive Officer and
Executive Chairman defendant Patrick Soon-Shiong; NantKwest's
financial statements contained errors related to build-to-suit
lease accounting related to one of the Company's research and
development and good manufacturing practices facilities; the
Company lacked effective internal financial controls; and as a
result of the foregoing, NantKwest's public statements were
materially false and misleading.

The appellate case is captioned as Sunil Sudunagunta, et al. v.
NantKwest, Inc., et al., Case No. 18-80101, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Respondent SUNIL SUDUNAGUNTA, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, is represented by:

          Patrick M. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          Omar Jafri, Esq.
          Joshua B. Silverman, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          10 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3505
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 377-1181
          E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com
                  ojafri@pomlaw.com
                  jbsilverman@pomlaw.com

Plaintiff-Respondents DONALD HU, Lead Plaintiff; and BRAYTON LI,
Lead Plaintiff, are represented by:

          Robert Vincent Prongay, Esq.
          Kevin F. Ruf, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          E-mail: rprongay@glancylaw.com
                  kruf@glancylaw.com

Defendants-Petitioners NANTKWEST, INC., PATRICK SOON-SHIONG,
RICHARD GOMBERG, BARRY J. SIMON, STEVE GORLIN, MICHAEL D. BLASZYK,
HENRY JI, RICHARD KUSSEROW, JOHN T. POTTS, Jr., ROBERT ROSEN and
JOHN C. THOMAS, Jr., are represented by:

          Boris Feldman, Esq.
          WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, PC
          650 Page Mill Road
          Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
          Telephone: (650) 493-9300
          E-mail: boris.feldman@wsgr.com

               - and -

          Gideon A. Schor, Esq.
          WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, PC
          1301 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 999-5800
          E-mail: gschor@wsgr.com


NATURA MIRACLES: Miller Sues Over Illegal SMS Ad Blasts
-------------------------------------------------------
Dana Miller, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Natura Miracles Inc., Defendant, Case No.
18-CV-61987, (S.D. Fla., August 22, 2018), seeks injunctive relief
to halt illegally sent SMS blasts, statutory damages and any other
available legal or equitable remedies resulting from violations of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Natura is a research, development, production and marketing company
for natural health and wellness products and it uses text messages
as a means of marketing its business and promoting sales events to
potential customers. These unsolicited text messages cause invasion
of privacy, aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on seclusion,
trespass and conversion, the complaint asserts. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NEVRO CORP: Saxena White Files Securities Fraud Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Saxena White P.A. has filed a securities fraud class action lawsuit
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California against Nevro Corp. ("Nevro" or the "Company")
(NYSE:NVRO) on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise
acquired the common stock of the Company between January 8, 2018
and July 12, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period").

Nevro is a global medical device company focused on providing
treatment for patients suffering from debilitating chronic pain.
Nevro's primary products are its Senza spinal cord stimulation
systems, neuromodulation devices that deliver the Company's HF10
therapy.

The Complaint asserts claims for violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. The Complaint alleges that, throughout the
Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements,
as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and the proprietary nature of the
Company's principal products.

Specifically, Defendants allegedly made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) that Nevro had
engaged in a fraudulent scheme by using protected confidential and
proprietary trade secrets and stolen documents from its competitors
to develop and enhance the Company's Senza systems; (2) that as a
result, the Company's Senza systems were not "novel" or
"proprietary;" (3) that these practices caused the Company to be
vulnerable to increased litigation expenses and adverse legal and
regulatory action; (4) that, as a result, Nevro's U.S. sales growth
was not sustainable; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' statements about Nevro's business, operations, and
prospects, were materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis.

You may obtain a copy of the Complaint and join the class action at
www.saxenawhite.com.

If you purchased Nevro shares between January 8, 2018 and July 12,
2018, you may contact Lester Hooker (lhooker@saxenawhite.com) at
Saxena White P.A. to discuss your rights and interests.

If you purchased Nevro stock during the Class Period of January 8,
2018 through July 12, 2018 and wish to apply to be the lead
plaintiff in this action, a motion on your behalf must be filed
with the Court by no later than October 22, 2018. You may contact
Saxena White P.A. to discuss your rights regarding the appointment
of lead plaintiff and your interest in the class action. Please
note that you may also retain counsel of your choice and need not
take any action at this time to be a class member.

         Lester R. Hooker, Esq.
         Saxena White P.A.
         150 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 600
         Boca Raton, FL 33432
         Telephone: (561) 206-6708
         Fax: (866) 290-1291
         Email: lhooker@saxenawhite.com [GN]


NEW ORLEANS REGIONAL: Jones et al. Seek to Certify Employees Class
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled BILL JONES, ET AL., the PLAINTIFF, v. NEW
ORLEANS REGIONAL PHYSICIAN HOSPITAL ORGANIZATION, INC., the
DEFENDANTS, Case No. 2:17-cv-08817-JCZ-DEK (E.D. La.), Bill Jones,
Jennifer Branch and Laura Romero ask the Court for an order:

   1. conditionally certifying this action as a collective action
      on behalf of:

      "all individuals employed by New Orleans Regional Physician
      Hospital Organization, Inc. at any point from September 8,
      2014, to the present in the Network Development or Pharmacy
      Operations Departments and held the positions of Ancillary
      Contracting Specialist, Contracting Specialist, Contracting
      Specialist – Hospitals, Operations Specialist, Pharmacy
      Part D Specialist, Physician Contracting Specialist,
      Project Coordinator, Provider Relations Representatives,
      Regulatory Specialist, Senior Contracting Specialist, and
      Senior Provider Relations Representative, and worked
      overtime for which he/she was not compensated";

   3. ordering Defendant to produce, within 15 days of the
      Court's granting of conditional certification, in
      electronic form, the full names, last known address,
      telephone numbers, including cell phone numbers, and e-mail
      addresses of all current or former employees who were
      employed by New Orleans Regional Physician Hospital
      Organization, Inc. at any point from June 3, 2015 to the
      present in the Network Development or Pharmacy Operations
      Divisions and held the positions of Ancillary Contracting
      Representative, Ancillary Contracting Specialist,
      Contracting Specialist, Contracting Specialist - Hospitals,
      Hospital Contracting Representative, Lead Contract Auditor,
      Operations Specialist, Pharmacy Part D Specialist,
      Physician Contracting Specialist, Project Coordinator,
      Provider Affiliate Specialist, Provider Relations
      Representatives, Regulatory Specialist, Senior Contracting
      Specialist, Senior Hospital Contracting Representative, and
      Senior Provider Relations Representative;

   4. authorizing Plaintiffs to send notice along with a consent
      to opt-in form to the members of the putative collective
      via regular mail, and email;

   5. authorizing Plaintiffs to send notice to the members of the
      putative collective via text message as follows:

      "If you worked for PHN in its Network Development or
      Pharmacy Departments at any time since June 3, 2015, as an
      exempt employee, you may be entitled to join a lawsuit
      claiming unpaid overtime pay. For additional information
      about the case, including how to join, please call the
      employees' attorney at 985-590-5026 or 985-898-6368";

   6. directing Defendant to post notice in Defendant's Metairie
      Office in a location easily visible to current employees;

   7. directing that all collection members shall return to the
      third party administrator or Plaintiff's counsel a fully
      executed consent to opt-in form within 60 days of the date
      in which notice is mailed to members of the collective, and
      that any opt-ins who seek to join the action after that
      deadline must establish good cause for their delay; and

   8. directing the parties to file a joint motion to approve a
      third party administrator with the Court within 14 days of
      the order conditionally certifying the collective action.

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Chad A. Danenhower, Esq.
          DANENHOWER LAW FIRM, LLC
          212 Park Place
          Covington, La 70433
          Telephone: (985) 590 5026
          E-mail: chad.danenhower@danenhowerlaw.com

               - and -

          Dale E. Williams, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DALE E. WILLIAMS
          212 Park Place
          Covington, LA 70433
          Telephone: (985) 898 6368
          E-mail: dale@daleslaw.com


NIELSEN HOLDINGS: Pomerantz Law Files Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Nielsen Holdings plc ("Nielsen" or the "Company") (NYSE:
NLSN) and certain of its officers and directors.  The class action,
filed in United States District Court, Southern District of New
York, and docketed under index 18-cv-07677, is on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or
otherwise acquired the common stock of Nielsen Holdings plc
("Nielsen" or the "Company") between February 8, 2018 and July 25,
2018, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), against Nielsen
and certain of its officers and/or directors for violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), including the
Company's Chief Executive Officer ("CEO") and Executive Chairman of
the Board of Directors, Dwight Mitchell Barns ("Barns"), and Chief
Financial Officer ("CFO"), Jamere Jackson ("Jackson").

If you are a shareholder who purchased or acquired common shares of
Nielsen between February 8, 2018, and July 25, 2018, both dates
inclusive, you have until October 9, 2018, to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.   To discuss
this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW),
toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of
shares purchased.

Nielsen describes itself as a leading global performance management
company providing its clients a comprehensive understanding of what
consumers watch and what they buy and how those choices intersect.
The Company divides its business client offerings into two major
offering groups, including its "Buy" offering group of products and
services and its "Watch" offering segments of products and
services. The Company provides critical media and marketing
information, analytics, and manufacturer and retailer expertise
about what and where consumers buy ("Buy") and what consumers read,
"Watch" and listen to (consumer interaction across the television,
radio, print, online, digital, mobile viewing and listening
platforms).

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Nielsen recklessly disregarded
its readiness for and the true risks of privacy-related regulations
and policies, including the European General Data Protection
Regulation ("GDPR"), on its current and future financial and growth
prospects; (ii) Nielsen's financial performance was far more
dependent on Facebook and other third-party large data set
providers than previously disclosed and privacy policy changes
affected the scope and terms of access Nielsen would have to
third-party data; (iii) access to Facebook and other third-party
provider data was becoming increasingly restricted for Nielsen and
Nielsen clients; and (iv) as a result, Nielsen's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On July 26, 2018, Nielsen shocked investors as it published its
financial results for second quarter 2018 announcing that it had
missed revenue and earnings targets and was relieving its forecast
of $800 million free cash flow for 2018, that the GDPR was
affecting partners and clients, and that CEO Barns would retire at
the end of 2018.  July 26, 2018, second quarter 2018 press release
also issued sharp revisions to EBITDA margin growth, a $0.56
reduction of projected net income and a $250 million reduction free
cash flow guidance, which was sharply below guidance issued in
April 2018 after the first quarter 2018 financial results.

As a result of these alarming disclosures and significant reduction
in the Company's outlook for free cash flow, Nielsen's stock price
declined more than 25% from a close of $29.57 per share on July 25,
2018 to a close of $22.11 per share on July 26, 2018, on a massive
volume of 38 million shares traded.

         Robert S. Willoughby, Esq.
         Pomerantz LLP
         Telephone: 888-476-6529 ext. 9980
         Email: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com [GN]


NIGHTGALLERIE LLC: Hanna Hits Missed Breaks, Unpaid OT, Paystubs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rosalie Hanna, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Nightgallerie, LLC, Deborah Jackman (a/k/a
Deborah Lynn Jackson) and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. CG-8-569095 (Cal. Super., August 22, 2018), seeks redress
for failure to provide meal and rest breaks, or provide
compensation for such, as required by California Labor Code and
applicable Wage Orders; for illegal deductions from gratuities
owed; for failure to timely pay employees for all hours worked all
wages owed at termination of employment; for failure to pay
overtime wages; for failure to maintain and provide accurate wage
statements; and and for illegally sharing employees' fingerprints
with a third party.

Defendants operate as Mezzanine SF Nightclub in San Francisco,
California where Hanna worked as an hourly-paid bartender. She
tendered her resignation on October 24, 2017. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robin G. Workman, Esq.
      Rachel Davey, Esq.
      WORKMAN LAW FIRM, PC
      177 Post Street, Suite 800
      San Francisco, CA 94108
      Telephone: (415) 782-3660
      Facsimile: (415) 788-1028
      Email: robin@workmanlawpc.com
             rachel@workmanlawpc.com


P.F. CHANG'S: Motion for Conditional Certification Granted in Part
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JACQUELINE ESRY, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, PLAINTIFF, v. P.F. CHANG'S CHINA
BISTRO, INC., d/b/a P.F. CHANG'S CHINA BISTRO, the DEFENDANT, Case
No. 4:18-cv-00156-JLH (E.D. Ark.), the Hon. Judge J. Leon Holmes
entered an order on August 13, 2018, granting in part and denying
in part Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification.

The Court explained that on the issue of whether Esry is similarly
situated to other employees, the only evidence that Esry submits is
her own declaration. Esry describes her work and the work of other
servers, but she says nothing about tipped employees other than
servers, such as bartenders. Furthermore, she claims no specific
knowledge about servers in locations other than in Little Rock,
except to say that she was informed by the defendant that the
hourly rate of $2.63 was paid to all servers employed by the
defendant.

P.F. Chang's has submitted evidence that there is no company-wide
policy or practice that servers will spend any particular amount of
time or percentage of time on non-tipped work. According to
evidence submitted by P.F. Chang's, the amount of time that tipped
employees spend on non-tipped work varies from location to location
because busier restaurants tend to use more bussers to clear and
set tables and to bring dirty dishes to the kitchen than do the
slower restaurants.

The Court held that Esry has met the minimal requirements of
representing a collective action for servers at the Little Rock
location. She has not, however, shown that she is similarly
situated to non-servers or servers in other locations. Esry seeks
to represent a class of employees dating back to February 23, 2015,
three years before the commencement of this action. While the Court
will permit her to seek to represent such a class, the notice
should include "a statement explaining that claims of employees who
have not worked for P.F. Chang's within the past two years may be
time-barred." Resendiz-Ramirez v. P&H Forestry, LLC, 515 F. Supp.
937, 944 n.9 (W.D. Ark. 2007).  Esry proposes a 90-day opt-in
period, which P.F. Chang's argues is excessive. Sixty days is
sufficient time to notify potential class members and allow them to
decide whether to opt-in. See Tegtmeier v. P.J. Iowa, L.C., 208 F.
Supp. 3d 1012, 1025 (S.D. Iowa 2016). Notice may be sent by U.S.
mail. Esry also requests authorization to follow-up with cards and
text messages or e-mail messages beginning thirty days after the
opt-in period begins to potential plaintiffs who have not
responded. One reminder notice may be sent by postcard 30 days
after the initial notice has been mailed to potential class members
who have not responded. Notice may be sent electronically to any
potential class member whose notice is returned for insufficient
address.

The Court will not require P.F. Chang's to post a notice in the
workplace. P.F. Chang's objects to including the caption and
styling of the case on the notice. That objection is overruled.
P.F. Chang's must provide plaintiff's counsel in electronically
readable or importable form the names and addresses of all persons
who were employed at the P.F. Chang's location in Little Rock as
servers from February 23, 2015, to date, as well as the e-mail
address or cell phone number for any potential class member whose
notice is returned for insufficient address. Names and addresses
must be provided within 14 days from the entry of this Opinion and
Order. Before sending any notice, plaintiff's counsel must submit
the form of notice to defense counsel who should review it to
verify that the form complies with this Order.


PARISH OF PLAQUEMINES: Underpays Paramedics, Babin et al. Allege
----------------------------------------------------------------
KEITH BABIN; KEVIN BURGE; JOSHUA DISMUKES, and BARBARA TATE,
Plaintiffs v. THE PARISH OF PLAQUEMINES, Defendant, Case No.
2:18-cv-07378 (E.D. La., Aug. 3, 2018) is an action against the
Defendant to recover unpaid wages, overtime compensation,
attorneys' fees and costs.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as paramedics.

Plaquemines Parish is a parish located in the U.S. state of
Louisiana. The parish seat is Pointe a la Hache. The parish was
formed in 1807. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles J. Stiegler, Esq.
          STIEGLER LAW FIRM LLC
          318 Harrison Ave., Suite #104
          New Orleans, La. 70124
          Telephone: (504) 267-0777
          Facsimile: (504) 513-3084
          E-mail: Charles@StieglerLawFirm.com

               - and -

          Joseph G. Kopfler (TA), Esq.
          KOPFLER & HERMANN, ATTORNEYS AT LAW
          7910 Main Street, Suite #400
          Houma, LA 70360
          Telephone: (985) 805-8089
          Facsimile: (985) 851-4521
          E-mail: Joe@KopflerHermann.com


PERKINS & MARIE: Violates Disabilities Act, Slivak Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Perkins & Marie Callender's, LLC, and RJ Waters & Associates, Inc.
are facing a class action lawsuit under the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990. The case is captioned as JESSICA SLIVAK,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v.
PERKINS & MARIE CALLENDER'S, LLC, and RJ WATERS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
doing business as: WATERS RETAIL GROUP, Case No. 2:18-cv-03628-GJP
(E.D. Pa., August 24, 2018).

Perkins & Marie Callender's, LLC, owns and operates a chain of
restaurants and bakeries in the United States and Canada.  The
Company offers various dishes, breakfast, lunch, and dinner and
snacks; and sweet starts, egg omelets, platters, salads and soups,
starters, bakery desserts, and more.  The Company also manufactures
pies, pancake mixes, cookie dough, and muffin batter for in-store
bakeries and third-party customers.

R.J. Waters & Associates, Inc., provides commercial real estate
development, management, leasing/landlord representation, and
brokerage services.  R.J. manages and leases retail shopping
centers (for tenants) in Pennsylvania, Virginia, Maryland,
Delaware, and New Jersey.  The Company was founded in 1985 and is
based in Kennett Square, Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Arkady Eric Rayz, Esq.
          KALIKHMAN & RAYZ LLC
          1051 County Line Road, Suite A
          Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006
          Telephone: (215) 364-5030
          Facsimile: (215) 364-5029
          E-mail: erayz@kalraylaw.com


PHILLY TRAMPOLINE: Faces Slivak Suit Alleging ADA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Philly Trampoline
Parks, LLC, 10551 Decatur Road Investments, L.P., and Decatur Road
Corporation.  The case is entitled JESSICA SLIVAK, INDIVIDUALLY AND
ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. PHILLY TRAMPOLINE
PARKS, LLC doing business as: SKY ZONE and 10551 DECATUR ROAD
INVESTMENTS, L.P., Case No. 2:18-cv-03625-TJS (E.D. Pa., August 24,
2018).

The Plaintiff alleges violations of The Americans with Disabilities
Act of 1990.

Philly Trampoline Parks, LLC, doing business as Sky Zone, is
domestic limited liability company with a registered address in
Chalfont, Pennsylvania.  Sky Zone is a chain of indoor family
entertainment centers that features numerous connected
trampolines.

10551 Decatur Road Investments L.P. is a Pennsylvania limited
partnership with a business address in Huntingdon Valley,
Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Arkady Eric Rayz, Esq.
          KALIKHMAN & RAYZ LLC
          1051 County Line Road, Suite A
          Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006
          Telephone: (215) 364-5030
          Facsimile: (215) 364-5029
          E-mail: erayz@kalraylaw.com


PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Bid for Reconsideration in Hogan Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pilgrim's Pride Corporation 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 plaintiff's motion
for reconsideration on the court's dismissal of the putative class
action lawsuit by Patrick Hogan is currently pending.

On October 10, 2016, Patrick Hogan, acting on behalf of himself and
a putative class of persons who purchased shares of Pilgrim's Pride
Corporation's (PPC's) stock between February 21, 2014 and October
6, 2016, filed a class action complaint in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Colorado against PPC and its named executive
officers.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that PPC's SEC filings
contained statements that were rendered materially false and
misleading by PPC's failure to disclose that (i) the Company
colluded with several of its industry peers to fix prices in the
broiler-chicken market as alleged in the In re Broiler Chicken
Antitrust Litigation, (ii) its conduct constituted a violation of
federal antitrust laws, (iii) PPC's revenues during the class
period were the result of illegal conduct and (iv) that PPC lacked
effective internal control over financial reporting. The complaint
also states that PPC's industry was anticompetitive.

On April 4, 2017, the Court appointed another stockholder, George
James Fuller, as lead plaintiff. On May 11, 2017, the plaintiff
filed an amended complaint, which extended the end date of the
putative class period to November 17, 2017. PPC and the other
defendants moved to dismiss on June 12, 2017, and the plaintiff
filed its opposition on July 12, 2017. PPC and the other defendants
filed their reply on August 1, 2017. On March 14, 2018, the Court
dismissed the plaintiff's complaint without prejudice and issued
final judgment in favor of PPC and the other defendants.

On April 11, 2018, the plaintiff moved for reconsideration of the
Court's decision and for permission to file a Second Amended
Complaint. PPC and the other defendants filed a response to the
plaintiff's motion on April 25, 2018. The plaintiff's motion for
reconsideration is currently pending.

Pilgrim's Pride Corporation engages in the production, processing,
marketing, and distribution of fresh, frozen, and value-added
chicken products in the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe,
and Mexico. The company was founded in 1946 and is headquartered in
Greeley, Colorado. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation is a subsidiary of
JBS S.A.


PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Bid to Transfer Associated Wholesale Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Pilgrim's Pride Corporation 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 motion to transfer
the case entitled, Associated Wholesale Grocers, Inc. v. Koch
Foods, Inc., et al., is pending.

Between September 2, 2016 and October 13, 2016, a series of
purported federal class action lawsuits styled as In re Broiler
Chicken Antitrust Litigation, No. 1:16-cv-08637 were brought
against Pilgrim's Pride Corporation (PPC) and 13 other producers by
and on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers of broiler chickens
alleging violations of federal and state antitrust and unfair
competition laws.

The complaints, which were filed with the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois, seek, among other relief, treble
damages for an alleged conspiracy among defendants to reduce output
and increase prices of broiler chickens from the period of January
2008 to the present.

The class plaintiffs have filed three consolidated amended
complaints: one on behalf of direct purchasers and two on behalf of
distinct groups of indirect purchasers. The defendants, including
PPC, filed motions to dismiss these actions.

On November 20, 2017, the court denied all pending motions to
dismiss with the exception of certain state-law claims by indirect
purchasers that were dismissed or narrowed in scope.

Discovery is proceeding and is currently scheduled to be complete
by June 13, 2019.

Between December 2017 and July 2018 eight individual direct action
complaints (Affiliated Foods, Inc., et al., v. Claxton Poultry
Farms, Inc., et al., No. 1:17-cv-08850; Winn Dixie Stores, Inc. v.
Koch Foods, Inc., No. 1:18-cv-00245; Sysco Corp. v. Tyson Foods
Inc., et al; No. 1:18-cv-00700; US Foods Inc. v. Tyson Foods Inc.,
et al; No. 1:18-cv-00702; Action Meat Distributors, Inc., et al.,
v. Claxton Poultry Farms, Inc., et al., No. 1:18-cv-03471; Jetro
Holdings, LLC, v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al., No. 1:18-cv-04000;
Associated Grocers of the South, Inc., et al., v. Tyson Foods,
Inc., et al., No. 1:18-cv-4616; and The Kroger Co., et al., v.
Tyson Foods, Inc., et al., No. 1:18-cv-04534) were filed with the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois by
individual direct purchaser entities, the allegations of which
largely mirror those in the class action complaints.

The Court's scheduling order currently requires the substantial
completion of document discovery for the class cases by July 18,
2018, with fact discovery ending on June 13, 2019, class
certification briefing and expert reports proceeding from July 15,
2019 to March 16, 2020 and summary judgment to proceed 60 days
after the Court rules on motions for class certification.

The Court has ordered the parties to coordinate scheduling of the
direct action complaints with the class complaints with any
necessary modifications to reflect time of filing. Discovery will
be consolidated.

In May 2018, an individual direct action complaint was filed with
the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas (Associated
Wholesale Grocers, Inc. v. Koch Foods, Inc., et al., No.
2:18-cv-02258), the allegations of which largely mirror those in
the class action complaints.

The defendants, including PPC, filed a motion to transfer this
action to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois. This motion was fully briefed on July 27, 2018.

Plaintiff Associated Wholesale Grocers has filed a Memorandum in
Opposition to the Joint Motion to Transfer Case.

Pilgrim's Pride Corporation engages in the production, processing,
marketing, and distribution of fresh, frozen, and value-added
chicken products in the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe,
and Mexico. The company was founded in 1946 and is headquartered in
Greeley, Colorado. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation is a subsidiary of
JBS S.A.


PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Still Defends Broiler Chicken Grower Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Pilgrim's Pride Corporation 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 the case entitled, In re Broiler Chicken Grower
Litigation.

On January 27, 2017, a purported class action on behalf of broiler
chicken farmers was brought against Pilgrim's Pride Corporation
(PPC) and four other producers in the Eastern District of Oklahoma,
alleging, among other things, a conspiracy to reduce competition
for grower services and depress the price paid to growers.

The plaintiffs allege violations of the Sherman Act and the Packers
and Stockyards Act and seek, among other relief, treble damages.
The complaint was consolidated with a subsequently filed
consolidated amended class action complaint styled as In re Broiler
Chicken Grower Litigation, Case No. CIV-17-033-RJS (the "Grower
Litigation").

The defendants (including PPC) jointly moved to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint on September 9, 2017. The Court
initially held oral argument on January 19, 2018, during which it
considered and granted only motions from certain other defendants,
challenging jurisdiction. Oral argument on the remaining pending
motions in the Oklahoma court occurred on April 20, 2018. Rulings
on the motion are pending.

Following the Oklahoma court's dismissal of certain defendants in
January 2018, the plaintiffs filed a separate complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the District of North Carolina, consisting of
the same allegations but strictly against those defendants
previously dismissed by the Oklahoma court (the "North Carolina
Action").

The plaintiffs sought transfer and consolidation of the North
Carolina Action with the Grower Litigation in Oklahoma from the
Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation ("JPML"). The JPML has
scheduled oral argument on the motion for May 31, 2018.

In addition, on March 12, 2018, the Northern District of Texas,
Fort Worth Division ("Bankruptcy Court") enjoined the plaintiffs
from litigating the Grower Litigation complaint as pled against the
Company because allegations in the consolidated complaint violate
the confirmation order relating to the Company’'s bankruptcy
proceedings in 2008 and 2009.

Specifically, the 2009 bankruptcy confirmation order bars any
claims against the Company based on conduct occurring before
December 28, 2009. On March 13, 2018, Pilgrim's notified the trial
court of the Bankruptcy Court's injunction.

Pilgrim's Pride  said "To date, the plaintiffs have not amended the
consolidated complaint to comply with the Bankruptcy Court's
injunction order or the confirmation order."

Pilgrim's Pride Corporation engages in the production, processing,
marketing, and distribution of fresh, frozen, and value-added
chicken products in the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe,
and Mexico. The company was founded in 1946 and is headquartered in
Greeley, Colorado. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation is a subsidiary of
JBS S.A.


PINNACLE FOODS: Wolf Popper Files Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Popper LLP has filed a class action lawsuit against Pinnacle
Foods Inc. (NASDAQ: PF) and members of its Board, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Jersey (2:18-cv-12501), on
behalf of current public stockholders of Pinnacle, seeking to
enjoin the consummation of a proposed transaction, or, in the event
it is consummated, to recover damages resulting from defendants'
wrongdoing.  This action alleges claims for violations of Sections
14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a member of the Class, you may file a motion no later
than October 22, 2018 to be appointed lead plaintiff.  A lead
plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class
members in directing the litigation.  Class members are urged to
contact Wolf Popper to discuss their rights.

The action stems from a proposed transaction announced on June 27,
2018, pursuant to which Pinnacle will be acquired by Conagra
Brands, Inc.  Under the terms of the deal, Pinnacle shareholders
will receive $43.11 per share in cash and 0.6494 shares of Conagra
common stock for each share of Pinnacle held.

On July 25, 2018, with respect to the proposed transaction,
defendants filed a preliminary proxy statement on a Form S-4 which
contained materially false and/or misleading information
concerning, among other things, the analyses performed by the
respective financial advisors of Pinnacle, in support of their
fairness opinions, including certain of the projections relied upon
in performing these analyses.

         Carl L. Stine, Esq.
         Telephone.: 877.370.7703
         Fax: 877.370.7704
         Website: www.wolfpopper.com
         Email: cstine@wolfpopper.com  [GN]


POST UNIVERSITY: Davis Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
--------------------------------------------------
Melanie Davis, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Post University, Inc., Case No. 9:18-cv-81004 (S.D.
Fla., July 30, 2018), is brought against the Defendant for
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

This action arises out of the Defendant's practice of placing
telemarketing calls to individuals in the absence of prior express
written consent, and in the absence of any "do not call" policy or
training, and without honoring the national "do not call" list.

The Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of Boynton Beach, Florida.

The Defendant is a Delaware corporation headquartered at 800
Country Club Rd., Waterbury, CT 06708. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PURDUE PHARMA: 2 Law Firms Ally in Class Action Against Pharma Cos.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Zach Schlein, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that two
law firms have combined resources to file a putative class action
lawsuit accusing several big pharmaceutical companies of misconduct
in Florida.

In a suit filed on Augst 21 in the U.S. District Court of Florida,
named plaintiff and Florida resident Michael Konig lists several
large corporations, including Connecticut-based Purdue Pharma Inc.,
Johnson & Johnson and Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc. as defendants.
He accuses them of misleading patients, doctors, insurers and
others regarding the addictive nature of opioid medications in
order to turn a profit.

The suit argues that the opioid epidemic has caused severe health
consequences on a mass scale, in turn prompting the rates of
insurance premiums, deductibles and co-pays to rise across the
health insurance market.

According to Ashley Keller, Esq. -- ack@kellerlenkner.com --
founding partner at Chicago litigation firm Keller Lenkner, the
opioid epidemic wreaking havoc in Florida and other states across
the U.S. was caused by nothing less than total corporate greed on
the part of the pharmaceutical entities.

"To be crystal clear, we believe that [Big Pharma] deliberately
misrepresented the properties of opioids so they could put dollars
in their shareholders' pockets," Keller told the Daily Business
Review. "This is a systematic, across-the-board misrepresentation
to the entire marketplace. On a wholesale basis they misrepresented
the addictive properties associated with opioids . . . .  because
they knew they could pop a lot more pills into the market place.
Those allegations are well-documented, and in public record."

Fort Lauderdale-based attorney Jordan A. Shaw, Esq. --
jshaw@zpllp.com -- one of the lawyers who filed the suit, pointed
to a June 14 NBC News article detailing much of the public
information available on the defendant's dealings concerning the
legal sale and propagation of opioids in Florida through the late
1990s and early 2000s.

The article highlights an incident that saw Purdue admit in a
federal courtroom in Virginia that it had previously misled doctors
and consumers over OxyContin's potential to become habit-forming.

"Five years after its legal battle with Florida officials, Purdue
made a startling admission in federal court in Virginia. The
company pleaded guilty in 2007 to felony charges of 'misbranding'
OxyContin 'with the intent to defraud or mislead,'" the story
reads. "The company paid $600 million in fines and other penalties.
Among the deceptions it confessed to was directing its salespeople
to tell doctors the drug was less addictive than other opioids."

Shaw, who is a partner at Zebersky Payne, noted that Florida has
been hit particularly hard by the opioid epidemic, both with
regards to its human cost and the effect its had on the medical
insurance market.

"The Florida health care market is obviously one of the largest in
the U.S.," Shaw said. "Opioids have become a business, which is
terrible. You cant talk to a policeman or firefighter without them
mentioning narcan [a medication designed at treating narcotics
overdoses.] I think the Florida market has been hit as hard as --
if not harder than -- any other market in the country."

Keller tells the Daily Business Review that Keller Lenkner is
taking a "unique approach" to litigation concerning opioids and the
companies that manufacture them.

"We are the only ones who are trying to recover on the consumer
side -- consumers are paying a lot more as a result of the
defendant's misconduct," Keller said. "Health consequences get
passed on through insurance premiums, deductibles and co-pay. This
is our way to hold the defendants accountable to those undesirable
trends."

Keller adds that he and the attorneys at Keller Lenkner began to
look at the opioid crisis through a different lens than what's
generally expected, leading to the firm's suit in Florida as well
as similar class actions in New York, Pennsylvania and other
states.

"The first thing that probably pops up is someone who has overdosed
or lost their job, . . . .  but they're not amenable to class-wide
treatment because their harms are very individualized," Keller
explained. "So every person who has been directly touched by the
opioid epidemic has a unique set of damages, and that's the death
knell of a proposed class action."

To avoid this, the complaint filed by Keller and Shaw casts a wide
net for a class aggrieved by the defendants, defining the
plaintiffs as "all persons (including natural persons and entities)
who purchased health insurance policies in Florida from 1996
through the present; and all persons who paid for any portion of
employer-provided health insurance from 1996 through the present."

Unlike wrongful death suits -- which inevitably involve unique
circumstances between cases, and in turn make it difficult to show
a commonality among proposed class members -- this complaint takes
the insurance-cost route.

"Damages are more ascertainable. . . .  under our theory of the
case that insurance companies are increasing costs on a wholesale
basis," Keller said, noting that the plaintiff and unnamed
potential class members are all paying higher insurance premiums.

Because the opioid crisis hit South Florida so acutely, Shaw and
Zebersky Payne were brought in by Keller Lenker to assist with
filing and handling the case. Shaw was vocal about his hopes that
this lawsuit would affect change in a way that previous, more
individualized lawsuits have not thus far, describing class action
suits as "quasi-legislative."

"The thing about bringing something on a class-wide basis is that
you can bring about change," Shaw said. "It's it's very clear that
Big Pharma is not reacting to the deaths in these one-off cases.
Wrongful death actions are not going to hurt them in their pocket,
whereas the theory that Ashley's group has come up with allows
people to come together and put pressure on Big Pharma."

In a statement to the Daily Business Review, Janssen
Pharmaceuticals Inc. said "opioid abuse and addiction are serious
public health issues," and that the company is "committed to being
part of the ongoing dialogue and to doing our part to find ways to
address this crisis."

"Our actions in the marketing and promotion of these medicines were
appropriate and responsible," Janssen's statement reads. "The
labels for our prescription opioid pain medicines provide
information about their risks and benefits, and the allegations
made against our company are baseless and unsubstantiated. In fact,
our medications have some of the lowest rates of abuse among this
class of medications."

None of the other defendants named in the suit responded to
requests for comment by deadline.[GN]


PURDUE PHARMA: Faces Personal Injury Suit in in Penn.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Purdue Pharma L.P.,
et al.  The case is styled as JOHN DOE, BY AND THROUGH JANE DOE,
HIS PARENT AND NATURAL GUARDIAN, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. PURDUE PHARMA L.P.; PURDUE PHARMA,
INC.; THE PURDUE FREDERICK COMPANY, INC.; ALLERGAN PLC formerly
known as: ACTAVIS PLC; WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; WATSON
LABORATORIES, INC.; ACTAVIS LLC; ACTAVIS PHARMA, INC. formerly
known as: WATSON PHARMA, INC.; CEPHALON, INC.; TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL
INDUSTRIES, LTD.; TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.; CEPHALON, INC.;
ENDO HEALTH SOLUTIONS INC.; ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS INC.; JANSSEN
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ORTHO- MCNEIL-JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.;
JOHNSON & JOHNSON; NORAMCO, INC.; MALLINCKRODT, PLC; MALLINCKRODT,
LLC; AMERISOURCEBERGEN DRUG CORPORATION; CARDINAL HEALTH, INC.; and
MCKESSON CORPORATION, Case No. 2:18-cv-03637-MMB (E.D. Pa., August
24, 2018).

The lawsuit arises from alleged personal injury.  The nature of
suit is stated as pharmaceutical personal injury product
liability.

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.

The Defendants are pharmaceutical companies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John K. Weston, Esq.
          SACKS WESTON DIAMOND LLC
          1845 Walnut Street, Suite 1600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 925-8200
          Facsimile: (267) 639-5422
          E-mail: jweston@sackslaw.com


PURDUE PHARMA: MSI Corp. Seeks Damages in RICO Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
MSI Corporation individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Purdue Pharma L.P., Purdue Pharma Inc.,
the Purdue Frederick Company, Inc., Insys Therapeutics, Inc., Teva
Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd., Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.,
Cephalon, Inc., Johnson & Johnson, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
Endo Health Solutions Inc., Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Actavis
PLC, Actavis, Inc., Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Watson
Laboratories, Inc., McKesson Corporation, Cardinal Health, Inc.,
and AmerisourceBergen Corporation, Defendants, Case No.
18-cv-02194, (W.D. Pa., August 21, 2018), seeks compensatory and
treble damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs of
suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees as and such further and
additional relief resulting from nuisance, negligence and in
violation of the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act.

Defendants are pharmaceutical companies that are into developing,
marketing, advertising promoting and selling prescription
pharmaceuticals that allegedly contain opioids which have narcotic
effects and may cause addiction.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott M. Hare, Esq.
      1806 Frick Building
      437 Grant Street
      Pittsburgh, PA 15219
      Tel: (412) 338-8632
      Email: scott@scottlawpgh.com

             - and -

      William S. Consovoy, Esq.
      Thomas R. McCarthy, Esq.
      CONSOVOY MCCARTHY PARK PLLC
      3033 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 700
      Arlington, VA 22201
      Tel: (703) 243-9423
      Email: will@consovoymccarthy.com
             tom@consovoymccarthy.com

             - and -

      Michael H. Park, Esq.
      CONSOVOY MCCARTHY PARK PLLC
      745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
      New York, NY 10151
      Tel: (212) 247-8006
      Email: park@consovoymccarthy.com

             - and -

      Ashley Keller, Esq.
      Travis Lenkner, Esq.
      Seth Meyer, Esq.
      KELLER LENKNER LLC
      150 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 5100
      Chicago, IL 60606
      Tel: (312) 506-5641
      Email: ack@kellerlenkner.com
             tdl@kellerlenkner.com
             sam@kellerlenkner.com


PURE BEAUTY: Mendoza Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Josue Arauz Mendoza, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v. Pure Beauty Farms, Inc. and Enrique A. Yanes, Defendants, Case
No. 18-CV- 23390, (S.D. Fla., August 21, 2018), requests double
damages and reasonable attorney fees pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act for all overtime wages still owing along with court
costs, interest and any other relief.

Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a security guard from on or
about February 26, 2018 through on or about August 12, 2018. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      J.H. Zidell, Esq.
      J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
      300 71st Street, Suite 605
      Miami Beach, FL 33141
      Tel: (305) 865-6766
      Fax: (305) 865-7167
      Email: zabogado@aol.com


QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Mendez Sues Over Disabilities Act Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Quest Diagnostics
Incorporated.  The case is styled as Himelda Mendez, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Quest Diagnostics
Incorporated, Case No. 1:18-cv-07731 (S.D.N.Y., August 24, 2018).

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

Quest Diagnostics Incorporated provides diagnostic testing
information and services in the United States and internationally.
The Company's Diagnostic Information Services business segment
develops and delivers diagnostic testing information and services,
such as routine testing, non-routine and advanced clinical testing,
gene-based and esoteric testing, anatomic pathology, and other
diagnostic information services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RAMOS FURNITURE: Court Grants Default Judgment on Individual Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California grants default judgment on individual claims in the case
captioned MARISOL TOPETE and ROSALBA MALDONADO, Plaintiffs, v.
RAMOS FURNITURE; FURNITURE DEALS, INC.; DIMAS MANUEL, INC.; and
DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00271-DAD-EPG
(E.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiffs move for dismissal of their class claims and entry
of default judgment on their individual claims against Furniture
Deals, Inc. dba Ramos Furniture (FDI) and Dimas Manuel, Inc.
(Dimas) (Defendants).

Default Judgment on Individual Claims

Legal Standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a) provides that default shall
be entered when a party against whom a judgment for affirmative
relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend, and that
failure is shown by affidavit or otherwise. Upon entry of default,
the factual allegations of the complaint, except those relating to
the amount of damages, are taken as true.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b) permits a court-ordered
default judgment following the entry of default under Rule 55(a). A
defendant's default does not automatically entitle the plaintiff to
a court-ordered judgment.

In making this determination, courts consider the following
factors: (1) the possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff, (2) the
merits of plaintiff's substantive claim, (3) the sufficiency of the
complaint, (4) the sum of money at stake in the action, (5) the
possibility of a dispute concerning material facts, (6) whether the
default was due to excusable neglect, and (7) the strong policy
underlying the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure favoring decisions
on the merits. Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-1472 (9th Cir.
1986).

The Possibility of Prejudice to Plaintiff

Here, the Plaintiffs would suffer prejudice if the Court declines
to enter a default judgment. Defendant Dimas has not appeared in
this action. And, while Defendant FDI has appeared, it has failed
to meaningfully participate in this action. Counsel for FDI
withdrew from representation because of the Defendant's failure to
participate in this legal proceeding. Specifically, Isidro Ramos, a
representative of FDI, stated that he was no longer willing and/or
able to participate in litigation because he has experienced a
relapse of a prior medical condition and is battling personal
challenges that prevent him from being able to effectively attend
mediation and respond to Plaintiff's discovery requests at this
time.

The Merits of the Claims and the Sufficiency of the Complaint

The Plaintiff moves for a default judgment on five causes of
action: (1) failure to provide meal periods, (2) failure to provide
rest periods, (3) failure to pay overtime wages, (4) failure to
provide wage statements, and (5) failure to pay waiting time
penalties. The second and third Eitel factors address the merits
and sufficiency of the claims pled in the complaint.

Meal Periods

Here, the Plaintiffs allege that it was the Defendants' systematic
business policy and practice to work Plaintiffs  more than five
hours per day without the provision of an off-duty 30-minute meal
period. The Plaintiffs did not waive their right to a 30-minute
meal period by mutual consent, and did not receive premium wages.
These allegations are sufficient to state a claim for violation of
the meal period requirement under California law.

Rest Period

Here, the Plaintiffs allege that they were not provided ten-minute
rest periods after working more than three and a half hours per
day, and were not paid premium wages. These allegations are
sufficient to state a claim for the violation of the Wage Order.

Overtime Wages

The Plaintiffs allege that during all relevant periods, they worked
more than eight hours per day and forty hours per week, as well as
more than twelve hours per day without payment of overtime wages.
These allegations are sufficient to state a claim for the violation
of Section 510 of the Labor Code and Section 3 of the Wage Order.

Wage Statements

Here, the Plaintiffs allege that Defendants failed to maintain and
provide them the required pay records, and instead paid them in
cash. Because of the Defendants' failure to provide the required
records, the Plaintiffs cannot easily and readily ascertain the
information required by Labor Code Section 226(a)(1) through (9)
without reference to other documents and information. These
allegations are sufficient to state a claim for the violation of
Section 226.

Waiting Time Penalties

The Plaintiffs allege that they were involuntarily discharged, were
constructively terminated, or voluntarily terminated their
employment, and did not receive all pay due and owing at the time
their employment ended. The Plaintiffs further allege that the
Defendants' violations of law were committed knowingly and
willfully with full knowledge of the required laws. These
allegations are sufficient to state a claim for violation of
Section 201 and Section 202, and for entitlement to waiting time
penalties pursuant to Section 203.

The second and third Eitel factors favor entry of default
judgment.

The Sum of Money at Stake

Here, the Plaintiffs seeks an award of $51,640.94, which represents
the statutory damages for unpaid wages, including interest thereon,
and costs. Though the amount is not insignificant, it is reasonable
in light of the Defendants' extended failure to provide the wages
and statements to which Plaintiffs were entitled. Thus, the fourth
Eitel factor slightly favors entry of default judgment.

The Possibility of a Dispute Concerning the Material Facts

The fifth Eitel factor examines the likelihood of dispute between
the parties regarding the material facts surrounding the case.

Here, there is little possibility of dispute in this case.
Defendant Dimas has not appeared in this action, and does not
contradict the well-pled allegations. Furthermore, while Defendant
FDI did file an answer denying the allegations in the complaint, it
withdrew from defending and taking part in this legal proceeding
and has declined to oppose the instant motion for default judgment.


Thus, the fifth Eitel factor too weighs in favor of granting
default judgment.

Whether Defendant's Default Was Due to Excusable Neglect

The sixth Eitel factor considers whether a defendant's default may
have resulted from excusable neglect. In the present action, there
is no evidence that Defendants' failure to participate in the
litigation is due to excusable neglect. Defendant Dimas was
properly served with the summons and complaint, but has not
appeared in this action. Defendant FDI has appeared in this action,
but has now willfully chosen not to further defend this action.
Thus, this factor weighs in favor of the entry of default
judgment.

Policy Favoring Decisions on the Merits

The seventh Eitel factor requires consideration of the strong
policy favoring decisions on the merits. Of course, the general
rule is that default judgments are ordinarily disfavored and cases
should be decided upon their merits whenever reasonably possible.
The instant action is no different. Nevertheless, this factor alone
cannot preclude the entry of default judgment.  

In summary, six of the seven factors weigh in favor of default
judgment. In the aggregate, however, the factor favoring decisions
on the merits is outweighed when compared with the other factors,
which weigh in favor of granting default judgment. Accordingly, the
Eitel factors weigh in favor of entering default judgment.

Determination of the Terms of Judgment

On a motion for a default judgment, the relief sought may not be
different in kind from, or exceed in amount, what is demanded in
the complaint. Furthermore, a plaintiff is required to prove all
damages sought in the complaint. The court looks to plaintiff's
declarations, calculations, and other documentation of damages in
determining if the amount at stake is reasonable. Nevertheless, if
the facts necessary to determine the damages are not contained in
the complaint, or are legally insufficient, they will not be
established by default.  

Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' motion for default judgment against
Furniture Deals, Inc., dba Ramos Furniture and Dimas Manual, Inc.
on the individual claims be granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 20, 2018 Findings
and Recommendation is available at https://tinyurl.com/ycablt5j
from Leagle.com.

Marisol Topete, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Butler Jones --
ajones@wagnerjones.com -- Wagner and Jones, Angela Elizabeth
Martinez , Wagner, Jones, Kopfman & Artenian LLP, Daniel Myers
Kopfman , Law Offices of Wagner Jones & Nicholas John Paul Wagner ,
Law Offices of Wagner & Jones.

Rosalba Maldonado, Plaintiff, represented by Angela Elizabeth
Martinez , Wagner, Jones, Kopfman & Artenian LLP, Daniel Myers
Kopfman , Law Offices of Wagner Jones, Nicholas John Paul Wagner ,
Law Offices of Wagner & Jones & Andrew Butler Jones , Wagner and
Jones.

Ramos Furniture, Defendant, pro se.

Furniture Deals, Inc., Defendant, pro se.


REDSTONE FEDERAL: Court Narrows Claims in Caldwell FDCPA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DEMETRIUS D. CALDWELL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. REDSTONE
FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, et al., Defendants, Case No.
2:15-cv-01923-JHE (N.D. Ala.), Magistrate Judge John H. England of
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama,
Southern Division, granted in part and denied in part the motions
for partial dismissal of Plaintiffs' Second Amended Class Action
Complaint filed by Redstone and the Law Office of C. Howard
Grisham.

On Oct. 29, 2015, Plaintiffs Demetrius and Sabrina Caldwell
initiated the action on behalf of themselves and a purported class
against Redstone and Grisham, alleging five counts including a
bankruptcy count of contempt for violating discharge injunctions
(Count I) and a count for violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act ("FDCPA")(Count II).  The Defendants moved to dismiss
the Caldwells' claims, and the Magistrate Judge granted those
motions in part and denied them in part on Oct. 17, 2016,
dismissing all but the two claims identified.

On June 14, 2017, the Plaintiffs amended their complaint, adding
six additional named Plaintiffs: Jane B. Locklin, Bart Reeves,
Davis A. Mitchell, Jeremy D. Holland, Jessalyn Hooper, and Lorondo
Brazelton.  While the Amended Complaint alleged generally that the
New Plaintiffs had been subjected to the Defendants' attempts to
collect debts discharged in bankruptcy, it did not identify how the
Defendants had done so.  

Both the Defendants moved to dismiss.  Granting the Defendants'
alternative motions for a more definite statement, the Magistarte
Judge ordered the Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint which
should include the factual basis for the New Plaintiffs' claims
that the Defendants wrongfully attempted to collect the debts they
discharged in bankruptcy.

On Jan. 30, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended
Complaint.  Each of the New Plaintiffs filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy
petition in the Northern District of Alabama. Each owed money to
Redstone and/or Grisham.  Each Plaintiff received a discharge from
the Bankruptcy Court.  Nevertheless, Redstone -- which had been
mailed a copy of the discharge orders in each case —used Grisham
to attempt to collect the discharged debt.

The Defendants contend the New Plaintiffs have failed, for various
reasons, to articulate actionable violations of the discharge
injunctions and the FDCPA.  

Magistrate Judge England, as preliminary matter, addressed the
Plaintiffs' motions for leave to file sur-replies.  In their first
motion for leave to file a sur-reply, the Plaintiffs contend they
should be allowed to file the proposed sur-reply attached to their
motion, because Defendants have raised additional issues in their
reply briefs, mischaracterized the holding of a case, and
misinterpreted the law on lien enforcement.  The Plaintiffs second
motion for leave to file a sur-reply is based on their contention
they feel compelled to respond to certain statements made in the
Defendants' Responses to their supplemental response brief.  He has
considered the arguments the Plaintiffs offer for the necessity of
sur-replies, and none are compelling.  Therefore, he denied both
motions.

Turning to the motions to dismiss, the Magistrate Judge granted
them to the extent that the claims of Plaintiffs Bart Reeves, Davis
A. Mitchell, Jeremy D. Holland, Jessalyn Hooper, and Lorondo
Brazelton are dismissed.  Among other things, he finds that (i) the
Plaintiffs cannot rely on the Defendants' lack of policies and
procedures to establish a violation of the discharge injunction;
(ii) the second amended complaint contains nothing to support that
the Defendants violated Section 524 by failing to update Holland's
credit report; (iii) Mitchell and Hooper have not alleged a
violation of the discharge injunction; and (iv) the Plaintiffs have
failed to demonstrate a violation of the discharge injunctions.

The motions are also granted to the extent Plaintiff Jane B.
Locklin's FDCPA claims based on the Defendants' 2015 revival of the
judgment against her are dismissed.  With no basis to conclude the
revival of the judgment was wrongful, and thus that it was an
attempt by Grisham to collect a debt it was not permitted to
collect, Locklin cannot rely on the judgment's revival as a
violation of Section 1692f(1).

The motions are denied in all other respects.  The Magistrate Judge
directed the Defendants to answer the second amended complaint by
Aug. 3, 2018.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 20, 2018 Mmeorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/ZrXYzD from Leagle.com.

Demetrius D Caldwell, Sabrina B Caldwell & Jane B Locklin,
Plaintiffs, represented by Lange Clark -- langeclark@langeclark.com
-- LAW OFFICE OF LANGE CLARK PC, Robert Clois Keller , RUSSO WHITE
& KELLER PC, Jeffrey P. Mauro -- jpmauro@baddleymauro.com --
BADDLEY & MAURO, LLC, John Parker Yates -- parker@baddleymauro.com
-- BADDLEY & MAURO LLC & Thomas E. Baddley, Jr. --
tbaddley@baddleymauro.com -- BADDLEY & MAURO, LLC.

Redstone Federal Credit Union, Defendant, represented by H. Harold
Stephens -- hstephens@bradley.com -- BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS
LLP, John E. Goodman -- jgoodman@bradley.com -- BRADLEY ARANT BOULT
CUMMINGS LLP & Timothy P. Cummins -- tcummins@bradley.com --
BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP.

Law Office of C Howard Grisham, Defendant, represented by Larry W.
Harper -- lwh@phm-law.com -- PORTERFIELD HARPER MILLS & MOTLOW PA,
Christie J. Estes, QCHC, Inc. & James Michael Cooper --
jmc@phm-law.com -- PORTERFIELD HARPER MILLS & MOTLOW PA.


RENT-A-CENTER INC: "Hall" Class Certification Hearing on Sept. 19
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rent-A-Center, 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 hearing to consider
a request for class certification in the consolidated Hall and
DePalma suit has been scheduled for September 19, 2018.

On December 23, 2016, a putative class action was filed against the
company and certain of its former officers by Alan Hall in federal
court in Sherman, Texas. The complaint alleges that the defendants
violated Section 10(b) and/or Section 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by
issuing false and misleading statements and omitting material facts
regarding our business, including implementation of our
point-of-sale system, operations and prospects during the period
covered by the complaint.

The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of all purchasers of
the company's common stock from July 27, 2015 through October 10,
2016, and seeks damages in unspecified amounts and costs, fees, and
expenses.

A complaint filed by James DePalma also in Sherman, Texas alleging
similar claims was consolidated by the court into the Hall matter.


On October 19, 2017, the magistrate judge entered a recommendation
to deny the company's  motion to dismiss the complaint to the
district judge who will decide the issue.

The company filed its objections to the magistrate's recommendation
on November 2, 2017. On December 14, 2017, the district judge
issued an order adopting the magistrate's report and denying the
company's motion to dismiss the complaint.

Discovery in this matter has now commenced. A hearing on class
certification is scheduled for September 19, 2018.

Rent-A-Center said, "We continue to believe that these claims are
without merit and intend to vigorously defend ourselves. However,
we cannot assure you that we will be found to have no liability in
this matter."

Rent-A-Center, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, leases
household durable goods to customers on a rent-to-own basis. The
company operates through four segments: Core U.S., Acceptance Now,
Mexico, and Franchising. Rent-A-Center, Inc. was founded in 1986
and is headquartered in Plano, Texas.


RENT-A-CENTER INC: Blair Class Action Still Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------
Rent-A-Center, 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 against the Blair v. Rent-A-Center, Inc. suit.

This matter is a state-wide class action complaint originally filed
on March 13, 2017 in the Federal District Court for the Northern
District of California. The complaint alleges various claims,
including that the company's cash sales and total rent to own
prices exceed the pricing permitted under the Karnette
Rental-Purchase Act.

In addition, the plaintiffs allege that the company fail to give
customers a fully executed rental agreement and that all such
rental agreements that were issued to customers unsigned are void
under the law. The plaintiffs are seeking statutory damages under
the Karnette Rental-Purchase Act which range from $100 - $1,000 per
violation, injunctive relief, and attorney's fees.

Rent-A-Center said "We believe that these claims are without merit
and intend to vigorously defend ourselves. However, we cannot
assure you that we will be found to have no liability in this
matter."

Rent-A-Center, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, leases
household durable goods to customers on a rent-to-own basis. The
company operates through four segments: Core U.S., Acceptance Now,
Mexico, and Franchising. Rent-A-Center, Inc. was founded in 1986
and is headquartered in Plano, Texas.


RIDGE NATURAL: Bridges et al. Allege RICO Violation
---------------------------------------------------
DANNA SUE BRIDGES; JOHN ROSS DOUGLASS, AS TRUSTEE OF THE DOUGLASS
FAMILY TRUST; JOHN ROSS DOUGLASS; LEIGH ANN HOPPER A/K/A LEIGH ANN
OBERHOLZER; LINDA D. JOHNSTON, AS TRUSTEE OF THE LINDA D. JOHNSTON
REVOCABLE TRUST; DARRELL CURTIS PERKINS; and ROBIN SOHL RITCHIE,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. RIDGE NATURAL RESOURCES, LLC; ESPUELA LAND AND
MINERALS, LLC; PLAINS NATURAL RESOURCES, LLC; PUEBLO RESOURCES,
L.L.C. F/K/A APACHE RESOURCES, L.L.C.; AGAVE NATURAL RESOURCES,
L.L.C.; RANGE ROYALTY, LLC; CALVIN SMAJSTRLA; MATT MORGAN;
CHRISTOPHER HAWA; AND WILSON HAWA, Defendants, Case No.
7:18-cv-00134-DC (W.D. Tex., August 3, 2018) is an action against
the Defendants for alleged violation of the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organization Act, among others.

According to the complaint, the Defendants are engaged in a
"Royalty-Lease" scam -- in which the Defendants set up shell
companies disguised as legitimate drilling companies and
fraudulently convinced a large group of royalty interest owners to
purportedly convey a significant percentage of their royalty
interests to these shell companies, under the guise of leasing
their mineral interests. They did so through the use of deceptive
trade names, by using form contracts that did not contain language
required by Texas law for royalty deeds, by making false promises
to drill for oil when they had no intention or ability to do so,
and even by changing their names to conceal their true identities.

Ridge Natural Resources, LLC is a Texas limited liability company
doing business in Austin, Texas. The company is engaged in the
business of leasing mineral rights. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Josh Borsellino, Esq.
          BORSELLINO, P.C.
          1020 Macon St., Suite 15
          Fort Worth, TX 76102
          Telephone: (817) 908-9861
          Facsimile: (817) 394-2412
          Email: josh@dfwcounsel.com


RINGCENTRAL INC: Motion to Dismiss "Hurley" Lawsuit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RingCentral, Inc.'s request to drop the second amended complaint of
Joann Hurley over alleged violations of the federal Telephone
Consumer Protection Act 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.

On November 17, 2017, Joann Hurley filed a second amended complaint
in an ongoing putative class action lawsuit pending in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia,
adding the Company as a named defendant and alleging that the
Company and other defendants violated the TCPA and regulations
promulgated thereunder by allegedly using an automated telephone
dialing system to deliver prerecorded political messages to Hurley,
an incumbent running for reelection, and others.  Hurley
alternatively alleges that the Company is vicariously liable for
the actions of its co-defendants.  Hurley seeks statutory,
compensatory, consequential, incidental and punitive damages,
costs, and attorneys' fees in connection with her claims.  The
Company was served with the second amended complaint on January 4,
2018.

On March 23, 2018, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint for lack of standing and failure to sufficiently state a
claim on which relief may be granted.  Hurley filed her opposition
brief on April 6, 2018, and the Company filed its reply brief on
April 13, 2018.  The motion is currently pending before the court.

The Company said, "It is too early to predict the outcome of this
lawsuit.  Based on the information known by the Company as of the
date of this filing and the rules and regulations applicable to the
preparation of the Company's condensed consolidated financial
statements, it is not possible to provide an estimated amount of
any such loss or range of loss that may occur."

RingCentral, Inc., is a provider of software-as-a-service ("SaaS")
solutions for the way employees communicate and collaborate in
business.  The Company enables convenient and effective
communications for its customers, across all their locations, all
their employees, all the time, thus, enabling them to be more
productive and more responsive to their customers.


RIPPLE LABS: Plaintiff Withdraws Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------
Anvita M V, writing for AMB Crypto, reports that on August 22,
United States District Court of California issued a statement
stating that Plaintiff Ryan Coffey has voluntarily taken back the
class-action lawsuit he filed against Ripple Labs, Inc., XRP II,
LLC, an ancillary of Ripple, and Brad Garlinghouse, CEO of Ripple
earlier this year.

The Ryan Coffey case has been the 'talk of the town' for quite some
time now. He initially filed the case on 3rd May 2018, alleging
that the XRP tokens were fully generated even before the
distribution began. The plaintiff further went on to accuse it as a
"never-ending ICO."

The lawsuit demanded remuneration for the plaintiff, awarding him
for damages caused due to investing in XRP. It also demanded that
XRP must be subject to the California Corporations Code. According
to the Class Action Fairness Act, the defendants were able to
remove class-action filed against them.

However, on 1st August, the plaintiff filed a motion to remand. On
10th August, the motion filed by him was ruled over by the court.
The court order read:

Having read the papers filed by the parties and carefully
considered their arguments and the relevant legal authority, and
good cause appearing, the court hereby DENIES plaintiff's motion."

Recent developments in the case reveal that the plaintiff Ryan
Coffey has voluntarily taken back the case, reasons for which are
unknown. The court has officially dismissed the case as understood
by the statement, which stated:

"NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
41(a)(1)(A)(i), named-plaintiff Ryan Coffey ("plaintiff"), by and
through his counsel, voluntarily dismisses without prejudice the
above-captioned action (the "Action"). This notice of dismissal is
being filed with the Court before service by Defendant of either an
answer or a motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff has not been
offered and is not receiving any consideration for dismissing the
Action."

Twitter user Jeff tweeted:

"Aw. I think a ruling would have been better."

Dr. RedsoXRP a Twitterati commented:

"In due time. However, Coffey being the "headliner" case and now
choosing to end their trial says quite a bit. A win is a win is a
win. No matter how big or small."

Ripple has been in the news lately for several other reasons. In a
recent Ask Me Anything [AMA] session, David Schwartz [CTO of
Ripple], spoke about XRP's status as a security, Bitcoin [BTC], and
the future of Ripple and XRP.

During his session, he also spoke about Ripple's products,
especially xRapid. He also clarified questions on the transfer of
value through XRP.[GN]


ROADRUNNER TRANSPORT: Bids to Nix Securities Class Lawsuit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Motions to dismiss the complaint in the consolidated class action
captioned In re Roadrunner Transportation Systems, Inc. Securities
Litigation (Case No. 17-cv-00144) remains pending, according to
Roadrunner Transportation Systems, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018.

Following the Company's press release on January 30, 2017, three
putative class actions were filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin against the Company and
its former officers, Mark A. DiBlasi and Peter R. Armbruster.  On
May 19, 2017, the Court consolidated the actions under the caption
In re Roadrunner Transportation Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation
(Case No. 17-cv-00144), and appointed Public Employees' Retirement
System as lead plaintiff.

On March 12, 2018, the lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended
Complaint ("CAC") on behalf of a class of persons who purchased the
Company's common stock between March 14, 2013 and January 30, 2017,
inclusive.  The CAC alleges (i) the Company and Messrs. DiBlasi and
Armbruster violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule
10b-5, and (ii) Messrs. DiBlasi and Armbruster, the Company's
former Chairman Scott Rued, HCI Equity Partners, L.L.C., and HCI
Equity Management, L.P.  violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act, by making or causing to be made materially false or misleading
statements, or failing to disclose material facts, regarding (a)
the accuracy of the Company's financial statements; (b) the
Company's true earnings and expenses; (c) the effectiveness of the
Company's disclosure controls and controls over financial
reporting; (d) the true nature and depth of financial risk
associated with the Company's tractor lease guaranty program; (e)
the Company's leverage ratios and compliance with its credit
facilities; and (f) the value of the goodwill the Company carried
on its balance sheet.

The CAC seeks certification as a class action, compensatory
damages, and attorney's fees and costs.

On July 23, 2018, the Company and the individual defendants filed
motions to dismiss.  The parties are currently engaged in
mediation.

Roadrunner Transportation Systems, Inc. is a leading asset-right
transportation and asset-light logistics service provider offering
a full suite of solutions. The company's Truckload Logistics ("TL")
and Less-than-Truckload ("LTL") segments offer solutions including
less-than-truckload, air and ground domestic and cross-border
expedite, dry van and temperature controlled truckload logistics,
and intermodal services. The company is based in Downers Grove,
Illinois.


ROSENTHAL MORGAN: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Bunch Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rosenthal Morgan and
Thomas Inc. and John Does.  The case is captioned as Krystal Bunch,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Rosenthal Morgan and Thomas Inc. and John Does, Case No.
1:18-cv-01306-WCG (E.D. Wisc., August 24, 2018).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

Headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri, Thomas Rosenthal, Morgan and
Thomas, Inc., is a third-party debt collector.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RUSH STREET: Mendez Suit Assert ADA Breach
------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rush Street Gaming,
LLC, doing business as Rivers Casino & Resort.  The case is titled
Himelda Mendez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Rush Street Gaming, LLC doing business as: Rivers
Casino & Resort, Case No. 1:18-cv-07727 (S.D.N.Y., August 24,
2018).

The Plaintiff is brought over alleged violations of the Americans
with Disabilities Act.

Rush Street Gaming, LLC operates casinos in the United States. The
company's facilities include slot and table games, and restaurants.
It operates properties in Des Plaines, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh,
and Schenectady. The company was founded in 2009 and is based in
Chicago, Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


S&F COMMUNICATIONS: Snell Action Seeks Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nathan Snell, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff, v. S&F Communications, Inc., Sophie Gabler
and Fernando Huerta, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-02438 (D. Minn.,
August 21, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage, unpaid
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest and
attorneys' fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

S&F Communications provides cable installation services, installing
video, phone and internet services for residential Comcast
customers throughout Minnesota and parts of Wisconsin. Snell worked
as a cable installation technician. He claims to have been
misclassified as an independent contractor and denied overtime
premium for hours worked over 40 in a workweek. [BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      M. William O'Brien, Esq.
      Emily L. Marshall, Esq.
      Mary M. Musilek, Esq.
      MILLER O'BRIEN JENSEN, P.A.
      Canadian Pacific Plaza, Suite 2400
      120 South Sixth Street
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Phone: (612) 333-5831
      Fax: (612) 334-2613
      Email: bobrien@mojlaw.com
             tlouris@mojlaw.com
             emarshall@mojlaw.com
             mmusilek@mojlaw.com


SAFELITE FULFILLMENT: 9th Cir. Dismisses Appeal in Wage Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, dismissed for
Lack of Jurisdiction the appeals case captioned YADIR A. ONTIVEROS,
as an individual, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SAFELITE FULFILLMENT, INC., a Delaware
corporation, Defendant-Appellant, and SAFELITE GROUP, INC., et al.,
Defendants, No. 17-56644 (9th Cir.).

In this class action, Plaintiff Yadir A. Ontiveros alleges that
Defendant Safelite Fulfillment, Inc. violated California's wage and
hour laws.

The parties agreed to have the district court decide the merits of
Plaintiff's claims first, on summary judgment, and then to litigate
class certification. After the district court resolved several key
issues in Plaintiff's favor, Defendant mailed to putative class
members packets containing settlement agreements and encouraging
putative class members to settle. The district court ruled that the
communications were misleading, invalidated the releases contained
in the settlement agreements, and ordered Defendant to send a
curative notice to the individuals who had received the packets.

The Defendant appeals.

On de novo review, the Court dismisses the appeal for lack of
jurisdiction. In the absence of a final judgment, the Court lacks
jurisdiction to review the orders in question.  

No exception to the final judgment rule applies here because
Defendant has not identified a right at stake that will be
destroyed if not vindicated before trial.

A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's August 13, 2018 Memorandum
is available at https://tinyurl.com/ybg767j9 from Leagle.com.


SCANA CORP: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
SCANA 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
the case entitled, In re SCANA Corporation Securities Litigation,
is pending.

On September 27, 2017, a purported class action was filed against
SCANA, Kevin B. Marsh, Jimmy E. Addison, and Stephen A. Byrne by
plaintiff Robert L. Norman, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, in the District Court (the "Norman Lawsuit").

The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that the defendants
violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, and that the individual named defendants
are liable under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

The plaintiff seeks compensatory and consequential damages,
attorneys' fees, and any other relief the court deems proper.

On January 23, 2018, the District Court granted consolidation of
the Norman Lawsuit, the Evans Lawsuit, the Fox Lawsuit, and the
West Palm Beach Lawsuit, (as such terms are hereinafter defined),
and granted plaintiffs' requests for appointment of lead counsel.
The consolidated case is captioned In re SCANA Corporation
Securities Litigation.The plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint on March 30, 2018. At June 30, 2018, the defendants'
motions to dismiss were pending.

SCANA Corporation, through its subsidiaries, engages in the
generation, transmission, distribution, and sale of electricity to
retail and wholesale customers in the United States. The company
was founded in 1924 and is based in Cayce, South Carolina.


SCANA CORP: Bid to Dismiss Pennington Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------
SCANA 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 SCANA's and SCE&G's
motion to dismiss the purported class action suit by Harry
Pennington III and Timothy Lorenz has been denied.

On August 8, 2017, a purported class action was filed against
SCANA, SCE&G, and its co-defendants Fluor and Fluor Enterprises,
Inc., by plaintiffs Harry Pennington III and Timothy Lorenz, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, in the
District Court.

The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the defendants
violated the  
Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN) Act in
connection with the decision to stop construction on the Nuclear
Project. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants failed to
provide adequate advance written notice of their terminations of
employment.

SCANA's and SCE&G's Motion to Dismiss has been denied.

SCANA Corporation, through its subsidiaries, engages in the
generation, transmission, distribution, and sale of electricity to
retail and wholesale customers in the United States. The company
was founded in 1924 and is based in Cayce, South Carolina.


SCANA CORP: Continues to Defend Turner Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
SCANA 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 company continues to
defend a purported class action suit by Mary Turner.

On March 15, 2018, a purported class action was filed against
SCANA, Dominion Energy, Sedona, Jimmy E. Addison, Gregory E. Aliff,
James A. Bennett, John F.A.V. Cecil, Sharon A. Decker, D. Maybank
Hagood, Lynne M. Miller, James W. Roquemore, Maceo K. Sloan, and
Alfredo Trujillo by plaintiff Mary Turner, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated in the District Court.

The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that the defendants
violated provisions of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC
Rule 14a-9 by allowing or causing misleading proxy statements to be
issued. The plaintiffs alternatively seek to enjoin the merger,
monetary damages, attorneys' fees, and any other relief the court
deems proper.

The defendants' motions for extension of time to respond to the
plaintiff's Complaint have been granted. Defendants' responses are
due July 31, 2018.

SCANA Corporation, through its subsidiaries, engages in the
generation, transmission, distribution, and sale of electricity to
retail and wholesale customers in the United States. The company
was founded in 1924 and is based in Cayce, South Carolina.


SCHMIDT BAKING: "Schilling" Class of DSMs Conditionally Certified
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RONALD J. SCHILLING, JR., RUSSELL E. DOLAN, JONATHAN
A. HECKER, MICHAEL McEWEN, MICHAEL HALAGER, DONALD L. BOLLINGER and
MARCEL HAMIL TON, Individually and on Behalf of Other Similarly
Situated Employees, Plaintiffs, v. SCHMIDT BAKING COMPANY, INC.,
Defendant, Civil Action No. TDC-16-2498 (D. Md.), Judge Theodore D.
Chuang of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland
granted the Plaintiffs' (i) pre-discovery Motion for Conditional
Certification and (ii) Motion for Equitable Tolling of the Statute
of Limitations.

The named Plaintiffs, acting as individuals and on behalf of all
similarly situated individuals, have filed the action against their
employer Schmidt, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act ("FLSA").  Schmidt, a bread production and distribution company
based in Baltimore, Maryland, provides baked goods to various
establishments.  It employs the Plaintiffs and other individuals as
District Sales Managers ("DSMs"), whose formal job description
states that their function is to "manage" a particular geographic
region in which Schmidt's products are sold.

The Plaintiffs allege that despite this job description, DSMs'
primary duty is to assist a group of independent operators --
independent contractors who lease delivery routes and vehicles from
Schmidt in order to deliver Schmidt's products.  Because
independent operators are not Schmidt employees, DSMs have no
authority over them.  

The primary way that DSMs assist independent operators is by
filling in for them in driving their delivery routes, which
generally take from 12 to 16 hours to complete.  Due to
understaffing, in addition to assisting those independent operators
operating within their own districts, DSMs are called upon to make
deliveries originating in other districts and to correct errors
occurring in those districts.  The Plaintiffs allege that, all
told, they spend between 65% and 85% of their time each week making
deliveries.  Due to the limited number of delivery vehicles at each
distribution center, DSMs use their personal vehicles to complete
these deliveries approximately 90% of the time.  DSMs spend the
remainder of their time performing clerical duties, manual labor
around Schmidt's warehouses, and work at customers' stores.

According to the Plaintiffs, DSMs have no discretion in completing
these tasks.  They operate at the direction of Schmidt's Branch
Managers, who are their direct supervisors, and Area Sales
Managers.  Because DSMs are salaried employees paid weekly, they
receive the same salary regardless of how many hours they actually
work.  Although DSMs such as the Plaintiffs are scheduled to work
between approximately 45 and 54 hours per week, because they are
expected to perform job functions even during their scheduled time
off, they consistently worked between 70 and 85 hours per week,
sometimes working more than 100 hours over a seven-day work week.

On July 6, 2016, Plaintiffs Schilling, Dolan, and Hecker filed the
action on behalf of all DSMs, alleging that Schmidt has unlawfully
failed to pay them overtime wages.  They brought the case as both a
collective action pursuant to the FLSA, and a class action pursuant
to Maryland state wage laws.

On July 27, 2016, Schmidt filed a Motion to Dismiss and for Summary
Judgment.  On Sept. 23, 2016, the Court, construing the motion as a
Motion to Dismiss, granted it.  The Plaintiffs appealed that
ruling.  On Nov. 17, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the Plaintiffs' state law claims
but reversed the dismissal of the FLSA claim.

Upon remand, Plaintiffs McEwen, Halager, Bollinger, and Hamilton
joined the case as the named Plaintiffs.  On Feb. 26, 2018, the
Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Conditional Certification, asking the
Court to conditionally certify an FLSA collective action on behalf
of all Schmidt DSMs and to assist them in identifying and notifying
DSMs who are not currently parties to the Complaint.  That same
day, they filed a Motion for Equitable Tolling of the Statute of
Limitations, asking the Court to toll the deadline for a putative
class member to file an FLSA claim during the period from July 27,
2016, the date on which Schmidt filed its Motion to Dismiss and for
Summary Judgment, to the date the Court rules on the Motion for
Conditional Certification.

Judge Chuang finds that the members of the putative class are
sufficiently similarly situated to warrant conditional
certification and notice.  The Complaint alleges that DSMs are all
salaried employees who perform the same job functions.  He also
finds unpersuasive Schmidt's argument that certification is
inappropriate because a determination whether DSMs are subject to
the TCA exception requires an individualized assessment whether
each DSM actually drove vehicles in interstate commerce in each
workweek.  The MCA exemption, by its own terms, would only exempt
an employee from FLSA overtime-wage requirements if that employee
worked on vehicles engaged in interstate commerce.  Thus, a finding
that a DSM did not work on vehicles engaged in interstate commerce
would not exempt that employee from the FLSA.  Therefore, the Judge
will conditionally certify the collective action and will
facilitate notice to those DSMs who are not currently parties to
the Complaint.

Having conditionally certified the collective action, the Judge
will authorize the provision of notice to members of the putative
class.  Although the Plaintiffs request certain specific rulings
relating to notice, such as authorization to post a notice at
Schmidt and to use a webpage, Schmidt requests an opportunity to
discuss the form of notice with the Plaintiffs.  Because the
arguments for and against specific notice provisions have yet to be
fully articulated, and the parties may reach a resolution of some
or all of the disputes relating to notice, the Judge will decline
to issue an order on the specific form or forms of notice and will
instead require the parties to meet and confer and submit a
comprehensive, joint proposal regarding notice within 15 days.

Finally, where individuals have a potentially meritorious FLSA
claim, but are prevented from asserting that claim by extraordinary
circumstances not of their own making, the proper course is to toll
the statute of limitations to allow adjudication of their claim on
the merits.  Accordingly, the Judge will grant the Plaintiffs'
Motion for Equitable Tolling.  The statute of limitations will be
tolled from July 27, 2016 until the date notice is disseminated.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Chuang granted both the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Certification and Motion for
Equitable Tolling of the Statute of Limitations.  The parties will
be directed to submit a joint proposal relating to notice of the
collective action within 15 days.  A separate order will issue.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 20, 2018 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/2JU1xr from Leagle.com.

Ronald J. Schilling, Jr., Russell E. Dolan, Jonathan A. Hecker,
Individually and On Behalf of Other Similarly Situated Employees,
Michael McEwen, Michael Halager, Donald L. Bollinger & Marcel
Hamilton, Plaintiffs, represented by Benjamin L. Davis, III --
bdavis@nicholllaw.co -- Law Offices of Peter T. Nicholl.

Schmidt Baking Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Kathleen
Pontone , Miles and Stockbridge PC, Amber N. Jackson --
ajackson@milesstockbridge.com -- Miles & Stockbridge, PC & Anthony
W. Kraus -- akraus@milesstockbridge.com -- Miles and Stockbridge
PC.


SCI DIRECT: Romano Bid to Certify Class Taken under Submission
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Nicole Romano, the Plaintiff v. SCI Direct,
Inc., et al., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-03537-ODW-JEM (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Otis D. Wright II entered an order accepting
the Plaintiff's motion to certify class under submission.

As reported by Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs asked the
Court to certify a class consisting of:

     All persons who worked for Defendants in California, as an
     Independent Sales Representative, who were, at any time
     within four years of the filing of the Complaint, classified
     as an independent contractor and earned any commissions
     and/or other wages.

The Plaintiffs also asked the Court to appoint them as Class
Representatives, and to appoint their attorneys as Class Counsel.

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Adrian Robert Bacon, Esq.
          Thomas Edward Wheeler, Esq.
          Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C.
          324 S Beverly Blvd, Suite 725
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212

Attorneys for Defendants:

          Christopher P Leyel, Esq.
          Lonnie J Williams, Jr, Esq.
          Yoka & Smith, LLP
          445 South Figueroa Street, 38th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 427 2300
          Facsimile: (213) 427 2330


SEARS HOLDINGS: Faces Siu Suit in Calif. Dist. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sears Holdings
Management Corporation and Does 1 through 10.  The case is entitled
Gordon Siu, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Sears Holdings Management Corporation and Does 1 Through 10,
inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 3:18-cv-01980-BEN-KSC (S.D.
Cal., August 24, 2018).

Sears Holdings Management Corporation operates as a holding
company.  The Company, through its subsidiaries, retails cloth,
shoes, makeup, and accessories for children, women, and men.  Sears
Holdings serves customers throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that the
Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal on Aug. 29 of a class action
accusing SeaWorld of failing to disclose how it treats orcas. The
unpublished opinion says SeaWorld had no duty to reveal information
that did not "relate to the central functionality of the product."





SETERUS INC: Baxa's Bid to Certify Class Denied without Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled JOHN BAXA ET AL., the Plaintiff, v.
SETERUS, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-05434-JTM-MBN (E.D.
La.), the Hon. Judge Jane Triche Milazzo entered an order on August
17, 2018:

   1. denying Plaintiffs' motion to certify class without
      prejudice, to be re-urged after the filing of any amended
      complaint; and

   2. denying Defendant's motion to continue as moot.

The Court said, "Defendant filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs'
complaint on January 4, 2018. Plaintiffs moved to certify a class
on February 27, 2018. This Court stayed the briefing on the Motion
to Certify Class pending a decision on the Motion to Dismiss. On
July 31, 2018, the Court granted the Motion to Dismiss in part,
giving Plaintiffs leave to amend to correct the deficiencies. The
Court also reset the briefing schedule for the Motion to Certify.
Defendant now asks the Court to continue the briefing schedule of
Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class so that Defendant may take any
amended complaint into account."


SHELL OIL: Saltzman Labor Suit to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Tyler Saltzman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated Plaintiff, v. Shell Oil Company, Defendant, Case No.
18-cv-02878, (S.D. Tex., May 8, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Saltzman worked for Shell as a wellsite operator and Logistics
Coordinator. He regularly worked more than 40 hours a week but was
not paid overtime, says the complaint.

Shell is an oil and gas company operating throughout the United
States, including Texas. Defendants classified Garcia as an
independent contractor and paid him on a day-rate basis. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

      Richard J. Burch, Esq.
      BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
      8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
      Houston, TX 77046
      Tel: (713) 877-8788
      Fax: (713) 877-8065
      Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com
      Email: mbellair@ltke.com


SHELLY ENTERPRISE: Desta Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kumelachew W. Desta, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Shelly Enterprise, Inc., Shelly SK Enterprise LLC,
Shelly PSG Enterprise LLC, and Sanjiv Shelly, Case No.
3:18-cv-01967 (N.D. Tex., July 30, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid
wages and unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff worked as a cashier for the Defendants from January
26, 2017 to July 2, 2018.

The Defendants own and operate 7-Eleven convenience stores as
franchisees of 7-Eleven, Inc. in Irving, Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Francisco J. Caycedo, Esq.
      MINCES PLLC
      4545 Bissonnet, Suite 286
      Bellaire, TX 77401
      Tel: (346) 701-8563
      Fax: (713) 583-9795
      E-mail: frank.caycedo@mincespllc.com


STERICYCLE INC: Awaits Court OK on Bid to Dismiss Illinois Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stericycle, 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 defendants' motion
to dismiss a class action lawsuit in Illinois has been fully brief
and the company is awaiting the court's ruling.

On July 11, 2016, two purported stockholders filed a putative class
action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois. The plaintiffs purported to sue for
themselves and on behalf of all purchasers of our publicly traded
securities between February 7, 2013 and April 28, 2016, inclusive,
and all those who purchased securities in our public offering of
depositary shares, each representing a 1/10th interest in a share
of the company's mandatory convertible preferred stock, on or
around September 15, 2015.

The complaint named as defendants the Company, its directors and
certain of its current and former officers, and certain of the
underwriters in the public offering.

The complaint purports to assert claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2)
and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as well as SEC Rule 10b-5,
promulgated thereunder. The complaint alleges, among other things,
that the Company imposed unauthorized or excessive price increases
and other charges on its customers in breach of its contracts, and
that defendants failed to disclose those alleged practices in
public filings and other statements issued during the proposed
class period beginning February 7, 2013 and ending April 28, 2016.

On August 4, 2016, plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint that
purports to assert additional misrepresentations in public
statements through July 28, 2016, and therefore to change the
putative class period to the period from February 7, 2013 to July
28, 2016, inclusive. On October 21, 2016, plaintiffs filed a
Corrected Amended Complaint adding the Company as a named defendant
in plaintiff's claim under Section 11 of the Securities Act, which
had previously been asserted only against the Underwriters and
certain officers and directors.

On November 1, 2016, the Court appointed the Public Employees'
Retirement System of Mississippi and the Arkansas Teacher
Retirement System as Lead Plaintiffs and their counsel as Lead
Counsel. On February 1, 2017, Lead Plaintiff filed a Consolidated
Amended Complaint with additional purported factual material
supporting the same legal claims from the prior complaints for a
class period from February 7, 2013 through September 18, 2016.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended
Complaint on April 1, 2017. On May 19, 2017, plaintiffs filed a
response in opposition to the motion to dismiss and on June 19,
2017, Defendants filed a reply brief in support of their motion.

On March 31, 2018, plaintiffs filed a further Amended Complaint,
alleging additional corrective disclosures and extending the
purported class period through February 21, 2018. Defendants filed
a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint on May 25,
2018.  

Stericycle said "The Motion was fully briefed on July 13, 2018, and
we await a ruling by the Court. We intend to vigorously defend
ourselves against this lawsuit."

Stericycle, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides
regulated and compliance solutions to the healthcare, retail, and
commercial businesses in the United States and internationally.
Stericycle, Inc. was founded in 1989 and is based in Lake Forest,
Illinois.


STERICYCLE INC: Continues to Defend Ibrahim TCPA Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Stericycle, 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 itself in a putative class action suit entitled, Ibrahim v.
Stericycle, Inc.

On June 3, 2016, a plaintiff filed a putative class action,
captioned Ibrahim v. Stericycle, Inc., No. 16-cv-4294 (N.D. Ill.),
against the company and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Stericycle
Communication Solutions, Inc., under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act ("TCPA"), asserting that the defendants called
plaintiff and others in violation of that statute. Plaintiff
challenges the company's use of pre-recorded messages that urge the
owners of recalled products to return or obtain repairs for those
products.

Plaintiff seeks certification of two nationwide classes. One class
includes people who received one or more cellular telephone calls
from Stericycle featuring a prerecorded or artificial voice message
relating to a product recall, where the called party was not the
same individual who, according to Stericycle's records, was the
intended recipient of the call.

The second class includes people who received one or more cellular
telephone calls from Stericycle featuring a prerecorded or
artificial voice message relating to a product recall after such
person had communicated to Stericycle that Stericycle did not have
consent to make any such calls to their cellular telephone number.

On July 28, 2016, the company answered the complaint, denying the
material allegations and raising certain affirmative defenses.
Among the asserted defenses is the "emergency" exception to the
TCPA, which exempts calls made to promote public health and safety.


On December 19, 2016, before any substantial discovery in the case,
the company filed a motion for summary judgment primarily on the
basis of the "emergency" exception. On February 1, 2017, plaintiff
responded to the company's motion by requesting additional
discovery. The court permitted plaintiff to obtain some but not all
of the requested discovery, and the company has provided additional
documents in response to that order.

On April 5, 2017, plaintiff sought leave to file an amended
complaint which would add a claim under the Illinois Automatic
Telephone Dialers Act (which does not include an "emergency"
exception) and certain additional allegations. The company filed an
opposition to this motion on April 28, 2017, contending that the
proposed amendments are futile and that the company is entitled to
summary judgment. On June 27, 2017, the court permitted plaintiff
to file the amended complaint. The company answered plaintiffss
amended complaint, denying liability, and in light of the amended
complaint, withdrew our motion for summary judgment without
prejudice.

The parties conducted discovery, which closed on May 15, 2018.
Motions for Summary Judgment and Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification are scheduled to be briefed by the end of 2018.

Stericycle said, "We intend to vigorously defend ourselves against
this lawsuit."

Stericycle, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides
regulated and compliance solutions to the healthcare, retail, and
commercial businesses in the United States and internationally.
Stericycle, Inc. was founded in 1989 and is based in Lake Forest,
Illinois.


STERICYCLE INC: Pays Final Settlement Sum in Contract Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stericycle, 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 has funded
the Final Settlement in the Contract Class Action Lawsuits.

The company was served on March 12, 2013 with a class action
complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Pennsylvania by an individual plaintiff for itself and on behalf
of all other "similarly situated" customers of the company.

The complaint alleged, among other things, that the company had
imposed unauthorized or excessive price increases and other charges
on its customers in breach of its contracts and in violation of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. The
complaint sought certification of the lawsuit as a class action and
the award to class members of appropriate damages and injunctive
relief.

The Pennsylvania class action complaint was filed in the wake of a
settlement with the State of New York of an investigation under the
New York False Claims Act which arose out of the qui tam (or
"whistle blower") action captioned United States of America ex rel.
Jennifer D. Perez v. Stericycle, Inc., Case No. 1:08-cv-2390, which
was settled in the fourth quarter of 2015 as previously disclosed.

Following the filing of the Pennsylvania class action complaint,
the company was served with class action complaints filed in
federal and state courts in several jurisdictions.

These complaints asserted claims and allegations substantially
similar to those made in the Pennsylvania class action complaint.
All of these cases appear to be follow-on litigation to our
settlement with the State of New York.

On August 9, 2013, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
granted the company's Motion to Transfer these related actions to
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois for centralized pretrial proceedings (the "MDL Action").
On December 10, 2013, the company filed its answer to the Amended
Consolidated Class Action Complaint in the MDL Action, generally
denying the allegations therein. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a
Second Amended Consolidated Complaint on March 8, 2016, and the
company filed an answer to that pleading on March 25, 2016,
generally denying the allegations therein and asserting a variety
of affirmative defenses.

Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification on January 29,
2016. On February 16, 2017, the Court entered an order granting
plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Court certified a
class of "all persons and entities that, between March 8, 2003
through the date of trial resided in the United States (except
Washington and Alaska), were identified by Stericycle as 'Small
Quantity' or 'SQ' customer, and were charged and paid more than
their contractually-agreed price for Stericycle's medical waste
disposal goods and services pursuant to Stericycle's automated
price increase policy. Governmental entities whose claims were
asserted in United States ex rel. Perez v. Stericycle Inc. shall be
excluded from the class."

On March 2, 2017, Stericycle filed a motion for reconsideration and
clarification relating to the Court's class certification decision.
The parties engaged in discussions through and overseen by a
mediator regarding a potential resolution of the matter and reached
an agreement in principle for settlement in July 2017 (the
"Proposed MDL Settlement").

Stericycle said "As we disclosed in a current report on Form 8-K
filed on August 2, 2017, the terms of the Proposed MDL Settlement
provided that the Company would establish a common fund of $295.0
million from which will be paid all compensation to members of the
settlement class, attorneys' fees to class counsel, incentive
awards to the named class representatives and all costs of notice
and administration. It also provided that our existing contracts
with customers would remain in force, while we would also establish
as part of the Proposed MDL Settlement guidelines for future price
increases and provide customers additional transparency regarding
such increases. The Proposed MDL Settlement also addressed
additional matters, including the availability of alternative
dispute resolution for members of the settlement class. In the
Proposed MDL Settlement, we admitted no fault or wrongdoing
whatsoever.  We entered into the Proposed MDL Settlement in order
to avoid the cost and uncertainty of litigation."

In view of the Proposed MDL Settlement, the company recorded a
pre-tax charge of $295.0 million during the second quarter of
2017.

On October 17, 2017, the Company executed a definitive written
settlement agreement (the "Settlement"), which incorporated the
terms of the agreement in principle announced in August 2017. The
Settlement incorporated the terms of the Proposed MDL Settlement,
and proposes a global resolution of all cases and claims against
the Company in the MDL Action, including the allegation that price
increases implemented by the Company allegedly violated the
contracts between the Company and its customers as well as various
state consumer protection statutes. Under the terms of the
Settlement, the Company admitted no fault or wrongdoing whatsoever,
and it entered into the Settlement to avoid the cost and
uncertainty of litigation. The Settlement provided that, upon final
approval by the Court following a fairness hearing, it would fully
and finally resolve all claims against the Company alleged in the
MDL Action.

On October 17, 2017, plaintiffs in the MDL Action filed Plaintiffs'
Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement and
Approval of Notice Plan. Following a hearing on October 26, 2017,
the Court granted preliminary approval of the Settlement and set
certain deadlines, including for notification of the class of the
terms of the Settlement, the submission of opt-outs or objections
to the Settlement, and a fairness hearing. The fairness hearing was
held on March 8, 2018.  

The Court granted approval of the Proposed MDL Settlement that same
day. The Court entered final judgment on May 8, 2018.  No appeal
was filed, and the Proposed MDL Settlement became finally effective
on June 7, 2018 (the "Final Settlement"). The Company funded the
Final Settlement on July 6, 2018.

Stericycle said, "Certain class members who have opted out of the
Final Settlement have filed lawsuits against the Company, and the
Company will defend and resolve those actions.  The Company has
accrued its estimate of the probable loss for these collective
matters, which is not material."

Stericycle, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides
regulated and compliance solutions to the healthcare, retail, and
commercial businesses in the United States and internationally.
Stericycle, Inc. was founded in 1989 and is based in Lake Forest,
Illinois.


STEVENS BUSINESS: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Koenig Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Stevens Business
Services, Inc.  The case is styled as Leopold Koenig, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Stevens Business
Services, Inc., Case No. 1:18-cv-04820 (E.D.N.Y., August 24,
2018).

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

Stevens Business Service, Inc., provides debt collection services.
The company offers skip tracing, asset and liability search,
attorney referral, credit bureau reporting, liquidation, online
bill payment, and pre-collect services.  The Company caters to
utility, commercial, and healthcare sectors.  The Company was
founded in 1953 and is based in Lowell, Massachusetts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



SUPERFEET WORLDWIDE: Violates Disabilities Act, Kiler Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Superfeet Worldwide,
Inc.  The case is styled as Marion Kiler, Individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v.
Superfeet Worldwide, Inc., Case No. 1:18-cv-04828 (E.D.N.Y., August
24, 2018).

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

Superfeet Worldwide, Inc., designs and manufactures insoles for
various sports and footwear.  The Company provides sandals for men
and women; and insoles for skiing, snowboarding, hiking, running
and walking, soccer, golfing, cycling, hockey, office, industrial,
health and wellness, and military activities. It markets and sells
its products through dealers/distributors in Europe, Australia,
Canada, Israel, Japan, New Zealand, Puerto Rico, and
internationally; and online.  The Company was founded in 1977 and
is based in Ferndale, Washington.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SUPERVALU INC: Faces Shareholder Class Action Over United Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that The
Vladimir Gusinsky Rev. Trust is lead plaintiff in a federal
shareholder class action against directors who are selling
Supervalu supermarkets to United Natural Foods for $32.50 a share
or $2.9 billion.



TERMINIX INT'L: Can Compel Arbitration in Salesperson's Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Samuel H. Mayes, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Tennessee, Western Division, granted the
Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration in the case, JOHN LOGAN
SHARP, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. TERMINIX INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al., Defendants,
Case No. 2:18-cv-02072-SHM-dkv (W.D. Tenn.).

The action arises from an alleged agreement between the Plaintiff
and the Defendants in which the Defendants promised to pay their
outside salespersons commission on products and services sold.  The
Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants have engaged in a pattern and
practice of failing to pay him and other outside salespersons
agreed-upon commissions in a timely manner.  He alleges breach of
contract, unjust enrichment, and violation of Sections 3-502 and
3-505 of the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law.  He seeks
compensatory damages, punitive damages, prejudgment interest, and
attorney's fees.

The heart of the present dispute is whether the parties agreed to
arbitrate their claims.  The Defendants contend that they maintain
a policy of requiring, as a condition of employment, all employees
and new hires to agree to utilize [an] alternative dispute
resolution program known as The ServiceMaster We Listen Dispute
Resolution Plan.  They assert that on May 11, 2016, Plaintiff
signed an employment contract that referred to The We Listen Plan.


The Plaintiff argues that The We Listen Plan is invalid because it
lacks consideration and unenforceable because it is unconscionable.
He argues that he did not sign The We Listen Plan because he was
not provided a copy of it.  He contends that, when he signed the
Compensation Plan, the Defendants did not mention We Listen, did
not explain the terms of We Listen, and did not provide me with a
copy of We Listen to read or review.

On Feb. 23, 2018, the Defendants filed the Motion.  The Motion
contends that the Plaintiff's claims are subject to a valid and
enforceable arbitration agreement.  The Defendants move the Court
to dismiss the case or, alternatively, stay the case pending
arbitration.  On March 9, 2018, the Plaintiff responded.  The
Defendants replied on March 21, 2018.  On May 21, 2018, the
Defendants filed a Supplemental Memorandum.

Judge Mayes finds that the arbitration agreement is not invalid for
lack of consideration.  However, he finds that the Plaintiff has
failed to establish that The We Listen Plan is substantively
conscionable.  The We Listen Plan memorializes the parties'
agreement to arbitrate their disputes.  It is not unenforceable on
the ground of unconscionability.  It contains a valid arbitration
agreement.

The Judge further finds that the Plaintiff's causes of action for
breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and violation of Sections
3-502 and 3-505 of the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law are
subject to arbitration under The We Listen Plan.  Hence, the class
action waiver is enforceable.  And because all of the Plaintiff's
claims are subject to arbitration, the Judge needs not consider
whether to stay them.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Mayes granted the Defendants'
Motion.  He dismissed without prejudice the case to the parties'
right to re-open it for entry of an arbitration award or for any
other relief to which the parties may be entitled.  The parties are
directed to proceed to arbitration in accordance with the terms of
their agreement.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 20, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/HmOk73 from Leagle.com.

John Logan Sharp, Plaintiff, represented by Danielle Lynn Perry --
dperry@wbmllp.com -- WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON, LLP, pro hac vice,
Gary E. Mason -- gmason@wbmllp.com -- WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON,
LLP, pro hac vice & Caroline Ramsey Taylor -- caroline@wbmllp.com
-- WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP.

Terminix International, Inc., The Terminix International Company
Limited Partnership & ServiceMaster Global Holdings, Inc.,
Defendants, represented by Paul E. Prather -- pprather@littler.com
-- LITTLER MENDELSON, PLC & Steven W. Likens --
slikens@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON, PLC.


TEVA PHARMA: Baker Consolidated with Grodko & Moved to Connecticut
------------------------------------------------------------------
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited 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
securities class action suit by Barry Baker in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has been
consolidated with the securities class action suit filed by Elliot
Grodko in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, and the consolidated suit was transferred to the
District of Connecticut where the Ontario Teachers Securities
Litigation is currently pending.

On August 30, 2017, a putative securities class action was filed by
Barry Baker in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania on behalf of purchasers of Teva's securities between
November 15, 2016 and August 2, 2017 seeking unspecified damages,
legal fees, interest, and costs.

The complaint alleges that Teva and certain officers violated the
federal securities laws by making false and misleading statements
in connection with Teva's acquisition and integration of Actavis
Generics.

On November 1, 2017, the Court consolidated the Baker case with the
Grodko case. On April 10, 2018, the Court granted Teva's motion to
transfer the action to the District of Connecticut where the
Ontario Teachers Securities Litigation is currently pending.

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, a pharmaceutical company,
develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic medicines
and a portfolio of specialty medicines worldwide. It operates
through two segments, Generic Medicines and Specialty Medicines.
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited was founded in 1901 and is
headquartered in Petach Tikva, Israel.


TEVA PHARMA: Bid to Dismiss Ontario Teachers Suit Due Sept. 14
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan Board, et al v. Teva
Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-00558 (D.
Conn., April 4, 2017), the Hon. Stefan R Underhill entered a
Scheduling Order providing that:

     1. Defendants must file any motion(s) to dismiss the Amended
Consolidated Class Action Complaint on or before Sept. 14, 2018;

     2. Lead Plaintiffs must file any opposition to the motion(s)
to dismiss the Consolidated Class Action Complaint on or before
Nov. 9, 2018; and

     3. Defendants must file any reply in support of their
motion(s) to dismiss the Amended Consolidated Class Action
Complaint on or before Dec. 21, 2018.

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited 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 on
November 6, 2016 and December 27, 2016, two putative securities
class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California against Teva and certain of its current and
former officers and directors. After those two lawsuits were
consolidated and transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut, the court appointed the Ontario Teachers'
Pension Plan Board as lead plaintiff (the "Ontario Teachers
Securities Litigation").

The lead plaintiff then filed a consolidated amended complaint. On
December 1, 2017, Teva and the current and former officer and
director defendants subsequently filed motions to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint, with prejudice. On April 3, 2017,
the court granted the motions to dismiss without prejudice.

Lead plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on June 22, 2018,
purportedly on behalf of purchasers of Teva's securities between
February 6, 2014 and August 3, 2017. The second complaint asserts
that Teva and certain of its current and former officers and
directors violated federal securities laws in connection with
Teva's alleged failure to disclose pricing strategies for various
drugs in its generic drug portfolio, and by making allegedly false
or misleading statements in certain offering materials issued
during the class period. The second complaint seeks unspecified
damages, legal fees, interest, and costs.

The current deadline for defendants to file motions to dismiss is
August 30, 2018.

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, a pharmaceutical company,
develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic medicines
and a portfolio of specialty medicines worldwide. It operates
through two segments, Generic Medicines and Specialty Medicines.
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited was founded in 1901 and is
headquartered in Petach Tikva, Israel.


TEVA PHARMA: Court Puts Off OZ ELS Master Fund Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited 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 all
deadlines in the lawsuit by OZ ELS Master Fund, Ltd., et al. have
been shelved pending resolution of the motions to dismiss filed in
the Ontario Teachers Securities Litigation.

On August 3, 2017, a securities lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Connecticut by OZ ELS Master
Fund, Ltd., OZ Special Funding, L.P, OZ Enhanced Master Fund, Ltd.,
Gordel Capital Limited, OZ Global Equity Opportunities Master Fund,
Ltd., OZ Master Fund, Ltd., and OZ Global Special Investments
Master Fund L.P.

The complaint asserts that Teva and certain of its current and
former officers violated the federal securities laws in connection
with Teva's alleged failure to disclose Teva's participation in an
alleged anticompetitive scheme to fix prices and allocate markets
for generic drugs in the United States.

On August 30, 2017, the court entered an order deferring all
deadlines pending the resolution of the motions to dismiss filed in
the consolidated putative securities class action entitled, Ontario
Teachers Securities Litigation.

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, a pharmaceutical company,
develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic medicines
and a portfolio of specialty medicines worldwide. It operates
through two segments, Generic Medicines and Specialty Medicines.
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited was founded in 1901 and is
headquartered in Petach Tikva, Israel.


TEVA PHARMA: Grodko Suit Transferred to District of Connecticut
---------------------------------------------------------------
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited 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 Teva's motion to transfer the class action suit filed
by Elliot Grodko to the District of Connecticut where the Ontario
Teachers Securities Litigation is currently pending.

On August 21, 2017, a putative securities class action was filed by
Elliot Grodko in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania purportedly on behalf of purchasers of Teva's
securities between November 15, 2016 and August 2, 2017 seeking
unspecified damages, legal fees, interest, and costs.

The complaint alleges that Teva and certain of its current and
former officers violated the federal securities laws and Israeli
securities laws by making false and misleading statements in
connection with Teva's acquisition and integration of Actavis
Generics.

On April 10, 2018, the Court granted Teva's motion to transfer the
action to the District of Connecticut where the Ontario Teachers
Securities Litigation is currently pending.

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

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, a pharmaceutical company,
develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic medicines
and a portfolio of specialty medicines worldwide. It operates
through two segments, Generic Medicines and Specialty Medicines.
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited was founded in 1901 and is
headquartered in Petach Tikva, Israel.


TEVA PHARMA: PROVIGIL(R) Suit Against Unit Still Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited 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 Cephalon,
Inc. continues to defend itself in a class action suit related to
PROVIGIL(R).

In April 2006, certain subsidiaries of Teva were named in a class
action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania. The case alleges that the settlement
agreements entered into between Cephalon, Inc., now a Teva
subsidiary ("Cephalon"), and various generic pharmaceutical
companies in late 2005 and early 2006 to resolve patent litigation
involving certain finished modafinil products (marketed as
PROVIGIL(R)) were unlawful because they had the effect of excluding
generic competition.

The case also alleges that Cephalon improperly asserted its
PROVIGIL patent against the generic pharmaceutical companies.

The first lawsuit was brought by King Drug Company of Florence,
Inc. on behalf of itself and as a proposed class action on behalf
of any other person or entity that purchased PROVIGIL directly from
Cephalon. Similar allegations were made in other complaints,
including those filed on behalf of a proposed class of end payers
of PROVIGIL, by certain individual end payers, by certain retail
chain pharmacies and by Apotex, Inc. (collectively, these cases are
referred to as the "Philadelphia Modafinil Action").

Separately, Apotex challenged Cephalon's PROVIGIL patent, and in
October 2011, the Court found the patent to be invalid and
unenforceable based on inequitable conduct. This decision was
affirmed on appeal in April 2013.

Teva has either settled or reached agreements in principle to
settle with all of the plaintiffs in the Philadelphia Modafinil
Action. However, one of the end payers, United Healthcare Services,
took the position that it is not bound by the settlement that was
agreed to on its behalf and brought a separate action in Minnesota
federal court, which has been transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, where Teva has also
filed suit to enforce the settlement.

A bench trial in the suit to enforce the settlement commenced on
April 23, 2018 and concluded on April 27, 2018. The parties
submitted post-trial briefing in June 2018, and the court has not
yet issued any decision.

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, a pharmaceutical company,
develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic medicines
and a portfolio of specialty medicines worldwide. It operates
through two segments, Generic Medicines and Specialty Medicines.
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited was founded in 1901 and is
headquartered in Petach Tikva, Israel.


TEVA PHARMA: Suit over Employee Stock Purchase Plan Remains Stayed
------------------------------------------------------------------
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited 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
lawsuit over an Employee Stock Purchase Plan remains stayed.

On July 17, 2017, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio derivatively on behalf of the
Teva Employee Stock Purchase Plan, and alternatively as a putative
class action lawsuit on behalf of individuals who purchased Teva
stock through that plan.

That lawsuit seeks unspecified damages, legal fees, interest and
costs. The complaint alleges that Teva failed to maintain adequate
financial controls based on the facts underpinning Teva's Foreign
Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) deferred prosecution agreement, and
also based on allegations substantially similar to those in the
Ontario Teachers Securities Litigation.

On November 29, 2017, the court granted Teva's motion to transfer
the litigation to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut where the Ontario Teachers Securities Litigation is
pending. On December 29, 2017, the parties jointly moved to stay
the case pending resolution of the motions to dismiss filed in the
consolidated putative securities class action, which the court
granted on February 12, 2018.

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, a pharmaceutical company,
develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic medicines
and a portfolio of specialty medicines worldwide. It operates
through two segments, Generic Medicines and Specialty Medicines.
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited was founded in 1901 and is
headquartered in Petach Tikva, Israel.


TOP SHIPS: Court Consolidates 2 Securities Suits
------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHRISTOPHER BRADY, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff, v. TOP SHIPS INC., ET AL.,
Defendants, Case No. 17-CV-4987 (JFB) (SIL) (E.D. N.Y.), Judge
Joseph F. Bianco of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York  granted the motions to consolidate Brady and
Narine v. Top Ships Inc., appointed the Top Ships Investor Group as
the lead Plaintiff, and approved the Top Ships' selection of
Pomerantz as the lead counsel.

Presently before the Court are two competing motions, pursuant to
Section 21D of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended by
the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA"),
requesting that the Court (1) consolidates two related securities
class actions; (2) appoint the movant as the lead Plaintiff; and
(3) approves the movant's selection of the lead counsel.  The
pending motions were filed in the instant action, which was the
first of the related actions filed -- one by Moshe Onel, Amardeep
Sidhu, and Joel Sofer ("Top Ships Investor Group"), and the other
by Mickey Nardiello and Zhenzhe Wang.

The Top Ships Investor Group and Nardiello and Wang filed their
motions on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of TOP Ships
securities during the period of the Defendants' alleged Exchange
Act violations, spanning from Jan. 17, 2017 to Aug. 22, 2017.  The
Defendants include Top Ships, as well as Top Ships' CEO, President,
and director, Evangelos J. Pistiolis, and Top Ships' CFO and
director, Alexandros Tsirikos, and Top Ships' underwriter, Kalani
Investments Ltd., a hedge fund behind Kalani, Murchinson Ltd., and
the head of Murchinson, Marc Bistricer ("Kalani Defendants").

Brady filed his complaint in the action on Aug. 23, 2017, and
Plaintiff Karon Narine filed his complaint in Narine v. Top Ships
Inc., E.D.N.Y, Case No. 17cv-5016 (JFB)(SIL) on Aug. 24, 2017.  The
complaints name the same Defendants, which include Top Ships, the
Top Ships Officer Defendants, and the Kalani Defendants.  According
to the complaints, Top Ships is an international provider of oil,
petroleum products and chemicals transportation services.

The Plaintiffs allege in both cases that, through acts taken in
furtherance of the alleged schemes, the Defendants intended to, and
succeeded in, deceiving the investing public and artificially
manipulating the price of Top Ships common stock.  They claim that
the Defendants violated the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

The complaints are nearly identical, describing the same alleged
fraudulent schemes, acts, and events that occurred during the same
class periods and allegedly resulted in the same stock price
declines and damages to investors.  Both complaints include the
following claims: (1) violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange
Act and Rule 10b-5 against all the Defendants, and (2) violation of
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the Top Ships Officer
Defendants.  Additionally, the Brady complaint includes Defendants
Bistricer and Murchinson in the Section 20(a) claim, and brings a
claim for violation of Section 9 of the Exchange Act against all
the Defendants.

With regard to the Defendants' specific acts, both complaints
allege that Top Ships' CEO, Pistiolis, caused Top Ships to engage
in a series of manipulative share issuance/sales transactions with
Kalani and related entities.  Both complaints allege that the
Defendants made false and misleading statements in SEC filings,
including by failing to disclose their alleged fraudulent scheme to
manipulate the Top Ships common stock price.  The complaints
discuss disclosures of acquisitions and sales of shares during this
period, as well as declines in the price of common stock,
shareholder meetings, and approvals of reverse stock splits.

In addition to the overlapping allegations as to the Defendants'
fraudulent actions, both complaints allege the same resulting harm:
the scheme would ultimately result in shareholders losing more than
99% of the value of Top Ships' shares in a matter of months.

On Oct. 23, 2017, six separate movants filed motions (1) to
consolidate the related actions, (2) for appointment as the lead
Plaintiff, and (3) for approval of their selection of the lead
counsel.  The following four movants subsequently submitted letters
withdrawing (or effectively withdrawing) their motions: (1) Anthony
Nguyen, on Oct. 30, 2017 (ECF No. 51), (2) Tomy Lukose, on Nov. 6,
2017, (3) Carla Byrd and Todd Loccisano, on Nov. 6, 2017, and (4)
Joseph M. Petite and Martine-Vivianne Petite, on Nov. 6, 2017.  In
withdrawing, none of the Plaintiffs expressed support for a
specific remaining movant group.  

The two remaining movant groups, Top Ships Investor Group and
Nardiello and Wang, each twice reiterated their positions
established in their initial motion papers: on Nov. 6, 2017, both
groups filed memoranda in further support of their motions, and
opposing the competing motions; and on Nov. 13, 2017, both filed
their replies.

First, because Judge Bianco finds that the two putative class
actions present common questions of law and fact, and that
consolidation would serve the interests of judicial economy, he
granted the motions to consolidate.  Second, based on its
determination that (1) the Top Ships Investor Group has the largest
financial interest, (2) this group has made the requisite
preliminary, prima facie showing that it otherwise satisfies the
requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
and (3) the presumption under the PSLRA that the Top Ships Investor
Group is the most adequate Plaintiff to represent the class has not
been rebutted, he appointed the Top Ships Investor Group as the
lead Plaintiff.  Finally, the Judge approved the Top Ships'
selection of Pomerantz LLP as the lead counsel.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 20, 2018 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/ZlLugO from Leagle.com.

Tomy Lukose, Movant, represented by Frederic S. Fox --
ffox@kaplanfox.com -- Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP.

Anthony Nguyen, Movant, represented by Phillip Kim --
pkim@rosenlegal.com -- Rosen Law Firm, P.A. P.C.

Carla Byrd & Todd Loccisano, Movants, represented by Lesley Frank
Portnoy -- lportnoy@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP.

Joseph M. Petite & Martine-Vivianne Petite, Movants, represented by
Kim Elaine Miller -- kim.miller@ksfcounsel.com -- Kahn Gauthier
Swick, LLC.

Moshe Onel, Amardeep Sidhu & Joel Sofer, Movants, represented by
Jeremy Alan Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP &
J. Alexander Hood -- ahood@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP.

Mickey Nardiello & Zhenzhe Wang, Movants, represented by David Avi
Rosenfeld -- DRosenfeld@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd, LLP.

Christopher Brady, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by David Avi Rosenfeld,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP & Samuel H. Rudman --
SRudman@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP.

Top Ships Inc., Evangelos J. Pistiolis & Alexandros Tsirikos,
Defendants, represented by Jenny R.A. Pelaez, Wilmer Cutler
Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Jeremy Adler --
JEREMY.ADLER@WILMERHALE.COM -- Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and
Dorr LLP, Michael G. Bongiorno -- MICHAEL.BONGIORNO@WILMERHALE.COM
-- Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP & Peter Kolovos --
PETER.KOLOVOS@WILMERHALE.COM -- Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and
Dorr LLP, pro hac vice.

Murchinson Ltd. & Marc Bistricer, Defendants, represented by Noah
Nehemiah Gillespie -- noah.gillespie@srz.com -- Schulte Roth &
Zabel LLP & Peter H. White -- pete.white@srz.com -- Schulte Roth &
Zabel LLP, pro hac vice.


TRIPLE T TRADING: Violates Disabilities Act, Bunting Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Triple T Trading Ltd.
The case is entitled Rasheta Bunting, Individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Triple T
Trading Ltd doing business as: Northside USA, Case No.
1:18-cv-04829 (E.D.N.Y., August 24, 2018).

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

Triple T. Trading Ltd. does business as Northside USA.  The
Company's line of business includes the wholesale distribution of
footwear.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.[BN]


TROON GOLF: Merlin Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Premium
-----------------------------------------------------
Craig Merlin, and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff,
v. Troon Golf, LLC, Deering Bay Yacht and Country Club, Inc. and
David Regan, Defendant, Case No. 18-CV-23411 (S.D. Fla., August 22,
2018), seeks to recover money damages for unpaid overtime
liquidated damages, costs, and reasonable attorneys' fees under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Deering Bay operates a golf facility in Miami-Dade County, where
Troon manages the golf courses. Merlin worked for Defendants as a
golf professional. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Elizabeth Olivia Hueber, Esq.
      Michael L. Feinstein, Esq.
      200 SE 18th Court
      Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
      Tel. (954) 767-9662
      E-mail: Elizabeth@Feinsteinlaw.net


TWIN DRAGONS: Underpays Kitchen Staff, Rood Bobo Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
ROOD C. BOBO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TWIN DRAGONS, INC. D/B/A THE GOURMET DELI
HOUSE; BORIS BRODSKY; and ROODY RAYMOND, Defendants, Case No.
9:18-cv-81040-DMM (S.D. Fla., August 3, 2018) is an action against
the Defendants to recover unpaid overtime compensation under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mr. Bobo was employed by the Defendants as kitchen staff from June
2017 to June 2018.

Twin Dragons, Inc. d/b/a The Gourmet Deli House is a Florida
corporation engaged in the restaurant business. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Maguene D. Cadet, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DIEUDONNE CADET, P.A.
          2500 Quantum Lakes Drive, Suite 203
          Boynton Beach, FL 33426
          Telephone: (561) 853-2212
          Facsimile: (561) 853-2213
          E-mail: Maguene@DieudonneLaw.com


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Set To Pay $34K+ Per Person in Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Snider, writing for USA Today, reports that Uber may have a
new CEO and potential plans for a 2019 public stock offering, but
it remains in the shadows of cultural scandals that wracked the
ride-hailing company in 2017.  

The San Francisco-based company announced on August 22 that it will
pay $1.9 million, or about $34,000 per person, to 56 former and
current employees who say they were harassed or discriminated
against while working at the ride-hailing company.

That settlement is part of a $10 million overall settlement
announced in March as part of a class-action discrimination suit
against Uber. That suit, filed in October 2017, involves claims
from 487 female and minority engineers going back to 2013.

Long a high-flying tech startup fueled by the bravado of its
onetime co-founder and CEO Travis Kalanick, Uber hit rough waters
in February 2017 with a blog post by former engineer Susan Fowler.
Her bombshell account detailed a toxic, sexist work environment
where discrimination complaints were often brushed aside.

Fowler's piece quickly led to internal investigations that
ultimately forced the resignation of Kalanick and, more recently,
the firing of human resources boss Liane Hornsey after an
investigation into her conduct including reportedly her handling of
employee complaints about racism.

The original discrimination suit against Uber was filed by three
Latina software engineers -- Ingrid Avendano, Roxana del Toro Lopez
and Ana Medina -- who alleged that female engineers and engineers
of color were paid less, hired for lower-level jobs, promoted more
slowly and subject to bias in their performance evaluations.

Details about the 56 current and former employees who also alleged
harassment, a hostile work environment and emotional distress were
in a court filing made on August 20 in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California by the plaintiffs' attorneys.

Uber said in a statement that it agrees "with the plaintiff's
motion which states that 'the class has responded extremely
favorably to the settlement' with amounts that are 'fair,
reasonable, and adequate.'"

Since hiring its new CEO, former Expedia boss Dara Khosrowshahi, a
year ago, Uber has implemented a new employee salary and equity
structure, overhauled its performance review process and addressed
diversity concerns with its second diversity and inclusion report
and an extensive diversity and leadership training process.

Khosrowshahi also has appeared in prime-time commercials in which
he tells viewers that the company is now dedicated to doing "the
right thing."[GN]


ULTIMATE HOME SERVICES: Installers Suit to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Thacker, Kris Hall and Kelly Cooper, on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Ultimate Home
Services, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-02573, (S.D. Ind., August
21, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, as well
as an additional amount as liquidated damages, and costs and
reasonable attorney's fees under the provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Ultimate Home is engaged in the business of installing flooring in
Indiana, Ohio and Michigan where Plaintiffs worked as
estimators/schedulers. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason P. Cleveland, Esq.
      Spenser G. Benge, Esq.
      CLEVELAND LEHNER CASSIDY
      8250 Haverstick Road, Suite 235
      Indianapolis, IN 46240
      Tel: (317) 388-5424
      Fax: (317) 947-1863
      Email: jason@clcattorneys.com
             spenser@clcattorneys.com


UNITED STATES: Calif. Court Narrows Claims in Asylum Seekers' Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
California granted in part and denied in part Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss the case captioned AL OTRO LADO, INC., a California
Corporation; ABIGAIL DOE, BEATRICE DOE, CAROLINA DOE, DINORA DOE,
INGRID DOE, and JOSE DOE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. KIRSTJEN NIELSEN, Secretary,
U.S. Department of Homeland Security, in her official capacity;
KEVIN K. MCALEENAN, Acting Commissioner, U.S. Customs and Border
Protection, in his official capacity; TODD C. OWEN, Executive
Assistant Commissioner, Officer of Field Operations, U.S. Customs
and Border Protection, in his official capacity, Defendants, Case
No. 17-cv-02366-BAS-KSC (S.D. Cal.).

At the heart of this case are several provisions of the Immigration
and Nationality Act (INA) and its implementing regulations which
elaborate a procedure by which asylum seekers who arrive at POEs
may seek asylum in the United States a procedure the Plaintiffs
refer to as access to the U.S. asylum process.

The Plaintiffs allege that CBP officials have systematically
violated U.S. law and binding international human rights law by
refusing to allow individuals who present themselves at POEs along
the U.S.-Mexico border and assert their intention to apply for
asylum or a fear of returning to their home countries to seek
protection in the United States.

Rule 12(b)(1) and Federal Court Jurisdiction

Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), a party may move to dismiss based on the
court's lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. A defendant may
challenge the court's subject-matter jurisdiction in several ways,
two of which are raised by Defendants' motion to dismiss: mootness
and sovereign immunity.

Rule 12(b)(6) and the Sufficiency of the Complaint

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires that a complaint
set forth a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the defendant fair
notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests. A
defendant may move to dismiss a complaint on the ground that its
allegations fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
  A Rule 12(b)(6) motion tests the sufficiency of a complaint's
allegations.

Mootness

The Defendants assert that the Individual Plaintiffs have received
all the relief the Court could have granted on their Section 706(1)
claims: the verifiable opportunity to be processed as applicants
for admission at a POE along the U.S.-Mexico border consistent with
the INA's provisions.  

The Plaintiffs argue that the Section 706(1) claims are not moot
because (1) Plaintiff Beatrice Doe has not been processed for
admission and therefore has not actually received the relief and
(2) the Individual Plaintiffs who have been processed for admission
only received partial relief.

This Case is Not Moot

The Defendants' argument that this case is moot ignores
organizational Plaintiff Al Otro Lado's presence in this case and
the Individual Plaintiffs' other requests for relief. A case
becomes moot only when it is impossible for a court to grant any
effectual relief whatever to the prevailing party. Setting aside
whether the Individual Plaintiffs' Section 706(1) claims are moot,
this case is not moot given that it remains possible for the Court
to grant effectual relief to Al Otro Lado and the Individual
Plaintiffs.

Al Otro Lado

Al Otro Lado is a non-profit that provides services to indigent
deportees, migrants, refugees, and their families in Los Angeles,
California and Tijuana, Mexico. Its core mission is, inter alia,to
coordinate and provide screening, advocacy, and legal
representation for individuals in asylum and other immigration
proceedings. As a result of CBP officers' conduct at POEs along the
U.S.-Mexico border since 2016, Al Otro Lado alleges that it has
diverted significant time and resources from its L.A. operations
and its non-refugee programs to send representatives to Tijuana to
provide individualized assistance and coordination of legal and
social services, including individual screenings and in-depth
trainings to educate asylum seekers about CBP's alleged conduct of
denying the most basic form of access to the asylum process. These
alleged harms are sufficient for Article III standing. Accordingly,
Al Otro Lado has an interest in this case that is not mooted by the
Defendants' post-Complaint conduct.

The Individual Plaintiffs' Other Claims for Relief

The Defendants' argument cannot show that this entire case is moot
because it conflates whether the Complaint plausibly shows the
existence of a policy with whether the Complaint plausibly shows
the existence of a practice. As the Court later explains, although
the Complaint fails to show the existence of a policy, it plausibly
shows the existence of a pattern or practice of denials faced by
some asylum seekers. Accordingly, the Court cannot find that this
entire case is moot by virtue of Defendants' agreement to process
the Individual Plaintiffs.

The Section 706(1) Claims Are Not Moot

Al Otro Lado's APA Claims

The specific INA provisions in this case evince a congressional
intent that aliens including those arriving at POEs and those
facing expedited removal have an opportunity to have the merits of
his or her claim promptly assessed by officers. Al Otro Lado
alleges that part of its mission is to serve and represent asylum
and refugee seekers. In furtherance of this mission, Al Otro Lado
established and operates its Refugee Program in Tijuana, Mexico,
which services individuals who wish to seek asylum in the United
States. The alleged conduct of CBP officers has caused Al Otro Lado
to expend significant time and resources to assist asylum seekers
in responding to CBP officials' alleged conduct of foreclosing even
the most basic aspect of the INA's asylum procedures the
opportunity to be processed in the first place. This Court finds Al
Otro Lado's interests in this case are related to the basic
purposes of the INA`s goal of permitting aliens to apply for asylum
in the United States at POEs and not so marginally related that its
interests fall outside the INA's zone of interests.  

Accordingly, the Court rejects the Defendants' challenge to Al Otro
Lado's INA-based claims.

The Individual Plaintiffs' Other Claims for Relief

Even on the merits, Defendants' argument cannot show that this
entire case is moot because it conflates whether the Complaint
plausibly shows the existence of a policy with whether the
Complaint plausibly shows the existence of a practice. As the Court
later explains, although the Complaint fails to show the existence
of a policy, it plausibly shows the existence of a pattern or
practice of denials faced by some asylum seekers. Accordingly, the
Court cannot find that this entire case is moot by virtue of
Defendants' agreement to process the Individual Plaintiffs.

The Individual Plaintiffs' Section 706(1) Claims

Five of the six Individual Plaintiffs have received the requested
relief from Defendants' agreement to process these "class
representatives and their children" at POEs. Thus, their Section
706(1) claims are moot unless an exception applies. Plaintiffs
contend, however, that the Section 706(1) claim of Beatrice Doe is
not moot because she has not "actually received" the relief
provided in the agreement. (ECF No. 143 at 11.) The Court does not
share Plaintiffs' view.

The Defendants possess the authority to direct CBP officials to
process aliens who present themselves at POEs along the U.S.-Mexico
border in accordance with the requirements of the INA and
implementing regulations. The Defendants' agreement to exercise
that authority occurred a mere two days after the filing of the
Complaint and only when confronted with the possibility that
Plaintiffs would file an ex parte request for a temporary
restraining order that all Individual Plaintiffs be processed at a
POE. Under these circumstances, the Court is convinced that the
Section 706(1) claims the Individual Plaintiffs assert on behalf of
themselves and the putative class fall within an exception from
mootness.

Sovereign Immunity

The Defendants' motion to dismiss also raises the issue of
sovereign immunity.

The United States, as a sovereign, is immune from suit unless it
has waived its immunity. Thus, consistent with sovereign immunity
and any waiver of it, a court may only exercise jurisdiction over
claims against the United States within the parameters set by
Congress.

The APA Supplies the Relevant Waiver

Claims asserted pursuant to the APA must satisfy Section 702's
agency action requirement and the further requirement under Section
704 of the APA that a plaintiff must identify a final agency action
to obtain judicial review.  

Apart from Section 702's judicial review provision for APA claims
is the APA's waiver of sovereign immunity, also located in Section
702. The waiver provides that: an action in a court of the United
States seeking relief other than money damages and stating a claim
that an agency or an officer or employee thereof acted or failed to
act in an official capacity shall not be dismissed nor relief
therein be denied on the ground that it is against the United
States. This waiver of sovereign immunity was enacted as a 1976
amendment to the APA, which aimed to clear up a morass of federal
sovereign immunity jurisprudence and aimed to broaden the avenues
for judicial review of agency action by eliminating the defense of
sovereign immunity in cases covered by the amendment.

Unlike Section 702's judicial review provision, which is textually
limited to agency action, Section 702's waiver of sovereign
immunity contains no such textual limitation. Accordingly, as
amended, the APA waives sovereign immunity broadly for all causes
of action that meet its terms irrespective of whether the claims
satisfy the APA's requirements for judicial review of an agency
action. Thus, a plaintiff need only seek nonmonetary relief against
the government in order to avail himself of the APA's waiver of
sovereign immunity. In this case, Plaintiffs invoke the APA's
waiver and seek only non-monetary relief against Defendants, based
on claims regarding the purported actions and failures to act of
CBP officials and the named Defendants.

Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' claims for relief fall squarely within
the broad waiver of sovereign immunity reflected in Section 702.

The APA's Waiver Extends to Plaintiffs' ATS Claims

The APA's waiver of sovereign immunity also resolves one of the
Defendants' challenges to the Plaintiffs' ATS claims. The Complaint
alleges ATS claims against the Defendants for violation of the
non-refoulement doctrine under international law. The Defendants
argue that the ATS does not constitute a waiver of sovereign
immunity and therefore does not create a cause of action against
the government. Defendants thus appear to suggest that this Court
lacks jurisdiction over the ATS claims asserted against the
Defendants as a matter of sovereign immunity.

The Defendants are correct that the ATS does not waive the
sovereign immunity of the United States. The ATS provides only that
the district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil
action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the
law of nations or a treaty of the United States. The text of the
ATS says nothing about sovereign immunity and, thus, it cannot be
construed as a waiver.

The Complaint States Section 706(1) Claims for Unlawfully Withheld
Access to the U.S. Asylum Process

Section 706(1) grants a court authority to compel agency action
unlawfully withheld. Under this provision, a court's ability to
compel agency action is carefully circumscribed to situations where
an agency has ignored a specific legislative command.

The gravamen of the Plaintiffs' Section 706(1) claims is that CBP
officials failed to take actions that the INA requires when a
noncitizen asserts an intent to seek asylum. The Complaint grounds
these claims in various statutory and regulatory provisions,
including 8 U.S.C. There is no dispute between the parties
regarding the sufficiency of the Individual Plaintiffs' Section
706(1) claims under these provisions. The Defendants agree that APA
relief under section 706(1) is an appropriate remedy for the
failures to act the Individual Plaintiffs allege.  These
concessions buttress the Court's conclusion that Plaintiffs have
stated Section 706(1) claims for discrete and legally required
agency actions.

The Putative Class and Practice Allegations

The Defendants readily concede that the Complaint identifies
incidents in which asylum seekers who presented themselves at POEs
along the U.S.-Mexico border have been denied access to the asylum
process. Even in the absence of Defendants' concession, the
Complaint incorporates numerous reports from non-governmental
organizations operating in the U.S.-Mexico border region, which
document hundreds of examples of asylum seekers who CBP officials
denied access to the U.S. asylum process. While Defendants may seek
to minimize those allegations by selectively casting doubt on the
reliability of those portions of the reports that reflect
negatively on CBP and by characterizing the reports as showing only
an alleged 1.6% denial rate, the volume of denials is irrelevant to
whether the Complaint concretely alleges that other individuals
have been subjected to the same alleged failures to act by CBP
officials. The Complaint plainly alleges such failures, which the
Court is required to take as true at this stage. Because the
Individual Plaintiffs have standing in their own right to seek
Section 706(1) relief to compel the Defendants to inspect and
process them for admission, they may request that relief for a
putative class of others asylum seekers who have allegedly
experienced the same failures to act.

Accordingly, the Court rejects the Defendants' challenge to the
Complaint's practice allegations, which are merely a feature of the
class action nature of this case.

The Complaint Fails to State a Section 706(1) Claim for Relief
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. Section 235.4

The Plaintiffs A.D., B.D., and C.D. each allege that on of one of
the occasions they sought asylum, CBP officials coerced them to
into signing documents which stated that they lacked a fear of
persecution.  A.D. and C.D. further allege that CBP officials
forced them to recant their fears in video recorded statements.
They further refer to their allegations regarding CBP's alleged
coercion of certain Individual Plaintiffs in discussing their
Section 706(1) claims. Both sides further agree that the law
requires an alien's decision to withdraw his or her application for
admission be voluntary under 8 C.F.R. Section 235.4. That the
parties agree on the text of the INA's provisions and certain
implementing regulations, however, does not mean that the Court in
fact has authority to provide Section 706(1) relief based on 8
C.F.R. Section 235.4.

The Court concludes that it does not.

The Complaint Fails to State a Section 706(2) Claim Regarding
Defendants' Alleged Policy

The Complaint alleges that CBP officials have systematically
prevented asylum seekers arriving at POEs along the U.S.-Mexico
border from accessing the U.S. asylum process since summer 2016.
Plaintiffs allege that this conduct has been documented in hundreds
of cases at POEs along the border. The bulk of Defendants' motion
to dismiss concerns whether Plaintiffs have stated a Section 706(2)
claim regarding an alleged policy of the Defendants to deny asylum
seekers who present themselves at POEs along the U.S.-Mexico border
access to the asylum process. Defendants argue that while the
Complaint does not expressly seek judicial review of a final agency
action, it alleges that CBP has adopted an officially sanctioned
policy'. Defendants contend that to the extent the Court construes
those references as a request for judicial review of an alleged
unlawful policy under the APA pursuant to Section 706(2), the Court
should dismiss that request because: (1) Plaintiffs fail to
identify an agency action and, even if Plaintiffs have done so, (2)
the Complaints fails to show a final agency action.

The Complaint Does Not Identify a Final Agency Policy

The Complaint contains a single allegation that Defendants have an
officially sanctioned policy of denying asylum seekers who present
themselves at POEs along the U.S.-Mexico border access to the U.S.
asylum process. The only formulation of the alleged policy
suggested by Plaintiffs is that CBP officials have a categorical
policy of denying asylum seekers who present themselves at POEs
along the U.S.-Mexico border access to the U.S. asylum system. A
further variant of this policy is one in which CBP officials deny
access through tactics of misrepresentations, harassment, coercion,
threats, and physical violence. But the Court cannot locate a
single agency action reflecting Defendants' alleged policy, let
alone one that is final.

The Court grants in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss and
dismisses without prejudice: (a) Plaintiffs A.D, B.D., and C.D.'s
claims under Section 706(1) only insofar as they have sought to
compel agency action under 8 C.F.R § 235.4, and (b) all the
Plaintiffs' claims under Section 706(2) regarding Defendants'
alleged policy.

The Court denies on all other grounds the Defendants' motion.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 20, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yd74pcyd from Leagle.com.

Al Otro Lado, Inc., a California corporation, Abigail Doe,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Beatrice Doe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Carolina Doe, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Dinora Doe, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Ingrid Doe, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated & Jose Doe, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by
Michaela R. Laird -- michaela.laird@lw.com -- Latham & Wakins, LLP,
Robin Kelley -- robin.kelley@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP, Angelo
R. Guisado -- aguisado@ccrjustice.org -- Center for Constitution
Rights, pro hac vice, Baher Azmy -- bazmy@ccrjustice.org -- The
Center for Constitution Rights, pro hac vice, Faraz R. Mohammadi --
faraz.mohammadi@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP,Ghita R. Schwarz --
gschwarz@ccrjustice.org -- Center for Constitution Rights, pro hac
vice, Karolina J. Walters -- kwalters@immcouncil.org -- American
Immigration Council, pro hac vice, Kathryn E. Shepherd --
kshepherd@immcouncil.org -- American Immigration Council, pro hac
vice, Melissa E. Crow -- mcrow@immcouncil.org -- American
Immigration Council, pro hac vice, Wayne S. Flick --
wayne.s.flick@lw.com -- Latham and Watkins LLP & Manuel A. Abascal
-- manny.abascal@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP.

Kevin K. McAleenan, Acting Commissioner, United States Customs and
Border Protection, in his official capacity & Todd C. Owen,
Executive Assistant Commissioner, Office of Field Operations,
United States Customs and Border Protection, in his official
capacity, Defendants, represented by Alexander James Halaska , U.S.
Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation, Gisela Ann
Westwater , US Department of Justice, Brian Ward , U.S. Department
of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation, Danielle K. Schuessler
, Civil Division - Office of Immigration Litigation,Genevieve Kelly
, Genevieve M. Kelly , US Department of Justice Office of
Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, Sairah G. Saeed , USDOJ
Civil Division - Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil, OIL, DCS
& Yamileth G. Davila , United States Department of Justice.

Todd C. Owen, Executive Assistant Commissioner, Office of Field
Operations, United States Customs and Border Protection, in his
official capacity, Defendant, represented by OIL-DCS Trial
Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation.

Kirstjen Nielsen, Acting Secretary, U.S. Departmernt of Homeland
Security, Defendant, represented by Alexander James Halaska , U.S.
Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation, Gisela Ann
Westwater , US Department of Justice, Brian Ward , U.S. Department
of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation, Danielle K. Schuessler
, Civil Division - Office of Immigration Litigation, Genevieve M.
Kelly , US Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation -
Civil Division, Sairah G. Saeed , USDOJ Civil Division - Office of
Immigration Litigation, Civil, OIL, DCS & Yamileth G. Davila ,
United States Department of Justice.

Kirstjen Nielsen, Acting Secretary, U.S. Departmernt of Homeland
Security, Defendant, represented by OIL-DCS Trial Attorney, Office
of Immigration Litigation.


VCG HOLDING: Court Certifies Question on Arbitration Nonsignatory
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Colorado
granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify
Questions to Colorado Supreme Court in the case captioned GEORGINA
SANTICH, JANEL ANDERSON, JESSICA SAULTERS ARCHULETTA, ADRIANNE
AXELSON, EMILY BACHELDER, ALENA BAILEY, RACHEL BERRY, NICOLE BUJOK,
BRANDI CAMPBELL, TALITA CATTO, MELISSA CHAVEZ, ARIEL CLINE, MEGAN
FITZGERALD, AMANDA GABRIEL, AMY GLINES, JOHANNA GRISSOM, AMANDA
LIVINGSTON, ARIELLE MANSFIELD, CHADA MANTOOTH, KARLA MARTINEZ,
CHRISTINA MASSARO, ALEXIS NAGLE, LAPORTIA OAKLEY, GALE RAFFAELE,
AMRICA TERRELL, PENNY WATKINS, CASANDRA WINDECKER, MELANIE TRACY,
PORSCHA GREEN, AMANDA SHAFER, ASHLEY WOZNEAK, REBECCA RAIL, ANDREA
ABBOTT, and KIMBERY HALE, all individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. VCG HOLDING CORP., LOWRIE
MANAGEMENT, LLLP, TROY LOWRIE, MICHAEL OCELLO, DENVER RESTAURANT
CONCEPTS LP d/b/a PTs Showclub, KENKEV II, INC. d/b/a PTs Showclub
Portland, INDY RESTAURANT CONCEPTS, INC. d/b/a PTs Showclub Indy,
GLENARM RESTAURANT, LLC d/b/a Diamond Cabaret, GLENDALE RESTAURANT
CONCEPTS, LP d/b/a The Penthouse Club, STOUT RESTAURANT CONCEPTS,
INC. d/b/a La Boheme, and VCG RESTAURANTS DENVER, INC. d/b/a PT's
All Nude, Defendants, Civil Action No. 17-cv-00631-RM-MEH (D.
Colo.).

This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United
States Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on "Defendants' Motion
to Stay or Dismiss Proceedings Pursuant to Sections 3 and 4 of the
Federal Arbitration Act, to Compel Plaintiffs[] to Arbitration, and
to Strike Class and Collective Action Allegations." In the
Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge recommended granting
Defendants VCG Holding Corp., Lowrie Management, LLLP, and Denver
Restaurant Concepts LP d/b/a PTs Showclub's Motion to Compel;
ordering the Plaintiffs to arbitrate; severing the fee-shifting
provisions in certain agreements between some of the parties; and
allowing two nonsignatory Defendants (VCG and Lowrie) to enforce
these agreements.

The Plaintiffs, women working as dancers in adult entertainment
establishments, are independent contractors or employees,
notwithstanding the Plaintiffs having signed documents allegedly
electing to be independent contractors and titled as an
Entertainment Lease (Leases). The Plaintiffs allege the Defendants
engaged in various wrongful actions, such as denying them earned
minimum wages, overtime pay, and the full retention of their tips;
charging them fees to work; and subjecting them to fines.  

Plaintiffs' Objection - General

The Plaintiffs assert the Magistrate Judge made three errors of
law. Specifically, the Plaintiffs argue that, contrary to the
recommendation: (1) this court, not an arbitrator, must decide
whether the arbitration clause11 is enforceable; (2) the
unconscionable cost-sharing and fee-shifting provisions invalidate
the Leases in their entirety, including the arbitration clauses at
issue; and (3) Defendants VCG and Lowrie, as nonsignatories to the
Leases, may not enforce the arbitration clause.

As such, the Plaintiffs argue, this Court should reject the
Recommendation.

Matters to which an objection has been filed.

Who decides arbitrability? The Arbitrator.

The Plaintiffs assert that this Court should decide whether the
arbitration clause is enforceable.

Here, the Plaintiffs argue, their procedural and substantive
unconscionability arguments specifically challenged the delegation
clause; that those arguments also applied to the Lease or
arbitration clause as a whole is irrelevant.

Procedural Unconscionability.

The Plaintiffs contend they did challenge the delegation clause,
which challenge they assert included also applied to the Lease and
arbitration clause also. The Court's review, however, shows the
opposite: Plaintiffs challenged the arbitration clause and Lease as
a whole, which challenge they asserted included the delegation
clause. The fact that such challenge includes the delegation clause
and all other clauses, however, is insufficient, as the Magistrate
Judge correctly recognized in reliance on Rent-A-Ctr.561 U.S. at
73.

Substantive Unconscionability

The Plaintiffs assert they challenged the delegation clause as
substantively unconscionable as they argued that if the delegation
provision were enforced, they would not be able to effectively
vindicate their rights due to the fee-shifting and cost-sharing
provisions. The Magistrate Judge construed this argument as
specifically challenging the delegation clause under the effective
vindication doctrine and analyzed it under such doctrine.

The Court's review shows the Plaintiffs did make the argument
asserted, but as an effective vindication challenge rather than a
substantive unconscionability argument. Here, the Plaintiffs'
Response to the Motion to Compel shows they argued the fee-shifting
and cost-sharing provisions rendered the arbitration clause (rather
than the delegation clause) unconscionable, and they considered a
challenge to the arbitration clause to be a specific challenge to
the delegation clause. This finding is also supported by
Plaintiffs' reliance on the alleged costs of vindicating their
entire dispute, not the cost of arbitrating arbitrability, to
support unconscionability.   

Accordingly, having failed to challenge the delegation provision as
substantively unconscionable, arbitrability is for an arbitrator to
decide.

Severability of Cost-Sharing and Fee-Shifting Provisions? They are
severable.

The Magistrate Judge recommended finding that the cost-sharing and
fee-shifting provisions thwart effective vindication of Plaintiffs'
ability to pursue their claims; therefore, such provisions are
unenforceable.

The Defendants, on the other hand, argue that the Plaintiffs cannot
show the Magistrate Judge's reasoning was clearly erroneous or
contrary to law, but does not dispute that Colorado law applies. In
addition, the Defendants assert that, although not required by
binding precedent, the Magistrate Judge found the cost-sharing and
fee-shifting provisions were not part of an integrated scheme to
prevent the Plaintiffs from exercising their rights. Finally, the
Defendants contend the issue of severability is neither novel nor
unsettled in Colorado; therefore, certification should not be had.

The unenforceable provisions are severable

The Plaintiffs argue that Colorado law applies, but their Response
to the Motion to Compel never so argued. Instead, while the
Response cites to some general Colorado law, it is replete with
citations to decisions rendered in other jurisdictions.

The severability of the cost-sharing and fee-shifting provisions is
further reinforced by the fact that the Leases have severability or
savings clauses, a matter not at issue in Reilly or Jones and not
addressed in Section 184 of the Restatement. And, under Colorado
law, in order to determine whether a contract is severable the
primary objective is to ascertain the intent of the contracting
parties. Although these Colorado cases go on further to discuss
gleaning the parties' intent from the terms and provisions of the
contract in light of the surrounding circumstances, they did so
where there was no severability or savings clause.

Here, however, the Court needs to look no further than the Leases
to determine the parties' intent as the Leases contain express
provisions unambiguously requiring severability. Mreover, even
assuming, arguendo, further examination is required even where the
agreement contains a severability or savings clause, the Court also
finds that the provisions are not inextricably intertwined with the
other terms and conditions of the Leases, and that their severance
would not effectively eviscerate the bargain entirely between the
parties.

As such, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge's determination
and recommendation that the provisions are severable.

No Certification

The Court agrees with the Defendants and finds that the issue of
severability need not be certified to the Colorado Supreme Court.
Whether to certify a question of state law to the state supreme
court is within the discretion of the federal court. Certification
may be appropriate where the legal question at issue is novel and
the applicable state law is unsettled. Certification is not to be
routinely invoked whenever a federal court is presented with an
unsettled question of state law.

In this case, the Court finds the issue of severability is not
novel or unsettled such that certification is warranted.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs' alternative request for certification is
denied.

Enforcement of Arbitration Agreement by Nonsignatory Defendants

The Magistrate Judge determined that whether nonsignatory
Defendants VCG and Lowrie may enforce the arbitration clause was a
question for the court and that Colorado law applies to this
issue.

As no party objects, the Court assumes it is so. With this premise,
in reliance on Meister v. Stout, 353 P.3d 916 (Colo. App. 2015) and
Pollard v. ETS PC., Inc. 186 F.Supp.3d 1166 (D. Colo. 2016), the
Magistrate Judge recommended finding the nonsignatory Defendants
may compel arbitration because Plaintiffs' claims against the
signatory Defendants are interdependent with those against the
nonsignatory Defendants, and the claims are intertwined with duties
and obligations in the Leases.

The Plaintiffs' challenge here is as follows. First, Plaintiffs
contend this Court should certify to the Colorado Supreme Court the
issue of whether nonsignatories to an agreement must show reliance
to compel signatories to arbitration under the equitable estoppel
doctrine.

Second, alternatively, according to Plaintiffs, reliance on the
terms or obligations of the Lease is key to the application of
equitable estoppel but, here, Plaintiffs assert, they do not rely
on such terms or obligations; instead, their claims allegedly seek
to defeat or are in conflict with them.  

The Defendants, in response, assert Plaintiffs' argument that a
showing of reasonable reliance is required was not raised in their
Response to the Motion to Compel, or any other time; therefore,
Defendants assert, such argument is waived.

The Defendants contend that, even if not waived, Plaintiffs fail to
show the Magistrate Judge's reliance on Meister and Pollard was
clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Further, Defendants argue the
issue has already been decided in Pollard, even if it is a federal
court decision, so certification should not be had.

As to Plaintiffs' second argument, Defendants contend that the
provisions of the Leases will be informative and necessary for any
fact finder to determine the validity of the Leases and the
parties' intended relationship, as well as to the reformation of
the relationship should that be required. Defendants also assert
that the arbitration clauses require arbitration against the club
and any other persons or entities associated with the club.

The Defendants argue, the nonsignatory affiliated Defendants can
compel arbitration with the signatory Defendants.

The Defendants' primary argument directed against certification is
that the issue of what principles should apply has already been
decided by a federal court via Pollard. While it is true that the
issue has been decided by courts in this District in reliance on
Meister, it is nonetheless the pronouncement of state law by the
Colorado Supreme Court, not Colorado's intermediate appellate court
or another federal district court, which this Court must follow. In
the absence of a state supreme court ruling, a federal court must
follow an intermediate state court decision unless other authority
convinces the federal court that the state supreme court would
decide otherwise.

In this District, the courts which have decided the issue have
found Meister persuasive and predicted that the Colorado Supreme
Court would follow the rationale in that decision. Plaintiffs'
briefings raise issues which, upon the Court's review of
controlling U.S. Supreme Court and Colorado Supreme Court
decisions, persuade this Court that the question of whether
reliance is required in order for a nonsignatory to invoke
equitable estoppel against signatories should be resolved by the
Colorado Supreme Court. As it currently stands, Meister fails to
address this issue and the Court is unclear whether this element is
required under Colorado law. This issue of law may be determinative
of whether the nonsignatory Defendants may equitably estop
Plaintiffs from pursuing their case before this court and there is
no controlling precedent in the decisions of the Colorado Supreme
Court.

Accordingly, the Court will certify the following question to the
Colorado Supreme Court:
What elements must be established by a nonsignatory to an
arbitration agreement in order for the doctrine of equitable
estoppel to apply and thereby require a signatory to an arbitration
agreement to arbitrate claims brought against a nonsignatory?

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 20, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y76qbl9r from Leagle.com.

Georgina Santich, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Joseph McNulty
-- AMcNulty@KLN-law.com -- Killmer, Lane & Newman, LLP, Darold W.
Killmer -- dkillmer@kln-law.com -- Killmer, Lane & Newman, LLP,
Liana Gerstle Orshan -- LOrshan@KLN-law.com -- Killmer Lane &
Newman, LLP & Mari Anne Newman -- mnewman@kln-law.com -- Killmer,
Lane & Newman, LLP

Amanda Livingston, Rebecca Rail, Amanda Gabriel, Casandra
Windecker, Gale Raffaele, Adrianne Axelson, Amanda Shafer, Brandi
Campbell, Penny Watkins, Amanda Mansfield, Emily Bachelder, Amrica
Terrell, Melanie Tracy, Ashley Wozneak, Laportia Oakley, Alexis
Nagle, Janel Anderson, Porscha Green, Johanna Grissom, Karla
Martinez, Amy Glines, Chada Mantooth, Ariel Cline, Alena Bailey,
Jessica Saulters-Archuleta, Melissa Chavez, Talita Catto, Megan
Fitzgerald, Christina Massaro, Andrea Abbott, Nicole Bujok, Rachel
Berry & Kimberly Hale, Plaintiffs, represented by Liana Gerstle
Orshan , Killmer Lane & Newman, LLP & Mari Anne Newman , Killmer,
Lane & Newman, LLP.

VCG Holding Corp., Lowrie Management, LLLP & Denver Restaurant
Concepts LP, doing business as, Defendants, represented by Allan
Stephen Rubin -- Allan.Rubin@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis,
P.C., Melisa Hallie Panagakos -- Melisa.Panagakos@jacksonlewis.com
-- Jackson Lewis, P.C. & Ryan Paul Lessmann --
Ryan.Lessmann@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis, P.C.

Troy Lowrie, Michael Ocello, Kenkev II, Inc., doing business as,
Indy Restaurant Concepts, Inc., doing business as, Glenarm
Restaurant LLC, doing business as, Glendale Restaurant Concepts LP,
doing business as, Stout Restaurant Concepts, Inc., doing business
as & VCG Restaurants Denver, Inc., doing business as, Defendants,
represented by Melisa Hallie Panagakos , Jackson Lewis, P.C. & Ryan
Paul Lessmann , Jackson Lewis, P.C.


VS NESHAMINY: Slivak Suit Asserts ADA Breach
--------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against VS Neshaminy LLC and
Palladino Development Group, Inc.  The case is titled JESSICA
SLIVAK, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED
v. VS NESHAMINY LLC and PALLADINO DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC., Case No.
2:18-cv-03624-PBT (E.D. Pa., August 24, 2018).

The Plaintiff filed the case under The Americans with Disabilities
Act of 1990.

VS Neshaminy LLC is a domestic limited liability company with a
registered address in Holland, Pennsylvania.  Palladino Development
Group, Inc., is a real estate firm.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Arkady Eric Rayz, Esq.
          KALIKHMAN & RAYZ LLC
          1051 County Line Road, Suite A
          Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006
          Telephone: (215) 364-5030
          Facsimile: (215) 364-5029
          E-mail: erayz@kalraylaw.com


[*] NLRB Might Strengthen Class Action Waivers
----------------------------------------------
Hassan A. Kanu at bna.com reports that a recent National Labor
Relations Board decision could be the starting point for expanding
the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling that employers can ban workers from
filing class actions.

The board reopened a case in which it found a Texas restaurant
violated labor law by firing a worker for filing a collective wage
and hour lawsuit against the company. The NLRB's Republican
majority cited the high court's ruling in Epic Systems v. Lewis as
the basis for giving the Texas case another look. The justices in
Epic Systems said businesses can include mandatory arbitration
provisions and class action waivers in their employment contracts.

The board issued the 3-2 decision without being asked by the
restaurant to revisit the case. The move indicates that some
members may want to reconsider whether an employer can fire or
otherwise discipline a worker for the very act of filing a class
action.

Allowing discipline for filing a class action would give employers
more power in enforcing class action waivers. Critics are concerned
it would also further limit workers' ability to individually
enforce their own workplace rights following the Epic Systems
decision.

It's possible the board will maintain the current rule but add
exceptions, Trang Tran, the lawyer representing the workers who
filed the case against Cordua Restaurants Inc., told Bloomberg Law
Aug. 21. The board may continue to ban employers from disciplining
workers for filing class wage and hour actions, but allow them to
take disciplinary action against a worker who simply threatens
supervisors with a lawsuit beforehand, Tran said.

The board hasn't formally begun reconsidering the case and
arguments from both parties. An NLRB spokeswoman didn't immediately
respond to Bloomberg Law's request for comment.



                            *********

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 ***