CAR_Public/180912.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, September 12, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 183

                            Headlines

AETNA INC: Bid to File 1st Amended Peters RICO Suit Denied
AETNA INC: Not Compelled to Produce Redacted/Withheld Docs
AIR SERV: Hussein Suit Settlement Has Preliminary Approval
ALLIANCEONE RECEIVABLES: Madorskaya Sues Over FDCPA Violation
ALLY FINANCIAL: Rougeaux-Luna Files Suit Over Illegal Termination

AMTRUST FINANCIAL: Bartholomew and Myhre Sue over Merger
AMTRUST FINANCIAL: Consolidated Securities Suit Underway in NY
AMTRUST FINANCIAL: Faces Multiple Merger-Related Class Suits
AMTRUST FINANCIAL: Faces Pompano Police & Firefighters' Suit
AMTRUST FINANCIAL: Faces Suit by Cambridge Retirement System

ANDEAVOR: Raul Action Seeks to Halt Sale to Marathon
ANTARES PHARMA: Pomerantz to Lead in Smith Securities Suit
ARCADIA RECOVERY: Summ. Judgment Bid in Vullings Partly Granted
ARYZTA LLC: Faces Stewart Suit over Race Discrimination
AXON ENTERPRISES: To Seek Dismissal of Richey Suit

BERKSHIRE MANUFACTURED: Smith Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
CAMERON PARISH, LA: SPL's Bid to Dismiss Landowners' Suit Granted
CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Corea Says
CASTLE PARKING: Court Denies Recusal Bid in Bankhead Suit
CBS CORP:  Samit Files Suit Over Share Price Drop

CHEBURECK INC: Kikirov Sues over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
CHIASMA INC: Discovery Sought in Gerneth Class Action
CNX GAS: Judge Approves Settlement in Gas Royalties Case
COCHRAN WHOLESALE: Attys' Fee/Incentive Awards in Camp Affirmed
CONSUMER REPORTS: Faces Watterson Class Suit in S.D. New York

CREDIT CONTROL: Ramos FDCA Suit Settlement Has Prelim Approval
CV SCIENCES: Block & Leviton Files Securities Class Action
DECORE-ATIVE SPECIALIST: Valenzuela Seeks Unpaid Wages, Penalties
DEVERUS INC: Violates Fair Credit Reporting Act, Robinson Claims
DEVILLE ASSET MANAGEMENT: Woods Disputes Vague Collection Letter

DIAMOND RESORTS: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Gross Suit Says
DIRECT FUNDING: Loyhayem Hits Autodialed Telemarketing Calls
DIRECTV LLC: Court Denies Bid to Arbitrate Revitch's TCPA Suit
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Court Narrows Claims in Suit vs SNAP
DITECH HOLDING: Continues to Defend Lee Class Action in Nevada

DITECH HOLDING: Initial Approval of Elkin Settlement Sought
EROS INT'L: Reports Dismissal of Class Action Lawsuit
ESSA BANCORP: Accord in Motor Vehicle Repossession Suit Okayed
ESSA BANCORP: Unit Still Defends Alleged RESPA Violations
FAMILY COUNSELING: Conditional Class Cert in Coons Suit Suggested

FIRST BANCORP: Puerto Rico High Court Won't Review Torres Rulings
FLINT, MI: Seeks 6th Cir. Review of Ruling in Waid Suit
FLOWERS FOODS: Farr Files Suit in Ala. Over FLSA Breach
FORTERRA INC: Court Consolidates 3 Related Securities Suits
FRITO-LAY NORTH: Allred Couple Can File FAC

FULL CITIZENSHIP: Court Certifies Class in Craighead FLSA Suit
GARDAWORLD CORP: Faces $25-Mil. Class Action Suit Over Unpaid OT
GOLDEN ENTERTAINMENT: Nevada Class Suits Ongoing
GOLDEN ENTERTAINMENT: Transient Tax Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
GREEN DOT: Pays $2.2 Million in Service Disruption Related Suit

H&M INTERNATIONAL: Yates Suit Asserts Racial Discrimination
HANDI-HOUSE MFG: Class Certification Bid in Brantley Suit Denied
HERTZ CORP: Hirsi Labor Suit Settlement Has Prelim Approval
HOUSTON, TX: Beckwith Appeals S.D. Texas Ruling to 5th Cir.
IMPINJ INC: Montemarano Files Securities Class Suit in W.D. Wash.

J2 GLOBAL: 8th Cir. Grants More Time to Seek Rehearing
JAMBA JUICE: Facing Lawsuit Over Deceptively Marketed Smoothies
KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Lead Plaintiffs File Amended Complaint
KELLOGG SALES: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Ruling in Hadley Suit
KONA GRILL: Parties in Boots Class Action Fail to Reach Accord

LASALLE HOTEL: Faces Erie County Employees Retirement System Suit
LEFTOM FOODS: Rodriguez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime
LIBERTY AND MARCUS: Lawyer Sued Over Alleged $50-Mil. Fraud
LIBERTY MUTUAL: MSPA Appeals Dismissal of Amended Complaint
LIONS GATE: Settles Class Action Suit With Starz Shareholders

LOGMEIN INC: Kessler Topaz Files Securities Fraud Class Suit
LOUISIANA: Judge Grants Class Status to Public Defense Suit
LTD FINANCIAL: Mirzadjanyan Files Suit Over FDCPA Violation
MCCLATCHY CO: Appeal in Becerra Class Suit Still Pending
MDL 2672: Court Grants Admin Motion to Seal Portions of Complaint

MEDPRO GROUP: Settlement in Carrel FMLA Suit Has Final Approval
MELINTA THERAPEUTICS: Bid to Dismiss Merger Suit Stll Pending
MEZZI MARKETING: Motion to Compel Filed in Katz Suit
MINNESOTA: Suit Over Sex Offenders Commitment Program Ends
MSG BEACON: Reyes Files ADA Suit in N.Y.

NATIONWIDE FUNDING: Wendell H. Stone Hits Illegally Faxed Ads
NEW YORK ALLERGY: Picon Suit Alleges Disabilities Act Violations
NINETY NINE RESTAURANTS: Hughes Sues over Take-Out Food Charges
NOVO NORDISK: Carr Suit Remanded to State Court
ODWALLA INC: 9th Cir. Appeal Filed in Wilson Class Suit

PAYAM INC: Contreras Sues to Recover Withheld Gratuities
PC SHIELD INC: Wendell H. Stone Co. Files Suit Over TCPA Breach
PERRIGO CO: Bid to Dismiss Roofers Securities Suit Partly Granted
PERSONAL TOUCH: Faces Taylor Suit Alleging FLSA Violations
PLAIN GREEN: Jurisdictional Discovery in Gibbs RICO Suit Granted

PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: 9th Cir. to Review Class Certification Ruling
PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Appeal in Texas Class Suit Underway
PRIMERICA INC: Kelly Sues Over Illegal Bank Account Withdrawals
PUMA BIOTECHNOLOGY: Hearing on Summary Judgment Set for Sept.
QUEENS MEDICAL: Violates Disabilities Act, Picon Suit Alleges

RAINBOW NAILS: Yang Files FLSA Class Suit in New York
RESOLUTE FOREST: Settlement in Reynolds Case Wins Final Approval
REWALK ROBOTICS: Court Narrows Claims in Jasinski's PSLRA Suit
RYZE CLAIM: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Templar Suit Says
SANDRIDGE ENERGY: West & Hopson Amended Suit Underway in Oklahoma

SANTA BARBARA, CA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Griguoili et al. Say
SAUCEY INC: Cole Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Calif.
SECURITY CREDIT: Huspon Sues Over Alleged FDCPA Violation
SELECT PORTFOLIO: Williams Files Suit in Illinois Over FCRA Breach
SIDHDHY VINAYAK: Faces Mercer Suit in S.D. New York

SIERRA ONCOLOGY: Appeal in New York Class Action Still Pending
SIERRA ONCOLOGY: Parties in California Suits Reach Settlement
SPEEDY CASH: Faces Delisle Suit in Calif. Dist. Ct.
SS&C TECHNOLOGIES: Unit Faces Ferguson Class Action
STEMLINE THERAPEUTICS: 2nd Cir. Orders Withdrawal of Appeal

SYNACOR INC: Continues to Defend New York Securities Class Suit
TARGET CORP: Ference Appeals Ruling in Meta Suit to 6th Cir.
TRUECAR INC: Bid for Class Certification in Rose Suit Denied
TRUECAR INC: Oklahoma Police Pension Fund Named Lead Plaintiff
UBER TECH: Waxler Sues Over Missed Breaks, Missing Paystubs

UNIFIED WINDOW: Picon Sues Over Disabilities Act Violations
VALENTINE & KEBARTAS: Vintila Disputes Collection Letter
VANGUARD NATURAL: Dec. 14 Final Approval Hearing in Hurwitz Deal
VERMYCK LLC: Gomes Suit Seeks Damages for Rent Overcharges, Fees
WEBCOLLEX LLC: Hightower Alleges Wrongful Debt Collections

WESTPORT HOMES: Compelled to Produce Docs in Coleman Suit
WINDMILL HEALTH: Casillas Files Suit Over Under-filled Snack Food
WINDSTREAM HOLDINGS: Doppelt Class Action Concluded
WISCONSIN: Court Grants Bid for Summary Judgment in Austin Suit

                            *********

AETNA INC: Bid to File 1st Amended Peters RICO Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SANDRA M. PETERS, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AETNA INC., AETNA LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY, and OPTUMHEALTH CARE SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendants, Civil
Case No. 1:15-cv-00109-MR (W.D. N.C.), Judge Martin Reidinger of
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina,
Asheville Division, (i) denied the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to
File First Amended Class Action Complaint; and (ii) deemed
withdrawn (a) the Parties' Joint Motion for Leave to File Under
Seal Portions of Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File a First
Amended Class Action Complaint and Proposed First Amended Class
Action Complaint; and (b) the Defendants' Motion for Leave to File
under Seal Portions of Defendants' Combined Opposition to
Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File First Amended Class Action
Complaint and Exhibits C and D.

On June 12, 2015, Peters filed the putative class action against
the Defendants, asserting claims pursuant to the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.  In her Complaint, the
Plaintiff alleged that Aetna engaged in a fraudulent scheme with
Optum and other subcontractors, which were employed to process and
administer health care claims, whereby insureds were caused to pay
the subcontractors' administrative fees because the Defendants
misrepresented such fees as medical expenses.  

The Plaintiff alleged that these misrepresentations allowed Aetna
to illegally (i) obtain payment of the subcontractors'
administrative fees directly from insureds when the insureds'
deductibles have not been reached; (ii) use insureds' health
spending accounts to pay for these fees; (iii) inflate insureds'
co-insurance obligations using administrative fees; (iv)
artificially reduce the amount of available coverage for medical
services when such coverage is subject to an annual cap; and (v)
obtain payment of the administrative fees directly from employers
when an insured's deductible has been exhausted or is inapplicable.


The Plaintiff asserted two claims based on RICO violations.  In
Count I of the Complaint, the Plaintiff alleged that Aetna and its
subcontractors, including Optum, violated 18 U.S.C. Section 1962(c)
by engaging in acts of mail and wire fraud in furtherance of a
common purpose to collect administrative fees from Aetna insureds
and plans by improperly characterizing them as payment for covered
medical expenses, and as such, constitute an associated-in-fact
"enterprise" as defined in 18 U.S.C. Section 1961(4).
Alternatively, the Plaintiff alleged that Aetna has conducted
multiple bilateral association-in-fact RICO enterprises with each
of its subcontractors.  In Count II of the Complaint, the Plaintiff
alleged that the Defendants conspired to violate 18 U.S.C. Section
1962(c), in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 1962(d).  The Plaintiff
also asserted two claims under ERISA, alleging that the Defendants
breached their fiduciary duties as plan administrators, in
violation of 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(a)(2) (Count III) and 29 U.S.C.
Section 1132(a)(1), (a)(3), and/or 29 U.S.C. Section 1104 (Count
IV).

Aetna and Optum moved to dismiss the action pursuant to Rules
12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
arguing that the Plaintiff lacked standing to assert her claims and
that her Complaint otherwise failed to state claims upon which
relief can be granted.  On Aug. 31, 2016 the Court entered an
Order, granting in part and denying in part the Defendants'
motions.  Specifically, the Court concluded that the Plaintiff had
standing to assert claims regarding Aetna's actions with respect to
Optum but that the Plaintiff lacked standing to assert any claims
with respect to Aetna's interactions with other subcontractors.
It, however, dismissed the Plaintiff's RICO claims with prejudice.

On Nov. 21, 2016, the Court entered a Pretrial Order and Case
Management Plan, setting a fact discovery deadline of June 1, 2017
and a class certification motion deadline of Oct. 10, 2017.  In
April 2017, upon motion of the parties, the Court amended the Case
Management Plan to extend the fact discovery deadline to Oct. 1,
2017 and the class certification motion deadline to Feb. 16, 2018.
In September 2017, the Case Management Plan was modified again at
the parties' request to extend these deadlines to Dec. 15, 2017 and
May 9, 2018, respectively.  In November 2017, the Case Management
Plan was modified a third time at the request of the parties to
extend the fact discovery deadline to Jan. 31, 2018 and the class
certification motion deadline to June 22, 2018.  In January 2018,
the Court granted the parties' fourth request for a modification of
the Case Management Plan, extending the fact discovery deadline to
March 8, 2018 and the class certification motion deadline to Aug.
3, 2018.  In the Order, however, the Court cautioned that absent a
showing of extraordinary circumstances, no further extensions of
these deadlines will be permitted.

On May 29, 2018, the Plaintiff filed the present motion seeking
leave to file an Amended Complaint.  For grounds, the Plaintiff
contends that she has uncovered evidence in discovery showing that
the Defendants have coordinated in establishing and directing a
RICO enterprise to illegally collect Optum's charges from members
and plans under the guise that the charges are medical expenses.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks leave to amend her Complaint to
reflect these new facts about the Defendants' enterprise and to
test her RICO claims on the merits. The Defendants oppose the
Plaintiff's motion.

Judge Reidinger finds that the Court dismissed the Plaintiff's RICO
claims more than two years ago.  The Plaintiff, however, never
sought reconsideration of this dismissal order.  Regardless of the
appropriate procedural vehicle for the Plaintiff's request, the
fact remains that amendment of the Plaintiff's Complaint would only
be proper if such amendment were not futile.  Here, the Plaintiff
asserts that her amended pleading is based on evidence which was
disclosed during discovery in the litigation.  These newly
discovered facts, however, are not materially different from the
factual allegations that the Court previously considered in
dismissing her RICO claims.  The Judge finds that the Plaintiff's
proposed amended allegations do nothing to change the Court's prior
Rule 12(b)(6) analysis.

In addition to the futility of the Plaintiff's proposed amendment,
the Judge finds that the Plaintiff's amendment is dilatory and
would require a significant modification of the Case Management
Plan.  The Plaintiff waited more than 11 weeks after the discovery
period ended to file her motion to amend.  The fact discovery
period has closed, and the Plaintiff is on the verge of filing her
motion for class certification.  Granting the Plaintiff leave to
amend the Complaint at this late date in order to re-assert her
RICO claims would prejudice the Defendants by forcing them to
conduct further discovery, thereby adding even further expense.

For all these reasons, Judge Reidinger denied the Plaintiff's
motion for leave to file an amended complaint is denied.  Further,
in light of the representations of the parties as set forth in the
Defendants' Supplemental Submission Regarding Pending Motions to
Seal, the parties' motions to seal are deemed withdrawn.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 27, 2018 Memorandum of
Decision and Order is available at https://is.gd/VOUJvo from
Leagle.com.

Sandra M. Peters, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Carl Spencer Kravitz --
ckravitz@zuckerman.com -- Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, pro hac vice, D.
Brian Hufford -- dbhufford@zuckerman.com -- Zuckerman Spaeder LLP,
pro hac vice, David M. Wilkerson -- dwilkerson@vwlawfirm.com -- The
Van Winkle Law Firm, Heather Whitaker Goldstein --
HGoldstein@vwlawfirm.com -- The Van Winkle Law Firm, Jason S.
Cowart -- jcowart@zuckerman.com -- Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, pro hac
vice, Jason M. Knott -- mclark@zuckerman.com -- Zuckerman Spaeder,
LLP, pro hac vice, Nell Z. Peyser -- npeyser@zuckerman.com --
Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, pro hac vice, Richard Miles Clark ,
Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, pro hac vice & Larry S. McDevitt --
lmcdevitt@vwlawfirm.com -- The Van Winkle Law Firm.

Aetna Inc. & Aetna Life Insurance Company, Defendants, represented
by E. Thomison Holman, Holman Law, PLLC, Geoffrey Manson Sigler --
gsigler@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, pro hac vice,
Jason N. Kleinwaks -- jkleinwaks@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP, pro hac vice, Jason E. Neal, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher,
pro hac vice, Matthew Scott Roberson -- mroberson@mwblawyers.com --
Adams Hendon Carson Crow & Saenger, P.A. & Richard Joseph Doren --
rdoren@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, pro hac
vice.

OptumHealth Care Solutions, Inc., Defendant, represented by Bowen
R. Shoemaker, Alston & Bird LLP, pro hac vice, Brian D. Boone,
Alston & Bird LLP, Emily Claire McGowan -- emily.mcgowan@alston.com
-- Alston & Bird LLP, Mark Timothy Calloway --
mark.calloway@alston.com -- Alston & Bird LLP, Michael R. Hoernlein
-- michael.hoernlein@alston.com -- Alston & Bird LLP, Rebecca L.
Gauthier -- rebecca.gauthier@alston.com -- Alston & Bird LLP &
Jahnisa T. Loadholt -- jahnisa.loadholt@alston.com -- Alston & Bird
LLP, pro hac vice.


AETNA INC: Not Compelled to Produce Redacted/Withheld Docs
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SANDRA M. PETERS, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.  WILL ., AETNA LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY, and OPTUMHEALTH CARE SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendants, Civil
Case No. 1:15-cv-00109-MR (W.D. N.C.), Judge Martin Reidinger of
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina,
Asheville Division, denied the Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Aetna
and Optum to Produce Documents Improperly Redacted or Withheld as
Privileged.

The case is a putative class action brought by the Peters against
the Defendants, asserting claims pursuant to the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended, ("ERISA").  The
Plaintiff is a former member of an ERISA plan self-funded by her
husband's former employer, Mars, Inc., for its employees and
retirees.  Mars, through its benefits committee, is the Plan
Administrator for the Plan.

Through a Master Service Agreement, the Mars Plan hired Aetna to
perform certain enumerated administrative services for the plan.
In that regard, Mars delegated discretionary authority to Aetna to
determine entitlement to benefits, including discretionary
authority to determine and evaluate facts and evidence, and
discretionary authority to construe the terms of the Plan.

Beginning in 2012, Aetna entered into a series of provider
contracts with Optum, by which Aetna agreed to pay Optum flat "per
visit" rates for physical therapy, occupational therapy, and
chiropractic services in particular markets.  In exchange, Optum
agreed to provide Aetna and its customers with access to Optum's
network of treating providers, along with clinical oversight,
claims processing, and other administrative services related to
this network.  Optum would also pay its contracted providers for
the services they performed.  Because of this structure, there
would often be a difference between the per visit rate paid by
Aetna to Optum and the rate paid by Optum to its downstream
treating provider, which would be paid to Optum as an
"administrative fee."

In her Complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that Aetna and Optum
fraudulently misrepresented such administrative fees as medical
expenses.  The Plaintiff alleges that these misrepresentations
allowed Aetna to illegally (i) obtain payment of Optum's
administrative fees directly from insureds when the insureds'
deductibles have not been reached; (ii) use insureds' health
spending accounts to pay for these fees; (iii) inflate insureds'
co-insurance obligations using administrative fees; (iv)
artificially reduce the amount of available coverage for medical
services when such coverage is subject to an annual cap; and (v)
obtain payment of the administrative fees directly from employers
when an insured's deductible has been exhausted or is inapplicable.
The The Plaintiff alleges that in so doing, the Defendants
breached their fiduciary duties as plan administrators, in
violation of 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(a)(2) (Count III) and 29 U.S.C.
Section 1132(a)(1), (a)(3), and/or 29 U.S.C. Section 1104 (Count
IV).

In November 2016, the Plaintiff served discovery requests on the
Defendants, seeking the production of certain documents.  In
response, the Defendants served their initial privilege logs
asserting the attorney-client privilege.  After meeting and
conferring, the Defendants agreed to serve revised privilege logs,
and the Plaintiff agreed to provide a list of categories of
documents that were of particular interest to the Plaintiff under
the fiduciary exception to the attorney-client privilege.

The Plaintiff's categories included legal advice related to the
following topics: (i) Whether Optum was providing services that
were covered under the terms of Aetna's plans; (ii) Whether the
Defendants were permitted to use Optum's rates when assessing
member and plan responsibility; (iii) Whether it was proper for the
Defendants to represent Optum as a provider to plans and members;
(iv) The Defendants' use of CPT4 codes for services not performed
by actual providers (dummy codes) when administering claims for
benefits; (v) Communications with plans and members about the Optum
arrangement or related plan changes; (vi) The Defendants' medical
loss reporting obligations; (vii) The use of plan assets to
compensate Optum (such as the provision in the Provider Agreements
requiring Aetna to make direct payment to Optum from plans); and
(viii) Whether Optum's services were medically necessary under
Aetna plans.

Aetna advised that it was not aware of any legal advice aside from
advice falling into categories 5 and 6 (communications with plans
and members about the Optum arrangement or related plan changes and
the Defendants' medical loss reporting obligations), and Optum
advised that it was only aware of the existence of legal advice
falling into category 4 (the Defendants' use of CPT codes for
services not performed by actual providers when administering
claims for benefits).  The Defendants, however, refused to
stipulate that they received no legal advice regarding the other
categories.

The Defendants served revised privilege logs on December 8 and 11,
2017, and Optum served a supplemental log on Dec. 22, 2017.  At the
Defendants' request, the Plaintiff sought to further narrow the
dispute by highlighting documents that the Plaintiff believed were
either subject to the fiduciary exception to the attorney-client
privilege or were likely to be subject to that exception.  The
parties met and conferred again but were unable to resolve the
dispute.

The Plaintiff now moves to compel the Defendants to produce certain
documents that the Defendants have redacted or withheld as
privileged.  The Plaintiff contends that such documents must be
produced because they are subject to the fiduciary exception to the
attorney-client privilege.  The Plaintiff further contends that
Aetna is also improperly asserting work product privilege with
respect to certain notes taken by Aetna employee Shiron Hagens
("Hagens' Notes") regarding her communications with Optum employees
concerning the Plaintiff's ERISA plan.

Accordingly, Plaintiff asks the Court to: (1) compel Aetna and
Optum to produce the withheld documents that fall within the
fiduciary exception; (2) conduct an in camera review of certain
withheld documents that appear likely to be subject to the
fiduciary exception; and (3) compel Aetna to produce Hagens' Notes.
The Defendants filed Responses in opposition, and the Plaintiff
filed Replies to each Response.  The Court held a hearing on the
Plaintiff's motion on June 19, 2018.

Judge Reidinger concludes that the Plaintiff has failed to
demonstrate that Optum was functioning as a fiduciary with respect
to any aspect of the Mars Plan.  Accordingly, het concludes that
the fiduciary exception does not apply, and Optum is not required
to produce any documents that it has claimed are subject to the
attorney-client privilege.

The Plaintiff has also failed to show how the reporting of the data
falls within Aetna's fiduciary functions to her or her Plan.
Indeed, because the Plaintiff's plan is self-funded, these MLR
requirements are not even applicable to the Mars Plan.
Accordingly, the Judge concludes that Aetna should not be required
to produce these documents under the fiduciary exception to the
attorney-client privilege.

Further, the Judge finds that the Plaintiff has failed to establish
a factual basis sufficient to support a good faith belief that in
camera inspection may reveal evidence that the information in these
documents relate to plan administration.  Accordingly, he, in the
exercise of his discretion, declines to conduct an in camera review
of these additional documents.

Finally, Hagens' notes fall squarely within the work product
doctrine.  They were prepared at the direction of counsel in the
midst of ongoing litigation with the Plaintiff.  And even assuming
that the fiduciary exception applies to work product, it is clear
that Aetna's relationship with the Plan was adversarial at the time
these notes were taken.  As such, the fiduciary exception is simply
not applicable.  Further, the Plaintiff has not demonstrated any
substantial need for these notes, as the Plaintiff's counsel has
already been able to question two Optum employees regarding any
non-privileged facts that could be learned from their discussions
with Hagens, and has discovered the notes of those Optum employees.
For all of these reasons, the Plaintiff's motion to compel Hagens'
Notes is denied.

Accordingly, Judge Reidinger deneid the Plaintiff's Motion to
Compel Aetna and Optum to Produce Documents Improperly Redacted or
Withheld as Privileged.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 27, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/1aDPNu from Leagle.com.

Sandra M. Peters, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Carl Spencer Kravitz --
ckravitz@zuckerman.com -- Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, pro hac vice, D.
Brian Hufford -- dbhufford@zuckerman.com -- Zuckerman Spaeder LLP,
pro hac vice, David M. Wilkerson -- dwilkerson@vwlawfirm.com -- The
Van Winkle Law Firm, Heather Whitaker Goldstein --
HGoldstein@vwlawfirm.com -- The Van Winkle Law Firm, Jason S.
Cowart -- jcowart@zuckerman.com -- Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, pro hac
vice, Jason M. Knott -- mclark@zuckerman.com -- Zuckerman Spaeder,
LLP, pro hac vice, Nell Z. Peyser -- npeyser@zuckerman.com --
Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, pro hac vice, Richard Miles Clark ,
Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, pro hac vice & Larry S. McDevitt --
lmcdevitt@vwlawfirm.com -- The Van Winkle Law Firm.

will . & Aetna Life Insurance Company, Defendants, represented by
E. Thomison Holman, Holman Law, PLLC, Geoffrey Manson Sigler --
gsigler@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, pro hac vice,
Jason N. Kleinwaks -- jkleinwaks@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP, pro hac vice, Jason E. Neal, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher,
pro hac vice, Matthew Scott Roberson -- mroberson@mwblawyers.com --
Adams Hendon Carson Crow & Saenger, P.A. & Richard Joseph Doren --
rdoren@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, pro hac
vice.

OptumHealth Care Solutions, Inc., Defendant, represented by Bowen
R. Shoemaker, Alston & Bird LLP, pro hac vice, Brian D. Boone,
Alston & Bird LLP, Emily Claire McGowan -- emily.mcgowan@alston.com
-- Alston & Bird LLP, Mark Timothy Calloway --
mark.calloway@alston.com -- Alston & Bird LLP, Michael R. Hoernlein
-- michael.hoernlein@alston.com -- Alston & Bird LLP, Rebecca L.
Gauthier -- rebecca.gauthier@alston.com -- Alston & Bird LLP &
Jahnisa T. Loadholt -- jahnisa.loadholt@alston.com -- Alston & Bird
LLP, pro hac vice.


AIR SERV: Hussein Suit Settlement Has Preliminary Approval
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MOHAMED A. HUSSEIN, an individual, and HASSAN HIRSI,
an individual, Plaintiffs, v. AIR SERV CORPORATION, a foreign
corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-00278 RSL (W.D. Wash.),
Judge of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington, Seattle, granted the parties' Stipulated Motion for
Preliminary Approval of the Class Action Settlement and Appointment
of Class Representatives, and the Stipulated Motion and Submission
of Amended Notice.

Based on his review of the Agreement and all of the files, records,
and proceedings herein, the Judge preliminarily approved the
Agreement as fair, reasonable and adequate and within the range of
reasonableness for preliminary settlement approval.

On March 1, 2017, the Court granted the Parties' Stipulated Motion
for Class Certification, Appointment of Class Counsel and Class
Representatives.  A Class was certified under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)
defined as all employees of Air Serv who have been Transportation
Workers and who worked one or more hours within the City of SeaTac
at any time during the time period from Jan. 1, 2014 to Feb. 12,
2016 who can be ascertained from Air Serv's records as having been
paid less than the prevailing minimum wage prescribed by City of
SeaTac Ordinance 7.45.050 and who have not recovered back wages
under separate legal action.

The Court also appointed Mohamed A. Hussein and Hassan Hirsi as
Class Representatives and the law firm of Badgley Mullins Turner
PLLC as class counsel.  Following certification of the Class, Class
Representative Hassan Hirsi chose to join a parallel action pending
in King County Superior Court, Isse v. Air Serv, King County
Superior Court Case No. 17-2-02687-5 SEA.  As such, Mr. Hirsi
cannot effectively serve in his capacity as Class Representative.

To remedy this and to ensure Class Members' interests are protected
by a quorum of diligent representatives, Mr. Hussein seeks the
appointment of Class Members Hodan Ahmed Dahir and Mohamed Yusef as
additional Class Representatives.  Accordingly, the Judge approvesd
Ms. Dahir and Mr. Yusef as the Class Representatives.

A final approval hearing will be held on Dec. 5, 2018, at 10:30
a.m. as set forth in the Notice to the Settlement Class.  After the
Settlement Hearing, the Court may enter a settlement order and
final judgment in accordance with the Agreement that will
adjudicate the rights of the Settlement Class Members with respect
to the Released Claims being settled.  The scope of the Released
Claims will be a full and complete release of any and all claims,
known or unknown, asserted or unasserted, arising under any
provisions of Proposition 1 and Chapter 7.45 et seq. of the City of
SeaTac Municipal Code, the Washington Minimum Wage Act, and the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Class Notice will be sent within 21 days following entry of the
Order.  The Settlement Administrator (Simpluris) will provide mail
notice to persons in the Settlement Class for whom the Defendant
possesses a mailing address.  The Settlement Administrator will
also provide email notice to persons in the Settlement Class for
whom the Defendant possesses an email address.  The Judge confirmed
that it is appropriate for the Defendant to provide the information
necessary for the Settlement Administrator to provide the notice
contemplated herein and to administer the settlement, including
names, addresses and Individual account information.

All persons in the Settlement Class will possess the right to opt
out by sending a written request to a designated address within 30
days after the Notice Deadline.  Not later than 15 days from the
exclusion deadline, the Settlement Administrator will provide Class
Counsel with all objections received, which will then be filed with
the Court.  The deadline to respond to objections will be 15 days
following the Objection/Exclusion deadline.

The Judge approved the following timeline:

     a. Preliminary Approval Order Entered - July 27, 2018

     b. Initial Notice Mailing Date - Aug. 17, 2018

     c. Class Counsel's Fee Motion Submitted - Aug. 17, 2018

     d. Notice Deadline - Setp. 10, 2018

     e. Exclusion/Objection Deadline - Oct. 10, 2018

     f. Final Approval Brief and Response to Objections - Oct. 25,
2018

     g. Final Approval Hearing/Noting Date - Dec. 5, 2018

     h. Final Approval Order Entered - At the Court's Discretion

The Final Hearing is scheduled on Dec. 5, 2018 at 10:00 a.m.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 27, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/LxrHEh from Leagle.com.

Mohamed A Hussein, an individual, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel
R. Whitmore -- amber@whitmorelawfirm.com -- & Duncan Calvert Turner
-- dturner@badgleymullins.com -- BADGLEY MULLINS TURNER PLLC.

Hassan Hirsi, an individual, Plaintiff, represented by Duncan
Calvert Turner, BADGLEY MULLINS TURNER PLLC.

Air Serv Corporation, a foreign corporation, Defendant, represented
by Darren Anthony Feider -- dfeider@sebrisbusto.com -- SEBRIS BUSTO
JAMES & Jeffrey A. James -- jaj@sebrisbusto.com -- SEBRIS BUSTO
JAMES.

Abdisalan Fitaye, Objector, represented by David N. Mark --
david@marklawoffice.com -- WASHINGTON WAGE CLAIM PROJECT.


ALLIANCEONE RECEIVABLES: Madorskaya Sues Over FDCPA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Allianceone
Receivables Management, Inc.  The case is styled as Olga
Madorskaya, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. Allianceone Receivables Management, Inc., Case No. 1:18-cv-04967
(E.D.N.Y., August 31, 2018).

The lawsuit arises from alleged violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

Allianceone Receivables Management, Inc., provides financial
services.  The Company offers collection and adjustment services on
claims and other insurance related issues.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ALLY FINANCIAL: Rougeaux-Luna Files Suit Over Illegal Termination
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hollie Rougeaux-Luna, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Ally Financial, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
18-cv-00321 (W.D. N.C., June 20, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid
wages, unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, statutory
penalties, prejudgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs and
other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the North
Carolina Wage and Hour Act.

Rougeaux-Luna was hired to work as a Change Manager for Defendant
through CompuGroup Technologies, a staffing agency. On November 20,
2017, without advance notice, Plaintiff was terminated. She
contends that the reasons for terminating her employment were a
pretext for illegal discrimination and retaliation. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Philip J. Gibbons, Jr., Esq.
     Craig L. Leis, Esq.
     GIBBONS LEIS, PLLC
     14045 Ballantyne Corporate Place, Ste. 325
     Charlotte, NC 28277
     Email: phil@gibbonsleis.com
            craig@gibbonseleis.com

            - and -

     James B. Zouras, Esq.
     Teresa M. Becvar, Esq.
     STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
     205 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560
     Chicago, IL 60601
     Email: jzouras@stephanzouras.com
            tbecvar@stephanzouras.com


AMTRUST FINANCIAL: Bartholomew and Myhre Sue over Merger
--------------------------------------------------------
AmTrust Financial Services, 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 faces
merger-related class action suits entitled, Bartholomew v. AmTrust
Fin'l Services, Inc., et al. and Myhre v. AmTrust Fin'l Services,
Inc., et al., respectively.

On March 1, 2018, the Company entered into an agreement and plan of
merger with Evergreen Parent, L.P., an entity formed by private
equity funds managed by Stone Point Capital LLC, together with
Barry D. Zyskind, the Company's Chairman and CEO, George Karfunkel
and Leah Karfunkel pursuant to which Evergreen Parent will acquire
all of the Company's outstanding common shares, par value $0.01 per
share that are not currently owned or controlled by the
Karfunkel-Zyskind Family and its affiliates and certain related
parties.  The deal is valued at about $2.7 billion.

The Karfunkel-Zyskind Family and its affiliates and certain related
parties own or control approximately 55% of the Company's
outstanding shares of Common Stock at the time of the merger deal.
On June 6, the parties entered into Amendment No. 1 to the Merger
Agreement.  On June 21, the Amended Merger Agreement was adopted by
the affirmative vote of (i) the holders of at least a majority of
all outstanding shares of Common Stock and (ii) the holders of at
least a majority of all outstanding shares of Common Stock held by
the "Public Stockholders", in each case, entitled to vote on the
merger at a meeting of stockholders duly called and held for such
purpose. Consummation of the merger remains subject to certain
customary closing conditions, including regulatory approvals.

On May 9, 2018, purported stockholders of the Company filed
putative class action lawsuits against the Company and members of
the Board (other than Mr. Serock) in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Bartholomew
v. AmTrust Fin'l Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-04178
(S.D.N.Y.) and Myhre v. AmTrust Fin'l Services, Inc., et al., Case
No. 1:18-cv-04175 (S.D.N.Y.), respectively.

The complaints are substantially identical and allege that the
defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act
because the preliminary proxy statement filed with the SEC on April
9, 2018 allegedly omitted material information with respect to the
merger, thus rendering the preliminary proxy statement false and
misleading.

The complaints seek, among other things, injunctive relief
preventing the consummation of the merger and costs of the
applicable action, including reasonable allowance for plaintiff
attorneys' and experts' fees.

AmTrust Financial Services, Inc. provides property and casualty
insurance in the United States and internationally. The company
operates in three segments: Small Commercial Business, Specialty
Risk and Extended Warranty, and Specialty Program. AmTrust
Financial Services, Inc. was founded in 1998 and is based in New
York, New York.


AMTRUST FINANCIAL: Consolidated Securities Suit Underway in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
AmTrust Financial Services, 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 consolidated
class action lawsuit entitled In re AmTrust Financial Services,
Inc. Securities Litigation, is still ongoing.

The Company and certain of its officers and directors are also
defendants in three putative securities class action lawsuits filed
in March and April of 2017 in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

Another putative class action, filed in February 2017 in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, was
voluntarily dismissed (Miller v. AmTrust, Zyskind, and Pipoly).

The three cases in the Southern District of New York have been
consolidated under the case name In re AmTrust Financial Services,
Inc. Securities Litigation. Plaintiffs in this proceeding filed a
consolidated, amended complaint on August 21, 2017. Plaintiffs
assert in the consolidated, amended complaint claims under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder and Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933, as amended.

The consolidated, amended complaint adds as defendants BDO USA LLP,
Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, Inc.,
Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, RBC Capital Markets, LLC, and UBS
Securities LLC. Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount in damages,
attorneys' fees, and other relief.

AmTrust Financial said, "The Company believes the allegations are
unfounded and is vigorously pursuing its defenses."

AmTrust Financial Services, Inc. provides property and casualty
insurance in the United States and internationally. The company
operates in three segments: Small Commercial Business, Specialty
Risk and Extended Warranty, and Specialty Program. AmTrust
Financial Services, Inc. was founded in 1998 and is based in New
York, New York.


AMTRUST FINANCIAL: Faces Multiple Merger-Related Class Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
AmTrust Financial Services, 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 is
facing multiple merger-related class action lawsuits.

On March 1, 2018, the Company entered into an agreement and plan of
merger with Evergreen Parent, L.P., an entity formed by private
equity funds managed by Stone Point Capital LLC, together with
Barry D. Zyskind, the Company's Chairman and CEO, George Karfunkel
and Leah Karfunkel pursuant to which Evergreen Parent will acquire
all of the Company's outstanding common shares, par value $0.01 per
share that are not currently owned or controlled by the
Karfunkel-Zyskind Family and its affiliates and certain related
parties.  The deal is valued at about $2.7 billion.

The Karfunkel-Zyskind Family and its affiliates and certain related
parties own or control approximately 55% of the Company's
outstanding shares of Common Stock at the time of the merger deal.
On June 6, the parties entered into Amendment No. 1 to the Merger
Agreement.  On June 21, the Amended Merger Agreement was adopted by
the affirmative vote of (i) the holders of at least a majority of
all outstanding shares of Common Stock and (ii) the holders of at
least a majority of all outstanding shares of Common Stock held by
the "Public Stockholders", in each case, entitled to vote on the
merger at a meeting of stockholders duly called and held for such
purpose. Consummation of the merger remains subject to certain
customary closing conditions, including regulatory approvals.

On May 15, 2018, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
putative class action lawsuit against the Company and members of
the Board in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio, captioned Shust v. AmTrust Fin'l Services, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-01129 (N.D. Ohio).

On May 18, 2018, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
putative class action lawsuit against the Company and members of
the Board in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, captioned Raul v. AmTrust Fin'l Services,
Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-04440 (S.D.N.Y.).

On May 21, 2018, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
putative class action lawsuit against the Company, members of the
Board, Evergreen Parent, Merger Sub and Stone Point in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
captioned Rabinowitz v. AmTrust Fin'l Services, Inc., et al., Case
No. 1:18-cv-04484 (S.D.N.Y.).

The complaints allege that the defendants violated Sections 14(a)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act because the definitive proxy
statement, in the case of the Shust complaint and the Rabinowitz
complaint, and the preliminary proxy statement, in the case of the
Raul complaint, omitted or misrepresented material information
concerning the merger.

The complaints seek, among other things, injunctive relief
preventing the consummation of the merger unless additional
disclosure is provided and costs of the applicable action,
including for plaintiff attorneys' and experts' fees.

AmTrust Financial Services, Inc. provides property and casualty
insurance in the United States and internationally. The company
operates in three segments: Small Commercial Business, Specialty
Risk and Extended Warranty, and Specialty Program. AmTrust
Financial Services, Inc. was founded in 1998 and is based in New
York, New York.


AMTRUST FINANCIAL: Faces Pompano Police & Firefighters' Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
AmTrust Financial Services, 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 is
defending against a putative class action suit filed by the Pompano
Beach Police & Firefighters' Retirement System, City of Lauderhill
Police Officers' Retirement System and West Palm Beach Police
Pension Fund.

On March 1, 2018, the Company entered into an agreement and plan of
merger with Evergreen Parent, L.P., an entity formed by private
equity funds managed by Stone Point Capital LLC, together with
Barry D. Zyskind, the Company's Chairman and CEO, George Karfunkel
and Leah Karfunkel pursuant to which Evergreen Parent will acquire
all of the Company's outstanding common shares, par value $0.01 per
share that are not currently owned or controlled by the
Karfunkel-Zyskind Family and its affiliates and certain related
parties.  The deal is valued at about $2.7 billion.

The Karfunkel-Zyskind Family and its affiliates and certain related
parties own or control approximately 55% of the Company's
outstanding shares of Common Stock at the time of the merger deal.
On June 6, the parties entered into Amendment No. 1 to the Merger
Agreement.  On June 21, the Amended Merger Agreement was adopted by
the affirmative vote of (i) the holders of at least a majority of
all outstanding shares of Common Stock and (ii) the holders of at
least a majority of all outstanding shares of Common Stock held by
the "Public Stockholders", in each case, entitled to vote on the
merger at a meeting of stockholders duly called and held for such
purpose. Consummation of the merger remains subject to certain
customary closing conditions, including regulatory approvals.

On May 31, 2018, Pompano Beach Police & Firefighters' Retirement
System, City of Lauderhill Police Officers' Retirement System and
West Palm Beach Police Pension Fund filed a putative class action
lawsuit against the Company's board of directors, Stone Point,
Trident Pine Acquisition ("Trident Pine"), Trident VII
Professionals Fund, Trident VII, Trident VII DE Parallel Fund, and
Trident VII Parallel Fund (collectively, the "Trident Funds") in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, Case No.
2018-0396-AGB.

The complaint alleges that defendants Zyskind, G. Karfunkel. L.
Karfunkel, Gulkowitz, Fisch, DeCarlo, and Rivera breached their
fiduciary duties, which resulted in an unfair merger stock price
through an unfair process. The complaint alleges additional claims
for breaches of fiduciary duty against Zyskind, G. Karfunkel and L.
Karfunkel in their capacity as officers and directors of the
Company and as controlling stockholders of the Company. The
complaint alleges that Stone Point, Trident Pine and the Trident
Funds aided and abetted the breaches of fiduciary duties.

AmTrust Financial Services, Inc. provides property and casualty
insurance in the United States and internationally. The company
operates in three segments: Small Commercial Business, Specialty
Risk and Extended Warranty, and Specialty Program. AmTrust
Financial Services, Inc. was founded in 1998 and is based in New
York, New York.


AMTRUST FINANCIAL: Faces Suit by Cambridge Retirement System
------------------------------------------------------------
AmTrust Financial Services, 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 is
facing a putative class action suit filed by one of the Company's
stockholders, Cambridge Retirement System.

On March 1, 2018, the Company entered into an agreement and plan of
merger with Evergreen Parent, L.P., an entity formed by private
equity funds managed by Stone Point Capital LLC, together with
Barry D. Zyskind, the Company's Chairman and CEO, George Karfunkel
and Leah Karfunkel pursuant to which Evergreen Parent will acquire
all of the Company's outstanding common shares, par value $0.01 per
share that are not currently owned or controlled by the
Karfunkel-Zyskind Family and its affiliates and certain related
parties.  The deal is valued at about $2.7 billion.

The Karfunkel-Zyskind Family and its affiliates and certain related
parties own or control approximately 55% of the Company's
outstanding shares of Common Stock at the time of the merger deal.
On June 6, the parties entered into Amendment No. 1 to the Merger
Agreement.  On June 21, the Amended Merger Agreement was adopted by
the affirmative vote of (i) the holders of at least a majority of
all outstanding shares of Common Stock and (ii) the holders of at
least a majority of all outstanding shares of Common Stock held by
the "Public Stockholders", in each case, entitled to vote on the
merger at a meeting of stockholders duly called and held for such
purpose. Consummation of the merger remains subject to certain
customary closing conditions, including regulatory approvals.

On June 4, 2018, Cambridge filed a putative class action lawsuit
against the Company's board of directors, the Estate of Michael
Karfunkel, Evergreen Parent, K-Z Evergreen, LLC, Merger Sub,
Trident Pine Acquisition LP and Stone Point in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware, Case No. 2018-0402-AGB.

Similar to the 2018 Pompano Beach action, the complaint alleges
that the director defendants breached their fiduciary duties, which
resulted in an unfair merger stock price through an unfair process.
The complaint alleges an additional claim for breach of fiduciary
duty against Zyskind, G. Karfunkel, L. Karfunkel, and M. Karfunkel
in their capacity as controlling shareholders of the Company and
alleges that Evergreen Parent, Stone Point, and Trident Pine aided
and abetted the foregoing breaches of fiduciary duties.

AmTrust Financial Services, Inc. provides property and casualty
insurance in the United States and internationally. The company
operates in three segments: Small Commercial Business, Specialty
Risk and Extended Warranty, and Specialty Program. AmTrust
Financial Services, Inc. was founded in 1998 and is based in New
York, New York.


ANDEAVOR: Raul Action Seeks to Halt Sale to Marathon
----------------------------------------------------
Malka Raul, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. Andeavor, Gregory James Goff, Jeff A.
Stevens, Paul L. Foster, William H. Schumann, Edward G. Galante,
Jimmy W. Nokes, Mary Pat Mccarthy, David Lilley and Rodney Frank
Chase, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00611 (W.D. Tex., June 20, 2018),
seeks to enjoin defendants and all persons acting in concert with
them from proceeding with, consummating, or closing the acquisition
of Andeavor by Marathon Petroleum Corporation and Mahi LLC;
rescinding it and setting it aside or awarding rescissory damages
in the event defendants consummate the merger; costs of this
action, including reasonable allowance for attorneys' and experts'
fees; and such other and further relief under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

Each share of Andeavor common stock issued and outstanding will
have the right to receive either 1.87 shares of Marathon Petroleum
common stock, which is referred to as the stock consideration, or
$152.27 in cash.

However, the complaint says in addition to failing to conduct a
fair and reasonable sales process, Defendants agreed to certain
deal protection provisions in the Merger Agreement that operate
conjunctively to deter other suitors from submitting a superior
offer for Andeavor.

Andeavor engages in the refining and marketing of petroleum
products. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas E. Bilek, Esq.
      THE BILEK LAW FIRM, L.L.P.
      700 Louisiana, Suite 3950
      Houston, TX 77002
      Tel: (713) 227-7720

             - and -

      Joshua M. Lifshitz, Esq.
      LIFSHITZ & MILLER LLP
      821 Franklin Ave, Suite 209
      Garden City, NY 11530
      Telephone: (516) 493-9780
      Facsimile: (516) 280-7376
      Email: jml@jlclasslaw.com


ANTARES PHARMA: Pomerantz to Lead in Smith Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RANDY SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ANTARES PHARMA, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Civil Action No. 17-8945 (MAS) (DEA) (D. N.J.), Judge
Michael A. Shipp of the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey appointed Serghei Lungu as the Lead Plaintiff; Pomerantz LLP
as the Lead Counsel; and Lite DePalma Greenberg, LLC as the Liaison
Counsel.

The matter comes before the Court on two motions: (i) Faraj
Touchan's Motion for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and Approval of
Lead Counsel; and (ii) Lungu's Motion for Appointment as Lead
Plaintiff and Approval of Counsel.  Touchan and Lungu each filed
opposition and Lungu replied.

The case is a putative securities class action brought on behalf of
the investors who acquired Antares securities between Dec. 21, 2016
and Oct. 12, 2017.  Defendants Antares, Robert F. Apple, Antares's
CEO, and Fred M. Powell, Antares's CFO, allegedly made materially
deceptive and misleading disclosures about the FDA approval process
of Xyosted in certain press releases and SEC filings.

Specifically, Antares allegedly made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Antares had provided
insufficient data to the FDA in connection with its NDA for
Xyosted; (ii) and accordingly, Antares had overstated the approval
prospects for Xyosted; and (iii) as a result of the forgoing,
Antares's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.

First-filed Plaintiff Randy Smith initiated the action on Oct. 23,
2017.  Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(a)(3)(A)(i), Smith
published notice via Globe Newswire on that same day, informing
investors within the putative class that they had until Dec. 22,
2017to move for appointment as the lead Plaintiff in the action.
Both Touchan and Lungu timely moved for appointment, as both
motions were filed on Dec. 22, 2017, and both filed certifications
pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(a)(2).

Judge Shipp finds that Lungu is the presumptively most adequate
Plaintiff because he suffered the greatest loss, the factor that
carries the most weight in the Court's analysis.  Lungu also
retained a greater number of shares.  The Judge finds that Touchan
has not carried his burden to rebut the presumption of Lungu's
adequacy.  In support of the proposition that Lungu and Touchan
suffered essentially equivalent amounts of loss, Touchan cites two
out-of-circuit district court cases that involved losses of
different magnitude.

The Judge further finds that Lungu sufficiently satisfies the
typicality and adequacy requirements of Rule 23 at this stage of
the litigation.  Based on only one same-day purchase and sale,
Touchan asserts that Lungu is a day trader and, therefore, subject
to a special defense.  Finally, he finds the counsel of Lungu's
choice, Pomerantz LLP and Lite DePalma Greenberg, LLC, to be
sufficiently experienced in class actions and securities litigation
to serve as Lead Counsel and Liaison Counsel, respectively.  The
Judge notes, however, that if, as the litigation progresses,
circumstances warrant that the Court revisit its decision, the
decision reached here regarding appointment of the lead Plaintiff
and the lead counsel may be re-opened.

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth, Judge Shipp granted Lungu's
Motion for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and Approval of Counsel is
granted, and denied Touchan's Motion for Appointment as Lead
Plaintiff and Approval of Lead Counsel.  He appointed Lungu as the
Lead Plaintiff, Pomerantz LLP as the Lead Counsel, and Lite DePalma
Greenberg, LLC as the Liaison Counsel.  An order consistent with
the Memorandum Opinion will be entered.


A full-text copy of the Court's June 27, 2018 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/GXtK2y from Leagle.com.

Faraj Touchan, Movant, represented by SHERIEF MORSY --
smorsy@faruqilaw.com -- FARUQI & FARUQI LLP.

Tai Duong, Dennis Roof, Robert Szczodrowski, Qiang Xie & Daniel
DeYoe, Movants, represented by EDUARD KORSINSKY -- ek@zlk.com --
LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP.

Rehan Khan, Movant, represented by DONALD A. ECKLUND --
DEcklund@carellabyrne.com -- CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY
& AGNELLO, P.C.

SERGHEI LUNGU, Lead Plaintiff, represented by BRUCE DANIEL
GREENBERG -- bgreenberg@litedepalma.com -- LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG,
LLC.

RANDY SMITH, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by BRUCE DANIEL GREENBERG, LITE
DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC.

ANTARES PHARMA, INC., ROBERT F APPLE & FRED M POWELL, Defendants,
represented by DAVID A. KOTLER -- david.kotler@dechert.com --
DECHERT LLP.


ARCADIA RECOVERY: Summ. Judgment Bid in Vullings Partly Granted
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHELLE W. VULLINGS, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ARCADIA RECOVERY BUREAU,
LLC, Defendant, Civil Action No. 17-4361 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Edward
G. Smith of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania granted in part and denied in part the Defendants'
motion for summary judgment on all of the Plaintiff's claims.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant violated the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") when it sent her a letter
seeking to collect a debt owed by her deceased mother's estate.  On
Sept. 29, 2017, Vullings filed a complaint individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated against the Defendant.  The
purported class action complaint sought relief due to various
alleged violations of the FDCPA.

Shortly thereafter, Arcadia filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint.  The motion asserted that Vullings lacked standing to
sue on her own behalf because the alleged debt was in the name of
an estate for which she was a personal representative and that even
if she did have standing, her complaint failed to state a claim
upon which relief could be granted.  On Dec. 1, 2017, the Court
granted the motion to dismiss on both grounds, but granted Vullings
leave to file an amended complaint.

The parties then filed cross-motions for reconsideration.  In
general terms, Arcadia believed that the Court should not have
granted Vullings leave to file an amended complaint, and Vullings
believed the court should not have granted the motion to dismiss in
the first instance.  The Court discussed the motions for
reconsideration with the counsel in the Rule 16 scheduling
conference on Jan. 10, 2018.

During the Rule 16 conference, the Court was able to resolve the
issues raised in the motions.  One of these issues was whether
Vullings needed to pursue the lawsuit in her individual capacity
and/or in her capacity as the administrator of Gertrude
Birtwistle's estate.  She filed her original complaint solely in
her individual capacity.  At the Rule 16 conference, the Court
informed Vullings of the need to also sue in her capacity as
administrator to have any chance of recovery on two of her five
claims.  After hearing the Court's views on the matter, Vullings
agreed to file an amended complaint and pursue relief both in her
individual capacity and in her capacity as administrator of the
Birtwistle's Estate.

Accordingly, the Court entered a scheduling order on Jan. 10, 2018,
which, inter alia, ordered Vullings to file an amended complaint by
Jan. 17, 2018.  Vullings timely filed an amended complaint on Jan.
16, 2018.  In the amended complaint, Vullings claimed violations of
the FDCPA in her individual capacity and as administrator of the
estate.

Arcadia then filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint
insofar as Vullings was asserting claims against it as the
administrator of Birtwistle's Estate.  Shortly thereafter, the
court held a telephone conference with the counsel for the parties
during which Vullings's counsel informed the Court that Vullings
agreed to dismiss herself as a named Plaintiff insofar as she was
the administrator of Birtwistle's Estate.  As such, the Court
entered an order on Feb. 21, 2018, which (1) dismissed by agreement
Vullings as the administrator of the estate of Gertrude Elizabeth
Birtwistle, and (2) denied the motion to dismiss as moot.

Notably, Vullings did not agree to dismiss the claims that the
Court believed she could only pursue in her capacity as
administrator of Birtwistle's Estate.  Those claims are still in
the case.

On May 7, 2018, Arcadia filed the instant motion for summary
judgment.  Arcadia raises numerous arguments in the motion, but one
of them is that Vullings does not have standing to pursue two of
the five claims in her individual capacity (i.e., she could only
have succeeded on those claims if she was suing in her capacity as
administrator of the estate).  Vullings filed a response in
opposition to the motion for summary judgment on May 21, 2018.
Arcadia filed a reply in support of the motion for summary judgment
on May 29, 2018.

Judge Smith concludes that two of Vullings's claims fail because in
her individual capacity, she is not a consumer and therefore lacks
standing to sue.  Two others fail because the undisputed facts do
not, as a matter of law, support a claim for relief under the
FDCPA.  Thus, the only claim which survives is Vullings's section
1692e claim because the undisputed facts do not warrant summary
judgment in favor of Arcadia under current Third Circuit
precedent.

In addition to her substantive arguments, Vullings attempts to
thwart summary judgment by arguing (1) that the motion is premature
and (2) that Arcadia never filed a claim on the underlying debt.
Neither of these arguments are persuasive.  Vullings's arguments
regarding timing are unavailing because the motion was resolvable
(and ultimately, resolved) almost entirely on the pleadings, the
letter, and the envelope.  Similarly, Vullings's argument that
Arcadia never filed a claim on the underlying debt is irrelevant to
the present motion because the amended complaint does not
contemplate claims based on facts of that nature.  For these
reasons, Judge Smith granted the motion for summary judgment in
part and denied it in part.  The Court will enter a separate
order.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 27, 2018 Memoradandum Opinion
is available at https://is.gd/tlMGLW from Leagle.com.

MICHELLE W. VULLINGS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff, represented by BRENT F. VULLINGS --
bvullings@vullingslaw.com -- VULLINGS LAW GROUP LLC.

ARCADIA RECOVERY BUREAU, LLC, Defendant, represented by RONALD S.
CANTER -- rcanter@roncanterllc.com -- THE LAW OFFICES OF RONALD S.
CANTER LLC.


ARYZTA LLC: Faces Stewart Suit over Race Discrimination
-------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY STEWART, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ARYZTA, LLC d/b/a ARYZTA CHICAGO and ARYZTA
CICERO; LABOR NETWORK, INC.; and MIDWEST INVESTORS GROUP, INC.
d/b/a METRO STAFFING SERVICES, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-05346
(N.D. Ill., Aug. 6, 2018) is an action against the Defendants
alleging violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and the
Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants
attempted to avoid providing African American laborers almost any
work at its Galewood and Cicero Plants by entering into a
conspiracy with two staffing agencies, Labor Network and Metro
Staffing, in order to redirect laborers seeking work assignments
from the Defendants' plants to the two staffing agencies and
utilize the staffing agencies to segregate out African American
laborers and to provide the Defendants with its preferred laborers,
Hispanic laborers.

Aryzta LLC produces, markets, and sells sweet baked goods. The
company offers frozen cookie dough, thaw and serve cookies,
muffins, pastries, and other baked goods. Aryzta LLC was formerly
known as Otis Spunkmeyer, Inc. The company was founded in 1977 and
is based in San Leandro, California with additional offices in
Ogden, Utah; Dallas and Austin, Texas; Los Angeles, Manteca, and
San Leandro, California; Geneva and Chicago, Illinois; Battle
Creek, Michigan; and McDonough, Georgia. Aryzta LLC operates as a
subsidiary of Otis Spunkmeyer Holdings, Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher J. Williams, Esq.
          WORKERS' LAW OFFICE, P.C.
          53 W. Jackson Blvd, Suite 701
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 795-9121


AXON ENTERPRISES: To Seek Dismissal of Richey Suit
--------------------------------------------------
Axon Enterprise, 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 will seek
dismissal of the complaint filed by Douglas Richey, which it
believes is meritless.

On June 25, 2018, consumer weapon purchaser Douglas Richey
("Richey") filed a class action lawsuit against the Company in the
Northern District of California (Case No. 3:18-cv-03751-WHA)
purporting to assert claims on behalf of all persons in the United
States who purchased or acquired a TASER Pulse, TASER X2 and TASER
X26P model CEW in the four-year period preceding the complaint.

Richey claims his Pulse CEW discharged while in its case in his
jacket pocket due to a faulty safety switch. He was not injured. He
alleges violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C.
Section 2310(D)(1), the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act for
Breach of Express Warranty, Cal. Civ. Code Section 1790, and
California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, as well as fraudulent
omission and unjust enrichment.

The Company is preparing to file a motion to dismiss the complaint,
which it believes is meritless.

Axon Enterprise, Inc. develops, manufactures, and sells conducted
electrical weapons (CEWs) worldwide. The company operates through
two segments, TASER Weapons, and Software and Sensors. Axon
Enterprise, Inc. was founded in 1993 and is headquartered in
Scottsdale, Arizona.


BERKSHIRE MANUFACTURED: Smith Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Smith, individually and on behalf of a class of persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Berkshire Manufactured Products,
Inc., Case No. 18-cv-01228 (D. Mass., August 27, 2018), seeks to
recover unpaid wages under the Massachusetts Wage Act.

Berkshire Manufactured Products --
https://www.whitcraftgroup.com/products/berkshire-manufacturing/ --
provides production and prototype parts for domestic and
international markets in aerospace, medical, high tech,
communications and numerous other industries. Berkshire employed
Ms. Smith as a Mechanical Inspector. She claims that Berkshire
rounds down her time rendered, thus receiving less than what she is
entitled to. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     John W. Davis, Esq.
     DAVIS & DAVIS, P.C.
     350 Park Street Park Place South, Ste. 105
     North Reading, MA 01864
     Tel: (978) 276-0777
     Email: jdavis@davisanddavispc.com


CAMERON PARISH, LA: SPL's Bid to Dismiss Landowners' Suit Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for Middle District of Louisiana
granted Sabine Pass Liquefaction, LLC's Motion to Dismiss the case
captioned JMCB, LLC, ON BEHALF OF ITSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, v. THE BOARD OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRY; LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT
OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT; AND SABINE PASS LIQUEFACTION, LLC. Civil
Action No. 17-77-JWD-JCW. (M.D. La.)

This case is about the alleged invalidity of a contract between the
State Defendants and SPL granting an exemption to ad valorem taxes
(Contract).

The Plaintiff is a company that owns property (land) in Cameron
Parish which is subject to ad valorem taxes for which no exemption
is available and purports to bring this action on behalf of itself
and individuals who own property in Cameron Parish that is subject
to ad valorem taxation, and any and all Cameron Parish governmental
bodies that are entitled to receive Cameron Parish ad valorem
taxes. the Plaintiff maintains that it will have an inflated ad
valorem tax liability due and payable to Cameron Parish taxing
bodies that receive ad valorem taxes as a result of the exemption
granted to SPL through the Contract.

Interpreting Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the
Fifth Circuit has explained: "The complaint (1) on its face (2)
must contain enough factual matter taken as true (3) to raise a
reasonable hope or expectation (4) that discovery will reveal
relevant evidence of each element of a claim. Asking for such
plausible grounds to infer the element of a claim does not impose a
probability requirement at the pleading stage; it simply calls for
enough fact to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will
reveal that the elements of the claim existed."

SPL's Original Memorandum

SPL first argues that the Plaintiff fails to adequately challenge
the manufacturing establishment status of SPL's facility. SPL
asserts that the Plaintiff's allegations are conclusory and that,
while the Plaintiff alleges that the information provided by SPL
was inadequate, the Plaintiff fails to describe what that
information was. SPL further contends that this was an intentional
omission by Plaintiff, as the documents SPL submits demonstrate
that SPL's facility was a manufacturing establishment. Plaintiff
thus pleads no facts supporting its conclusion that the SPL
facility was not a manufacturing establishment.

Plaintiff's Opposition

The Plaintiff begins by explaining how it originally moved to
dismiss SPL because the State Defendants were the only parties
alleged to have committed the unconstitutional acts outlined in the
original Complaint as public servants or governmental entitles and
because the State Defendants only moved for dismissal of certain
claims. According to the Plaintiff, State Defendants acknowledged
that Louisiana law grants a citizen the right to seek judicial
review of acts of public servants that are alleged to have been
illegal or unconstitutional, and to enjoin any unlawful action by
those public servants. Thus, Plaintiff argues, it did state a
cognizable claim against the State Defendants, and this was one
that State Defendants recognized.

Plaintiff Has Failed to State Any Viable Claim

As a preliminary note, the Plaintiff did not respond to the
substance of any of SPL's arguments. The Fifth Circuit makes it
clear that when a party does not address an issue in his brief to
the district court, that failure constitutes a waiver on appeal.

On this ground alone, the Court could dismiss Plaintiff's Amended
Complaint.

Nevertheless, the Court finds that SPL has shown that Plaintiff has
still failed to state a cognizable claim. As the Louisiana First
Circuit explained in Robinson v. Ieyoub, 97-2204 (La. App. 1 Cir.
12/28/98), 727 So.2d 579, 583, in interpreting La. Const. art. VII,
Section 21(F):

In general, the constitution is subject to the same rules of
interpretation as other laws and written instruments. When a
constitutional provision is clear and unambiguous, and its
application does not lead to absurd consequences, it must be
applied as written without further interpretation in search of its
intent. Every provision must be interpreted in light of the purpose
of the provision and the interests it furthers and resolves. When a
constitutional provision is identical or very similar to that of a
former constitution, it is presumed that the same interpretation
will be given to it as was attributed to the former provision.
Because the question of how the constitution was understood by the
people adopting it, not merely how it was viewed by the drafters,
the debates of a convention, as a general rule, cannot be resorted
to for the purpose of varying the otherwise clear and unambiguous
meaning of a constitutional provision.

Here, the Court agrees with SPL that Plaintiff has failed to
demonstrate arbitrary or capricious action by the State Defendants;
to the contrary, the documents submitted by SPL contradict
Plaintiff's conclusory allegations and demonstrate a considered
decision by the State Defendants. According to the Amended
Complaint, the Board received an initial description of the
manufacturing process from SPL, informed SPL that after several
discussions internally about the proposed project, the consensus
was that SPL's description was not satisfactory, and asked SPL for
a better description. Plaintiff acknowledges that SPL did provide
further information to LDED about its purported manufacturing
process yet claims this still did not meet the qualification of
manufacturing under the constitutional provision. But, as shown
above, the documents submitted by SPL provide a firm basis for the
State Defendants' decision. Even if the Board's choice was wrong,
it did not rise to the level of arbitrary and capricious conduct.

As SPL contends, the constitutional provision authorizes an
exemption for new manufacturing establishment or additions, and
there is nothing in this section that would invalidate an exemption
if an application said it was one when it was in fact the other.
Further, Plaintiff has failed to point to any regulation or statute
that would nullify the Contract under this set of facts.

The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted. As a result, SPL's motion should be
granted.

Plaintiff's Estoppel Argument Is Without Merit

Without any opposition to the substance of SPL's arguments,
Plaintiff makes the following circuitous argument: (1) because
State Defendants allegedly admit that Plaintiff has stated a claim,
(2) because SPL cannot seek dismissal of claims against State
Defendants, and (3) because SPL is a necessary, indispensable
party, SPL is estopped from seeking dismissal of the Amended
Complaint.

The Court rejects Plaintiff's argument. The Court has reviewed the
State Defendant's alleged admission, and the Court does not believe
it can be reasonably construed as Plaintiff would like.5 But, even
putting this aside, State Defendants have since made absolutely
clear that they do not admit that Plaintiff stated a claim and in
fact seek dismissal of the Complaint on the same grounds as SPL,
inter:

JMCB posits that the State Defendants do not dispute and clearly
recognize that the Plaintiff has stated a claim upon which relief
may be granted against them. This is incorrect. In its original
memorandum, the State Defendants observed, as a general
proposition, that Louisiana law recognizes a cause of action,
enjoyed only by taxpayers, to enjoin unconstitutional actions by
state agencies. The State Defendants have never conceded that the
particular allegations made in the First Amended Complaint are
sufficient to state this cause of action. To the contrary, the
State Defendants' agree with their codefendant's assertion that
these allegations do not state a cause of action.

Given this clear and unambiguous rejection of the central premise
of Plaintiff's argument, Plaintiff's entire opposition fails.

Even putting State Defendants' clear and unambiguous statement
aside, the Court disagrees with Plaintiff's argument. The Court
previously ruled that SPL was an indispensable party to this suit
because it was a party to a contract which Plaintiff sought to
invalidate. The Court found that any judgment invalidating the
Contract in SPL's absence would be extraordinarily prejudicial to
it. Plaintiff now is essentially trying to circumvent the Court's
ruling by preventing SPL from defending its own interest.

The Court rejects Plaintiff's procedural defense.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 23, 2018 Ruling and
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yc7ox6wq from
Leagle.com.

JMCB, LLC, On Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff, represented by Patrick Wayne Pendley --
pwpendley@pbclawfirm.com -- Pendley, Baudin & Coffin, LLP, Brian
Andrew Eddington, Christopher D. Shows, Pierce & Shows, Stanley P.
Baudin -- sbaudin@pbclawfirm.com -- Pendley, Baudin & Coffin, LLP &
Troy D. Morain, Morain & Murphy.

The Board of Commerce & Industry & Louisiana Department of Economic
Development, Defendants, represented by Shelton Dennis Blunt --
dennis.blunt@phelps.com -- Phelps Dunbar, LLP, Alfred Paul LeBlanc,
Jr. -- paul.leblanc@phelps.com -- Phelps Dunbar, LLP, Jack Brandon
Stanley, L&B Holdings, LLC & Richard Earold Matheny --
richard.matheny@phelps.com -- Phelps Dunbar, LLP.

Sabine Pass Liquefaction, LLC, Intervenor Defendant, represented by
William M. Backstrom, Jr. -- bbackstrom@joneswalker.com -- Jones,
Walker, Brett S. Venn -- bvenn@joneswalker.com -- Jones Walker LLP,
Jesse R. Adams, III -- jadams@joneswalker.com -- Jones Walker LLP &
Thomas A. Casey, Jr. -- tcaseyjr@joneswalker.com -- Jones Walker
LLP.


CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Corea Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Capital Management
Services, L.P.  The case is titled as Steve Corea, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Capital Management
Services, L.P., Case No. 2:18-cv-04960 (E.D.N.Y., August 31,
2018).

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

Capital Management Services, L.P., a collections agency, provides
delinquent receivables resolutions.  The Company monitors and
tracks debt collection laws, state licensing, company profile, and
client contractual expectations.  The Company was formerly known as
Ventus Capital Services, LP and changed its name to Capital
Management Services L.P. in October 2006.  Capital Management
Services L.P. was incorporated in 2004 and is based in Buffalo, New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CASTLE PARKING: Court Denies Recusal Bid in Bankhead Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Donald C. Bankhead, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Castle
Parking Solutions, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-04085 (N.D.
Ga.), Judge Michael L. Brown of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, denied the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Recusal.

Plaintiffs Bankhead and Thompson sued Defendants claiming they
systematically disabled and "booted" cars in the City of Atlanta
despite that signs they posted at booting locations did not comply
with relevant city ordinances.  More specifically, the Plaintiffs
allege that Defendant Beacon Management Services, LLC (a property
management company) directed Defendant Castle Parking to boot or
immobilize vehicles on properties Defendant Beacon managed.

Since Defendant Beacon removed the case, the Plaintiffs have filed
a series of motions aimed at defeating diversity jurisdiction to
send the case back to the state court from which it came.  The
Plaintiffs, for example, alleged in the initial complaint that the
Defendants have collected millions of dollars in fees from the
booting of vehicles in violation of Atlanta ordinances.  The very
next day, the Plaintiffs moved to amend their complaint to drop
this allegation, claiming that they did not intend to include  it.
They also moved for jurisdictional discovery, arguing that the
amount in controversy may only be in the hundreds of thousands.
The judge assigned to the case at that time denied the motion for
discovery.  He allowed Plaintiffs to amend the complaint but ruled
that federal jurisdiction had been determined at the time of
removal, so they could not defeat diversity jurisdiction through
the proposed amendment.  On the day they received that order,
Plaintiffs moved to dismiss Defendant Beacon (the diverse
Defendant), claiming that they recently learned that Defendant
Beacon did not, in fact, direct Defendant Castle to boot vehicles
on properties Beacon managed.

At about that time, the case was transferred to the undersigned.
The Court held a hearing on Plaintiffs' motion to dismiss and found
that Plaintiffs had not shown their motion to dismiss was based on
newly discovered information but rather sought to subvert the prior
judge's ruling that Defendant Beacon had properly removed the case.
The Court asked Defendant Beacon whether it would prefer to stay
in federal court or to have the matter dismissed and obtain
appropriate attorneys' fees.  The Defense counsel asked for time to
consult with their client.  But, immediately after the hearing, the
Plaintiffs withdrew their motion to avoid paying attorneys' fees.

On April 10, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed their Motion to Add Party
and Remove Defendant Beacon based largely on the same facts the
Plaintiffs cited in their earlier motion to dismiss.  So the
Plaintiffs moved to dismiss Defendant Beacon from the case, to add
the homeowners association, and to amend their complaint to allege
claims against the association.  That amended complaint shows that
Plaintiffs are looking for a wholesale redrafting of their
complaint, changing the scope of the putative class from a citywide
class against Defendants Beacon and Castle for booting at
properties all over Atlanta to a class against Defendant Castle and
one homeowners association for booting at only one property.  Above
all, the Plaintiffs sought another avenue for defeating diversity
jurisdiction by dismissing Defendant Beacon from the case.

While that motion was pending, the Plaintiffs' counsel brought an
unrelated lawsuit in Union City, Georgia.  Neither the Plaintiffs
nor the Defendants in the case are parties to the Union City
matter.  The Plaintiffs in that case allege that the various
companies in Union City booted vehicles at locations in Union City
in violation of that city's ordinances.  One of the defendants in
the Union City case removed the case from state court to the Court.
That case is now known as Polson v. Kenny McElwaney, et al., Case
No. 1:18-cv-2674 (N.D. Ga.).

The removing defendant checked a box on te Court's Civil Cover
Sheet claiming Polson is related to the matter before the Court
because they involve the same issue of fact or arises out of the
same event or transaction.  Polson thus was first assigned to the
Court.

The Plaintiffs' counsel called the Court's chambers to challenge
the automatic assignment of Polson to it.  While the Court believes
that the counsel asserted that the cases were mistakenly marked as
related, the Plaintiffs' counsel does not recall making that
assessment.  He admits, however, that he called to ask how to
"dispute" the removing Defendant's designation that the Polson case
was sufficiently factually related to the case so as to cause
Polson's assignment to the Court.  He also stated that the Court
should refuse to accept the Polson case because the removing
Defendant was represented by Alston & Bird, the firm at which the
undersigned worked before joining the District Court and the firm
at which his wife continues to work.

Before receiving that call, the Court was unaware that Polson had
been assigned to it.  The Court immediately confirmed that Alston &
Bird represented one of the Defendants and, therefore, recused
itself from the matter.  The very next day, the Plaintiffs moved to
disqualify the Court from the case, arguing that the cases are so
closely related that recusal is required.

The Court held a telephonic hearing on the motion for recusal. The
next day, it held another telephonic hearing the next day to
discuss the Court's concern about the Plaintiff's counsel's
repeated telephone calls to the Clerk's office about the assignment
of Polson.  During the second hearing, the Court denied the
Plaintiff's motion for recusal.

On June 18, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a Supplemental Brief in
Support of Motion for Recusal or, in the Alternative, Motion for
Reconsideration.  Although the Court denied the Plaintiff's motion
for recusal before the filing of the Plaintiffs' supplemental
brief, the Court has considered the additional authority sited
therein.  Judge Brown files the Opinion to supplement its earlier
explanation for the denial of the Plaintiffs' motion to recuse.

The Judge holds that the objective lay observer standard endorsed
by the Eleventh Circuit does not support recusal here for several
reasons.  First, neither the Plaintiff nor the Defendants in Polson
are parties in the matter before the Court.  Second, the matter
before the Court involves conduct in Atlanta and allegations that
the Defendants' signage violated Atlanta municipal ordinances.
Third, the signs posted by the Defendants in the case -- according
to the two complaints -- are very different than the signs at issue
in the Polson matter.  In short, the two matters involve different
parties, different law, and different facts.  And the Court recused
from the matter involving the Alston & Bird client.  No reasonable
person would doubt the Court's impartiality under these
circumstances.

The Judge further holds that the Plaintiffs do not argue -- nor
could they -- that any decision in Bankhead could create law of the
case in Polson, or that a decision in Bankhead could support
collateral estoppel in Polson.  There are no overlapping parties,
facts, contracts, or law.  At most, a decision in the case could be
cited as authority on the Polson matter or vice versa.  To require
recusal under these facts, would require the Court to recuse itself
whenever a decision it might render could be cited as authority in
any matter involving an Alston & Bird client.  Neither Matter of
Hatcher, In re Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., nor any other case
extend Section 455(a) that far.

For the reasons set forth, Judge Brown denied the Plaintiffs'
Motion for Recusal.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 27, 2018 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/h8u731 from Leagle.com.

Donald Carl Bankhead & Keith Thompson, Individually, and on behalf
of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs, represented
by Kevin Charles Patrick -- kevin@patricktriallaw.com -- Kevin
Patrick Law, LLC, Matthew Q. Wetherington -- matt@wernerlaw.com --
The Werner Law Firm, P.C., Michael L. Werner -- mike@wernerlaw.com
-- The Werner Law Firm, P.C., Robert Neil Friedman --
Robert@wernerlaw.com -- The Werner Law Firm, P.C., James Darren
Summerville , The Summerville Firm, LLC & Kurt G. Kastorf , The
Summerville Firm, LLC.

Castle Parking Solutions, LLC, Defendant, represented by John
Colquitt Rogers , Carlock Copeland & Stair, LLP.

Beacon Management Services, LLC, Defendant, represented by Brian
Richard Noethlich, Baker & Hostetler LLP, Brynda Rodriguez Insley
-- binsley@insleyrace.com -- Insley & Race, Harry Christopher
Jackson, Jr., Insley & Race, Jared Harrison Jacobs, Gray Rust St.
Amand Moffett & Brieske, LLP, Michael J. Rust -- mrust@grsmb.com --
Gray Rust St. Amand Moffett & Brieske, LLP, Myada El-Sawi Baudry,
Gray Rust St. Amand Moffett & Brieske, LLP, Rand Lawrence McClellan
--rmcclellan@bakerlaw.com --, Baker & Hostetler LLP, Rodger Lee
Eckelberry, Baker & Hostetler LLP & Trevor Grant Hiestand --
thiestand@wachp.com -- Waldon Adelman Castilla Hiestand & Prout.


CBS CORP:  Samit Files Suit Over Share Price Drop
-------------------------------------------------
Gene Samit, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. CBS Corporation, Leslie Moonves and Joseph
R. Ianniello, Defendants, Case No. 18-CV-07796, (S.D. N.Y., August
24, 2018), seeks to recover damages caused by violations of the
federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

CBS is a mass media company with operations in the entertainment,
cable networks, publishing, and local media segments. Its voting
Class A Common Stock and non-voting Class B Common Stock are listed
and traded on the New York Stock Exchange.

The complaint says CBS failed to disclose that CBS executives
tolerated widespread workplace sexual harassment which subjected
CBS to heightened legal liability. On this news, CBS's stock price
fell $3.52, or 6.12%, to close at $54.01 on July 27, 2018.

Samit acquired CBS securities at artificially inflated prices and
lost upon the revelation of the alleged corrective disclosures,
notes the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
      J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 661-1100
      Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
      Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
             ahood@pomlaw.com

             - and -

      Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 377-1181
      Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
      Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com


CHEBURECK INC: Kikirov Sues over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
-----------------------------------------------------------
ILYAVU KIKIROV, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ISAK SIONOV; CHEBURECK, INC. D/B/A
SHASHLICHNAYA; and JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 712095/2018
(N.Y. Sup., Queens Cty., Aug. 6, 2018) is an action against the
Defendants for breach of contract, fraud, breach of fiduciary
duties, and violation of the New York Business Corporation Law.

According to the complaint, on October 3, 2017, Kikirov and Sionov
entered into a shareholders' agreement. Sionov is the President of
Chebureck, and Kikirov as Vice President and Secretary. On January
3, 2018, Chebureck began operating as a restaurant. On January 23,
2018 Sionov began to exclude Kikirov from certain operations of the
restaurant. On February 28, 2018, Sionov took action to remove
Kikirov from the restaurant and Sionov has been in sole control of
the operations of Chebureck. As President of Cheburek, Sionov
failed to provide any financial information about cheburek to the
directors since the start of the business operations.

Cherbureck, Inc. D/B/A Shashlichnaya is a domestic corporation
organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York,
with business address ant Rego Park, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          CYRULI SHANKS HART & ZIZMOR, LLP
          420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 2320
          New York, NY 10170
          Telephone: (212) 661-6800


CHIASMA INC: Discovery Sought in Gerneth Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Chiasma, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the company continues to
defend against a class action suite styled as Gerneth v. Chiasma,
Inc., et al.

Judge Denise J. Casper entered an order dated September 7, 2018,
referring the case to Magistrate Judge M. Page Kelley, with respect
to Lead Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery.

On June 9, 2016, Chiasma, Inc. and certain of its current and
former officers were named as defendants in a federal securities
class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for
the District of Massachusetts, styled Gerneth v. Chiasma, Inc., et
al.

This lawsuit challenges the company's public statements regarding
its Phase 3 clinical trial methodology for octreotide capsules and
its ability to obtain FDA approval for the marketing and sale of
octreotide capsules.

In December 2016, a lead plaintiff was appointed in the case. An
amended complaint was filed by the lead plaintiff on February 10,
2017 similarly challenging the company's statements regarding the
Phase 3 clinical trial methodology and results, and its ability to
obtain FDA approval for octreotide capsules, purportedly in
violation of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.

The amended complaint adds as defendants current and former members
of the company's board of directors, as well as the investment
banks that underwrote our initial public offering ("IPO") on July
15, 2015. The lead plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all
purchasers of the company's stock in its IPO. The plaintiff is
seeking an unspecified amount of compensatory damages on behalf of
himself and members of a putative shareholder class, including
interest and reasonable costs and expenses incurred in litigating
the action, and any other relief the court determines is
appropriate.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
March 27, 2017 and on February 15, 2018, the court denied
defendants' motion to dismiss. The defendants filed an answer to
the amended complaint on March 30, 2018.

Chiasma said, "We believe this lawsuit is meritless and intend to
vigorously defend against it. At this time, no assessment can be
made as to the likely outcome of this lawsuit or whether the
outcome will be material to us."

Chiasma, Inc., a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company, focuses
on developing oral medications using transient permeability
enhancer technology platform for the treatment of rare and serious
chronic disease in the United States, Europe, and internationally.
The company offers oral octreotide capsules for adult patients
under the MYCAPSSA name, which is in two Phase III clinical trials
for the treatment of acromegaly, a condition that results in the
body's production of excess growth hormone. Chiasma, Inc. was
founded in 2001 and is headquartered in Waltham, Massachusetts.


CNX GAS: Judge Approves Settlement in Gas Royalties Case
--------------------------------------------------------
David McGee, writing for Bristol Herald Courier, reports that eight
years after the first lawsuit was filed, Kenneth Osborne sat on a
bench inside courtroom 1 at the U.S. District Courthouse on August
23 and held his right thumb and forefinger about a half-inch
apart.

"We've made this much progress," said Osborne, after Judge James P.
Jones granted motions approving a $4 million settlement in the case
of Jeffrey C. Hale and others against CNX Gas Co., of Pittsburgh.

Osborne was one of 1,161 members who joined that suit, which Jones
certified as class action in April 2017.

"Today was a small victory," said Osborne, whose family's land in
Buchanan County contains more than 20 gas wells. "But there is
still a long way to go."

Osborne and the Hale brothers, Jeffrey and Jamie, were among about
15 plaintiffs who attended the August 23 hearing.

Jamie Hale, of Haysi, who spoke on behalf of his family, said they
are satisfied.

"I think it's fair and realistic," Jamie Hale said. "It was a tough
fight; no one thought it would take this long. . . . The attorneys
did a good job, and we wouldn't have gotten anything if they hadn't
all worked so hard."

Jones also granted a separate motion regarding attorneys' fees,
which were described as substantially less than their normal
billable hourly rates. Written orders are forthcoming, according to
a court document.

"I believe the settlement is fair and reasonable. Not everyone is
going to be happy with the amount, but, in my experience, I believe
it is a very reasonable settlement," Jones said from the bench,
adding that without the action there would be "no benefit to class
members."

Jones described the case as "hard- fought." He also noted it was
the longest running case on his docket in 23 years on the federal
bench.

In September 2010, Hale and other landowners in Buchanan, Dickenson
and other Southwest Virginia counties originally filed lawsuits
accusing CNX and other gas companies of cheating them out of
millions of dollars and stating that landowners couldn't access
about $30 million in gas royalties held in an escrow account
controlled by the Virginia Oil and Gas Board.

The landowners said that Virginia's Gas and Oil Act of 1990 allowed
companies to access coalbed methane via a pooling order, which
"consolidates all adjoining tracts of land with subsurface coalbed
methane into a single pool or unit of interests, enabling the
coalbed methane producer to extract the gas from a common
reservoir," according to the act.

Under the law, the pooling order deprives potential coalbed methane
owners of the right to prevent extraction but does entitle coalbed
methane owners to a royalty payment.

Landowners never gave permission to access the gas beneath their
land.

Daniel Seltz, Esq. the plaintiff's lead attorney, said all involved
parties will automatically receive a check. Attorneys were able to
contact all but eight class members prior to securing the
settlement agreement.

"Nobody has to do anything," Seltz said after the hearing. "Within
45 days, all members of the class should receive a check. It will
be a pro rata share."

Under terms of the settlement, the money will be distributed based
on the amounts of money that a class member has received as
distributions from the escrow account, a court document shows.

"At the time the settlement was reached, CNX had distributed
slightly more than $5.9 million to class members; thus this
settlement creates a fund representing an additional 67 percent of
monies that have come out of escrow," according to the document.

In exchange for the money, CNX receives a full release of the
claims certified for class treatment. Claims not certified for
class treatment are not released and can be pursued by individual
class members.

Peter Glubiak, Esq. -- Office@GlubiakLaw.com -- another attorney
for the plaintiffs, explained that this was a mediated settlement,
meaning "neither side" got all it wanted.

Both attorneys said the most important aspect of this case is it
was a catalyst for the Virginia General Assembly to approve House
Bill 2058 in 2015.

That legislation requires an operator of a previously pooled
coalbed methane gas well to request, by the beginning of 2016, the
release of any funds held in escrow or suspense to the person who
possesses a claim through a gas title. For a well that is pooled
after July 1, 2015, the bill requires the operator to pay royalties
directly to the gas claimant unless the coal claimant provides
evidence of an agreement or a proceeding within a certain time.

A similar class action lawsuit against EQT Production of Pittsburgh
is ongoing. On August 22, Judge Jones granted an EQT motion seeking
an extension until Sept. 28 to provide additional information to
plaintiffs Robert Adair and Eva Mae Adkins.[GN]


COCHRAN WHOLESALE: Attys' Fee/Incentive Awards in Camp Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CAMP DRUG STORE, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.
COCHRAN WHOLESALE PHARMACEUTICAL, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee,
Case No. 17-2086 (7th Cir.), Judge Kenneth Francis Ripple of the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirm the district
court's judgment that approved the settlement on behalf of the
class, but reduced the proposed attorney fee and incentive awards.

Camp Drug Store filed the action, on its own behalf and as a
representative of a proposed class, against Cochran.  Camp Drug
Store alleged that Cochran had violated the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act ("TCPA"), by faxing unsolicited advertisements to
the class members.  The parties entered into early mediation and
reached a settlement.  The district court approved the settlement
on behalf of the class, but reduced the proposed attorney fee and
incentive awards.

In that order accepting the settlement and dismissing the action,
the court reiterated that a fee of $233,333.33 was not appropriate
in the case because the settlement did not create a "common fund."
It therefore awarded attorneys' fees in the amount of $73,468.13,
which represents 33.3% of the $220,625.00 claims payment.
Similarly, the $15,000 incentive award did not reflect properly the
amount of time and effort the named Plaintiffs had expended in
pursuing the litigation.  Consequently, the court reduced the
incentive award to $1,000 for each of the named Plaintiffs.

Camp Drug Store appeals.  It maintains that the settlement created
a common fund against which the reasonableness of the attorney fee
award should be assessed.  It also notes that the proposed
incentive awards were commensurate with other awards to the named
Plaintiffs for claims under the TCPA.

Judge Ripple cannot accept Camp Drug Store's characterization of
the settlement as a common fund.  Neither the case law, nor that of
the Supreme Court, supports that characterization.  Moreover, given
the early stage at which the litigation was settled, the reductions
in the attorney fee and incentive awards were not an abuse of
discretion.  He therefore affirmed the district court's judgment.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 27, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/YlsiMl from Leagle.com.

Phillip Andrew Bock -- phil@classlawyers.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellant.

Cindy D. Hanson -- cindy.hanson@troutman.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

David Max Oppenheim, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Ross Andre, for Defendant-Appellee.


CONSUMER REPORTS: Faces Watterson Class Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Consumer Reports,
Inc.  The case is captioned as Robert Watterson, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Consumer Reports,
Inc., Case No. 7:18-cv-08001 (S.D.N.Y., August 31, 2018).

The nature of suit is stated as other fraud.

Consumer Reports, Inc. provides product ratings and reviews.  The
Company offers advice about products and services, personal
finance, health and nutrition, energy, food, gimmicks and gotchas,
phones and media, safety, and other consumer concerns.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Ignatius Marchese, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Ave.
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 989-9113
          Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
          E-mail: jmarchese@bursor.com


CREDIT CONTROL: Ramos FDCA Suit Settlement Has Prelim Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, HENRY A. RAMOS and ROXANN RAMOS, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CREDIT
CONTROL, LLC, a Missouri Limited Liability Company; and JOHN AND
JANE DOES NUMBERS 1 THROUGH 10, Defendants, Case No.
2:16-cv-04098-JMA-SIL (E.D. N.Y.), Judge John M. Azrack of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted the
Parties' motion for preliminary approval of the Class Settlement
Agreement.

The Judge certified the class defined as all persons with addresses
in the State of New York to whom Credit Control, LLC mailed a
collection letter between July 25, 2015, and Oct. 5, 2017, to
collect a debt on behalf of Kohls Department Stores, Inc., which
debt was charged-off by the creditor prior to the date the letter
was sent to the consumer, and the letter either: (i) stated,
because of interest, late charges and other charges that may be
assessed by your creditor that vary from day to day, the amount due
on the day you pay, may be greater; or (ii) offered to settle the
debt when the debt was in default for more than three years prior
to the date of the letter and did not disclose the debt may be
barred by the statute of limitations.

The Judge defined the Class Claims as those claims arising under
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act from Credit Control's
collection letters which: (i) stated that, "because of interest,
late charges and other charges that may be assessed by your
creditor that vary from day to day, the amount due on the day you
pay, may be greater:; or (ii) offered to settle the debt when the
debt was in default for more than three years prior to the date of
the letter and did not disclose the debt may be barred by the
statute of limitations.

He appointed the Plaintiffs as the Class Representatives; Stern
Thomasson LLP and Kleinman, LLC as the Class Counsel; and Heffler
Claims Group, LLC as the Settlement Administrator.

The Judge approved the Parties' proposed Class Notice and directed
that it be mailed to the last known address of each member of the
Settlement Class as shown in Credit Control's business records.
The Settlement Administrator shall cause the Class Notice to be
mailed to Class Members by Aug. 17, 2018 (21 days from the date of
the Order).  The Class Members shall have until Oct. 1, 2018 (66
days from the date of this Order), to return a claim form, exclude
themselves from, or object to, the Settlement.  To be effective,
any claim form, request for exclusion, or objection must be
postmarked by Oct. 1, 2018.  If not already filed, Credit Control
shall file with the Court a notice indicating its compliance with
the requirements of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005.

A final hearing on the fairness and reasonableness of the Agreement
and whether final approval shall be given to it and the requests
for fees and expenses by Class Counsel will be held on Oct. 29,
2018, at 5:15 p.m. (90 days from the date of the Order).

The Plaintiffs shall file their Motion for Attorney's Fees, costs,
and service awards by Aug. 13, 2018.  Any submissions concerning
final approval must be filed by Oct. 15, 2018.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 27, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/yi8zMT from Leagle.com.

Henry A. Ramos & Roxann Ramos, Individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Abraham
Kleinman -- akleinman@kleinmanllc.com -- Kleinman, LLC, Andrew T.
Thomasson, Stern Thomasson LLP, pro hac vice, Philip D. Stern,
Stern Thomasson LLP, pro hac vice & Heather B. Jones, Stern
Thomasson LLP, pro hac vice.

Credit Control, LLC, A Missouri Limited Liability Company,
Defendant, represented by Patrick A. Watts, Watts Law Group LLC,
pro hac vice, Gracie Christine Wright --
gracie.wright@wilsonelser.com -- Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman
& Dicker, LLP & Peter A. Meisels -- peter.meisels@wilsonelser.com
-- Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, LLP.

John and Jane Does Numbers 1 through 10, Defendant, represented by
Patrick A. Watts, Watts Law Group LLC, pro hac vice.


CV SCIENCES: Block & Leviton Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Block & Leviton LLP has filed a securities fraud class action
against CV Sciences, Inc., and certain of its officers alleging
violations of the federal securities laws and encourages
shareholders to contact Block & Leviton ahead of the October 23,
2018 lead plaintiff deadline.

On August 20, 2018, Citron Research published a report on twitter
alleging that CV Sciences' management misrepresented the status of
one of its key patents. According to Citron Research, the Company
failed to disclose a rejected patent that the Company "continue[d]
to hype." As a result of the Citron report, CV Sciences stock
plunged over 63% in volatile trading.

The complaint, filed in the United States District Court District
of Nevada, captioned Smith v. CV Sciences, Inc. et al., Case No.
2:18-cv-01602 (D. Nev.), alleges that between June 19, 2017 and
August 20, 2018, inclusive (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 prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose that its
Patent #15/426,617: (1) received a non-final rejection from the
USPTO on April 27, 2017; (2) a final rejection from the USPTO on
December 14, 2017; and (3) as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' statements about CV Sciences' business, operations, and
prospects, were materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis.

If you purchased CVSI shares between June 19, 2017 and August 20,
2018 and wish to serve as a lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
no later than October 23, 2018.

If you wish to become involved in the litigation or have questions
about your legal rights, you are encouraged to contact Attorney
John DeFelice at (888) 868-2385, by email at john@blockesq.com or
by visiting https://shareholder.law/cvsi.

Confidentiality to whistleblowers or others with information
relevant to this investigation is assured.

The court in which this case is pending is located at 333 S Las
Vegas Blvd, Las Vegas, NV 89101.

         John DeFelice, Esq.
         BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
         155 Federal Street, Suite 400
         Boston, MA 02110
         Telephone: (617) 398-5600
         Email: john@blockesq.com [GN]


DECORE-ATIVE SPECIALIST: Valenzuela Seeks Unpaid Wages, Penalties
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Armando Valenzuela individuals and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Decore-Ative Specialists and Does
1 through 100, Defendants, Case No. BC710732 (Cal. Super., June 20,
2018), seeks recovery of unpaid wages and penalties, missed breaks
compensation and redress for failure to provide wage statements
under California Business and Professions Code, California Labor
Code and applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders in
addition to seeking declaratory relief and restitution.

Decore-Ative in in the business of manufacturing custom cabinet
components for the commercial and residential markets in the United
States. Valenzuela was employed by Defendants as a non-exempt
employee in their Assembly and Cutting Departments from
approximately September 2015 through on or about August 21, 2017,
at which time he suffered a workplace injury and started a leave of
absence. He has since been terminated from his employment.
Decore-Ative allegedly utilized a timekeeping system that rounded
down their workers actual time. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Paul K. Haines, Esq.
      HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
      222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550
      El Segundo, CA 90245
      Tel: (424) 292-2350
      Fax: (424) 292-2355
      Email: phaines@haineslawgroup.com
             tkorobkin@haineslawgroup.com

             - and -

      Scott M. Lidman, Esq.
      Elizabeth Nguyen, Esq.
      LIDMAN LAW, APC
      222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550
      El Segunao, CA 90245
      Tel: (424) 322-4772
      Fax: (424) 322-4775
      Email: slidman@lidmanlaw.com
             enguyen@lidmanlaw.com


DEVERUS INC: Violates Fair Credit Reporting Act, Robinson Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Deverus Inc.  The
case is captioned as Dedrick Robinson, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated v. Deverus Inc., Case No.
4:18-cv-02415-RBH (D.S.C., August 31, 2018).

The Plaintiff alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Founded in 1998, deverus, Inc., helps companies in the background
screening industry work better, faster and smarter by providing the
highest quality software, mobile applications, SaaS cloud-based
solutions, integrations, compliance, automation, security, privacy
and customer support services available.  deverus helps HR
departments make critical hiring decisions using data such as
criminal records, education and employment verifications, drug
screening, and more.  The Company delivers its services to over
43,000 businesses, hiring more than 4.1 million employees per year,
partnering with more than 150 integrated partners.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lance V. Oliver, Esq.
          Thomas David Hoyle, Esq.
          MOTLEY RICE LLC
          28 Bridgeside Boulevard
          Mt Pleasant, SC 29464
          Telephone: (843) 216-9061
          Facsimile: (843) 216-9450
          E-mail: loliver@motleyrice.com
                  dhoyle@motleyrice.com


DEVILLE ASSET MANAGEMENT: Woods Disputes Vague Collection Letter
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cedric Woods, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. DeVille Asset Management, Ltd., Defendants,
Case No. 18-cv-00948, (N.D. Ala., June 20, 2018), seeks to recover
statutory damages, costs, and reasonable attorneys' fees under the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

DeVille is a credit collection agency who attempted to collect a
defaulted consumer debt Woods allegedly owes GM Services. They sent
collection letter without the statutorily required information of
how long he had to exercise his validation rights, to whom he had
to exercise them or to whom he needed to make payment, notes the
complaint. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David J. Philipps, Esq.
      Mary E. Philipps, Esq.
      PHILIPPS & PHILIPPS, LTD.
      9760 S. Roberts Road, Suite One
      Palos Hills, IL 60465
      Tel: (708) 974-2900
      Fax: (708) 974-2907
      Email: davephilipps@aol.com
             mephilipps@aol.com

             - and -

      Bradford W. Botes, Esq.
      BOND, BOTES, REESE & SHINN, P.C.
      600 University Park Place Suite 510
      Birmingham, AL 35209
      Tel: (205) 802-2200
      Fax: (205) 802-2209
      Email: bbotes@bondnbotes.com


DIAMOND RESORTS: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Gross Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Diamond Resorts
Management Incorporated.  The case is titled as Joseph Gross,
individually, and on behalf of those Arizona residents similarly
situated v. Diamond Resorts Management Incorporated, Case No.
2:18-cv-02759-JZB (D. Ariz., August 31, 2018).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

Diamond Resorts Management, Inc., was formerly known as Sunterra
Resort Management, Inc. and changed its name to Diamond Resorts
Management, Inc. in October 2007.  The Company was incorporated in
1991 and is based in Las Vegas, Nevada.  Diamond Resorts
Management, Inc., operates as a subsidiary of Diamond Resorts
Corporation, which owns and manages a network of resorts in the
Caribbean, Europe, and North America.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian Parker, Esq.
          Robert John Heieck, Esq.
          DC CAPITAL LAW
          700 12th St. NW, Suite 700
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 888-1144
          E-mail: bparker@dccapitallaw.com
                  rheieck@dccapitallaw.com


DIRECT FUNDING: Loyhayem Hits Autodialed Telemarketing Calls
------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Loyhayem, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Direct Funding Now LLC and Does 1 through
10, inclusive, and each of them, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-05502
(C.D. Cal., June 20, 2018), seeks damages and any other available
legal or equitable remedies resulting from Defendants contacting
Plaintiff on his cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

Direct Funding Now is a loan provider who contacted Loyhayem in an
attempt to solicit their financial services using an "automatic
telephone dialing system" thereby incurring a charge for incoming
calls. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DIRECTV LLC: Court Denies Bid to Arbitrate Revitch's TCPA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California denied Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration in the
case captioned JEREMY REVITCH, Plaintiff, v. DIRECTV, LLC,
Defendant. Case No. 18-cv-01127-JCS. (N.D. Cal.).

DirecTV brings a Motion to Compel Arbitration and to Stay
Litigation (Motion), arguing that because Revitch is a wireless
customer of AT&T Mobility LLC (AT&T Mobility), his claim is
governed by the arbitration provision contained in his agreement
with AT&T Mobility, which covers claims asserted against affiliates
of AT&T.

Plaintiff Jeremy Revitch brings a putative class action against
Defendant DirecTV, LLC (DirecTV) based on an automated call he
received from DirecTV advertising its services. Revitch alleges
that the call was made without his prior express written consent
and therefore violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA).

The Customer Agreement

The Customer Agreement begins with a preamble (Preamble) and is
divided into ten sections setting forth the terms of service
related to AT&T's wireless services. Below, the Court summarizes
the sections that are relevant to the instant motion.

First, the Preamble provides that the terms AT&T, we, us or our
"refer to AT&T Mobility LLC, acting on behalf of its FCC-licensed
affiliates doing business as AT&T. The Preamble goes on to state,
in all capital letters, as follows:

THIS AGREEMENT REQUIRES THE USE OF ARBITRATION ON AN INDIVIDUAL
BASIS TO RESOLVE DISPUTES, RATHER THAN JURY TRIALS OR CLASS
ACTIONS, AND ALSO LIMITS THE REMEDIES AVAILABLE TO YOU IN THE EVENT
OF A DISPUTE.

General Legal Standards Governing the FAA

Under the FAA, a written provision in a contract evidencing a
transaction involving commerce to settle by arbitration a
controversy thereafter arising out of such contract or transaction
shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such
grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any
contract. Because arbitration is a matter of contract, the question
of arbitrability is, in principle, an issue for judicial
determination.

The court's role in addressing a question of arbitrability is
limited to determining (1) whether a valid agreement to arbitrate
exists, and if it does, (2) whether the agreement encompasses the
dispute at issue.

Whether There is A Valid Agreement to Arbitrate Between Plaintiff
and DirecTV

DirecTV contends Revitch entered into an agreement to arbitrate his
claim against it because the arbitration provision in the Customer
Agreement covers affiliates and under the generally accepted
definition of that term, DirecTV is an affiliate of AT&T Mobility.
According to DirecTV, other courts also have concluded that
arbitration clauses containing similarly broad language describing
the parties covered by the agreement could be enforced by related
corporate entities. DirecTV further asserts that to the extent
there is uncertainty as to whether Revitch's claims are arbitrable
the Supreme Court has instructed that as a matter of federal law,
any doubts concerning the scope of arbitrable issues should be
resolved in favor of arbitration.

Revitch rejects DirecTV's argument that it is an affiliate under
the Wireless Agreement, arguing that the terms of the Wireless
Agreement and the conduct of AT&T Mobility support the opposite
conclusion. With respect to the terms of the Wireless Agreement,
Revitch points to Section 1.9 of the Customer Agreement, which
contains a definition of affiliate that is limited to providers of
landline telephone service whereas DirecTV provides satellite
television services. He also points to the website link referenced
in Section 2.2(3), provided to explain the arbitration provision to
non-lawyers.

California Law Governing Contract Interpretation

California Civil Code section 1636 provides that a contract must be
so interpreted as to give effect to the mutual intention of the
parties as it existed at the time of contracting, so far as the
same is ascertainable and lawful.

A contract is ambiguous when it is capable of two or more
constructions, both of which are reasonable. If terms are ambiguous
or uncertain, the court should rely on the reasonable expectation
of the parties at the time of the contract. Where there is doubt as
to the intent of the parties, ambiguities in written agreements are
to be construed against the drafters, a rule that applies with
particular force in the case of a contract of adhesion.

As a preliminary matter, the Court rejects DirecTV's argument that
forward looking language in the arbitration provision shows that
the parties intended that it would cover future affiliates,
regardless of when or how an entity became an affiliate. DirecTV
relies on the fact that the arbitration provision states that
references to AT&T, you andus' include successors and assigns but
it is undisputed that DirecTV is neither a successor nor an assign
of AT&T Mobility. DirecTV reasons that the reference to successors
and assigns shows that the arbitration provision was intended to
cover claims against entities whose identities could not be known
until the future, but nothing in this language suggests that it was
intended to cover any entity whose identity was unknown at the time
of contracting.

The Court also rejects DirecTV's reliance on that fact that the
arbitration provision covers claims that may arise after the
termination of this Agreement. While this language is, indeed,
forward looking, it governs only the types of claims that must be
arbitrated, not the entities that may invoke the arbitration
clause. Therefore, the Court rejects DirecTV's argument that the
terms of the Wireless Agreement show that the arbitration provision
covers claims asserted against a future affiliate.

The Court concludes that the arbitration provision in the contract
between Plaintiff and AT&T Mobility does not reflect an intent to
arbittrate the claim Plaintiff asserts against DirecTV in this
action.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 23, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ya5a7olu from Leagle.com.

Jeremy Revitch, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Joel Dashiell Smith --
jsmith@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher, P.A., Lawrence Timothy Fisher
-- ltfisher@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher, P.A. & Yeremey O.
Krivoshey -- ykrivoshey@bursor.com -- Bursor Fisher, P.A.

DirecTV, LLC, Defendant, represented by Archis Ashok Parasharami --
aparasharami@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP, Anne M. Selin --
aselin@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP, Hans Joseph Germann --
hgermann@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP & Kyle Steinmetz --
ksteinkamp@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP.


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Court Narrows Claims in Suit vs SNAP
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court, District of Columbia, granted in
part and denied in part Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case
captioned SHONICE G. GARNETT et al., Plaintiffs, v. LAURA
ZEILINGER, Defendant. Case No. 17-cv-1757 (CRC). (D.D.C.).

The District has moved to dismiss the amended complaint.

A group of District of Columbia residents filed suit against Laura
Zeilinger, director of the department that administers the
District's Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). They
alleged that the District's administration of the program fails to
adhere to statutory, regulatory, and constitutional requirements.

The Plaintiffs contend that the District (1) failed to process
their SNAP benefit applications in a timely manner; (2) failed to
send timely notices that their eligibility to receive benefits
needed to be recertified; and (3) failed to provide any notice of
benefit processing delays and the right to a hearing.

Legal Standards

The District has moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). In addressing such a motion, the
court assumes the truth of all well-pleaded factual allegations in
the complaint and construes reasonable inferences from those
allegations in the plaintiff's favor, but is not required to accept
the plaintiff's legal conclusions as correct.

The District moves to dismiss each of the plaintiffs' three claims
on the same three grounds: that the plaintiffs lack standing, that
they have no cause of action under 42 U.S.C. Setion 1983, and that,
even if they met those threshold requirements, they have not stated
a valid claim.  

Whether plaintiffs have standing

Claim 1

In their first claim, plaintiffs allege that the District is
failing to process benefits for SNAP applications both initial
applications and recertification applications within the timelines
imposed by statute.

To establish standing to seek injunctive relief, the named
plaintiffs must demonstrate that at the time the complaint (or
amended complaint) was filed they suffered (1) an actual injury
that was ongoing (or a sufficiently definite threat of future
injury), (2) that was traceable to the defendant's challenged
conduct, and (3) that is redressable by an injunction from this
Court.

First, all but one of the individual named plaintiffs pled an
ongoing actual injury at the time of suit. According to their sworn
affidavits, at the time the suit was filed the named plaintiffs
were not receiving SNAP benefits they were entitled to under the
law.  The lack of SNAP benefits is, as the Court discussed in its
preliminary injunction opinion, clearly an actual injury. And since
the plaintiffs were at that moment deprived of SNAP benefits, they
suffered an ongoing injury as required for injunctive relief.

Second, despite the District's arguments to the contrary, the named
plaintiffs stated an injury that was traceable to the relevant
challenged conduct. As to Shonice Garnett, the remaining named
plaintiff representing the class of individuals with delayed
processing of initial applications, her declaration states that she
filed an initial application on July 10, 2017. Ms. Garnett further
alleges that she was not receiving benefits associated with that
application as of August 24, 2017, more than 30 days after her
application was filed. Director Zeilinger's declaration states that
Ms. Garnett was provided benefits by August 31, 2017, seemingly
confirming Ms. Garnett's account of events. Thus, Ms. Garnett has
attested that she was not receiving SNAP benefits she was due under
the law because the District had failed to process her application
within 30 days. Her injury (lack of benefits is thus traceable to
the conduct she challenges the failure to process initial
applications within the mandated timelines.

Whether plaintiffs' claims are now moot

The Court will consider whether any exceptions to mootness apply.
Plaintiffs point to two: voluntary cessation and the inherently
transitory exception. Because the Court concludes that the latter
applies, it need not address the former. The inherently-transitory
exception applies when (1) it is uncertain that a claim will remain
live for any individual who could be named as a plaintiff long
enough for a court to certify the class  and (2) there will be a
constant class of persons suffering the deprivation complained of
in the complaint.

Turning to the second prong, as noted in the ruling on the motion
for the preliminary injunction, the District has admitted that it
is not processing all applications within the proper timelines. As
such, at any given moment there are recipients who are not
receiving SNAP benefits owed under the law because of a delay in
processing their applications. There is thus a constant class of
individuals suffering the injury complained of loss of SNAP
benefits because of the challenged conduct. Consequently, since
both requirements are met, the inherently transitory exception
applies here.

In sum, the named plaintiffs had standing at the time the complaint
or amended complaint was filed. And since the inherently-transitory
exception to mootness applies, the Court will deny the District's
motion to dismiss Claim 1.

Claim 2

In their second claim, the plaintiffs allege that the District is
failing to send out recertification notices as required by the
statute.

In light of the present record before the Court, plaintiffs have
adequately demonstrated that they face a sufficient risk of future
injury. For one, households that receive SNAP benefits are only
certified for a limited period of time, typically lasting 6-12
months. Benefit recipients like Mr. Stanley and Mr. Gaines are thus
required to recertify eligibility at least every 6-12 months,
meaning they can regularly anticipate receiving a recertification
notice. It is therefore nearly certain that Mr. Stanley and Mr.
Gaines, within a year, will face the possibility of not receiving a
recertification notice and losing benefits.

The Court is not relying on other class members' failure to receive
notices and their resulting injury to establish plaintiffs'
standing. However, the fact that the District has repeatedly failed
to send notices sheds light on whether it is likely that Mr.
Stanley and Mr. Gaines will again suffer a loss of SNAP benefits
because of a failure to receive a notice. Though this evidence may
have been insufficient to establish a systemic failure to send
recertification notices as required for a preliminary injunction,
it does suffice to show that Mr. Stanley and Mr. Gaines face a
realistic danger of sustaining a direct injury as required for
standing,  

This direct injury the risk of losing SNAP benefits is traceable to
the challenged conduct failure to provide recertification notices
and redressable by an injunction akin to that the class seeks one
directing the District to send the notices due under law. As such,
Mr. Stanley and Mr. Gaines have established standing at this
juncture as to Claim 2.

Claim 3

In their third claim, the plaintiffs allege that the District is
failing to provide written notice of processing delays and of the
right to a hearing, in violation of the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth and Fifth Amendments and the relevant statute.  

As to Claim 3, the Court agrees with the District that the
individual plaintiffs (and Bread for the City) have not adequately
alleged standing because they fail to identify an actual injury
traceable to the relevant challenged conduct or redressable by the
desired relief. The named plaintiffs cannot rely on a statutory
violation alone to provide injury, but rather must point to a
concrete harm flowing from the statutory violation. While the loss
of benefits (or, for Bread for the City, economic resources) is
such a concrete harm, that harm is not traceable to the conduct
challenged in Claim 3. The plaintiffs' failure to receive benefits
(and Bread for the City's need to expend resources) stems from the
District's failure to process applications or to issue
recertification notices, not from any failure to provide a notice
of delayed processing or of the right to a hearing.   

The plaintiffs have not identified an actual injury that is
traceable to the challenged conduct or redressable by the desired
relief and lack standing to pursue Claim 3.

Whether plaintiffs have a cause of action

Whether the SNAP Act creates a right enforceable under section
1983

The Supreme Court has laid out a three-part test to determine
whether a federal statute provides a right enforceable through
section 1983: (1) Congress must have intended that the provision in
question benefit the plaintiff  (2) the plaintiff must demonstrate
that the right assuredly protected by the statute is not so vague
and amorphous' that its enforcement would strain judicial
competence and (3) the statute must unambiguously impose a binding
obligation on the States. Blessing v. Freestone, 520 U.S. 329,
340-41 (1997).

The District does not strongly contest that these statutory
provisions meet the latter two requirements of the Blessing test.
The statute imposes an obligation on the States: the statutory text
uses the mandatory shall and the statutory scheme is clear that if
States wish to receive money they must follow these requirements.
Nor are any of these provisions too vague or precatory to allow for
judicial enforcement. The first provision, section  (a) mandates
that eligible households receive benefits, an analysis that only
requires the Court to determine whether a household is eligible.
Subsections 2020(e)(3), (e)(4), and (e)(9) all involve specific
timelines for when States must take certain actions, which courts
are clearly capable of enforcing.

Rather, the hardest prong of the Blessing test here is the first:
whether the statutory text creates rights that are intended to
benefit individuals. Indeed, the District primarily argues that the
plaintiffs lack a cause of action under section 1983 because the
statutory text here imposes conditions upon the states receiving
federal funds for SNAP, not rights for beneficiaries. In support of
its argument, it notes that the relevant statutory language focuses
on the State plan of operation, not on the individual beneficiaries
of SNAP. But under the Supreme Court's decision in Wilder v.
Virginia Hospital Association, 496 U.S. 498 (1990), this statutory
text is sufficient to create a right intended to benefit an
individual.

Whether the administrative scheme impliedly forecloses a remedy
under section 1983

The District argues that even if the statutory text creates rights
under section 1983, that does not necessarily mean that section
1983 provides a remedy. Under Supreme Court precedent, once a
plaintiff has demonstrated that a statute creates a right, there is
a presumption that right is enforceable through section 1983.

In Wright, the Supreme Court rejected the argument that the role
the Department of Housing and Urban Affairs (HUD) played in
enforcing public housing laws precluded section 1983 suits.  

Similarly, in Wilder the Supreme Court held the existence of an
administrative oversight regime did not preclude section 1983
suits.  

The regulatory scheme here is akin to that in Wilder. As there, the
Food and Nutrition Service here oversees State compliance with the
statutory requirements and has authority to revoke federal funds
and impose other sanctions for States that fail to substantially
comply with requirements. And as in Wilder and Wright, the SNAP Act
does not contain its own judicial remedies. Thus, the more limited
and differently-focused oversight role of the Service is not
sufficiently comprehensive to displace section 1983.  

Whether plaintiffs state a claim

Starting with Claim 1, the plaintiffs have adequately alleged that
the District is not processing applications in accordance with the
statutory timelines. Indeed, the District conceded in the hearing
on the class certification and preliminary injunction motions that
it is failing to do so. Particularly in light of the Court's ruling
that plaintiffs have demonstrated a likelihood of succeeding on
Claim 1 Claim 1 states a claim upon which relief can be granted.

So, too, with Claim 2. Again, the complaint contains sufficient
factual allegations to allege a systemic failure to issue
recertification notices. And while the Court did not find
plaintiffs have established a likelihood of succeeding on this
claim in ruling on the preliminary injunction motion, it certainly
did not foreclose the possibility that they would be able to
prevail after further discovery. They have therefore adequately
alleged a claim upon which relief can be granted as to Claim 2.

Whether to substitute the District as a defendant

The Court will reserve judgment on these arguments. It is unclear
at this juncture whether substitution of the District will
materially alter the standard plaintiffs must meet to prove their
case: namely, whether the policy or practice standard for municipal
liability applies to a suit against a municipal officer in her
official capacity alone. The Court will wait to resolve this issue
until the proper standard that applies in this case has been
clarified, and invites the parties to address this issue in more
detail in any future briefing.

The Court will grant in part and deny in part the Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss.

A full-text copy of the District Court’s August 23, 2018
Memorandum Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y8nnb5do
from Leagle.com.

SHONICE G. GARNETT, RICHARD MESSICK, JR, LINDA MURPH & BREAD FOR
THE CITY, Plaintiffs, represented by Chinh Q. Le --
cle@legalaiddc.org -- LEGAL AID SOCIETY OF THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA, pro hac vice, Kaitlin Welborn --
kaitlin.welborn@hoganlovells.com -- HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, pro hac
vice, Marc Cohan , NATIONAL CENTER FOR LAW AND ECONOMIC JUSTICE,
pro hac vice, Peter R. Bisio -- peter.bisio@hoganlovells.com --
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, Susan Musser , HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, pro hac
vice, Travis England , NATIONAL CENTER FOR LAW AND ECONOMIC
JUSTICE, pro hac vice, Chelsea C. Sharon -- csharon@legalaiddc.org
-- LEGAL AID SOCIETY OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Emily Goldman --
emily.goldman@hoganlovells.com -- HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, Jennifer F.
Mezey -- jmezey@legalaiddc.org -- LEGAL AID SOCIETY OF THE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA & Lance Murashige -- lance.murashige@hoganlovells.com
-- HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP.

JAMES STANLEY, RODERICK GAINES & KATHRYN HARRIS, Plaintiffs,
represented by Emily Goldman , HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, Kaitlin
Welborn , HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, pro hac vice,Marc Cohan , NATIONAL
CENTER FOR LAW AND ECONOMIC JUSTICE, pro hac vice, Susan Musser ,
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, pro hac vice, Travis England , NATIONAL
CENTER FOR LAW AND ECONOMIC JUSTICE, pro hac vice, Lance Murashige
, HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP & Chinh Q. Le , LEGAL AID SOCIETY OF THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, pro hac vice.

LAURA ZEILINGER, in her official capacity as Director of the
District of Columbia Department of Human Services, Defendant,
represented by Conrad Z. Risher , OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL/DC,
Fernando Amarillas , OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Jessica N. Krupke , OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA & Amanda J. Montee , OFFICE OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.


DITECH HOLDING: Continues to Defend Lee Class Action in Nevada
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ditech Holding Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the company continues to
defend itself in a class action suit entitled, Kamimura, Lee C. v.
Green Tree Servicing LLC.

In Kamimura, Lee C. v. Green Tree Servicing LLC, filed on April 8,
2016 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, Ditech
Financial is subject to a putative nationwide class action suit
alleging Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) violations by obtaining
credit bureau information without a permissible purpose after the
discharge of debt owed to Ditech Financial pursuant to Chapter 13
of the Bankruptcy Code.

The plaintiff in this suit, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, seeks actual and punitive damages, statutory
penalties, and attorneys' fees and litigation costs.

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

Ditech Holding Corporation operates as an independent servicer and
originator of mortgage loans, and servicer of reverse mortgage
loans. The company operates through three segments: Servicing,
Originations, and Reverse Mortgage. Ditech Holding Corporation was
founded in 1958 and is based in Fort Washington, Pennsylvania.


DITECH HOLDING: Initial Approval of Elkin Settlement Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ditech Holding Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the plaintiff in the
case, Courtney Elkin, et al. vs. Walter Investment Management
Corp., et al., has moved the court for preliminary approval of the
parties' settlement agreement.

A federal securities fraud complaint was filed against the Company,
George M. Awad, Denmar J. Dixon, Anthony N. Renzi, and Gary L.
Tillett on March 16, 2017. The case, captioned Courtney Elkin, et
al. vs. Walter Investment Management Corp., et al., Case No.
2:17-cv-02025-JCJ, is pending in the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.

The court has appointed a lead plaintiff in the action who filed an
amended complaint on September 15, 2017. The amended complaint
seeks monetary damages and asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act during a class period alleged to begin on
August 9, 2016 and conclude on August 1, 2017. The amended
complaint alleges that: (i) defendants made material misstatements
about the value of the Company's deferred tax assets; (ii) the
material misstatement about the value of the Company's deferred tax
assets required the Company to restate certain financials in the
Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q for the periods ended June 30, 2016,
September 30, 2016 and March 31, 2017 and the Annual Report on Form
10-K for the year ended December 31, 2016, and caused the Company
to violate the financial covenants and obligations in agreements
with the Company's lenders and GSEs; and (iii) defendants made
material misstatements concerning the Company's initiatives to
deleverage the Company's capital structure.

On November 3, 2017, the lead plaintiff voluntarily dismissed
defendant Denmar J. Dixon from the action. On November 14, 2017,
the remaining defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint.
From December 1, 2017 to February 9, 2018, the action was stayed
pursuant to section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code.

On July 13, 2018, the parties entered into a formal settlement
agreement to settle the action for $2.95 million subject to notice
to the alleged class and court approval, and the plaintiff moved
the court for preliminary approval of the settlement.

Ditech Holding said, "The settlement, if completed, will be paid by
the Company's directors' and officers' insurance carrier."

Ditech Holding Corporation operates as an independent servicer and
originator of mortgage loans, and servicer of reverse mortgage
loans. The company operates through three segments: Servicing,
Originations, and Reverse Mortgage. Ditech Holding Corporation was
founded in 1958 and is based in Fort Washington, Pennsylvania.


EROS INT'L: Reports Dismissal of Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------
Street Insider reports that Eros International Plc disclosed that
the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has
issued a Summary Order affirming the U.S. District Court's earlier
dismissal, with prejudice, of the putative securities class action
that was originally filed in November 2015 against Eros and certain
of its officers and directors.

Eros previously disclosed that, on October 23, 2017, lead
plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal, individually and on behalf of
the putative class, to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit. On August 21, 2018, the Court of Appeals issued a
Summary Order affirming the District Court's dismissal with
prejudice.[GN]


ESSA BANCORP: Accord in Motor Vehicle Repossession Suit Okayed
--------------------------------------------------------------
ESSA Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that a court has approved the
settlement in the class action suit related to the non-compliance
of Pennsylvania Uniform Commercial Code ("UCC").

ESSA Bank & Trust (the Bank) was named as the defendant in an
action commenced on September 13, 2016 by one plaintiff. The
plaintiff alleges that the Bank repossessed motor vehicles, sold
the vehicles and sought to collect deficiency balances in a manner
that did not comply with the notice requirements of the
Pennsylvania Uniform Commercial Code ("UCC"). The plaintiff seeks
to pursue the action as a class action on behalf of the named
plaintiff and other similarly situated plaintiffs who had their
automobiles repossessed and seek to recover damages under the UCC.
The Bank denies the plaintiff's allegations.

The parties attended a mediation in October 2017 where they reached
an agreement to resolve the claims asserted against the Bank on a
class wide basis. The terms of the settlement calls for the Bank to
make a payment of $1,325,000 to the plaintiffs. The Bank's
insurance carrier will cover the payment made by the Bank in excess
of a $125,000 retention.

The court has approved the settlement.

ESSA Bancorp, Inc. operates as the holding company for ESSA Bank &
Trust that provides a range of financial services to individuals,
families, and businesses in Pennsylvania. ESSA Bancorp, Inc. was
founded in 1916 and is based in Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania.


ESSA BANCORP: Unit Still Defends Alleged RESPA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------
ESSA Bancorp, 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 appellate court has
tentatively scheduled oral arguments in a class action appeal in
October or November 2018.  

The Bank was named as a defendant in an action commenced on
December 8, 2016 by one plaintiff who will also seek to pursue this
action as a class action on behalf of the entire class of people
similarly situated. The plaintiff alleges that a bank previously
acquired by ESSA Bancorp, Inc., in the process of making loans,
received unearned fees and kickbacks in violation of the Real
Estate Settlement Procedures Act.

In an order dated January 29, 2018, the court granted the Bank's
motion to dismiss the case. The plaintiff has appealed the court's
ruling. The plaintiff submitted her brief in support of her appeal
in May 2018, and the Bank submitted its opposition brief in July
2018.

The appellate court has tentatively scheduled oral arguments for
October or November 2018.  

ESSA Bancorp said "To the extent this litigation could result in
exposure to the Bank, the amount of such exposure is not currently
estimable."

ESSA Bancorp, Inc. operates as the holding company for ESSA Bank &
Trust that provides a range of financial services to individuals,
families, and businesses in Pennsylvania. ESSA Bancorp, Inc. was
founded in 1916 and is based in Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania.


FAMILY COUNSELING: Conditional Class Cert in Coons Suit Suggested
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MEAGAN COONS, Plaintiff, v. FAMILY COUNSELING CENTER
OF FULTON COUNTY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-CV-439 (TJM/CFH)
(N.D. N.Y.), Magistrate Judge Christian F. Hummel of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of New York recommended
that the Plaintiff's motion for conditional collective
certification be granted.

Coons worked for FCC as a Domestic Violence Coordinator ("DVC")
from March 2015 until August 2015, and as Domestic Violence
Residential Advocate from August 2015 through September 2016.  The
Plaintiff contends that she was required to work in excess of 40
hours per week on an almost weekly basis.  She contends that FCC
failed to pay Coons and others similarly-situated at any rate of
pay, let alone at the statutorily-required overtime rate of one and
one-half times their standard rate of pay, their agreed upon
straight time rate of pay, or even the minimum wage rate, for
virtually all hours that Coons and the FLSA Plaintiffs worked per
week in excess of 40.

The Plaintiff argues that she, and others similarly situated,
should have been paid at an overtime rate of time and one-half for
all hours worked over 40 hours per week, and that such failure
violates the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").  Further, she
contends that by failing to pay her and others similarly situated
at the minimum hourly rate for each hour worked, defendant violated
FLSA Section 206(a).

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant's failure to pay time and
one-half for overtime work also violates New York Labor Law Section
652(1) and 12 NYCRR Section 142-2.1.  Next, she alleges that the
Defendant's failure to compensate employees who worked on call
shifts at their regular rate of pay also violates New York Labor
Law Sections 190, 191, and 633(1).

Additionally, the Plaintiff contends that the Defendants willingly
failed to furnish Coons and the FLSA Plaintiffs on each payday with
accurate wage statements containing the criteria required, which
violates New York Labor Law Section 195(3).  Further, she contends
that under New York Labor Law Section198(1-d), the Defendant is
liable to Coons and the other potential Plaintiffs for $100 per
failure to provide accurate wage statements.

The Plaintiff also contends the Defendant failed to provide her and
the potential Plaintiffs with a wage notice at the time of hire
containing the accurate criteria enumerated under the NYLL.  The
Defendant is liable to the Plaintiff and the potential Plaintiffs
for $50 for each work week that the violations occurred or
continued to occur, but not to exceed a total $2,500.

Presently pending before the Court is Coons' motion for conditional
certification of the matter as a collective action pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure.  She also seeks an order
compelling the Defendant to provide her with the names and
addresses of the potential opt-in Plaintiffs.  FCC opposed the
motion for conditional collective certification.  The Plaintiff
filed a reply.

Magistrate Judge Hummel recommended that the Plaintiff's motion for
conditional collective certification be granted, and that the Court
compels the Defendant to provide the names and addresses of the
potential opt-in Plaintiffs.  He finds that Coons has made a modest
factual showing sufficient to demonstrate that she and the
potential Plaintiffs together were victims of a common policy or
plan that violated the law by showing that she, and the potential
opt-in Plaintiffs who performed on-call or back-up on call work
were not sufficiently paid for such work.

The Magistrate Judge also recommended that, should the District
Judge adopt the Report-Recommendation and Order, within 30 days of
entry the District Judge's Order, the Defendant must provide the
Plaintiff with a list of the names and addresses all employees who
served as Domestic Violence Counselors who worked on-call shifts or
back-up shifts for three years prior to the date of the entry of
the District Judge's Order.

Finally, the Plaintiff requests that the Court permit her counsel
to send to the opt-in Plaintiffs a proposed Court-Authorized Notice
and Consent form to become a party Plaintiff.  The Defendant does
not address the proposed notice and consent form.  As the notice
informs the potential Plaintiffs about the lawsuit, their potential
ability to join the suit, the representation agreement, and the
financial arrangement with the attorney, it suffices to inform the
opt-in Plaintiffs of nearly all of their rights and options in
joining the suit.  He recommended that the Plaintiff be permitted
to sent the proposed notice and consent form to the potential
opt-in Plaintiffs.

Magistrate Judge Hummel recommended that the Court permits the
Plaintiff to send the proposed notice and consent form to the
opt-in Plaintiffs.  He directed the Clerk of the Court serve
parties with a copy of the Report-Recommendation and Order in
accordance with local rules.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 27, 2018 Report-Recommendation
Order is available at https://is.gd/bQEpB3 from Leagle.com.

Meagan Coons, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Kelly A. Magnuson, Tully
Rinckey & Nicholas A. Devyatkin -- ndevyatkin@tullylegal.com --
Tully, Rinckey Law Firm - Albany Office.

Michael J. Murphy, Mediator, pro se.

Family Counseling Center of Fulton County, Inc., Defendant,
represented by Gregg T. Johnson, Johnson & Laws, LLC, Corey A.
Ruggiero, Johnson & Laws, LLC & Loraine Clare Jelinek, Johnson &
Laws, LLC.


FIRST BANCORP: Puerto Rico High Court Won't Review Torres Rulings
-----------------------------------------------------------------
First Bancorp 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 Puerto Rico Supreme
Court has issued a resolution denying petitions for writ of
certiorari sought by the defendants in the case, Ramirez Torres, et
al. v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, et al.

FirstBank Puerto Rico has been named Defendant in Ramirez Torres,
et al. v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, et al., filed of February
17, 2017, at the Court of First Instance in San Juan, Puerto Rico.
The Complaint seeks damages and preliminary injunctive relief on
behalf of the purported class against Banco Popular de Puerto Rico
and other financial institutions with insurance agency subsidiaries
in Puerto Rico.

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have been unjustly enriched by
failing to reimburse them  for "good experience" commissions
allegedly paid by Antilles Insurance Company and Puerto Rico Home
Insurance Company.

On March 30, 2017, FirstBank Puerto Rico filed a Motion to Dismiss
and a Motion for Declaratory Judgment and Third Party Complaint
against Antilles Insurance Company  and the Insurance
Commissioner's Office. All other Defendants filed Motions to
Dismiss.  Antilles Insurance Company filed a Motion against the
Third Party Complaint filed by FirstBank Puerto Rico, which
FirstBank Puerto Rico opposed. The Insurance Commissioner's Office
filed a Motion for Summary Judgment.

On July 28, 2017, the Court issued Judgment granting the Motions to
Dismiss filed by Defendants, dismissing the Complaint with
prejudice, except the Third Party Complaint filed by FirstBank
Puerto Rico which was dismissed without prejudice. On August 30,
2017, Plaintiffs filed an Appeal before the Puerto Rico Court of
Appeals and FirstBank Puerto Rico filed its Opposition.

On March 20, 2018, the Court of Appeals entered Judgment revoking
the lower court judgment. Oriental Bank filed for Reconsideration,
which was denied. All other Defendants filed writs of certiorari
before the Puerto Rico Supreme Court on May 29, 2018. On June 26,
2018, the Supreme Court issued Resolution denying all writs of
Certiorari filed by Defendants.

First Bancorpsaid, "Defendants are currently discussing the Supreme
Court's Judgment in order to determine if a Reconsideration will be
filed."

First Bancorp operates as the bank holding company for First Bank
that provides banking products and services for individuals and
small to medium-sized businesses primarily in North Carolina and
northeastern South Carolina.  The Company was founded in 1934 and
is headquartered in Southern Pines, North Carolina.


FLINT, MI: Seeks 6th Cir. Review of Ruling in Waid Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Defendants City of Flint, MI, Gerald Ambrose, Howard Croft, Darnell
Earley, Michael Glasgow and Daugherty Johnson filed an appeal from
a court ruling in the lawsuit titled 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. 18-1999, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Sept. 7, 2018,
Defendants Stephen Busch, Patrick Cook, Michael Prysby and Liane
Shekter Smith filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit.
Other parties have also filed appeals.

Richard Dale Snyder is sued in his official capacity as Governor of
the state of Michigan.   The state of Michigan is sued in its
capacity of operating the Michigan Department of Environmental
Quality.

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:

          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 -

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

          William H. Goodman, Esq.
          Julie H. Hurwitz, Esq.
          Kathryn Bruner James, Esq.
          GOODMAN & HURWITZ, P.C.
          1394 E. Jefferson Avenue
          Detroit, MI 48207
          Telephone: (313) 567-6170
          E-mail: bgoodman@goodmanhurwitz.com
                  jhurwitz@goodmanhurwitz.com
                  kjames@goodmanhurwitz.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 -

          Cary S. McGehee, Esq.
          Michael L. Pitt, Esq.
          Beth M. Rivers, Esq.
          PITT, MCGEHEE, PALMER & RIVERS
          117 W. Fourth Street, Suite 200
          Royal Oak, MI 48067
          Telephone: (248) 398-9800
          E-mail: cmcgehee@pittlawpc.com
                  mpitt@pittlawpc.com
                  brivers@pittlawpc.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 -

          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

               - and -

          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 -

          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 -

          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 -

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

Defendant-Appellant CITY OF FLINT, MI, is represented by:

          Frederick A. Berg, Jr., Esq.
          BUTZEL LONG
          150 W. Jefferson Avenue, Suite 100
          Detroit, MI 48226
          Telephone: (313) 225-7000
          E-mail: bergf@butzel.com

               - and -

          Sheldon H. Klein, Esq.
          BUTZEL LONG
          41000 Woodward Avenue
          Stoneridge West Building
          Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
          Telephone: (248) 258-1616
          E-mail: klein@butzel.com

               - and -

          Reed E. Eriksson, Esq.
          William Young Kim, Esq.
          CITY OF FLINT
          1101 S. Saginaw Street, Third Floor
          Flint, MI 48502
          Telephone: (810) 766-7146
          E-mail: reriksson@cityofflint.com
                  wkim@cityofflint.com

Defendant-Appellant DARNELL EARLEY is represented by:

          Todd Russell Perkins, Esq.
          THE PERKINS LAW GROUP PLLC
          615 Griswold Street, Suite 400
          Detroit, MI 48226
          Telephone: (313) 964-1702
          E-mail: tperkins@perkinslawgroup.net

Defendant-Appellant GERALD AMBROSE is represented by:

          Barry A. Wolf, Esq.
          BARRY A. WOLF, ATTORNEY AT LAW, PLLC
          503 S. Saginaw Street, Suite 1410
          Flint, MI 48502
          Telephone: (810) 762-1084

Defendant-Appellant HOWARD CROFT is represented by:

          Alexander Stephen Rusek, Esq.
          WHITE LAW PLLC
          2549 Jolly Road, Suite 340
          Okemos, MI 48864
          Telephone: (517) 316-1195
          E-mail: alexrusek@whitelawpllc.com

Defendant-Appellant MICHAEL GLASGOW is represented by:

          Brett T. Meyer, Esq.
          O'NEILL, WALLACE, & DOYLE PC
          300 St. Andrews Road, Suite 302
          Saginaw, MI 48605
          Telephone: (989) 790-0960
          E-mail: bmeyer@owdpc.com

Defendant-Appellant DAUGHERTY JOHNSON is represented by:

          David Wayne Meyers, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF DAVID W. MEYERS, PLC
          P.O. Box 88
          Lexington, MI 48450
          Telephone: (810) 662-0180

               - and -

          Edwar Ayoub Zeineh, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF EDWAR A. ZEINEH
          2800 E. Grand River Avenue, Suite B
          Lansing, MI 48912
          Telephone: (517) 374-6034
          E-mail: ZeinehLaw@gmail.com


FLOWERS FOODS: Farr Files Suit in Ala. Over FLSA Breach
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Flowers Foods, Inc.,
et al.  The case is styled as Carlton Keith Farr, Individually on
behalf of himself and others similarly situated current and former
employees v. Flowers Foods, Inc., Flowers Baking Co. of Opelika LLC
and Flowers Baking Co. of Birmingham LLC, Case No.
3:18-cv-00774-WKW-GMB (M.D. Ala., August 31, 2018).

The lawsuit arises from alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Flowers Foods, Inc., produces and markets bakery products in the
United States.  The Company operates through two segments,
Direct-Store-Delivery (DSD) and Warehouse Delivery.  The DSD
segment produces and markets fresh breads, buns, rolls, tortillas,
and snack cakes. This segment offers its products primarily under
the Nature's Own, Wonder, Cobblestone Bread Company, Tastykake, and
Dave's Killer Bread brand names.  The Warehouse Delivery segment
produces snack cakes, frozen breads, and rolls for national retail,
foodservice, vending, and co-pack customers.

Flowers Baking Co. of Opelika LLC was founded in 1964.  The
Company's line of business includes the manufacturing of fresh or
frozen bread and bread-type rolls, cakes, pies, and other
perishable bakery products.  Flowers Baking Co. of Opelika and
Flowers Baking Co. of Birmingham operate as subsidiaries of Flowers
Foods Inc.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gordan E. Jackson, Esq.
          J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
          Paula R. Jackson, Esq.
          JACKSON SHIELDS YEISER & HOLT ATTORNEYS AT LAW
          262 German Oak Drive
          Memphis, TN 38018
          Telephone: (901) 754-8001
          Facsimile: (901) 759-1745
          E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
                  rbryant@jsyc.com
                  pjackson@jsyc.com

               - and -

          Larry Brooks Moore, Esq.
          MOORE BERRY & LINVILLE
          P O Box 9
          Florence, AL 35630
          Telephone: (256) 718-0120
          Facsimile: (256) 718-0251
          E-mail: lbmoore@mblattorneys.com

               - and -

          Michael L. Weinman, Esq.
          WEINMAN THOMAS LAW FIRM
          P O Box 266
          Jackson, TN 38302
          Telephone: (731) 423-5565
          E-mail: Mike@weinmanandassoc.com


FORTERRA INC: Court Consolidates 3 Related Securities Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, CHARLES FORRESTER, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. FORTERRA, INC., JEFFREY
BRADLEY, WILLIAM MATTHEW BROWN, LORI M. BROWNE, KYLE S. VOLLUZ,
KEVIN BARNER, ROBERT CORCORAN, SAMUEL D. LOUGHLIN, CLINT
McDONNOUGH, JOHN McPHERSON, CHRIS MEYER, JACQUES SARRAZIN, CHADWICK
SUSS, GRANT WILBECK, FORTERRA US HOLDINGS, LLC, MID HOLDINGS,
CONCRETE HOLDINGS, LSF9 CONCRETE LTD., LSF9 CONCRETE II LTD.,
STARDUST HOLDINGS, LSF9 STARDUST GP, LLC, LONE STAR FUND IX (U.S.),
L.P., LONE STAR PARTNERS IX, L.P., LONE STAR MANAGEMENT CO. IX,
LTD., JOHN P. ORAYKEN, GOLDMAN, SACHS & CO., CITIGROUP GLOBAL
MARKETS INC., and CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC, Defendants.
SUPANIN DISA YAW ATHAN A, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. FORTERRA, INC., JEFFREY BRADLEY,
WILLIAM MATTHEW BROWN, LORI M. BROWNE, KYLES. VOLLUZ, KEVIN BARNER,
ROBERT CORCORAN, SAMUEL D. LOUGHLIN, CLINT McDONNOUGH, JOHN
McPHERSON, CHRIS MEYER, JACQUES SARRAZIN, CHADWICK SUSS, GRANT
WILBECK, GOLDMAN, SACHS & CO., CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC. and
CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC, Defendants. MATTHEW SPINDLER,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff, v. FORTERRA, INC., JEFFREY BRADLEY, WILLIAM MATTHEW
BROWN, LORI M. BROWNE, KYLE S. VOLLUZ, KEVIN BARNER, ROBERT
CORCORAN, SAMUEL D. LOUGHLIN, CLINT McDONNOUGH, JOHN McPHERSON,
CHRIS MEYER, JACQUES SARRAZIN, CHADWICK SUSS and GRANT WILBECK
Defendants, Civil Action Nos. 2:17-cv-04763-JS-GRB,
2:17-cv-04824-JS-GRB, 2:17-cv-04978-JS-GRB (E.D. N.Y.), Judge Joana
Seybert of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York has issued an order consolidating related actions and
withdrawing the appearances of the named Plaintiffs.

On Aug. 14, 2017, Forrester filed a putative class action complaint
herein asserting claims pursuant to Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of purchasers in Forterra's Oct.
21, 2016 initial public stock offering ("IPO").  On Aug. 16, 2017,
Disayawathana filed a related putative class action complaint also
asserting claims pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933 on behalf
of purchasers in Forterra's IPO and additional claims pursuant to
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934
on behalf of purchasers during a related class period.  On Aug. 23,
2017, Spindler filed a third related putative class action
complaint herein also asserting claims pursuant to the Securities
Act of 1933 and the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934.

The the claims asserted in the Forrester, Disayawathana and
Spindler Actions are all related in that they are brought on behalf
of purchasers of Forterra securities during overlapping time
periods, name similar Defendants and make similar claims.  The
claims asserted in the Related Actions are all also governed by the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA"), which calls for
the consolidation of all such related actions and provides for a
procedure for the appointment by the Court of the lead Plaintiff(s)
and lead counsel to represent the putative class.

The motions for the consolidation of the Related Actions and the
appointment of a lead Plaintiff and the Court's approval of the
lead Plaintiffs selection of the lead counsel were filed on Oct.
13, 2017.  By Nov. 3, 2017, all competing motions for appointment
of the lead Plaintiff other than that of Movant Wladislaw Maciuga
had been withdrawn and Movant Wladislaw Maciuga notified the Court
that his motion for appointment as the lead Plaintiff was
unopposed.

Forrester seeks to withdraw as a named Plaintiff in the Related
Actions, while remaining an absent class member, and his counsel of
record, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP and Holzer & Holzer LLP,
seek to withdraw as the counsel in the Related Actions.  Spindler
seeks to withdraw as a named Plaintiff in the Related Actions,
while remaining an absent class member, and his counsel of record,
Pomerantz LLP and Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, seek to
withdraw as the counsel in the Related Actions.  Disayawathana
seeks to withdraw as a named Plaintiff in the Related Actions.
Disayawathana's counsel of record, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP will
remain in this case in its capacity as counsel for unopposed lead
plaintiff movant Wladislaw Maciuga.

The parties have stipulated and Judge Seybert granted that the
Related Actions are consolidated for all purposes into the
low-numbered Forrester Action currently pending before the Court,
Civil Action No. 2:17-cv-04763-JS-GRB, and the consolidated action
will forthwith be captioned "In re Forterra, Inc. Securities
Litigation."  Any further related actions that are subsequently
filed in, or transferred to, the district in which the action is
pending will be consolidated into the consolidated action.  The
Order will apply to every such related action, absent order of the
Court.

A party that objects to such consolidation, or to any other
provision of the Order, must file an application for relief from
the Order within 30 days after the date on which a copy of the
order is served on the party's counsel.

The docket in Civil Action No. 2:17-cv-04763-JS-GRB will constitute
the Master Docket for the action.  Every pleading filed in the
consolidated action will bear the following caption: UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK IN RE FORTERRA, INC.
SECURITIES Master File No. 2:17-cv-04763-JS-GRB LITIGATION CLASS
ACTION This Document Relates To:  

The file in Civil Action No. 2:17-cv-04763-JS-GRB will constitute a
Master File for every action in the consolidated action.  The
parties will file a Notice of Related Cases whenever a case that
should be consolidated into this action is filed in, or transferred
to, the district in which the action is pending.

If the Court determines that the case is related, the clerk shall:
a) place a copy of thes Order in the separate file for such action;
b) serve on the Plaintiff's counsel in the new case a copy of this
Order; c) direct that the Order be served upon defendants in the
new case; and d) make the appropriate entry in the Master Docket.
No Defendant named in the Related Actions will be required to
answer or otherwise respond other than as detailed in the Court's
order entered in the Forrester Action on Sept. 5, 2017.

Forrester is withdrawn as a named Plaintiff in the consolidated
action and his counsel of record, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
and Holzer & Holzer LLP, are withdrawn as the counsel in the
consolidated action.  Forrester remains an absent class member with
rights to participate in any recovery obtained by the class.  

Spindler is hereby withdrawn as a named Plaintiff in the
consolidated action and his counsel of record, Pomerantz LLP and
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, are withdrawn as the counsel in
the consolidated action.  Spindler remains an absent class member
with rights to participate in any recovery obtained by the class.

Disayawathana is hereby withdrawn as a named Plaintiff in the
consolidated action.  Disayawathana's counsel of record, Glancy
Prongay & Murray LLP, will remain in the case in its capacity as
the counsel for lead Plaintiff movant Wladislaw Maciuga.
Disayawathana remains an absent class member with rights to
participate in any recovery obtained by the class.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 27, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/vOLpRa from Leagle.com.

Sorterra, Inc., Jeffrey Bradley, Lori M. Browne, Kyle S. Volluz,
Kevin Barner, Robert Corcoran, Samuel D. Loughlin, Clint
McDonnough, John McPherson, Chris Meyer, Chadwick Suss & Grant
Wilbeck, Defendants, represented by Melissa Colon-Bosolet --
MCOLON-BOSOLET@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin LLP.


FRITO-LAY NORTH: Allred Couple Can File FAC
-------------------------------------------
In the case, BARRY ALLRED and MANDY C. ALLRED, on behalf of
themselves, all others similarly situated, and the general public,
Plaintiffs, v. FRITO-LAY NORTH AMERICA, INC. and FRITO-LAY, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 17-CV-1345 JLS (BGS) (S.D. Cal.), Judge Janis
L. Sammartino of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of California granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File
First Amended Complaint.

The Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint in state court.  The
Defendants removed the case to federal court.  The Plaintiffs bring
causes of action under: (1) the Consumer Legal Remedies Act; (2)
Unfair Competition Law (unlawful prong); (3) Unfair Competition Law
(unfair prong); (4) False Advertising Law; (5) Breach of Express
Warranties; and (6) Breach of Implied Warranties.

In broad summary, the Plaintiffs allege the Defendants manufacture
and sell Salt and Vinegar Flavored Potato Chips.  They allege the
label of the Product violates California law in various ways.  

The Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of consumers defined as
all consumers who purchased the Product from a retailer within the
state of California for personal, family, or household purposes,
and not for resale, at any time during the period six years prior
to the filing of the Complaint and continuing until the Class is
certified.

The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the Court denied.
The Defendants then filed a motion for reconsideration, which is
pending.

The Plaintiffs then filed the present motion seeking leave to file
a FAC.  The Plaintiffs seek to amend their Complaint to add
additional factual allegations relating to the function and effect
of malic acid in the Lay's Salt & Vinegar Flavored Potato Chip
Product that is at issue in the action.  They argue their request
is timely, as it filed it on the final day in which the Parties
were permitted to seek leave to amend to add new claims.  They
state their amendment does not change the nature of the lawsuit.
The Plaintiffs also state the deadline to complete discovery is not
until Nov. 1, 2018, and the Defendants have served only one set of
discovery.

In response, the Defendants point to their motion for
reconsideration where they argue that the Plaintiffs have failed to
plausibly allege that malic acid imparts a vinegar flavor.  The
Defendants argue the Plaintiffs are attempting to salvage their
claims but the amendments actually undermine their claims.  In sum,
they argue the Plaintiffs' complaint is subject to dismissal and
the amendments are futile.

Judge Sammartino finds that the Defendants are effectively asking
the Court to turn their opposition into a motion to dismiss.  They
are moving for reconsideration on the exact issue which the
Plaintiffs state they are bolstering with their proposed amendment,
so she finds it is appropriate to allow the Plaintiffs leave to
amend before evaluating the Defendants' request on the merits.

For the foregoing reasons, the Judge granted the Plaintiffs' Motion
for Leave to File Amended Complaint.  Accordingly, she denied as
moot the Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration.  The Plaintiffs
will file an amended complaint on or before seven days of the
electronic docketing of the Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 27, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/3Ui6PF from Leagle.com.

Barry Allred, on behalf of themselves, and all other similarly
situated, and the general public & Mandy C Allred, on behalf of
themselves, and all others similarly situated, and the general
public, Plaintiffs, represented by Alexis M. Wood, Law Offices of
Ronald A. Marron, David Elliot -- david@westonfirm.com -- The
Elliott Law Firm, Kas L. Gallucci, Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron,
Ronald Marron, Law Office of Ronald Marron & Michael Houchin, Law
Offices of Ronald A. Marron.

Frito-Lay North America, Inc., a Delaware corporation & Frito-Lay,
Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendants, represented by Andrew S.
Tulumello -- atulumello@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn & Crutcher
LLP, Arianna Maureen Scavetti -- ascavetti@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson
Dunn & Crutcher LLP, pro hac vice, Frederick William Kosmo, Jr. --
fkosmo@wilsonturnerkosmo.com -- Wilson Turner Kosmo LLP, Jason R.
Meltzer -- jmeltzer@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP,
pro hac vice, Jocelyn D. Hannah, Wilson Turner Kosmo LLP &
Christopher Chorba -- cchorba@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn &
Crutcher.


FULL CITIZENSHIP: Court Certifies Class in Craighead FLSA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TALIA CRAIGHEAD, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FULL
CITIZENSHIP OF MARYLAND, INC., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No.
PX-17-595 (D. Md.), Judge Paula Xinis of the U.S. District Court
for the District of Maryland granted the Plaintffs' Motion to
Certify Class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.

The case was the subject of the Court's previous Memorandum Opinion
and Order granting conditional certification under the FLSA.  As
noted in that Opinion, the Plaintiffs were employed by FCI, a
Maryland corporation, which provides residential, rehabilitative,
and vocational training services to adults with cognitive
disabilities.

The Plaintiffs worked as Residential Coordinators, Residential
Counselors, Vocational Coordinators, and Vocational Counselors.
They group those positions together as residential and vocational
staff, and assert they perform overlapping duties and are subject
to the same compensation policies and practices.

The Plaintiffs initiated the suit on March 1, 2017.  On Aug. 4,
2017, the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint was filed.  The parties
then engaged in class and jurisdictional discovery. Following the
close of class and jurisdictional discovery, on Feb. 12, 2018, the
Plaintiffs filed the pending motion, moving for class certification
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.

In their motion, the Plaintiffs argue that classwide treatment of
the case is efficient and practical to adjudicate the claims of
those employees who were subjected to a uniform illegal
compensation scheme.

The proposed class consists of all persons who were, are, or will
be employed by the Defendants as residential and vocational staff,
who were paid by the hour, and who allegedly were not paid the
legal minimum wage and/or overtime wage (one and one-half times
their regular hourly rate) for hours worked in excess of 40 in a
workweek, from March 1, 2014, through the present.

The Plaintiffs have provided 65 potential class members who
allegedly did not receive their full overtime wages, and 25
potential class members who allege minimum wage violations.  Some
individual putative class members have both minimum wage and
overtime claims.  The Plaintiffs have also provided a classwide
damages summary sheet for approximately 80 individuals who worked
as residential and vocational staff.

The Defendants oppose certification, arguing that the Plaintiffs
fail to meet the requirements of Rules 23(a) and 23(b) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Judge Xinis agrees with the Plaintiffs.  She finds that the
Plaintiffs have met each of the Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3)
requirements. Therefore, she granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Class Certification.  The parties will have 14 days from the entry
of the Order to jointly propose a scheduling order for the merits
phase of the case.  The Clerk is directed to transmit copies of the
Memorandum Opinion and Order to the counsel for the parties.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 27, 2018 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/UtqJvO from Leagle.com.

Talia Craighead, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated
individuals, Vernice Headen, Opt-In, Vernesha Hutchinson, Opt-In,
Pamela Omar Ransom, Opt-In & Jennifer Bumbray, Opt-in, Plaintiffs,
represented by Jonathan Philip Tucker -- jt@dcwagelaw.com -- Law
Office of Justin Zelikovitz, PLLC, Molly Brooks --
mb@outtengolden.com -- Outten and Golden LLP, pro hac vice, Sally
J. Abrahamson -- sabrahamson@outtengolden.com -- Outten and Golden
LLP, pro hac vice & Justin Zelikovitz -- justin@dcwagelaw.com --
DCWAGELAW.

Eddie L. Dallas, Jr., Opt-in, Gia L. McGill, Opt-in, DeMarcus N.
Green, Opt-in, Shauna S. Moody, Opt-in & Brandy M. Boone-Jones,
Opt-in, Plaintiffs, represented by Sally J. Abrahamson, Outten and
Golden LLP, pro hac vice & Justin Zelikovitz, DCWAGELAW.

Full Citizenship of Maryland, Inc. & Pansy Stancil-Diaz,
Defendants, represented by Tamara B. Goorevitz --
tgoorevitz@fandpnet.com -- Franklin and Prokopik PC.


GARDAWORLD CORP: Faces $25-Mil. Class Action Suit Over Unpaid OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sara Mojtehedzadeh, writing for The Star, reports that an
Ontario-based company owned by security giant Garda failed to
appropriately compensate employees and misled them about the
existence of a so-called averaging agreement to avoid paying
overtime, a proposed $25 million class-action lawsuit claims.

According to the class action, which requires court approval to
proceed, Garda subsidiary Primary Response also instructed security
guards to arrive 15 minutes before their official start time to
perform unpaid duties and made illegal deductions from their
paycheques for uniform expenses.

"This is about defending core employment standards protections for
a group of precarious workers facing well-documented barriers to
enforcing their rights," said Joshua Mandryk, Esq. --
jmandryk@goldblattpartners.com -- a lawyer with Toronto-based
labour law firm Goldblatt Partners, which initiated the suit.

"Although the law is quite clear, off-the-clock work and unpaid
overtime similar to that alleged in this case are all too common in
our economy. We hope this case sends a strong reminder that
'off-the-clock' time required by an employer is work which must be
compensated."

The statement of claim was served on August 21. Garda is the sole
owner and operator of Primary Response after purchasing the
company, which employs around 2,000 security guards across Ontario,
earlier this year. The proposed class action spans from August 2016
to the date it receives certification from the courts.

Primary Response directed the Star to Garda when asked to comment
on the suit. In an emailed statement, a spokesperson for Garda said
"the alleged accusations happened under the previous ownership."

"The judicial process will follow its course, therefore GardaWorld
will not comment further," the statement said.

Representative plaintiff Kionna Horner worked for the company
Primary Response as a security guard at Conestoga College in
Kitchener between 2016 and June 2018. In a statement, she said she
was stepping forward because she "witnessed firsthand how many
security guards were afraid to file individual employment standards
complaints."

"By joining together to file this lawsuit, we can stand up for our
rights without fear of reprisal."

Worker advocates have raised concerns that precariously employed
workers across many sectors do not file complaints for fear of
reprisal. Research conducted for a two-year review of the
province's workplace standards found that more than 90 per cent of
the approximately 15,000 annual complaints made to the Ontario
Ministry of Labour are filed by people who have left or lost their
jobs — bolstering criticism that workers struggle to come forward
without risking their livelihood.

Mandryk said the ministry had already issued numerous orders to
Primary Response to pay thousands of dollars in unpaid wages
following complaints made by workers.

Overtime averaging agreements allow workplaces to average
employees' excess hours over a fortnight, limiting their
entitlement to time-and-half pay when they work more than 44 hours
a week. The agreements require approval from the Ministry of
Labour, which the Goldblatt class action says Primary Response was
denied last year after its first agreement expired.

The statement of claim says the company "unlawfully concealed" that
fact from workers and then continued to average their overtime
hours. It also alleges Primary Response failed to accurately
monitor and record employees' hours and failed "to compensate the
class members as required for all hours worked."

Citing excerpts from the company's employee handbook, the statement
of claim says workers had to be at their job site 15 minutes prior
to their shift, during which time they were required to have a
"shift change conversation" with their supervisor.

The class action also alleges that Primary Response made unlawful
deductions for uniform expenses; the province's Employment
Standards Act says employers can't withhold wages or make
deductions from workers' paycheques unless required by a court
order or where the employee has provided written consent.

"Security guards work long hours in challenging and potentially
dangerous situations. Like all workers, they deserve to be paid
fairly for their hard work," said Goldblatt co-counsel Christine
Davies.

The private security sector has featured in several Ministry of
Labour blitzes focused on precarious employment.[GN]


GOLDEN ENTERTAINMENT: Nevada Class Suits Ongoing
------------------------------------------------
Golden Entertainment, 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 agreed
to settle the first of two class action lawsuits involving wage
violation, subject to court approval.  The second case is in the
discovery phase.

In February and April 2017, several former employees filed two
separate purported class action lawsuits against the Company in the
District Court of Clark County, Nevada, and on behalf of similarly
situated individuals employed by the Company in the State of
Nevada.

The lawsuits allege that the Company violated certain Nevada labor
laws including payment of an hourly wage below the statutory
minimum wage without providing a qualified health insurance plan
and an associated failure to pay proper overtime compensation.

The complaints seek, on behalf of the plaintiffs and members of the
putative class, an unspecified amount of damages (including
punitive damages), injunctive and equitable relief, and an award of
attorneys' fees, interest and costs.

In the second half of 2017, the Company agreed to settle the first
of these two cases, subject to court approval. The second case is
in the discovery phase.

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

Golden Entertainment, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, focuses
on distributed gaming, and resort casino operations in the United
States. The company was founded in 1998 and is headquartered in Las
Vegas, Nevada.


GOLDEN ENTERTAINMENT: Transient Tax Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Golden Entertainment, 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 plaintiff in the
class action complaint related to the alleged violations of the
federal Internet Tax Freedom Act have filed a notice of voluntary
dismissal of the case against the Company.

In February 2018, a prior guest of the Stratosphere filed a
purported class action complaint against the Company in the United
States District Court, District of Nevada, on behalf of similarly
situated individuals and entities that paid the Clark County
Combined Transient Lodging Tax ("Tax") on the portion of a resort
fee that constitutes charges for Internet access, during the period
of February 6, 2014 through the date the alleged conduct ceases.

The lawsuit alleges that the Tax was charged in violation of the
federal Internet Tax Freedom Act, which imposes a national
moratorium on the taxation of Internet access by states and their
political subdivisions, and seeks, on behalf of the plaintiff and
the putative class, damages equal to the amount of the Tax
collected on the Internet access component of the resort fee,
injunctive relief, disgorgement, interest, fees and costs. The
Company was served the complaint on May 4, 2018.

On June 21, 2018 the plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary
dismissal of the case against the Company. The plaintiffs in this
matter may determine to refile the case in the applicable state
court.

Golden Entertainment, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, focuses
on distributed gaming, and resort casino operations in the United
States. The company was founded in 1998 and is headquartered in Las
Vegas, Nevada.


GREEN DOT: Pays $2.2 Million in Service Disruption Related Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Green Dot Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the company has paid
approximately $2.2 million of accrued liability in a class action
related to service disruption.

During the quarter ended June 30, 2016, the company is in the
process of its planned conversion of customer files from its legacy
third-party card processor to its current third-party card
processor. As part of the conversion process, a small percentage of
its active account holders experienced limited disruptions in
service.

As a result of this limited disruption in service, two putative
class action complaints were filed during the second quarter of
2016. The company agreed with its third-party card processor that
any payments to resolve the consolidated class actions would be
borne equally between us and our third-party card processor.

Green Dot said, "We previously recorded an accrual of approximately
$2.3 million, which represented our portion of the estimated total
settlement amount, all of which our insurance carrier agreed to
reimburse us. During the three months ended June 30, 2018, we
settled the class actions and began making payments to those
members of the class. As of June 30, 2018, we have paid
approximately $2.2 million of the accrued liability, the balance of
which is expected to be paid to remaining class members shortly
thereafter."

Green Dot Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, operates as
a pro-consumer bank holding company that provides personal banking
for the masses. It operates through two segments, Account Services
and Processing, and Settlement Services. Green Dot Corporation was
incorporated in 1999 and is headquartered in Pasadena, California.


H&M INTERNATIONAL: Yates Suit Asserts Racial Discrimination
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against H&M International
Transportation Inc., et al.  The case is captioned as Troy Yates,
Mike Wills and Other Similarly Situated Individuals v. H&M
International Transportation Inc., Dave Turbyfill and Other Unnamed
Persons, Case No. 1:18-cv-06001 (N.D. Ill., August 31, 2018).

The lawsuit arises from alleged job discrimination due to race.

H & M International Transportation Inc. provides transportation
services.  The Company offers rail terminal operations, intermodal
trucking, container freight, and other transportation
services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James Louis Bizzieri, Esq.
          BIZZIERI LAW OFFICES, L.L.C.
          10258 South Western Avenue, Suite 210
          Chicago, IL 60643
          Telephone: (773) 982-5059
          Facsimile: (773) 881-9009


HANDI-HOUSE MFG: Class Certification Bid in Brantley Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LEROY BRANTLEY, JR; HAROLD H. RICKS; ROGER SMITH; and
SHON BUTLER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. HANDI-HOUSE MFG. CO.; and DONALD FLANDERS, Defendants,
Case No. CV 617-089 (S.D. Ga.), Judge J. Randal Hall of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, Statesboro
Division, denied the Plaintiffs' Motion to Conditionally Certify a
Collective Action Class and to Certify a Rule 23 Class.

The Plaintiffs are former employees of Handi-House, which is owned
by Defendant Donald Flanders.  The Plaintiffs allege that
Handi-House's General Manager, James Akridge, and Director of
Sales, John Wilkerson, operated an illegal payday lending
enterprise with Mr. Flanders's permission.

Messrs. Akridge and Wilkerson would lend money to the Defendants'
employees with an interest rate that was generally around $6 for
every $20 borrowed.  If an employee borrowed money, Messrs. Akridge
and Wilkerson would endorse and cash the employee's paycheck,
deduct the amount the employee had borrowed plus interest, and
return the remainder to the employee.

The Plaintiffs claim that the interest payments charged resulted in
employees receiving less than minimum wage, in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").  They initiated the case on June
27, 2017, and now move for certification pursuant to the FLSA and
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.

Judge Hall finds that the Plaintiffs' motion was filed one month
after discovery began and is therefore in the notice stage.  Even
under this fairly lenient standard, however, the Plaintiffs have
failed to demonstrate that conditional certification is warranted.
Specifically, they provided no evidence that there are other
employees who wish to opt-in to the action.  Therefore, because the
Plaintiffs have not submitted evidence showing that there are
employees who wish to opt-in to the action that are similarly
situated to the Plaintiffs, their motion to proceed as a collective
action will be denied.

As to their move for certification under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23, the Plaintiffs contend that class members can be
identified by the Defendants' records.  They first suggest that
class members can be identified by using a list of the employee
names and salaries.  Yet the evidence shows that not every employee
received loans from Messrs.  Thus, records listing employee names
and salaries would not identify which employee received a loan and
is therefore a class member.

The Plaintiffs also suggest that members may be identified by
looking at the checks that were endorsed by Messrs. Akridge or
Wilkerson.  However, Messrs. Akridge and Wilkerson claim that they
would sometimes cash employee checks as a favor to the employee
even if the employee had not borrowed money.

The Plaintiffs finally suggest that any problem with
ascertainability can be remedied by including an opt-out provision.
Again, the evidence shows that not every employee received a loan.
Thus, to preserve tje Defendants' due process rights, the Judge
would need to engage in a series of mini-trials to determine if
every member who failed to opt-out had actually received a usurious
loan from Messrs. Akridge or Wilkerson.

Judge Hall concludes that the Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate
that class certification is appropriate.  Conditional certification
is inappropriate because the Plaintiffs have provided no evidence
that there are other employees who wish to opt-in.  The
certification under Rule 23 is likewise unsuitable because the
Plaintiffs have not identified an administratively feasible method
for identifying class members.  Accordingly, the Judge denied the
Plaintiffs' Motion to Conditionally Certify a Collective Action
Class and to Certify a Rule 23 Class.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 27, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/tzJl6U from Leagle.com.

Leroy Brantley, Jr., Harold H. Ricks, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Roger Smith, on behalf for
themselves and all others similarly situated & Shon Butler, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
represented by Jeffrey Francis Peil -- jpeil@hugginsfirm.com -- Joe
Edward Mathews, Jr. -- matt@edenfieldlaw.com -- Edenfield, Cox,
Bruce & Classens, PC, John J. Czura -- john@czuralaw.com -- John J.
Czura, PC, Travers W. Paine, III -- tpaine@painefirm.com -- Travers
W. Paine, III, P.C., V. Sharon Edenfield -- sharri@edenfieldlaw.com
-- Edenfield, Cox, Bruce & Classens, PC & Matthew Wade Padgett --
packages@hugginsfirm.com -- Huggins Peil LLC.

Handi-House MFG. CO. & Donald Flanders, Defendants, represented by
Allan C. Galis -- agalis@HunterMaclean.com -- Hunter Maclean, Exley
& Dunn, P.C., Timothy D. Roberts -- troberts@olivermaner.com --
Oliver Maner, LLP, Larry Evans -- levans@olivermaner.com -- Oliver
Maner, LLP & Wade Wilkes Herring, II -- wherring@HunterMaclean.com
-- Hunter Maclean, Exley & Dunn, P.C..


HERTZ CORP: Hirsi Labor Suit Settlement Has Prelim Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, HASSAN HIRSI, an individual, Plaintiff, v. THE HERTZ
CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, HERTZ TRANSPORTING, INC, a
Delaware corporation, FIREFLY RENT A CAR LLC, a Delaware company
and DTG OPERATIONS, INC., an Oklahoma corporation, Defendants, Case
No. 2:16-cv-00333 RSL (W.D. Wash.), Judge Robert S. Lasnik of the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington,
Seattle, granted the parties' Stipulated Motion for Certification
of Settlement Class and for Preliminary Approval of Class Action
Settlement.

The Judge has reviewed the Parties' Conditional Settlement
Agreement, as well as the files, records, and proceedings to date
in the matter.  Based on his review of the Agreement and all of the
files, records, and proceedings, he preliminarily approved the
Agreement as fair, reasonable, and adequate, and within the range
of reasonableness for preliminary settlement approval.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c), he conditionally
certified, for settlement purposes only, the Settlement Class
defined as all employees of The Hertz Corp., Hertz Transporting,
Inc., Firefly Rent-A-Car, LLC, and DTG Operations, Inc. who: (a) at
any time during the period from Jan. 1, 2014, to Oct. 31, 2015,
reported to (i.e., clocked in and clocked out at) a worksite within
the City of SeaTac; (b) can be ascertained from Hertz's records as
having had a base hourly wage rate at any time during this same
period that was less than the minimum hourly wage prescribed by the
City of SeaTac's Ordinance Setting Minimum Employment Standards for
Hospitality and Transportation Industry Employers, City of SeaTac
Municipal Code Chapter 7.45; and (c) prior to March 1, 2018, did
not file a wage complaint against Hertz with L&I pursuant to the
2006 Wage Payment Act, asserting a claim of underpayment of wages
during this same period premised upon an alleged violation of the
Ordinance (provided, however, that any person who filed, but timely
withdrew, such an L&I Wage Claim prior to March 1, 2018, is
included in the Putative Class).

The Plaintiff is appointed the Class Representative; and his
counsel are appointed and designated as the Class Counsel.

A final approval hearing will be held Dec. 5, 2018, at 10:00 a.m.
Papers in support of final approval of the Agreement, the incentive
award to the Plaintiff, and the Class Counsel's application for an
award of attorneys' fees, costs and expenses will be filed with the
Court according to the schedule set forth.

The Final Settlement Approval Hearing, and all dates provided for
herein, may, without further notice to the Class, be continued or
adjourned by order of the Court.  After the Settlement Hearing, the
Court may enter a settlement order and final judgment in accordance
with the Agreement that will adjudicate the rights of the
Settlement Class Members with respect to the Released Claims being
settled.  The scope of the Released Claims will be: claims arising
under, and/or otherwise dependent upon, the Fair Labor Standards
Act, the Washington Minimum Wage Act, the Washington Wage Rebate
Act, the Washington Industrial Welfare Act, Section 7.45 of the
City of SeaTac City Code, the law of contract, and the law of
equity; and any claim to attorneys' fees and costs based on the
claims released and/or the Action.

The Class Notice will be sent within 30 days following entry of the
Order.  Dahl Administration, LLC, is appointed as the Claims
Administrator.  The Claims Administrator will also provide email
notice to persons in the Settlement Class for whom the Defendant
possesses an email address.

Judge Lasnik approved the Notice in substantially the same form as
that attached as Exhibit 2 to the Declaration of Duncan C. Turner.
He confirmed that it is appropriate for the Defendant to provide
the information necessary to provide the notice contemplated and to
administer the settlement, including names, addresses, and personal
identifying information.

The persons in the Settlement Class will possess the right to opt
out by sending a written request to a designated address within 30
days after the Notice Mailing Date.  Within 15 days after the
exclusion deadline, the Claims Administrator will file a
declaration that provides copies of all exclusions received.  In
order to be heard at the hearing, the person must make any
objection in writing and mail it to the designated address not
later than Oct. 29, 2018.  The class counsel will file their fee
request on or before the Notice Mailing Date.  The deadline to
respond to objections will be 15 days following the
Exclusion/Objection deadline.

The Judge approved the following timeline:

     a. Preliminary Approval Order Entered - July 27, 2018

     b. Notice Mailing Date - Aug. 27, 2018

     c. Plaintiff's Counsel's Fee Motion Submitted - Aug. 27, 2018


     d. Exclusion/Objection Deadline - Oct. 29, 2018

     e. Claims Administrator's Filing of Exclusion Requests - Nov.
13, 2018

     f. Final Approval Brief and Response to Objections - Nov. 19,
2018

     g. Final Approval Hearing/Noting Date - Dec. 5, 2018

     h. Final Approval Order Entered - At the Court's Discretion

The Final Hearing is scheduled on Dec. 5, 2018 at 10:00 a.m.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 27, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/Qp3gW8 from Leagle.com.

Hassan Hirsi, an individual, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel R.
Whitmore -- amber@whitmorelawfirm.com -- & Duncan Calvert Turner --
dturner@badgleymullins.com -- BADGLEY MULLINS TURNER PLLC.

The Hertz Corporation, a Delaware corporation, Hertz Transporting,
Inc, a Delaware corporation, Firefly Rent A Car LLC, a Delaware
company & DTG Operations, Inc., an Oklahoma corporation,
Defendants, represented by Daniel P. Hurley --
daniel.hurley@klgates.com -- K&L GATES LLP, Mark Stephen Filipini
-- mark.filipini@klgates.com -- K&L GATES LLP & Patrick M. Madden
-- patrick.madden@klgates.com -- K&L GATES LLP.


HOUSTON, TX: Beckwith Appeals S.D. Texas Ruling to 5th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs DeJenay Beckwith and Beverly Flores filed an appeal from
a court ruling in their lawsuit styled DeJenay Beckwith, et al. v.
City of Houston, et al., Case No. 4:17-CV-2859, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Plaintiff
DeJenay Beckwith alleges that a serial rapist sexually assaulted
her in 2011 and was not convicted of it until 2016, due to Houston
officials' indifference to a backlog of more than 6,000 untested
rape kits.

The appellate case is captioned as DeJenay Beckwith, et al. v. City
of Houston, et al., Case No. 18-20611, in the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants DEJENAY BECKWITH, on her Own Behalf and
Others Similarly Situated, and BEVERLY FLORES, on her Own Behalf
and Others Similarly Situated, are represented by:

          Randall Lee Kallinen, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF RANDALL L. KALLINEN, P.L.L.C.
          511 Broadway Street
          Houston, TX 77012
          Telephone: (713) 320-3785
          E-mail: attorneykallinen@aol.com

               - and -

          Charles Henry Peckham, Esq.
          PECKHAM MARTIN, P.L.L.C.
          800 Bering Drive
          2 Bering Park
          Houston, TX 77057
          Telephone: (713) 574-9044
          E-mail: cpeckham@peckhampllc.com

               - and -

          Roy Joseph Rodney, Jr., Esq.
          RODNEY & ETTER, L.L.C.
          365 Canal Street
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 483-3224
          E-mail: rjr@rodneylaw.com

Defendants-Appellees CITY OF HOUSTON, MAYOR SYLVESTER TURNER,
POLICE CHIEF ART ACEVEDO, HOUSTON FORENSIC SCIENCE CENTER, PETER
STOUT, ANNISE PARKER, LEE P. BROWN, KATHY WHITMIRE, CHIEF CHARLES
MCCLELLAND, CHIEF CLARENCE BRADFORD and CHIEF SAM NUCHIA are
represented by:

          Suzanne Reddell Chauvin, Esq.
          CITY OF HOUSTON
          900 Bagby Street
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (832) 393-6219
          E-mail: Suzanne.Chauvin@houstontx.gov

               - and -

          Deidra Norris Sullivan, Esq.
          CITY OF HOUSTON
          P.O. Box 368
          Houston, TX 77001-0368
          Telephone: (832) 393-6299
          E-mail: Deidra.Sullivan@houstontx.gov


IMPINJ INC: Montemarano Files Securities Class Suit in W.D. Wash.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Montemarano, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Impinj, Inc., Chris Diorio, Evan
Fein and Eric Brodersen, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-01264, (W.D.
Wash., August 27, 2018) alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Plaintiff purchased publicly traded securities of Impinj between
May 4, 2017, and August 2, 2018. Montemarano claims that Impinj's
stock traded at artificially inflated prices due to continued
concealment and misrepresented material facts regarding their
business metrics, operations and financial prospects.

Impinj sells integrated circuit tags that provides wireless
information about tagged items, usually for apparel, medical
supplies, automobile parts, driver's licenses, food and luggage.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Steve W. Berman, Esq.
      Karl P. Barth, Esq.
      HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
      1918 8th Avenue, Suite 3300
      Seattle, WA 98101
      Telephone: (206) 623-7292
      Fax: (206) 623-0594
      Email: steveb@hbsslaw.com
             karlb@hbsslaw.com

             - and -

     Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
     David Rosenfeld, Esq.
     Mary K. Blasy, Esq.
     ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
     58 South Service Road, Suite 200
     Melville, NY 11747
     Tel: (631) 367-7100
     Fax: (631) 367-1173
     Email: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
            mblasy@rgrdlaw.com

            - and -

     David C. Walton, Esq.
     ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
     655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Telephone: (619) 231-1058
     Fax: (619) 231-7423

            - and -

     Corey D. Holzer, Esq.
     HOLZER & HOLZER, LLC
     1200 Ashford Parkway, Suite 410
     Atlanta, GA 30338
     Tel: (770) 392-0090
     Fax: (770) 392-0029
     Email: cholzer@holzerlaw.com
            mdees@holzerlaw.com


J2 GLOBAL: 8th Cir. Grants More Time to Seek Rehearing
------------------------------------------------------
j2 Global, 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 U.S. Eighth Circuit
Court of Appeals has granted an extension of time to file a
petition for rehearing in the putative class action suit initiated
by Davis Neurology, P.A.

On January 21, 2016, Davis Neurology, P.A. filed a putative class
action against two j2 Global affiliates in the Circuit Court for
the County of Pope, State of Arkansas (58-cv-2016-40), alleging
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).

The case was ultimately removed to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Arkansas (the "Eastern District of Arkansas")
(No. 4:16-cv-00682). On June 6, 2016, the j2 Global affiliates
filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. On March 20, 2017,
the Eastern District of Arkansas dismissed all claims against the
j2 Global affiliates.

On July 23, 2018, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the
judgment and remanded to district court with instructions to return
the case to state court. On August 1, 2018, the Eighth Circuit
Court of Appeals granted an extension of time to file a petition
for rehearing.

j2 Global, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, engages in the
provision of Internet services worldwide. It operates through two
segments, Cloud Services and Digital Media.  j2 Global, Inc. was
founded in 1995 and is headquartered in Los Angeles, California.


JAMBA JUICE: Facing Lawsuit Over Deceptively Marketed Smoothies
---------------------------------------------------------------
Center For Science In The Public Interest reports that Jamba Juice
smoothies are not what Jamba Juice claims and advertises them to
be, according to a class action lawsuit filed in federal court. The
company is facing allegations that it is tricking consumers by
marketing its beverages as "whole fruit and vegetable smoothies"
when, in fact, they often include juice blends made mostly from
cheap pear and white grape juices from concentrate.

Despite using statements like "Jamba blends whole fruits & veggies"
and "Whole fruit! That's how we blend" on marketing materials,
Jamba Juice uses large quantities of juice blends, sherbet, and
other non-whole fruit and non-whole-vegetable ingredients in its
smoothies, according to the complaint.

Jamba Juice represents on menu boards that its Caribbean Passion
smoothie, for instance, contains five whole-fruit ingredients:
mango, strawberry, peach, orange, and passion fruit. In fact, that
smoothie appears to have no whole mango, no whole orange, and no
whole passion fruit. Instead of those advertised fruits, Caribbean
Passion has as its first ingredient a "Passion Fruit-Mango Juice
Blend," according to the company's website.  And the blend is
mostly pear and white grape juices from concentrate, according to
the complaint. A large Caribbean Passion has 440 calories and a
whopping 95 grams -- or approximately 24 teaspoons -- of total
sugars.

The company also makes prominent mention of "super ingredients"
like kale in its marketing for its smoothies, when in fact, other
cheaper ingredients predominate, according to the complaint.
Advertising on social media and in emails urges consumers to "DRINK
YOUR GREENS" and features images of kale and ginger root alongside
Jamba's Greens N' Ginger smoothie. The menu board categorizes
Greens N' Ginger as a "Fruit & Veggie" smoothie and lists mango,
peaches, kale, lemon, and ginger as ingredients. Yet despite
abundant images of kale, "lemonade" is the first listed ingredient
in Greens N' Ginger, according to the company's website. Even that
un-advertised "lemonade" is largely comprised of white grape juice
from concentrate.  

"Jamba Juice's advertising and marketing is aimed at giving
consumers the impression that their smoothies will be mostly whole
fruits and vegetables, like mango, passion fruit, or kale," said
Center for Science in the Public Interest litigation director Maia
Kats. "In reality, consumers are paying premium prices for products
that are primarily made of unadvertised, less nutritious, and cheap
ingredients like pear and white grape juices from concentrate."

The complaint also alleges that Jamba Juice gives consumers the
impression that the only sugars in its smoothies are exclusively
from whole fruits and vegetables and that the smoothies contain no
additives, when neither of those facts are true. On Instagram, for
instance, Jamba Juice posted: "NOT FAKE NEWS: Jamba blends only
real, whole ingredients to power your day." Jamba's Aloha Pineapple
smoothie, however, has pineapple juice from concentrate as its
first ingredient, according to the company website.  Its third
ingredient, "Pineapple Sherbet," has more water, milk, sugar, corn
syrup, whey, and cream than it does pineapple. A "Raspberry
Sherbet" used in its Banana Berry smoothie also has more sugar and
corn syrup than raspberries and contains additives such as mono-
and diglycerides, locust bean gum, guar gum, and caramel color,
among other ingredients.

The lawsuit was brought in United States District Court for the
Northern District of California. Besides CSPI's Kats, plaintiffs
are represented by CSPI litigation associate Matthew Simon, Esq. --
msimon@cspinet.org -- and Michael R. Reese, Esq. --
michael@reesellp.com -- and George Granade, Esq. of Reese LLP. In
recent years CSPI's litigation unit has negotiated numerous
improvements to the marketing and labeling of products such as
Naked Juice, Cheerios Protein, and Plum Organics baby food.[GN]


KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Lead Plaintiffs File Amended Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------
An amended complaint with jury demand was filed August 31, 2018, by
lead plaintiffs in a shareholder class action lawsuit against
Xiaoming Hu, Kandi Technologies Group, Inc., Bing Mei, Cheng Wang,
Xiaoying Zhu.

Kandi Technologies Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2018, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that beginning in March
2017, putative shareholder class actions were filed against Kandi
Technologies Group, Inc. and certain of its current and former
directors and officers in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California and the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York.

The complaints generally allege violations of the federal
securities laws based Kandi's disclosure in March 2017 that its
financial statements for the years 2014, 2015 and the first three
quarters of 2016 would need to be restated, and seek damages on
behalf of putative classes of shareholders who purchased or
acquired Kandi's securities prior to March 13, 2017.

All the remaining cases are in the New York federal court.  In a
May 29 Stipulation and Order, the Court held that:

     1. Gary Vatter and Gerald W. Klein are appointed as Co-Lead
Plaintiff's for the putative Class in the Related Actions;

     2. Vatter and Klein's selections of Pomerantz and Gainey
McKenna are appointed as Co Lead Counsel for the putative Class:

     3. Co-Lead Plaintiff

KELLOGG SALES: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Ruling in Hadley Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Kellogg Sales Company filed an appeal from a court ruling
in the lawsuit entitled Stephen Hadley v. Kellogg Sales Company,
Case No. 5:16-cv-04955-LHK, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, San Jose.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on August 31, 2018, the
Hon. Judge Lucy H. Koh entered an order on August 17, 2018:

   1. granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's motion for
      class certification;

   2. denying Kellogg's motion to exclude the opinion testimony
      of Steven P. Gaskin under Daubert;

   3. certifying following Rule 23(b)(3) class, which is composed
      of three subclasses:

      "all persons in California who, on or after August 29,
      2012, purchased for household use and not for resale or
      distribution";

         Raisin Bran Subclass:

         "Kellogg's Raisin Bran (including Omega-3) or Kellogg's
         Raisin Bran Crunch Cereals in a 13.7 oz., 14.3 oz., 18.2
         oz., 18.7 oz., 23.5 oz., 24.8 oz., 29 oz., 30.3 oz.,
         43.3 oz., 56.6 oz., or 76.5 oz. package stating heart
         healthy";

         Smart Start Subclass:

         "Kellogg's Smart Start Original Antioxidants cereal in a
         17.3 oz. package"; and

         Frosted Mini-Wheats Subclass:

         "Kellogg's Frosted Mini-Wheats Bite Size (Original,
         Maple Brown Sugar, Strawberry, or Blueberry varieties),
         Big Bites (Original variety), Little Bites (Chocolate or
         Cinnamon Roll varieties), or Touch of Fruit in the
         Middle (Mixed Berry and Raspberry varieties) cereals in
         a 15.2 oz., 15.5 oz., 15.8 oz., 16.5 oz., 18 oz., 21
         oz., or 24 oz. package."

   4. appointing Stephen Hadley as representative of the class.
      As Kellogg does not challenge the adequacy of proposed
      class counsel;

   5. appointing Jack Fitzgerald of The Law Office of Jack
      Fitzgerald, P.C., as class counsel.

The appellate case is captioned as Stephen Hadley v. Kellogg Sales
Company, Case No. 18-80106, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Respondent STEPHEN HADLEY, on behalf of himself, all
others similarly situated, and the general public, is represented
by:

          Jack Fitzgerald, Esq.
          Trevor Flynn, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF JACK FITZGERALD, PC
          3636 Fourth Avenue, Suite 202
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 692-3840
          Facsimile: (619) 362-9555
          E-mail: jack@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com
                  trevor@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com

Defendant-Petitioner KELLOGG SALES COMPANY is represented by:

          Kenneth K. Lee, Esq.
          Alexander Smith, Esq.
          JENNER & BLOCK LLP
          633 West 5th Street, Suite 3600
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 239-5152
          E-mail: klee@jenner.com
                  asmith@jenner.com

               - and -

          Dean N. Panos, Esq.
          JENNER & BLOCK LLP
          353 N. Clark Street
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 923-2765
          E-mail: dpanos@jenner.com


KONA GRILL: Parties in Boots Class Action Fail to Reach Accord
--------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the case, Boots v. Kona Sushi, Inc., Case No.
0:17-cv-03401 (D. Minn., July 27, 2017), held a settlement before
Magistrate Judge Steven E. Rau on August 3, 2018, but failed to
reach a settlement.

Kona Grill, 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 class action
complaint filed by Mitchell Boots against Kona Sushi, Inc. a
company's wholly-owned subsidiary, is still ongoing in accordance
with the court-scheduled dates.

On July 27, 2017, a class action complaint was filed against Kona
Sushi, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, by Mitchell
Boots, individually and on behalf of a Proposed Rule 23 Class, in
the United States District Court for Minnesota claiming, among
other things, that the Company violated Minnesota gratuity/tip
pooling laws with respect to certain classes of restaurant
employees.

The plaintiff has brought claims on behalf of a putative Minnesota
class and a putative national class of employees.

On October 25, 2017, the plaintiff amended the complaint to
withdraw the national class claims and other common law claims,
leaving one claim on behalf of a putative Minnesota class, and
added a second named Plaintiff, Tracy Fortman. On June 15, 2018, a
revised pre-trial scheduling order was issued by the District
Court, setting pre-trial dates and setting a trial date of April 1,
2019. The parties participated in mediation on August 3, 2018,
which concluded without resolution.

Therefore, the matter will proceed in accordance with the
court-scheduled dates.

The Company does not expect the result of such complaint to have a
material adverse effect on the Company. However, there is no
assurance that any adverse ruling or settlement in this matter
would not have a material impact on the Company's cash position and
operations.

Judge Paul A. Magnuson presides over the case.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Matthew L McMullen, Esq.
     Robert R Hopper, Esq.
     Robert R. Hopper & Associates, LLC
     Tel: 612-455-2199
     E-mail: matthew.mcmullen@robertrhopper.com
             robert.hopper@robertrhopper.com

Defendant Kona Sushi, Inc. is represented by:

     Michael C McCarthy, Esq.
     Jevon Bindman, Esq.
     Charles G Frohman, Esq.
     Maslon LLP
     Tel: 612-672-8347
     E-mail: mike.mccarthy@maslon.com
             jevon.bindman@maslon.com
             charles.frohman@maslon.com

Kona Grill, Inc. owns and operates upscale casual restaurants under
the Kona Grill brand name. As of December 31, 2017, it owned and
operated 46 restaurants in 23 states of the United States and
Puerto Rico; and 3 franchised restaurants in Mexico, the United
Arab Emirates, and Canada. The company is based in Scottsdale,
Arizona.


LASALLE HOTEL: Faces Erie County Employees Retirement System Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LaSalle Hotel Properties 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 is facing a
purported class action suit entitled, Erie County Employees
Retirement System v. LaSalle Hotel Properties, et al.

On June 29, 2018, a purported class action complaint, Erie County
Employees Retirement System v. LaSalle Hotel Properties, et al.,
No. 24-C-18-003922, was filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore
City, Maryland by purported Company shareholder Erie County
Employees Retirement System in connection with the proposed
Mergers.

An amended complaint was filed on July 11, 2018. The amended
complaint names as defendants the Company and the members of the
Company's Board of Trustees. The amended complaint alleges that the
Board of Trustees breached its duties in agreeing to the Merger
Agreement, in not agreeing to a transaction with Pebblebrook Hotel
Trust, and in failing to disclose certain supposedly material
information to shareholders in the preliminary proxy statement
filed in connection with the Mergers. The amended complaint also
alleges that Michael D. Barnello breached his duties owed to the
shareholders in supposedly favoring a transaction with Blackstone
to a transaction with Pebblebrook Hotel Trust due to self interest.


The amended complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief,
including a preliminary injunction of the shareholder vote on the
Mergers, as well as damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

LaSalle Hotel said, "The Company is unable to predict the
developments in, outcome of, and/or economic or other consequences
of this litigation or predict the developments in, outcome of,
and/or other consequences arising out of any potential future
litigation or government inquiries related to the Mergers."

LaSalle Hotel Properties is a leading multi-operator real estate
investment trust. The Company focuses on owning, redeveloping and
repositioning upscale, full-service hotels located in urban, resort
and convention markets. The company is based in Bethesda,
Maryland.


LEFTOM FOODS: Rodriguez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------
Jose Noe Rodriguez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Leftom Foods Ltd. and George Kanes,
Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-03595, (E.D. N.Y., June 20, 2018), seeks
recovery of lost wages (front and back pay), compensatory and
punitive damages, reasonable judgment interest, reasonable
attorneys' fees, court costs and litigation costs and such further
relief for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York
Labor laws.

Leftom operates as Kanes Diner located at 4415 College Point Blvd.,
Flushing, NY 11355. Rodriguez was employed by the Defendants as a
restaurant worker until October 12, 2017. He claims not having been
paid any premium overtime compensation for hours worked beyond 40
in any single work week. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Amit Kumar, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM CALFARO
      l08 West 39th Street, Suite 602
      New York, NY 10018
      Tel. (212) 583-7400


LIBERTY AND MARCUS: Lawyer Sued Over Alleged $50-Mil. Fraud
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jake Bleiberg, writing for Bangor Daily News, reports that the
legal bramble around an embattled former Maine businessman has
grown a new shoot, entangling a prominent Portland law firm.

On August 22, women from Florida and Massachusetts filed a federal
class-action lawsuit against a lawyer who has represented Michael
Liberty and the law firm he helped found.

They claim that George Marcus and the Marcus Clegg law firm
knowingly helped Liberty with a scheme that the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission say defrauded investors out of $50 million.

Marcus and his firm were "co-conspirators" in a long-term scam that
led people to believe they were investing in a financial technology
company when their money was instead being used to pay for the
lavish lifestyles of Liberty and his associates, the suit filed in
a federal court in Portland claims. It piggybacks on the SEC's
March fraud suit against Liberty, Marcus, and several other people
and corporations associated with the company formerly known as
Mozido.

Tina Endicott and Denise Medina claim they were snookered by
"faulty and misleading legal documents" that Marcus Clegg lawyers
prepared for Liberty's company, now called MDO. Their 10-count
lawsuit requests a jury trial and unspecified damages for a class
of other investors.

Since the SEC filed its suit, Liberty and Marcus have denied they
committed fraud in public statements and court documents. A partner
with Marcus Clegg said Thursday that the women bringing the new
suit were never the firm's clients and that it will seek to have
their case dismissed immediately.

"The complaint is replete with numerous misrepresentations and
inaccuracies, and is completely without legal merit," said Lee
Bals, also noting that it "does not allege that the firm in any way
misused client funds."

The lawsuit is the latest in a series of court cases that have
cropped up around Liberty and his businesses. Once a prominent
Portland developer, Liberty, 58, now lives in Florida. His legal
troubles, however, have continued to play out in Maine, including a
criminal case over campaign finance violations that saw him
sentenced to jail time last year.

The new lawsuit against Marcus and his firm claim that the lawyers
gave investors in MDO financial documents that "concealed critical
facts" about the company's value and Liberty's past problems with
the SEC. It also says they improperly handled investor funds that
were deposited in a law firm-controlled account, affecting a class
of more than 100 people spread across the country.

"In some instances, [Marcus and his firm] knowingly assisted the
MDO scheme, while in other instances they negligently participated
in the victimization of investors," the lawsuit states.

In addition to a local lawyer, the case is being handled by law
firms based in Pennsylvania and Iowa. Bals said that opposing
counsel is "fully aware that their real grievance is with
individuals and entities unaffiliated with Marcus Clegg." [GN]


LIBERTY MUTUAL: MSPA Appeals Dismissal of Amended Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs have filed a notice to appeal to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit from a court ruling in the case
captioned as MSPA CLAIMS 1, LLC; MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS, SERIES LLC;
and SERIES 16-05-456, a series of MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS, SERIES LLC,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant,
Case No. 1:17-cv-22539-KMW (S.D. Fla., Aug. 6, 2018).

The Plaintiffs seek to appeal the Order of the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Florida granting the Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiff's third amended complaint for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.

Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company, Inc. provides auto, home,
and life insurance products and services. The company was formerly
known as United Mutual Fire Insurance Company and changed its name
to Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company, Inc. in December 1949.
Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company, Inc. was incorporated in
1908 and is based in Boston, Massachusetts. Liberty Mutual Fire
Insurance Company, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Liberty Mutual
Group Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andres Rivero, Esq.
          Jorge A. Mestre, Esq.
          Alan H. Rolnick, Esq.
          Charles E. Whorton, Esq.
          Kingsley C. Nwamah, Esq.
          David L. Daponte, Esq.
          RIVERO MESTRE LLP
          2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., Suite 1000
          Miami, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 445-2500
          Facsimile: (305) 445-2505
          E-mail: arivero@riveromestre.com
                  jmestre@riveromestre.com
                  arolnick@riveromestre.com
                  cwhorton@riveromestre.com
                  knwamah@riveromestre.com
                  ddaponte@riveromestre.com
                  npuentes@riveromestre.com


LIONS GATE: Settles Class Action Suit With Starz Shareholders
-------------------------------------------------------------
Etan Vlessing, writing for The Hollywood Reporter, reports that the
studio in an SEC filing said both parties in the legal action
against Lionsgate, former members of the Starz boardroom and
billionaire investor John Malone, on August 22 reached an agreement
in principle that would see the litigation dismissed in return for
the settlement payment.

Lionsgate on August 24 said it has reached a tentative $92.5
million settlement deal to end a class action suit brought by
former Starz shareholders over its $4.4 billion merger with the
premium cable channel in 2016.

The studio in an SEC filing said both parties in the legal action
against Lionsgate -- former members of the Starz boardroom and
billionaire investor John Malone -- on Aug. 22 reached an agreement
in principle that would see the litigation dismissed in return for
the settlement payment.

The Delaware Chancery Court must approve the settlement payment to
end the litigation related to Lionsgate's takeover of Starz in
December 2016. In all, seven separate class action lawsuits brought
by disgruntled Starz stockholders against Lionsgate and other
parties involved in its Starz merger were consolidated into one
legal action.

The suit implicated Malone for allegedly orchestrating the sale of
Starz while standing on both sides of the transaction due to a
series of share swap deals. The Starz deal legal action has
implications for other top Hollywood execs being cited by investors
for executing lucrative side deals in connection with mergers
during the current industry consolidation.

In the wake of the Starz deal, another SEC filing revealed Malone
backed Lionsgate in its takeover bid for the cable premium channel
against at least two other rival bids. The regulatory document
revealed Malone was key to swaying the Starz boardroom and outside
advisers to get behind the eventual merger deal with
Lionsgate.[GN]


LOGMEIN INC: Kessler Topaz Files Securities Fraud Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP disclosed that a
securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California
against LogMeIn, Inc. on behalf of purchasers of LogMeIn publicly
traded securities between March 1, 2017 and July 26, 2018,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

Important Deadline Reminder:  Investors who purchased LogMeIn
securities during the Class Period may, no later than October 19,
2018, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of
the class. For additional information or to learn how to
participate in this action please visit
https://www.ktmc.com/logmein-inc-securities-class-action

According to the complaint, LogMeIn is a Delaware corporation,
located in Goleta, California. LogMeIn provides a portfolio of
cloud-based communication and collaboration, identity and access,
and customer engagement and support solutions. On February 1, 2017,
LogMeIn issued a press release which "announced the completion of
its previously disclosed merger with Citrix Systems, Inc.'s
(NASDAQ:  CTXS) GetGo, Inc. subsidiary, a wholly owned subsidiary
consisting of Citrix's GoTo family of service offerings."

The Class Period commences on March 1, 2017, when LogMeIn filed its
annual report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016 on Form
10-K with the SEC, which provided the company's annual financial
results and position.

The complaint alleges that on July 26, 2018, after market close,
LogMeIn held an earnings call to report its second quarter 2018
earnings results. During the call, William R. Wagner, LogMeIn's
President and Chief Executive Officer, and Edward K. Herdiech,
LogMeIn's Chief Financial Officer, stated that LogMeIn implemented
strategies which negatively impacted renewal rates of certain of
its services, including amongst its GoTo clients.

Following this news, shares of LogMeIn fell $26.60 per share or
over 25% to close at $77.85 per share on July 27, 2018.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, the defendants
failed to disclose that: (1) LogMeIn's business practices had
negatively impacted renewal rates for certain of its services; and
(2) as a result, the defendants' public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.

If you wish to discuss this securities fraud class action or have
any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, please contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer
& Check (James Maro, Jr., Esq. or Adrienne Bell, Esq.) at (888)
299–7706 or (610) 667–7706, or via e-mail at info@ktmc.com.

LogMeIn investors may, no later than October 19, 2018, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, or other counsel, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.  A lead plaintiff is
a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members in
directing the litigation.  In order to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class
member will adequately represent the class.  Your ability to share
in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.

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


LOUISIANA: Judge Grants Class Status to Public Defense Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Matt Sledge, writing for The New Orleans Advocate, reports that a
Baton Rouge judge has granted class-action status to a lawsuit that
aims to upend Louisiana's creaking public defense system.

Judge Todd Hernandez of the 19th Judicial District ruled that every
poor defendant in Louisiana represented by a public defender is
eligible for participation in the lawsuit, with the exception of
juveniles and defendants in capital cases.

Hernandez's Aug. 17 ruling was opposed by attorneys for the state,
who said that class certification would make far too many people
eligible for participation. More than 20,000 poor people face
criminal charges at any one time in Louisiana.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs said that Louisiana's public defense
structure is systematically broken and requires an all-around fix.

The upshot of the judge's ruling is that if the lawsuit succeeds,
officials will be forced to come up with a statewide plan for
funding public defenders, rather than a solution that applies only
to the 13 named plaintiffs.

The lawsuit is set for trial on Jan. 28.

The plaintiffs argued in the suit, which was filed in East Baton
Rouge Parish in February 2017, that Louisiana systematically
shortchanges poor defendants by saddling public defenders with high
caseloads.

Gov. John Bel Edwards, members of the Louisiana Public Defender
Board and chief state Public Defender James Dixon were named as
defendants.

The lawsuit asks the judge to declare Louisiana's current public
defender system unconstitutional because poor defendants do not
receive equal protection and meaningful assistance of counsel.

The judge cannot order the Legislature to pay more into the system,
which is largely supported by court fees from convictions and
traffic tickets rather than the state's general fund.

However, the judge can appoint a special monitor to oversee changes
and threaten to hold state officials in contempt until the system
is fixed.

Although Hernandez's decision was an important victory for the
plaintiffs, he noted that it was "purely procedural" rather than a
ruling on the merits of the case.

"The persons contained within this class all have similar and/or
common interests against each of the named defendants" and are so
numerous "that it would be impracticable to require each one to
individually appear before this court in pursuit of their claims,"
he said.

The lawsuit is one of two filed against the state's public defense
system in recent years. In 2016, the ACLU sued the Orleans Public
Defenders and the state board over long waiting lists for access to
an attorney.

A district judge dismissed the suit last year, but a panel of 5th
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals judges heard a request to revive it
in early August. Their decision is pending.[GN]


LTD FINANCIAL: Mirzadjanyan Files Suit Over FDCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
LTD Financial Services Limited Partnership is facing a class action
lawsuit in New York.  The case is titled as Lareta Mirzadjanyan, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. LTD
Financial Services Limited Partnership, Case No. 1:18-cv-04969
(E.D.N.Y., August 31, 2018).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

LTD Financial Services, LP, a collection agency, provides
collection and custom call center solutions in the United States.
The Company offers customer care accounts services; collection
services, such as pre charge-off collection, pre charge-off system,
and post charge-off collection; and commercial collection services.
The Company serves credit grantors.  The Company was founded in
1993 and is based in Houston, Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MCCLATCHY CO: Appeal in Becerra Class Suit Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
The McClatchy Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended July 1, 2018, that the appeal from the
decision in the case, Becerra v. The McClatchy Company, is still
pending.

In December 2008, carriers of The Fresno Bee filed a class action
lawsuit against the company and The Fresno Bee in the Superior
Court of the State of California in Fresno County captioned Becerra
v. The McClatchy Company ("Fresno case") alleging that the carriers
were misclassified as independent contractors and seeking mileage
reimbursement.

In February 2009, a substantially similar lawsuit, Sawin v. The
McClatchy Company, involving similar allegations was filed by
carriers of The Sacramento Bee ("Sacramento case") in the Superior
Court of the State of California in Sacramento County. The class
consists of roughly 5,000 carriers in the Sacramento case and 3,500
carriers in the Fresno case.

The plaintiffs in both cases are seeking unspecified restitution
for mileage reimbursement. With respect to the Sacramento case, in
September 2013, all wage and hour claims were dismissed and the
only remaining claim is an equitable claim for mileage
reimbursement under the California Civil Code. In the Fresno case,
in March 2014, all wage and hour claims were dismissed and the only
remaining claim is an equitable claim for mileage reimbursement
under the California Civil Code.

The court in the Sacramento case trifurcated the trial into three
separate phases, independent contractor status, liability and
restitution. On September 22, 2014, the court in the Sacramento
case issued a tentative decision following the first phase, finding
that the carriers that contracted directly with The Sacramento Bee
during the period from February 2005 to July 2009 were
misclassified as independent contractors.

The company objected to the tentative decision but the court
ultimately adopted it as final. In June 2016, the company was
dismissed from the lawsuit, leaving The Sacramento Bee as the sole
defendant. On August 30, 2017, the court issued a statement of
decision ruling that the court would not hold a phase two trial but
would, instead, assume liability from the evidence previously
submitted and from the independent contractor agreements.

The company objected to this decision but the court adopted it as
final. The third phase has not yet been defined.

The court in the Fresno case bifurcated the trial into two separate
phases: the first phase addressed independent contractor status and
liability for mileage reimbursement and the second phase was
designated to address restitution, if any. The first phase of the
Fresno case began in the fourth quarter of 2014 and concluded in
late March 2015. On April 14, 2016, the court in the Fresno case
issued a statement of final decision in favor of us and The Fresno
Bee. Accordingly, there will be no second phase. The plaintiffs
filed a Notice of Appeal on November 10, 2016.

McClatchy said, "We continue to defend these actions vigorously and
expect that we ultimately will prevail. As a result, we have not
established a reserve in connection with the cases. While we
believe that a material impact on our condensed consolidated
financial position, results of operations or cash flows from these
claims is unlikely, given the inherent uncertainty of litigation, a
possibility exists that future adverse rulings or unfavorable
developments could result in future charges that could have a
material impact. We have and will continue to periodically
reexamine our estimates of probable liabilities and any associated
expenses and make appropriate adjustments to such estimates based
on experience and developments in litigation."

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

The McClatchy Company provides news and advertising services in
digital and print formats in the United States. Its publications
include the Miami Herald, The Kansas City Star, The Sacramento Bee,
The Charlotte Observer, The (Raleigh) News and Observer, The (Fort
Worth) Star-Telegram, and The (Durham, NC) Herald-Sun. The
McClatchy Company was founded in 1857 and is headquartered in
Sacramento, California.


MDL 2672: Court Grants Admin Motion to Seal Portions of Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California granted Plaintiffs' Administrative Motion to Seal in the
case captioned IN RE: VOLKSWAGEN "CLEAN DIESEL" MARKETING, SALES
PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, This Order Relates
To: MDL Dkt. No. 4493. Nemet v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.,
No. 3:17-cv-04372-CRB. MDL No. 2672 CRB (JSC). (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiffs in Nemet have filed an administrative motion to file
portions of their complaint under seal. The request to seal is
limited to the names and job titles of certain Bosch and Volkswagen
employees who are not parties in this action. On several prior
occasions in this MDL, the Court has held that redacting the names
and job titles of certain non-parties was supported by a compelling
reason: that disclosure of the employees' identifying information
would infringe on those individuals' privacy rights.

The Court reaches the same conclusion here. The requested
redactions are narrowly tailored to non-parties whose names and
titles are not relevant to the dispute and the disclosure of their
identifying information would infringe on their privacy rights.

The administrative motion to seal is granted.

The unredacted version of the complaint shall remain under seal and
the public will have access to the redacted version, which is
available at Docket No. 7 in Nemet v. Volkswagen Group of America,
Inc., No. 3:17-cv-04372-CRB

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 23, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ybbfbwwr from Leagle.com.

Nicholas Benipayo, Plaintiff, represented by Robert B. Carey --
rob@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice,
Steve W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas Eric Loeser -- toml@hbsslaw.com --
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice.

Nadine Bonda, Plaintiff, represented by Adam M. Stewart --
astewart@shulaw.com -- Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP & Thomas G. Shapiro
-- tshapiro@shulaw.com -- Shapiro Haber and Urmy, LLP.

Brian Connelly, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas G. Shapiro ,
Shapiro Haber and Urmy, LLP.
Nicholas Allen, Daniel Carroll, Giancarlo Ceci, Dominic Troffer,
Paul Linnee, Sarah Hayden, Dario Medina, Shanice Boyette, Isaac
Hoover, John Mazur & Forrest Tinsler, Plaintiffs, represented by
Caleb Marker -- caleb.marker@zimmreed.com -- Zimmerman Reed LLP,
pro hac vice & Charles S. Zimmerman --
charles.zimmerman@zimmreed.com -- Zimmerman Reed, PLLP, pro hac
vice.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., a New Jersey Corporation,
Defendant, represented by Amie Adelia Vague , Lightfoot Franklin &
White, Casey Erin Lucier -- clucier@mcguirewoods.com --
McGuireWoods LLP, Charles J. Baker, III -- chuck.baker@wbd-us.com
-- Womble Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, Colin Hampton Tucker --
ctucker@rhodesokla.com -- Rhodes Hieronymus Jones Tucker & Gable,
Dana Woodrum Lang -- dana.lang@wbd-us.com -- Womble Carlyle
Sandridge and Rice, David M. Eisenberg -- eisenberg@bscr-law.com --
Baker, Sterchi, Cowden & Rice, LLC, Henry Buist Smythe, Jr. --
henry.smythe@wbd-us.com -- Womble Carlyle Sandridge and Rice,
Howard Feller -- hfeller@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, Hugh
J. Bode -- hbode@reminger.com -- Reminger & Reminger Co LPA, J.
Randolph Bibb, Jr. -- rbibb@lewisthomason.com -- Lewis, Thomason,
King, Krieg & Waldrop, P.C., James K. Toohey -- tooheyj@jbltd.com
-- Johns & Bell LTD, Jeffrey Lance Chase --
JChase@herzfeld-rubin.com -- Herzfeld & Rubin PC, Jeffrey S. Rugg ,
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP, Jennifer Marino Thibodaux ,
Gibbons PC, John W. Cowden -- cowden@bscr-law.com -- Baker,
Sterchi, Cowden & Ric, LLC.


MEDPRO GROUP: Settlement in Carrel FMLA Suit Has Final Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GRETCHEN B. CARREL, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MEDPRO GROUP, INC., Defendant,
Cause No. 1:16-CV-130-TLS (N.D. Ind.), Judge Theresa L. Springmann
of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana,
Fort Wayne Division, granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Final
Approval of Class-Wide Settlement of Family and Medical Leave Act
Claim, and the Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs on FMLA Claim.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
filed suit against her former employer, MedPro, alleging that the
Defendant engaged in a policy that violated the Family Medical
Leave Act of 1993 ("FMLA"), by reducing employees' Paid Time Off
when an employee took FMLA leave.

On Oct. 12, 2016, Carrel sought class certification on her FMLA
claim at issue in the matter.  On April 26, 2017, the Court granted
the motion and certified the FMLA claim for the class of all
current or former MedPro Group, Inc. employees who took FMLA leave
after or through March 30, 2013, and whose annual allotment of PTO
was adversely affected by taking such leave.

After the Court granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification, the parties reached a proposed settlement that would
resolve all claims in the case.  On Aug. 11, 2017, the Plaintiff
filed a Motion for Preliminary Approval of the class-wide
settlement of the FMLA claim, as well as the Settlement Agreement
and Full and Final Releas.  

The Settlement requires the Defendant to pay $2,000 to the
Plaintiff as an incentive award, $72,330.78 in attorney's fees and
litigation expenses, and the amounts included in Exhibit A of the
Settlement, which were calculated as follows: The Class Members
were divided into two groups: (1) the Class Members who used all of
their PTO in the same year that their PTO was reduced as a result
of taking FMLA (Settlement Class I); and (2) Class Members who did
not use all their PTO in the same year that their PTO was reduced
as a result of taking FMLA (Settlement Class II).  The anticipated
recovery for the members of Settlement Class I is 1.75 multiplied
by their hourly rate of pay and the number of hours their PTO was
reduced. The anticipated recovery for members of the Settlement
Class II is 1.5 multiplied by their hourly rate of pay and the
number of hours their PTO was reduced.

The Court granted preliminary approval on Nov. 6, 2017, and in
connection with the preliminary approval, the Court ordered that
class members be sent a notice of the proposed settlement, which
included a 60-day cut-off date to opt out of the class or to object
to the proposed settlement.  The Court also confirmed Matthew C.
Elliott as the Class Counsel for the Class Representative and the
Class.

The Court conducted a Fairness Hearing on March 21, 2018 to
consider: (i) the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the
settlement; (ii) the contents of the Final Order of Approval of
Settlement; and (iii) the application of Class Counsel for
attorney's fees and costs.  

Judge Springmann finds that the Settlement Agreement is fair,
reasonable, and adequate.  She also finds that the payment of
$72,330.78 represents 30.4% of the total amount; approximately 30%
is well within the normal amounts in common fund cases where the
total payments are less than a million dollars.  And, given the
contributions of the Named Plaintiff, she finds that the additional
$2,000 payment is appropriate.

For these reasons, Judge Springmann granted the Motion for Final
Order of Approval and the Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs on
FMLA Claim.  A Final Approval Order will be issued consistent with
this Opinion and Order and with the Settlement Agreement.  The
parties are DIRECTED to file a final report within 60 days after
completion of the payment process.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 27, 2018 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/0BOBFE from Leagle.com.

Gretchen B Carrel, on behalf of herself and all other
similarly-situated persons, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew J.
Elliott --  mje@beckmanlawson.com -- Beckman Lawson LLP.

MedPro Group Inc, Defendant, represented by Anna M. Konradi ,
Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Edward E. Hollis --
Edward.Hollis@faegrebd.com -- Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Rozlyn M.
Fulgoni-Britton -- Rozlyn.Fulgoni-Britton@faegrebd.com -- Faegre
Baker Daniels LLP & Sarah E. Caldwell Breslin --
sarah.breslin@FaegreBD.com -- Faegre Baker Daniels LLP.


MELINTA THERAPEUTICS: Bid to Dismiss Merger Suit Stll Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Melinta Therapeutics, 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 motion to dismiss
filed in the consolidated class action suit related to Cempra, Inc.
now known as Melinta Therapeutics, Inc., is still pending.

On November 3, 2017, Melinta merged with Cempra, Inc. in a business
combination. Prior to the merger, on November 4, 2016, a securities
class action lawsuit was commenced in the United States District
Court, Middle District of North Carolina, Durham Division, naming
Cempra, Inc. (now known as Melinta Therapeutics, Inc.) and certain
of Cempra's officers as defendants.

Two substantially similar lawsuits were filed in the United States
District Court, Middle District of North Carolina on November 22,
2016, and December 30, 2016, respectively.

Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, on July
6, 2017, the court consolidated the three lawsuits into a single
action and appointed a lead plaintiff and co-lead counsel in the
consolidated case. On August 16, 2017, the plaintiff filed a
consolidated amended complaint.

Plaintiff alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act") in connection with allegedly false and
misleading statements made by the defendants between July 7, 2015,
and November 4, 2016 (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff seeks to
represent a class comprised of purchasers of Cempra's common stock
during the Class Period and seeks damages, costs and expenses and
such other relief as determined by the court.

On September 29, 2017, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint. On November 13, 2017, the plaintiff
filed an opposition to the defendants' motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint. On December 4, 2017, the defendants
filed a reply brief.

On July 24, 2018, the court heard oral arguments on defendants'
motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. The motion
remains pending.

Melinta Therapeutics said, "We believe that we have meritorious
defenses and we intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously. It is
possible that similar lawsuits may yet be filed in the same or
other courts that name the same or additional defendants."

Melinta Therapeutics, Inc., a commercial-stage pharmaceutical
company, discovers, develops, and commercializes various
anti-infectives for the treatment of bacterial infectious diseases
in North America. The company was founded in 2000 and is
headquartered in New Haven, Connecticut.


MEZZI MARKETING: Motion to Compel Filed in Katz Suit
----------------------------------------------------
A motion to compel and order to show cause has been filed by
petitioners in the case captioned as Samuel Katz; Alexander
Braurman; and Lynne Rhodes, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Petitioners v. Mezzi Marketing LLC,
Respondent, Case No. 1:18-mc-02122-NGG (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 6, 2018).
The case is assigned to Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis.

Mezzi Marketing LLC is a business solution company catering
client's communication and IT needs. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Grace E. Parasmo, Esq.
          PARASMO LIEBERMAN LAW
          7400 Hollywood Blvd, #505
          Los Angeles, CA 90046
          Telephone: (844) 200-5623
          Facsimile: (877) 501-3346
          E-mail: gparasmo@parasmoliebermanlaw.com


MINNESOTA: Suit Over Sex Offenders Commitment Program Ends
----------------------------------------------------------
Brian Lambert, writing for MinnPost, reports that according to
Steve Karnowski for the AP, "A long-running class-action lawsuit
over the constitutionally of Minnesota's civil commitment program
for sex offenders effectively ended on August 23 when a federal
judge dismissed the remaining claims but stood by his earlier
statements that some revelations during the six-week trial shock
his conscience.

U.S. District Judge Donovan Frank cited a 2017 decision by the 8th
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which overturned his 2015
declaration that the program was unconstitutional because few
people had ever been released from the program since began in the
mid-1990s. The U.S. Supreme Court last October declined to hear the
case, letting the 8th Circuit's ruling stand and the program to
continue operating as it was."[GN]


MSG BEACON: Reyes Files ADA Suit in N.Y.
-----------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against MSG Beacon, LLC under
the Americans with Disabilities Act.  The case is captioned Jose
Reyes, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v.
MSG Beacon, LLC, doing business as: The Beacon Theatre, Case No.
1:18-cv-08000 (S.D.N.Y., August 31, 2018).

MSG Beacon, LLC, does business as The Beacon Theatre.  The Company
operates a theatre in New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NATIONWIDE FUNDING: Wendell H. Stone Hits Illegally Faxed Ads
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wendell H. Stone Company, Inc., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Nationwide Funding Group
Corp., a California corporation, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-01133,
(W.D. Pa., August 27, 2018) seeks statutory and treble damages,
injunctive relief, compensation and attorney fees for violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as amended by the
Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005.

Nationwide allegedly sent unsolicited faxed ads to Plaintiff's
phone in an effort to solicit their financial services, notes the
complaint.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stuart C. Gaul, Jr., Esq.
      GAUL LEGAL LLC
      100 Ross Street, Suite 510
      Pittsburgh, PA 15219
      Tel: (412) 261-5100
      Fax: (412) 261-5101
      Email: stuart.gaul@gaul-legal.com

             - and -

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


NEW YORK ALLERGY: Picon Suit Alleges Disabilities Act Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
New York Allergy & Sinus Group, PLLC is facing a class action
lawsuit captioned as YELITZA PICON AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER
PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. NEW YORK ALLERGY & SINUS GROUP, PLLC,
Case No. 1:18-cv-07975 (S.D.N.Y., August 31, 2018).

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

New York Allergy & Sinus Group, PLLC, is a New York business
organization.  The Company provides services related to immunology
and allergy.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
          THE MARKS LAW FIRM PC
          175 Varick Street, 3rd Floor
          New York, NY, 10014-5856
          Telephone: (646) 770-3775
          Facsimile: (646) 867-2639
          E-mail: bmarkslaw@gmail.com


NINETY NINE RESTAURANTS: Hughes Sues over Take-Out Food Charges
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN HUGHES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Ninety Nine Restaurants, Inc., Defendants,
Case No. 181007 (Mass. Super., Norfolk Cty., Aug. 6, 2018) seeks to
stop the Defendant's illegal, unfair, and deceptive charges to its
customers on all take-out food or being served as take-out. The
Plaintiff also seeks to obtain restitution under the Massachusetts
General Consumer Protection Statute.

The Plaintiff alleged in the complaint that the Defendant charges a
fee called "To Go Packaging Charge" to its customers who receive
take-out services from the restaurant. Such actions by charge the
To Go Packaging Charge without adequate disclosure constitute a
violation of the Massachusetts General Consumer Protection Statute.
It is also unconscionable for the Defendant to charge a fee to
package the food that customers take-out of the restaurant but not
to patrons that eat at the restaurant and take some food home.

Ninety Nine Restaurant, Inc. owns and operates a chain of
restaurants in the Northeast. The company was founded in 1952 and
is based in Woburn, Massachusetts. It has locations in
Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Maine, Vermont, New York,
and New Hampshire. Ninety Nine Restaurant, Inc. operates as a
subsidiary of American Blue Ribbon Holdings, LLC. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Samuel P. Reef, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF SAMUEL P. REEF
          77 Pond Street
          Sharon, MA 02067
          Telephone: (781) 784-7777
          Facsimile: (781) 784-1856
          E-mail: sam@reeflaw.com


NOVO NORDISK: Carr Suit Remanded to State Court
-----------------------------------------------
In the case, RODNEY DOUGLAS CARR, Plaintiff, v. NOVO NORDISK, INC.,
DAN O'NEILL, AMANDA AGUILOS, DOES 1 through 100; Defendants, Case
No. CV 18-4370 FMO (FFMx) (C.D. Cal.), Judge Fernando M. Olguin of
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff's Motion to
Remand.

On June 12, 2017, Carr filed a Complaint in the Los Angeles County
Superior Court ("state court") against Novo Nordisk, Dan O'Neill,
Amanda Aguilos, Vincent Lamanna, and Does 1 through 100, asserting
state law claims for: breach of express and implied contract;
breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; wrongful
termination in violation of public policy; discrimination in
violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act;
intentional infliction of emotional distress ("IIED"); violation of
California Business & Professions Code Section 17200; violation of
the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act; intentional
misrepresentation; negligent misrepresentation; and concealment.

The Defendants removed the action to the Court on May 22, 2018, on
the basis of diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections
1332, 1441 and 1446.  On June 21, 2018, the Plaintiff filed the
instant Motion challenging removal of the action.  On June 28,
2018, the Defendants filed an opposition to the Plaintiff's Motion,
and the Plaintiff filed a reply to the Defendant's opposition on
June 29, 2019.

Judge Olguin's review of the Notice of Removal and the attached
state court Complaint makes clear that the Court does not have
subject matter jurisdiction over the instant matter.  In other
words, the Plaintiff could not have originally brought the action
in federal court, as he does not competently allege facts supplying
diversity jurisdiction.  Therefore, removal was improper.

On Feb. 9, 2018, Lamanna filed a Demurrer, or in the Alternative,
Motion for Summary Judgment or Summary Adjudication.  Among other
things, the state court granted summary judgment as to the
Plaintiff's harassment and IIED claims.  In the alternative to
granting summary judgment, the state court, in one paragraph,
granted Lamanna's demurrer without leave to amend.  The state court
dismissed the causes of action against Lamanna, and dismissed
Lamanna from the action.

Even though the Plaintiff filed his Complaint on June 12, 2017, the
Defendants removed the action on May 22, 2018, nearly a year later.
Although the Notice of Removal does not specifically assert that
Lamanna was fraudulently joined, i.e., that he is a sham Defendant,
it does assert that during the course of the state court
proceedings, it became evident to the Defendants that the Plaintiff
named Lamanna solely for the improper purpose of defeating
jurisdiction.

Given that any doubt regarding the existence of subject matter
jurisdiction must be resolved in favor of remanding the action to
state court, the Judge is not persuaded, under the circumstances,
that the Defendants have met their heavy burden of showing that
Lamanna was fraudulently joined.  Because Lamanna is a citizen of
California, there is no basis for diversity jurisdiction, and the
Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the matter.

The Plaintiff provides no argument as to why the Court should award
him costs and fees beyond a conclusory assertion that 28 U.S.C.
Section 144(c) authorizes awards of costs and fees to a plaintiff
who is successful on a remand motion.  In any event, under the
circumstances, the Judge is persuaded that there was an objectively
reasonable basis for the Defendant to remove the case, and
therefore attorney's fees are not warranted.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Olguin granted in part and denied in
part the Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand.  He remanded the action to
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los
Angeles, 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012, pursuant to
28 U.S.C. Section 1447(c).  The Clerk will send a certified copy of
the Order to the state court.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 27, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/hGwet3 from Leagle.com.

Rodney Douglas Carr, Plaintiff, represented by Suzanne E.
Rand-Lewis -- srand-lewis@randandrand-lewisplcs.com -- Gary Rand
and Suzanne Rand-Lewis PLCS.

Novo Nordisk, Inc., Dan O Neill & Amanda Aguilos, Defendants,
represented by Daryl S. Landy -- daryl.landy@morganlewis.com --
Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP & Nancy My Ngoc Nguyen --
nancy.nguyen@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP.


ODWALLA INC: 9th Cir. Appeal Filed in Wilson Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Stephen Wilson filed an appeal from a court ruling in his
lawsuit styled Stephen Wilson v. Odwalla, Inc., et al., Case No.
2:17-cv-02763-DSF-FFM, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, Los Angeles.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
sought certification of these classes:

   -- Odwalla Orange Juice Class:

      All individuals who purchased one or more 15.2 oz. Bottles
      of Odwalla Orange Juice in California from June 2016, until
      the date of trial;

   -- 59 oz. Odwalla Orange Juice Class:

      All individuals who purchased one or more 59 oz. Bottles of
      Odwalla Orange Juice in California from April 2015, until
      the date of trial; and

   -- 128 oz. Odwalla Orange Juice Class:

      All individuals who purchased one or more 128 oz. Bottles
      of Odwalla Orange Juice in California from September 2016,
      until the date of trial.

The appellate case is captioned as Stephen Wilson v. Odwalla, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 18-56183, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript must be ordered by October 1, 2018;

   -- Transcript is due on October 29, 2018;

   -- Appellant Stephen Wilson's opening brief is due on
      December 10, 2018;

   -- Appellees Odwalla, Inc. and The Coca-Cola Company's
      answering brief is due on January 7, 2019; and

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

Plaintiff-Appellant STEPHEN WILSON, individually, and on behalf of
a class of similarly situated individuals, is represented by:

          Ryan Wu, Esq.
          CAPSTONE LAW APC
          1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 556-4177
          E-mail: ryan.wu@capstonelawyers.com

Defendants-Appellees ODWALLA, INC., a California corporation, and
THE COCA-COLA COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, are represented by:

          Jeffrey Alan Rosenfeld, Esq.
          Sean Crain, Esq.
          ALSTON & BIRD LLP
          333 S. Hope Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-2901
          Telephone: (213) 576-1000
          E-mail: jeffrey.rosenfeld@alston.com
                  sean.crain@alston.com

               - and -

          Rachel E. K. Lowe, Esq.
          DLA PIPER LLP
          2000 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 400 North Tower
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-4704
          Telephone: (310) 595-3000
          E-mail: rachel.lowe@dlapiper.com


PAYAM INC: Contreras Sues to Recover Withheld Gratuities
--------------------------------------------------------
Alejandro Contreras, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Payam Inc., Mehisbar Inc., Colbeh, Inc.,
Colbeh T. B., Inc, Colbeh TT, LLC, Colbeh BY Carlyle, Inc.,
Benjamin Benyaminian, Pejman Toobian and any other related
entities, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-07469 (C.D. Cal., August 25,
2018), seeks to recover unlawfully retained tips and gratuities
owed under New York Labor Law and New York Codes, Rules and
Regulations.

The Defendants operate a catering business in New York City where
Contreras was employed as a catering service staff.  The Defendants
charge clients 20% in connection with the administration of catered
events. Contreras claims that this amount is a form of a gratuity
that should be distributed among the wait staff. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Laura R. Reznick, Esq.
      LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
      One Old Country Road, Suite 347
      Carle Place, NY 11514
      Tel: (516) 873-9550
      Email: jbrown@leedsbrownlaw.com


PC SHIELD INC: Wendell H. Stone Co. Files Suit Over TCPA Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wendell H. Stone Company, Inc., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PC Shield Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 18-cv-01135, (W.D. Pa., August 27, 2018) seeks statutory
and treble damages, injunctive relief, compensation and attorney
fees for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of
1991, as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005.

Nationwide sent unsolicited faxed ads to Plaintiff's phone in an
effort to promote their hardware/software protection programs, says
the complaint.  [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stuart C. Gaul, Jr., Esq.
      GAUL LEGAL LLC
      100 Ross Street, Suite 510
      Pittsburgh, PA 15219
      Tel: (412) 261-5100
      Fax: (412) 261-5101
      Email: stuart.gaul@gaul-legal.com

             - and -

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


PERRIGO CO: Bid to Dismiss Roofers Securities Suit Partly Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ROOFER'S PENSION FUND, Plaintiff, v. PAPA, et al.,
Defendant, Civil Action No. 16-2805 (D. N.J.), Judge Madeline Cox
Arleo of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss.

The case is a federal securities class action brought on behalf of
purchasers of the common stock of Perrigo between April 21, 2015,
and May 3, 2017, both dates inclusive, and owners of common stock
as of Nov. 13, 2016, seeking to recover damages caused by the
Defendants' alleged violations of securities laws.  More
specifically, the action arises from alleged misrepresentations
that the Defendants made to investors while fighting a hostile
takeover bid by Mylan, a pharmaceutical conglomerate, and
throughout the Class Period.  

Generally, the Plaintiffs contend that Perrigo intentionally
violated accounting rules in its treatment of a royalty stream it
acquired prior to the Class Period and misrepresented the stream's
value, misrepresented the pricing policy and competitiveness of the
company's generic division in order to hide a price fixing scheme
that garnered them hundreds of millions of dollars in collusive
revenue, inflated organic growth rates despite knowing that organic
growth had slowed substantially in the quarters preceding the Class
Period, and misrepresented the success of Perrigo's integration of
Omega Pharma N.V., the company's largest acquisition to date.  As a
result of their knowing misrepresentations and omissions, the
Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants fended off the Mylan bid and
reaped personal profits.

The Plaintiffs filed the Amended Complaint on June 21, 2017.  The
FAC contains four counts: (1) for violations of Section 10(b) of
the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 against all the Defendants; (2) for
violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the
Director Defendants and Brown; (3) for violations of Section 14(e)
of the Exchange Act against all Defendants; and (4) for violations
of the Israel Securities Law, 1968, brought by the TASE Investor
Class against all Defendants for purchases made on the TASE.

The matter is before the Court by way of Defendants Perrigo, Joseph
Papa, Judy Brown, Laurie Brlas, Gary M. Cohen, Jacqualyn A. Fouse,
Ellen R. Hoffing, Michael Jandernoa, Gerland K. Kunkle, Jr., Herman
Morris, Jr., and Donal O'Connor's Motion to Dismiss; and Defendant
Mark Coucke's Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint
("FAC").  The Defendants filed the instant Motion to Dismiss on
Aug. 21, 2017.

Lead Plaintiff Perrigo Institutional Investor Group ("Plaintiff")
opposes the motion.  The Plaintiffs argue that the Defendants made
material misrepresentations about four areas to prevent the Perrigo
shareholders from accepting a bid from Mylan, which had made a
final tender offer.

The Defendants assert that the Plaintiffs have failed to adequately
allege either material misrepresentations or omissions or scienter
with regard to the Tysabri royalty stream, generic prescription
pricing, organic growth, or the Omega integration.  They contend
that these deficiencies defeat all of the Plaintiffs Exchange Act
claims.

Judge Arleo agrees in part and disagrees in part.  She granted
Defendant Coucke's Motion to Dismiss.  She finds that she can not
dismiss the Plaintiffs' actionable statements regarding the present
success of the integration.  She, however, dismissed the claims
related to Defendant Coucke's statements and the purely
forward-looking revenue and synergy projections described in the
Amended Complaint.  Defendant Coucke's alleged statement that Omega
had an efficient management structure is inherently qualitative
and, thus, not measurable.

The Judge granted in part and denied in part the remaining
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss without prejudice.  Among other
things, she finds that (i) dismissal based on immateriality is
inappropriate at this juncture; (ii) the Plaintiffs have failed to
plead facts which would create a strong inference that the
Defendants knew their financials were not GAAP compliant and they
have failed to plead that the Defendants knowingly or recklessly
omitted that fact from their statements; (iii) the  allegations and
the misrepresentations and omissions identified in the Amended
Complaint concerning collusive pricing are sufficient to withstand
a motion to dismiss; (iv) neither of the alleged disclosures
conveyed with a degree of intensity and credibility sufficient to
counter-balance effectively the misrepresentations regarding
Perrigo's current ability to meet its growth goals; (v) the mere
fact that the Defendants signed GAAP and SOX certifications,
accordingly, does not support the Plaintiffs' claim that the
Defendants knew or must have known that their actions presented a
danger of misleading buyers or sellers; (vi) the Defendants fail to
articulate an innocent basis for their ignorance of the roadblocks
facing integration at the time they made statements regarding the
success of the acquisition; and (vii) inference of scienter is
sufficient to withstand dismissal on the claims against Papa and
Brown, in large part due to the context and substance of their
response to questioning, but insufficient to withstand dismissal as
to the other Individual Defendants against whom the allegations of
scienter are far weaker.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 27, 2018 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/cEleoF from Leagle.com.

HAREL INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD, Movant, represented by PETER S.
PEARLMAN, COHN, LIFLAND, PEARLMAN, HERRMANN & KNOPF, LLP.

Dan Kleinerman, Movant, represented by DANIEL S. SOMMERS --
dsommers@cohenmilstein.com -- COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
PLLC.

Michael Wilson, Movant, represented by GARY S. GRAIFMAN,
KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, ESQS. & PETER GEORGE SAFIRSTEIN
-- psafirstein@safirsteinmetcalf.com -- Safirstein Metcalf LLP.

ROOFER'S PENSION FUND, On behalf of itself and all othes similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by DANIEL S. SOMMERS, COHEN,
MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC, MICHAEL B. HIMMEL --
mhimmel@lowenstein.com -- LOWENSTEIN SANDLER LLP & MICHAEL THOMAS
GRAY LONG -- mlong@lowenstein.com -- LOWENSTEIN SANDLER, PC.

JOSEPH C. PAPA, Defendant, represented by GOUTAM UMESH JOIS --
gjois@gibsondunn.com -- GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP.

PERRIGO COMPANY PLC, Defendant, represented by ALAN S. NAAR --
anaar@greenbaumlaw.com -- GREENBAUM, ROWE, SMITH & DAVIS, LLP.

JUDY BROWN, Defendant, represented by BRIAN THOMAS FRAWLEY --
FRAWLEYB@sullcrom.com -- SULIVAN & CROMWELL.

LAURIE BRLAS, GARY M. COHEN, JACQUALYN A. FOUSE, ELLEN R. HOFFING,
MICHAEL R. JANDERNOA, GERALD K. KUNKLE, JR., HERMAN MORRIS, JR. &
DONAL O'CONNOR, Defendants, represented by JANE J. FELTON, Skoloff
& Wolfe, P.C. & JONATHAN W. WOLFE, SKOLOFF & WOLFE, PC.

MARC COUCKE, Defendant, represented by STEVEN WILLIAM SHULDMAN --
steven.shuldman@wilmerhale.com -- WILMERHALE LLP.


PERSONAL TOUCH: Faces Taylor Suit Alleging FLSA Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Personal Touch
Management, Inc.  The case is styled as Lee Taylor, Eleazar
Sepulveda, John Steward, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated and Andrew Avelar v. Personal Touch Management,
Inc. d/b/a Special Landscaping, Case No. 4:18-cv-03051 (S.D. Tex.,
August 31, 2018).

The lawsuit arises from alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Personal Touch Management, Inc., is a privately held company in
Houston, Texas.  The Company does business as Special Landscaping
providing landscaping services, fencing, fences, gates & components
and groundskeeping services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Alfonso Kennard, Jr., Esq.
          KENNARD RICHARD PC
          2603 Augusta Drive, 14th Floor
          Houston, TX 77057
          Telephone: (713) 742-0900
          Facsimile: (713) 742-0951
          E-mail: alfonso.kennard@kennardlaw.com


PLAIN GREEN: Jurisdictional Discovery in Gibbs RICO Suit Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DARLENE GIBBS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. PLAIN GREEN,
LLC, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:17cv495 (E.D. Va.),
Judge M. Hannah Lauck of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, Richmond Division, (i) granted the
Plaintiffs' Motion to Permit Jurisdictional Discovery, and (ii)
denied Great Plains Lending, LLC's Motion to Stay Proceedings.

The Defendants operate internet lending websites offering
short-term loans to consumers.  Allegedly, the Defendants offered
loans to the Plaintiffs in amounts ranging from $300 to $3,000,
charging interest rates ranging from 118% to 448%.  The Plaintiffs
bring the suit on behalf of themselves and all individuals
similarly situated, alleging that the Defendants' lending
enterprises violate state and federal lending laws.

Specifically, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants structured
their businesses to benefit from the protections of tribal
sovereign immunity even though they do not constitute tribal
entities.  The Defendants did so, the Plaintiffs contend, in order
to evade state and federal lending laws.  They contend that the
Defendants' fraudulent posture as tribal entities eradicates any
potential claim to the protection of tribal sovereign immunity.

The Plaintiffs filed a five-count putative class action Complaint
against the Defendants alleging various state and federal
violations associated with an illegally usurious loan enterprise.
They seek: (1) a declaratory judgment that the loan agreements are
void and unenforceable; (2) injunctive relief ordering the
Defendants to divest themselves of any interest in the enterprise
pled in the complaint, including the receipt of racketeering
profits, prohibiting the Defendants from continuing to engage in
the enterprise, and ordering the dissolution of each defendant that
has engaged in the enterprise; (3) compensatory damages; and (4)
costs and attorney's fees.

Plain Green filed a Motion to Dismiss without Leave to Amend or, in
the Alternative, to Compel Arbitration.  Great Plains filed three
separate motions: (1) a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction;
(2) a Motion to Compel Arbitration; and, (3) a Motion to Transfer
Case.  The Defendants each moved to dismiss based on a claim of
sovereign immunity under Rule 12(b)(1).

The Plaintiffs filed the Motion for Discovery, seeking
jurisdictional discovery on the issue of the Defendants' claim of
sovereign immunity.  The Defendants each opposed the Motion for
Discovery.  The Court suspended briefing on the Defendants' Motions
to Dismiss pending its ruling on the Motion for Discovery.  On May
9, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Leave to File
Supplemental Authority, requesting leave to submit a recent court
order in a case they allege is similar to the one at bar.

On May 9, 2018, Great Plains filed the Motion to Stay based on a
case development.  Specifically, it Plains has moved to consolidate
and transfer the case in the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation ("JPML").  Great Plains seeks to consolidate three cases
in a multi-district litigation ("MDL").  It requests a stay of
these proceedings pending the JPML ruling on the Defendants'
pending Motion for Consolidation and Transfer filed in In Re: Great
Plains Lending, LLC Litigation, MDL No. 2851.

The JPML was scheduled to hear the motion on July 26, 2018.  No MDL
exists until the JPML rules on the Motion for Consolidation and
Transfer.  On June 13, 2018, Great Plains filed a Motion for Leave
to File Supplemental Authority, requesting leave to submit a recent
court order granting a stay in one of the two other cases that is
part of its JPML request.

Judge Lauck finds that the Plaintiffs' allegations and supporting
evidence raise legitimate questions about the Defendants' claim to
sovereign immunity, going beyond mere speculation or conclusory
statements.  Hence, limited jurisdictional discovery is appropriate
to clarify the true nature of the relationship between the
Defendants and the Tribes.  She also finds that limited
jurisdictional discovery is necessary to resolve the Defendants'
claim to tribal status.  The information the Plaintiffs request
will be necessary for the Court to determine whether the Defendants
share in the Tribes' sovereign immunity.

Finally, the Judge finds that the Plaintiffs' specific and
substantive allegations against the Defendants justify
jurisdictional discovery to determine whether the Defendants share
in the Tribes' sovereign immunity.  Limited jurisdictional
discovery, therefore, will not undermine the principles of
sovereign immunity.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Lauck granted the Plaintiffs'
Motion to File Supplemental Authority, and Great Plains' Motion to
File Supplemental Authority.  She denied the Motion to Stay and
granted the Motion for Discovery.  Because the jurisdictional
discovery will likely affect the parties' briefings, she dismissed
without prejudice Plain Green's Motion to Dismiss, Great Plain's
Motion to Dismiss, Great Plain's Motion to Compel Arbitration, and
Great Plains's Motion to Transfer.  An appropriate Order issued.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 27, 2018 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/57M0ai from Leagle.com.

Darlene Gibbs, on behalf of themselves and all individuals
similarly situated, Stephanie Edwards, on behalf of themselves and
all individuals similarly situated, Lula Williams, on behalf of
themselves and all individuals similarly situated, Patrick Inscho,
on behalf of themselves and all individuals similarly situated &
Lawrence Mwethuku, on behalf of themselves and all individuals
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Kristi Cahoon Kelly
-- kkelly@kellyandcrandall.co -- Kelly & Crandall PLC, Andrew
Joseph Guzzo -- aguzzo@kellyandcrandall.com -- Kelly & Crandall
PLC, Casey Shannon Nash -- casey@kellyandcrandall.com -- Kelly &
Crandall PLC, Craig Carley Marchiando -- craig@clalegal.com --
Consumer Litigation Associates, Elizabeth W. Hanes --
elizabeth@clalegal.com -- Consumer Litigation Associates, James
Wilson Speer -- jay@vplc.org -- Virginia Proverty Law Center &
Leonard Anthony Bennett -- lenbennett@clalegal.com -- Consumer
Litigation Associates.

Plain Green, LLC, Defendant, represented by Matthew Donald Foster
-- fosterm@pepperlaw.com -- Pepper Hamilton LLP, Francis Anthony
Weber -- weberf@pepperlaw.com -- Pepper Hamilton LLP, pro hac vice,
Jeffrey Kyle Holth -- jholth@thejacobsonlawgroup.com -- Jacobson,
Magnuson, Anderson & Halloran, P.C., pro hac vice, Joseph
Fredericks Halloran -- jhalloran@thejacobsonlawgroup.com --
Jacobson, Magnuson, Anderson & Halloran, P.C., pro hac vice &
Richard Joseph Zack -- zackr@pepperlaw.com -- Pepper Hamilton LLP,
pro hac vice.

Great Plains Lending, LLC, Defendant, represented by Charles Kalman
Seyfarth -- cseyfarth@ohaganspencer.com -- O'Hagan Meyer PLLC,
Elizabeth Scott Turner -- eturner@ohaganmeyer.com -- O'Hagan Meyer
PLLC & Saba Bazzazieh -- sbazzazieh@rosettelaw.com -- Rosette LLP,
pro hac vice.


PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: 9th Cir. to Review Class Certification Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. 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 U.S.
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has granted the company's petition
for leave to appeal the oil industry class certification in the
litigation over the Line 901 crude oil release.

In May 2015, the company experienced a crude oil release from its
Las Flores to Gaviota Pipeline (Line 901) in Santa Barbara County,
California. A portion of the released crude oil reached the Pacific
Ocean at Refugio State Beach through a drainage culvert. Following
the release, the company shut down the pipeline and initiated its
emergency response plan.

A Unified Command, which included the United States Coast Guard,
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the California Office of
Spill Prevention and Response and the Santa Barbara Office of
Emergency Management, was established for the response effort.
Clean-up and remediation operations with respect to impacted
shoreline and other areas has been determined by the Unified
Command to be complete, and the Unified Command has been dissolved.


The company's estimate of the amount of oil spilled, based on
relevant facts, data and information, is approximately 2,934
barrels; of this amount, the company estimate that 598 barrels
reached the Pacific Ocean.

Shortly following the Line 901 incident, the company established a
claims line and encouraged any parties that were damaged by the
release to contact us to discuss their damage claims. The company
has received a number of claims through the claims line and we are
processing those claims for payment as we receive them.

In addition, the company has also had nine class action lawsuits
filed against it, six of which have been administratively
consolidated into a single proceeding in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California.

In general, the plaintiffs are seeking to establish different
classes of claimants that have allegedly been damaged by the
release. To date, the court has certified three sub-classes of
claimants and denied certification of the other proposed sub-class.
The sub-classes that have been certified include (i) commercial
fishermen who landed fish in certain specified fishing blocks in
the waters adjacent to Santa Barbara County or persons or
businesses who resold commercial seafood landed in such areas; (ii)
individuals or businesses who were employed by or had contracts
with certain designated oil platforms and related onshore
processing facilities in the vicinity of the release as of the date
of the release and (iii) beachfront property and easement owners
whose properties were oiled.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has granted the company's
petition for leave to appeal the oil industry class certification.


The company is also defending a separate class action lawsuit
proceeding in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California brought on behalf of the Line 901 and Line
903 easement holders seeking injunctive relief as well as
compensatory damages.

Plains All American Pipeline, L.P., through its subsidiaries,
engages in the transportation, storage, terminalling, and marketing
of crude oil, natural gas liquids (NGL), and natural gas in the
United States and Canada. The company operates in three segments:
Transportation, Facilities, and Supply and Logistics. Plains All
American Pipeline, L.P. was founded in 1998 and is headquartered in
Houston, Texas.


PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Appeal in Texas Class Suit Underway
--------------------------------------------------------
Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. 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 plaintiffs
have filed notice of intent to file an appeal of the dismissal of
the consolidated class action lawsuit in Texas.

There have been two securities law class action lawsuits filed on
behalf of certain purported investors in the Partnership and/or
Plains GP Holdings, L.P. (PAGP) against the Partnership, PAGP
and/or certain of their respective officers, directors and
underwriters. Both of these lawsuits have been consolidated into a
single proceeding in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas.

In general, these lawsuits allege that the various defendants
violated securities laws by misleading investors regarding the
integrity of the Partnership's pipelines and related facilities
through false and misleading statements, omission of material facts
and concealing of the true extent of the spill. The plaintiffs
claim unspecified damages as a result of the reduction in value of
their investments in the Partnership and PAGP, which they attribute
to the alleged wrongful acts of the defendants.

The Partnership and PAGP, and the other defendants, denied the
allegations in, and moved to dismiss these lawsuits. On March 29,
2017, the Court ruled in the company's favor dismissing all claims
against all defendants. Plaintiffs refiled their complaint.

On April 2, 2018, the Court dismissed all of the refiled claims
against all defendants with prejudice. Plaintiffs have filed notice
of intent to file an appeal of the dismissal.

Plains All American said, "Consistent with and subject to the terms
of our governing organizational documents (and to the extent
applicable, insurance policies), we have indemnified and funded the
defense costs of our officers and directors in connection with this
lawsuit; we have also indemnified and funded the defense costs of
our underwriters pursuant to the terms of the underwriting
agreements we previously entered into with such underwriters."

Plains All American Pipeline, L.P., through its subsidiaries,
engages in the transportation, storage, terminalling, and marketing
of crude oil, natural gas liquids (NGL), and natural gas in the
United States and Canada. The company operates in three segments:
Transportation, Facilities, and Supply and Logistics. Plains All
American Pipeline, L.P. was founded in 1998 and is headquartered in
Houston, Texas.


PRIMERICA INC: Kelly Sues Over Illegal Bank Account Withdrawals
---------------------------------------------------------------
Troy Kelly, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. Primerica, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-05483,
(C.D. Cal., June 20, 2018), seeks damages, restitution, and all
other relief resulting from unjust enrichment and violation of the
Electronic Funds Transfer Act, Electronic Communications Privacy
Act, California's Unfair Competition Law and California's Consumer
Legal Remedies Act.

Primerica, Inc. is engaged in the business of selling insurance
policies. Kelly, a former customer, cancelled his policies yet
Primerica continued to withdraw funds from his bank accounts,
without his consent, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


PUMA BIOTECHNOLOGY: Hearing on Summary Judgment Set for Sept.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Puma Biotechnology, 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 court in Hsu vs. Puma
Biotechnology, Inc., et. al., is scheduled to hear the motions for
summary judgment on September 2018.

On June 3, 2015, Hsingching Hsu individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, filed a class action lawsuit against the
Company and certain of the Company's executive officers in the
United States District Court for the Central District of California
(Case No. 8:15-cv-00865-AG-JCG). On October 16, 2015, lead
plaintiff Norfolk Pension Fund filed a consolidated complaint on
behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's securities
between July 22, 2014 and May 29, 2015.  

The consolidated complaint alleges that the Company and certain of
its executive officers made false or misleading statements and
failed to disclose material adverse facts about its business,
operations, prospects and performance in violation of Sections
10(b) (and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act. The plaintiff seeks damages, interest, costs,
attorneys' fees, and other unspecified equitable relief.  

On July 10, 2018, the Company and two of its executive officers
filed a motion for summary judgment seeking judgment in their favor
on all claims. At the same time, the lead plaintiff filed its own
motion for summary judgment, seeking judgment in favor on some, but
not all, of its claims. The motions are scheduled for a hearing in
court in September 2018. Pending those motions, a trial date is
currently set for November 6, 2018.  

The Company intends to vigorously defend against this matter.  

Puma Biotechnology, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, focuses on
the development and commercialization of products to enhance cancer
care in the United States. Puma Biotechnology, Inc. was founded in
2010 and is headquartered in Los Angeles, California.


QUEENS MEDICAL: Violates Disabilities Act, Picon Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Queens Medical
Associates, P.C.  The case is styled as YELITZA PICON AND ON BEHALF
OF ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. QUEENS MEDICAL
ASSOCIATES, P.C., Case No. 1:18-cv-07973 (S.D.N.Y., August 31,
2018).

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

Queens Medical Associates, P.C., is a physician practice
specializing in the care of patients with Hematology and Oncology
conditions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
          THE MARKS LAW FIRM PC
          175 Varick Street, 3rd Floor
          New York, NY, 10014-5856
          Telephone: (646) 770-3775
          Facsimile: (646) 867-2639
          E-mail: bmarkslaw@gmail.com


RAINBOW NAILS: Yang Files FLSA Class Suit in New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rainbow Nails Salon
IV Inc. and Gina Dang.  The case is titled as Jun Hua Yang, On
behalf of herself and all other employees similarly situated v.
Rainbow Nails Salon IV Inc. d/b/a Rainbow Nails IV, and Gina Dang,
Case No. 1:18-cv-04970 (E.D.N.Y., August 31, 2018).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Rainbow Nails Salon IV Inc., doing business as Rainbow Nails IV, is
a domestic business corporation organized under the laws of the
state of New York with a principal place of business located at
42-14 Broadway, in Astoria, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Xiaoxi Liu, Esq.
          HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
          136-20 38th Ave., Suite 10G
          Flushing, NY 11354
          Telephone: (718) 353-8588
          Facsimile: (718) 353-6288
          E-mail: xliu@hanglaw.com


RESOLUTE FOREST: Settlement in Reynolds Case Wins Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
Resolute Forest Products Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2018, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that a final order
approving the class action settlement was entered in the case,
Reynolds, et al v. Resolute Forest Products Inc., Resolute FP US
Inc., Resolute FP US Health and Resolute Welfare Benefit Plan.  The
case is dismissed.

Effective January 1, 2015, the company modified its U.S. OPEB plan
so that unionized participants, upon reaching Medicare eligibility,
are provided Medicare coverage via a Medicare Exchange program
rather than via a Company-sponsored medical plan.

On March 2, 2016, a proposed class action lawsuit (Reynolds, et al
v. Resolute Forest Products Inc., Resolute FP US Inc., Resolute FP
US Health and Resolute Welfare Benefit Plan) was filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee
(or the "District Court") on behalf of certain Medicare-eligible
retirees who were previously unionized employees of our Calhoun,
Catawba, and Coosa Pines mills, and their spouses and dependents
(or the "proposed class"). The plaintiffs allege that the
modifications breached the collective bargaining agreements and
plan covering the members of the proposed class in the lawsuit.

Plaintiffs seek reinstatement of the health care benefits as in
effect before January 1, 2015, for the proposed class in the
lawsuit. On May 23, 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint. The motion to dismiss was denied by the District Court
on March 1, 2017.

On June 28, 2017, a settlement agreement in principle was reached
between the parties to the lawsuit subject to court approval. On
June 5, 2018, the District Court issued an order providing for
preliminary approval of the settlement. On August 3, 2018, a final
order approving the class action settlement and dismissing the case
was entered, which if no appeals are filed within the applicable
30-day appeal period, would result in an amendment of the company's
U.S. OPEB plan and a corresponding increase to both "Pension and
other postretirement benefit obligations" and "Accumulated other
comprehensive loss" in its Consolidated Balance Sheet, as of the
date the plan amendment is adopted.

Resolute Forest said, "We do not expect that the resulting increase
would have a material impact on our Consolidated Financial
Statements."

Resolute Forest Products Inc. operates in the forest products
industry in the United States, Canada, Mexico, and internationally.
The company operates in five segments: Market Pulp, Tissue, Wood
Products, Newsprint, and Specialty Papers. Resolute Forest Products
Inc. is headquartered in Montreal, Canada.


REWALK ROBOTICS: Court Narrows Claims in Jasinski's PSLRA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
granted in part and denied in part Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
the case captioned WANG YAN, individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated parties, Plaintiff, v. REWALK ROBOTICS
LTD., LARRY JASINSKI, AMI KRAFT, AMIT GOFFER, JEFF DYKAN, HADAR
RON, ASAF SHINAR, WAYNE B. WEISMAN, YASUSHI ICHIKI, ARYEH DAN,
GLENN MUIR, BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC., JEFFERIES LLC, and CANACCORD
GENUITY INC., Defendants. Civil Action No. 17-10169-FDS. (D.
Mass.).

The Defendants have moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to
state a claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA).

This is a putative class action alleging violations of Sections 11
and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act of 1934. The plaintiff class purchased common
stock of ReWalk Robotics, Ltd. The consolidated amended complaint
alleges that ReWalk, its officers and directors, and the IPO
underwriters concealed material information in its IPO registration
statement about ReWalk's failure to comply with FDA regulations, in
violation of the Securities Act.

The Defendants contend that the complaint fails to set forth a
Securities Act violation because it does not identify a misleading
statement or omission in the registration statement. They also
argue that the complaint fails to set forth an Exchange Act
violation because the lead plaintiff lacks standing and the
information allegedly omitted was not material and was in fact
disclosed.

In addition, they contend that the complaint fails to allege
specific facts that give rise to a strong inference of scienter and
that it fails to plead loss causation.
Allegedly Misleading Omissions in the Registration Statement

Failure to Disclose the ReWalk Device's Safety Profile

The complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose in the
registration statement that the ReWalk device was dangerous.
Specifically, it alleges that defendants did not disclose that the
device's failure to prevent a fall would be reasonably likely to
cause serious injury or death to the user and place individuals
assisting the user at the risk of harm from a potential fall.

That allegation is based on, and mischaracterizes, the FDA letters
concerning the postmarket surveillance requirement. For example,
the June 26, 2014 letter from the FDA included the above-quoted
text. However, the letter went on to state:

The safety and effectiveness of the ReWalk has been demonstrated in
an institutional environment (e.g. hospital, rehabilitation
institution). However, there is limited information on use outside
of the institutional setting (e.g. community and at home use) given
that ARGO Medical Technologies, Inc. intends for the product's use
in non-institutional settings.

The letter further stated that the post-market surveillance study
would be useful to help determine the product's safety in
non-institutional environments. Nowhere did the FDA conclude that
the ReWalk device was actually dangerous. The FDA referred to the
study requirement in the context of the ReWalk product being a
class II device on de novo review. The text of the registration
statement accurately summarizes why the post-market surveillance
requirement was imposed.  

In his opposition, plaintiff chiefly relies on the September 30,
2015 warning letter from the FDA. He notes that the letter was
issued because the device's failure to prevent a fall would be
reasonably likely to cause serious injury and/or death. Again,
however, the FDA never stated that the ReWalk device was dangerous;
rather, the letter's language was conditional, warning that a
defect could cause serious injury and that further study would help
ensure the product's safety.

Further Alleged Misstatements in the Registration Statement

The complaint also alleges that the registration statement included
several statements that were misleading because they failed to
disclose the nature of the post-market surveillance study
requirement. Specifically, it alleges that the registration
statement's representations concerning ReWalk's (1) compelling
clinical data, (2) intention to conduct further clinical studies,
(3) characterization of the device as a breakthrough product, (4)
description of the post-market surveillance study requirement, and
(5) discussion of regulatory risks were all materially false.  

First, the references to compelling clinical data, and to the
ReWalk device as a breakthrough product, are mere puffery, at is,
generic expressions of corporate optimism that are immaterial as a
matter of law. It is well-established that not every unfulfilled
expression of corporate optimism, even if characterized as
misstatement, can give rise to a genuine issue of materiality under
the securities laws.  .

Next, the reference to ReWalk's intent to conduct further clinical
studies is a non-actionable forward-looking statement. The PSLRA
provides, with certain limitations, that issuers of securities
shall not be liable in any private action based on an untrue or
misleading statement of a material fact with respect to any
forward-looking statement if the statement is identified as a
forward-looking statement, and is accompanied by meaningful
cautionary statements identifying important factors that could
cause actual results to differ materially from those in the
forward-looking statement or the plaintiff fails to prove that the
forward-looking statement if made on behalf of a business entity by
or with the approval of an executive officer was made with actual
knowledge by that officer that the statement was false or
misleading.

Here, the statement that ReWalk intended to conduct further
clinical studies squarely falls within the statutory safe harbor
for forward-looking" statements concerning the plans and objectives
of management for future operations. It did not rely on any
representations of present facts.

Finally, as to the allegedly inadequate description of the
post-market surveillance study requirement and the regulatory
risks, the claim likewise fails. Paragraph 94 of the complaint
specifically mentions that the FDA imposed such a requirement, and
the possible consequences of failing to comply. There is no basis
to conclude that the description was inadequate or misleading,
particularly since the study had not yet even been designed, much
less implemented.

Similarly, the claim of inadequate description of regulatory risks
was not misleading. Those risks are described in considerable
detail at paragraphs 92 and 94 of the complaint; it was not
necessary to set out every possible regulatory consequence of every
possible contingent event.

Accordingly, the motion to dismiss will be granted as to Count
One.

Count Two: Section 15 Liability

Count Two asserts a claim against the individual defendants under
Section 15 of the Securities Act, which imposes joint and several
liability on persons in control of entities that violate securities
laws. However, violations of Section 15 depend on an underlying
violation of the Securities Act. Because the complaint fails to
state a claim for an underlying violation of the

Securities Act, Count Two will be dismissed.

Exchange Act Claims

The Defendants contend that lead plaintiff Yan lacks standing to
assert the Exchange Act claims because he purchased his shares
after the relevant statements were made and therefore could not
have relied on the alleged misstatements.

That argument, however, is undercut by the manner in which
plaintiff structured his complaint. The complaint clearly alleges
that the Securities Act claims are based on defendants' failure to
disclose the reason the FDA required the post-market surveillance
study, and that the Exchange Act claims are based on ReWalk's
failure to disclose its difficulties in meeting that requirement.

And, it states that plaintiff disclaims any reliance upon the
Exchange Act allegations or incorporation of these allegations in
his Securities Act claims.

There is also authority holding that a lead plaintiff in an action
subject to the PSLRA need not have standing to bring every
available claim under the securities laws. Because the PSLRA
mandates that courts must choose a party who has, among other
things, the largest financial stake in the outcome of the case, it
is inevitable that, in some cases, the lead plaintiff will not have
standing to sue on every claim. The alternative would require the
Court to cobble together a lead plaintiff group that has standing
to sue on all possible causes of action.

The motion to dismiss will be denied without prejudice as to Counts
Three and Four.

Accordingly, the Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted in part
as to Counts One and Two, and denied in part without prejudice as
to Counts Three and Four.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 23, 2018 Memorandum
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yckrjktc from
Leagle.com.

Qian Deng, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated & Narbeh Nathan, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Jeffrey C. Block --
jeff@blockesq.com -- Block & Leviton LLP.

David Hershlikovitz, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Jackie888, Inc., individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Michael C. Kemmerling, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated & Paul Sislin,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, represented by Jason M. Leviton -- Jason@blockesq.com
-- Block & Leviton LLP &Jeffrey C. Block , Block & Leviton LLP.

ReWalk Robotics Ltd., Larry Jasinski, Wayne B. Weisman & Glenn
Muir, Defendants, represented by Douglas P. Baumstein --
dbaumstein@whitecase.com -- White & Case, LLP, pro hac vice, Susan
L. Grace -- susan.grace@whitecase.com -- White & Case LLP, pro hac
vice & Samuel R. Feldman -- susan.grace@whitecase.com -- White &
Case, LLP.

Ami Kraft, Amit Goffer, Jeff Dykan, Hadar Ron, Asaf Shinar, Yasushi
Ichiki, Aryeh Dan & Kevin Hershberger, Defendants, represented by
Susan L. Grace , White & Case LLP, pro hac vice, Douglas P.
Baumstein -- dbaumstein@whitecase.com -- White & Case, LLP & Samuel
R. Feldman , White & Case, LLP.


RYZE CLAIM: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Templar Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------
Katia Templar, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Ryze Claim Solutions LLC, Defendants, Case
No. 18-cv-01485, (M.D. Fla., June 20, 2018), seeks to recover
overtime pay, monetary damages, liquidated damages and reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs as a result of willful violation of the
Fair Labor Standards.

Ryze is an insurance claims adjuster where Templar worked as a
claims adjuster. She claims to be misclassified as an independent
contractor thus denied overtime pay for hours rendered in excess of
40 per week. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Carlos V. Leach, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      191 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 4200
      Post Office Box 57007
      Atlanta, GA 30343-1007
      Tel: (404) 965-8811
      Facsimile: (404) 496-7405
      Email: CLeach@forthepeople.com

             - and -

      Richard Celler, 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


SANDRIDGE ENERGY: West & Hopson Amended Suit Underway in Oklahoma
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SandRidge Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the company continues to
defend against an amended class action lawsuit filed by Lisa West
and Stormy Hopson.

On October 14, 2016, Lisa West and Stormy Hopson filed an amended
class action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Oklahoma against SandRidge Exploration and
Production, LLC, among other defendants.

In their amended complaint, plaintiffs asserted various tort claims
seeking relief for damages, including the reimbursement of past and
future earthquake insurance premiums, resulting from seismic
activity allegedly caused by the defendants' operation of
wastewater disposal wells.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' amended complaint on May 12,
2017, but permitted the plaintiffs to file a second amended
complaint. On July 18, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a second amended
class action complaint making allegations substantially similar to
those contained in the amended complaint that was previously
dismissed.

SandRidge Energy said, "An estimate of reasonably possible losses
associated with this action cannot be made at this time; therefore,
the Company has not established any reserves relating to this
action."

SandRidge Energy, Inc. engages in the exploration, development, and
production of oil, natural gas, and natural gas liquids primarily
in the Mid-Continent and North Park Basin of the United States. The
company is based in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.


SANTA BARBARA, CA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Griguoili et al. Say
------------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD GRIGUOLI; DAVID AGUAILAR; ASHLAN ALLDREDGE; BRIAN BAXTER;
GIBLERT CASH; JEREMY DENTON; PHIL FAULDING; KELL HARDIN; ROBERT
HAZEL; KEVIN HOKOM; WILLIAM KAVANAUGH; ANDREW LEE; BRANDON PAIGE;
TIA R. RODRIGUEZ; ROY SEGOVIA; ISAAC SIEGEL; KATHLEEN SIZEMORE;
ROLAND T. SMITH; PAUL SPINALE; ADRIAN TOPETE; BRIAN WALSH; DANIEL
J. WARREN; and CHRIS WOODCOCK, Plaintiffs v. CITY OF SANTA BARBARA,
and DOES 1 THROUGH 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
2:18-cv-06593-MRW (C.D. Cal., Jul. 31, 2018) is an action against
the Defendant to recover unpaid overtime compensation under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as a non-exempt rank
and file employees.

Santa Barbara is a city on the central California coast, with the
Santa Ynez Mountains as dramatic backdrop. Downtown,
Mediterranean-style white stucco buildings with red-tile roofs
reflect the city’s Spanish colonial heritage. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. McGill, Esq.
          ADAMS FERRONE & FERRONE
          4333 Park Terrace Drive, Suite 200
          Westlake Village, CA 91361
          Telephone: (805) 373-5900
          Facsimile: (818) 874-1382
          E-mail: mmcgill@adamsferrone.com


SAUCEY INC: Cole Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Calif.
--------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit titled Mervyn Cole, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Saucey Inc., Case No. BC707895, was removed
on August 31, 2018, from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California (Los Angeles).  The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-07655 to the proceeding.

The lawsuit arises from labor-related issues.

Saucey, Inc., operates an electronic platform for the purpose of
connecting consumers to chosen partners to engage in the sale,
service, delivery, and/or transportation delivery of beers, wines,
and spirits.  The Company delivers alcohol in Los Angeles, San
Francisco, San Diego, and Chicago.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.[BN]


SECURITY CREDIT: Huspon Sues Over Alleged FDCPA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Security Credit
Systems, Inc.  The case is captioned as TREVA HUSPON, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SECURITY CREDIT
SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 1:18-cv-01169-STA-egb (W.D. Tenn., August
31, 2018).

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

Security Credit Systems Inc. was founded in 1983.  The Company's
line of business includes collection and adjustment services on
claims and other insurance related issues.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
          MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC
          701 Cookman Avenue
          Asbury Park, NJ 07712
          Telephone: (845) 367-7146
          Facsimile: (732) 298-6256
          E-mail: yzelman@marcuszelman.com


SELECT PORTFOLIO: Williams Files Suit in Illinois Over FCRA Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Glenn Williams has filed a class action lawsuit against Select
Portfolio Servicing, Inc., Equifax Information Services, LLC,
Experian Information Solutions, Inc. and Transunion LLC.

The case is styled as Glenn Williams, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated and Kathy Freeman, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Select Portfolio
Servicing, Inc., Equifax Information Services, LLC, Experian
Information Solutions, Inc. and Transunion LLC, Case No.
1:18-cv-06015 (N.D. Ill., August 31, 2018).

The Plaintiffs accuse the Defendants of violating the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.

Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., operates as a mortgage servicing
company.  Select Portfolio specializes in the servicing of
single-family residential mortgage loans.  Equifax Information
Services LLC collects and reports consumer information to financial
institutions.

Experian Information Solutions, Inc., an information services
company, provides information, analytical, and marketing services
to organizations and consumers to manage risk and reward of
commercial and financial decisions.  TransUnion LLC operates as a
credit reporting agency that provides data/insights and information
to help consumers and businesses make informed decisions.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joseph Scott Davidson, Esq.
          Mohammed Omar Badwan, Esq.
          SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
          2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
          Lombard, IL 60148
          Telephone: (630) 575-8181
          E-mail: jdavidson@sulaimanlaw.com
                  mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com


SIDHDHY VINAYAK: Faces Mercer Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
STACEY MERCER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SIDHDHY VINAYAK CORP., Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-07024-GBD (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 6, 2018) alleges violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is assigned to Judge
George B Daniels.

Sidhdhy Vinayak Corp. is a company engaged in the business as
Exporter, Importer and supplier of food products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SIERRA ONCOLOGY: Appeal in New York Class Action Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal by plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit involving Sierra
Oncology, Inc. remains pending, the Company 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.

On November 9, 2016, a purported securities class action lawsuit
was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the Company and certain of its
executive officers (the New York Lawsuit).

The New York Lawsuit was brought by purported stockholders of the
Company seeking to represent a class consisting of stockholders who
purchased stock between July 15, 2015 and June 6, 2016. The New
York Lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and seeks unspecified damages and other relief.

On March 13, 2018, the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss and entered a final judgment dismissing the New York
Lawsuit with prejudice. Plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal.

Sierra Oncology said "The Company believes that the claims in the
New York Lawsuit are without merit and intends to defend the
lawsuit vigorously. It is possible that additional similar lawsuits
could be filed. Due to the early stage of the litigation, the
Company is unable to predict the outcome of this matter. However,
at this point in time, the Company does not expect the outcome of
these claims will have a material impact on its consolidated
financial statements."

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

Sierra Oncology, Inc., a clinical stage drug development company,
researches, develops, and commercializes DNA Damage Response (DDR)
therapeutics for the treatment of patients with cancer in the
United States and internationally. Sierra Oncology, Inc. was
founded in 2003 and is headquartered in Vancouver, Canada.


SIERRA ONCOLOGY: Parties in California Suits Reach Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sierra Oncology, 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 all parties reached a
mutually acceptable resolution to the California class action
lawsuits by way of a mediated settlement.

On November 18, 2016, a purported securities class action lawsuit
was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of San Mateo against the Company, certain of its executive
officers and directors, and the underwriters for the Company's
initial public offering of its common stock.

On February 9, 2017, a substantially identical putative class
action suit was filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of San Mateo asserting the same claims on
behalf of the same putative class (the two lawsuits together, the
California Lawsuits).

The California Lawsuits were brought by purported stockholders of
the Company seeking to represent a class consisting of stockholders
who purchased stock pursuant to and/or traceable to the Company's
Registration Statement on Form S-1. The lawsuits assert claims
under Sections 11 and 15 of the Exchange Act and seek unspecified
damages and other relief.

On August 1, 2018, all parties reached a mutually acceptable
resolution to the California Lawsuits by way of a mediated
settlement, which is subject to the parties' execution of final
settlement documents and the approval of the court.

Sierra Oncology said, "While the Company believes that the claims
are without merit, it believes settlement will reduce the ultimate
cost and distraction of further litigation. The Company does not
expect its portion of the settlement amount to have a material
impact on its consolidated financial statements."

Sierra Oncology, Inc., a clinical stage drug development company,
researches, develops, and commercializes DNA Damage Response (DDR)
therapeutics for the treatment of patients with cancer in the
United States and internationally. Sierra Oncology, Inc. was
founded in 2003 and is headquartered in Vancouver, Canada.


SPEEDY CASH: Faces Delisle Suit in Calif. Dist. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Speedy Cash.  The
case is captioned as Cindy Delisle, Individually and On Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated v. Speedy Cash, Case No.
3:18-cv-02042-GPC-RBB (S.D. Cal., August 31, 2018).

The nature of suit is stated as "Personal Property: Other."

Speedy Cash provides cash services.  The Company offers loans,
payday, and title pawn cash advances.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ahren A. Tiller, Esq.
          BLC LAW CENTER, APC
          1230 Columbia Street, Suite 1100
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 894-8831
          Facsimile: (866) 444-7026
          E-mail: ahren.tiller@blc-sd.com


SS&C TECHNOLOGIES: Unit Faces Ferguson Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
SS&C Technologies 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 DST Systems, Inc. is
facing a putative class action lawsuit entitled, Ferguson, et al v.
Ruane Cunniff & Goldfarb Inc, et al.

A putative class action suit was filed against DST Systems, Inc.
(DST), the Compensation Committee of DST's Board of Directors, the
Advisory Committee of DST Systems, Inc. 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan
(the "Plan") and certain of DST's present and/or former officers
and directors, alleging breach of fiduciary duties and other
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.  

On September 1, 2017, a complaint was filed purportedly on behalf
of the Plan in the Southern District of New York, captioned
Ferguson, et al v. Ruane Cunniff & Goldfarb Inc, et al., naming as
defendants the DST, the Compensation Committee of DST's Board of
Directors, the Advisory Committee of the Plan and certain of DST's
present and/or former officers and directors.

SS&C Technologies said, "The Company intends to defend this case
vigorously, and, because it is still in its preliminary stages, has
not yet determined what effect this lawsuit will have, if any, on
its financial position or results of operations."

SS&C Technologies Holdings, Inc. provides software products and
software-enabled services to financial services providers. Its
products and services allow its clients to automate and integrate
front-office functions, such as trading and modeling; middle-office
functions, including portfolio management and reporting; and
back-office functions comprising accounting, performance
measurement, reconciliation, reporting, processing, and clearing.
SS&C Technologies Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1986 and is
headquartered in Windsor, Connecticut.


STEMLINE THERAPEUTICS: 2nd Cir. Orders Withdrawal of Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Stemline Therapeutics, 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 U.S. Second Circuit
Court of Appeals has directed the withdrawal of the appeal in a
consolidated shareholder lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, pursuant to Local Rule 42.1.

On March 15, 2018, the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York granted a motion to dismiss in its
entirety a consolidated shareholder action against the Company, its
directors, certain of its officers, and the lead underwriter. On
April 11, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal, and on July
13, 2018, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ordered a withdrawal
of the appeal pursuant to Local Rule 42.1.

This matter originated from class action lawsuits filed in February
2017 alleging violations of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder and violations of Section 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, or the Securities Act, arising from the
Company's January 2017 follow-on public offering.

Stemline Therapeutics, Inc., a clinical stage biopharmaceutical
company, focuses on the discovery, acquisition, development, and
commercialization of proprietary oncology therapeutics in the
United States and internationally. Stemline Therapeutics, Inc. was
founded in 2003 and is based in New York, New York.


SYNACOR INC: Continues to Defend New York Securities Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Synacor, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the company continues to
defend itself in a putative securities class action lawsuit in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The Company and two of its executive officers were recently named
as defendants in a putative securities class action lawsuit filed
April 4, 2018, in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

The complaint makes various allegations regarding statements
related to the contractual arrangement between the Company and AT&T
Inc. ("AT&T"), and the effect of that arrangement on the Company's
revenue. The complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest and
other costs. The court appointed a lead plaintiff and approved
plaintiff's selection of lead counsel on July 6, 2018.

On August 2, 2018, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint asserting
the same claims arising from similar allegations as the first
complaint.

The Company's pre-motion letter regarding its anticipated motion to
dismiss the amended complaint was due on August 17, 2018.

The Company and its officers dispute these claims and will defend
vigorously against any allegations of wrongdoing.  

Synacor, Inc. operates as a technology development, multiplatform
services, and revenue partner for video, Internet, and
communications providers; and device manufacturers, governments,
and enterprises. Synacor, Inc. was founded in 1998 and is
headquartered in Buffalo, New York.


TARGET CORP: Ference Appeals Ruling in Meta Suit to 6th Cir.
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Sheila Ference filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit entitled Christopher Meta, et al. v. Target Corporation, et
al., Case No. 4:14-cv-00832, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio at Youngstown.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
asserts that he began purchasing the red, toddler wipes from a
Target store in Boardman, Ohio, in July 2011.  Mr. Meta alleges
that the Up & Up brand of flushable wipes caused the problems when
they caked together in his pipes and septic system after flushing,
despite representations on the product packaging and on Target's
Web site that the wipes are flushable, break apart after flushing,
and are safe for sewers and septic systems.  Based on these
allegations, Mr. Meta seeks certification of a class consisting of
all persons residing in the State of Ohio, who purchased
Target-Brand 'up&up(R)' 'flushable' moist tissue wipes and toddler
and family wipes.

The appellate case is captioned as Christopher Meta, et al. v.
Target Corporation, et al., Case No. 18-3828, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee CHRISTOPHER META, On behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Jeremy Tor, Esq.
          SPANGENBERG, SHIBLEY & LIBER LLP
          1001 Lakeside Avenue, E., Suite 1700
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Telephone: (216) 696-3232
          E-mail: Jtor@spanglaw.com

               - and -

          Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          1828 L Street, N.W., Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 973-0900
          E-mail: hzavareei@tzlegal.com

Plaintiff-Appellant SHEILA FERENCE is represented by:

          Simina Vourlis, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF SIMINA VOURLIS
          1689 W. Third Avenue
          Columbus, OH 43212-6710
          Telephone: (614) 487-5900
          E-mail: svourlis@vourlislaw.com

Defendants-Appellees TARGET CORPORATION and NICE-PAK PRODUCTS,
INC., are represented by:

          John Q. Lewis, Esq.
          Jennifer L. Mesko, Esq.
          TUCKER ELLIS LLP
          950 Main Avenue, Suite 1100
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 592-5000
          Facsimile: (216) 592-5009
          E-mail: john.lewis@tuckerellis.com
                  jennifer.mesko@tuckerellis.com


TRUECAR INC: Bid for Class Certification in Rose Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------------
TrueCar, 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 plaintiff's motion for
class certification in the putative class action lawsuit filed by
Gordon Rose has been denied.

On December 23, 2015, the Company was named as a defendant in a
putative class action lawsuit filed by Gordon Rose in the
California Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles.

The complaint asserted claims for unjust enrichment, violation of
the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act and violation of the
California Business and Professions Code, based principally on
factual allegations similar to those asserted in the NY Lanham Act
Litigation and the CNCDA Litigation. The complaint sought an award
of unspecified damages, interest, disgorgement, injunctive relief
and attorney's fees.

In the complaint, the plaintiff sought to represent a class of
California consumers defined as "all California consumers who
purchased an automobile by using TrueCar, Inc.'s price certificate
during the applicable statute of limitations."

On January 12, 2016, the court entered an order staying all
proceedings in the case pending an initial status conference, which
was previously scheduled for April 13, 2016. On March 16, 2016, the
case was reassigned to a different judge. As a result of that
reassignment, the initial status conference was rescheduled for and
held on May 26, 2016.

By stipulation, the stay of discovery was continued until a second
status conference, which was scheduled for October 12, 2016. On
July 13, 2016, the plaintiff amended his complaint. The amended
complaint continues to assert claims for unjust enrichment,
violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act and
violation of the California Business and Professions Code. The
amended complaint retains the same proposed class definition as the
initial complaint. Like the initial complaint, the amended
complaint seeks an award of unspecified damages, punitive and
exemplary damages, interest, disgorgement, injunctive relief and
attorney's fees.

On September 12, 2016, the Company filed a demurrer to the amended
complaint. On October 12, 2016, the court heard oral argument on
the demurrer. On October 13, 2016, the court granted in part and
denied in part the Company's demurrer to the amended complaint,
dismissing the unjust enrichment claim but declining to dismiss the
balance of the claims at the demurrer stage of the litigation. At a
status conference held on January 26, 2017, the court ruled that
discovery could then proceed regarding matters related to class
certification only.

At a status conference held on July 25, 2017, the court set a
deadline of January 8, 2018 for the filing of the plaintiff's
motion for class certification and provided that discovery could
continue to proceed regarding matters related to class
certification only at that time.

Subsequently, the court extended to February 7, 2018 the deadline
for the filing of plaintiff's motion for class certification and
for the completion of related discovery. On February 7, 2018, the
plaintiff filed a motion for class certification. The court held a
hearing on the plaintiff's class certification motion on July 12,
2018 and denied the motion on July 27, 2018.

TrueCar said, "The Company believes that the amended complaint is
without merit, and it intends to vigorously defend itself in this
matter. The Company has not recorded an accrual related to this
matter as of June 30, 2018 as the Company does not believe a loss
is probable or reasonably estimable."

TrueCar, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as an
Internet-based information, technology, and communication services
company in the United States. It operates its platform on the
TrueCar Website and mobile applications. TrueCar, Inc. was founded
in 2005 and is headquartered in Santa Monica, California.


TRUECAR INC: Oklahoma Police Pension Fund Named Lead Plaintiff
--------------------------------------------------------------
TrueCar, 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 court has appointed
the Oklahoma Police Pension and Retirement Fund as lead plaintiff
in the putative securities class action suit initially filed by
Leon Milbeck.

On March 30, 2018, the Company and one of its former officers were
named as defendants in a putative securities class action filed by
Leon Milbeck in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California. The complaint seeks an award of unspecified damages,
interest, attorney's fees and equitable relief based on allegations
that the defendants made false or misleading statements about our
business, operations, prospects and performance during a purported
class period of February 16, 2017 through November 6, 2017 in
violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

On June 27, 2018, the court appointed the Oklahoma Police Pension
and Retirement Fund as lead plaintiff.

The Company believes that the complaint is without merit and
intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter.

TrueCar, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as an
Internet-based information, technology, and communication services
company in the United States. It operates its platform on the
TrueCar Website and mobile applications. TrueCar, Inc. was founded
in 2005 and is headquartered in Santa Monica, California.


UBER TECH: Waxler Sues Over Missed Breaks, Missing Paystubs
-----------------------------------------------------------
Geoffrey Waxler, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Uber technologies, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. CGC-18-567423 (Cal. Super., June 20, 2018), seeks to recover,
among other things, unpaid premium wages for meal breaks that were
missed, short, or late, wages due to discharged or quitting
employees, penalties for failure to maintain accurate records and
to provide accurate itemized wage statements, and interest,
attorneys' fees, costs and expenses under California Labor Code,
Unfair Competition Law of the California Business and Professions
Code and applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders.

Uber Technologies, Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered at
1455 Market Street, San Francisco, California, 94103. Uber
allegedly misclassifies its drivers as contractors, not employees,
thus denying them basic employee benefits minimum wages, overtime
pay, workers' compensation. Benefits to include unemployment
insurance, income tax withholding, the ability to participate in
Uber's retirement plan(s), meal and rest breaks.

Waxler is an Uber driver who provide on-demand transportation
services for Uber. [BN].

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David R. Markham, Esq.
      Michael J. Morphew, Esq.
      Maggie K. Realin, Esq.
      THE MARKHAM LAW FIRM
      750 B Street, Suite 1950
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Tel: (619) 399-3995
      Fax: (619) 615-2067
      Email: dmarkham@markham-law.com
             mrealin@markham-law.com
             mmorphew@markham-law.com

             - and -  

      Russel Myrick, Esq.
      THE RDM LEGAL GROUP
      7979 Ivanhoe A venue, Suite 400
      La Jolla, CA 92037
      Tel: (888) 482-8266
      Fax: (858) 244-7930
      Email: russel@rdmlg.com



UNIFIED WINDOW: Picon Sues Over Disabilities Act Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Unified Window
Systems Inc.  The case is titled as YELITZA PICON AND ON BEHALF OF
ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. UNIFIED WINDOW SYSTEMS
INC., Case No. 1:18-cv-07970 (S.D.N.Y., August 31, 2018).

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

Unified Window Systems Inc. was founded in 1989.  The Company's
line of business includes the construction of single-family
homes.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
          THE MARKS LAW FIRM PC
          175 Varick Street, 3rd Floor
          New York, NY, 10014-5856
          Telephone: (646) 770-3775
          Facsimile: (646) 867-2639
          E-mail: bmarkslaw@gmail.com


VALENTINE & KEBARTAS: Vintila Disputes Collection Letter
--------------------------------------------------------
Theodore Vintila, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Valentine & Kebartas, LLC and
LVNV Funding, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-02650, (S.D. Ind.,
August 27, 2018), seeks actual and statutory damages, costs and
reasonable attorneys' fees under the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

Defendants operate a nationwide debt collection business and
attempts to collect debts from consumers in virtually every state,
including consumers in the State of Indiana. They attempted to
collect a defaulted consumer debt, which was allegedly owed for a
Capital One account. However, said letter failed to state
effectively the name of the creditor to whom the debt was then
owed.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      David J. Philipps, Esq.
      Mary E. Philipps, Esq.
      Carissa K. Rasch, Esq.
      Angie K. Robertson, Esq
      PHILIPPS & PHILIPPS, LTD.
      9760 S. Roberts Road, Suite One
      Palos Hills, IL 60465
      Tel: (708) 974-2900
      Fax: (708) 974-2907
      Email: davephilipps@aol.com
             mephilipps@aol.com
             carissa@philippslegal.com
             angie@philippslegal.com

             - and -

      John T. Steinkamp, Esq.
      5214 S. East Street, Suite D1
      Indianapolis, IN 46227
      Tel: (317) 780-8300
      Fax: (317) 217-1320
      Email: steinkamplaw@yahoo.com


VANGUARD NATURAL: Dec. 14 Final Approval Hearing in Hurwitz Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vanguard Natural Resources, 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 court
in Robert Hurwitz v. Eric Mullins et al., has scheduled a hearing
to consider final approval of the settlement on December 14, 2018.

In June and July 2015, purported unitholders of LRR Energy, L.P.
("LRE") filed four lawsuits challenging Vanguard's 2015 merger with
LRE (the "LRE Merger").

These lawsuits were styled (a) Barry Miller v. LRR Energy, L.P. et
al., Case No. 11087-VCG, in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware; (b) Christopher Tiberio v. Eric Mullins et al., Cause No.
2015-39864, in the District Court of Harris County, Texas, 334th
Judicial District; (c) Eddie Hammond v. Eric Mullins et al., Cause
No. 2015-40154, in the District Court of Harris County, Texas,
295th Judicial District; and (d) Ronald Krieger v. LRR Energy, L.P.
et al., Civil Action No. 4:15-cv-2017, in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston
Division. These lawsuits have been voluntarily dismissed or
nonsuited.

On August 18, 2015, another purported LRE unitholder (the "LRE
Plaintiff") filed a putative class action lawsuit in connection
with the LRE Merger. This lawsuit is styled Robert Hurwitz v. Eric
Mullins et al., Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-00711-MAK, in the United
States District Court for the District of Delaware (the "LRE
Lawsuit"). On June 22, 2016, the LRE Plaintiff filed his Amended
Class Action Complaint (the "Amended LRE Complaint") against LRE,
the members of the board of directors of the general partner of
LRE, Vanguard, Lighthouse Merger Sub, LLC, and the members of
Vanguard's board of directors (the "LRE Lawsuit Defendants").

In the Amended LRE Complaint, the LRE Plaintiff alleges multiple
causes of action under the Securities Act and Exchange Act related
to the registration statement and proxy statement filed with the
SEC in connection with the LRE Merger (the "LRE Proxy").

In general, the LRE Plaintiff alleges that the LRE Proxy failed,
among other things, to disclose allegedly material details
concerning Vanguard's (x) debt obligations and (y) ability to
maintain distributions to unitholders. Based on these allegations,
the LRE Plaintiff sought, among other relief, to rescind the LRE
Merger, and an award of damages, attorneys' fees, and costs.

On January 2, 2018, the court in the LRE Lawsuit certified a class
of plaintiffs that includes all persons or entities holding LRE
common units as of August 28, 2015, through the close of the LRE
Merger on October 5, 2015, but excluding the LRE Lawsuit Defendants
and certain related persons and entities (the "LRE Class"). The
window for potential members of the LRE Class to request exclusion
from the LRE Class closed on May 29, 2018, with 22 LRE unitholders
timely requesting exclusion.

On June 27, 2018, the LRE Lawsuit Defendants and the LRE Plaintiff,
on his own behalf and on behalf of the LRE Class, entered into a
stipulation of settlement (the "Stipulation").

As amended on July 11, 2018, and on July 25, 2018, the Stipulation
provides that the LRE Class will settle and release all claims
against the LRE Lawsuit Defendants relating to the LRE Merger, in
exchange for an aggregate settlement payment of $8.0 million. Of
that settlement amount, Vanguard will contribute $0.7 million, with
the remainder to be paid by the insurers of the LRE Lawsuit
Defendants. The LRE Lawsuit Defendants continue to deny all
allegations of liability or wrongdoing.

On July 18, 2018, the court held a hearing to consider whether to
preliminarily approve the proposed settlement. In response to
matters raised at that hearing, on July 25, 2018, the LRE Lawsuit
Defendants and the LRE Plaintiff amended the Stipulation and
submitted to the court a revised notice of proposed settlement,
proof of claim and release form, and summary notice of proposed
settlement. On July 26, 2018, the court entered an order
preliminarily approving the settlement as set forth in the amended
Stipulation.

The court has scheduled a hearing to consider final approval of the
settlement on December 14, 2018. At that hearing, the court will
determine, among other things, whether the proposed settlement is
fair and reasonable to the LRE Class and should be approved,
thereby forever barring the LRE Class (other than potential members
excluded therefrom) from asserting any of the released claims
against the LRE Lawsuit Defendants.

Vanguard Natural Resources, Inc., an independent exploration and
production company, focuses on the production and development of
oil and natural gas properties in the United States. The company
was founded in 2006 and is headquartered in Houston, Texas.


VERMYCK LLC: Gomes Suit Seeks Damages for Rent Overcharges, Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jacobus Gomes and Kathryn Gomes, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Vermyck LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 713219/2018 (N.Y. Sup., August 27, 2018), seeks money
damages, disgorgement of profits from fees earned as a direct and
proximate result of rent overcharges and fees, costs and
disbursements incurred in accordance with the Rent Stabilization
Law and the Rent Stabilization Code.

Jacobus and Katherine Gomes reside in Apartment 4G at 28-30 34th
Street which Vermyck owns and operates.  The Defendants allegedly
failed to provide their tenants with rent-stabilized leases as a
condition of receiving the tax benefits under the Rent
Stabilization Code. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lucas A. Ferrara, Esq.
      Jarred I. Kassenoff, Esq.
      Roger A. Sachar Jr., Esq.
      NEWMAN FERRARA LLP
      1250 Broadway, 27th Floor
      New York, NY 10001
      Tel: (212) 619-5400
      Email: lferrara@nfllp.com
             ikassenoff@nfllp.com
             rsachar@nfllp.com


WEBCOLLEX LLC: Hightower Alleges Wrongful Debt Collections
----------------------------------------------------------
DUANE HIGHTOWER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WEBCOLLEX, LLC, d/b/a CKS FINANCIAL OLIPHANT
FINANCIAL, LLC; and JOHN DOES 1-25, Case No. 3:18-cv-12457-FLW-LHG
(D.N.J., Aug. 5, 2018) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and
unconscionable means to collect a debt. The case is assigned to
Judge Freda L. Wolfson, and referred to Magistrate Judge Lois H.
Goodman.

WEBCOLLEX, LLC, d/b/a CKS Financial Oliphant Financial, LLC is
engaged in the business as debt collector. [BN]

The case is represented by:

          Ben A. Kaplan, Esq.
          280 Prospect Ave. 6G6G
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 803-6611
          Facsimile: (866) 596-4973
          E-mail: benkap232@aol.com


WESTPORT HOMES: Compelled to Produce Docs in Coleman Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JAMAL COLEMAN, et al., Movants, v. WESTPORT HOMES,
INC., Respondent, Civil Action No. 2:18-mc-31 (S.D. Ohio),
Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, granted the motion
filed ants, Jamal Coleman and Sheena Coleman, seeking an Order
compelling Respondent Westport to produce documents in response to
a Nov. 29, 2017 subpoena issued in the underlying action, Jamal
Coleman, et al. v. Weyerhaeuser Company, Case No.
1:17-cv-01093-VAC-SRF, pending in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Delaware.

On Aug. 4, 2017, the Movants initiated the Underlying Action by
filing a class action complaint against Weyerhaeuser.  Weyerhaeuser
produces and sells joists for installation in homes and other
structures.  The Movants allege that Weyerhaeuser produced and sold
TJI Joists with Flak Jacket Protection, a proprietary,
factory-applied coating designed to enhance the Joists' fire
resistance.  They further allege that that the Joists are defective
because the Flak Jacket Protection emits toxic formaldehyde fumes
to extents that render the homes uninhabitable.  According to them,
the defective Joists affected thousands of homes around the
country.

They Movants assert claims against Weyerhaeuser in the Underlying
Action for breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty,
violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, negligence, failure
to warn, violations of the Delaware Consumer Fraud Act, and unjust
enrichment, and they further seek relief under the Declaratory
Judgment Act.

The Movants contend that they have identified at least 35 builders
who were involved in the construction of new homes affected by the
defective Joists, including Westport.  According to them, Westport
built and sold approximately 100 new homes containing the defective
Joists.  As such, they contend that Westport uniquely possesses
relevant and discoverable information concerning the impact the
Joists had on home value and marketability, as well as identifying
information regarding class members.

Movants served Westport with the Subpoena on Nov. 29, 2017,
requesting production of 18 categories of documents.  Following
Westport's objections and various meet-and-confer efforts, the
parties were able to reach agreement with respect to 10 out of the
18 categories of documents, whether through Westport's production
of documents or Movants' agreement to forego certain requests.

In briefing related to the instant dispute, the Movants agreed to
forego their request for an additional four categories of
documents, leaving the Court to resolve the parties' dispute over
whether Westport must produce the following remaining four
categories of documents: (i) all documents related to diminution in
value of homes due to the defective Joists; (ii) purchase and sale
agreements for all homes in the same development as affected homes,
along with document sufficient to determine which homes have
similar layouts or features and which homes did or did not have the
Joists; (iii) documents sufficient to show how long homes with
defective Joist remained on the market in comparison with homes
that did not have defective Joists; and (iv) all disclosures to
buyers and realtors regarding the defective Joists, formaldehyde,
or remediation, as well as all related communications.

The Movants maintain that the foregoing documents are relevant to
the Underlying Action to determine how the Joists affected the
value and marketability of homes containing the Joists.

Westport counters that as a custom home builder it does not possess
many of the documents the Movants request, and insists that the
remaining documents are irrelevant to the Underlying Action.  It
maintains, the only documents it possesses that could be relevant
to the Underlying Action are purchase and sales documents related
to the Five Failed Closing Homes, and it has already produced those
documents, albeit in redacted form.

In addition, Westport argues that as a custom home builder, the
majority of the homes it constructs are built for a specific buyer,
not as inventory homes to place on the market, such that it has no
relevant information concerning how long Affected Homes remained on
the market.  Westport acknowledges that it constructs a small
number of inventory homes, but maintains that only four of its
Select Inventory Homes contained defective Joists, and the Joists
had no effect on the price or marketability of those homes.  Thus,
documents related to its Select Inventory Homes are irrelevant,
according to Westport.

Judge Vascura finds the Movant's Motion to be well taken.  She
directed the parties to meet and confer to reach agreement as to
the protection of Westport's proprietary and trade secret
information, consistent with the terms of the Stipulated Protective
Order in the Underlying Action.  She expects that the parties will
be able to reach agreement using the confidentiality designations
provided in the Stipulated Protective Order.  Once agreement is
reached, Westport is ordered to produce all documents related to
the diminution in value of homes due to the defective Joists,
including unredacted versions of the documents it has already
produced relating to the Five Failed Closing Homes, as well as
unredacted early and final purchase and sales documents related to
all remaining Affected Homes.

The Judge odered Westport to produce purchase contracts for all
homes located in a development with an Affected Home, along with
documents sufficient to determine which homes have similar layouts
or features and which homes have defective Joists, from one year
prior to the date the defect in the Joists was first disclosed to
Westport through one year after the date Westport closed on the
sale of the last Affected Home.

Next, the Judge ordered Westport to produce documents sufficient to
show how long homes with defective Joists remained on the market as
compared to homes without defective Joists, including documents
sufficient to determine how long affected Select Inventory Homes
remained on the market in comparison with similar unaffected Select
Inventory Homes.

Finally, she ordered Westport to produce copies of all disclosures
it provided to actual and prospective buyers and realtors regarding
the defective Joists, as well as all related communications.

In sum, Judge Vascura granted the Movants' Motion to Compel.  She
directed the parties to meet and confer in an effort to reach
agreement on appropriate confidentiality designations to protect
against the improper use or disclosure of Westport's proprietary
and trade secret information.  She expects that the parties will be
able to reach agreement using the confidentiality designations
provided in the Stipulated Protective Order in the Underlying
Action.  Once such agreement is reached, Westport is ordered to
produce unredacted versions of the documents falling within the
four categories set forth.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 27, 2018 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/pdJdIV from Leagle.com.

Jamal Coleman & Sheena Coleman, Plaintiffs, represented by Matthew
A. Dooley -- MDooley@omdplaw.com -- O'Toole, McLaughlin, Dooley &
Pecora, Co. LPA, Joseph C. Hashmall -- jhashmall@bm.net -- Berger &
Montague, pro hac vice & Lawrence Deutsch -- ldeutsch@bm.net --
Berger & Montague, P.C., pro hac vice.

Westport Homes, Inc., Movant, represented by Hansel H. Rhee --
hansel.rhee@icemiller.com -- Ice Miller LLP.


WINDMILL HEALTH: Casillas Files Suit Over Under-filled Snack Food
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Miltita Casillas, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Windmill Health Products, LLC and
Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-05484,
(C.D. Cal., June 20, 2018), seeks damages, injunctive relief and
any other available legal or equitable remedies for violation of
California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act and the Fair Packaging and
Labeling Act.

Casillas purchased Defendant's Super Greens Organic Greens, Fruit &
Vegetable Formula, Delicious Berry flavor product for personal
consumption. Plaintiff alleges that the container had more than 50%
empty space, or slack-fill. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
     PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS - A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
     4100 Newport Place, Ste. 800
     Newport Beach, CA 92660
     Tel: (949) 706-6464
     Fax: (949) 706-6469
     Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com


WINDSTREAM HOLDINGS: Doppelt Class Action Concluded
---------------------------------------------------
Windstream 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 parties in the amended
Doppelt v. Windstream Holdings, Inc., et al. lawsuit have reached a
settlement of all claims that was approved by the court and the
case was dismissed.

On February 9, 2015, a putative stockholder filed a Shareholder
Class Action Complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery (the
"Court"), captioned Doppelt v. Windstream Holdings, Inc., et al.,
C.A. No. 10629-VCN, against the Company and its board of directors.
This complaint was accompanied by a motion for a preliminary
injunction seeking to enjoin the spin-off.

The Court, ruling from the bench on February 19, 2015, the day
before a special meeting of stockholders was scheduled to vote on a
reverse stock split and amended governing documents (the
"Proposals"), denied plaintiff's motion for a preliminary
injunction, reasoning that much of the information sought by
plaintiff had been disclosed in public filings available on the
United States Securities and Exchange Commission's website, the
Windstream Holdings' board of directors was in no way conflicted,
and while approval of the Proposals would facilitate the spin-off,
approval was not necessary to effect the spin-off.

On March 16, 2015, plaintiff, joined by a second putative
Windstream stockholder, filed an Amended Shareholder Class Action
Complaint alleging breaches of fiduciary duty by the Company and
its Board concerning Windstream's disclosures and seeking to
rescind the spin-off and unspecified monetary damages.

On February 5, 2016, the Court dismissed Windstream as a named
party and also dismissed the plaintiffs' demand to rescind the
spin-off, but otherwise denied Windstream’s motion to dismiss
plaintiffs' claims. On or about January 27, 2017, the plaintiffs
filed a motion seeking class certification which the Court granted
on April 17, 2017.

The parties reached a settlement of all claims that was approved by
the court at a hearing on June 20, 2018, and the case was
dismissed.

Windstream Holdings, Inc. provides network communications and
technology solutions in the United States. Its Consumer & Small
Business segment offers services, including traditional local and
long-distance voice services, and high-speed Internet services; and
value-added services, such as security and online back-up. The
company was incorporated in 2013 and is based in Little Rock,
Arkansas.


WISCONSIN: Court Grants Bid for Summary Judgment in Austin Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DAVID D. AUSTIN II, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. JUDY P. SMITH, EDWARD
WALL, REXFORD SMITH, and CATHY A. JESS, Defendants, Case No.
15-cv-525-jdp (W.D. Wis.), Judge James D. Peterson of the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin granted
summary judgment in the Defendants' favor.

Austin, a former prisoner at the Oshkosh Correctional Institution
("OCI"), alleges that the acrylic sheets covering the windows of
the cells in certain blocks of OCI cause the cells to be extremely
hot and potentially unsafe.  OCI is a medium-security correctional
institution for adult male inmates.  It comprises 12 housing units,
each of which houses about 150 to 200 inmates.  The S-Unit is a
restrictive housing unit; the remaining 11 units house general
population inmates and feature various programs, groups, and
accommodations.  The units also vary in their design and
construction.

The case concerns two units in particular: R-Unit and W-Unit.
R-Unit and W-Unit were designed to be available for use as
restrictive housing units if necessary.  The cells in both units
have steel doors and toilets, allowing the cells to be locked at
night. And until recently, the cell windows in both units were
covered with acrylic sheets and therefore could not be opened,
whereas windows in other units may be opened between May and
October.  These acrylic coverings are the focus of the suit.

Austin was an inmate at OCI from June 2012 to June 2016.  During
that time, he was housed in several units. He was housed in the
R-Unit for two days in 2012 and again from Nov. 21, 2014, to June
2, 2016.  

On Aug. 19, 2015, he filed a complaint concerning the conditions in
the R-Unit cells.  The Judge allowed him to proceed on an Eighth
Amendment conditions-of-confinement claim and a Fourteenth
Amendment equal protection claim based on his allegations that the
acrylic plastic coverings caused his cell to be extremely hot and
therefore unsafe.  Later, after Austin was released from prison and
obtained counsel, the Judge allowed him to proceed on Fourteenth
Amendment due process claims, too, and he allowed the case to
proceed as a class action.

The class members are all inmates who were housed in R-Unit between
August 19, 2009, and April 30, 2016, or who were housed in W-Unit
between Aug. 19, 2009, and Feb. 28, 2016.  During this time,
Deendant Judy Smith was the warden of OCI, and Defendant Rexford
Smith was the Corrections Unit Supervisor of the R-Unit.  Defendant
Wall was the secretary of the Wisconsin Department of Corrections
until Feb. 27, 2016.  Defendant Jess is the current secretary of
the Department of Corrections.

The parties have filed cross-motions for summary judgment.  The
Defendants have also moved to decertify the class.

Judge Peterson finds that courts are not in agreement that
discriminating against an inmate for no rational reason -- but not
for the inmate's membership in an identifiable group -- violates
the inmate's rights under the Equal Protection Clause.  Rather, as
Judge Wood explained in Del Marcelle, qualified immunity will
frequently relieve state actors of the burden of litigation in this
area of class-of-one claims: if discretion is broad and the rules
are vague, it will be difficult to show both a violation of a
constitutional right and the clearly established nature of that
right.

So regardless whether the Defendants violated Austin's equal
protection rights, they are entitled to qualified immunity, and the
Judge will grant summary judgment in the Defendants' favor on
Austin's equal protection claim.  He will deny the Defendants'
motion to decertify the class, including Wall's motion to join the
state Defendants' briefing, as moot.

At the beginning of the case, the Judge expected to get a good
explanation of why the windows in R-Unit and W-Unit, but not other
units at OCI, were covered with acrylic sheets.  He never got that
explanation.  Wisconsin inmates cannot expect air-conditioned
luxury, but neither should they swelter needlessly.  He credits
prison administration for removing the acrylic sheets, but it
should not have taken the lawsuit to prompt that action.  He
concludes that conditions in R-Unit and W-Unit were not so
dangerous that they violated the Constitution.

Accordingly, Judge Peterson (i) granted Defendants Judy P. Smith,
Rexford Smith, and Cathy A. Jess's motion for summary judgment;
9ii) granted Defendant Edward Wall's motion for summary judgment;
(iii) denied the Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment; (iv)
denied as moot Defendants Judy P. Smith, Rexford Smith, and Cathy
A. Jess's motion for decertification of the class; and (v) denied
as moot Defendant Edward Wall's motion to join the state
Defendants' brief in reply.  The clerk of court is directed to
enter judgment in favor of the Defendants and close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 27, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/EucbHx from Leagle.com.

David D. Austin, II, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas J. Nitschke
-- tjnitschke@blaisenitschkelaw.com -- Blaise & Nitschke, P.C.,
Heather Lea Blaise -- hblaise@blaisenitschkelaw.com -- Blaise &
Nitschke, P.C. & Lana Bajes Nassar, Blaise & Nitschke, P.C.

Judy P. Smith, Warden, Oshkosh Correctional Institution,
individually and in her official capacity, Rexford Smith, Unit
Manager, R-Unit, Oshkosh Correctional Institution, individually and
in his official capacity & Cathy A. Jess, Defendants, represented
by Michael David Morris, State of Wisconsin Department of Justice,
Gesina S. Carson, Wisconsin Department of Justice & Katherine D.
Spitz, Wisconsin Department of Justice.

Edward Wall, Secretary, Wisconsin Department of Corrections,
individually and in his official capacity, Defendant, represented
by Gesina S. Carson, Wisconsin Department of Justice, Katherine D.
Spitz, Wisconsin Department of Justice, Samuel C. Hall, Jr.,
Crivello Carlson, S.C. & Zachary James Flood --
zflood@crivellocarlson.com -- CRIVELLO CARLSON, S.C.



                            *********

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 ***