CAR_Public/180913.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, September 13, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 184

                            Headlines

569 HUDSON LLC: Faces Zayas Suit in S.D. New York
7-ELEVEN INC: Acharya Suit Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA
A.I.S. COMMERCIAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Kozina Suit Alleges
AB CAR RENTAL: Settlement in Abdi Class Suit Has Final Approval
AFNI INC: Hallmon Sues over Debt Collection Practices

ALLY FINANCIAL: Violates Disabilities Act, Mendez Suit Claims
ARCHWAY ON PEARL: Underpays Cooks, Other Staff, Moreno et al. Say
ASPEN NATIONAL: Deppen Disputes Collection Letter
BASF AG: Bryn Hill Hits Isocyanate Price-rigging
BETTER GUTTER: Dash Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages

BOSTON ROAD: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Maldonado et al. Claim
CARDINAL LOGISTICS: Faces Dwight Labor Suit in Sacramento
CBRE GROUP: Reached Tentative Agreement in Florida Class Suit
CHICAGO TECH: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Frierson Suit Alleges
CHICAGO, IL: 7th Cir. Affirms Summary Ruling in Sex Offenders' Suit

CLARK COUNTY, NV: Court Extends Stay of Suit vs. Mazo
CLECO CORPORATE: Continues to Defend Merger-Related Class Suit
CLIENT SERVICES: Court Certifies Class in Steffek FDCPA Suit
COMPLYRIGHT INC: Faces Christiansen Suit over Data Breach
CONTINENTAL SERVICE: Goldson Seeks Damages Under FDCPA

DENONE LLC: Callaway Sues Over Illegal Tip-credit, Missing Wages
DERREL'S MINI: Court Denies Bid to Remand Kutzman FCRA Suit
DIRECT ENERGY: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Shackelford Alleges
DIVERSIFIED RESTAURANT: Cross Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
DOCTORS ASSOCIATES: Greenburg Hits Illegal Telemarketing SMS

DYNAMIC MEDICAL: Underpays Administrators, Castellano Suit Claims
EDDIE BAUER: Court Compels Veridian to Produce Factual Work Product
EGALET CORP: Bid to Dismiss ARYMO ER-Related Suit Granted
ELITE FUNDING: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Abante Rooter Alleges
ENERGY TRANSFER: Sept. 2019 Trial Set in Regency-ETP Merger Suit

ENERGY XXI GULF: Faces Franchi Suit over Cox Oil Merger
EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Davis Sues over Background Checks
EQUITY RESIDENTIAL: R. Baker's Suit Remains in Mass. District Court
ETRADE FINANCIAL: 2d Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Ryner Suit
FCA US: Court Grants Dismissal of Swanigan's LMRA Suit

FLEETCOR TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Georgia Class Suit
FLORIDA: Court Dismisses Lee County Prisoners' Suit
GC SERVICES: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Neuman Suit Says
GLOBALSCAPE INC: Continues to Defend Giovagnoli Class Action Suit
GOLDEN GATE: Settlement in Jama Suit Has Final Approval

GOOGLE LLC: Court Denies Class Certification in Woods' AdWords Suit
HP HOOD LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Phillips Suit Alleges
INNATE INTELLIGENCE: Profax Allowed to Answer in Levine's TCPA Suit
IQ DATA: Illegally Charged Interest on Bonds, Esposito Suit Says
IRISH INVASION: Gonzales Sues Over Illegal Tip Credit

J CHOO USA: Luc Burbon Files ADA Suit in N.Y.
J. RECKNER: Judgment on Pleadings Bid in Lyngaas TCPA Suit Denied
JAMBA INC: Fu Suit Seeks to Halt Focus Merger, Seeks Projections
JB RAILROAD: Collins Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Richardson Sues over Sale of Talc Products

KERYX BIOPHARMA: Asks Court to Reconsider Order on Dismissal Bid
KITH RETAIL: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Delacruz Alleges
KOHL'S DEPARTMENT: Petition for Rehearing in Chowning Suit Denied
L'OREAL USA: Cosmetic Bottle Dispenser Defective, Consumers Say
LANGHAM HOTELS: Faces Burbon Suit Asserting ADA Violation

LUMICO LIFE: Foote Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
MARGE GROUP: Figueroa Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
MARICOPA, AZ: Injunction/Compensation Order in Melendres Affirmed
MARKETSOURCE INC: Court Issues Protective Order in Brum's Suit
MASSACHUSETTS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Union Alleges

MASSIMO DUTTI: Violates Disabilities Act, Burbon Suit Alleges
MERCANTILE ADJUSTMENT: Lopez Alleges Wrongful Debt Collections
NATERA INC: Defendants' Bid for Judgment on Pleadings Granted
NC KKA LLC:  Han Files Fraud Class Action in N.Y.
NEVRO CORP: Holzer & Holzer Files Class Action Lawsuit

NEVRO CORP: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
NORTHERN OIL: Awaits Court OK on Bid to Dismiss Fries Suit
OHIO: Court Dismisses Class Claim in RCI Prisoners Suit
OPEN DOOR: Court Requires Supplemental Brief in Conde FLSA Suit
OVERSTOCK.COM: Consolidated Utah Class Suit Voluntarily Dismissed

PALM BEACH CTY, FL: Sheriff Illegally Detained Minors, Suit Says
PERRIGO CO: Awaits Attorney General's Opinion on Settlement
PETCO ANIMAL: Gamez Files Suit Over Personal Info Disclosure
PLAIN GREEN: Galloway Sues over Usurious Loan Rates
POLLACK & ROSEN: Silberman Sues in S.D. Fla. Over FDCPA Violation

RAYONIER ADVANCED: Bid to Dismiss Transferred Class Suit Pending
RESTORATION ROBOTICS: Guerrini Hits Stock Drop from Low Sales
RIDLEY'S FAMILY: Esparsen Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA
ROBERT W BAIRD: Faces Mendez Suit Alleging ADA Violation
SCHELL & KAMPETER: Dog Food Contaminated, Grossman Suit Says

SCYNEXIS INC: Continues to Defend Gibson Class Action
SEQUEL NATURAL: Faces Bland Suit over Contaminated Protein Shakes
SETERUS INC: Court Narrows Claims in Baxa FCRA/RESPA Suit
SHERWIN-WILLIAMS: NJ Superfund Neighbors Can't Sue Over Claims
SHUTTERFLY INC: Continues to Defend Monroy Suit

SHUTTERFLY INC: Taylor Class Action Still Ongoing
SHUTTERFLY INC: Unit Defending Against Vigeant Class Action
SINCLAIR BROADCAST: Ford Suit Alleges Sherman Act Violation
SINGER FINANCIAL: Court Denies Class Certification in TCPA Suit
SODEXO INC: Settlement in Mejia FLSA Suit Has Final Approval

SOLCO HEALTHCARE: Valsartan Lawsuit Filed Over Contaminant
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Court Dismisses Miller's BIPA Suit
ST JOHN KNITS: Burbon Suit Asserts ADA Breach
SURGERY PARTNERS: Hearing Today on Bid to Dismiss Class Suit
SYMANTEC CORP: Court Consolidates Securities Fraud Suits

SYNCHRONOSS TECHNOLOGIES: Bid to Drop New Jersey Suit Pending
TECHTRONIC INDUSTRIES: Selling Illegal Knives, Says Lakatosh Suit
TESLA INC: CEO Tweets Under Fire, Horwitz Hits Share Price Drop
TMCSF INC: Cal. App. Affirms Denial of Arbitration in Fuentes Suit
UNITED STATES: Court Dismisses Suit Over Superstorm Sandy

UNITED STATES: Providence Mother Reacts to Class-Action Lawsuit
UNITED STATES: Veterans Can Now File Class-Action Lawsuits
VALUE ONE CORPORATION: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Fabricant Says
VISUALSCAPE INC: Underpays Landscapers, Moresca Suit Alleges
WAL-MART STORES: Workers Sue Over Pregnancy Discrimination

WINDSTREAM SERVICES: Doppelt Class Action Concluded
WOOD RIVER: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Property Liens
XBIOTECH INC: Still Defends Rezko Class Action

                            *********

569 HUDSON LLC: Faces Zayas Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 569 Hudson LLC. The
case is captioned as EDWIN ZAYAS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 569 HUDSON LLC; and J.P.G.
LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-07091-GHW (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 7,
2018) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The
case is assigned to Judge Gregory H. Woods.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James E. Bahamonde, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JAMES E. BAHAMONDE, PC
          2501 Jody Court
          North Bellmore, NY 11710
          Telephone: (516) 783-9662
          Facsimile: (646) 435-4376
          E-mail: James@CivilRightsNY.com


7-ELEVEN INC: Acharya Suit Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
DEVENDRA RAJ ACHARYA, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. 7-ELEVEN, INC. and JIMMY K SOLANKI, Case No.
1:18-cv-08010-RJS (S.D.N.Y., September 3, 2018), seeks to recover
alleged unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

7-Eleven is a corporation incorporated under the laws of the state
of New York.  7-Eleven does business in New York engaged in
business of selling goods.  Jimmy K. Solanki is the owner and a
franchisee of 7-Eleven.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Durga P. Bhurtel, Esq.
          BHURTEL LAW FIRM PLLC
          37-49 75th Street, 2nd Floor
          Jackson Heights, NY 11372
          Telephone: (718) 509-6181
          Facsimile: (917) 396-4622
          E-mail: deb@attorneybhurtel.com


A.I.S. COMMERCIAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Kozina Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN KOZINA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. A.I.S. COMMERCIAL PARTS AND SERVICE, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01820 (N.D. Ohio, Aug. 7, 2018) is an
action against the Defendant to recover unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, as well as for liquidated damages, attorneys' fees,
and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mr. Kozina was employed by the Defendants as an hourly, non-exempt
employee in Cuyahoga County, Ohio.

A.I.S. Commercial Parts And Service, Inc. was founded in 1981. The
company's line of business includes specialized repair services.
[BN]

The plaintiff is represented by:

          Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
          Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
          Michaela Calhoun, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER LLC
          7266 Portage St., N.W., Suite D
          Massillon, OH 44646
          Telephone: (330) 470-4428
          E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com
                  sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com


AB CAR RENTAL: Settlement in Abdi Class Suit Has Final Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SAMATAR ABDI, Plaintiff, v. AB CAR RENTAL SERVICES,
INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-00421-RSL
(W.D. Wash.), Judge Robert S. Lasnik of the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Washington, Seattle, granted the
Plaintiff's Motion for Final Approval of Settlement.

Having considered these materials and the statements of counsel at
the Final Approval Hearing on July 31, 2018, the Judge finds the
Settlement Agreement fair, reasonable, and adequate to the
Settlement Class Members.

The Settlement Class consists of all employees of the Defendant who
were on the Defendant's payroll who are alleged to have been either
Hospitality Workers or 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 the present, and who were paid less
than the prevailing minimum wage prescribed by the City of SeaTac
Municipal Code 7.45.050, i.e., a base rate of $15 per hour in 2014
and $15.24 in 2015 and 2016.

The Judge finds that the Notice of Class Action Settlement fully
satisfied the requirements of CR 23(c)(2) and CR 23(e) and the
requirements of due process.

He dismissed the action and any and all settled claims with
prejudice as to the Plaintiff and all the Settlement Class Members,
and without costs or attorney's fees to any Party except as
provided under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the Final
Judgment, and the Court's Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion for
Award of Attorney's Fees and Expenses.

The parties are directed to proceed with the settlement payment
procedures specified under the terms of the Settlement Agreement,
including those contained in Articles II and III of the Settlement
Agreement.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 31, 2018 Order is available at
https://bit.ly/2QksQKX from Leagle.com.

Samatar Abdi, Plaintiff, represented by Cleveland Stockmeyer --
cleve@clevelandstockmeyer.co -- CLEVELAND STOCKMEYER, Daniel R.
Whitmore -- dan@whitmorelawfirm.com -- & Duncan Calvert Turner --
dturner@badgleymullins.com -- BADGLEY MULLINS TURNER PLLC.

AB Car Rental Services, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendant,
represented by Breanne Sheetz Martell -- bsheetz@littler.com --
LITTLER MENDELSON & Ryan Paul Hammond -- rhammond@littler.com --
LITTLER MENDELSON.


AFNI INC: Hallmon Sues over Debt Collection Practices
-----------------------------------------------------
SONJA HALLMON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AFNI, INC., Case No. 1:18-cv-01057-LJO-BAM
(E.D. Cal., Aug. 7, 2018) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and
unconscionable means to collect a debt. The case is assigned to
Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill and referred to Magistrate Judge
Barbara A. McAuliffe.

Afni, Inc. provides customer engagement solutions to business in
the United States. The company was formerly known as Anderson
Financial Network, Inc. and changed its name to Afni, Inc. in June
2000. Afni, Inc. was founded in 1936 and is based in Bloomington,
Illinois with operations in Opelika, Alabama; Tucson, Arizona;
Evans, Colorado; Bloomington, Illinois; Bowling Green, Kentucky;
Quezon City, the Philippines. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Aaron Stieglitz, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN A. STIEGLITZ
          11845 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 800
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (323) 979-2063
          Facsimile: (323) 488-6748
          E-mail: jonathan.a.stieglitz@gmail.com


ALLY FINANCIAL: Violates Disabilities Act, Mendez Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ally Financial Inc.
The case is styled as Himelda Mendez, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Ally Financial Inc., Case No.
1:18-cv-08016 (S.D.N.Y., September 3, 2018).

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

Ally Financial Inc. provides various financial products and
services for consumers, businesses, automotive dealers, and
corporate clients in the United States and Canada.  The Company
operates Automotive Finance Operations, Insurance Operations,
Mortgage Finance Operations, and Corporate Finance Operations
segments.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ARCHWAY ON PEARL: Underpays Cooks, Other Staff, Moreno et al. Say
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MIGUEL ONOFRE-MORENO, GABRIEL ONOFRE, and RIGOBERTO FLORES,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. ARCHWAY ON PEARL, INC. d/b/a ARCHWAY CAFE; ARCHWAY ON
WATER CORP. dba ARCHWAY CAFE; ARTHUR HASANI a/k/a ARTUR HASANI; and
QERIME MARKE, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-04440-FB-RML (E.D.N.Y.,
Aug. 7, 2018) is an action against the Defendants to recover earned
wages, minimum wages, and overtime compensation under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Mr. Onofre-Moreno was employed by the Defendants as a cook from
March 27, 2014 to August 3, 2018. Mr. Onofre was employed as a cook
from June 2014 to August 2, 2018.  Mr. Flores was employed as
delivery worker from July 2014 to July 22, 2018.

Archway on Pearl, Inc. d/b/a Archway Cafe is a corporation
organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin Cilenti, Esq.
          Peter Hans Cooper, Esq.
          CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
          708 Third Avenue-61th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 209-3933
          Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
          E-mail: pcooper@jepelaw.com


ASPEN NATIONAL: Deppen Disputes Collection Letter
-------------------------------------------------
Maryjo Deppen (a/k/a Mary Jo Paff), individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Aspen National
Financial, Inc. (d/b/a Aspen National Collections) and John Does
1-25, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-01563 (D. Colo., June 21, 2018),
seeks damages, attorneys' fees and such other relief for violation
of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Aspen was tasked to collect a consumer debt Deppen owes Colorado
Mesa University. On or around February 1, 2018, Deppen received a
collection letter from Aspen that contains a threat of a balance
increase and misleads the consumer into believing she must pay
immediately rather than to take her 30 day period provided for by
the Statute to either validate or dispute her debt. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Yaakov Saks, Esq.
     YAAKOV SAKS
     Stein Saks, PLLC
     285 Passaic Street
     Hackensack, NJ 07601
     Tel: (201) 282-6500
     Fax: (201) 282-6501
     Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com


BASF AG: Bryn Hill Hits Isocyanate Price-rigging
------------------------------------------------
Bryn Hill Industries, Inc. on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated Plaintiffs, v. BASF AG, BASF Corp., Bayer AG,
Bayer Corp., Covestro AG, Covestro LLC, Dowdupont Inc., Dow
Chemical Co., Huntsman Corp., Huntsman International LLC, MCNS
Polyurethanes USA, Inc., Mitsui Chemicals, Inc., Mitsui Chemicals
America, Inc., Mitsui Chemicals & SKC Polyurethanes, Inc., Wanhua
Chemical Group Co. Ltd., Wanhua Chemical (America) Co. Ltd., Wanhua
Chemical US Holding, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-07852, (S.D.
N.Y., August 28, 2018) alleges violations of federal antitrust laws
by the Defendants arising from the global supply of isocyanates by
reducing their output through coordinated plant shutdowns and
suspensions, thereby allowing lockstep price increases from on or
before January 2016 through the present.

Covestro, Dow, BASF, Huntsman, Wanhua and Mitsui manufacture
methylene diphenyl diisocyanate and toluene diisocyanate, chemicals
used in making polyurethane.

Bryn Hill Industries manufactures custom molded polyurethane foam
seating, for offices, medical/healthcare, vehicles and theaters.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William Christopher Carmody, Esq.
      Arun Subramanian, Esq.
      Seth Ard, Esq.
      SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
      1301 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
      New York, NY 10019
      Telephone: (212) 336-3330
      Facsimile: (212) 336-8340
      Email: bcarmody@susmangodfrey.com
             asubramanian@susmangodfrey.com
             sard@susmangodfrey.com


BETTER GUTTER: Dash Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------
Kevin Dash, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. A Better Gutter Cleaning, Inc. and Davis
Seaborn, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-04082, (N.D. Ga., August 27,
2018) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation owed,
liquidated damages and attorney fees for violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Dash was employed by the Defendants' gutter cleaning and repair
business located at 5075 Roswell Rd NE, Ste. E, Atlanta, GA 30342
as a foreman. Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours per week
without being paid overtime compensation, the complaint asserts.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Tyler B. Kaspers, Esq.
      THE KASPER FIRM LLC
      152 New Street, Suite 109B
      Macon, GA 31201
      Tel: (404) 994-3128
      Email: tyler@kaspersfirm.com


BOSTON ROAD: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Maldonado et al. Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD MALDONADO; and RONNIE MALDONADO, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BOSTON ROAD
EQUIPMENT RENTALS, INC.; and LAWRENCE GRITZ, Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-07111-ALC (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 7, 2018) seeks to recover from
the Defendants unpaid minimum wage, unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, damages for illegal deductions from wages,
prejudgment interest, and attorneys' fees.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as an hourly and
non-exempt employees.

Boston Road Equipment Rentals, Inc. is a corporation doing business
in the State of New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CARDINAL LOGISTICS: Faces Dwight Labor Suit in Sacramento
---------------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action lawsuit was filed against
Cardinal Logistics Management Corp. The case is captioned as
Jenkins Dwight, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Cardinal Logistics Management Corp., and
Does 1-50, Defendants, Case No. 34-2018-00238308-CU-OE-GDS (Cal.
Super., Sacramento Cty., Aug. 7, 2018).

Cardinal Logistics Management Corporation provides integrated
logistics and transportation services in the United States and
Canada. Cardinal Logistics Management Corporation was formerly
known as Cardinal Freight Carriers, Inc. and changed its name to
Cardinal Logistics Management Corporation in April 2005. The
company was founded in 1980 and is based in Concord, North Carolina
with operations in the United States and Puerto Rico. Cardinal
Logistics Management Corporation is a former subsidiary of ArcBest
Corporation. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by William L. Marder, Esq.


CBRE GROUP: Reached Tentative Agreement in Florida Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
CBRE Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the company has reached
a tentative settlement agreement in a class action lawsuit in
Florida.

In June 2016, CBRE was named as a defendant in a class action
lawsuit relating to its role as property manager of certain real
estate investment properties owned by the plaintiffs in Florida.
CBRE started managing these various properties between July 2005
and March 2007, and CBRE ceased managing these properties in
January 2011.

The third-party sponsors of such investment properties
inappropriately managed funds for the plaintiffs which resulted in
losses, used some of these funds for personal purposes, and were
imprisoned for their conduct. Since the third-party sponsors could
not answer financially for the resulting losses to the plaintiffs,
the plaintiffs made claims against CBRE generally alleging that
CBRE should have prevented the fraud perpetuated by the third-party
sponsors with respect to the properties managed by CBRE.

On August 3, 2018, the company reached a tentative settlement
agreement regarding this proceeding, which agreement is subject to
negotiation of definitive settlement documentation and court
approval, including the payment of $100 million to the plaintiffs.


CBRE Group said, "We expect that such settlement payment will be
funded principally by insurance coverage."

CBRE Group, Inc. operates as a commercial real estate services and
investment company worldwide. It operates through Americas; Europe,
Middle East and Africa; Asia Pacific; Global Investment Management;
and Development Services segments.


CHICAGO TECH: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Frierson Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Frierson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Chicago Tech Academy; Linnea Garrett; and
Tiara Wheatley, Defendants, Case No. 18CV5375 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 7,
2018) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay
minimum wages, overtime compensation, provide accurate wage
statements, and reimburse necessary business expenses.

Mr. Frierson was employed by the Defendants as hourly employees.

Chicago Tech Academy is a high school in the Chicago University
Village in Pilsen. Chicago Tech opened in September 2009. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John C. Ireland, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF JOHN C. IRELAND
          636 Spruce Street
          South Elgin, IL 60177
          Telephone: (630) 464-9675
          Facsimile: (630) 206-0889
          E-mail: attorneyireland@gmail.com


CHICAGO, IL: 7th Cir. Affirms Summary Ruling in Sex Offenders' Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, affirmed the
District Court's judgment granting Defendant's Motion for Summary
Judgment in the case captioned MICHAEL BELEY, et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF CHICAGO, Defendant-Appellee. No.
17-1449. (7th Cir.).

Michael Beley and Douglas Montgomery represent a class of sex
offenders who allege that the City of Chicago refused to register
them under the Illinois Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA)
because they could not produce proof of address.

It agreed with the plaintiffs that a homeless sex offender has a
protected liberty interest in the ability to register under SORA.
But a municipality is liable for the constitutional violations of
its officers only if the officers act pursuant to a city policy or
custom. The district court said that the plaintiffs had arguably
shown occasional lapses of judgment or individual misconduct by
police officers but not that the City had a policy or custom of
turning the homeless away.  It thus held that the City was entitled
to judgment.

The Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of due process is triggered
when the state deprives a person of life, liberty, or property.
While their arguments are not particularly clear, the plaintiffs
suggest several theories for why the City's intake officers
deprived them of a cognizable liberty interest. All of them fail.

The first is the weakest: the plaintiffs argue that they have the
right to register as sex offenders. But saying that one has the
right to register under SORA is like saying that one has the right
to serve a sentence or the right to pay taxes. SORA's registration
requirement burdens sex offenders; it is not, as the plaintiffs
contend, an aspect of their liberty.

The next argument is better, though also unsuccessful. The
plaintiffs suggest that their undisputed liberty interest in
freedom from bodily restraint triggered the Clause.
The state action relevant here, the intake officers' refusal to
register the plaintiffs did not deprive the plaintiffs of their
interest in freedom from bodily restraint, so the plaintiffs cannot
successfully argue that the loss of that interest triggered the
Clause. The plaintiffs must ground their procedural due process
claim in an interest that the offiers actually took.

That brings us to their next theory: that freedom from the
possibility of incarceration is a cognizable liberty interest in
its own right. The plaintiffs offer no support for this position.
Certainly, the Fourteenth Amendment does not protect a person's
freedom from fear of apprehension.

And the plaintiffs have not identified any other way in which the
possibility of incarceration burdens them. It does not impose
additional restrictions on where they can live, where they can
work, or what they can do; nor does it saddle them with additional
obligations like reporting requirements. In this case, however,
plaintiffs were subject to similar restraints because they were sex
offenders; SORA did not impose new restraints on them because they
were noncompliant sex offenders.

The plaintiffs float one last possibility. Even if the risk of
losing liberty does not trigger the Due Process Clause, both
Montgomery and Beley actually lost liberty for failing to register.
Montgomery was charged with violating SORA, and Beley alleges that
he suffered reputational harm when the State listed him as
non-compliant on its website. But Montgomery and Beley do not
represent a class defined as all homeless people denied
registration under SORA who were subsequently arrested or listed as
non-compliant on the State's website. They represent a class of all
persons who were not permitted to register because they were
homeless.

A full-text copy of the Seventh Circuit's August 23, 2018 Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y9g9mgbo from Leagle.com.

Andrew S. Mine, for Defendant-Appellee.

Myriam Z. Kasper, for Defendant-Appellee.

Jonathon D. Byrer, for Defendant-Appellee.

Patrick W. Morrissey, for Plaintiff-Appellant.


CLARK COUNTY, NV: Court Extends Stay of Suit vs. Mazo
-----------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Nevada issued
an Order extending Stay of Case in the case captioned JOHN and JANE
DOE I, Guardians Ad Litem for JOANN DOE I, a minor, individually
and on behalf of all those similarly situated, and JOHN and JANE
DOE II, Guardians Ad Litem for JOANN DOE II, a minor, individually
and on behalf of all those similarly situated; Plaintiffs, v.
JEREMIAH MAZO; CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT; DOES 1 through 20; DOE
1 through 20; ROE CORPORATIONS 1 through 20; Defendants. Case No.
2:16-cv-00239-APG-PAL. (D. Nev.).

Pursuant to Local Rule 6.1, the Parties hereby stipulate and agree
that the case be stayed for an additional period of 30 days and the
current discovery deadlines adjusted accordingly.

This case was filed alleging abuse of students by a former CCSD
teacher, Jeremiah Mazo, and bringing claims under Title IX against
CCSD and state tort claims against all defendants.

Discovery That Remains to be Completed

Depositions of Plaintiffs Joann Doe I and Joann Doe II;1 and

Certain Expert Depositions

Basis for Extension

The parties are continuing to negotiate a settlement in good faith
and request this stay and extension of discovery to allow the
depositions of Joann Doe I, Joann Doe II (subject to Motion for
Protective Order), and certain of the parties' expert witnesses to
take place should settlement negotiations come to an impasse. The
parties have diligently engaged in discovery and want to avoid
incurring any additional expense at this time. Accordingly, the
parties request an additional 60 day stay of this matter and
request an extension to allow for the foregoing outstanding
discovery to be completed 60 days from the current deadlines.

The new deadlines are as follows:

Discovery Cut-Off Date: October 29, 2018

Dispositive Motions: November 28, 2018

Proposed Joint Pretrial Order: December 28, 2018 or 30 days after
the Court rules on any dispositive motions.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 23, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y785d523 from Leagle.com.

John Doe I, Guardian Ad Litem, Jane Doe I, Guardian Ad Litem, Joann
Doe I, a minor, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, John Doe II, Guardian Ad Litem, Jane Doe II & Joann Doe
II, a minor, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Aaron D. Ford , Eglet Prince,
Artemus W. Ham, IV , Eglet Prince, Richard Hy & Robert T. Eglet ,
Eglet Prince.

Jeremiah Mazo, Defendant, represented by John G. George , John
George.

Clark County School District, Defendant, represented by Kara B.
Hendricks -- hendricksk@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig LLP, Mark E.
Ferrario -- ferrariom@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig, Michelle R.
Schwarz , Hall Jaffe & Clayton, LLP, Moorea L. Katz --
katzaa@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Steven T. Jaffe , Hall
Jaffe & Clayton, LLP, Tami D. Cowden -- cowdent@gtlaw.com --
Greenberg Traurig & Whitney Welch -- welchkirmsew@gtlaw.com -- c/o
Greenberg Traurig.

Clark County School District, Cross Claimant, represented by Kara
B. Hendricks , Greenberg Traurig LLP, Mark E. Ferrario , Greenberg
Traurig, Michelle R. Schwarz , Hall Jaffe & Clayton, LLP, Moorea L.
Katz , Greenberg Traurig, LLP & Steven T. Jaffe , Hall Jaffe &
Clayton, LLP.

Jeremiah Mazo, Cross Defendant, represented by John G. George ,
John George.


CLECO CORPORATE: Continues to Defend Merger-Related Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cleco Corporate Holdings LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2018, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the company
continues to defend itself against a merger-related class action
lawsuit.

In connection with the Merger, four actions were filed in the Ninth
Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish, Louisiana and three
actions were filed in the Civil District Court for Orleans Parish,
Louisiana. The petitions in each action generally alleged, among
other things, that the members of Cleco Corporation's Board of
Directors breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things,
conducting an allegedly inadequate sale process, agreeing to the
Merger at a price that allegedly undervalued Cleco, and failing to
disclose material information about the Merger.

The petitions also alleged that Cleco Partners, Cleco Corporation,
Merger Sub, and in some cases, certain of the investors in Cleco
Partners, either aided and abetted or entered into a civil
conspiracy to advance those supposed breaches of duty. The
petitions seek various remedies, including monetary damages, which
includes attorneys' fees and expenses.

The four actions filed in the Ninth Judicial District Court for
Rapides Parish are captioned as follows:

     * Braunstein v. Cleco Corporation, No. 251,383B (filed October
27, 2014),

     * Moore v. Macquarie Infrastructure and Real Assets, No.
251,417C (filed October 30, 2014),

     * Trahan v. Williamson, No. 251,456C (filed November 5, 2014),
and

     * L'Herisson v. Macquarie Infrastructure and Real Assets, No.
251,515F (filed November 14, 2014).

In November 2014, the plaintiff in the Braunstein action moved for
a dismissal of the action without prejudice, and that motion was
granted in November 2014. In December 2014, the Court consolidated
the remaining three actions and appointed interim co-lead counsel.
Also in December 2014, the plaintiffs in the consolidated action
filed a Consolidated Amended Verified Derivative and Class Action
Petition for Damages and Preliminary and Permanent Injunction (the
Consolidated Amended Petition). The consolidated action named Cleco
Corporation, its directors, Cleco Partners, and Merger Sub as
defendants.

The Consolidated Amended Petition alleged, among other things, that
Cleco Corporation's directors breached their fiduciary duties to
Cleco's shareholders and grossly mismanaged Cleco by approving the
Merger Agreement because it allegedly did not value Cleco
adequately, failing to structure a process through which
shareholder value would be maximized, engaging in self-dealing by
ignoring conflicts of interest, and failing to disclose material
information about the Merger. The Consolidated Amended Petition
further alleged that all defendants conspired to commit the
breaches of fiduciary duty.

Cleco believes that the allegations of the Consolidated Amended
Petition are without merit and that it has substantial meritorious
defenses to the claims set forth in the Consolidated Amended
Petition.

The three actions filed in the Civil District Court for Orleans
Parish are captioned as follows:

     * Butler v. Cleco Corporation, No. 2014-10776 (filed November
7, 2014),

     * Creative Life Services, Inc. v. Cleco Corporation, No.
2014-11098 (filed November 19, 2014), and

     * Cashen v. Cleco Corporation, No. 2014-11236 (filed November
21, 2014).

Both the Butler and Cashen actions name Cleco Corporation, its
directors, Cleco Partners, Merger Sub, MIRA, BCI, and John Hancock
Financial as defendants. The Creative Life Services action names
Cleco Corporation, its directors, Cleco Partners, Merger Sub, MIRA,
and Macquarie Infrastructure Partners III, L.P., as defendants.

In December 2014, the plaintiff in the Butler action filed an
Amended Class Action Petition for Damages. Each petition alleged,
among other things, that the members of Cleco Corporation's Board
of Directors breached their fiduciary duties to Cleco's
shareholders by approving the Merger Agreement because it allegedly
does not value Cleco adequately, failing to structure a process
through which shareholder value would be maximized and engaging in
self-dealing by ignoring conflicts of interest. The Butler and
Creative Life Services petitions also allege that the directors
breached their fiduciary duties by failing to disclose material
information about the Merger. Each petition further alleged that
Cleco, Cleco Partners, Merger Sub, and certain of the investors in
Cleco Partners aided and abetted the directors' breaches of
fiduciary duty.

In December 2014, the directors and Cleco filed declinatory
exceptions in each action on the basis that each action was
improperly brought in Orleans Parish and should either be
transferred to the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish
or dismissed. Also in December 2014, the plaintiffs in each action
jointly filed a motion to consolidate the three actions pending in
Orleans Parish and to appoint interim co-lead plaintiffs and
co-lead counsel.

In January 2015, the Court in the Creative Life Services case
sustained the defendants' declinatory exceptions and dismissed the
case so that it could be transferred to the Ninth Judicial District
Court for Rapides Parish. In February 2015, the plaintiffs in
Butler and Cashen also consented to the dismissal of their cases
from Orleans Parish so they could be transferred to the Ninth
Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish.

In February 2015, the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides
Parish held a hearing on a motion for preliminary injunction filed
by plaintiffs Moore, L'Herisson, and Trahan seeking to enjoin the
shareholder vote for approval of the Merger Agreement. Following
the hearing, the Court denied the plaintiffs' motion. In June 2015,
three of the plaintiffs filed their Second Consolidated Amended
Verified Derivative and Class Action Petition.

Cleco Corporate said "This will be considered according to a
schedule established by the Ninth Judicial District Court for
Rapides Parish. Cleco filed exceptions seeking dismissal of the
amended petition in July 2015."

In March 2016 and May 2016, the plaintiffs filed their Third
Consolidated Amended Verified Derivative Petition for Damages and
Preliminary and Permanent Injunction and their Fourth Verified
Consolidated Amended Class Action Petition, respectively. The
fourth petition eliminated the request for preliminary and
permanent injunction and also named an additional executive officer
as a defendant.

Cleco filed exceptions seeking dismissal of the amended Petition. A
hearing was held in September 2016, and the District Court granted
the exceptions filed by Cleco and dismissed all claims asserted by
the former shareholders.

The plaintiffs appealed the District Court's ruling to the
Louisiana Third Circuit Court of Appeal. The Third Circuit Court of
Appeal heard oral arguments in the case in September 2017. In
December 2017, the Third Circuit Court of Appeal issued an order
reversing and remanding the case to the District Court for further
proceedings. In January 2018, Cleco filed a writ with the Louisiana
Supreme Court seeking review of the Third Circuit Court of Appeal's
decision. The writ was denied in March 2018.

Cleco believes that the allegations of the petitions in each action
are without merit and that it has substantial meritorious defenses
to the claims set forth in each of the petitions.

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

Cleco Corporate Holdings LLC operates as a public utility holding
company primarily in Louisiana. The company, through its
subsidiary, operates as a regulated electric utility, which owns
nine generating units with a total capacity of 3,310 megawatts and
serves approximately 290,000 customers in Louisiana through its
retail business; supplies wholesale power in Louisiana and
Mississippi; and owns 86 active transmission substations and 239
active distribution substations. Cleco Corporate Holdings LLC was
founded in 1934 and is based in Pineville, Louisiana.


CLIENT SERVICES: Court Certifies Class in Steffek FDCPA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SARAH M. STEFFEK and JILL VANDENWYNGAARD, Plaintiffs,
v. CLIENT SERVICES INC., Defendant, Case No. 18-C-160 (E.D. Wis.),
Judge William C. Griesbach of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Wisconsin granted the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification.

Steffek and andenwyngaard allege that the Defendant violated the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), by sending each of
them a debt collection letter that failed to identify the creditor.
Their allegations arise from letters they received from Defendant
dated Feb. 22, 2017.  They allege that the letters are computer
generated, template form letters the Defendant uses to collect
debts from Wisconsin residents.  The Plaintiffs assert that the
Defendant violated the FDCPA by mailing letters that fail to
identify a creditor, the name of the entity to whom the debt is
owed, or the name of the entity who placed the accounts for
collection.  They seek statutory damages on behalf of themselves
and the proposed class for this purported violation.

The Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification on May 25,
2018.  They propose to represent a class consisting of all persons
with addresses in the State of Wisconsin to whom Client Services,
Inc. mailed an initial written communication, between Jan. 30, 2017
and Feb. 20, 2018, which was not returned as undeliverable, and
which lists "RE: CHASE BANK USA, N.A." and states "The above
account has been placed with our organization for collections."

Judge Griesbach finds that the Plaintiffs have fulfilled the
requirements of Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure.  Therefore, he granted the Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification.  He certified the proposed class.  The
counsel of record for the Plaintiffs is appointed as the class
counsel.

Within 30 days of the date of the order, the class counsel will
provide the Court with a proposed notice to be provided to
potential class members consistent with Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(c)(2)(B).  The class counsel will consult with the
Defendant before submitting the proposed notice.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 31, 2018 Order is available at
https://bit.ly/2x62X9D from Leagle.com.

Christopher J. Fleischman, Plaintiff, pro se.


COMPLYRIGHT INC: Faces Christiansen Suit over Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------
PAUL CHRISTIANSEN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COMPLYRIGHT, INC.; and DOES 1-10,
Defendants, Case No. 30-2018-01010711-CU-BT-CXC (Cal. Super.,
Orange Cty., Aug. 7, 2018) seeks injunctive relief requiring the
Defendants to implement and maintain security practices to comply
with regulations designed to prevent and remedy data breaches. The
Plaintiff also seeks restitution, damages, and other reliefs.

According to the complaint, on May 22, 2018, thousands of
individuals were the victims of a massive data breach that resulted
in the unauthorized disclosure of tax-related personal information
records. Among other things, the data breach resulted in the
individuals' names, home and email addresses, telephone numbers,
Social Security numbers, salary/income information, 1099 Forms, W-2
Forms, and other tax related information being released and viewed
by unauthorized persons.

The breach occurred because the Defendants failed to maintain
reasonable and adequate security measures to protect the
individuals' information from access and disclosure. The Defendants
has a statutory duty to protect the tax and personal information of
third-parties from unauthorized access, yet failed at numerous
opportunities to prevent, detect, end, or limit the scope the
breach.

ComplyRight, Inc. provides human resource products and services for
businesses in the United States. ComplyRight, Inc. was formerly
known as Everglades Direct, Inc. The company was founded in 1984
and is based in Pompano Beach, Florida. As of May 14, 2003,
ComplyRight, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Taylor Corporation.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          FINKELSTEIN & KRINSK LLP
          Jeffrey R. Krinsk, Esq.
          Trenton R. Kashima, Esq.
          550 West C St., Suite 1760
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 238-1333
          Facsimile: (619) 238-5425
          E-mail: jrk@classactionlaw.com
                  trk@classactionlaw.com


CONTINENTAL SERVICE: Goldson Seeks Damages Under FDCPA
------------------------------------------------------
Mikki Goldson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Continental Service Group, Inc. dba Conserve and John
Does 1-25, Case No. 8:18-cv-02129 (D. S.C., August 2, 2018), seeks
damages and declaratory relief under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is a resident of the State of South Carolina, County
of Anderson, residing at 8 Vineyard Way, Williamson, SC 29697.

The Defendant is a debt collector with an address at 200 Crosskeys
Office Park, Fairport, NY 14450. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ken Norsworthy, Esq.
      NORSWORTHY LAW, LTD. CO.
      505 Pettigru Street
      Greenville, SC 29601
      Tel: (864) 804-0581
      E-mail: norsworthylaw@gmail.com


DENONE LLC: Callaway Sues Over Illegal Tip-credit, Missing Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Callaway on behalf of herself and all other persons
similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiffs, v. DenOne, LLC,
Nelda, LLC and Erick Martinez, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-01981,
(N.D. Ohio, August 27, 2018) seeks to recover compensation for the
full minimum wage at an hourly rate, liquidated damages, together
with interest, reasonable attorneys' fees, and costs pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants own and operate a chain of Denny's restaurants, where
Callaway was employed as a tipped server at their Independence,
Ohio location.

Callaway claims to have received a sub-minimum wage but took out a
tip-credit. Plaintiff also performs a number of non-tipped duties
unrelated to their tipped occupations exceeding 20% of her time
rendered, notes the complaint. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Clifford P. Bendau II, Esq.
      Christopher J. Bendau, Esq.
      THE BENDAU LAW FIRM PLLC
      P.O. Box 97066
      Phoenix, AZ 85060
      Telephone: (480) 382-5176
      Email: cliffordbendau@bendaulaw.com

             - and -

      James L. Simon, Esq.
      6000 Freedom Square Dr.
      Independence, OH 44131
      Telephone: (216) 525-8890
      Facsimile: (216) 642-5814
      Email: jameslsimonlaw@yahoo.com


DERREL'S MINI: Court Denies Bid to Remand Kutzman FCRA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Anthony W. Ishii of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California denied the Plaintiffs' motion to remand the
case, RICK KUTZMAN and JAMIE LEONARDO, individuals, and on behalf
of themselves, and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. DERREL'S MINI STORAGE, INC., a California
corporation Defendant, Case No. 1:18-CV-396 AWI-JLT (E.D. Cal.).

Kutzman and Leonardo allege that the Defendant required them and
others to sign, as part of the Defendant's employment-application
procedures, a background-check authorization that included a
liability release clause in the same document.  They contend the
inclusion of the liability clause violates the Fair Credit
Reporting Act ("FDCA").  

The Plaintiffs filed a class-action Complaint in Kern County
Superior Court (California state court) alleging two FCRA causes of
action, as well as violations of the California Labor Code.  The
Defendant removed to the Court due to the presence of a federal
question.

The Plaintiffs now seek remand, arguing the Defendant has not met
its burden to show the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over
the FCRA claims -- in that the Defendant did not demonstrate the
Plaintiffs pleaded a concrete injury to show Article III standing
per Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins.

The Defendant counters that te Plaintiffs' argument is contrary to
the allegations in the Complaint, which clearly demonstrate a
concrete injury as defined by Ninth Circuit precedent.  It
maintains that even though it denies the truth of the Plaintiffs'
claims, the Court must treat the allegations in the Complaint as
true at this stage, indicating subject matter jurisdiction exists.

Since the Complaint sufficiently contains a short and plain
statement alleging facts giving rise to subject matter
jurisdiction, and the Defendant references Exhibit A -- the
Complaint -- in their short-and-plain notice of removal, Judge
Ishii finds the Plaintiffs' motion to remand is without merit.

The Plaintiffs raise additional arguments for the first time in the
reply brief, which the Judge declined to consider.  He finds that
insomuch as these arguments go to the heart of a federal court's
subject matter jurisdiction over the FCRA claims, such that they
should be examined sua sponte, he is not left with any doubt as to
the Defendant's right to remove the case.

Accordingly, Judge Ishii denied the Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand.
He referred back the remainder of the case to the magistrate judge
for further proceedings.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 31, 2018 Order is available at
https://bit.ly/2NyINyE from Leagle.com.

Rick Kutzman, individuals, on behalf of themselves, and on behalf
of all persons similarly situated & Jamie Leonardo, individuals, on
behalf of themselves, and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Aparajit Bhowmik --
aj@bamlawlj.com  -- Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik, Kyle R.
Nordrehaug -- kyle@bamlawca.com -- Blumenthal Nordrehaug and
Bhowmik, Molly Ann DeSario, Blumenthal Nordrehaug & Bhowmik, Norman
Blumenthal -- norm@bamlawca.com -- Blumenthal Nordrehaug & Bhowmik,
LLP, Ruchira Piya Mukherjee -- piya@bamlawlj.com -- Blumenthal,
Nordrehaug & Bhowmik & Victoria Bree Rivapalacio , Blumenthal,
Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Derrel's Mini Storage, Inc., a California Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Charles Paul Hamamjian, Sagaser Watkins Wieland PC,
Howard A. Sagaser, Sagaser, Watkins & Wieland, PC & Ian Blade
Wieland -- ian@sw2law.com -- Sagaser, Watkins & Wieland, PC.


DIRECT ENERGY: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Shackelford Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
KAYLA SHACKELFORD, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DIRECT ENERGY LP, Defendant, Case
No. 4:18-cv-02727 (S.D. Tex., Aug. 8, 2018) seeks to stop the
Defendant from violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by
making unsolicited, autodialed calls to consumers without the
Plaintiff's consent.

Direct Energy, LP provides electricity, natural gas, and home
services for residential and commercial customers in North America.
Direct Energy, LP was founded in 1997 and is based in Houston,
Texas with regional offices in the United States. Direct Energy, LP
operates as a subsidiary of Centrica plc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason Johnson, Esq.
          TERREL LAW GROUP
          8303 Southwest Freeway, Suite 450
          Houston, TX 77074
          Telephone: 346-718-8286
          E-mail: Jjohnson@terrellawgroup.com

               - and -

          Stefan Coleman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, P.A.
          201 S. Biscayne Blvd, 28 th Floor
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (877) 333-9427
          Facsimile: (888) 498-8946
          E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com

               - and -

          Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
          KAUFMAN P.A.
          400 NW 26th Street
          Miami, FL 33127
          Telephone: (305) 469-5881
          E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com


DIVERSIFIED RESTAURANT: Cross Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Monique Cross and America Thomas, on behalf of themselves and all
other persons similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiffs, v.
Diversified Restaurant Holdings, Inc., Defendants, Case No.
18-cv-03595, (E.D. Mich., June 21, 2018), seeks recovery of unpaid
wages owed to them, an award of liquidated damages in an amount
equal to the unpaid wages owed to them and an award of reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs, as provided for in the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Defendant is a franchisee of Buffalo Wild Wings restaurants and has
65 Buffalo Wild Wings restaurants located in Florida, Illinois,
Indiana, Michigan and Missouri. Plaintiffs worked at Buffalo Wild
Wings restaurant located at 1218 Randolph St, Detroit, MI 48226.
They spend roughly more than 20 percent of their time performing
untipped work unrelated to their tipped occupation and are paid a
sub-minimum, tipped wage rate, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Bryan Yaldou, Esq.
     Elaina Bailey, Esq.
     Omar Badr, Esq.
     THE LAW OFFICES OF BRYAN YALDOU, PLLC
     23000 Telegraph, Suite 5
     Brownstown, MI 48134
     Phone: (734) 692-9200
     Fax: (734) 692-9201
     Email: Bryan@yaldoulaw.com


DOCTORS ASSOCIATES: Greenburg Hits Illegal Telemarketing SMS
------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Greenberg, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Doctors Associates, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-22505 (S.D. Fla., June 21, 2018), seeks
an injunction prohibiting Oasis from continuing to engage in
illegal telemarketing.  The lawsuit also seeks attorneys' fees and
costs for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Defendant operates a Subway franchise. It regularly sends
unsolicited text messages to consumers promoting their sandwiches
and other menu offerings, often without express content, notes the
complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
      SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
      14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 400
      Miami, FL 33132
      Telephone: 305-479-2299
      Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com


DYNAMIC MEDICAL: Underpays Administrators, Castellano Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DANIA CASTELLANO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. DYNAMIC MEDICAL SERVICES, INC.,
and DENNIS NOBBE, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-23200-FAM (S.D.
Fla., Aug. 7, 2018) is an action against the Defendants for failure
to pay overtime wages and minimum wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff Castellano was employed by the Defendants as
administrator from November 1995 to July 30, 2018.

Dynamic Medical Services, Inc. is a corporation transacting
business within Dade County, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J.H. Zidell, Esq.
          J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
          300 71st Street, Suite 605
          Miami Beach, FL 33141
          Telephone: (305) 865-6766
          Facsimile: (305) 865-7167
          Email: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM


EDDIE BAUER: Court Compels Veridian to Produce Factual Work Product
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington, Seattle, granted in part and denied in part Defendant's
Motion to Compel in the case captioned VERIDIAN CREDIT UNION,
Plaintiff, v. EDDIE BAUER, LLC, Defendant. Case No. C17-0356JLR.
(W.D. Wash.).

This is a putative class action on behalf of credit unions, banks,
and other financial institutions that suffered injury as a result
of a security breach involving Eddie Bauer. Veridian alleges that
the breach compromised the financial data of thousands of customers
at all of Eddie Bauer's 370 retail stores in the United States and
Canada. Veridian further alleges that the breach occurred because
Eddie Bauer failed to adequately secure its data networks.

Eddie Bauer moved to compel the production of documents responsive
to its requests for production (RFPs) No. 18 and 19. RFPs No. 18
and 19 ask Veridian to produce the following:

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18: Documents memorializing all
communications with the former Information Security Manager (IS
Manager) referred to in paragraph 41 of Veridian's Amended Class
Action Complaint.

Eddie Bauer argues that Veridian has waived the work product
privilege by making affirmative allegations regarding the IS
Manager and the IT Consultant. Thus, Veridian has made its
communications with those people discoverable by placing the
communications in issue. Although Veridian has since identified the
IS Manager and IT Consultant, Eddie Bauer claims that deposing them
is insufficient because memories fade.

Veridian counters that the privilege protects the communications
because they occurred solely because of the instant
litigation.Veridian states that responsive documents include (1)
communications between Veridian and its counsel (2) communications
among Veridian's counsel reflecting mental impressions regarding
their investigation and litigation strategy and (3) documents
reflecting the mental impressions of Veridian's counsel in
preparing the complaint.Veridian argues that Eddie Bauer has not
demonstrated a substantial need for those documents.  Moreover,
Veridian contends that it has not waived the privilege.

The work product doctrine is a qualified protection limiting
discovery of documents and tangible things prepared by a party or
its attorney in anticipation of litigation. The party claiming work
product protection bears the burden of establishing that the work
product doctrine applies. A party may obtain discovery of work
product only by showing a substantial need and an inability to
obtain the same information elsewhere.  

Based on the allegations in the complaint, the court concludes that
Veridian has placed its communications with the IS Manager and IT
Consultant in issue. Even though Veridian also relies on other
sources, the fact remains that Veridian explicitly relies on the
communications to state its claims. Specifically, Veridian alleges
that Eddie Bauer knew its security measures were substandard and
nonetheless chose not to implement necessary improvements. The
allegations involving the IS Manager and the IT Consultant are
directed squarely at proving that contention.

Although Eddie Bauer knows those individuals' identities and
therefore may depose them, documentary evidence is often necessary
even if a deposition may be useful and informative.

The court grants Eddie Bauer's motion in part. Veridian must
produce any factual work product responsive to RFPs No. 18 and 19.
By way of example, Veridian is not required to produce documents
falling within the three categories Veridian identifies: (1)
communications between Veridian and its counsel (2) Veridian's
counsel's mental impressions regarding their investigation and
litigation strategy, and (3) Veridian's counsel's mental
impressions  in preparing the complaint.

However, to the extent that Veridian also possesses factual work
product related to the communications, it must produce that
material to Eddie Bauer within 14 days of the date of this order.
If any material contains both factual and opinion work product,
Veridian may appropriately redact the opinion work product before
production. By the same date, Veridian must also produce a
privilege log detailing any material withheld as opinion work
product. The privilege log must describe the nature of the
documents, communications, or tangible things not produced or
disclosed and do so in a manner that, without revealing information
itself privileged or protected, will enable Eddie Bauer to assess
the claim of privilege.  

The court grants in part and denies in part Eddie Bauer's motion to
compel. In response to RFPs No. 18 and 19, Veridian must produce
responsive documents comprising factual work product no later than
fourteen (14) days of the date of this order. If any material
contains both factual and opinion work product, Veridian may
appropriately redact the opinion work product before production. By
the same deadline, Veridian must also produce a privilege log and
supplement its responses to Eddie Bauer's RFPs No. 18 and 19.  

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 23, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y8owk83c from Leagle.com.

Veridian Credit Union, on behalf of itself and a class of similarly
situated financial institutions, Plaintiff, represented by Arthur
Mahony Murray , MURRAY LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, Brian C. Gudmundson
-- brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com -- ZIMMERMAN REED LLP, pro hac
vice, Bryan L. Bleichner -- bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com --
CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA, pro hac vice, Caroline Thomas White, MURRAY
LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, Chase Christian Alvord --
calvord@tousley.com -- TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS, Christopher P. Renz
-- crenz@chestnutcambronne.com -- CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA, pro hac
vice, Erin Green Comite --ECOMITE@SCOTT-SCOTT.COM -- SCOTT + SCOTT
LLP, pro hac vice, Gary F. Lynch --glynch@carlsonlynch.com --
CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP, pro hac vice --
JGUGLIELMO@SCOTT-SCOTT.COM -- SCOTT + SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP,
pro hac vice, Karen H. Riebel -- khriebel@locklaw.com -- LOCKRIDGE
GRINDAL NAUEN, pro hac vice, Kate M. Baxter-Kauf --
kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com -- LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN, pro hac vice,
Kevin W. Tucker -- ktucker@carlsonlynch.com -- CARLSON LYNCH SWEET
KILPELA & CARPENTER LLP, pro hac vice, Kim D. Stephens --
kstephens@tousley.com -- TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS & Sean C. Russell
-- SEAN.RUSSELL@SCOTT-SCOTT.COM -- SCOTT + SCOTT LLP, pro hac
vice.

Eddie Bauer LLC, Defendant, represented by Dyanne Cho --
Dyanne.Cho@lewisbrisbois.com --LEWIS BRISBOIS BIGAARD & SMITH LLP,
pro hac vice, Gordon Calhoun -- Gordon.Calhoun@lewisbrisbois.com --
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP, pro hac vice, Jon P.
Kardassakis -- Jon.Kardassakis@lewisbrisbois.com -- LEWIS BRISBOIS
BIGAARD & SMITH LLP, pro hac vice, Ethan A. Smith --
Ethan.Smith@lewisbrisbois.com -- LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH
LLP, Kathleen A. Nelson -- Kathleen.Nelson@lewisbrisbois.com --
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP & Sarah Demaree Macklin --
Sarah.Macklin@lewisbrisbois.com -- LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH
LLP.


EGALET CORP: Bid to Dismiss ARYMO ER-Related Suit Granted
---------------------------------------------------------
Egalet 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 a Pennsylvania court has
granted the defendants' motion to dismiss in the ARYMO ER-related
lawsuit.

On January 27, 2017 and February 10, 2017, respectively, two
putative securities class actions were filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania that named as
defendants Egalet Corporation and current officers Robert S. Radie
and Stanley J. Musial, and former officer Jeffrey M. Dayno (the
"Officer Defendants" and together with Egalet Corporation, the
"Defendants").

These two complaints, captioned Mineff v. Egalet Corp. et al., No.
2:17-cv-00390-MMB and Klein v. Egalet Corp. et al., No.
2:17-cv-00617-MMB, assert securities fraud claims under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act") on behalf of putative classes of persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired Egalet Corporation securities
between December 15, 2015 and January 9, 2017.  

On May 1, 2017, the Court entered an order consolidating the two
cases (the "Securities Class Action Litigation") before it,
appointing the Egalet Investor Group (consisting of Joseph
Spizzirri, Abdul Rahiman and Kyle Kobold) as lead plaintiff and
approving their selection of lead and liaison counsel. On July 3,
2017, the plaintiffs filed their consolidated amended complaint,
which named the same Defendants and also asserts claims for
purported violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act. Plaintiffs brought their claims individually and on behalf of
a putative class of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
shares of the Company between November 4, 2015 and January 9, 2017
inclusive.  The consolidated amended complaint based its claims on
allegedly false and/or misleading statements and/or failures to
disclose information about the likelihood that ARYMO ER would be
approved for intranasal abuse-deterrent labeling.  

The Defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint
on September 1, 2017 (the "Motion to Dismiss"), the plaintiffs
filed their opposition on October 31, 2017, and the Defendants
filed their reply on December 8, 2017.  The Court heard oral
arguments on the Motion to Dismiss on February 20, 2018, and
entered an order pursuant to which the plaintiffs filed a motion
for leave to file a second amended complaint on March 6, 2018.  The
Defendants responded on March 20, 2018 and the plaintiffs filed
their reply on March 27, 2018.  

The Court heard oral arguments on the plaintiffs' motion for leave
to file a second amended complaint on July 12, 2018. On August 2,
2018, the Court granted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and
dismissed the Securities Class Action Litigation with prejudice.
Plaintiffs have 30 days to appeal the decision or 28 days to move
under Rule 59 for reconsideration.

Egalet Corporation, a specialty pharmaceutical company, develops,
manufactures, and commercializes treatments for patients with pain
and other conditions. Egalet Corporation was founded in 2010 and is
headquartered in Wayne, Pennsylvania.


ELITE FUNDING: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Abante Rooter Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
ABANTE ROOTER AND PLUMBING, INC., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. ELITE FUNDING GROUP, INC.
d/b/a ONE WAY FUNDING, LLC, and DOES 1 through 10, Defendant, Case
No. 3:18-cv-04753 (N.D. Cal., Aug. 7, 2018) seeks to stop the
Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls.

Elite Funding Corporation was founded in 1991. The company's line
of business includes originating mortgage loans, selling mortgage
loans to permanent investors, and servicing loans. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ENERGY TRANSFER: Sept. 2019 Trial Set in Regency-ETP Merger Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Energy Transfer Partners, 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 trial is currently
set for September 23-27, 2019 in the Regency-ETP merger related
suit.

Purported Regency unitholders filed lawsuits in state and federal
courts in Dallas and Delaware asserting claims relating to the
Regency-ETP merger (the "Regency Merger"). All but one Regency
Merger-related lawsuits have been dismissed.

On June 10, 2015, Adrian Dieckman ("Dieckman"), a purported Regency
unitholder, filed a class action complaint in the Court of Chancery
of the State of Delaware (the "Regency Merger Litigation"), on
behalf of Regency's common unitholders against Regency GP, LP;
Regency GP LLC; ETE, ETP, ETP GP, and the members of Regency's
board of directors ("Defendants").

The Regency Merger Litigation alleges that the Regency Merger
breached the Regency partnership agreement because Regency's
conflicts committee was not properly formed, and the Regency Merger
was not approved in good faith.

On March 29, 2016, the Delaware Court of Chancery granted
Defendants' motion to dismiss the lawsuit in its entirety. Dieckman
appealed. On January 20, 2017, the Delaware Supreme Court reversed
the judgment of the Court of Chancery. On May 5, 2017, Plaintiff
filed an Amended Verified Class Action Complaint. Defendants then
filed Motions to Dismiss the Amended Complaint and a Motion to Stay
Discovery on May 19, 2017.

On February 20, 2018, the Court of Chancery issued an Order
granting in part and denying in part the motions to dismiss,
dismissing the claims against all defendants other than Regency GP,
LP and Regency GP LLC (the "Regency Defendants").

On March 6, 2018, the Regency Defendants filed their Answer to
Plaintiff's Verified Amended Class Action Complaint. Trial is
currently set for September 23-27, 2019.

Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. engages in the natural gas
midstream, and intrastate transportation and storage businesses in
the United States. The company's Intrastate Transportation and
Storage segment transports natural gas from various natural gas
producing areas through connections with other pipeline systems, as
well as through its ET Fuel System and HPL System. Energy Transfer
Partners, L.P. was founded in 1995 and is based in Dallas, Texas.


ENERGY XXI GULF: Faces Franchi Suit over Cox Oil Merger
-------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY FRANCHI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ENERGY XXI GULF COAST, INC.; GARY HANNA;
DOUGLAS E. BROOKS; MICHAEL S. BAHORICH; GABRIEL L. ELLISOR;
STANFORD SPRINGEL; and CHARLES W. WAMPLER, Defendants, Case No.
1;18-cv-01203-UNA (D. Del., Aug. 7, 2018) alleges that the
Defendants omit material information with respect to a merger
transaction, which renders the Proxy Statement false and misleading
in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, Energy XXI Gulf Coast, Inc. will be
acquired by Cox Oil and its affiliates. On June 18, 2018, Energy
XXI's Board of Directors caused the Company to enter into an
agreement and plan of merger with MLCJR LLC and its wholly-owned
subsidiary, YHIMONE, Inc.  Pursuant to the terms of the Merger
Agreement, if the Proposed Transaction is approved by Energy XXI's
shareholders and completed, Energy XXI's stockholders will receive
$9.10 in cash for each share of the Energy XXI common stock they
hold.

On August 3, 2018, defendants filed a proxy statement with the
United States Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") in
connection with the Proposed Transaction.

The Proxy Statement omits material information regarding the
Company's financial projections as well as the valuation analyses
performed by the Company's financial advisor, Intrepid Partners,
LLC, in connection with the Proposed Transaction.

The omission of the above-referenced material information renders
the Proxy Statement false and misleading, including, inter alia,
the following sections of the Proxy Statement: (i) Background of
the Merger; (ii) Energy XXI's Reasons for the Merger;
Recommendation of the Energy XXI Board of Directors; (iii) Opinion
of Energy XXI's Financial Advisor; and (iv) Certain Prospective
Unaudited Financial and Operating Information of Energy XXI.

Energy XXI Gulf Coast, Inc., an exploration and production company,
engages in the acquisition, development, exploitation, and
operation of oil and natural gas properties in the United States
Gulf Coast region. Energy XXI Gulf Coast, Inc. was incorporated in
2006 and is headquartered in Houston, Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
          RM LAW, P.C.
          1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Telephone: (484) 324-6800
          Facsimile: (484) 631-1305
          E-mail: rm@maniskas.com

               - and -

          Brian D. Long, Esq.
          Gina M. Serra, Esq.
          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 295-5310
          Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
          E-mail: bdl@rl-legal.com
                  gms@rl-legal.com


EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Davis Sues over Background Checks
------------------------------------------------------
DANA DAVIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC; KROSS,
LIEBERMAN & STONE, INC.; CREDIT SOLUTIONS CORPORATION; and WYNDHAM
RESORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, d/b/a WORLDMARK BY WYNDHAM,
Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-00436-MOC-DSC (W.D.N.C., Aug. 7, 2018)
alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants
negligently, recklessly and knowingly falsely reported that the
Plaintiff owes them a balance, despite being on actual notice that
these accounts were opened by an identity thief, and that these
entities failed to correct this information after being advised of
the Plaintiff's dispute.

The Plaintiff further alleges that the Defendants have negligently
and recklessly disseminated false information regarding the
Plaintiff's credit, namely by continuing to associate the Plaintiff
with these fraudulent accounts, particularly after the Plaintiff
mailed letters to the Defendants specifically advising it of its
error and submitting extensive supporting documentation.

Equifax Information Services Inc. provides information solutions
and human resources business process outsourcing services for
businesses, governments, and consumers. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Josef C. Culik, Esq.
          FAIRVIEW LAW
          6000 Fairview Rd., Ste. 6000
          Charlotte, NC 28210
          Telephone: (980) 999-3557
          Facsimile: (980) 999-3537
          E-mail: jc@fairview-law.com

               - and -

          Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
          MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC
          701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
          Asbury Park, NJ 07712
          Telephone: (732) 695-3282
          Facsimile: (732) 298-6256
          E-mail: yzelman@MarcusZelman.com


EQUITY RESIDENTIAL: R. Baker's Suit Remains in Mass. District Court
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Patti B. Harris of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Massachusetts the Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand the case,
RACHELLE BAKER and JASON DITTMAN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. EQUITY RESIDENTIAL
MANAGEMENT, L.L.C., and EQR-WALDEN PARK, L.L.C., Defendants, Civil
Action No. 18-11175-PBS (C. Mass.).

Baker and Dittmann, the class representatives, have moved to remand
the action under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 ("CAFA").
The class action complaint was originally filed in Massachusetts
Superior Court on Aug. 15, 2013.  Defendants ERM removed the case
on Sept. 6, 2013, and the Plaintiffs successfully moved to remand
back to state court in February of 2014 where the case has
proceeded until recently.  On May 30, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed an
expert report alleging damages over $5 million.

Within 30 days, on June 5, 2018, ERM removed the case to federal
court for the second time.  The Plaintiffs have moved to remand on
the basis of untimeliness, alleging that ERM could have easily
figured out that damages exceeded $5 million from past court
documents and communications, and that the 30-day clock on removal
has therefore already run.

Judge Harris finds that the Plaintiffs have not presented any paper
from which an amount in controversy equal to more than $5 million
was ascertainable through straightforward calculation prior to the
expert report.  The Plaintiffs argue that recent filings in 2017
made it a matter of simple math that the class action involved over
$5 million.  However, the Defendants point out that the math is not
straightforward.  In addition, the damages due to tenants in both
of the classes may be duplicative.  This "double dipping" problem
makes the calculations more complex.  Hence, the Defendants'
removal within 30 days of the expert report was therefore proper.
Accordingly, Judge Harris denied the Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand.

In the case, RACHELLE BAKER and JASON DITTMAN, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. EQUITY
RESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT, L.L.C., and EQR-WALDEN PARK, L.L.C.,
Defendants,

A full-text copy of the Court's July 31, 2018 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://bit.ly/2wZyMzW from Leagle.com.

Rachelle Baker, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated & Jason Dittmann, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Joshua N. Garick --
Joshua@GarickLaw.com -- Law Offices of Joshua N. Garick, P.C. &
David Pastor -- info@pastorlawoffice.com -- Pastor Law Office,
LLP.

Equity Residential Management, L.L.C. & EQR-Walden Park, L.L.C.,
Defendants, represented by Thomas H. Wintner -- twintner@mintz.com
--  Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, PC & Mathilda
McGee-Tubb -- MSMcGee-Tubb@mintz.com -- Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris,
Glovsky and Popeo, PC.


ETRADE FINANCIAL: 2d Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Ryner Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TY RAYNER, on Behalf of Himself and All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. E*TRADE FINANCIAL
CORPORATION, E*TRADE SECURITIES LLC, Defendants-Appellees, Case No.
17-1487 (2d Cir.), Judge Debra Ann Livingston of the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the judgment of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York's dismissal of
all of Rayner's claims pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.

Rayner filed a class action complaint raising state law claims
against E*TRADE.  Rayner's claims for breach of fiduciary duty,
unjust enrichment, and declaratory relief were each based on the
same allegation that E*TRADE violated its duty of best execution.

E*TRADE provides brokerage and related services to individual
retail investors.  Clients place orders to buy and sell securities
with E*TRADE, and then E*TRADE executes those orders by delivering
them to trading venues such as stock exchanges, hedge funds, banks,
electronic communications networks, and third-party market makers.
One such client, Rayner, placed a non-directed, standing limit
order as recently as January 2014, and E*TRADE executed that order
on his behalf.

On March 25, 2015, Rayner filed the Complaint on behalf of himself
and other E*TRADE clients who have placed non-directed, standing
limit orders.  Specifically, he complains that, in breach of its
duty of best execution, E*TRADE prioritizes choosing the trading
venues that are willing to pay the largest "kickbacks" in exchange
for order flow.  Such a practice creates a conflict of interest
between E*TRADE and its clients by incentivizing E*TRADE to choose
trading venues that may be most cost-effective for E*TRADE, but
which may not be the best method of execution for its clients.

E*TRADE filed a motion to dismiss, arguing inter alia that Rayner's
class action suit is precluded by SLUSA.  In response, Rayner
argued that SLUSA preclusion does not apply because (1) his
Complaint does not allege that E*TRADE made a misrepresentation or
omission, or employed any manipulative or deceptive device; and (2)
even assuming that the Complaint alleges fraud, any such fraud was
not in connection with" the purchase or sale of covered securities.
In a memorandum opinion and order dated April 1, 2017, the
district court granted E*TRADE's motion to dismiss, concluding that
Rayner's arguments against preclusion are unpersuasive.

Judge Livingston agrees with the district court that the gravamen
of Rayner's Complaint is that E*TRADE made material
misrepresentations and omissions that were designed to induce
clients to execute non-directed, standing limit orders with E*TRADE
even though E*TRADE allegedly had no intention of fulfilling its
purported fiduciary obligations.  The substance of Rayner's
Complaint plainly alleges fraudulent conduct.  She joins the sister
circuits in concluding that best execution claims alleging
misrepresentations or omissions relating to: (1) a broker's receipt
of "kickbacks" from trading venues; and (2) the execution of trades
so as to take advantage of such arrangements, satisfy the third
element of SLUSA, by alleging securities claims based on fraudulent
conduct.

As to SLUSA's fourth element, the Judge also agrees with the
district court that E*TRADE's alleged fraudulent conduct arose "in
connection with" the purchase or sale of covered securities.  She
says it is frivolous to suggest that negatively influencing the
price and quantity at which clients may buy and sell securities
would not make a significant difference to someone's decision to
purchase or to sell a covered security.  That E*TRADE fraudulently
failed to follow through on its promise to place the investments in
covered securities  based on best execution standards does not in
any respect remove this case from the ambit of SLUSA.

The Judge has considered all of Rayner's remaining arguments and
finds them to be meritless.  For the foregoing reasons, she
affirmed judgment of the district court.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 31, 2018 Order is available at
https://bit.ly/2oZnb0u from Leagle.com.

LESLIE E. HURST (Timothy G. Blood -- tblood@bholaw.com -- Paula R.
Brown -- pbrown@sakg.com -- on the brief), Blood Hurst & O'Reardon,
LLP, San Diego, CA., for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Brian J. Robbins -- notice@robbinsarroyo.com -- Kevin A. Seely --
kseely@robbinsarroyo.com -- Ashley R. Rifkin --
arifkin@robbinsarroyo.com -- Leonid Kandinov --
lkandinov@robbinsarroyo.com -- Robbins Arroyo LLP, San Diego, CA.

COREY WORCESTER -- coreyworcester@quinnemanuel.com -- (Faith E. Gay
-- faithgay@quinnemanuel.com -- Marc L. Greenwald --
marcgreenwald@quinnemanuel.com -- on the brief), Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, New York, NY., for Defendants-Appellees.


FCA US: Court Grants Dismissal of Swanigan's LMRA Suit
------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan, Southern Division, granted Defendants' Motions to Dismiss
the Second Amended Class Action Complaint in the case captioned
BEVERLY L. SWANIGAN, BRIAN LEE KELLER, and SHERI ANOLICK,
individually and on behalf of other similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v. FCA US, LLC, a foreign limited liability company, and
INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE AND AGRICULTURAL
IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, ("UAW"), jointly and severally,
Defendants. Case No. 18-cv-10319. (E.D. Mich.).

The Plaintiffs and the potential class members are all past or
current employees of FCA, as well as past or current members of the
UAW, a labor union that represents employees of several automakers.
Plaintiffs characterize the instant action as a hybrid claim under
Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA).

Standard of Review

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) allows the court to make
an assessment as to whether the plaintiff has stated a claim upon
which relief may be granted. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
8(a)(2) requires only a short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give
the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon
which it rests.

FCA's Motion to Dismiss

First, FCA argues that the Plaintiffs have failed to allege an
actionable violation of the LMRA because: (1) there is no viable
Section 301 claim based on the alleged dissatisfaction with the
price at which the UAW Trust sold certain securities to FCA because
the UAW Trust is not a labor organization and has nothing to do
with collective bargaining or any terms or conditions of
Plaintiffs' employment, (2) Plaintiffs fail to allege a breach of
any collective bargaining agreement and lastly, (3) Plaintiffs
cannot transform a Section 302 claim improper payoffs to union
officials into a Section 301 claim because Section 302 does not
create a private right of action.

Violation of the LMRA

Employee actions under Section 301 are characterized as hybrid
claims and to recover employee-union members must prove both (1)
that the employer breached the collective bargaining agreement and
(2) that the union breached its duty of fair representation.

FCA first argues that the Purchase Agreement between the UAW Trust
and the FCA does not fall within the purview of Section 301 for the
following reasons: (1) the UAW Trust is not a labor organization,
rather it is an entirely separate entity from the UAW, thus it is
not an agreement between an employer and a labor organization, and
(2) has nothing to do with collective bargaining.

The Plaintiffs fail to address this argument in their Responsive
Brief. At the hearing in this matter, the Plaintiffs asserted that
they had not waived this aspect of their claim. Plaintiffs failure
to address FCA's argument in their Responsive brief "constitutes
waiver or abandonment. It appears to the Court that the Plaintiffs
failure to respond to FCA's argument may be due to the apparent
meritorious argument advanced.

The LMRA defines labor organizations as any organization in which
employees participate and which exists for the purpose, in whole or
in part, of dealing with employers concerning grievances, labor
disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or conditions
of work. The UAW Trust does not fall within this definition because
it is a voluntary employees beneficiary association trust and union
benefit trust funds are not labor organizations as a matter of law.


Therefore, the Plaintiffs cannot allege that the UAW Trust is a
labor organization; rather it is a separate legal entity from the
UAW that is an employee benefits trust.

FCA next argues that dismissal is appropriate because Plaintiffs
fail to allege any specific provision of any collective bargaining
agreement that was breached by FCA's conduct. In their Responsive
Brief, Plaintiffs concede that their Second Amended Class Action
Complaint fails to allege a breach of any provision of the
operative collective bargaining agreement. Plaintiffs maintain that
since they have alleged FCA bribed the UAW, an unfair labor
practice under the NLRA, they have sufficiently alleged a breach of
contract to withstand Rule 12(b)(6) scrutiny.
Plaintiffs' argument is without merit.

Lastly, Defendant FCA argues that Plaintiffs have not sufficiently
alleged a Section 301 claim because they are attempting to bring a
disguised Section 302 claim for bribery and collusion, which does
not provide a private right of action pursuant to Sixth Circuit
authority. Defendants are correct.

Here, the Plaintiffs characterize their claim as a hybrid Section
301 claim but their allegations stem from collusion between FCA and
the UAW whereby the FCA transferred prohibited payments and things
of value to UAW officers to obtain company-friendly positions at
the bargaining table and elsewhere. However, allegations of
improper payoffs to union officials may not be redressed pursuant
to Section 301.

The Plaintiffs have not alleged a breach of any provision in the
operative collective bargaining agreement. Additionally, the UAW
Trust is a separate entity that is not a labor organization and its
Agreement does not qualify as a labor contract. Lastly, their
purported §301 claim is a disguised Section 302 claim, which does
not give them a private cause of action. For all of these reasons,
Plaintiffs claims for breach of contract against FCA (Count I) and
for breach of the duty of fair representation against the UAW
(Count II) fail to state a viable cause of action and are
dismissed.

Exhaustion of Contractual and Internal Union Remedies

Even if the Plaintiffs sufficiently alleged a Section 301 claim,
this action must also be dismissed because Plaintiffs failed to
adequately allege they are excused from attempting to exhaust both
the grievance procedure established by the operative collective
bargaining agreement, as well as the internal union remedies
established by the UAW Constitution. In their Second Amended Class
Action Complaint, Plaintiffs allege that FCA's and the UAW's
prolonged and expansive collusive conduct [renders] exhaustion of
internal remedies futile if not impossible.

Before aggrieved employees may bring a Section 301 action, they
must satisfy two separate exhaustion requirements.  Specifically,
they must exhaust (1) contractual grievance and arbitration
procedures set forth in the collective bargaining agreement and (2)
internal union appeal procedure[s] established in the UAW
Constitution. Exhaustion of internal union remedies and resort to
exclusive contractual remedies are separate prerequisites to an
employee suit.

In their Responsive Brief, Plaintiffs assert that their contractual
duty to invoke the grievance procedure under the operable
collective bargaining agreement is excused because employees are
not required to utilize these internal union procedures when the
union has breached its duty of fair representation. Plaintiffs cite
to Jackson v. Local Union 992, 991 F.Supp.2d 71, 81 (D.D.C. 2014),
but mainly rely on Hines v. Anchor Freight, Inc., 424 U.S. 554
(1976) for this proposition. Both cases do not demonstrate that
Plaintiffs are excused from invoking the grievance process set
forth in the collective bargaining agreement.

Lastly, Plaintiffs argue, without any substantive allegations set
forth in the Second Amended Class Action Complaint that a final
reason to excuse exhaustion is that it will cause undue delay.
Plaintiffs do not allege this in their pleading and this assertion
is conclusory without any factual support.

Accordingly, the Court agrees that this action must be dismissed
for the additional reason that Plaintiffs have not sufficiently
alleged they should be excused from exhausting their contractual
remedies and internal union procedures.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 23, 2018 Opinion
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y82jcfg3 from
Leagle.com.

Beverly L. Swanigan, Brian Lee Keller & Sheri Anolick, Plaintiffs,
represented by Brian Farrar , Sterling Attorneys at Law, P.C.,
James C. Baker , Sterling Attorneys at Law & Raymond J. Sterling ,
Sterling Attorneys at Law.

FCA US, LLC, Defendant, represented by Brian M. Schwartz --
schwartzb@canfieldmiller.com -- Miller, Canfield, David D. O'Brien
-- Obrien@millercanfield.com -- Miller, Canfield, Jacob Eden Cohen
-- cohenja@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan and Cromwell LLP, Julia Marie
Jordan -- jordanjm@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan and Cromwell LLP,
Steven L. Holley -- holleys@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan & Cromwell LLP
& Thomas W. Cranmer -- cranner@millercanfield.com -- Miller
Canfield Paddock and Stone PLC.

INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE AND AGRICULTURAL
IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, Defendant, represented by Abigail V.
Carter , Bredhoff & Kaiser, PLLC, Elisabeth Oppenheimer , Bredhoff
and Kaiser, PLLC, StreetJeffrey D. Sodko , UAW Legal Dept. &
William J. Karges, III , International Union, UAW.


FLEETCOR TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Georgia Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
FleetCor Technologies, 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 a class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Georgia.

On June 14, 2017, a shareholder filed a class action complaint in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia against the Company and certain of its officers and
directors on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired the Company's stock between February 5, 2016 and May 2,
2017. On October 13, 2017, the shareholder filed an amended
complaint asserting claims on behalf of a putative class of all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common
stock between February 4, 2016 and May 3, 2017.

The complaint alleges that the defendants made false or misleading
statements regarding fee charges and the reasons for its earnings
and growth in certain press releases and other public statements in
violation of the federal securities laws. Plaintiff seeks class
certification, unspecified monetary damages, costs, and attorneys'
fees.

The Company disputes the allegations in the complaint and intends
to vigorously defend against the claims.

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

FleetCor Technologies, Inc. provides commercial payment solutions
in North America, Latin America, Europe, and Australasia. The
company offers fuel payment solutions to businesses and government
entities that operate vehicle fleets, as well as to oil and leasing
companies, and fuel marketers. Its fuel payment products are in the
form of plastic cards, electronic RFID tags, and paper vouchers to
purchase fuel, oil, vehicle maintenance supplies and services, and
building supplies. FleetCor Technologies, Inc. was founded in 1986
and is headquartered in Peachtree Corners, Georgia.


FLORIDA: Court Dismisses Lee County Prisoners' Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Judge John E. Steele of the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida, Fort Myers Division, dismissed without
prejudice the case, CHARLIE JACKSON, DAVID BAKER, JR., WILLIAM
COLE, DANIEL BROWN, JESUS M. CRUZ, BLAINE E. WILLIAMS, DANIEL
THOMAS, RODRIGUEZ DURAN, REGINALD R. GRIFFIN, IAN WAGNER, TYRONE
CAMBELL, JAVON SMITH, STANLEY HALL KRABILL, MADESTO GARCIA BAUTTIA,
and JAIMIE MALDANADO, Plaintiffs, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, KATHLEEN A.
SMITH, MIKE SCOTT, RICK SCOTT, STEPHEN B. RUSSELL, and LINDA
DOGGETT, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-295-FtM-29CM (M.D. Fla.).

The matter comes before the Court on initial review of the file.
The Plaintiffs, 15 pretrial detainees in the Lee County Jail, filed
a putative class action complaint for violation of civil rights on
April 30, 2018.  Plaintiffs Jackson, Duran, and Bauttia seek leave
to proceed in forma pauperis on the Complaint.

At the outset, the Court notes that the Complaint was not signed by
any of the 15 Plaintiffs listed on the complaint.  Thus, the
pleading fails to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 and M.D. Fla. R.
1.05(d).  Here, the warning would be futile because Eleventh
Circuit law prohibits prisoner Plaintiffs from proceeding in forma
pauperis in the same civil action.  Additionally, while a pro se
litigant has a right to litigate his individual claims in federal
court, it is plain error to permit an imprisoned litigant who is
unassisted by counsel to represent his fellow inmates in a class
action.  Consequently, pro se prisoner Plaintiff's cannot jointly
prosecute the action or proceed on their putative class action
complaint.

Consequently, Judge Steele dismissed the Complaint without
prejudice.  To the extent each individual Plaintiff wishes to
prosecute a claim, they will file a separate complaint in their own
action.  If, upon review of the individual complaints, the Judge
concludes that the interests of judicial economy require the
joinder of any claim(s), it may so order at that time.  The Clerk
of Court will enter judgment and terminate any pending motions and
close the action.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 31, 2018 Order is available at
https://bit.ly/2N8b2Vt from Leagle.com.

Charlie Jackson, Plaintiff, pro se.

David Baker, Jr., Plaintiff, pro se.

William Cole, Plaintiff, pro se.

Daniel Brown, Plaintiff, pro se.

Jesus M. Cruz, Plaintiff, pro se.

Blaine E. Williams, Plaintiff, pro se.

Daniel Thomas, Plaintiff, pro se.

Rodriguez Duran, Plaintiff, pro se.

Reginald R. Griffin, Plaintiff, pro se.

Ian Wagner, Plaintiff, pro se.


GC SERVICES: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Neuman Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against GC Services Limited
Partnership.  The case is titled as Sarah Neuman, on behalf of
herself and all other similarly situated consumers v. GC Services
Limited Partnership, Case No. 1:18-cv-04980 (E.D.N.Y., September 3,
2018).

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

GC Services LP provides adjustment services on claims and other
insurance related issues.  The Company offers customer care call
handling, sales order, entry taking, and tracking, also debt
collection, early delinquency, letter, and mailing.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
          ADAM J. FISHBEIN, P.C.
          735 Central Avenue
          Woodmere, NY 11598
          Telephone: (516) 668-6945
          E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


GLOBALSCAPE INC: Continues to Defend Giovagnoli Class Action Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GlobalSCAPE, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the company continues to
defend itself in a class action suit entitled, Anthony Giovagnoli
v. GlobalSCAPE, Inc., et. al.

On November 15, 2017, on August 9, 2017, a securities class action
complaint, Anthony Giovagnoli v. GlobalSCAPE, Inc., et. al., Case
No. 5:17-cv-00753, was filed against the Company in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Texas. On
November 6, 2017, the Court appointed Irfan Rahman as lead
plaintiff, and he filed the First Amended Complaint on July 26,
2018.

The Amended Complaint names the Company, Matthew Goulet, James
Albrecht, Thomas Brown, David Mann, Frank Morgan, and Thomas Hicks
as defendants for allegedly making materially false and misleading
statements regarding, inter alia, the Company's previously reported
financial statements.

The Amended Complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
"Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The Amended
Complaint seeks unspecified damages, costs, attorneys' fees, and
equitable relief.

GlobalSCAPE said, "Management intends to vigorously defend against
this action. At this time, the Company cannot predict how the
courts will rule on the merits of the claims and/or the scope of
the potential loss in the event of an adverse outcome. Should the
Company ultimately be found liable, the resulting damages could
have a material adverse effect on its financial position,
liquidity, or results of operations.

GlobalSCAPE, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, develops and
distributes software, delivers managed and hosted solutions, and
provides associated services for secure information exchange, and
data transfer and sharing for enterprises and consumers worldwide.
GlobalSCAPE, Inc. was founded in 1996 and is based in San Antonio,
Texas.


GOLDEN GATE: Settlement in Jama Suit Has Final Approval
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ABDIKHADAR JAMA an individual, JEES JEES, an
individual, and MOHAMED MOHAMED, an individual, Plaintiffs, v.
GOLDEN GATE AMERICA LLC, a foreign limited liability company and
EAN HOLDINGS LLC, ENTERPRISE HOLDINGS, INC., a foreign corporation,
and VANGUARD AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, a foreign business entity d/b/a
NATIONAL CAR RENTAL, ALAMO RENT A CAR, and ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR,
Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-611 RSL (W.D. Wash.), Judge Robert S.
Lasnik of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington, Seattle, granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Final
Approval of the proposed class settlement.

The proposed Settlement resolves all of the Settlement Class
Members' claims against the Defendants in exchange for EAN's
agreement to provide monetary relief to Settlement Class Members as
set forth in the Settlement Agreement and Release of Claims.  On
July 31, 2018, the Court held a Settlement Hearing to consider
whether to grant final approval to the Settlement and to consider
Class Counsel's Motion for Attorney's Fees, Costs, and Class
Representative Incentive Awards.  The Court heard argument from
counsel and allowed others to appear to voice their support for, or
objection to, the Settlement, the Fee Application, or both.

Having read, reviewed, and considered the papers filed in support
of and any in opposition to final approval of the Settlement,
including supporting declarations; oral arguments of the counsel
and presentations by any Settlement Class Members who appeared at
the hearing; the Class Counsel's Fee and Cost Application; the
Agreement; and the pleadings, Judge Lasnik granted final approval
to the Settlement.  He dismissed with prejudice all claims of
members of the Settlement Class against EAN and other released
parties as described in the Agreement.

As of the hearing date for the Plaintiffs' motion, the Parties
reported that 81 Class Members had been provided supplemental
notice based on updated identification data, but that these Class
Members would likely benefit from an extension of the opt-out
period and of the date for reversion to Defendant EAN of unclaimed
funds.  Accordingly, with respect to those 81 Class Members only,
the Judge extended the opt-out date by 180 days from today's date
and extended the date on which uncashed checks to those Class
Members revert to EAN to 360 days from today's date.  With these
modifications, he has afforded a full opportunity to all Settlement
Class Members to be heard.  Accordingly, he determined that all
members of the Settlement Class are bound by the Final Judgment.

Within 30 days of the full filing of the proposed Agreement in the
Court, EAN caused to be served a notice of the proposed Settlement
upon the appropriate state official of each State in which a Class
Member resides and upon the Attorney General of the United States.

As an incentive payment in compensation for the time, effort, and
risk they undertook as representatives of the Class, Judge Lasnik
awarded $1,000 to Abdikhadar Jama; $1,000 to Jees Jees; and $1,000
to Mohamed Mohamed.  He also approved the Class Counsel's
attorney's fees in the amount of $180,000.  These fees and costs
are in lieu of statutory fees and costs that either the
Representative Plaintiffs or the Settlement Class might otherwise
have been entitled to recover.

EAN will pay, through the Settlement Administrator, the fee and
cost award to the Class Counsel and the Service Awards to the
Representative Plaintiff, as well as make available to the
Settlement Class members the amounts provided in the Agreement, in
accordance with and at the times prescribed by the Agreement.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 31, 2018 Order is available at
https://bit.ly/2MnFfKK from Leagle.com.

Abdikhadar Jama, an individual, Jees Jees, an individual & Mohamed
Mohamed, an individual, Plaintiffs, represented by Daniel
R. Whitmore & Duncan Calvert Turner -- dturner@badgleymullins.com
-- BADGLEY MULLINS TURNER PLLC.

EAN Holdings LLC, Defendant, represented by Harry James Franklyn
Korrell, III -- harrykorrell@dwt.com -- Laura Turczanski --
lauraturczanski@dwt.com -- Taylor S. Ball -- taylorball@dwt.com --
at DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE.


GOOGLE LLC: Court Denies Class Certification in Woods' AdWords Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division, denied Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification in the case captioned RICK WOODS, Plaintiff, v.
GOOGLE LLC, Defendant. Case No. 11-cv-01263-EJD. (N.D. Cal.)

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

As the sole class representative, Woods proposes to represent two
classes, one with respect to the Smart Pricing feature and the
other with respect to the Location Targeting feature. The Smart
Pricing Class is defined as:

     All persons and entities located within the United States who,
between August 22, 2006 and February 20, 2013, advertised through
Google's AdWords program and paid for clicks on their Google
AdWords advertisement(s), where such clicks were not Smart Priced
because they (1) originated from a property on Google's Display
Network and Google applied no Smart Pricing measurement, or (2)
were AFMA Clicks, Search Bundled Clicks, or mGDN Clicks.

The Location Targeting Class is defined as:

     All persons and entities located within the United States who,
between January 1, 2004 and March 22, 2011, advertised through
Google's AdWords program and paid for clicks on their Google
AdWords advertisement(s), where such clicks did not originate from
the location selected by the advertiser.

LEGAL STANDARD

Class Certification

Rule 23(a) provides that a class may only be certified if (1) the
class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable;
(2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class; (3) the
claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the
claims or defenses of the class; and (4) the representative parties
will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.

Adequacy of Representation Under Rule 23(a)(4)

Google devotes its entire motion to deny certification to an
examination of the conflict between Woods, the sole class
representative, and the classes based on Woods's relationship with
the attorneys representing the classes. Although Woods attempts to
downplay this conflict in his opposition, there is a serious
mismatch between Woods's interests in this case and the classes'
interests in this case.

The Court finds that this disparity in interests is large enough
that Woods does not provide adequate representation of the
classes.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(4) mandates that the class
representative fairly and adequately protect the interests of the
class. As a general matter, the adequacy inquiry under Rule
23(a)(4) serves to uncover conflicts of interest between named
parties and the class they seek to represent. Scrutinizing for
conflicts is essential to guard the due-process right of absent
class members not to be bound to a judgment without adequate
representation by the parties participating in the litigation.

In the instant case, Woods's business connection with class counsel
creates an intolerable conflict of interests. The way that this
case unfolded (and that Woods became entangled with the lawyers) is
somewhat unusual. Before being recruited as the class
representative in this case, Woods was a debt collection and
personal injury lawyer in Arkansas.  In February 2011, just over a
month before filing the complaint in this case, Woods signed a
joint retainer agreement for Taylor Law Partners LLP (TLP) and Nix,
Patterson & Roach, LLP (Nix Patterson) to represent him in the
prosecution of an action against Google. The engagement letter,
written on TLP letterhead, provided that TLP's founding partner and
Nix Patterson would file a class action lawsuit against Google on
behalf of Woods and others similarly situated to Woods, with Woods
serving as a representative of the class. In accordance with that
agreement, on March 15, 2011, Nix Patterson along with Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP (Kessler Topaz) filed the class action
complaint in this case naming Woods as the class representative.  

After Woods agreed to serve as the class representative here, TLP
hired him as a partner at the firm. As Woods explained in his
deposition, TLP called him out of the blue in December 2012 and
asked him to join the firm as a partner. Woods immediately accepted
and became an equity partner the next month, in January 2013. Woods
originally owned a 1/10 partnership interest in TLP. At present,
Woods owns a 1/9 partnership interest in TLP. Woods's 1/9
partnership interest does not translate to a 1/9 equity interest,
as the firm's unwritten compensation scheme is quite convoluted.

In Woods's opposition to Google's motion to deny class
certification, he summarizes his interest as follows: Woods has a
1/9 interest in 50% of the balance of TLP's overhead account after
firm overhead is paidand after the originating partner has
collected the lion's share (55% to 75%) of the fees earned by the
firm. For present purposes, it suffices to note that Woods has a
partnership interest in TLP and receives compensation pursuant to a
complex payment scheme.

Once Woods became a partner at TLP, he signed a new retainer
agreement with Nix Patterson and Kessler Topaz that confirmed that
Woods's retention of the founding partner at TLP as counsel in any
matters pertaining to Google ha[d] been mutually terminated at
Woods's request. But crucial details are hazy. For example,
although some places in the record suggest that the new retainer
agreement was executed in early 2013, the agreement itself does not
appear to be dated and the signatories did not include dates of
signature, At a minimum, this missing fact clouds Woods's
contention that TLP immediately ceased representing him and
withdrew as counsel when Woods joined the firm.  

More troubling, however, is that the new retainer agreement does
not mention TLP's fees and that Woods does not identify any
documentation or other concrete evidence conclusively establishing
that TLP relinquished any fee interest in this action. In a request
for admission, Woods admitted that no Document exists in which TLP
or its founding partner relinquished any interest, right, fees or
proceeds of this litigation. Instead, Woods attempts to rely on an
informal renunciation of fees, but the evidence on this point
varies. For example, while TLP's founding partner has submitted an
affidavit stating that TLP gave up the right to any fee in the case
when Woods became a partner, his deposition testimony tells a
murkier story. Indeed, the founding partner conceded that he does
not recall telling Woods or other counsel that TLP was renouncing
any fee recovery but that it was just a given.

In other cases with the same lawyers, he understood that there was
an informal agreement that TLP would receive a referral fee if the
case was successful. Woods was not in a position to rehabilitate
these statements, and he testified accordingly.  If TLP stands to
earn a fee if this case is successful, Woods's status as equity
partner at TLP presents a plain conflict of interests with the
class because Woods could receive a portion of that possibly
sizeable fee.

In the end, the class representative must play a principal role in
ensuring protection of absent class members' interests. It is not
true that reliance on the court's control of settlement and
attorney's fees renders strict enforcement of the requirements of
Rule 23(a)(4) unnecessary. For the reasons described above, the
Court finds that because of Woods's close connection to Nix
Patterson and Kessler Topaz through his partnership at TLP, his
interests diverge too sharply from the classes so that he does not
"fairly and adequately protect the interests of the classes.

Although this conclusion also means that Nix Patterson and Kessler
Topaz cannot adequately represent the classes so long as Woods
remains at the helm, the Court does not find that the conflict
would continue to taint this case if a new class representative is
added.

Accordingly, the Court denies Woods's motion for class
certification and grants Google's motion to deny class
certification.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 23, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y7gfgrqw from Leagle.com.

Rick Woods, individually and on behalf of Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Brad Edward Seidel --
bradseidel@nixlawfirm.com -- Daniel Christopher Mulveny --
dmulveny@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer and Check, LLP, Margaret
Elin Mazzeo   -- mmazzeo@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer and
Check, LLP, Matthew Leo Mustokoff -- mmustokoff@ktmc.com -- Kessler
Topaz Meltzer and Check, LLP, Andrew Gordon Pate --
dpate@nixlaw.com -- Nix, Patterson and Roach, LLP, Bradley E.
Beckworth -- bbeckworth@nixlaw.com -- Nix, Patterson & Roach, pro
hac vice, Chad Ethan Ihrig -- cihrig@nixlaw.com -- Nix, Patterson
and Roach, LLP, Christopher Robert Johnson -- cjohnson@nixlaw.com
-- Nix, Patterson and Roach, LLP, pro hac vice, Jeffrey John
Angelovich -- jangelovich@nixlaw.com -- Nix, Patterson & Roach,
LLP, pro hac vice, Joseph H. Meltzer -- jmeltzer@ktmc.com --
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Louis Bradon Paddock --
bpaddock@nixlawfirm.com -- Nix, Patterson, Roach, LLP, pro hac
vice, Michael Bryan Angelovich -- mangelovich@nixlaw.com -- Nix
Patterson and Roach, LLP, pro hac vice, Michelle Newcomer --
mnewcomer@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Naumon A.
Amjed -- namjed@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer Check, LLP, Ramzi
Abadou -- ramzi.abadou@ksfcounsel.com -- Kahn Swick Foti LLP,
Richard A. Russo, Jr. -- rrusso@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer
and Check, LLP, pro hac vice, Robin Winchester --
rwinchester@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, pro hac
vice, Ryan Thomas Degnan -- rdegnan@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz
Meltzer Check, LLP, Sean M. Handler, Esq. -- shandler@ktmc.com --
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP & Stacey Marie Kaplan --
skaplan@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP.

Google LLC, Defendant, represented by Edward D. Johnson --
wjohnson@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP, pro hac vice, Eric
Evans -- tevans@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP, Daniel Edward
Jones -- djones@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP, Donald M. Falk
-- dfalk@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP, Lee H. Rubin --
lrubin@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP, Matthew Henry Marmolejo
-- mmarmolejo@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP & Sarah Eileen
Reynolds -- sreynolds@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP
Litigation.


HP HOOD LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Phillips Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL PHILLIPS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HP HOOD LLC; and DOES 1 through
100, inclusive, Case No. 34-2018-00238311 (Cal. Super., Sacramento
Cty., Aug. 7, 2018) is an action against the Defendants for unpaid
regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal
and rest periods.

Mr. Phillips was employed by the Defendants as an hourly-paid, non
exempt employee from October 2012 to January 2015.

HP Hood LLC is an American dairy company based in Lynnfield,
Massachusetts. Hood was founded in 1846 in Charlestown,
Massachusetts by Harvey Perley Hood. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
          LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC
          410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 265-1020
          Facsimile: (818) 265-1021


INNATE INTELLIGENCE: Profax Allowed to Answer in Levine's TCPA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LEVINE HAT CO., on behalf of itself and all other
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. INNATE INTELLIGENCE, LLC, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-01132 SNLJ (E.D. Mo.), Judge Stephen
N. Limbaugh, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri, Eastern Division, granted Profax, Inc.'s
motion for leave to file an Amended Answer and Affirmative Defenses
to the Plaintiff's First Amended Class Action Complaint.

The Plaintiff filed the action on July 13, 2016 against two
Defendants and alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act ("TCPA").  On Jan. 3, 2017, the Plaintiff amended
the complaint to add an additional nine Defendants, including
Profax.  That same date was the deadline for amended pleadings
under the case's Case Management Order.

Profax filed its Answer and Affirmative Defenses on Feb. 24, 2017.
The Court certified a class on Feb. 9, 2018 and then entered a
Phase II CMO on March 16, 2018.  Profax substituted new counsel on
May 22, 2018.  On June 13, 2018, Profax moved for leave to file an
Amended Answer and Affirmative Defenses to plaintiff's First
Amended Class Action Complaint.  The Plaintiff opposes the motion.

Profax points out that it was never given an opportunity to amend
its pleading in the time allowed by the CMO because it was added as
a party on the last permissible day under the CMO.  It that
discovery will not close until Aug. 31, 2018, and Profax's Rule
30(b)(6) deposition had not at that time taken place.  

Profax seeks to assert lack of jurisdiction over the
non-Missouri-resident class members under a line of cases that have
evolved since the United States Supreme Court's decision in
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, San
Francisco City, 137 S.Ct.  It also seeks to amend its affirmative
defense of lack of standing.  Profax similarly seeks to add detail
to its affirmative defense pertaining to Profax's argument that
plaintiff has not met the requirements of Rule 23.  Although it
acknowledges that the class has already been certified, Profax
states that its amendment is pertinent to a class definition.
Further, it adds constitutional defenses to its affirmative
defenses, a laches defense, prior business relationship and consent
defenses, unclean hands and waiver/estoppel defenses.

Judge Limbaugh holds that although some of Profax's defenses have
been unsuccessful in other cases, ultimately there is no prejudice
to the Plaintiff in light of the fact that discovery remains open,
and Profax had not yet been deposed at the time of amendment.
There remains plenty of time until trial, as well, allowing for an
extension of deadlines to the extent more discovery time is
required.  Accordingly, he granted Profax, Inc.'s motion.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 31, 2018 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://bit.ly/2MlPgYP from Leagle.com.

Levine Hat Co., on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander L. Braitberg --
alex@keanelawllc.com -- KEANE LAW LLC, Kimberly Starr Morr,
POTESTIVO AND ASSOCIATES P.C. & Ryan A. Keane --
ryan@keanelawllc.com -- KEANE LAW LLC.

Innate Intelligence, LLC, doing business as Innate Wellness
Centers, Defendant, pro se.

Nepute Enterprises LLC, Defendant, represented by Christopher
Douglas Longo -- longo@mklaw.us.com -- LONGO BIGGS, LLC.

ProFax, Inc., Defendant, represented by Abby L. Risner --
alr@greensfelder.com -- GREENSFELDER AND HEMKER, PC, Mary Ann L.
Wymore -- mlw@greensfelder.com -- GREENSFELDER AND HEMKER, PC &
Dawn Morville Johnson -- dmj@greensfelder.com -- GREENSFELDER AND
HEMKER, PC.


IQ DATA: Illegally Charged Interest on Bonds, Esposito Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Esposito, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. I.Q. Data International, Inc., Defendants,
Case No. 18-cv-00437, (M.D. Fla., June 21, 2018), seeks damages,
restitution, and all other relief resulting from unjust enrichment
and violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the
Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act.

Plaintiff and Class Members have entered residential leases in
Florida and, in lieu of tendering security deposits for them,
executed surety bonds. I.Q. Data is a debt collector that companies
have hired to collect monies from Plaintiff allegedly due on those
bonds and leases secured by them. I.Q. Data sent tenants letters
demanding they pay not only debts allegedly due, but also interest
on those bond debts despite the lack of judgment issued or prior
agreement, notes the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Jordan Shaw, Esq.
     Mark S. Fistos, Esq.
     Kimberly A. Slaven, Esq.
     ZEBERSKY PAYNE, LLP
     110 S.E. 6th Street, Suite 2150
     Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
     Telephone: (954) 989-6333
     Facsimile: (954) 989-7781
     Email: jshaw@zplIp.com
            mperez@zpllp.com
            mfistos@zplIp.com
            kslaven@zplIp.com

            - and -

     Dennis Card Jr., Esq.
     Darren R. Newhart, Esq.
     CONSUMER LAW ORGANIZATION, P.A.
     721 US Highway 1, Suite 201
     North Palm Beach, FL 33408
     Telephone: (561) 692-6013
     Facsimile: (305) 574-0132
     Email: DCard@cloorg.com
            Darren@cloorg.com


IRISH INVASION: Gonzales Sues Over Illegal Tip Credit
-----------------------------------------------------
Linda E. Gonzalez, on her own behalf and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Irish Invasion, Inc., Edel Asklund and Hugh Jackson,
individually, Case No. 18-cv-81160, (S.D. Fla., August 28, 2018),
seeks redress for Defendant's failure to pay minimum wages to all
servers/waitpersons pursuant to the Florida Minimum Wage Act and
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants operate as Paddy Mac's Irish Pub in Palm Beach Gardens,
Florida in Palm Beach County where Gonzales worked as a server.
Defendants claimed a tip-credit despite the fact that Gonzales was
paid below the minimum wage rate, notes the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Keith M. Stern, Esq.
      Hazel Solis Rojas, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF KEITH M. STERN, P.A.
      One Flagler, 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 800
      Miami, FL 33132
      Telephone: (305) 901-1379
      Facsimile: (561) 288-9031
      E-mail: employlaw@keithstern.com
              hsolis@workingforyou.com


J CHOO USA: Luc Burbon Files ADA Suit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against J Choo USA, Inc.  The
case is styled as Luc Burbon, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. J Choo USA, Inc., doing business as: Jimmy
Choo, Case No. 1:18-cv-08012 (S.D.N.Y., September 3, 2018).

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

J Choo USA, Inc., doing business as Jimmy Choo, manufactures
footwear products.  The Company offers sandals, wedges, boots,
shoulder bags, and accessories.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


J. RECKNER: Judgment on Pleadings Bid in Lyngaas TCPA Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BRIAN LYNGAAS, D.D.S., Plaintiff, v. J. RECKNER
ASSOCIATES, INC. D/B/A RECKNER HEALTHCARE, Defendant, Case No.
2:17-CV-12867-TGB (E.D. Mich.), Judge Terrence G. Berg of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern
Division, denied the Defendant's motion for judgment on the
pleadings.

The Plaintiff is a dentist in Livonia, Michigan.  On Jan. 5, 2017,
Dr. Lyngaas was unpleasantly surprised to discover the unsolicited
faxed communication on his office fax machine.  As can be seen from
the face of the fax, the Defendant sought to enlist Dr. Lyngaas as
a survey taker.  In exchange for 20 minutes of Dr. Lyngaas's time,
Reckner Healthcare offered to pay Dr. Lyngaas $30.

The Plaintiff alleges, which for purposes of the motion the Court
must presume to be true, that the Defendant is a for-profit
pharmaceutical marketing research firm.  He claims that the
Defendant collects data from medical professionals, and then sells
that data to clients in the health care, pharmaceutical, and
medical device industries.

The Defendant, for its part, does not deny that it sent the fax.
Rather, it contends that, as a matter of law, the fax is not an
advertisement for purposes of the TCPA.

Judge Berg finds that the fax calls to the attention of the public
the fact that the service of survey-takers is desired by the
Defendant.  The fax communicates that it is seeking to employ
survey-takers.  In exchange for this service, the Defendant is
willing to pay $30 to dentists for 20 minutes of their time.  It is
of no import that the Defendant is not seeking to sell a good or a
service to the Plaintiff.  The Defendant is offering to buy a
service from the Plaintiff.  Thus, the Defendant sent the fax with
profit as an aim.  The Defendant is announcing its desire to hire
the Plaintiff to take its survey, in exchange for $30.  As a matter
of law, that's an advertisement.  Accordingly, the Judge denied the
Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 31, 2018 Order is available at
https://bit.ly/2oYR8gX from Leagle.com.

Brian Lyngaas, D.D.S., Plaintiff, represented by Richard Shenkan --
rshenkan@shenkanlaw.com -- Shenkan Injury Lawyers, LLC, Tod A.
Lewis -- tod@classlawyers.com -- Bock Law Firm, LLC dba Bock,
Hatch, Lewis & Oppenheim, LLC & Phillip A. Bock --
phil@bockhatchllc.com -- Bock Law Firm, LLC dba Bock, Hatch, Lewis
& Oppenheim, LLC.

J. Reckner Associates, Inc. d/b/a Reckner Healthcare, Defendant,
represented by Andrew M. Lammert -- alammert@mlklaw.com --
McCarthy, Leonard & Kaemmerer, L.C., Brian E. McGovern --
bmcgovern@mlklaw.com -- McCarthy, Leonard & Kaemmerer LLC & David
E. Plunkett -- dep@wwrplaw.com -- Williams, Williams.


JAMBA INC: Fu Suit Seeks to Halt Focus Merger, Seeks Projections
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wei-Hsin Fu, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Jamba, Inc., Michael A. Depatie, Lorna
Donatone, Richard L. Federico, Andrew R. Heyer, David A. Pace,
James C. Pappas, Glenn W. Welling, Focus Brands Inc. and Jay Merger
Sub, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-01337, (D. Del., August 28,
2018), seeks to enjoin defendants and all persons acting in concert
with them from proceeding with, consummating or closing the
acquisition of Jamba Inc. by Focus Brands Inc., through its
affiliate Jay Merger Sub, Inc.; rescinding it in the event
defendants consummate the merger; rescissory damages; costs of this
action, including reasonable allowance for plaintiff's attorneys'
and experts' fees; and such other and further relief under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Focus will acquire Jamba for $13.00 per share in cash in a
transaction valued at approximately $200 million.

According to the complaint, the merger documents omitted material
information, as well as the valuation analyses performed by North
Point Advisors LLC. Said disclosure of projected financial
information is material because it provides stockholders with a
basis to project the future financial performance of a company, and
allows stockholders to better understand the financial analyses in
support of its fairness opinion.

Jamba, Inc., through its subsidiary, Jamba Juice Company, owns,
operates, and franchises Jamba Juice stores. The company's
restaurants provides blended whole fruit and vegetable smoothies,
bowls, juices, cold-pressed shots, boosts, snacks, and meal
replacements. Focus Brands is an affiliate of the Atlanta-based
private equity firm, Roark Capital Group which currently owns the
Schlotzsky's, Carvel, Cinnabon, Moe's Southwest Grill, McAlister's
Deli and Auntie Anne's brands. It is based in Sandy Springs,
Georgia and operates over 5,000 stores.  [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
      MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
      The Empire State Building
      350 Fifth Avenue, 59th Floor
      New York, NY 10118
      Telephone: (212) 971-1341
      Email: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com

             - and -

      Blake A. Bennett, Esq.
      COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A.
      The Brandywine Building
      1000 West Street, 10th Floor
      Wilmington, DE 19801
      Tel: (302) 984-3800
      Email: bbennett@coochtaylor.com


JB RAILROAD: Collins Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
Demarious Collins, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. JB Railroad Contracting, Inc., Case No.
3:18-cv-00165 (D. N.D., August 2, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid
wages, including overtime wages, and all other available relief
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff Demarious Collins is an adult resident of Illinois.
The Defendant employed the Plaintiff as an hourly non-exempt
laborer.

The Defendant JB is a North Dakota corporation doing business in
multiple states. Upon information and belief, its principal place
of business is located in Fargo, North Dakota. The Defendant is in
the business of providing track and transit systems construction
and maintenance services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
      Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
      NILGES DRAHER LLC
      7266 Portage Street, NW, Suite D
      Massillon, OH 44646
      Tel: (330) 470-4428
      Fax: (330) 754-1430
      E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com
              sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Richardson Sues over Sale of Talc Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
MARIE RICHARDSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JOHNSON &
JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. F/K/A JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES,
INC; IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC.; and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants,
Case No. 18CV332704 (Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty., Aug. 7, 2018)
seeks recovery for damages as a result of the Plaintiff's ovarian
cancer, which was directly and proximately caused by the wrongful
conduct of the Defendants, the false and fraudulent
representations, omissions, and concealments of the defective
nature of talcum powder, the main ingredient of the Defendants'
product.

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


KERYX BIOPHARMA: Asks Court to Reconsider Order on Dismissal Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, 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 defendants are
asking a Massachusetts court to reconsider its July 19, 2018 order
on the defendants' motion to dismiss a class action complaint.

Four purported class action lawsuits have been filed against the
company and certain of its current and former officers (Gregory P.
Madison, Scott A. Holmes, Ron Bentsur, and James Oliviero).

Three of these actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York, captioned respectively Terrell
Jackson v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No.
1:16-cv-06131, filed on August 2, 2016, Richard J. Erickson v.
Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. No. 1:16-cv-06218, filed on
August 4, 2016, and Richard King v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc.,
et al., No. 1:16-cv-06233, filed on August 5, 2016.

The Jackson complaint purports to be brought on behalf of
stockholders who purchased the company's common stock between
February 25, 2016 and August 1, 2016; the Erickson complaint
purports to be brought on behalf of stockholders who purchased the
company's common stock between March 2, 2016 and July 29, 2016; and
the King complaint purports to be brought on behalf of stockholders
who purchased the company's common stock between February 25, 2016
and July 29, 2016.

On August 26, 2016, the fourth complaint, captioned Tim Karth v.
Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 1:16-cv-11745, was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts,
which complaint was subsequently amended. The Karth complaint
purports to be brought on behalf of stockholders who purchased our
common stock between May 8, 2013 and August 1, 2016.  

The Jackson, Erickson and King matters were transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts on April 5, 2017
and subsequently consolidated with the Karth action.

Each complaint generally alleges that the company and certain of
its current and former officers violated Sections 10(b) and/or
20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by
making allegedly false and/or misleading statements concerning the
company and its business operations and future prospects in light
of the August 1, 2016 announcement of an interruption in its supply
of Auryxia.

By order dated July 19, 2018, the Court granted in part and denied
in part Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint. On August 2,
2018, Defendants filed an answer to the complaint and a motion for
partial reconsideration of the Court's July 19, 2018 order.

Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., a commercial stage
biopharmaceutical company, focuses on providing medicines for
patients with kidney disease in the United States. Keryx
Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 1997 and is headquartered
in Boston, Massachusetts.


KITH RETAIL: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Delacruz Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
EMANUEL DELACRUZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KITH RETAIL, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:18-cv-07099 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 7, 2018) is an action against
Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and
operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired
people.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's
website, www.kith.com, is not equally accessible to blind and
visually impaired consumers, in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

Kith Retail, LLC is a New York Limited liability company doing
business in New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Dana L. Gottlieb (DG6151)
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, N.Y. 10003-2461
          Telephone: (212) 228-9795
          E-mail: nyjg@aol.com
                  danalgottlieb@aol.com


KOHL'S DEPARTMENT: Petition for Rehearing in Chowning Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, WENDY CHOWNING, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KOHL'S
DEPARTMENT STORES, INC.; KOHL'S CORPORATION; DOES, 1-20, inclusive,
Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 16-56272 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied the petition for rehearing
and petition for rehearing en banc.

Chowning appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment to
Kohl's in her putative class action regarding alleged advertising
misrepresentations.

The Appellate Court finds that the proper calculation of
restitution in the case is price paid versus value received.
Chowning admits that she received value.  Therefore, the
appropriate calculation for restitution is the price Chowning paid
for the articles versus the value of the articles she received.

It finds that Chowning failed to meet her burden to prove she was
entitled to restitution.  First, Chowning's expert testified that
he was not expressing an opinion on retail value.  Second, Chowning
introduced no competent evidence regarding the value of articles of
clothing of similar style, quality, etc.  Without evidence of the
value received, that calculation is impossible.  Therefore, Kohl's
is entitled to summary judgment.

It also finds that rescission or full refund is unavailable in the
case.  Chowning admits that she received some value from the
articles of clothing and, thus, rescission is not available.
Disgorgement is also unavailable in the case.  Since the focus is
on Chowning's loss, the appropriate calculation for restitution is
the traditional restitution formula.

Finally, transaction percentage or actual discount is not available
as a method for calculating restitution.  First, this measure would
effectively seek damages sounding in contract, not equity.  Second,
Chowning's argument for this form of restitution is based on
standing cases.  Standing and the calculation of restitution have
different standards.  For these reasons, the Appellate Court
affirmed.

The panel has voted to deny the petition for panel rehearing.
Judge Norman Randy Smith and Judge Michelle Friedland have voted to
deny the petition for rehearing en banc, and Chief Judge Barbara M.
G. Lynnn has so recommended.  The full court was advised of the
petition for rehearing en banc and no judge has requested a vote on
whether to rehear the matter en banc.  Accordingly, the petition
for rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc are denied.  No
further petitions for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc may be
filed.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 31, 2018 Order is available at
https://bit.ly/2x8kNZ0 from Leagle.com.


L'OREAL USA: Cosmetic Bottle Dispenser Defective, Consumers Say
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Tullie Critcher, Twoana Clark-Sheppard, Victoria Marynovsky,
and Patricia Belbot, individually and on behalf of other similarly
situated persons, Plaintiffs, vs. L'Oreal USA, Inc., Defendants,
Case No. 18-cv-05639 (S.D. N.Y., June 21, 2018), seeks redress for
Defendant's misrepresentation of the usable amount of cosmetic
product sold in the defective manual pumping bottles for its liquid
cosmetic products in violation of various state consumer protection
laws and common law.

L'Oreal is a manufacturer and seller of cosmetic products. Their
containers accurately state the total amount of product contained
but failed to disclose the actual amount of product that can be
dispensed, says the complaint.

Critcher and Belbot purchased Visible Lift Serum Absolute while
Marynovsky purchased Age Perfect Eye Renewal Cream. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Laurence D. King, Esq.
      Matthew B. George, Esq.
      KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
      350 Sansome Street, Suite 400
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 772-4700
      Facsimile: (415) 772-4707
      Email: lking@kaplanfox.com
             mgeorge@kaplanfox.com

             - and -

      Ralph E. Labaton, Esq.
      KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
      850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
      New York, NY 10022
      Tel: (212) 687-1980
      Fax: (212) 687-7714
      Email: rlabaton@kaplanfox.com

             - and -

      Karen E. Snyder, Esq.
      Paul D. Snyder, Esq.
      SNYDER LAW FIRM LLC
      13401 Mission Road, Suite 207
      Leawood, KS 66209
      Telephone: (913) 685-3900
      Facsimile: (913) 440-0724
      Email: ksnyder@snyderlawfirmllc.com
             psnyder@snyderlawfirmllc.com

             - and -

      Matthew L. Dameron, Esq.
      WILLIAMS DIRKS DAMERON LLC
      1100 Main Street, Suite 2600
      Kansas City, MO 64105
      Telephone: (816) 945-7135
      Facsimile: (816) 945-7118
      Email: matt@williamsdirks.com


LANGHAM HOTELS: Faces Burbon Suit Asserting ADA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Langham Hotels
Pacific Corporation.  The case is titled as Luc Burbon, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated v. Langham Hotels
Pacific Corporation, Case No. 1:18-cv-08015 (S.D.N.Y., September 3,
2018).

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

Langham Hotels Pacific Corporation was incorporated in the state of
Delaware.  The Company is licensed to operate hotels.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LUMICO LIFE: Foote Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
----------------------------------------------
Hilton Foote, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Lumico Life Insurance Company, Case No. 1:18-cv-03719
(N.D. Ga., August 2, 2018), is brought against the Defendant for
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff is a resident of Atlanta, Georgia.

The Defendant Lumico Life Insurance Company is a Missouri
corporation with its principal place of business of 237 East High
Street, Jefferson, Missouri. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Steven H. Koval, Esq.
      THE KOVAL FIRM, LLC
      3575 Piedmont Road
      Building 15, Suite 120
      Atlanta, GA 30305
      Tel: (404) 513-6651
      Fax: (404) 549-4654
      E-mail: shkoval@aol.com


MARGE GROUP: Figueroa Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Nelson Figueroa, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated Plaintiff, v. The Marge Group, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
18-CV-01613, (D. P.R., August 28, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime compensation, meal and rest period, liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees, and costs under the provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 and the Puerto Rico Wage Payment Statute.

Defendant operates a construction company conducting disaster
relief work throughout Puerto Rico where Figueroa worked as a
manual laborer, performing construction tasks for houses in Puerto
Rico. He claims to have regularly worked more than 8 hours per day
and 40 hours per week but not paid any additional wages for
overtime due to being misclassified as independent contractors.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Don J. Foty, Esq.
      KENNEDY HODGES, L.L.P.
      4409 Montrose Blvd, Ste. 200
      Houston, TX 77006
      Telephone: (713) 523-0001
      Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
      Email: DFoty@kennedyhodges.com

             - and -

      Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
      SHELLIST LAZARZ & SLOBIN LLP
      11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
      Houston, TX 77046
      Tel: (713) 621-2277
      Fax: (713) 621-0993
      Email: rprieto@eeoc.net

             - and -

      Andres W. Lopez, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF ANDRES W. LOPEZ, P.S.C.
      P.O. Box 13909
      San Juan, PR 00908
      Tel: (787) 294-9508
      Fax: (787) 294-9519
      Email: andres@awllaw.com


MARICOPA, AZ: Injunction/Compensation Order in Melendres Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge J. Clifford Wallace of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's second supplemental
injunction and victim compensation order in the case, MANUEL DE
JESUS ORTEGA MELENDRES; JESSICA QUITUGUA RODRIGUEZ; DAVID
RODRIGUEZ; VELIA MERAZ; MANUEL NIETO, JR.; SOMOS AMERICA,
Plaintiffs-Appellees, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Intervenor-Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MARICOPA COUNTY,
Defendant-Appellant, and JOSEPH M. ARPAIO, Defendant, Case No.
16-16661 (9th Cir.).

The Plaintiffs filed te class action alleging that the Maricopa
County Sheriff's Office ("MCSO") racially profiled Latino drivers
and passengers under the guise of enforcing federal and state
immigration laws.  Following a bench trial, the district court
found that MCSO's conduct violated the Plaintiffs' constitutional
rights.  It entered an injunction, ordering MCSO to take a variety
of remedial measures including appointing an independent monitor to
assess and report on MCSO's compliance with the injunction,
increasing the training of MCSO employees, improving traffic-stop
documentation, and developing an early identification system for
racial-profiling problems.

The Appellate Court affirmed the injunction, except for certain
provisions dealing with internal investigations and reports of
officer misconduct, which it remanded for the district court to
tailor more precisely to the constitutional violations at issue.
It also dismissed MCSO and substituted Maricopa County in its
place.

The district court later discovered that MCSO had deliberately
violated the injunction and committed new constitutional
violations.  After 21 days of contempt proceedings, the district
court found that MCSO's sheriff and his command staff knowingly
failed to implement the injunction, deliberately withheld evidence
in violation of court orders, and manipulated all aspects of the
internal affairs process to minimize discipline on MCSO deputies
and command staff.  Finally, the district court found that MCSO
employees did not make a good faith effort to fairly and
impartially investigate and discipline misconduct. The discipline
imposed was inadequate.  

The district court entered a second supplemental injunction to
remedy the misconduct and protect the Plaintiffs' constitutional
rights.  Among other things, the injunction revised MCSO's
disciplinary matrix, conflict of interest and whistleblower
policies, training requirements for internal affairs staff, and
complaint intake and tracking procedures.

The injunction also vested the independent monitor with the
authority to supervise and direct internal investigations related
to the Plaintiff class and to inquire and report on other internal
investigations.  It ordered the appointment of an independent
investigator with disciplinary authority to investigate and decide
discipline for internal investigations deemed invalid by the court.
The district court also directed the County to implement a victim
compensation program for individuals injured by MCSO's violations
of the first injunction.

The County timely appealed.  The County argues that the district
court failed to tailor the terms of the second supplemental
injunction to remedy the constitutional and court order violations
it found.  It also argues that the injunction violates federalism
principles.  The County asks that the Court strikes the second
supplemental injunction "in its entirety."  It contends that it is
not a proper party to the action because MCSO and its sheriff do
not act on behalf of the County.  Finally, the County argues that
it has no authority under Arizona law to fund compliance with an
injunction, such as this one, that arises from willful misconduct.


Judge Wallace holds that the district court did not abuse its
discretion in formulating the terms of the second supplemental
injunction.  He is satisfied that the challenged provisions flow
from MCSO's violations of court orders, constitutional violations,
or both.  Each challenged provision addresses the internal affairs
and employee discipline process, which the district court found
based on ample evidence MCSO had manipulated to minimize or
entirely avoid imposing discipline on MCSO deputies and command
staff.  The Judge says MCSO's repeated bad-faith violations of
court orders and Judge Snow's seven years of experience with the
case at the time he issued the challenged orders lead him to
believe that the district court chose the remedy best suited to
cure MCSO's violations of court orders and to supplement prior
orders that had proven inadequate to protect the Plaintiff class.

The Judge also holds that the County is a proper party to the
action.  Arizona state law makes clear that the MCSO sheriff's
law-enforcement acts constitute County policy because he has final
policymaking authority.

Finally, he holds that the state law does not bar the County from
funding the injunction.  The County previously admitted its
responsibility to remedy harm from MCSO's intentional misconduct in
Melendres III.  There, it conceded that it was required, by Arizona
state statute, to provide funding for the massive changes the
district court has imposed and conceded that even if the Court had
never substituted it in place of MCSO, it would have nonetheless
had to bear the financial costs associated with complying with the
district court's injunction.  It cannot change its position now.

For these reasons, Judge Wallace affirmed the district court's
orders.  The County will bear the Plaintiffs' costs of appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 31, 2018 Opinion is available
at https://bit.ly/2oWKgkj from Leagle.com.

Richard Walker -- rkw@azlawpartner.com -- (argued), Walker &
Peskind PLLC, Scottsdale, Arizona, for Defendant-Appellant.

Andre Segura -- asegura@aclu.org -- (argued), ACLU Foundation of
Texas, Houston, Texas; Kathleen E. Brody and Brenda Muñoz Furnish,
ACLU Foundation of Arizona, Phoenix, Arizona; Cecilia D. Wang --
cwang@aclu.org -- and Katrina L. Eiland, ACLU Foundation, San
Francisco, California; Stanley Young -- syoung@cov.com -- Covington
& Burling LLP, Redwood Shores, California; Anne Lai Irving --
alai@law.uci.org -- California; Julia Gomez , Mexican American
Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Los Angeles, California; for
Plaintiffs-Appellees.

John M. Gore (argued), Acting Assistant Attorney General; Thomas E.
Chandler, Attorney; Appellate Section, Civil Rights Section, United
States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; for
Intervenor-Plaintiff-Appellee.


MARKETSOURCE INC: Court Issues Protective Order in Brum's Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California issued a Protective Order in the case captioned JENNIFER
BRUM and MICHAEL CAMERO, individually, and on behalf of other
members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
MARKETSOURCE, INC. WHICH WILL DO BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA AS MARYLAND
MARKETSOURCE, INC., a, Maryland corporation; ALLEGIS GROUP; INC., a
Maryland corporation; and DOES, 1 through 10, inclusive,
Defendants. Case No. 2:17-cv-00241-JAM-EFB. (E.D. Cal.).

Disclosure and discovery activity in this action are likely to
involve production of confidential, proprietary, or private
information for which special protection from public disclosure and
from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may
be warranted. Accordingly, the parties stipulate to and petition
the court to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The
parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket
protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that
the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends
only to the limited information or items that are entitled to
confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 23, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y9jtarpk from Leagle.com.

Jennifer Brum & Michael Camero, Plaintiffs, represented by Arnab
Banerjee , Capstone Law APC --
Brandon.Brouillette@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC,
Jonathan Michael Lebe , Lebe Law, A Professional Law Corporation,
Ruhandy Glezakos -- Ruhandy.Glezakos@capstonelawyers.com --
Capstone Law APC & Rodney Mesriani -- rodney@mesriani.com --
Mesriani Law Group.

MarketSource, Inc., Doing business as & Allegis Group, Inc., a
Maryland Corporation, Defendants, represented by Mike S. Kun --
mkun@ebglaw.com -- Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. & Kevin Dennis
Sullivan -- ksullivan@ebglaw.com -- Epstein Becker & Green, P.C.


MASSACHUSETTS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Union Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------
LOCAL 589; AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION; WILLIAM MCLEOD; MARYELLEN
SHIELDS; JOSEPH URNEK; and ANA WIDMAN, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MASSACHUSETTS BAY
TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, Defendants, Case No. 18-2469D (Mass.
Super., Suffolk Cty., Aug. 7, 2018) alleges that the Defendants
failed and refused to provide any wages at all for all work hours
of many employees, and continues to do so, without providing a
clear and accessible administrative mechanism to correct under
payments.

The Plaintiffs represent the employees of the Defendants in the
collective bargaining agreement.

The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority is the public agency
responsible for operating most public transportation services in
Greater Boston, Massachusetts. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas Taylor, Esq.
          Brian Connolly, Esq.
          GROMFINE TAYLOR & TYLER
          1420 King Street, Suite 500
          Alexandria, VA 22314
          Tel: (703) 683-7782
          E-mail: dtaylor@lbgt.com

               - and -

          Paul T. Hynes, Esq.
          Brian Rogal, Esq.
          ANGOFF GOLDMAN MANNING
          HYNES & DUNLAP, PC
          100 River Ridge Drive, Suite 203
          Norwood, MA 02062
          Telephone: (781) 255-7700
          E-mail: Phynes@AngoffGoldman.com


MASSIMO DUTTI: Violates Disabilities Act, Burbon Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Massimo Dutti USA,
Inc.  The case is captioned as Luc Burbon, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Massimo Dutti USA, Inc., Case No.
1:18-cv-08013 (S.D.N.Y., September 3, 2018).

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

Based in New York City, Massimo Dutti USA, Inc., is part of Inditex
group.  Massimo Dutti is a Spanish clothes manufacturing company,
which started off offering men's clothing but has expanded to
include clothing for women and children as well.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MERCANTILE ADJUSTMENT: Lopez Alleges Wrongful Debt Collections
--------------------------------------------------------------
SUHEIL LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MERCANTILE ADJUSTMENT BUREAU, LLC; LVNV
FUNDING, LLC; and JOHN DOES 1-25, Defendants, Case No.
3:18-cv-12490-AET-LHG (D.N.J., Aug. 7, 2018) seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. The
case is assigned to Judge Anne E. Thompson and referred to
Magistrate Judge Lois H. Goodman.

Mercantile Adjustment Bureau, LLC provides collection and accounts
receivable management services to lenders, debt purchasers, and
universities in the United States. Mercantile Adjustment Bureau LLC
was founded in 1934 and is headquartered in Williamsville, New York
with an additional office in Rochester, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff 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


NATERA INC: Defendants' Bid for Judgment on Pleadings Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------
Natera, 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 judge has granted the Company's motion
for judgment on the pleadings, without leave to amend, and ordered
that judgment be entered in favor of the defendants in the class
actions pending in the San Mateo Superior Court.

On each of February 17, 2016, March 10, 2016, March 28, 2016 and
April 4, 2016, purported class action lawsuits were filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Mateo (the "San Mateo Superior Court"), against Natera, its
directors, certain of its officers and 5% stockholders and their
affiliates, and each of the underwriters of the Company's July 1,
2015 initial public offering (the "IPO").

The complaints assert claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. The complaints allege,
among other things, that the Registration Statement and Prospectus
for the Company's IPO contained materially false or misleading
statements, and/or omitted material information that was required
to be disclosed, about the Company's business and prospects.

Among other relief, the complaints seek class certification,
unspecified compensatory damages, rescission, attorneys' fees, and
costs.

The Company removed these actions to the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, and the actions were
subsequently remanded back to the San Mateo Superior Court. The
Company has appealed the remand and discovery has been stayed, or
held, pending the appeal. The Company also filed a demurrer, or a
request for dismissal as a matter of law, in the San Mateo Superior
Court, which was granted on October 23, 2017.  

The San Mateo Superior Court demurred the claims under Sections
12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, without
leave to re-file. The San Mateo Superior Court granted the demurrer
as to Section 11 of the Act with leave to re-file. Plaintiffs
refiled an amended complaint on November 22, 2017. The Company
filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings under the amended
complaint on January 25, 2018, which the plaintiffs opposed.
Hearings on the motion were held in May and July of 2018.

On August 7, 2018 the judge granted the Company's motion for
judgment on the pleadings, without leave to amend, and ordered that
judgment be entered in favor of the defendants. Plaintifs may seek
appellate review of the judgment.

Natera said, "The Company intends to continue to defend the matter
vigorously, but cannot provide any assurance as to the ultimate
outcome or that an adverse resolution would not have a material
adverse effect on its financial condition and results of
operations. The Company is unable to predict the ultimate outcome
and is unable to make a meaningful estimate of the amount or range
of loss, if any, that could result from any unfavorable outcome."

Natera, Inc., a diagnostics company, provides preconception and
prenatal genetic testing services. The company was formerly known
as Gene Security Network, Inc. and changed its name to Natera, Inc.
in 2012. Natera, Inc. was founded in 2003 and is headquartered in
San Carlos, California.


NC KKA LLC:  Han Files Fraud Class Action in N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------
Janet Han, individually, and on behalf of all of the investors of
Sweetcatch KKA LLC, v. Robert Kwak, Joseph Ko, Scott Alling and NC
KKA LLC, Defendants, Case No. 654281/2018 (N.Y. Sup, August 28,
2018), claims compensatory damages, interest thereon, attorneys'
fees and punitive damages, imposition a constructive trust for the
benefit of Sweetcatch and Han over all improperly diverted assets
resulting from fraud, breach of fiduciary duty and breach of duty
of loyalty.

Kwak, Ko and Ailing (until his death on May 18, 2018) have together
owned and operated, directly or indirectly, a number of
restaurants, nightclubs, and event spaces in New York City,
including Arena Event Space, Baekjeong Korean Barbeque, Toi et Moi
Catering, Pulse Karaoke Bar, Mamouns Falafel, Third Floor Cafe,
Circle Nightclub and Brigitte Restaurant and on November 12, 2014,
fast casual cafe store locations in Manhattan under the name
"Sweetcatch."

Han and her husband were invited to invest in a few Sweetcatch
branches. Han tendered a check payable to Sweetcatch KKA LLC in the
amount of $1,000,000.

However, says the complaint, the first planned store was never
constructed or opened, at a loss of approximately $492,000.  The
Lexington Store, while open, was not operating profitably, and the
Bryant Park Store was not completely constructed or opened.
Defendants had insufficient funds to complete construction of new
stores and used her money to pay off its loans, the Plaintiff
contends. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel Gildin, Esq.
      Kevin M. Shelley, Esq.
      KAUFMANN GILDIN & ROBBINS LLP
      767 Third Avenue, 30th Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Phone: (212) 755-3100
             (212) 705-0840
      Fax: (212) 755-3174
      Email: dgildin@kaufmanngildin.com


NEVRO CORP: Holzer & Holzer Files Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------
Holzer & Holzer, LLC disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been
filed on behalf of investors who purchased Nevro Corp. securities
between January 8, 2018 and July 12, 2018. The complaint alleges
that Nevro made false and misleading statements and failed to
disclose that (1) the Company had engaged in a fraudulent scheme by
using protected confidential and proprietary trade secrets and
stolen documents from its competitors to develop and enhance the
Company's Senza I and Senza II systems; (2) as a result, the
Company's Senza I and Senza II systems were not "novel" or
"proprietary;" (3) these practices caused Nevro to be vulnerable to
increased litigation expenses and adverse legal and regulatory
action; and (4) as a result, Nevro's U.S. sales growth was not
sustainable.

If you purchased Nevro shares in between January 8, 2018 and July
12, 2018 and suffered losses on that investment, you are encouraged
to contact Corey D. Holzer, Esq. -- cholzer@holzerlaw.com -- or
Alexandria P. Rankin, Esq. -- arankin@holzerlaw.com -- call the
firm by toll-free telephone at (888) 508-6832, or visit the firm's
website at www.holzerlaw.com to receive additional information
about your legal rights

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California and the deadline to move for
appointment as lead plaintiff is October 22, 2018.

         Corey D. Holzer, Esq.
         Holzer & Holzer, LLC
         Telephone: 888-508-6832 (toll-free)
         Email: cholzer@holzerlaw.com [GN]


NEVRO CORP: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, disclosed the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Nevro Corp.  from January 8, 2018 through July 12,
2018, inclusive. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Nevro
investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Nevro class action, go to
https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1403.html or call Phillip Kim,
Esq. or Zachary Halper, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or zhalper@rosenlegal.com for information on
the class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, defendants during the Class Period made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) Nevro had engaged in a fraudulent scheme by
using protected confidential and proprietary trade secrets and
stolen documents from its competitors to develop and enhance the
company's Senza I and Senza II systems; (2) thus, Nevro's Senza I
and Senza II systems were not "novel" or "proprietary;" (3) these
practices caused Nevro to be vulnerable to increased litigation
expenses and adverse legal and regulatory action; (4) as a result,
Nevro's U.S. sales growth was not sustainable; and (5)
consequently, defendants' statements about Nevro's business,
operations, and prospects, were materially false and/or misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the true details entered the
market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October
22, 2018. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1403.html or to discuss your
rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact
Phillip Kim, Esq. or Zachary Halper, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll
free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
zhalper@rosenlegal.com.

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

View source version on
businesswire.com:https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20180824005244/en/

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


NORTHERN OIL: Awaits Court OK on Bid to Dismiss Fries Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Northern Oil and Gas, 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 awaiting
the court's decision on its motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint in the lawsuit by Jeffrey Fries.

On August 18, 2016, Fries, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York against
the Company, Michael Reger (the Company's former chief executive
officer), and Thomas Stoelk (the Company's former chief financial
officer and interim chief executive officer) as defendants.  

An amended complaint was filed by plaintiffs in July 2017.
Defendants (including the Company) filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint in August 2017. The court granted the Company's
motion to dismiss in January 2018, but permitted plaintiff the
opportunity to further amend the complaint.

A second amended complaint was filed by plaintiffs in January 2018.
Defendants (including the Company) filed a motion to dismiss the
second amended complaint in March 2018, and the Company is awaiting
the court's decision on that motion to dismiss.

The complaint purports to bring a federal securities class action
on behalf of a class of persons who acquired the Company's
securities between March 1, 2013 and August 15, 2016, and seeks to
recover damages caused by defendants' alleged violations of the
federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.

On May 25, Plaintiff filed a Response in Opposition to the Motion
to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint.  Northern Oil filed a
Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of its Motion.

The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend itself in this
matter.

Northern Oil and Gas, Inc., an independent energy company, engages
in the acquisition, exploration, exploitation, development, and
production of crude oil and natural gas properties in the United
States.  The company is based in Minnetonka, Minnesota.


OHIO: Court Dismisses Class Claim in RCI Prisoners Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RAY SCOTT HEID, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MARK HOOKS, at
al., Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-650 (S.D. Ohio), Judge Algenon L.
Marbley of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio, Eastern Division, dismissed the Plaintiffs' Fourteenth
Amendment Claim and class action allegation, and permitted them to
proceed on their Eighth Amendment Claim.

Heid and James E. Damron, inmates at the Ross Correctional
Institute ("RCI"), brought the action under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983
against Mark Hooks, the Warden of RCI, and Jeffrey Howard, the
Deputy Warden of Operations of RCI.  Specifically, Mr. Heid and Mr.
Damron seek to represent approximately 1,000 similarly-situated
white inmates, alleging violations of the Eighth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution.

Mr. Heid and Mr. Damron allege that they and other white inmates
are denied equal privileges of telephone access at RCI because, in
their view, the phones are controlled by black supremacists.  They
allege that prison officials allow the control of telephones to
occur and have enacted no remedies to the problems in spite of
having sufficient notice of these occurrences.  This lack of action
on the part of Mr. Hooks and Mr. Howard has, purportedly,
emboldened non-white inmates to visit acts of violence against the
Plaintiffs and other white inmates.  Consequently, they filed this
Complaint on Sept. 14, 2017, alleging violations of both the Eighth
and Fourteenth Amendments, attempting to represent as a class all
similarly-situated white inmates.

Following the filing of the Complaint, the Magistrate Judge issued
a Report and Recommendation, which recommended that Mr. Heid's and
Mr. Damron's Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection) Claim and
class action allegation be dismissed per 28 U.S.C. Section
1915(e)(2) and that they be permitted to proceed on their Claim of
deliberate indifference to a risk of serious harm under the Eighth
Amendment.

Mr. Heid and Mr. Damron filed an Objection to the Report and
Recommendation on Sept. 29, 2017, objecting to the recommendation
of dismissal of the Fourteenth Amendment Claim.

Judge Marbely agreed that neither the Complaint nor the Objection
to the Report and Recommendation allege an intentional act of
discrimination.  The facts, as alleged, do not support such an
inference: nothing in the record suggests that Mr. Hooks or Mr.
Howard harbored any discriminatory intent whatsoever.  As a result,
he adopted the Report and Recommendation and dismissed the
Plaintiffs' Fourteenth Amendment Claim.

The Magistrate Judge recommended permitting Mr. Heid and Mr.
Damron's Eighth Amendment Claim, as they alleged plausible facts in
support of their claim under the Eighth Amendment that Defendants
Hooks and Howard were deliberately indifferent to a known risk of
serious harm in the form of violence among inmates over telephone
access.  Such a situation appears to impose a substantial risk of
harm, which prison officials have a duty to mitigate.  The Judge
therefore adopted the Report and Recommendation as to the
Plaintiffs Heid's and Damron's Eighth Amendment Claim.

Finally, the Judge finds because neither Mr. Heid nor Mr. Damron
are attorneys, they are unable to fairly and adequately protect the
interests of a class of similarly-situated inmates.  Thus, he
adopted the Magistrate's Report and Recommendation with regard to
the Plaintiffs Heid's and Damron's class action allegation.  He
dismissed the Plaintiffs' class allegation claim.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 31, 2018 Order is available at
https://bit.ly/2x132dW from Leagle.com.

Ray Scott Heid, Plaintiff, pro se.

James E. Damron, Plaintiff, pro se.


OPEN DOOR: Court Requires Supplemental Brief in Conde FLSA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CARLOS CONDE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. OPEN DOOR
MARKETING, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 15-cv-04080-KAW (N.D.
Cal.), Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California ordered the
Plaintiffs to provide a supplemental briefing to their motion for
settlement approval.

The Plaintiffs will provide a supplemental brief regarding these
issues:

     A. Number of Opt-In Plaintiffs: It is unclear how many opt-in
Plaintiffs are affected by the Settlement Agreement.  The
Plaintiffs will clarify the number of the opt-in Plaintiffs.

     B. Calculation of Workweeks: The settlement will be allocated
based on the number of weeks worked.  The Plaintiffs must explain
why the California weeks are being doubled.

     C. Released Claims: The Settlement Agreement defines Released
Claims as the wage and hour claims, known or unknown, that could be
asserted under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") or any state
law, as defined in Section III A.  This suggests a broader release
than the wage and hour claims only.  The Plaintiffs will confirm
that the Settlement Agreement is limited to wage and hour claims as
to the opt-in Plaintiffs who are not named Plaintiffs.
Additionally, they must explain how the Court can approve the
settlement when the release is broader than the FLSA claims pled.

     D. Reasonableness of the Settlement: The Plaintiffs estimate
the maximum liability in the case to be $511,379.05 (excluding
civil penalties under California's Private Attorneys General Act
("PAGA")).  The $125,000 settlement amount is 24.4% of the full
verdict value.  First, the Plaintiff must explain how maximum
liability was calculated, sufficient for the Court to determine
that this number is a reasonable estimate of the Defendants'
potential liability.  Second, the Court requires further
information on the litigation risks faced by the Plaintiffs with
respect to the outside salespeople exemption under both the FLSA
and the California Labor Code.case.

     E. Non-Disclosure Requirements: The Settlement Agreement
provides that the parties and their counsel will not discuss the
litigation or settlement with any person, except in limited
circumstances.  In light of Gonzalez-Rodriguez v. Mariana's
Enterprises and the authority cited therein, and the fact that the
settlement agreement has already been filed in the public record,
the Plaintiffs must explain whether the non-disclosure provision
should be enforced.

     F. Binding Effect on California: The Plaintiffs state that the
release will be equally binding on the State of California, and
will preclude it from seeking to recover civil penalties from 2020
with respect to any violation of the California Labor Code arising
out of such allegations.  They will clarify whether this is limited
to the PAGA claims only.  Additionally, they will state whether
they received any response from the California Labor Workforce
Development Agency regarding the PAGA settlement, and if so, what
response was received.

     G. Dismissal of Class Action Claims: The settlement agreement
requires that Plaintiff Jennings dismiss the Rule 23 claims of the
putative California class members without prejudice.  The
Plaintiffs must address the Diaz v. Tr. Territory of Pac. Islands
factors, and explain whether voluntary dismissal of the class
claims is appropriate in the case, citing to relevant legal
authority.  Additionally, they must address whether notice of the
proposed dismissal or compromise will be given to all members of
the class in such manner as the court directs.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 31, 2018 Amended Order is
available at https://bit.ly/2N5Ya1R from Leagle.com.

Carlos Conde, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Shikwana Jennings, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated & Lisa Drake, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by
Shannon Liss-Riordan -- sliss@llrlaw.com -- Lichten & Liss-Riordan,
P.C.

Open Door Marketing, LLC, Larry Dale Clark & Jerrimy Farris,
Defendants, represented by Kristin Alexandria Smith --
ksmith@fosteremploymentlaw.com -- Foster Employment Law & Michael
Leslie Thompson, Lehr Middlebrooks Vreeland and Thompson, P.C.

20/20 Communications, Inc., Defendant, represented by Christopher
William Decker -- christopher.decker@ogletree.com -- Ogletree
Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart PC & Wendy V. Miller --
wendy.miller@ogletree.com -- Ogletree Deakins Law Firm, pro hac
vice.


OVERSTOCK.COM: Consolidated Utah Class Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Overstock.com, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the plaintiffs in the
consolidated class action lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in
the Central District of Utah voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit
without prejudice.

On March 29, 2018, a purported securities class action lawsuit was
filed against the company and two of its executives in the United
States District Court in the Central District of Utah, alleging
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act").


On April 6, 2018, a substantially similar lawsuit was filed in the
same court also naming the Company, and two of its executives as
defendants, bringing the same claims under the Exchange Act, and
seeking substantially similar relief.

On June 20, 2018, the Court consolidated the two cases and
appointed a lead plaintiff in the case. On August 7, 2018, the
plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit without prejudice.

Overstock.com, Inc. operates as an online retailer in the United
States. It operates in two segments, Direct and Partner.
Overstock.com, Inc. was founded in 1997 and is headquartered in
Midvale, Utah.


PALM BEACH CTY, FL: Sheriff Illegally Detained Minors, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
H.C., a minor, by and through his parent and natural guardian,
Jenny C., M.F., a minor, by and through his parent and natural
guardian, Asisa Rolle, T.M., by and through his parent and natural
guardian, Jessica Joiner, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Ric Bradshaw, Palm Beach County
Sheriff, in his individual and official capacity, Michael Gauger,
Chief Deputy of the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office, in his
individual capacity, Alfonso Starling, Corrections Operation Major
for the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office, in his individual
capacity, Frank Milo, Corrections Security Major for the Palm Beach
County Sheriffs Office, in his individual capacity, School Board of
Palm Beach County, Defendants, Case No. 9:18-cv-80810 (S.D. Fla.,
June 21, 2018) seeks all necessary and appropriate injunctive
relief under the Cruel and Unusual Punishment clause of the Eighth
and Fourteenth Amendments, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.

This class action civil rights lawsuit challenges the solitary
confinement of children who are charged as adults, most of whom
have not been convicted of any crime, at the Main Detention Center
of the Palm Beach County Jail. Defendants are also alleged of
denying these incarcerated children educational services, including
services needed to address their disabilities.

Unnamed Plaintiffs are minors detained at the Palm Beach County
Sheriff's Office. [BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Theodore J. Leopold, Esq.
      Diana L. Martin. Esq.
      COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC
      2925 PGA Boulevard, Ste. 200
      Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
      Telephone: (561) 515-1400
      Facsimile: (561) 515-1401
      Email: tleopold@cohenmilstein.com
             dmartin@cohenmilstein.com

             - and -

      Sabarish P. Neelakanta, Esq.
      HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER
      1028 N. Federal Highway
      Lake Worth, FL 33460
      Telephone: (561) 360-2523
      Facsimile: 866-73 5-7136
      Email: sneelakanta@hrdc-law.org

             - and -

      Melissa Duncan, Esq.
      LEGAL AID SOCIETY OF PALM BEACH CO., INC.
      EDUCATION ADVOCACY PROJECT
      West Palm Beach, FL 33401
      Telephone: (561) 655-8944, ext. 243
      Facsimile: (561) 655-5269
      423 Fem St, Ste. 200
      Email: mduncan@legalaidpbc.org


PERRIGO CO: Awaits Attorney General's Opinion on Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Perrigo Company plc 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 the parties in the
Eltroxin-related lawsuit await the Attorney General's opinion to
the settlement agreement.

During October and November 2011, nine applications to certify a
class action lawsuit were filed in various courts in Israel related
to Eltroxin, a prescription thyroid medication manufactured by a
third party and distributed in Israel by the company's subsidiary,
Perrigo Israel Agencies Ltd. The respondents included the company's
subsidiaries, Perrigo Israel Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and/or Perrigo
Israel Agencies Ltd., the manufacturers of the product, and various
healthcare providers who provide healthcare services as part of the
compulsory healthcare system in Israel.

One of the applications was dismissed and the remaining eight
applications were consolidated into one application.

The applications arose from the 2011 launch of a reformulated
version of Eltroxin in Israel. The consolidated application
generally alleges that the respondents (a) failed to timely inform
patients, pharmacists and physicians about the change in the
formulation; and (b) failed to inform physicians about the need to
monitor patients taking the new formulation in order to confirm
patients were receiving the appropriate dose of the drug.

As a result, claimants allege they incurred the following damages:
(a) purchases of product that otherwise would not have been made by
patients had they been aware of the reformulation; (b) adverse
events to some patients resulting from an imbalance of thyroid
functions that could have been avoided; and (c) harm resulting from
the patients' lack of informed consent prior to the use of the
reformulation.

Several hearings on whether or not to certify the consolidated
application took place in December 2013 and January 2014. On May
17, 2015, the District Court certified the motion against Perrigo
Israel Agencies Ltd. and dismissed it against the remaining
respondents, including Perrigo Israel Pharmaceuticals Ltd.

On June 16, 2015, the company submitted a motion for permission to
appeal the decision to certify to the Israeli Supreme Court
together with a motion to stay the proceedings of the class action
until the motion for permission to appeal is adjudicated. The
company has filed its statement of defense to the underlying
proceedings. The underlying proceedings have been stayed pending
the outcome of the mediation process and, if necessary, a decision
on the motion to appeal.

On November 14, 2017 the parties submitted the agreed settlement
agreement to the approval of the Supreme Court, which referred the
approval back to the District Court. During three hearings that
took place on November 29, 2017, December 13, 2017 and January 11,
2018 the District Court opined that it would approve the settlement
agreement subject to certain amendments to be proposed by the Court
(which would not impact the monetary settlement reached) and set a
hearing for January 30, 2018 to discuss and finalize the proposed
changes.

Meanwhile, the Court ordered the settlement to be (1) provided to
the Attorney General for review (standard procedure); and (2)
published in the written media (newspapers), to enable the class
members to submit any objections or "opt-out" to  the proposed
settlement by February 15, 2018.

On February 21, 2018, the District Court held a hearing to, among
others, review objections received from class members who had
notified the District Court of their desire to opt out of the
settlement. In addition, a representative of the Israeli Attorney
General's office notified the District Court that, based upon their
preliminary examination of the settlement, they intend to object to
the settlement in its current form. The District Court recommended
that the parties continue to discuss and minimize objections to the
settlement and scheduled another hearing for May 13, 2018.
    
The District Court Justice was appointed as a Supreme Court Justice
and ordered to move the case to a different panel. In an effort to
reach a decision before the appointment, an additional hearing was
held on March 12, 2018 in which the court urged the parties to try
and exhaust their negotiations to the fullest and provide an update
by May 13, 2018. In addition, the Court ordered the Attorney
General to submit its opinion to the settlement agreement by May
30, 2018, which was extended until July 23, 2018.

Perrigo Company plc, a healthcare company, manufactures and
supplies over-the-counter (OTC) healthcare products, infant
formulas, branded OTC products, and generic pharmaceutical products
worldwide. The company operates through Consumer Healthcare
Americas, Consumer Healthcare International, and Prescription
Pharmaceuticals segments. Perrigo Company plc was founded in 1887
and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.


PETCO ANIMAL: Gamez Files Suit Over Personal Info Disclosure
------------------------------------------------------------
David Gamez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Petco Animal Supplies Stores, Inc. and Does
1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-05530, (C.D.
Cal., June 21, 2018), seeks injunctive relief, statutory and
punitive damages, prejudgment interest on all amounts awarded,
reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses and costs of suit and such
other and further relief pursuant to California's "Shine the Light"
law.

The complaint says the Plaintiff shared personal information with
Petco Animal Supplies Stores who then shared it with affiliates
and/or other third parties for their direct marketing purposes.
Gamez made a written request asking to what extent Defendant had
utilized his personal information but was ignored, it adds. [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


PLAIN GREEN: Galloway Sues over Usurious Loan Rates
---------------------------------------------------
RENEE GALLOWAY; and ISABEL DELEON, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PLAIN GREEN, LLC; and
GREAT PLAINS LENDING, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-00540-MHL
(E.D. Va., Aug. 7, 2018) alleges violation of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, and the Virginia Usury
Laws.

The complaint alleges that the Defendants had established what is
commonly referred to as a "rent-a-tribe" business model, where a
payday lending scheme associates with a Native American tribe in an
attempt to cloak itself in the privileges and immunities enjoyed by
the tribe, or to at least create the illusion that it enjoys tribal
immunity. The Defendants are engaged in lending loans exceeding 12%
annual percentage rate which is usurious. Such loans are null and
void and neither the lender nor any third party may collect,
obtain, or receive any principal, interest, or charges on such
loans.

Plain Green, LLC is a tribal lending entity wholly owned by the
Chippewa Cree Tribe of the Rocky Boy's Indian Reservation, Montana,
a sovereign nation located within the United States of America
operates within the Tribe's Reservation. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kristi C. Kelly, Esq.
          Andrew J. Guzzo, Esq.
          KELLY & CRANDALL, PLC
          3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202
          Fairfax, VA 22030
          Telephone: (703) 424-7572
          Facsimile: (703) 591-0167
          E-mail: kkelly@kellyandcrandall.com
                  aguzzo@kellyandcrandall.com

               - and -

          Leonard A. Bennett, Esq.
          Craig C. Marchiando, Esq.
          Elizabeth W. Hanes, Esq.
          CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          763 J. Clyde Morris Blvd., Ste. 1-A
          Newport News, VA 23601
          Telephone: (757) 930-3660
          Facsimile: (757) 930-3662
          E-mail: lenbennett@clalegal.com
                  craig@clalegal.com
                  elizabeth@clalegal.com


POLLACK & ROSEN: Silberman Sues in S.D. Fla. Over FDCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pollack & Rosen,
P.A., et al.  The case is styled as Sharon Silberman, also known
as: Sharon Ashkenazi, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Pollack & Rosen, P.A., Midland Funding, LLC
and John Does 1-25, Case No. 1:18-cv-23596-KMW (S.D. Fla.,
September 3, 2018).

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

Pollack & Rosen, P.A., operates as a law firm.  The Company serves
clients in the areas of law, such as liquidation of accounts
receivables and collections for both consumer and business
accounts, commercial and general litigation, and family law.

Midland Funding, LLC, provides debt collection services.  Midland
was incorporated in 2005 and is based in San Diego, California.
Midland operates as a subsidiary of Midland Portfolio Services,
Inc.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin E. Zeig, Esq.
          ZEIG LAW FIRM, LLC
          3595 Sheridan Street, Suite 103
          Hollywood, FL 33021
          Telephone: (754) 217-3084
          Facsimile: (954) 272-7807
          E-mail: justin@zeiglawfirm.com


RAYONIER ADVANCED: Bid to Dismiss Transferred Class Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rayonier Advanced Materials 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
awaiting court ruling on its motion to dismiss a class action
lawsuit that was transferred to Tennessee.

On August 17, 2017, the City of Warren General Employees'
Retirement System filed a putative class action complaint against
the Company, Paul Boynton, and Frank Ruperto in the United States
District Court, Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division.
The plaintiffs allege the Company made false statements in filings
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") and other
public statements related to certain litigation with Eastman
Chemical, a customer of the Company, in third quarter and fourth
quarter 2015, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act, causing unspecified damages to stockholders of the
Company who purchased stock in the Company between October 29, 2014
and August 19, 2015.

The applicable Eastman litigation was resolved via settlement in
2015. The Company was served with the complaint on August 28, 2017.
On November 13, 2017, the Court appointed the Michigan Carpenters'
Pension Fund and Local 295 IBT Employer Group Pension Trust Fund as
lead plaintiff, and a law firm to act as lead counsel. On January
10, 2018, the Company and the individual defendants filed a motion
to dismiss the case for improper venue or, in the alternative,
asked the court to transfer it to the U. S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida. Per the court scheduling order, the
lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint (the "CAC")
on January 12, 2018. The CAC added Benson Woo, former CFO of the
Company, as an additional defendant.

On June 15, 2018, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Tennessee granted the Company's motion to transfer the case to
the Middle District of Florida, and on July 16, 2018 the Company
filed a motion to dismiss the case.

Rayonier Advanced said, "After all papers have been filed and a
hearing on the motion held in the U.S. District Court, we expect a
ruling on our motion in the first half of 2019. The Company
strongly disagrees with the allegations set forth in the complaint,
believes the lawsuit is without merit and will continue to
vigorously defend itself in this matter."

Rayonier Advanced Materials Inc. manufactures and sells cellulose
specialty products in the United States, China, Japan, Europe,
Latin America, other Asian countries, Canada, and internationally.
The company operates through High Purity Cellulose, Forest
Products, and Pulp & Paper segments.


RESTORATION ROBOTICS: Guerrini Hits Stock Drop from Low Sales
-------------------------------------------------------------
Edgardo Guerrini, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. Restoration Robotics, Inc., Ryan Rhodes,
Charlotte Holland, Frederic Moll, Jeffrey Bird, Gil Kliman, Emmett
Cunningham, Jr., Craig Taylor, Shelley Thunen, Sutter Hill
Ventures, L.P., Clarus Lifesciences II, L.P., Clarus Ventures II,
LLC, Alloy Ventures 2002, L.P., Alloy Ventures 2005, L.P., Alloy
Ventures 2002, LLC, Alloy Ventures 2005, LLC, Interwest Partners
IV, L.P., Interwest Management Partners IX, LLC, National
Securities Corporation, Roth Capital Partners, LLC and Craighallum
Capital Group, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 5:18-cv-03712 (N.D. Ca.,
June 21, 2018) seeks damages, including interest, reasonable costs
and expenses incurred in this action, and attorneys' fees pursuant
to the Securities and Exchange Act.

On October 13, 2017, Restoration Robotics commenced the public
offering of 3,575,000 shares at $7.00 per share, with an
underwriter over-allotment option to purchase up to an additional
536,250 shares.

Robotics is a medical technology company that develops and
commercializes a robotic device that assists physicians in
performing many of the repetitive tasks that are a part of a
follicular unit extraction surgery, the ARTAS System. ARTAS system
sales dwindled as potential customers have continued to forego the
purchase of an existing, limited ARTAS system in favor of waiting
for the forthcoming update. Company stock has since consistently
traded lower than $7.00 offering price, notes the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
      44 Montgomery Street, Suite 650
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 291-2420
      Facsimile: (415) 484-1294
      Email: rrivas@zlk.com


RIDLEY'S FAMILY: Esparsen Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Esparsen, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Ridley's Family Markets, Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-01556, (D. Colo., June 21, 2018), seeks
to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, and
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs as a result of willful
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant operates multiple retail grocery stores in states
including Colorado, Idaho and Utah. Esparsen worked at Defendant's
location in Gypsum, Colorado from approximately November 2017 to
March 2018.

The Defendant improperly classified its "Assistant Managers" as
salary-exempt employees, paying them a fixed salary regardless of
how many hours they worked, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Benjamin Lin, Esq.
      Jason T. Brown, Esq.
      JTB LAW GROUP, LLC
      155 2nd St., Suite 4
      Jersey City, NJ 07302
      Tel: (877) 561-0000
      Fax: (855) 582-5297
      Email: ben.lin@jtblawgroup.com
             jtb@jtblawgroup.com


ROBERT W BAIRD: Faces Mendez Suit Alleging ADA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Robert W. Baird &
Co., Incorporated.  The case is captioned as Himelda Mendez, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Robert W.
Baird & Co., Incorporated, Case No. 1:18-cv-08017 (S.D.N.Y.,
September 3, 2018).

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

Robert W. Baird & Co. Incorporated provides wealth management,
investment banking, asset management, and private equity services
to individuals, financial institutions, and corporate clients.  The
Company's services include fixed income investment management, M&A
advisory, equity underwriting, private equity placements, and
research.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SCHELL & KAMPETER: Dog Food Contaminated, Grossman Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------
Martin E. Grossman, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Schell & Kampeter, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-02344 (E.D. Cal., August 27, 2018), seeks
redress over Defendant's violations of the California Consumer
Legal Remedies Act, California False Advertising Law and California
Unfair Competition Law including for negligent misrepresentation,
breach of express warranty and breach of implied warranty.

Schell & Kampeter manufacture, distribute and sell their dog food
throughout the United States. Grossman purchased the Taste of the
Wild (R) Grain Free Pacific Stream Canine Formula Smoked Salmon Dry
Dog Food and claims it contains heavy metals, pesticides,
acrylamide and/or bisphenol A. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq.
     Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
     LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
     100 Washington Ave. S Ste. 2200
     MPLS, MN 55401−2179
     Tel: (612) 339−6900
     Fax: (612) 339−0981
     Email: rkshelquist@locklaw.com
            rapeterson@locklaw.com


            - and -

     Joseph DePalma, Esq.
     Susana Cruz Hodge, Esq.
     Steven J. Greenfogel, Esq.
     LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
     570 Broad Street, Suite 1201
     Newark, NJ 07102
     Telephone: (973) 623-3000
     E-mail: jdepalma@litedepalma.com
             scruzhodge@litedepalma.com
             sgreenfogel@litedepalma.com

             - and -

     Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
     Karla M. Gluek, Esq.
     Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
     GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
     Canadian Pacific Plaza
     120 S. Sixth St., Suite 2600
     Minneapolis, MN 55402
     Tel: (612) 333-8844
     Fax: (612) 339-6622
     Email: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
            kgluek@gustafsongluek.com
            rborrelli@gustafsongluek.com

            - and -

     Kevin A. Seely, Esq.
     Steven M. McKany, Esq.
     ROBBINS ARROYO LLP
     600 B Street, Suite 1900
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Telephone: (619) 525-3990
     Facsimile: (619) 525-3991
     E-mail: kseely@robbinsarroyo.com
             smckany@robbinsarroyo.com


SCYNEXIS INC: Continues to Defend Gibson Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Scynexis, 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 purported stockholder class action lawsuit
entitled, Gibson v. Scynexis, Inc., et al.

On March 8, 2017, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit was
filed in the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey against the Company and certain of its current and former
officers, captioned Gibson v. Scynexis, Inc., et al.  

The action was filed on behalf of a putative class of all persons
who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities (1)
pursuant or traceable to the Company's IPO, or (2) on the open
market between May 2, 2014, and March 2, 2017.  It asserts claims
for violation of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933
and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  

The complaint seeks, among other things, compensatory damages and
attorneys' fees and costs on behalf of the putative class.  

The Company believes that the claims lack merit and intends to
defend the litigation vigorously.

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

Scynexis, Inc. is a drug development company, develops and
commercializes anti-infectives to address unmet therapeutic needs.
The company was founded in 1999 and is headquartered in Jersey
City, New Jersey.


SEQUEL NATURAL: Faces Bland Suit over Contaminated Protein Shakes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW BLAND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SEQUEL NATURAL LTD. D/B/A VEGA; and
WHITEWAVE FOODS CO., Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-04767-JCS (N.D.
Cal., Aug. 7, 2018) seeks to recover damages and remedy against the
Defendants' continuing failure to warn individuals that Vega
Protein Powders and Protein Shakes expose consumers to heightened
levels of lead and cadmium.

According to the complaint, the heightened levels of lead and
cadmium found in the Vega Products are known by the State of
California to cause cancer, birth defects, and other health risks.
The amount of these toxic heavy metals present in a single serving
of the Vega Products is sufficient to expose consumers to a
substantial risk of birth defects and other reproductive harm.

Despite the heightened levels of toxic heavy metals present in the
Vega Products, the Defendants provide no warning whatsoever about
their presence, or the health risks, birth defects and reproductive
harm associated with their consumption.

Sequel Natural Ltd., doing business as Vega, provides plant-based
nutritional products in Canada and the United States. The company
was founded in 2001 and is headquartered in Burnaby, Canada. As of
August 1, 2015, Sequel Natural Ltd. operates as a subsidiary of The
WhiteWave Foods Company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
           Joel D. Smith, Esq.
           Thomas A. Reyda, Esq.
           BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
           1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
           Walnut Creek, CA 94596
           Telephone: (925) 300-4455
           Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
           E-Mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
                   jsmith@bursor.com
                   treyda@bursor.com


SETERUS INC: Court Narrows Claims in Baxa FCRA/RESPA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOHN BAXA ET AL., v. SETERUS, INC., SECTION "H"(5),
Civil Action No. 17-5434 (E.D. La.), Judge Jane Triche Milazzo of
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana
granted in part the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Amended Class
Action Complaint.

John Baxa and Linda Baxa filed their Initial Complaint in the Court
on May 31, 2017 asserting claims for state law breach of contract,
negligence, conversion, and fraud, and for violations of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"), and Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act ("RESPA").  They alleged that the Defendant, the
servicer of the Plaintiffs' home mortgage, failed to timely pay
property taxes on their home resulting in the home being sold at a
public tax sale, attempted to recover the resulting tax penalties
from them via an increase in their escrow payment, failed to notify
them of the increased payment, and improperly reported their
failure to pay that increase to credit agencies.  The Plaintiffs
filed their First Amended Complaint on June 7, 2017, asserting the
same claims.

On Dec. 1, 2017, the Plaintiffs sought and were granted leave of
Court to amend their First Amended Complaint to assert the
existence of a class of similarly situated Plaintiffs and make
claims on their behalf.  The Plaintiffs filed their Amended Class
Action Complaint on Dec. 4, 2017.  

The Amended Class Action Complaint does not include a statement
incorporating either of the previous complaints filed by the
Plaintiffs.  With respect to the named Plaintiffs, the Amended
Class Action Complaint alleges that the Defendant negligently and
fraudulently mismanaged the Plaintiffs' loans, causing the
Plaintiffs to suffer mental anguish, negative impacts to their
credit, and the improper default of their home loan.  The Amended
Class Action Complaint reframes some of the factual allegations of
the First Amended Complaint as allegations concerning the entire
class.

The Defendant now moves to dismiss the Amended Class Action
Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for
the failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted.  It
argues that the Plaintiffs fail to state a claim for breach of
contract, fraud, or violations of RESPA or the FCRA, and that the
Plaintiffs' negligence and conversion claims are prescribed.  The
Plaintiffs oppose the Motion.

Because the Plaintiffs have not alleged which specific provision of
the FCRA that the Defendant violated, Judge Milazzo will dismiss
without prejudice their claim under the FCRA.  

With respect to the Plaintiffs' RESPA claim, the Judge finds that
the Plaintiffs fail to allege that their loan was federally related
or that they were current in their mortgage payments.  Accordingly,
they've failed to state a claim under Section 2605(g).  Having
failed to sufficiently allege a claim under either Section 2605(e)
or Section 2605(g), the Plaintiffs' claim for violations of RESPA
will be dismissed without prejudice.

The Judge finds that the Plaintiffs' Amended Class Action Complaint
alleges that the Defendant undertook the obligation to pay escrow
items in a timely manner, that it failed to do so, and that the
Plaintiffs suffered damages as a result.  The Plaintiffs have
therefore stated a claim for breach of contract.  Accordingly, he
will deny the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' breach of
contract claim.

The Plaintiffs allege that at least some of the damage that they
incurred from the Defendant's failure to make timely escrow
payments resulted from the mere publication of notices identifying
them as tax debtors.  They do not contest that they also had
constructive notice of the tax delinquency as of the publication of
the notices.  The publication thus created injury and notice as of
May 26, 2016, triggering prescription.  That the Plaintiffs
suffered additional injury later on does not change the time at
which prescription began to run.  Accordingly, the Plaintiffs'
claims for negligence and conversion will be dismissed with
prejudice.

Finally, the Judge finds that the Plaintiffs' fraud allegation
fails to specify the particular statements contended to be
fraudulent or state when and where the statements were made.
Accordingly, their claim for fraud will be dismissed without
prejudice.
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Milazzo granted in part the
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.  She dismissed with prejudice the
Plaintiffs' claims for negligence and conversion; and dismissed
without prejudice their claims for fraud and under RESPA and the
FCRA.  The Judge denied the Defendant's Motion with respect to the
Plaintiffs' claim for breach of contract.  The Plaintiffs may amend
their Amended Class Action Complaint within 20 days of the Order to
correct the deficiencies identified.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 31, 2018 Order and Reasons is
available at https://bit.ly/2x537NO from Leagle.com.

John Baxa & Linda Baxa, Plaintiffs, represented by David S. Moyer
-- davidmoyerlaw@gmail.com -- David S. Moyer, LLC, Charles M.
Raymond -- charles@raymondlaw.us -- Law Offices of Charles M.
Raymond & S. Eliza James -- eliza@davidmoyerlaw.com -- David S.
Moyer, LLC.

Seterus, Inc., Defendant, represented by Godfrey Bruce Parkerson --
bparkerson@pmpllp.com -- Plauche, Maselli, Parkerson, LLP,
Christina M. Seanor -- cseanor@bradley.com -- Bradley Arant Boult
Cummings LLP & Conrad C. Rolling -- crolling@pmpllp.com -- Plauche,
Maselli, Parkerson, LLP.


SHERWIN-WILLIAMS: NJ Superfund Neighbors Can't Sue Over Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carol Comegno, writing for Cherry Hill Courier-Post, reports that a
federal judge has tossed out a lawsuit claiming toxic waste from a
former Sherwin-Williams Co. paint plant in Gibbsboro caused cancer
and other health problems for area residents.

Brad Lafferty and eight other families or individuals last year
filed the class-action lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Camden
against the Fortune 500 paint maker.

The Environmental Protection Agency continues to oversee the
cleanup of a Sherwin-Williams Superfund site stretching for 1.5
miles through Gibbsboro and Voorhees. The site includes the former
plant, a paint burn site, a separate dump, Kirkwood Lake, lakeside
properties, and multiple connected streams and their banks.

U.S. District Judge Robert Kugler said the suit's claims were too
broad.

"Plaintiffs are essentially asking this court to green light a
class area defined as anywhere there is contamination. This court
declines to do so," he ruled.

Though the judge said contamination and the EPA cleanup mandate are
undisputed, the defendants failed to identify specific substances
to which they were exposed and failed to identify any of the
following:

-- Diseases they are at an increased risk of developing
-- Potential risks
-- Types of medical monitoring program required
-- How program monitoring would operate
-- How monitoring would detect diseases.

"Plaintiffs vaguely allege increased health risks from potential
lead, arsenic, benzene, and benzo(a)pyrene exposures ... (but) have
simply not properly alleged that on a class-wide basis they have
suffered an increased risk of disease," Kugler concluded, adding
that even the named plaintiffs don't allege their individual
properties contained hazardous substances.

"The class itself is rendered impossible to identify without
extensive and individualized fact-finding or mini-trials," he
said.

The defendants' lawyer said he will continue to move his clients
claims forward in either federal or state courts as individual
personal injury claims rather than as a single class action.

"This is surely not the end of this case for the cancer-stricken
residents of this New Jersey town nor is it the end of the story
for Sherwin-Williams" said Haddonfield defense attorney Craig
Mitnick, Esq. -- craig@mitnicklegal.com

"This decision wasn't a huge surprise because we knew when we filed
that there could be obstacles to a class action," he continued,
"but it is still our belief there are elevated levels of chemicals
and we''ll have some additional evidence to present in the the
future."[GN]


SHUTTERFLY INC: Continues to Defend Monroy Suit
-----------------------------------------------
Shutterfly, 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 a class action lawsuit initiated by Alejandro Monroy.

On November 30, 2016, Alejandro Monroy on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, filed a complaint against the company in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

The complaint asserts that the Company violated the Illinois
Biometric Information Privacy Act by extracting his and others'
biometric identifiers from photographs and seeks statutory damages
and an injunction.

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

Shutterfly, Inc. manufactures and retails personalized products and
services primarily in the United States, Canada, and the European
Community. The company operates through Consumer and Shutterfly
Business Solutions segments. The company was founded in 1999 and is
headquartered in Redwood City, California.


SHUTTERFLY INC: Taylor Class Action Still Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------
Shutterfly, 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 purported class action suit filed by Megan
Taylor.

On December 12, 2017, Megan Taylor filed a purported class action
complaint on behalf of herself and other customers in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.

Taylor alleges that the Company misrepresents a deal it currently
offers through Groupon because it does not allow purchasers of the
Groupon offer to combine or "stack" it with other promotional codes
offered by the Company. Taylor is seeking monetary damages and
injunctive relief.

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

Shutterfly, Inc. manufactures and retails personalized products and
services primarily in the United States, Canada, and the European
Community. The company operates through Consumer and Shutterfly
Business Solutions segments. The company was founded in 1999 and is
headquartered in Redwood City, California.


SHUTTERFLY INC: Unit Defending Against Vigeant Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Shutterfly, 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 Lifetouch Employee Stock
Ownership Plan is facing a purported class action suit entitled,
Vigeant v Meek et al.

On March 1, 2018, a purported class action complaint was filed
against several directors of Lifetouch, Inc. (which became a direct
wholly-owned subsidiary of Shutterfly on April 2, 2018) and the
trustee of the Lifetouch Employee Stock Ownership Plan (the "ESOP")
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.

On April 2, 2018, the complaint was amended to include the prior
ESOP trustees and plan sponsor (Lifetouch) as additional named
defendants.

The complaint alleges violations of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act, including that the ESOP should not have been
permitted to continue investing in Lifetouch stock during a period
in which the Lifetouch stock price was declining. The plaintiffs
seek recovery for damages arising from the alleged breaches of
fiduciary duty.

The Company believes this suit is without merit and intends to
vigorously defend against it.

Shutterfly, Inc. manufactures and retails personalized products and
services primarily in the United States, Canada, and the European
Community. The company operates through Consumer and Shutterfly
Business Solutions segments. The company was founded in 1999 and is
headquartered in Redwood City, California.


SINCLAIR BROADCAST: Ford Suit Alleges Sherman Act Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Randal S. Ford dba Ford Firm, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc.,
Tribune Media Company, Tribune Broadcasting Company, LLC, Case No.
1:18-cv-02372 (D. Md., August 2, 2018), is brought against the
Defendants for violation of the Sherman Act.

The antitrust class action arises from a conspiracy among
Defendants and their co-conspirators to fix prices for commercials
to be aired on broadcast television stations throughout the United
States.

The Plaintiff Randal S. Ford, dba Ford Firm, is a law firm located
in Tuscaloosa, AL who purchased television advertising from a
marketing consultant at Sinclair.

The Defendant Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc., a Maryland
corporation headquartered in Hunt Valley, Maryland, is a
diversified television broadcasting company.

The Defendant Tribune Media Company, a Delaware corporation
headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, is a diversified media and
entertainment business.

The Defendant Tribune Broadcasting Company, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, is a
television broadcasting company that operates as a subsidiary of
Tribune Media Company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Megan E. Jones, Esq.
      HAUSFELD LLP
      600 Montgomery St #3200
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Tel: (415) 633-1908
      Fax: (415) 358-4980
      E-mail: mjones@hausfeld.com


SINGER FINANCIAL: Court Denies Class Certification in TCPA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania denied Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification in
the case captioned KHS CORP., Plaintiff, v. SINGER FINANCIAL CORP.,
et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 16-55. (E.D. Pa.).

The Plaintiff KHS Corp. moves to certify a class action under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.

KHS brings claims against Defendants Singer Financial Corp. (SFC)
and Paul Singer (Singer) under the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act (TCPA).

KHS moves to certify the following class based on claims under the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA):

     Each person sent one or more telephone facsimile messages
during the period June 24, 2014 to June 22, 2016, from Singer
Financial Corp. promoting the availability of commercial loans or
real estate.

LEGAL STANDARD

To meet the requirements of Rule 23(a): (1) the class must be so
numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable (numerosity)
(2) there must be questions of law or fact common to the class'
(commonality) (3) the claims or defenses of the representative
parties' must be typical of the claims or defenses of the class'
(typicality) and (4) the named plaintiffs must fairly and
adequately protect the interests of the class' (adequacy of
representation, or simply adequacy).

In this case, KHS seeks certification under Rule 23(b)(3), which
imposes the additional requirements that (i) common questions of
law or fact predominate (predominance), and (ii) the class action
is the superior method for adjudication (superiority).

KHS has not established that based on a preponderance of the
evidence its putative class meets the requirements of Rule 23.
Specifically, KHS' motion for certification fails the predominance
prong of Rule 23(b)(3). Therefore, the Court will focus the
discussion on predominance and not address the other requirements
under Rule 23.

To satisfy the predominance requirement of Rule 23(b)(3), a
plaintiff must show that questions of law or fact common to class
members predominate over any questions affecting only individual
members. The predominance test asks whether common issues of law or
fact in the case predominate over non-common individualized issues
of law or fact. If proof of an essential element of the cause of
action requires individual treatment, then class certification is
unsuitable.

In this case, a prediction of how issues will play out makes clear
that the individualized question of consent will defeat
predominance of common issues because the ultimate question for
each class member will be whether a given fax sent by SFC was
solicited or unsolicited. A violation of the TCPA only occurs if
the fax in question was an unsolicited advertisement. A solicited
advertisement is not a violation and does not require an opt-out
notice.  

A fax is a solicited advertisement if it was sent with the
recipient's prior express invitation or permission, in writing or
otherwise. When a recipient voluntarily provides a contact number,
she provides express consent to receive material related to the
reason why she provided her number in the first place. Thus, if a
fax number is voluntarily provided to a sender by a recipient, a
court will have to analyze whether any fax sent to that recipient
relates to the reason the contact info was provided in the first
place, because if it does, then express consent was provided for
the fax, and it cannot be an unsolicited advertisement.

Here, the facts demonstrate many reasons why common questions will
not predominate leading to the potential for thousands of
mini-trials on the individualized issue of consent. For each class
member, a fact finder will have to determine whether a received fax
was solicited or unsolicited. This is raised because of the
unchallenged nature of the evidence of how Singer created his
contact list that was used to fax putative class members. Over the
25 years he was in business Singer claims to have added to his list
continually by speaking directly to potential contacts, either
through networking or on cold calls. Importantly, Singer claims
that when he spoke to people and received a fax number, he always
would ask for permission to send faxed flyers. Thus, issues of
consent are clearly raised even more strongly than those in Gene
where the various ways in which contacts were added coupled with
the possibility of consent precluded class certification.   

KHS failed to elicit any common evidence that those who received a
fax had not given their consent.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 23, 2018 Memorandum
is available at https://tinyurl.com/yawua3uo from Leagle.com.

KHS CORP., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS THE
REPRESENTATIVE OF A CLASS OF SIMILARLY SITUATED PERSONS, Plaintiff,
represented by ALAN C. MILSTEIN -- amilstein@shermansilverstein.com
-- SHERMAN SILVERSTEIN KOHL ROSE PODOLSKY, JONATHAN B. PIPER --
jon@classlawyers.com -- BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC,
KIMBERLY M. WATT -- kimberly@classlawyers.com -- PHILLIP A. BOCK --
phil@classlawyers.com -- BOCK HATCH LEWIS & OPPENHEIM LLC & TOD A.
LEWIS -- tod@classlawyers.com -- BOCK & HATCH LLC.

SINGER FINANCIAL CORPORATION & PAUL SINGER, Defendants, represented
by THOMAS A. MUSI, Jr. -- tam@mmdlawfirm.com -- MUSI & MALONE &
DAUBENBERGER, LLP.

JOHN DOES 1-12, Defendant, represented by DENNIS COYNE , Litchfield
Cavo.


SODEXO INC: Settlement in Mejia FLSA Suit Has Final Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARIA LUISA MEJIA, ELVIRA MUNGIA LOPEZ, MARIA
BENAVIDEZ, and MARTIN MONTER, individually and acting in the
interest of other current and former employees, Plaintiffs, v.
SODEXO, INC., a Delaware corporation; SDH SERVICES WEST, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company (and wholly owned and controlled
subsidiary of SODEXO, INC.), and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-02120-LEK (E.D. Cal.), Judge Leslie E.
Kobayashi of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California granted the parties' joint motion for final approval of
their class settlement and payment to the Settlement Administrator.


Having received and considered the Settlement, the supporting
papers filed by the parties, and the evidence and argument received
by the Court at the hearing before it entered the Preliminary
Approval Order and at the final approval hearing on July 9, 2018,
the Judge finds that (i) the Notice of Proposed Settlement provided
in the case was the best notice practicable and satisfied the
requirements of law and due process; (ii) the proposed Class meets
all of the legal requirements for class certification; and (iii)
the terms of the Settlement are fair, reasonable and adequate to
the Class and to each Class Member.

For these reasons, Judge Kobayashi finally approved and certified
the class for purposes of the Settlement.  She finally approved the
Settlement and ordered the payment of those amounts to be made to
the Class Members who timely submitted valid claim forms out of the
Net Settlement Amount in accordance with the Settlement.

Finding that the fees and expenses in administrating the
Settlement, in the amount of $13,730, are fair and reasonable, the
Judge gave final approval to and ordered that amount be paid out of
the Maximum Settlement Amount in accordance with the Settlement.

She determines by separate order the request by the Plaintiffs and
the Class Counsel to the Class Representative Payments and the
Class Counsel Fees and Expenses Payment.

The parties are ordered to comply with the terms of the Settlement.
The Judge entered final judgment in accordance with the terms of
the Settlement Agreement, the Order Granting Preliminary Approval
of Class Action Settlement filed on March 7, 2018, and the order.

The Order will constitute a final judgment (and a separate document
constituting the judgment) for purposes of Rule 58, Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure.  The Parties will bear their own costs and
attorneys' fees except as otherwise provided by the Court's order
granting the Class Counsel Fees and Expenses Payment.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 31, 2018 Order is available at
https://bit.ly/2O6ra6k from Leagle.com.

Elvira Mungia Lopez, Maria Luisa Mejia, Martin Monter & Maria
Benavidez, Plaintiffs, represented by Eric Sebastian Trabucco --
ETrabucco@TheMMLawFirm.com -- Mallison & Martinez, Hector Rodriguez
Martinez -- HectorM@TheMMLawFirm.com -- Mallison & Martinez, Joseph
Donald Sutton -- JSutton@TheMMLawFirm.com -- Mallison & Martinez,
Marco A. Palau -- MPalau@TheMMLawFirm.com -- Mallison & Martinez &
Stanley S. Mallison -- StanM@TheMMLawFirm.com -- Mallison &
Martinez.

Sodexo, Inc., a Delaware Corporation & SDH Services West, LLC, a
Delaware Limited Liability Company (and wholly owned and controlled
subsidiary of Sodexo, Inc.), Defendants, represented by Zina Deldar
-- zinadeldar@paulhastings.com -- Paul Hastings, LLP, Jeffrey D.
Wohl -- jeffwohl@paulhastings.com -- Paul Hastings LLP & William
Tucker Page -- tuckerpage@paulhastings.com -- Paul Hastings LLP.


SOLCO HEALTHCARE: Valsartan Lawsuit Filed Over Contaminant
----------------------------------------------------------
Terry Turner, writing for the Drugwatch, reports that a newly filed
class action lawsuit targets companies that distributed or sold
valsartan blood pressure medications that were contaminated with
NDMA, a chemical believed to cause cancer.

Two New Yorkers filed the lawsuit on behalf of people who bought
valsartan that was tainted by NDMA.

NDMA (N-nitrosodimethylamine) is "reasonably anticipated" to cause
cancer in humans, according to the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services.

The Environmental Protection Agency classifies NDMA as a probable
human carcinogen and says exposure to high levels of NDMA may cause
liver damage.

Valsartan products recalled in July and August 2018 contained
higher than acceptable NDMA levels. The contamination may have been
happening since 2012.

The lawsuit filed in federal court in New York names four companies
as defendants. Two distributed the recalled valsartan. The other
two are pharmacies that sold it.

The valsartan lawsuit accuses them of negligence, fraud and
manufacturing a defective product, among other wrongdoing.

Companies named in valsartan class action are:

-- Solco Healthcare U.S. LLC
-- Prinston Pharmaceutical Inc.
-- Walgreens
-- Throggs Neck Pharmacy

Elizabeth Duffy and John Duffy filed the lawsuit. Both had
valsartan prescriptions for high blood pressure. Elizabeth Duffy
claims she took contaminated versions of valsartan "for some
time."

How to Join a Valsartan Class Action Lawsuit

The court must first certify the valsartan class action before it
moves forward. If that happens, people eligible for it will receive
a notification in the mail. People may also join through
advertisements posted after the court certifies it.

To join the class action lawsuit, people must have had the same
experience with the companies as outlined in the complaint. People
also must have suffered the same injuries as the Duffys.

The lawsuit claims injuries that include the purchase price of the
contaminated valsartan. It also mentions non-specific injuries from
ingesting NDMA. The lawsuit does not claim either person developed
cancer.

People may also opt out of the class action and file their own
lawsuits. People who suffer serious valsartan injuries may want to
pursue their own lawsuits.

Class actions tend to cover only minor injuries. These are usually
injuries that would not make an individual lawsuit worthwhile.

The valsartan class action seeks the full purchase price of the
drugs. It also asks for any other payments the law might allow
against the four companies named. It does not seek damages that
would cover costs associated with cancer.

Valsartan Recall Expanded Quickly

In July 2018, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced that
three companies voluntarily recalled generic valsartan. By early
August, the number of companies announcing valsartan recalls grew
to 10.

As of Aug. 20, 2018, 16 companies had announced recalls, according
to a list by the FDA.

Most of those companies used the same China-based manufacturer to
supply valsartan. Zhejiang Huahai Pharmaceuticals blamed changes to
its manufacturing process for the contamination. Those changes took
place in 2012.

One company used Hetero Labs Limited in India as its manufacturer.

The FDA continues to track valsartan production. It is testing
samples from other valsartan manufacturers for NDMA beyond
acceptable levels. The agency also continues to post updates about
the recall.[GN]


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Court Dismisses Miller's BIPA Suit
------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, granted Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
the case captioned JENNIFER MILLER, SCOTT POOLE, and KEVINENGLUND,
Plaintiffs, v. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO., Defendant. No. 18C86. (N. D.
Ill.).

Plaintiffs Jennifer Miller, Scott Poole, and Kevin Englund filed
this lawsuit against Defendant Southwest Airlines Co. on behalf of
themselves and a putative class of similarly situated individuals.
Plaintiffs assert a claim for violations of the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act (BIPA), as well as various common law
claims.

The Defendant argues the Plaintiffs' BIPA claim should be dismissed
because Plaintiffs have not alleged an injury sufficient to make
them persons aggrieved under BIPA. The Defendant also contends the
Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for any of their common law
causes of action under Illinois law.

Additionally, the Defendants argue all of the Plaintiffs' claims
are pre-empted by the RLA, and the Plaintiffs' complaint must
therefore be dismissed for improper venue.

ARTICLE III STANDING

The Illinois legislature passed BIPA in 2008 in response to
concerns about the growing use of biometric identifiers and
information in financial transactions and security screening
procedures. BIPA regulat[es] the collection, use, safeguarding,
handling, storage, retention, and destruction of biometric
identifiers and information and provides a private right of action
to any person aggrieved by a violation.

Despite arguing the Plaintiffs have not alleged an actual injury,
as the party removing this action to federal court, the Defendant
predictably does not take the position that Plaintiffs have failed
to meet the injury-in-fact requirement for Article III standing, a
finding that would require remand to state court.  Similarly, the
Plaintiffs have not requested a remand to state court based on lack
of standing, instead characterizing the Defendant's no-injury
argument as a sham and contending Plaintiffs have alleged a
concrete injury sufficient to escape dismissal.  

A violation of BIPA's notice and consent provisions does not create
a concrete risk of harm to a plaintiff's right of privacy in his or
her biometric data unless the information is collected or
disseminated without the plaintiff's knowledge or consent.  Thus,
disclosure to a third party of information in which a person has a
right of privacy constitutes a sufficiently concrete injury for
standing purposes where the information is disclosed without the
person's knowledge or consent.  

Here, the Plaintiffs have alleged violations of BIPA's notice and
consent provisions, but they have also alleged that Defendant
disseminated their biometrics to unknown third parties, such as
payroll vendors or timekeeping vendors, without knowledge or
consent. Because the alleged violation of Plaintiffs' right to
privacy in their biometric data is a sufficiently concrete injury
for Article III standing, we are satisfied have subject matter
jurisdiction over this case and need not remand it to state court.


RULE 12(B)(3) MOTION TO DISMISS FOR IMPROPER VENUE

The Defendant also argues the Plaintiffs' claims should be
dismissed for lack of proper venue under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(3). The Defendants contend the Plaintiffs' claims
are subject to mandatory arbitration or collective bargaining
negotiations under the relevant CBAs and the RLA, and therefore,
this Court is an improper venue.

Legal Standard

Rule 12(b)(3) permits dismissal for improper venue. A motion to
dismiss based on a contractual arbitration clause is appropriately
conceptualized as an objection to venue, and hence properly raised
under Rule 12(b)(3).

The Defendant primarily argues that all of the Plaintiffs'
state-law claims constitute minor disputes as they are dependent on
an interpretation of the CBAs governing the Plaintiffs' conditions
of employment.

To succeed on its theory that the Plaintiffs' claims raise minor
disputes under the RLA and are therefore subject to mandatory and
exclusive arbitration, Defendant may show that the resolution of
Plaintiffs' claims requires interpretation of the CBAs.  

Here, the Court agrees with the Defendant that the Plaintiffs'
claims are minor disputes preempted by the RLA because the claims
require interpretation of the CBAs negotiated by Defendant and TWU
555 governing Plaintiffs' terms of employment.  

First, with respect to their BIPA claim, Plaintiffs assert
compensation-related injuries as a result of Defendant's
implementation and use of the biometric timekeeping system,
alleging that given the invasive nature of the finger scans and the
risks associated with providing and storing biometric information,
Defendant did not sufficiently compensate Plaintiffs for the
capture, collection, storage, retention, and/or use of their
biometric information. Plaintiffs further allege they would not
have agreed to work for Defendant, at least not for the
compensation they received, had they been informed pursuant to BIPA
of the nature of Defendant's biometric timekeeping system. Among
the relief Plaintiffs seek is compensation for the commercial value
of their biometric information.  

Because the CBAs govern the rates of pay, rules, and working
conditions of Plaintiffs' employment, Plaintiffs' BIPA claim
requires interpretation of the CBA to determine whether Defendant
has the authority to use a particular timekeeping system for
employees. Specifically, the CBAs dictate employees' wage rules,
rates of pay, and bonuses. Defendant and TWU 555 negotiated the
wage scales applicable to Plaintiffs, as well as other pay
provisions relating to premium pay.

Additionally, under the terms of the CBAs, TWU 555 is the sole and
exclusive bargaining agent for all of Defendant's United
States-based ramp, operations, provisioning, and freight agents
including Plaintiffs, and Defendant broadly retains the right to
manage and direct the work force subject to the labor agreements.
The CBAs further establish a grievance system and arbitration
procedure to resolve disputes concerning the interpretation or
application of the agreements as required by the RLA. Plaintiffs'
BIPA claim cannot be resolved without interpreting the wage
provisions of the CBAs and the relevant bargaining history to
determine whether the wages TWU 555 and Defendant negotiated were
intended to compensate employees for all conditions of their
employment, including use of the biometric timekeeping system.
Likewise, Plaintiffs' challenge to Defendant's decision to
implement the biometric timekeeping system requires an
interpretation as to whether the decision falls within the scope of
Defendant's right to manage and direct the work force.

The Defendant's motion to dismiss for improper venue under Rule
12(b)(3) is granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 23, 2018 Memorandum
Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y79zv3lz from
Leagle.com.

Jennifer Miller, Scott Poole & Kevin Englund, Plaintiffs,
represented by Steven Alan Hart, Hart McLaughlin & Eldridge, LLC,
Antonio Maurizio Romanucci , Romanucci & Blandin, LLC,  Brian H.
Eldridge, Hart McLaughlin & Eldridge, LLC, John Shannon Marrese,
Hart McLaughlin & Eldridge, LLC, Kyle Pozan, Hart McLaughlin &
Eldridge, LLC & Robert John McLaughlin, Hart McLaughlin & Eldridge,
LLC.

Southwest Airlines Co., a Texas corporation, Defendant, represented
by Melissa Anne Siebert -- msiebert@bakerlaw.com -- Baker &
Hostetler LLP, Bonnie Keane DelGobbo -- bdelgobbo@bakerlaw.com --
Baker & Hostetler LLP, Erin Bolan Hines -- ehines@bakerlaw.com --
Baker Hostetler LLP, Jeremiah Leon Hart -- jhart@bakerlaw.com --
Baker & Hostetler LLP & Suzanne Marie Alton de Eraso --
saltondeeraso@bakerlaw.com -- Baker Hostetler.


ST JOHN KNITS: Burbon Suit Asserts ADA Breach
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against St. John Knits, Inc.
The case is titled as Luc Burbon, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. St. John Knits, Inc., Case No.
1:18-cv-08014 (S.D.N.Y., September 3, 2018).

The Plaintiff alleges violations of the Americans with Disabilities
Act.

St. John Knits, Inc., designs, manufactures, and markets women's
clothing and accessories.  The Company offers a variety of products
such as jackets, tops, dresses, bottoms, evening and swim wear,
jewelry, shoes, handbags, scarves, belts, and travel accessories.
St. John Knits markets its products worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SURGERY PARTNERS: Hearing Today on Bid to Dismiss Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Surgery Partners, 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 hearing has been set
for September 13, 2018, on the motion to dismiss the Delaware class
action lawsuit against the Company and others.

On December 4, 2017, the Company, certain current and former
members of the Company's board of directors, H.I.G. Capital LLC and
certain of its affiliates and Bain Capital Private Equity, L.P. and
certain of its affiliates and advised funds (collectively, the
"Defendants") were named as defendants in a suit filed in the
Delaware Court of Chancery (the "Delaware Action") by a purported
Company stockholder relating to the Transactions.

The plaintiff in the Delaware Action claims that the Defendants
breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the
Transactions, and that, in the alternative, Bain Capital aided and
abetted those purported breaches. The plaintiff in the Delaware
Action purports to assert those claims on the Company's behalf, as
well as on behalf of a putative class of Company stockholders and
requests that the Court award monetary damages to the purported
class and/or the Company.

On January 2, 2018 the defendants in the Delaware Action moved to
dismiss all of the claims asserted in that suit. Briefing on that
motion concluded on May 21, 2018. A hearing date on the motion has
been set for September 13, 2018.

Surgery Partners, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates surgical
facilities in the United States. The company operates through three
segments: Surgical Facility Services, Ancillary Services, and
Optical Services. Surgery Partners, Inc. was founded in 2004 and is
headquartered in Brentwood, Tennessee.


SYMANTEC CORP: Court Consolidates Securities Fraud Suits
--------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California granted the Motion to Consolidate Actions in the case
captioned JAMES FELIX, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SYMANTEC CORPORATION, GREGORY S.
CLARK, and NICHOLAS R. NOVIELLO, Defendants. No. C 18-02902 WHA.
(N.D. Cal.), and pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act, appointed SEB Investment Management AB lead plaintiff.

Individual investor James Felix filed this putative securities
class action against defendant Symantec Corporation and individual
defendants Gregory S. Clark, CEO of Symantec, and Nicholas R.
Noviello, CFO and Principal Accounting Officer of Symantec,
alleging false and misleading statements in violation of federal
securities laws. Plaintiff alleges that Symantec revealed in May
2018 that its audit committee was investigating Symantec's
accounting practices in connection with concerns raised by a former
employee and that Symantec had contacted the SEC to advise the SEC
of its investigation.

Under FRCP 42(a), the district court may consolidate actions where
the actions involve a common question of law or fact. The district
court has broad discretion under this rule to consolidate cases
pending in the same district.

Here, both complaints allege claims under Sections 10(b), Rule
10(b)(5), and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act and include
allegations concerning Symantec's May 2018 announcement regarding
its audit committee's investigation into the company's public
disclosures. Both class periods end on May 10, 2018, but begin one
day apart, the Felix class period begins on May 20, 2017, while the
Broda class period begins on May 19, 2017. FRCP 42(a), however,
does not require the complaints to be identical for purposes of
consolidation. Because the complaints involve common questions of
fact and law, the motion to consolidate is granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 23, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y7djdc29 from Leagle.com.

James Felix, Plaintiff, represented by Laurence M. Rosen --
lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.

Symantec Corporation, Defendant, represented by Catherine Eugenia
Moreno -- cmoreno@wsgr.com -- Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati A
Professional Corporation, Caz Hashemi -- chashemi@wsgr.com --
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, Jerome F. Birn, Jr.
JBirn@wsgr.com -- Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati & Stephen Bruce
Strain -- sstrain@wsgr.com -- Wilson Sonsini Goodrich Rosati
Litigation.

Gregory S. Clark & Nicholas R. Noviello, Defendants, represented by
Alyse Jennings Rivett -- ali.rivett@morganlewis.com -- Morgan,
Lewis & Bockius LLP & Susan Diane Resley --
susan.resley@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius.

Pedro Reyes, Movant, represented by Rosemary M. Rivas --
rrivas@zlk.com -- Levi & Korsinsky LLP.

Image Securities Ltd., Movant, represented by Laurence M. Rosen ,
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.


SYNCHRONOSS TECHNOLOGIES: Bid to Drop New Jersey Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Synchronoss Technologies, 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 the consolidated securities class action lawsuit in the
District of New Jersey is still pending.

On May 1, 2017, May 2, 2017, June 8, 2017 and June 14, 2017, four
putative class actions were filed against the Company and certain
of its officers and directors in the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey (the "Securities Law Action"). After
these cases were consolidated, the court appointed as lead
plaintiff Employees' Retirement System of the State of Hawaii,
which filed, on November 20, 2017, a consolidated amended complaint
purportedly on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock
between February 3, 2016 and June 13, 2017.

The consolidated amended complaint asserts claims under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
and it alleges, among other things, that the defendants made false
and misleading statements of material information concerning the
Company's financial results, business operations, and prospects.
The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages, fees, interest, and costs.


On February 2, 2018, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint in its entirety, with prejudice,
which remains pending.

Synchronoss said, "The Company believes that the asserted claims
lack merit, and the Company intends to defend against all of the
claims vigorously. Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation,
the Company cannot predict the outcome of the actions at this time,
and can give no assurance that the asserted claims will not have a
material adverse effect on the financial position or results of
operations of the Company."

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

Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. provides cloud, digital, messaging,
and Internet of things platforms, products, and solutions
worldwide. Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. was founded in 2000 and
is headquartered in Bridgewater, New Jersey.


TECHTRONIC INDUSTRIES: Selling Illegal Knives, Says Lakatosh Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gabriel Lakatosh, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Techtronic Industries Company, Ltd.,
Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation, The Home Depot, Inc. and Does
1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-05527, (C.D. Cal., June
21, 2018), seeks awards of actual, compensatory, statutory and
punitive damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest on any
amounts awarded, reasonable attorney's fees and costs, injunctive
relief and such other and further relief resulting from negligence
per se, fraud, intentional failure to disclose or concealment,
negligent failure to disclose or concealment, unjust enrichment,
and violation of California Consumers Legal Remedies Act,
California False Advertising Law and various State Consumer
Protection/Fraud Acts.

Techtronic Industries Company manufactures, markets and sells a
popular model of utility knife known as Milwaukee Fastback which is
illegal to possess or carry in many jurisdictions. Defendants,
nevertheless, market and sell Milwaukee Fastback Products through
The Home Depot, Inc. stores and various other retail outlets. The
Home Depot, Inc. sells its own house-branded knives under the
"Husky" name, that operate similarly to the Milwaukee Fastback
Products, and are similarly illegal in many jurisdictions. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Paul R. Kiesel, Esq.
      Jeffrey A. Koncius, Esq.
      Nicole Ramirez, Esq.
      KIESEL LAW LLP
      8648 Wilshire Boulevard
      Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2910
      Tel: (310) 854-4444
      Fax: (310) 854-0812
      Email: kiesel@kiesel.law
             koncius@kiesel.law
             ramirez@kiesel.law

             - and -

      Joseph J. Zonies, Esq.
      Anthony L. Giacomini, Esq.
      Gregory D. Bentley, Esq.
      ZONIES LAW LLC
      1700 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400
      Denver, CO 80203
      Tel: (720) 464-5300
      Fax: (720) 961-9252
      Email: jzonies@zonieslaw.com
             agiacomini@zonieslaw.com
             gbentley@zonieslaw.com

             - and -

      Benjamin B. Lieb, Esq.
      TALUS LAW GROUP LL
      2816 South Adams Street
      Denver, CO 80210
      Tel: (303) 246-4767


TESLA INC: CEO Tweets Under Fire, Horwitz Hits Share Price Drop
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Horwitz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Tesla, Inc. and Elon R. Musk, Defendants,
Case No. 18-cv-05258 (N.D. Cal., August 28, 2018), seeks damages
and interest, reasonable costs, including attorneys' fees and
equitable/injunctive or other relief for violation of the federal
securities laws.

Tesla designs, develops, manufactures and sells electric vehicles
and energy generation and storage systems in the United States,
China, Norway and internationally.

On August 8, 2018, it was announced that the SEC was making
inquiries regarding the veracity of the tweets sent by its CEO Elon
Musk and the reason the disclosures were made via a social media
posting rather than a filing with the SEC with regards to taking
the company private. As a result of this news, Tesla's stock
declined $29.95 per share to close at $305.50 per share on August
17, 2018.

Plaintiff purchased Tesla securities at artificially inflated
prices, suffering significant losses, notes the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Shawn A. Williams, Esq.
     ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
     Post Montgomery Center
     One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
     San Francisco, CA 94104
     Telephone: (415) 288-4545
     Fax: (415) 288-4534
     Email: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com

            - and -

     David C. Walton, Esq.
     ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
     655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
     San Diego, CA 92101-8498
     Telephone: (619) 231-1058
     Fax: (619) 231-7423
     Email: davew@rgrdlaw.com

            - and -

     Frank J. Johnson, Esq.
     JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP
     655 West Broadway, Suite 1400
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Telephone: (619) 230-0063
     Fax: (619) 255-1856
     Email: FrankJ@JohnsonFistel.com


TMCSF INC: Cal. App. Affirms Denial of Arbitration in Fuentes Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, Division Two,
affirmed the trial court's judgment denying Defendant's Motion to
Compel Arbitration in the case captioned ALFREDO FUENTES, Plaintiff
and Respondent, v. TMCSF, INC., Defendant and Appellant. No.
E066242. (Cal. App.).

Fuentes filed this action against Riverside, alleging that
Riverside made various misrepresentations and violated various
statutes in connection with the sale of the motorcycle.  Riverside
filed a petition to compel arbitration. After hearing argument, the
trial court denied the petition.

It explained: "The arbitration provision is solely in the agreement
between Fuentes and Eaglemark, to which Riverside was not a party.
The agreement expressly identifies the scope of the obligation to
arbitrate as being limited to those between' plaintiff on the one
hand, and ESB and/or any of ESB's successors, assigns, parents,
subsidiaries, or affiliates on the other hand.' In light of that
language, there is no intent that the arbitration provision extend
to claims between the plaintiff and a third party like Riverside.
Nor is the court persuaded that Fuentes is equitably estopped from
denying the application of the arbitration provision to this
lawsuit."

RIVERSIDE HAS NO STANDING TO INVOKE THE ARBITRATION CLAUSE

General Legal Principles

Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.2 allows a party to an
arbitration agreement to petition to compel arbitration. By stating
that a party to an arbitration agreement may petition to compel
arbitration, the statute assumes that a proceeding to compel
arbitration will be between the signatories to the agreement.

Nonsignatory defendants may enforce arbitration agreements where
there is sufficient identity of parties. Enforcement is permitted
where the nonsignatory is the agent for a party to the arbitration
agreement or the nonsignatory is a third party beneficiary of the
agreement.  

Standing as a Party

Riverside contends that the Purchase Agreement and the Security
Agreement constitute a single contract, and hence it is a party to
the arbitration clause.

Under Civil Code section 1642, several contracts relating to the
same matters, between the same parties, and made as parts of
substantially one transaction, are to be taken together. Here, the
Purchase Agreement and the Security Agreement, by their terms, were
not between the same parties; thus, Civil Code section 1642 does
not apply.

In sum, then, the fact that the Purchase Agreement and the Security
Agreement could be considered one transaction is not dispositive.
Rather, just as when any issue turns on contractual interpretation,
the Court must look to the mutual intent of the parties.

The arbitration clause itself specified the entities to which it
applied. It applied to Claims between You  on the one hand, and ESB
and/or any of ESB's successors, assigns, parents, subsidiaries, or
affiliates and/or any employees, officers, directors, agents, of
the aforementioned on the other hand. To state the obvious,
Riverside is not Eaglemark. Also, as far as the record shows,
Riverside is not a successor, assign, parent, subsidiary,
affiliate,3employee, officer, or director of Eaglemark.

In sum, then leaving aside Riverside's claim that it was an agent
of Eaglemark, Riverside was not a party to the arbitration clause
and was not a nonparty expressly specified as able to invoke the
arbitration clause.

Standing as an Agent

Riverside contends that it is entitled to compel arbitration
because it is an agent of Eaglemark. As mentioned, the arbitration
clause required arbitration of claims between Fuentes and
Eaglemark's agents. And even when an arbitration clause does not
expressly extend to agents, an agent for a party may be able to
enforce an arbitration clause.

The Court disagrees, for three reasons.

First, there was no evidence that Riverside actually had this
power. Because the existence of agency is generally a question of
fact, it logically follows that agency must be established with
evidence. Here, all the evidence showed was that Fuentes entered
into a financing agreement on Riverside's premises on the same day
as he purchased a motorcycle from Riverside. For all the Court
know, Riverside had to contact Eaglemark and obtain its approval
for each and every financing agreement.

Second, as a general rule, a dealer does not act as the agent of
the financing agency simply because the dealer used forms supplied
by the financing agency. Riverside may be aware of these cases; it
appears to be trying to get around them by arguing that
Harley-Davidson financing is unique. As already discussed, however,
they have not shown that it is unique in any way that would prove
agency.

Third, even assuming that Riverside was Eaglemark's agent,
Fuentes's claims are made against Riverside in its own capacity,
not in its supposed capacity as Eaglemark's agent. This precludes
Riverside from invoking the arbitration clause. Eaglemark had no
reason to give its agents a right to compel arbitration of their
own disputes with its borrowers. However broad may be the terms of
a contract, it extends only to those things concerning which it
appears that the parties intended to contract.

Standing as a Third Party Beneficiary

Next, Riverside contends that it was entitled to enforce the
arbitration clause as a third party beneficiary of the Security
Agreement. It points out that it was the intended recipient of the
loan proceeds.

The Court accepts, for the sake of argument, that Riverside was the
third party beneficiary of Eaglemark's promise to pay the loan
proceeds to it. The arbitration clause, however, had its own list
of intended third party beneficiaries; as we have already
discussed, Riverside was not among them. Thus, the contract
affirmatively disproves any intent that the arbitration clause
should benefit Riverside.

What is particularly overreaching about Riverside's third party
beneficiary argument is that it is trying to enforce the
arbitration clause against Fuentes. However, it was Fuentes who by
making a promise to repay, a promise to pay interest, and other
promises conferred on Riverside its right to the loan proceeds. If
Riverside has any rights as a third party beneficiary, they should
run against Eaglemark, not Fuentes.

Standing as a Result of Equitable Estoppel

Riverside contends that Fuentes is equitably estopped to deny the
applicability of the arbitration clause.

Riverside points out that its counsel argued that without this
Security Agreement, Fuentes would not have a case and the trial
court responded, That may be true. However, it immediately went on
to rule that Fuentes was not estopped to dispute that. In context,
it appears to have been merely accepting counsel's position for the
sake of argument. In any event, as our review is de novo, the Court
is not bound by any findings much less comments by the trial
court.

The Court therefore concludes that equitable estoppel does not
apply.

The order appealed from is affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Cal. App.'s August 23, 2018 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ycfun9ku from Leagle.com.

Arent Fox, Halbert B. Rasmussen -- halbert.rasmussen@arentfox.com
-- and George N. Koumbis -- george.koumbis@arentfox.com -- for
Defendant and Appellant.

Pestotnik and Ross H. Hyslop, for Plaintiff and Respondent.


UNITED STATES: Court Dismisses Suit Over Superstorm Sandy
---------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Federal Claims granted Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss the case captioned ROBERT JACOBSEN and CAROL
JACOBSEN, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant. No. 18-578C.
(Fed Cl.).

The United States has moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to
Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6) of the Rules of the United States
Court of Federal Claims (RCFC).

Plaintiffs Robert and Carol Jacobsen have brought suit seeking
monetary and equitable relief against the United States, naming
specifically the Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA, The
Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. (Hartford), Citi Mortgage,
Inc. (Citi), and several federal and state court judges. Their
claims relate to damage caused by Hurricane Irene and Superstorm
Sandy, and subsequent decisions by FEMA, insurance companies, and
federal and state courts regarding insurance payouts. Plaintiffs
allege that Citi improperly foreclosed on their New Jersey
property.

STANDARDS FOR DECISION

Rule 12(b)(1) - Lack of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

The Tucker Act provides this court with jurisdiction over any claim
against the United States founded either upon the Constitution, or
any Act of Congress or any regulation of an executive department,
or upon any express or implied contract with the United States, or
for liquidated or unliquidated damages in cases not sounding in
tort. The Tucker Act does not, however, provide a plaintiff with
any substantive rights. To establish this court's jurisdiction
under the Tucker Act, a plaintiff must identify a separate source
of substantive law that creates the right to money damages.

Rule 12(b)(6) - Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can be
Granted

A complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as
true, to `state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. A
claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual
content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that
the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. The factual
matters alleged must be enough to raise a right to relief above the
speculative level on the assumption that all the allegations in the
complaint are true.

Rule 12(b)(1) - Lack of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

If this court is to exercise jurisdiction over any of Mr. and Mrs.
Jacobson's claims, it must do so under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C.
Section 1491(a). Other statutory grants of jurisdiction to this
court are inapplicable to Mr. and Mrs. Jacobson's complaint.
Saliently, this court can only hear claims against the United
States. Thus, it cannot consider claims against Hartford and Citi.
Under the Tucker Act, it can only hear claims for monetary
compensation resulting from a breach of contract with the
government or government violations of constitutional, statutory,
or regulatory law, excepting tort cases. This court may not hear
criminal complaints nor may it review decisions of state courts or
other federal courts. Consequently, none of the allegations of
erroneous prior rulings by other courts can be considered. In
related vein, the court does not have jurisdiction over claims
regarding the conduct of other judges, whether in their official
capacity or otherwise.

Request to Adjudicate Criminal or Tort Allegations

The Tucker Act excludes tort claims from this court's jurisdiction.
This court also lacks jurisdiction over criminal claims. While the
Jacobsens neither cite criminal statutes nor specify criminal
violations, they generally aver illegal, fraudulent, and criminal
acts by FEMA, Hartford, Citi, and several judges. This court has no
jurisdiction over any of these tortious or criminal allegations.

Requests for Equitable Relief

The Jacobsens request this Court to dissolve FEMA and declare FEMA
criminally inept. The Jacobsens also invite this court to fix the
court system fix the FEMA laws/statutes, enjoin FEMA and other
insurers from offering or renewing of flood insurance policies, and
compel a judge to testify regarding [specified orders. This relief
is not collateral to any monetary claim against the United States
and must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Constitutional Claims

This court has jurisdiction over non-tort claims against the
government for violation of constitutional rights, but only when
the Constitution requires payment of monetary compensation by the
United States.

The complaint specifically mentions three violations of the
Jacobsens' constitutional rights. The complaint alleges that Mr.
and Mrs. Jacobsen received improper notice about pending legal
action. Because these constitutional rights are not
money-mandating, this court lacks jurisdiction to hear these claims
and must dismiss them.

Potential Claim Against FEMA for $6,141,900

Finally, what remains is a potential claim against FEMA for
$6,141,900 for losses resulting from Superstorm Sandy.The complaint
makes general and conclusory allegations that the Jacobsens' rights
have been violated. But, the complaint fails to identify a specific
statutory, regulatory, or contractual basis for any claim. Though
the complaint repeatedly mentions illegal FEMA actions, no facts
pled implicate the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, any
statutory or regulatory right, or a contract with the government.
In sum, there are no facts pled that tie FEMA's conduct to a source
of substantive law on which to base jurisdiction.

The government's motion to dismiss the Jacobsens' complaint is
granted.

A full-text copy of the Court of Federal Claims' August 23, 2018
Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y9kez7pe from
Leagle.com.

ROBERT JACOBSEN, Plaintiff, pro se.

CAROL JACOBSEN, Plaintiff, pro se.

USA, Defendant, represented by Russell James Upton , U.S.
Department of Justice - Commercial Lit. Civil Division.


UNITED STATES: Providence Mother Reacts to Class-Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Caroline Goggin, writng for 12 WPRI Eyewitness News, reports that
in a sit-down interview with Eyewitness News on August 24 night,
Lilian Calderon, of Providence, said she and her family are
grateful a lawsuit filed on her behalf will move forward.

In a Boston federal courthouse on August 23, U.S. District Court
Judge Mark Wolf ruled a class-action lawsuit brought by the ACLU of
Massachusetts against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) can
move forward despite the government's attempt to have it dismissed.


"With the ruling, it just makes us a little more comfortable
again," Luis Gordillo, Calderon's husband, told Eyewitness News.
"It's a long process, but we know we should at least be okay for
now."

Lilian Calderon is the lead plaintiff in the ACLU's lawsuit. It
argues non-citizen immigrants should be granted temporary relief to
remain in the country while they work to get legal status. Several
other New England couples are also named in the suit.

"Family separation isn't just happening on the border. It's
happening in Warwick," Gabriela Domenzain, a friend of Calderon's,
said. "It's happening in Boston. And all around the country."

Domenzain is also the former director of The Latino Policy
Institute at Roger Williams University.

In January, Lilian Calderon was taken into custody by ICE officials
after a marriage interview at an immigration office in Johnston.
The Guatemalan native, who came to Rhode Island as a toddler, said
she thought she was taking the next step to become a lawful,
permanent resident.

But, the ACLU's lawsuit alleges she was unlawfully arrested and
detained for nearly a month in Boston.

"We were blind-sighted," Calderon said. "We didn't know our routine
interview was going to end up in us being separated."

"Even though they give couples specific laws to follow, and that
Lilian and Luis and people like them are within their rights to
apply and be citizens so they can stay united, [the government] is
using their own laws to trap people," Domenzain added.

There is no word yet on when Calderon's case will be heard. A
spokesperson for ICE has declined to comment on the case, citing
pending litigation.

Right now, Calderon is still working to become a U.S. citizen.
She's currently waiting on a waiver to get approved. which will
allow her to make the trip to the U.S. Consulate in Guatemala.

"To know that so many other Rhode Islanders have support for us and
nothing but love, it's heartwarming," Calderon said. "It's kind of
like the silver lining in all this. To know our neighbors, our
community, really showed up to help us and didn't let us
down."[GN]


UNITED STATES: Veterans Can Now File Class-Action Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------
Leo Shane III, writing for Military Times, reports that a federal
court ruling opened the possibility for veterans to file suit
against the Department of Veterans Affairs as a class rather than
individuals, a move that advocates say could dramatically shift how
legal cases against the bureaucracy are handled.

The ruling, Monk v. Wilkie, came from the U.S. Court of Veterans
Appeals. The eight-justice panel ultimately ruled against the
plaintiff's claim that their case should proceed as a class-action
suit, arguing it failed to meet previously established standards
for such legal consideration.

But they did say that in "appropriate cases" in the future,
class-action lawsuits would be entertained.

"This is a watershed decision, and its importance should not be
diminished merely because the court declined to certify this
proposed class," Chief Judge Robert Davis wrote in the opinion. "On
the contrary, the court's decision will shape our jurisprudence for
years to come and, I hope, bring about positive change for our
nation's veterans."

Fellow appeals court Judge Michael Allen said the decision "has
been decades in coming and holds great promise as a means to
address systemic problems in the VA system."

In private lawsuits, individuals must prove specific harm or damage
to their personal situation in order to win judgment. But in
class-action lawsuits, plaintiffs can show illegal or harmful
activity against a larger group, bringing with it different
standards for correction.

Officials with the Veterans Legal Services Clinic at Yale Law
School, which brought the suit on behalf of Vietnam veteran Conley
Monk Jr., praised the decision as a historic step forward.

"(Allowing class-action suits) will allow our nation's veterans to
unite in fighting for prompt answers to their disability benefits
claims," said clinic law student Catherine McCarthy said in a
statement. "The VA's delays are intolerable, and we hope the court
will exercise its class action authority to hold the agency to
account."

Whether future cases will have an easier time establishing an
eligible class remains to be seen. In this case, the panel of
judges rejected Monk's claim that all veterans facing lengthy wait
times for benefits appeals cases should be able to collectively sue
the department to force a quicker response.

But the new legal avenue could open the possibility of groups of
veterans with the same illness banding together to force VA to
respond, or require policy changes based on problems a similar
group has reported in navigating VA systems. Specific damages
awards are not covered in the new ruling.[GN]


VALUE ONE CORPORATION: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Fabricant Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TERRY FABRICANT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. VALUE ONE CORPORATION, and DOES 1 through
10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-06771 (C.D. Cal., Aug.
7, 2018) is an action against the Defendants in negligently,
knowingly, and willfully contacting the Plaintiff on the
Plaintiff's cellular telephone without any prior express consent in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Value One Corporation is a commercial loan service company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


VISUALSCAPE INC: Underpays Landscapers, Moresca Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
YVENOR MORESCA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. VISUALSCAPE, INC.; and IVAN CARLOS VILA,
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-23208-KMW (S.D. Fla., Aug. 7, 2018) is
an action against the Defendant to recover unpaid wages and
overtime compensation, as well as for liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff Moresca was employed by the Defendants as landscaper
from May 8, 2017 to August 1, 2018.

Visualscape, Inc. is a limited liability company in Miami-Dade
County, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J.H. Zidell, Esq.
          J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
          300 71st Street, Suite 605
          Miami Beach, FL 33141
          Telephone: (305) 865-6766
          Facsimile: (305) 865-7167
          Email: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM


WAL-MART STORES: Workers Sue Over Pregnancy Discrimination
----------------------------------------------------------
Scott Desmit, writing for The Daily News, reports that two women
from Albion are at the center of a class-action lawsuit filed
against Wal-Mart that accuses the company of discriminating against
pregnant workers.

Kaitlyn Hoover and Leigha Klopp are named as plaintiffs in the
suit, filed in Orleans County Court at the end of July and on
behalf of A Better Balance, a New York City-based group.

The suit alleges Wal-Mart fired both women as a result of
Wal-Mart's "brutal absence control system that punishes workers for
any unscheduled absence, regardless of whether it may be protected
by law."

Hoover was a jewelry associate at Wal-Mart in Albion when she
discovered she was pregnant in March 2017. Hoover within weeks
began to suffer "severe pregnancy-related nausea," according to the
suit.

"She vomited continuously for three days and became dehydrated,"
the suit claims. "She called into her store before her shift and
spoke to a manager to let her know she was worried about her
pregnancy and needed to go to the hospital. The manager said it
would ‘count against [her]'. Nevertheless, Ms. Hoover went to the
hospital; she spent four hours there, unable to keep down any
medication until she received fluids intravenously. When she
returned to work for her next scheduled shift, her manager fired
her, telling her that the absence was not excusable and that ‘We
[referring to Walmart] don't take doctors' notes.'

Klopp worked in apparel and learned she was pregnant in December
2016.

A month later Hoover began to feel dizzy at work and feared she was
having a miscarriage.

"When she told two managers that she needed to go to the hospital,
she was told it would be "marked against [her]" if she left her
shift early," the suit alleges. "Feeling that she had no choice,
she left and went to the hospital. When she returned to work, armed
with a doctor's note, one of her managers put up her hand to stop
her and said, "I don't want that." Ms. Klopp received half a point
for her absence. A few months later, Ms. Klopp woke up vomiting
blood. She called the store to tell them that she was going to the
hospital, on the advice of her obstetrician, and that she would
need to miss her shift. Again, her managers told her she would
incur a point for her absence – and this time, she would have
"too many points" and would be fired. Nevertheless, she went to the
hospital. When she returned for her next shift, Walmart fired
her."

Wal-Mart's policy is a points-based system where if an employee is
late, misses a shift or leaves early without approval, points are
assigned toe the employee. If a certain number of points are
accumulated, the employee can be disciplined or fired.

The lawsuit claims Wal-Mart violates New York's Pregannt Workers
Fairness Act.

The suit is one of many that have been filed against Wal-Mart in
recent years, including one in Illinois that includes more than
20,000 workers or former workers claiming discrimination against
pregnant employees.

A Better Balance, which has filed similar suits against other
companies and fights for workers' rights and reshaping laws, said
the suit is the first class action suit brought under New York
law.

"Walmart's ‘no-fault' absence control policy flouts New York's
pregnancy accommodation law by punishing pregnant workers for
lawful absences," said Dina Bakst, co-president and co-founder."No
pregnant worker, many fearing miscarriage, should be fired for
seeking emergency medical care. Walmart must immediately change its
policies to comply with this law and ensure that no pregnant worker
is forced to choose between a healthy pregnancy and a pink slip."

Wal-Mart officials at its Arkansas-based headquarters did not
respond to emails regarding the lawsuit.[GN]


WINDSTREAM SERVICES: Doppelt Class Action Concluded
---------------------------------------------------
Windstream Services, LLC 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 lawsuit
entitled, Doppelt v. Windstream Holdings, Inc., et al., has been
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 Services, LLC, together with its subsidiaries, provides
communications and technology solutions in the United States. It
operates through four segments: Consumer & Small Business,
Enterprise, Wholesale, and Consumer CLEC. he company was founded in
2004 and is based in Little Rock, Arkansas. Windstream Services,
LLC is a subsidiary of Windstream Holdings, Inc.


WOOD RIVER: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Property Liens
----------------------------------------------------------
Angelica Saylo Pilo, writing for Madison-St. Claire Record, reports
that Wood River city officials did not properly serve property
owners when recording liens against their land, a lawsuit claims.

Maag Holdings LLC filed a complaint on Aug. 14 in Madison County
Circuit Court against the City of Wood River, alleging that the
municipality failed to comply with Illinois statutes governing
liens.

According to the complaint, city officials placed a lien on the
plaintiff's property for removal costs of neglected weeds and
grass. The plaintiff claims the city did not serve the lien by
certified mail or personally, which violates Illinois statutes.

The plaintiff seeks class action status for its lawsuit to include
all Wood River residents with liens on their property that were not
properly served.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and damages. It is
represented by Shari L. Murphy, Esq. of the Law Offices of Shari L.
Murphy in Wood River.[GN]


XBIOTECH INC: Still Defends Rezko Class Action
----------------------------------------------
XBiotech Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the company continues to
defend itself in a class action suit entitled, Yogina Rezko v.
XBiotech Inc., John Simard, Queena Han and WR Hambrecht & Co.,
LLC.

On December 1, 2015, a purported securities class action complaint
captioned Yogina Rezko v. XBiotech Inc., John Simard, Queena Han
and WR Hambrecht & Co., LLC was filed against the Company, certain
of its officers and directors and the underwriter for its initial
public offering in the Superior Court for the State of California,
Los Angeles County.

On December 2, 2015, a purported securities class action complaint
captioned Linh Tran v. XBiotech Inc., John Simard and Queena Han
was filed against the Company and certain of its officers and
directors in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas.


The lawsuits are based on substantially similar factual allegations
and purport to be class actions brought on behalf of purchasers of
the Company's securities during the period from April 15, 2015
through November 23, 2015.

The complaint filed in California state court alleges that the
defendants violated the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the
"Securities Act"), and the complaint filed in federal court alleges
that the defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended (the "Exchange Act"), in each case by making materially
false and misleading statements concerning the Company's Phase III
clinical trial conducted in Europe to assess Xiloni(TM) as a
treatment for colorectal cancer.

The California complaint purports to assert claims for violations
of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act, and the
federal complaint purports to assert claims for violation of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.  

Both complaints seek, on behalf of the purported class, an
unspecified amount of monetary damages, interest, fees and expenses
of attorneys and experts, and other relief.

In September 2016, a stay was granted at the Superior Court for the
State of California, Los Angeles County, in Yogina Rezko v.
XBiotech Inc., John Simard, Queena Han and WR Hambrecht & Co., LLC,
in light of the ongoing case, Linh Tran v. XBiotech Inc., John
Simard and Queena Han, in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Texas, leaving plaintiffs with an opportunity re-file a
complaint in Texas. In October 2016, the Texas securities class
action lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice. At the June 7, 2017
hearing at the Superior Court for the State of California, Los
Angeles County, the Company was granted a motion on the grounds of
forum non conveniens. The judge ruled that the case belonged in
Texas, not in California. The case is nevertheless stayed, due to
California procedural rules, and not dismissed.

The plaintiffs re-filed their suit in Travis County district court,
located in Austin, Texas, on July 6, 2017. The Company subsequently
removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Texas.  Following a recent Supreme Court decision
holding that the types of claims asserted in this action are
non-removable, the suit was remanded back to Travis County district
court, where it remains pending.  

XBiotech said, " The Company believes the claims asserted in the
case are without merit and intends to mount a vigorous defense."

XBiotech Inc., a pre-market biopharmaceutical company, engages in
discovering and developing True Human monoclonal antibodies for
treating various diseases. XBiotech, Inc. was founded in 2005 and
is headquartered in Austin, Texas.



                            *********

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 ***