CAR_Public/180917.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, September 17, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 186

                            Headlines

A.J. PIEDIMONTE: Underpays Farmworkers, Cardenas Suit Alleges
ACCC INSURANCE: Fairman Files Suit in S.D. Mississippi
ADORE ORGANIC: Settles Class Action Over Anti-Aging Products
AETNA LIFE: Court Affirms Termination of STD Benefits
AKARI THERAPEUTICS: Nov. 28 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set

ALTERYX INC: Continues to Defend Amazon Web Services-Related Suits
ALTISOURCE SOLUTIONS: Underpays Inspectors, Collins Suit Alleges
AMBASSADOR THEATRE: Burbon  Sues for Disabilities Act Violation
AMERICAN FAMILY: Wash. App. Reverses Dismissal of CPA Suit
ANTHEM: $115MM Class Action Settlement Obtains Final Court OK

ANTHEM: Fee Award Not as Much as Plaintiffs' Attorneys Wanted
APPLE INC: Faces Class Action in New York Over ADA Violations
ARS NATIONAL: Klein Sues over Debt Collection Practices
ARS NATIONAL: Schwartz Class Suit Alleges FDCPA Violations
ASSET RECOVERY: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Melendez Says

ATLANTIC CREDIT: Cooper Alleges Wrongful Debt Collections
ATLANTIC CREDIT: Goldberger Files Suit in N.Y. Over FDCPA Violation
BARTACO: Seeks Dismissal of Patrons' Hepatitis Outbreak Claims
BAYER: Lawyer Calls for Settlement of Essure Compensation Claims
BERKSHIRE COMMUNITIES: Underpays Leasing Agent, Francis Suit Says

BIG PICTURE LOANS: Smith Files RICO Suit in D. Oregon
BMW: Seeks Dismissal of Emissions-Cheating Class Action
BRAVO MEDIA: Sullivan Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CALIFORNIA SOCIAL SERVICES: Suit Alleges Disabilities Act Violation
CANADA: 60s Scoop Survivors Seek to Reclaim Identities

CENTRAL MAINE: Customers' Fraud Class Action Expanded
CHART INDUSTRIES: Wong Sues over Sale of Defective Cryogenic Tank
CHECKERS DRIVE-IN: Made Unsolicited Calls, Lodge Suit Alleges
CHINO, CA: Takes Steps to Improve Mental Health Care After Suit
CHIYODA: Nov. 8 Wire Harness Settlement Final Approval Hearing

CINEMARK USA: Employees' Pay Stub Class Action Certified
CLIF BAR & COMPANY: Joslin et al. Sue over Mislabeled Snack Bar
CONSUMER LEGAL: Wash. App. Affirms Class Certification in Kihuria
COOK COUNTY, IL: Faces Alicea Suit in N.D. Illinois
CORIZON HEALTH: Court Denies Class Certification Bid in Pennell

CPI CARD: Agreement in Principle Reached in NY Class Action Suit
D'JAIS LLC: Faces Class Action Over Unsolicited Text Messages
DEUTSCHE BANK: ERISA Class Action Settlement Terms Filed in Court
DIGNITY HEALTH: Faces Vakili Suit in Calif. Super. Ct.
DIVERSIFIED ADJUSTMENT: Haner Suit Asserts FDCPA Breach

DMNO LLC: Louisiana Court Approves Settlement in FLSA Suit
EMERGENCY AIR: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Whittaker Suit Says
FACEBOOK INC: Faces Class Action Over Ads Manager Tool
FACEBOOK INC: Italian Consumer Advocacy Groups File Class Actions
FACEBOOK INC: Pierce Bainbridge Files Shareholder Class Action

FARMLAND PARTNERS: Bernstein Liebhard Files Class Action
FCA US LLC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Garcia Suit Alleges
FGL HOLDINGS: Cross-Motions to Dismiss BIP Suit Still Pending
FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Lugo Appeals D.N.J. Ruling to Third Circuit
FIRST CONNECTICUT: Faces Karp Suit over People's United Merger

FOUR SEASONS BEAUTY: Zhang Files FLSA Suit in S.D. New York
FUTURE TECHNOLOGIES: Dominguez Seeks Prelim. Nod of Settlement
FXCM INC: Judge Dismisses Defrauded Investors' Class Action
GEO GROUP: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Decision in Nwauzor Suit
GLOBAL CREDIT: Mercado Class Suit Asserts FDCPA Breach

GLOBAL TEL: Faces Another Class Action Over Prison Phone Charges
GOOGLE INC: San Diego Man Files Privacy Invasion Class Action
GRAY TELEVISION: Dozier Law Alleges Price Fixing of TV Ads
GRAY TELEVISION: Gibbons Ford Sues over Price Fixing of TV Ads
HARIHAR INC: Honeywell Sues Over Disabilities Act Violations

HERMES LANDSCAPING: Rodriquez's Foreign Workers Class Certified
HUMMOCK POND: Faces Hernstat Suit in Calif. Super. Ct.
IDEAL COLLECTION: Court Denies Dismissal of FDCPA Suit
INTERCOAST COLLEGES: Time to Respond in Kourembanas Suit Extended
KAISER FOUNDATION: Underpays Service Representatives, Banks Claims

KROGER: Faces Class Action Over 10-Cent Bottle Deposits
LAZER SPOT: Court OKs Summary Judgment in Featherson FLSA Suit
LLR INC: Faces Van Fraud Class Action in Alaska Dist. Ct.
LOGMEIN INC: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
LUCKY OF PELHAM: Underpays Sushi Chefs & Cashiers, Suit Alleges

MAIN MOON: Chen Files FLSA Suit in D. New Jersey
MDL 2311: Nov. 8 Settlement Approval Hearing Set
MDSCRIPTS INC: Underpays Account Managers, Shages Suit Alleges
METLIFE INC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Decapua Suit Alleges
MEZZI MARKETING: Must Produce Docs in Katz TCPA Suit

MIDLAND CREDIT: Wiggins Files FDCPA Suit in D. South Carolina
ML ZAGER:  Violates FDCPA, Friedman Suit Says
MRS BPO LLC: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Eilander Suit Says
MRS BPO: Seeks Third Circuit Review of Ruling in Dinaples Suit
MURRAY GOULBURN: Slater & Gordon Files Investor Class Action

MYER: Former CEO Set to Testify in Shareholder Class Action
NEVADA: Court Junks Suit vs. DIR Over Lump-Sum Award Calculation
NEW JERSEY EDUCATION: Smith Moves for Certification of 3 Classes
NEW YORK: Wins Approval of Deal in Caballero & Bucceri Suits
NIELSEN HOLDING: Oct. 9 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set

NIELSEN HOLDINGS: Gordon Sues over 25% Drop in Share Price
O'REILLY AUTO: 9th Circuit Appeal Filed in Davidson Suit
OFFICE SENSE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Blake P.A. Alleges
ONTEL PRODUCTS: Dapena Sues over Sale of Defective Solar Lights
ORACLE CORP: Sued Over "Threats and Extortive" Tactics

PEARSON EDUCATION: Faces Class Action Over Privacy Invasion
PGT INDUSTRIES: Parker FCRA Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
PRIMA HOME: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA, Gallo Suit Says
PROGRESSIVE CORP: Court Dismisses Double Damages Suit
PYRAMID ADVISORS: Court Grants Leave to Join Additional Defendant

RB MIAMI BEACH: De Lara Sues over Automatic Hotel Service Charges
SHAUN'S TOWING: More Truck Drivers to Join OT Class Action
SHELTER MUTUAL: Whitaker Seeks Certification of Insureds Class
SHIVALAYE CORP: Violates Disabilities Act, Honeywell Suit Says
SKIP THE DISHES: Sued Over Driver Status Misclassification

SOLCO HEALTHCARE: Faces Class Action Over Valsartan Drugs
ST. JOHN'S UNIVERSITY: Shestopal Sues over Spam Text Messages
STEINHOFF: LHL Attorneys File Class Action in Johannesburg Court
TAMPA BAY RAYS: Faces Fernandez Suit in M.D. Florida
TIER 1 PROTECTIVE: Underpays Security Guards, Fussel Suit Says

TRISTAR PRODUCTS: Arizona Appeals Order in Chapman to 6th Cir.
TWO JINN: Underpays Bounty Hunter, McGowan Suit Alleges
UNIKRN INC: Faces Hastings Suit over Sale of UKG Tokens
UNIKRN: Disgruntled Investor Files Class Action
UNITED STATES: Court Conditionally Certifies BATF Workers Class

UNITED STATES: Immigrants' Class Action Against ICE Pending
UNITED STATES: Judge Hears Arguments in Immigrants' Class Action
UNITED TEACHERS: Sends Matthews & Tessaro Suit to C.D. California
VASSAR BROTHERS: Catherine Kelly Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces Sager Suit in New Jersey District Court

WELLS FARGO: Underpays Mortgage Brokers, Hallman Suit Alleges
WILDERNESS ALTERNATIVE: Faces Walker Suit in Montana Dist. Ct.
WINGSTOP INC: Underpays Cooks, Espinoza Suit Alleges

                            *********

A.J. PIEDIMONTE: Underpays Farmworkers, Cardenas Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
ARMANDO CARDENAS; JOSE F. CARDENAS; JUANITA SENTENO; VERONICA
SIMMONS BAILEY; ISAIAH ALEXANDER; KATHY ALEXANDER; and SHONDA TATE,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. A.J. PIEDIMONTE AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT, LLC; JAMES
J. PIEDIMONTE & SONS, INC.; JAMES J. PIEDIMONTE & SONS, LLC; MAGC,
INC.; ANTHONY JOSEPH PIEDIMONTE; and SCOTT JAMES BENNETT,
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00881 (W.D.N.Y., Aug. 8, 2018) is an
action against the Defendants to recover unpaid overtime
compensation and minimum wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as farmworkers in
Holly, New York.

A.J. Piedimonte Agricultural Development, LLC is a New York
domestic business corporation with its principal executive office
located at Holley, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John Marsella, Esq.
          Robert McCreanor, Esq.
          WORKER JUSTICE CENTER OF NEW YORK
          1187 Culver Road
          Rochester, NY 14609
          Telephone: (585) 325-3050
          E-mail: jmarsella@wjcny.org
                  rmccreanor@wjcny.ort


ACCC INSURANCE: Fairman Files Suit in S.D. Mississippi
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ACCC Insurance
Company. The case is styled as Melvin Fairman individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ACCC
Insurance Company, Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-00632-HTW-LRA (S.D.
Miss., Sept. 11, 2018).

The cause of action is stated as Diversity-Insurance Contract.

ACCC Insurance Company is a provider of personal auto insurance
servicing over 3,000 independent agents and their customers. ACCC,
a privately held company was founded in 1997 and is headquartered
in Houston, Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Glenn S. Swartzfager, Esq.
     HAZZARD LAW, LLC
     447 Northpark Drive
     Ridgeland, MS 39157
     Phone: (601) 977-5253
     Fax: (601) 977-5236
     E-mail: glenn.swartzfager@hazzardlaw.net



ADORE ORGANIC: Settles Class Action Over Anti-Aging Products
------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Mealey, writing for News4JAX, reports that a settlement has
been proposed in a class action lawsuit over claims Adore Organic
Innovations violated consumer protection and warranty laws by
misrepresenting the anti-aging benefits of certain products.

Class members of the Adore plant stem cell products settlement
include anyone in the United States who, between Sept. 29, 2012 and
April 13, 2018, purchased one or more of the following Adore
Organic Innovation products marketed as containing a plant stem
cell formula:

   -- CELLMAX Redefining Facial Cream
   -- CELLMAX Elite Facial Serum
   -- CELLMAX Superior Supplement Facial Thermal Mask
   -- Essence Facial Detoxifying Cleansing Cream
   -- Essence Facial Toner
   -- Essence Facial Milk
   -- Essence Facial Cleanser
   -- Snow White Facial Brightening Cream
   -- Dreams Multi-Active Night Cream
   -- Performer Sculpting Neck Serum
   -- Essence Facial Serum
   -- Essence Facial Hydrating Cream – normal to oily skin
   -- Essence Facial Hydrating Cream – normal to dry skin
   -- Advanced Firming Eye Cream
   -- Advanced Firming Eye Serum
   -- Skin Tightening Instant Face Lift
   -- Golden Touch Magnetic Facial Mask
   -- Essence Facial Collagen Mask
   -- Golden Touch 24k Techno-Dermis Facial Mask
   -- Nourishing Hand and Body Lotion — Original
   -- Nourishing Hand and Body Lotion — Blossom
   -- Nature — Intensive Body Butter
   -- Spirit — Calming Body Butter
   -- Spirit — Calming Body Peeling Scrub
   -- Nature — Intensive Body Peeling Scrub

Class members who provide proof of purchase are entitled to receive
either a cash payment of $25 or an electronic gift card valued at
50 percent of the price they paid for the eligible products, up to
a maximum of $200.

Class members who do not submit proof of purchase may file a claim
to receive one $50 electronic gift card that can be used at
www.AdoreCosmetics.com.

The deadline to file a claim was Aug. 21, 2018. [GN]


AETNA LIFE: Court Affirms Termination of STD Benefits
-----------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Arkansas, Western Division, affirmed the Termination of Plaintiffs'
Short-Term Disability Benefits in the case captioned KATHERINE
KOCHANEK, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. AETNA LIFE INSURANCE CO. and HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC.,
Defendants. Case No. 4:16-CV-00324 BSM. (E.D. Ark.).

Plaintiff Katherine Kochanek appeals the termination of her
short-term disability (STD) benefits under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act (ERISA).

Katherine Kochanek is a former employee of Home Depot who received
insurance coverage through the Home Depot Welfare Benefits Plan.
Administrative Record (AR). The plan includes STD benefits insured
through Aetna under a group policy issued to Home Depot. See id. It
defines the eligibility requirements for STD benefits and
designates Aetna to serve as the claims administrator. This means
that Aetna has the sole authority to determine whether and to what
extent an insured is entitled to receive STD benefits.

Kochanek appealed Aetna's denial of her STD benefits through its
internal appeals process.  Aetna referred her file to Dr. Edward
Klotz, an internal medicine physician, for review. Dr. Klotz found
no functional impairment and concluded that Kochanek was not
disabled. Following a conversation with Dr. Bryant, who reported
that there were no objective findings supporting his opinion and
the he did not know whether Kochanek's conditions affected her
daily living activities, Klotz reaffirmed his conclusion. It
appears that Aetna denied Kochanek's appeal on this basis. Kochanek
then filed this lawsuit, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section
1132(a)(1)(B), to reinstate her benefits.  

Standard of Review

The parties dispute the applicable standard of review. When an
ERISA benefits plan gives an administrator discretionary authority
to determine eligibility for benefits, the administrator's decision
is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Here, various plan
documents indisputably confer broad discretionary authority on
Aetna to determine whether and to what extent claimants are
entitled to STD benefits.

First, she argues that de novoreview is appropriate because Aetna
lacks authority under the plan to make coverage decisions on behalf
of Home Depot. Therefore, she concludes that its decision to
terminate Kochanek's STD benefits does not warrant any deference.
This argument, however, is squarely contradicted by a number of
plan documents that plainly confer discretionary authority on Aetna
to determine whether a claimant is eligible for benefits under the
Plan and to interpret its terms. See id. Indeed, the plan
explicitly designates Aetna as the claims administrator.  

Second, Kochanek argues that Arkansas Department of Insurance Rule
101 bars the enforcement of discretionary clauses in insurance
contracts. In the absence of a discretionary clause, an ERISA
benefits appeal is reviewed de novo. Several states, including
Arkansas, prohibit the enforcement of discretionary clauses in
insurance contracts. Rule 101 states in part that no policy,
contract, certificate or agreement offered or issued in this State
providing for disability income protection coverage may contain a
provision purporting to reserve discretion to the insurer to
interpret the terms of the contract.

Finally, Kochanek asserts that de novo review should apply because
additional discovery will show that Aetna has made prior
inconsistent claims decisions. This argument is rejected because
she has not offered anything other than speculation that additional
discovery will show any inconsistent decisions, and her request to
supplement the record and to conduct additional discovery has been
already been denied.

Substantial Evidence Supports the Termination of Kochanek's
Benefits

This was a proper basis upon which to terminate Kochanek's
benefits. Not only did one of her own treating physicians clear her
to return to work as early as July 3, 2014, the only medical
opinion favorable to Kochanek's claim lacked any supporting medical
documentation and could not identify any specific restrictions or
limitations on her daily activities. Indeed, there is simply no
evidence showing that Kochanek was disabled and entitled to
benefits past August 5, 2014, notwithstanding her self-reported
complaints. Kochanek bears the burden of proving that she remained
entitled to STD benefits under the terms of the plan, and Aetna
properly denied her claim in light of an objective lack of evidence
that she was disabled. Because Aetna's decision to terminate
benefits is supported by a reasonable explanation, it will not be
disturbed.

Kochanek's Arguments Are Unpersuasive

First, she argues that Aetna lacks the power to make any claims
decisions. Again, as discussed above, this argument is plainly
refuted by the record, which clearly shows that Aetna has full
authority to act as a claims administrator and to determine whether
and to what extent a claimant is entitled to STD benefits.  

Second, Kochanek attempts to shift the burden of proof on to Aetna
to show that she was able to perform her job. She states that there
is no evidence in this record that Plaintiff can safely perform the
material duties of her job and make at least 80% of her
pre-disability earnings. This argument misunderstands the terms of
the plan, which places the burden on insureds to substantiate their
claims for benefits and submit the necessary proof to Aetna for
evaluation.  

Third, Kochanek's argument that the plan requires no objective
evidence to support a disability claim is unsupported by the
record, and her reliance on House v. Paul Revere Life Ins. is
misplaced. 241 F.3d at 1045. Kochanek cites to House for the
proposition that it is improper for the plan to require objective
medical evidence to support a claim for disability benefits. In
House, however, the Eighth Circuit considered a narrow circumstance
in which the relevant plan documents only reserved the right for
the plan administrator to demand medical exams or written proof of
financial loss, which would then be paid by the administrator.  

Here, the plan documents are not limited like those in House, and
they require a claimant to provide documentation and objective
medical evidence to support a disability claim.  

Fourth, Kochanek's argument that Aetna failed to consider the side
effects of her medication is unpersuasive. There does not appear to
be any evidence in the record that Kochanek complained to her
doctors about her medications or that any of her treating
physicians found that she could not perform her job on account of
them. The first mention of any mental capacity issues appears to be
her self-reported complaints in her letter appealing her denial of
benefits within Aetna.  

Fifth, the mere fact that Aetna initially approved Kochanek's
claims does not mean that it was obligated to continue paying
benefits to her. Again, not only is it proper for a insurer to
condition the payment of benefits on receiving periodic proof of
her continued disability, but it appears that Aetna only granted
benefits on a temporary basis while Kochanek was awaiting further
diagnostic testing.  

Finally, Aetna was not required to have Kochanek's file evaluated
by an independent doctor before denying her STD claim. Because the
plan does not impose such a requirement, Aetna need not conduct an
independent assessment before denying a claim.In any event, Dr.
Klotz conducted a full review of Kochanek's file, and she fails to
identify why his review was insufficient.

The judgment is entered for Aetna and Home Depot, and this case is
dismissed with prejudice.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 27, 2018 Order is
available at
https://tinyurl.com/yd9srdyg from Leagle.com.

Katherine Kochanek, on behalf of Herself and others simarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Luther Oneal Sutter, Sutter &
Gillham, PLLC.

Aetna Life Insurance Company & Home Depot USA Inc, Defendants,
represented by Michael B. Bennett -- michael.bennett@bakerbotts.com
-- Baker Botts LLP, Robert Ryan Younger -- ryounger@qgtlaw.com --
Quattlebaum, Grooms & Tull PLLC, Tina Q. Nguyen --
tina.nguyen@bakerbotts.com -- Baker Botts LLP & E.B. Chiles, IV --
cchiles@qgtlaw.com -- Quattlebaum, Grooms & Tull PLLC.


AKARI THERAPEUTICS: Nov. 28 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. on Aug. 20 disclosed that the United
States District Court Southern District of New York has approved
the following announcement of a proposed class action settlement
that would benefit purchasers of securities of Akari Therapeutics,
plc (NASDAQ:AKTX):

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

TO:   ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED AKARI
THERAPEUTICS PLC SECURITIES FROM APRIL 24, 2017 THROUGH MAY 30,
2017, BOTH DATES INCLUSIVE.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, that a
hearing will be held on November 28, 2018, at 2:00 p.m. before the
Honorable Katherine Polk Failla, United States District Judge of
the Southern District of New York, Thurgood Marshall United States
Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, Courtroom 618, New York, New York
10007 for the purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed
Settlement of the claims in the above-captioned Action for
consideration including the sum of $2,700,000 should be approved by
the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether the
proposed plan to distribute the Settlement proceeds is fair,
reasonable, and adequate; (3) whether the application of
Plaintiffs' Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees of up one-third
plus interest of the Settlement Amount, reimbursement of expenses
of not more than $50,000 and an incentive payment of no more than
$4,000, in aggregate, or $2,000, each, to Lead Plaintiffs, should
be approved; and (4) whether this Action should be dismissed with
prejudice as set forth in the Stipulation and Agreement of
Settlement dated August 3, 2018 (the "Settlement Stipulation").

If you purchased Akari Therapeutics, plc ("Akari") securities
during the period from April 24, 2017 through May 30, 2017, both
dates inclusive (the "Settlement Class Period"), your rights may be
affected by this Settlement, including the release and
extinguishment of claims you may possess relating to your ownership
interest in Akari securities. If you have not received a detailed
Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action
("Notice") and a copy of the Proof of Claim and Release Form, you
may obtain copies by writing to or calling the Claims
Administrator: Akari Therapeutics, plc Securities Litigation, c/o
Strategic Claims Services, 600 N. Jackson St., Ste. 205, P.O. Box
230, Media, PA 19063; (Tel) (866) 274-4004; (Fax) (610) 565-7985;
info@strategicclaims.net. If you are a member of the Settlement
Class, in order to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement
Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and Release Form postmarked
no later than October 15, 2018 to the Claims Administrator,
establishing that you are entitled to recovery. Unless you submit a
written exclusion request, you will be bound by any judgment
rendered in the Action whether or not you make a claim.

If you desire to be excluded from the Settlement Class, you must
submit to the Claims Administrator a request for exclusion so that
it is received no later than November 7, 2018, in the manner and
form explained in the Notice. All members of the Settlement Class
who have not requested exclusion from the Settlement Class will be
bound by any judgment entered in the Action pursuant to the
Settlement Stipulation.

Any objection to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or Plaintiffs'
Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement
of expenses and award to Lead Plaintiffs must be in the manner and
form explained in the detailed Notice and received no later than
November 7, 2018, to each of the following:

         Clerk of the Court
         United States District Court
         Southern District of New York
         500 Pearl Street
         New York, NY 10007

LEAD COUNSEL:

         THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
         275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
         New York, NY 10016

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS:

         ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
         James N. Kramer
         The Orrick Building
         405 Howard Street
         San Francisco, CA 94105

         MOSKOWITZ & BOOK, LLP
         Avraham C. Moskowitz
         345 7th Avenue, 21st Floor
         New York, NY 10001

If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may call or
write to Plaintiffs' Counsel:

         THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
         Phillip Kim, Esq.
   Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
   275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
   New York, New York 10016

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.

Dated: August 7, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES
   DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
   SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK  [GN]


ALTERYX INC: Continues to Defend Amazon Web Services-Related Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Alteryx, 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 remains a
defendant in three putative class action lawsuits related to the
Amazon Web Services (AWS) matter.

Four putative consumer class action lawsuits have been filed
against the company in U.S. federal courts relating to the Amazon
Web Services (AWS) matter.

     (1) Kacur v. Alteryx, Inc., Case No. 8:17-cv-2222 (C.D. Cal)
(asserting claims for putative national class and Ohio subclass);

     (2) Jackson v. Alteryx, Inc., Case No. 3:17-cv-02021 (D. Or.)
(asserting claims for putative Oregon class);

     (3) Foskaris v. Alteryx, Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-03088 (D.
Nev.), (asserting claims for putative national class and Nevada
subclass); and

     (4) Ruderman et al. v. Alteryx, Inc., Case No. 8:18-cv-00022
(C.D. Cal.) (asserting claims for putative national class and
Florida, New Jersey, and New York subclasses).

Three actions were filed on December 20, 2017 (Kacur, Jackson,
Foskaris), and the fourth was filed on January 8, 2018 (Ruderman).
The plaintiffs in these cases, who purport to represent various
classes of individuals whose information was contained within the
dataset, claim to have been harmed or to be facing harm as a result
of the exposure of their personal information. The complaints
assert claims for violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15
U.S.C. Sections 1681 et seq. and state consumer-protection
statutes, as well as claims for common-law negligence. Additional
actions alleging similar claims could be brought in the future. The
Jackson action was dismissed with prejudice on April 30, 2018.  

The Ruderman, Kacur, and Foskaris actions all remain in the early
stages. On February 9, 2018, the Ruderman and Kacur actions were
consolidated into a single action pending at Case No. 8:17-cv-2222
(C.D. Cal.)  On June 5, 2018, the Foskaris action was transferred
from the District of Nevada to the Central District of California
and is now pending at Case No. 8:18-cv-00963.  

Alteryx said, "We do not currently anticipate that the ultimate
resolutions will have a material adverse impact to our financial
statements."

Alteryx, Inc. operates a self-service data analytics software
platform that enables organizations to enhance business outcomes
and the productivity of their business analysts. Alteryx, Inc. was
founded in 1997 and is headquartered in Irvine, California.


ALTISOURCE SOLUTIONS: Underpays Inspectors, Collins Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH COLLINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ALTISOURCE SOLUTIONS, INC.; and DOES 1-50,
Defendants, Case No. 37-2018-00039611-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Super., San
Diego Cty., Aug. 8, 2018) is an action against the Defendants for
failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and
permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and
reimburse necessary business expenses.

Mr. Collins was employed by the Defendants as inspector.

Altisource Solutions, Inc. provides real estate disposition
services, closing services, and mortgage servicing offerings that
include residential real estate owned (REO) asset management
operations. The company was incorporated in 2009 and is based in
Atlanta, Georgia. Altisource Solutions, Inc. operates as a
subsidiary of Altisource Portfolio Solutions S.A. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dennis F. Moss, Esq.
          MOSS BOLLINGER, LLP
          15300 Ventura Boulevard. Suite 207
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: (310) 773-0323
          Facsimile: (818) 963-5954
          E-mail: dcnnis@dennismosslaw.com


AMBASSADOR THEATRE: Burbon  Sues for Disabilities Act Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ambassador Theatre
Group-NY, LLC.  The case is captioned as Luc Burbon, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Ambassador Theatre
Group-NY, LLC, doing business as: Kings Theatre, Case No.
1:18-cv-08154 (S.D.N.Y., September 6, 2018).

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

Ambassador Theatre Group-NY, LLC, is a privately held company in
New York.  The Company operates Kings Theatre located in Brooklyn,
New York.  The Company is a subsidiary of The Ambassador Theatre
Group Holdings Limited, which provides entertainment services,
including production of entertainment programs and pantomimes, as
well as providing live entertainment ticketing, manages ticketing,
revenues, customer services, group sales, and e-commerce needs for
venues, producers, promoters, artists, and events.[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


AMERICAN FAMILY: Wash. App. Reverses Dismissal of CPA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One, reversed the
Trial Court's judgment granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the
case captioned FOLWEILER CHIROPRACTIC, PS, a Washington
professional services corporation, Appellant, v. AMERICAN FAMILY
INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent. No. 76448-9-I. (Wash. App.).

Folweiler appeals the trial court's decision dismissing its action
under CR 12(b)(6).

Folweiler Chiropractic, PS (Folweiler) filed a class action
complaint against American Family Insurance Company (American
Family) for violating Washington's Consumer Protection Act (CPA).

Folweiler alleged that American Family's practice of using a
computer database to assess whether medical provider bills were
reasonable was an unfair practice under the CPA.

American Family moved to dismiss Folweiler's complaint under CR
12(b)(6). It argued that its practices complied with WAC 284-30-330
and chapter 48.22 RCW. The trial court granted American Family's
motion to dismiss. The trial court denied Folweiler's motion for
reconsideration.

Washington's CPA

To prevail on a CPA claim, a plaintiff must show (1) an unfair or
deceptive act or practice, (2) that act or practice occurs in trade
or commerce, (3) a public interest impact, (4) injury to the
plaintiff in his or her business or property, and (5) a causal link
between the unfair or deceptive act and the injury.

Unfair or deceptive act

American Family asserts that Folweiler's complaint failed to allege
American Family had engaged in an unfair or deceptive practice.

The Court disagrees.

Folweiler's complaint alleged that American Family's practice of
relying on the Fair Health database and to reduce payment amounts
to 80 percent of the geographic region is an unfair act in
violation of the public interest established by RCW 48.22.095 as
defined by RCW 48.22.005(7). RCW 48.22.095 establishes minimum PIP
coverage limits for automobile insurers. Relevant here, RCW
48.22.095(1)(a) requires insurers to offer automobile insurance
policies that provide minimum PIP coverage of $10,000 for medical
and hospital benefits. Medical and hospital benefits are defined by
RCW 48.22.005(7) as:

payments for all reasonable and necessary expenses incurred by or
on behalf of the insured for injuries sustained as a result of an
automobile accident for health care services provided by persons
licensed under Title 18 RCW, including pharmaceuticals, prosthetic
devices and eyeglasses, and necessary ambulance, hospital, and
professional nursing service. Medical and hospital benefits are
payable for expenses incurred within three years from the date of
the automobile accident.

On its face, RCW 48.22.095(1)(a) and RCW 48.22.005(7) require
payment of all reasonable and necessary expenses incurred by or on
behalf of the insured. The statutes necessarily impose a duty to
look at each claim individually in order to determine the
reasonable and necessary expenses for the insured. The law requires
an individualized assessment rather than substituting a formulaic
approach that pays only 80 percent of the average charge for a
large geographic area.

Folweiler's complaint alleged American Family's claim settlement
process violates the duty to conduct an individualize assessment by
failing to consider and independently evaluate the identity,
background, credentials, experience or any personal characteristic
of the individual provider or whether the amount charged was
reasonable for the individual treatment provided. The allegations
in Folweiler's complaint are sufficient to establish an unfair act
in violation of the CPA based on a violation of the public interest
embodied in RCW 48.22.095(1)(a) and RCW 48.22.005(7).

Injury

The injury element under the CPA is broadly defined. It is met upon
proof the plaintiff's property interest or money is diminished
because of the unlawful conduct even if the expenses caused by the
statutory violation are minimal.

Folweiler pleaded that it suffered injury: During the period from
July 8, 2012 to July 8, 2016, Folweiler suffered injury and damage
to its business as a direct and proximate result of American
Family's practice of making P0041 reductions to Washington provider
bills in the manner described above. The complaint further alleged
that class members sustained injury to their business caused by
American Family's practice in the form of reduced payments, delay
in payment of reasonable medical expenses, out of pocket
administrative costs or added expenses, business interruption or
inconvenience. Folweiler sufficiently pleaded injury under the
CPA.

Because Folweiler sufficiently pleaded the required CPA elements,
the trial court erred in dismissing its case for failure to state a
claim under CR 12(b)(6).

The Court reverses and remand to the trial court for further
proceedings.

A full-text copy of the Wash. App.'s August 27, 2018 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ydezfrnt from Leagle.com.

David Elliot Breskin, Breskin Johnson & Townsend PLLC, Brendan
Wesley Donckers, Breskin Johnson & Townsend, PLLC, Counsel for
Appellant(s).

Robin E. Wechkin, Sidley Austin LLP, Counsel for Respondent(s).


ANTHEM: $115MM Class Action Settlement Obtains Final Court OK
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Kirk, writing for Bank Info Security, reports that a federal
judge in California has given final approval to a $115 million
settlement involving health insurer Anthem over its 2015 data
breach. The settlement is the largest ever recorded for a
class-action lawsuit filed over a data breach. But most victims
will receive no money.

The class-action suit has been winding its way through federal
court in San Jose since mid-2015 and is the result of a
consolidation of more than 100 lawsuits filed against Anthem.

Most of the settlement fund will be used to fund two more years of
credit monitoring and fraud resolution services for victims. About
13 percent of the fund has been reserved for cash reimbursements
for any victims who paid out of pocket for security monitoring
services.

Anthem Must Triple Its Cybersecurity Budget
Anthem, which was formerly known as WellPoint, disclosed in
February 2015 that attackers gained access to a corporate database
and stolen more than 79 million records containing patient and
employee data (see Anthem Hit by Massive Data Breach).

The stolen data has never surfaced publicly. In August 2017,
however, a Chinese man was arrested by U.S. authorities for
allegedly distributing a type of malware that was used in the
Anthem attack as well as in an attack against the U.S. Office of
Personnel Management (see Chinese Man Allegedly Tied to OPM Breach
Malware Arrested).

The Anthem breach affected a gamut of the organization's affiliated
brands, including Anthem Blue Cross, Anthem Blue Cross and Blue
Shield, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Georgia, Empire Blue Cross
and Blue Shield, Amerigroup, Caremore, Unicare, Healthlink and
DeCare.

As part of the full settlement amount, Anthem is required to make
"changes to its data security systems and policies" as well as to
nearly triple its cybersecurity budget, writes U.S. District Judge
Lucy H. Koh, who approved the settlement.

28 People Opposed Settlement
The total number of class members in the lawsuit that has led to
the settlement is 79.1 million. Only 28 people opposed the final
settlement.

One of the tricky parts of data breach lawsuits is trying to
determine the amount of damages that should be awarded to victims.
According to the final settlement agreement, an expert witness for
the plaintiffs calculated that the damage amounted to $10 per
person. Anthem's expert, however, put the cost at $4 per victim.

"The credit monitoring services offered in this settlement are more
extensive than the services offered by Equifax." — District Judge
Lucy H. Koh

Judge Koh writes that the damages would have reached $792 million,
using the plaintiff's figure. The agreed settlement instead awards
the plaintiffs 14.5 percent of what they would have sought at
trial, she writes. The judge cited two other cases where
settlements that were 9.7 percent and 10 percent of what plaintiffs
had sought was found to have been "reasonable."

Judge Koh writes: "The court finds that this percentage is within
the range of reasonableness after taking into account the costs and
risks of litigation."

Some data breach victims may be eligible for out-of-pocket costs
related to the breach. Of the settlement, $15 million will be set
aside for those who submit claims for credit monitoring or other
costs, up to a maximum of $10,000 per person. The maximum cash
payment for anyone who signed up for credit monitoring is $50.

Three people in the class objected to the value of the credit
monitoring reimbursement, the settlement says. The people contended
that it was of little value, ironically because they'd already
received free monitoring via Equifax as a result of the credit
bureau's 2017 data breach (see Equifax: US Breach Victim Tally
Stands at 146.6 Million).

But "the credit monitoring services offered in this [Anthem]
settlement are more extensive than the services offered by
Equifax," Judge Koh writes. After its breach, Anthem voluntarily
offered all victims two years of credit monitoring, and the final
settlement agreement should see that monitoring get extended to
more than four years, the judge writes.

Big Breaches Lead to Big Costs
In and of itself, the Anthem class action settlement is believed to
be the largest on record for a data breach. But for other companies
hit with significant data breaches, the costs extend far beyond
just consumer class-action lawsuits.

A class action suit filed against Home Depot, for example, resulted
in a $27.2 million settlement fund that covered 52 million
consumers. The 2014 breach of Home Depot's systems exposed 56
million payment cards as well as personal details for up to 53
million individuals.

Target, meanwhile, experienced a breach in 2013 that led to the
exposure of 40 million payment cards and contact details for 60
million consumers. The retailer ultimately reached a $23.3 million
settlement with a class of 110 million consumers. Target also paid
a fine of $18.5 million following legal action by the attorneys
general of 47 states and the District of Columbia (see Target
Reaches $18.5 Million Breach Settlement with States).

Home Depot and Target were also forced to reach settlement
agreements with card issuers and companies such as MasterCard and
Visa. Those settlements were "much larger" than the consumer
litigation, the Anthem settlement agreement notes. Target's
settlement with Visa alone, for example, was worth $67 million.

Breach costs can also include incident response, mitigation,
ongoing investigations and cleanup. By the end of 2017, for
example, Equifax reported that it faced $439 million in costs due
to its data breach, of which $125 million would be covered by its
cybersecurity insurance policy. [GN]


ANTHEM: Fee Award Not as Much as Plaintiffs' Attorneys Wanted
-------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Andrews, writing for Indianapolis Business Journal, reports
that a federal judge awarded plaintiffs' lawyers $31.05 million in
legal fees in the Anthem Inc. data-breach case, ending a
months-long dispute over how much they deserved for striking the
$115 million settlement last year.

The fees approved by Judge Lucy Koh of the Northern District of
California exceeded the $28.6 million recommended in April by a
special master appointed by Judge Koh to analyze what attorneys
should be paid. But it exceeded the $38 million the attorneys
originally had requested.

Judge Koh herself had been sharply critical of the plaintiffs' lead
lawyers, stating in court last year that "I am deeply disappointed.
I would not never have appointed you [co-lead counsel] if I knew
you were going to pile on 53 law firms in this case."

But in her 65-page order, Judge Koh noted that the settlement was
the largest to date in a U.S. data-breach case and that results
compare favorably to other high-profile data breach cases,
including those involving Target and Home Depot customers.

"Having seen the strengths and weaknesses in each side's case
throughout litigation over the past three years, the court finds
that the results obtained in the settlement are exceptional," Judge
Koh said in her ruling.

Judge Koh -- who also approved the overall $115 million deal
--settled on $31.05 million in fees by using a
percentage-of-the-settlement analysis. The 27 percent cut for
attorneys was higher than the 25 percent benchmark in the Ninth
Circuit, Law.com reported. The special master, James Kleinberg, had
based his calculations primarily on an analysis of attorneys'
billable hours.

Indianapolis-based Anthem, among the nation's largest health
insurers, disclosed in early 2015 that 78.8 million current and
former customers' records had been stolen by hackers from December
2014 through the following January -- a disclosure that touched off
more than 100 class action lawsuits accusing the insurer of
inadequate data security. The cases, some brought by
Indianapolis-based Cohen & Malad LLP, were consolidated into the
California suit.

Under the $115 million settlement, $51 million will go to the
victims, with the largest chunk of that, $17 million, earmarked for
credit-monitoring services. Another $15 million will go to
customers who suffered out-of-pocket costs from the data breach,
and $13 million will go to customers who demonstrate that they
already have credit-monitoring services.

At the same time, $23 million is earmarked to pay California-based
Kurtzman Carson Consultants, which was hired to administer the
settlement, including mailing postcards to 50 million current or
former Anthem customers for whom addresses are known. Another $2
million is earmarked to reimburse attorneys for expenses.

Several outside parties, including the Competitive Enterprise
Institute's Center for Class Action Fairness, had challenged the
request for $38 million in attorney's fees.

And The Wall Street Journal, in an editorial early this year,
blasted the settlement. It noted that the recovery -- even if it
were all cash -- works out to an average of just 65 cents per
customer.

"Plaintiff attorneys aren't easily shamed, but they should be after
a rebuke by a federal judge in California for trying to con
class-action victims," the editorial began.

The attorneys made no apologies. They said in a January court
filing that the results they achieved were impressive and that the
fees were justified in light of the "extremely risky nature" of the
case. [GN]


APPLE INC: Faces Class Action in New York Over ADA Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Patently Apple reports that on Aug. 19 Himelda Mendez filed a five
count class action against Apple in the Southern District of New
York on behalf of herself and those that are legally blind or
visually impaired. The lawsuit was filed due to Apple's failure to
design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind
or visually-impaired people.

For the record, Apple has several dedicated website pages covering
'Accessibility Support' for all of their products. They've also had
high level presentations made at their World Wide Developer
Conferences about writing apps for those with disabilities. More
specifically Apple had guest speaker Haben Girma who was the first
deaf blind person to graduate Harvard Law School speak in 2016 on
the topic "Disability and Innovation: The Universal Benefits of
Accessible Design."

Apple continually educates developers to add accessibility features
into all of their apps (one, two, three).

With that said, Ms. Mendez believes that she's found a weakness in
Apple's system. It doesn't support a Windows centric program called
JAWS.

A simple web search found a 2016 article titled "Up and Running
with JAWS on a MAC," that told those with visual disabilities that
they could use Apple's solution via Bootcamp, or by using third
party software from Parallels or VMware Fusion to run her favorite
program.

Lastly, under Apple's "Vision" Accessibility page, Apple introduces
VoiceOver by stating that "VoiceOver is unique because it's not a
standalone screen reader. It's deeply integrated in macOS and all
the built-in apps on Mac." In other words, it's a superior solution
to a basic screen reader (if I'm reading that correctly).

With that aside, the following is a key part of the Mendez class
action lawsuit. To begin with, you can see what the five counts in
lawsuit cover.

Causes for Action

Count 1: VIOLATIONS OF THE ADA
Count 2: VIOLATIONS OF THE NYSHRL
Count 3: VIOLATION OF THE NEW YORK STATE CIVIL RIGHTS LAW
Count 4: VIOLATIONS OF THE NYCHRL
Count 5: DECLARATORY RELIEF

A key part of the Lawsuit

"Defendant offers the commercial website, www.apple.com, to the
public. The website offers features which should allow all
consumers to access the goods and services which Defendant offers
in connection with their physical locations. The goods and services
offered by Defendant include but are not limited to the following:
store locations and hours, the ability to browse and purchase
electronics, such as the iPhone, iPad and MacBook Pro laptop, the
ability to make service appointments online, and related goods and
services.

It is, upon information and belief, Defendant's policy and practice
to deny Plaintiff, along with other blind or visually-impaired
users, access to Defendant's website, and to therefore specifically
deny the goods and services that are offered and integrated with
Defendant's stores. Due to Defendant's failure and refusal to
remove access barriers to its website, Plaintiff and
visually-impaired persons have been and are still being denied
equal access to Defendant's stores and the numerous goods and
services and benefits offered to the public through the Website.

Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person, who
cannot use a computer without the assistance of screen-reading
software. Plaintiff is, however, a proficient JAWS screen-reader
user and uses it to access the Internet. Plaintiff has visited the
Website on separate occasions using the JAWS screen-reader.

During Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring in
August 2018, Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that
denied Plaintiff full and equal access to the facilities, goods and
services offered to the public and made available to the public;
and that denied Plaintiff the full enjoyment of the facilities,
goods and services of the Website, as well as to the facilities,
goods and services of Defendant's physical locations in New York by
being unable to learn more information about store locations and
hours, the ability to browse and purchase electronics, such as the
iPhone, iPad and MacBook Pro laptop, the ability to make service
appointments online, and related goods and services.

While attempting to navigate the Website, Plaintiff encountered
multiple accessibility barriers for blind or visually-impaired
people that include, but are not limited to, the following:

   a. Lack of Alternative Text ("alt-text"), or a text equivalent.
Alt-text is an invisible code embedded beneath a graphical image on
a website. Web accessibility requires that alt-text be coded with
each picture so that screen-reading software can speak the alt-text
where a sighted user sees pictures, which includes captcha prompts.
Alt-text does not change the visual presentation, but instead a
text box shows when the mouse moves over the picture. The lack of
alt-text on these graphics prevents screen readers from accurately
vocalizing a description of the graphics. As a result,
visually-impaired APPLE customers are unable to determine what is
on the website, browse, look for store locations and hours, the
ability to browse and purchase electronics, such as the iPhone,
iPad and Macbook Pro laptop, the ability to make service
appointments online, and related goods and services.

   b. Empty Links That Contain No Text causing the function or
purpose of the link to not be presented to the user. This can
introduce confusion for keyboard and screen-reader users;

   c. Redundant Links where adjacent links go to the same URL
address which results in additional navigation and repetition for
keyboard and screen-reader users; and

   d. Linked Images Missing Alt-text, which causes problems if an
image within a link contains no text and that image does not
provide alt-text. A screen reader then has no content to present
the user as to the function of the link, including information
contained in PDFs."

Further into the lawsuit they note: . . ."simple compliance with
the WCAG 2.0 Guidelines would provide Plaintiff and other
visually-impaired consumers with equal access to the Website,
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has engaged in acts of intentional
discrimination." [GN]


ARS NATIONAL: Klein Sues over Debt Collection Practices
-------------------------------------------------------
Esther Klein, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ARS National Services Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 1:18-cv-04477-AMD-SJB (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 8, 2018) seeks to stop
the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.
The case is assigned to Judge Ann M Donnelly and referred to
Magistrate Judge Sanket J. Bulsara.

ARS National Services, Inc. offers accounts receivable management
services. It caters to financial services organizations; banks; and
credit card companies. The company is based in Escondido,
California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ibrahim Abohamra, Esq.
          Sirotkin Varacalli & Hamra, LLP
          110 East 59th St. Ste. 3200
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (646) 590-0571
          Facsimile: (646) 619-4012
          E-mail: ahamra@svhllp.com


ARS NATIONAL: Schwartz Class Suit Alleges FDCPA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ARS National
Services, Inc.  The case is styled as Leah Schwartz, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ARS National
Services, Inc., Case No. 1:18-cv-05007 (E.D.N.Y., September 5,
2018).

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

Ars National Services, Inc., provides accounts receivable
management services.  The Company provides collection and
adjustment services on claims and other insurance related
issues.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
          SANDERS LAW, PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 203-7600
          Facsimile: (516) 281-7601
          E-mail: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com


ASSET RECOVERY: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Melendez Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Asset Recovery
Solutions, LLC.  The case is styled as Samuel Melendez,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Asset Recovery Solutions, LLC, Case No. 2:18-cv-05010 (E.D.N.Y.,
September 5, 2018).

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

Asset Recovery Solutions, LLC, is a full service asset recovery
management company.  ARS is a strategic partner to many of the
largest credit issuers in the country.  The Company offers a full
range of solutions across a vast array of asset classes that
includes credit cards, student loans, consumer loan, automotive and
retail.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
          SANDERS LAW, PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 203-7600
          Facsimile: (516) 281-7601
          E-mail: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com


ATLANTIC CREDIT: Cooper Alleges Wrongful Debt Collections
---------------------------------------------------------
ERICA COOPER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ATLANTIC CREDIT & FINANCE, INC.; and MIDLAND
FUNDING, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-01254-JHE (N.D. Ala.,
Aug. 8, 2018) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and
unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Atlantic Credit & Finance, Inc. purchases and manages unsecured and
consumer-distressed assets. Atlantic Credit & Finance, Inc. was
founded in 1996 and is headquartered in Roanoke, Virginia with
branch offices in Roanoke and Richmond, Virginia; and Phoenix,
Arizona. As of August 6, 2014, Atlantic Credit & Finance, Inc.
operates as a subsidiary of Encore Capital Group, Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


ATLANTIC CREDIT: Goldberger Files Suit in N.Y. Over FDCPA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Atlantic Credit &
Finance Inc.  The case is titled as Bernard Goldberger, Simohamed
Benzriouil and Barbara Cirruzzo, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Atlantic Credit & Finance Inc., Case
No. 1:18-cv-05008 (E.D.N.Y., September 5, 2018).

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

Atlantic Credit & Finance, Inc., purchases and manages unsecured
and consumer-distressed assets.  The Company also purchases various
consumer-distressed asset types, including credit card receivables,
retail credit card receivables, automotive deficiencies, healthcare
receivables, telecommunication receivables, and utilities
receivables.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
          SANDERS LAW, PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 203-7600
          Facsimile: (516) 281-7601
          E-mail: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com


BARTACO: Seeks Dismissal of Patrons' Hepatitis Outbreak Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
David Robinson, writing for Rockland/Westchester Journal News,
reports that  Bartaco is trying to prevent lawsuits over a
hepatitis outbreak from turning into a class-action, which could
open the door to thousands of legal claims against the popular Port
Chester restaurant.

The Westchester County waterfront eatery recently asked a judge to
reject class-action designation for claims lodged by patrons forced
to get hepatitis A vaccinations after a worker tested positive for
the food-borne illness.

Matthew Wilber, the restaurant's chief financial officer, urged the
court to block the class-action suit, court records show. Mr.
Wilber noted bartaco has paid out nearly $150,000 to reimburse
people for vaccinations and other costs related to the incident.

In an effort to persuade state Supreme Court Justice Gerald Loehr,
Wilber added that bartaco is still open to reimbursing people for
everything from medical care to meals eaten at the restaurant.

"Given that we freely are providing reimbursements for any expenses
arising out of the Health Department's announcement, litigation is
unnecessary because we are compensating our customers for any
expenses that they may have incurred,"
Mr. Wilber said.

Bill Marler, a lawyer for several people suing bartaco, described
the restaurant's out-of-court payments as too little, too late.

"I commend companies that do it, but it probably would have been a
better idea to vaccinate workers before this happened," he said.

New details
Mr. Wilber, who is a top executive at bartaco's parent
organization, Bar Taco LLC, addressed a critical piece of the
mystery surrounding the outbreak -- when the company found out
about a sick worker who ultimately tested positive for hepatitis.

The series of events surrounding the worker's illness ignited the
high-profile public-health response, which cost taxpayers more than
$250,000.

Before addressing specifics about the sick worker, Mr. Wilber
outlined bartaco's food safety policies, which included having
staff confirm they reviewed an employee handbook. The corporate
precautions touched on educating staff about proper hand-washing
and prohibiting them from coming to work sick.

Mr. Wilber noted the illness policy was followed when the sick
worker called a manager on Oct. 23. The worker was told to stay
home and the next day bartaco learned the worker tested positive
for hepatitis A.

"To be clear, that employee was not at work when he first reported
to us that he was feeling ill and after that, he never worked until
cleared by the Department of Health and his doctor," Wilber
stated.

The day after learning of the worker's positive hepatitis test,
bartaco notified the health department and closed the restaurant
that morning at 11:10 a.m. Then, two independent companies did
separate cleanings of the restaurant before it reopened.

After the incident, all workers were also instructed to wear rubber
gloves, a policy that existed previously for workers handling
ready-to-eat food, Mr. Wilber said. Bartaco also required any
unvaccinated workers to get vaccinated for hepatitis A before
returning to work.

The viral liver disease often causes mild to serious illnesses, and
it is typically spread through contaminated food and drinks. In
extreme cases, such as patients with weak immune systems, it has
been known to be fatal.

Payouts to customers
In court records seeking to block the class-action, Mr. Wilber
emphasized bartaco's attempts to help the community recover.

"More importantly and regardless of whether bartaco was at fault,
which it strongly maintains that it was not, bartaco hired an
independent company to set up and publicize a hotline," he said.

The phone number directed bartaco customers to vaccination and
testing clinics. Mr. Wilber noted bartaco paid about $75,000 to
fund some of the clinics at commercial sites locally, as well as
for customers across 28 different states and abroad.

Phillip Oswald, an attorney for bartaco, described the hotline as a
proactive outreach to eliminate the need for litigation, which
would take similar steps to find affected customers.

"They're still willing and ready to resolve any claims," Oswald
said, referring to bartaco's hotline for customers.

The hotline previously reimbursed customers about $74,000 for
vaccinations, testing, medical treatment, meals at the restaurant,
travel and lost earnings. bartaco plans to continue making payments
based on the circumstances of each case, court records show.

The hotline is 844-617-8242.

Mr. Marler, the food-safety attorney, disputed bartaco's stance
that publicizing a hotline and making payments eliminates the need
for a class-action lawsuit, which would be open to the thousands
vaccinated last year.

"It doesn't mean that all of the people have actually seen that
(hotline) . . . or that it is an appropriate amount to resolve the
claim," he said.

If the class action is approved, Mr. Marler expected the health
department would likely be asked to mail out letters to everyone
vaccinated to notify them of their eligibility.

The next court date is Sept. 21. [GN]


BAYER: Lawyer Calls for Settlement of Essure Compensation Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Norman Silvester, writing for Daily Record, reports that a lawyer
acting for thousands of Essure victims has called on makers Bayer
to settle worldwide compensation claims.

It follows a decision by the German pharmaceutical giants to
withdraw the controversial contraceptive device from sale in the US
by the end of the year.

The move means Essure is no longer on sale anywhere, and follows a
ban in Britain and Europe last year.

Lawyer Rob Jenner, from Baltimore, is suing Bayer on behalf of 1600
US women who had Essure fitted.

The company are said to have set aside £300million to cover
possible legal costs and payouts.

The Sunday Mail first highlighted the plight of Scottish women who
have had the device fitted in January.

Medical staff insert Essure into each of the patient's fallopian
tubes. Over a period of several months a barrier forms, which is
supposed to permanently prevent pregnancy.

But some patients have suffered excruciating pain, bloating,
bleeding and infections and other horrific
side effects.

Mr. Jenner believes Bayer now recognise that the device was unsafe.
He said: "Bayer's decision to withdraw Essure in the USA was a
major decision on the part of the company, a huge move.

"They have said it was for business reasons but it's clear that
this is a dangerous and awful product which should not be in
anybody.

"We would urge Bayer to settle any compensation claims made by
women in the USA, Scotland or elsewhere."

Glasgow personal injury specialists Thompsons have 30 clients
claiming to have suffered painful side effects from Essure. They
are planning a class action against Bayer at Edinburgh's Court of
Session and are considering legal action against NHS health boards
who fitted the product.

Four health boards in Scotland carried out an estimated 679 Essure
procedures between 2007 and last year.

Bayer refused to comment on the legal claims.

But a spokeswoman added: "Women in the UK who currently have Essure
in place may continue to confidently rely on the device." [GN]


BERKSHIRE COMMUNITIES: Underpays Leasing Agent, Francis Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NATURE FRANCIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BERKSHIRE COMMUNITIES, L.L.C.; BG-IC,
L.L.C.; BERKSHIRE GROUP, L.L.C.; and BERKSHIRE GROUP, LP,
Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-02123-B (N.D. Tex., Aug. 14, 2018) is
an action to recover overtime compensation, other wages, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, costs of court,
pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and injunctive relief under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff Francis was employed by the Defendants as onsite
leasing agent from December 2017 to July 2018.

Berkshire Communities, L.L.C. is a property management company that
manages apartment communities in the United States. The Company was
founded in 1969 and is headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts with
additional offices in Baltimore, Houston, Dallas, and San
Francisco. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rhonda H. Wills, Esq.
          WILLS LAW FIRM, PLLC
          1776 Yorktown, Suite 570
          Houston, TX 77056
          Telephone: (713) 528-4455
          Facsimile: (713) 528-2047


BIG PICTURE LOANS: Smith Files RICO Suit in D. Oregon
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Big Picture Loans,
LLC, et al. The case is styled as Richard Lee Smith, Jr.
individually and on behalf of persons similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. Big Picture Loans, LLC, Matt Martorello, Ascension Technologies,
LLC formerly known as: Bellicose Capital, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
3:18-cv-01651-AC (D. Ore., Sept. 11, 2018).

The nature of suit is stated as Civil, and filed under the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).

Big Picture Loans is a limited liability company doing business as
an internet lending website under the domain name
www.bigpictureloans.com.  It is the successor in interest of Red
Rock Tribal Lending, LLC and Castle Payday. Big Picture Loans was
formed in approximately August 2014.  It does business in Gwinnett
County, Lowndes County, and throughout the State of Georgia and the
United States. Big Picture Loans claims in its website that its
online consumer loan business is specifically authorized by Tribal
law, and maintains a valid Financial Services License issued by the
Tribal Financial Services Regulatory Authority.

Ascension Technologies, LLC, through its subsidiary, offers
analytical consulting services. The company is based in Watersmeet,
Michigan.  Ascension Technologies, LLC operates as a subsidiary of
Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians.

Matt Martorello is a natural person and resident of Dallas, Texas
and/or Dorado, Puerto Rico. Martorello was the founder and chief
executive officer of Bellicose Capital.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Steve D. Larson, Esq.
     Stoll Stoll Berne Lokting & Shlachter P.C.
     209 SW Oak Street, Suite 500
     Portland, OR 97204
     Phone: (503) 227-1600
     Fax: (503) 227-6840
     Email: slarson@stollberne.com

          - and -

     Steven C. Berman Esq.
     Stoll Stoll Berne Lokting & Schlachter
     209 S.W. Oak Street
     5th Floor
     Portland, OR 97204
     Phone: (503) 227-1600
     Fax: (503) 227-6840
     Email: sberman@stollberne.com


BMW: Seeks Dismissal of Emissions-Cheating Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Linda Chiem, writing for Law360, reports that BMW of North America
LLC and auto parts manufacturer Robert Bosch LLC asked a New Jersey
federal court on Aug. 17 to dump a consolidated class action
alleging they lied about certain vehicles' emissions performance,
saying the lawyer-driven litigation is based on trumped-up copycat
claims lifted from the Volkswagen scandal.

In separate motions to dismiss, BMW and Bosch slammed the proposed
class of vehicle owners and consumers for devising a
guilt-by-association narrative to rope BMW into a string of
lawsuits targeting various automakers since Volkswagen AG's
emissions-cheating scandal.

The case is styled RICKMAN et al v. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA LLC et al,
Case No. 2:18-cv-04363.  The case is assigned to Judge John Michael
Vazquez.  The case was filed March 27, 2018. [GN]




BRAVO MEDIA: Sullivan Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bravo Media, LLC. The
case is styled as Phillip Sullivan, Jr. on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Bravo Media, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-08226 (S.D. N.Y., Sept. 11, 2018).

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

Bravo Media LLC provides lifestyle and entertainment programming
services through its channel. It offers programs in the areas of
food, fashion, beauty, design, and pop culture. Bravo Media LLC was
formerly known as Bravo Company, Inc. and changed its name to Bravo
Media LLC in June 2007. The company was founded in 1980 and is
based in New York, New York. Bravo Media LLC operates as a
subsidiary of NBCUniversal Media, LLC.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     C.K. Lee, Esq.
     Lee Litigation Group, PLLC
     30 East 39th Street
     2nd Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Phone: (212) 465-1188
     Fax: (212) 465-1181
     Email: cklee@leelitigation.com


CALIFORNIA SOCIAL SERVICES: Suit Alleges Disabilities Act Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------------
C.T., by and through her guardian ad litem and parent, DELENA
SERAFIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES;
WILL LIGHTBOURNE; PAT LEARY; PAMELA DICKFOSS; YMCA OF THE EAST
VALLEY; and 1-100 inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
5:18-cv-01655-JGB-KK (C.D. Cal., Aug. 8, 2018) alleges violation of
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is assigned to Judge
Jesus G. Bernal and referred to Magistrate Judge Kenly Kiya Kato.

The California Department of Social Services is a California state
agency for many of the programs defined as part of the social
safety net in the United States, and is within the auspices of the
California Health and Human Services Agency. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Guy B Wallace, Esq.
          Sarah S Colby, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL
            KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
          2000 Powell Street Suite 1400
          Emeryville, CA 94608
          Telephone: (415) 421-7100
          Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
          E-mailL gwallace@schneiderwallace.com
                  sscolby@schneiderwallace.com


CANADA: 60s Scoop Survivors Seek to Reclaim Identities
------------------------------------------------------
Janani Whitfield, writing for CBC News, reports that for some
survivors of the Sixties Scoop, working to spread news of an
approved settlement and connecting others with that knowledge is a
way of reclaiming themselves, along with their history and
culture.

"We just need advocates in Regina, more people that care from their
hearts, not from their pockets," said Kerry Bellegarde, who
considers herself an advocate for fellow survivors.

Ms. Bellegarde was one of about 50 people in Regina on Aug. 18
attending a session held to answer questions about the Sixties
Scoop settlement.

The $875 million settlement was approved by both the Ontario
Superior Court and the Federal Court on Aug. 9, but debate still
continues over legal fees in the class action.

Ms. Bellegarde said while she knows about details of the settlement
and who qualifies, she wants to help others understand if and how
they want to submit a claim, along with anything else they need to
learn in order to move on.

Meeting her mother
For Ms. Bellegarde, her healing began when she met her mother at
the age of 16 with the help of her adopted father.

"My quest and my thirst to meet my roots, to be with my roots, was
so strong as a youth, that he had brought me right to Regina," she
said.

She remembers how eager and welcoming her mother was.

"We stared at each other: we were smiling so hard at each other. It
was so awesome," she said, recalling her thoughts at the time --
'That's where I came from.'

Now, she says memories of her mother, who passed away in 2010,
drives her dedication to support fellow survivors of trauma.

"I just want them to know that we can all be healthy and together,"
she said. "It's not just for me, it's for everybody."

Survivors may not know they qualify
Melissa Parkyn is co-chair of the Sixties Scoop Indigenous Society
of Saskatchewan, which hosted the meetings in Regina and Saskatoon
with support from the Federation of Sovereign Indigenous Nations.

She's heard from several people who don't know if they qualify to
receive money from the settlement, which is estimated to range from
$25,000 to $50,000 per individual.

"There's folks out there that don't know that they're Sixties Scoop
survivors," she said, explaining the class action covered
registered Indian and Inuit children who were taken from their
homes and placed with non-Indigenous parents between 1951 and
1991.

She's been pointing people to a website that offers information on
who qualifies and how to submit claims, as well as details of how
and when the settlement will be distributed.

One day at a time
Ms. Parkyn said she's met a lot of people over the past year who
are still in a lot of pain over what they've lost.

"There's still others out there that don't know who they are," she
said. "It's really emotional and hard."

For her, she says she's doing better, taking her journey to
recovery one day at a time.

"I feel comfortable where I can speak about it, because I know
where I'm from and I met my family. I can support that."

Ms. Bellegarde, too, knows what it means to find her roots and
heal, something that goes beyond receiving a settlement, but also
involves connecting with one's identity, culture and community.

"I want to teach people there is another world," she said.

"There's more than one way to get through this." [GN]


CENTRAL MAINE: Customers' Fraud Class Action Expanded
-----------------------------------------------------
Gina Hamilton, writing for Wiscasset Newspaper, reports that the
class action lawsuit filed against Central Maine Power July 19
expanded Aug. 15.

The court has made no decision on the proposed class. Cumberland
County Superior Court said a decision may be a month away.

It could be the largest class action suit ever filed in Maine,
since CMP customers would automatically be enlisted as members.

The complaint claims CMP trained customer service personnel to tell
customers excessive use was caused by faulty wiring, appliances, or
higher usage by customers, rather than the company's "faulty
metering and billing system."

CMP spokesman Gail Rice denied CMP engaged in fraud, as the suit's
lawyers claim. She said representatives give information on what
might be causing higher bills, such as cold weather, faulty
appliances or wiring, or other potential issues in the home, but
she said calling that information fraud was an insult to the people
who were "just doing their jobs." Ms. Rice said, to date, according
to the Public Utilities Commission investigation, there has been no
evidence of issues with the billing or metering systems.

According to the Public Advocate's office, 97,000 customers were
billed at least 50 percent more than the previous year. Another
200,000 had bills greater than the previous year, but less than 50
percent higher.

Lawyer Sumner Lipman said he has proof employees were given
instructions to blame customers for higher bills. He declined to
name the representatives, saying he would fear for their jobs. The
amended suit includes punitive damages, which Mr. Lipman said would
be used to reimburse customers for costs such as having
electricians and appliance repair workers look at their properties,
if no problems were discovered. [GN]


CHART INDUSTRIES: Wong Sues over Sale of Defective Cryogenic Tank
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SHERLENE and LAWRENCE WONG. individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHART INDUSTRIES, INC. and
DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-04839-SK (N.D. Cal., Aug.
9, 2018) alleges violation of the Consumer Remedies Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant manufactures and
distributes cryogenic equipment or tanks that fertility centers buy
and use to store eggs and embryos from couples such as the
Plaintiffs for later use.

The Defendant manufactured "Tank 4," the tank owned by Pacific
Fertility Center in San Francisco that failed on March 4, 2018,
compromising and destroying its contents. The Plaintiffs lost three
embryos. In all, thousands of eggs and embryos were lost to more
than 400 individuals and families.

As reported to the Plaintiffs by Pacific Fertility Center, the tank
was discovered to have lost a considerable amount of liquid
nitrogen over an undetermined time period, effectively thawing or
partially thawing the biological products. The tank failed to
preserve its contents.

On or about April 23, 2018, the Defendant issued a recall notice
for some of its cryogenic products due to "reports of a vacuum leak
or failure that could compromise the product." The Defendant had or
should have had that knowledge earlier than it did and certainly in
advance of the failure at Pacific Fertility Center. The Defendant
could and should have recalled Tank 4, as well as other products,
and the Defendant did not do anything regarding the safety issues
involving Tank 4.

Chart Industries, Inc. manufactures and sells engineered equipment,
packaged solutions, and value-add services for the industrial gas,
energy, and biomedical industries worldwide. The company was
incorporated in 1992 and is headquartered in Ball Ground, Georgia.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David M. Rosenberg-Wohl, Esq.
          HERSHENSON ROSENBERG-WOHL
          A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
          315 Montgomery St., 8th Fl.
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 829-4330
          E-mail: david@hrw-law.com


CHECKERS DRIVE-IN: Made Unsolicited Calls, Lodge Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT LODGE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CHECKERS DRIVE-IN RESTAURANTS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 9:18-cv-81085-DMM (S.D. Fla., Aug. 14, 2018)
seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited
calls.

Checkers Drive-In Restaurants, Inc. owns and operates a drive thru
restaurant chain in the United States. Its restaurants serve
burgers. The company also offers franchising opportunities.
Checkers Drive-In Restaurants, Inc. was founded in 1986 and is
headquartered in Tampa, Florida. [BN]

The 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
          E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com

               - and -

          Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW, PA
          19495 Biscayne Blvd, Suite 607
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: 305-975-3320
          E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com


CHINO, CA: Takes Steps to Improve Mental Health Care After Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sandra Emerson, writing for Redlands Daily Facts, reports that
Chino officials are at odds with the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation over a plan to built a mental health
facility at the California Institution for Men.

The 48,000-square-foot facility would provide temporary care to
Southern California inmates in acute crisis, addressing an
imbalance in mental health services in the region, according to
corrections officials.

City officials, however, oppose the idea, saying the state should
focus on repairing the aging facility, rather than adding new
beds.

"CIM is not the proper location for this hospital because of the
state of the facility," said Chino police Chief Karen Comstock.
"Why take a brand new $56 million hospital and put it in the middle
of an institution that is literally falling apart? It doesn't make
any sense."

An imbalance in services
The facility, which is still in the early planning stages, would
include 50 beds for inmates throughout Southern California who
experience an acute mental health crisis, said Bill Sessa, a
corrections department spokesman.

The inmates would be transferred to the facility and receive
treatment for up to 10 days. From there, they would return to their
original prison or go to a state hospital for further treatment,
Mr. Sessa said.

"We have facilities like this in other prisons, but we have an
imbalance and we have a greater need in Southern California than we
have facilities," Mr. Sessa said. "That's why we're proposing to
build this."

The department has identified a need for 500 beds to provide mental
health care services to inmates throughout the state,
Mr. Sessa said, adding that they are under a federal court order to
provide these services to inmates.

There are currently 373 beds, but only 26 in Southern California,
and all of them are at the Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility
in San Diego, he said.

"One of the problems we're trying to address here is to have a
facility closer to where some of the inmates are who need this
care," Mr. Sessa said. "It would preclude us from transporting them
longer distances while they're in the middle of a crisis."

The $56.5 million facility would be built at the site of an
abandoned chapel and swimming pool previously used at the prison
for vocational training.

The department has been allocated funding for the project's
preliminary drawings and planning. The project is anticipated to be
complete in 2022.

Physical conditions a concern
Earlier in August, the city submitted a six-page letter to the
state outlining its concerns with the project, from the poor
physical conditions at the 77-year-old prison to potential public
safety issues.

The letter references a 2008 Inspector General's Office audit of
the prison that found significant issues at the facility, including
an ineffective water treatment system, failing plumbing,
dilapidated housing units, leaking roofs and hazardous materials in
need of removal.

The prison had fallen into an unacceptable state of repair due to
years of neglect and without a dramatic increase in funding it
would reach such a level of degradation by 2014 that industry
experts would recommend its demolition, the report reads.

The city also raised concerns over unusable infrastructure,
security and potential environmental impacts.

"The Department of Corrections in the state of California
absolutely has the responsibility to maintain a secure facility,
not just for the inmates, but for the employees and for the city of
Chino," Ms. Comstock said. "They have fallen far, far behind on
their responsibility to put in the proper maintenance and repairs
into the California Institution for Men, so much so that the
Inspector General wrote about it in 2008 and they knew it then."

Mr. Sessa said the prison is one of the oldest in the state and
agreed it has maintenance needs. However, he said, the department
has invested about $60 million in capital improvements at the
prison over the past nine years, from remodeling the medical care
clinic to upgrading housing units.

The department plans to spend $130 million this fiscal year on
infrastructure improvements and deferred maintenance at prisons
across the state, plus another $153 million over the next two years
for major repairs, such as roof replacements, according to Mr.
Sessa. There is about $1.8 million set aside for upgrades and other
repairs specifically at CIM, he said.

The state's obligations
"There is no question that the prison is old," Mr. Sessa said.
"Many of our facilities are old, but that doesn't get us out from
under the obligation to provide this level of mental health care to
inmates."

The department's efforts to improve medical and mental health care
in the prison system is in response to a class action lawsuit filed
in 1991 contending that the mental health needs of inmates were not
being met and a lawsuit filed in 2006 that said medical needs were
not being met due to overcrowding.

The lawsuits were combined in 2009, and the department has since
been under the supervision of a panel of three federal court judges
to reduce the population and improve care, Mr. Sessa said.

The department has built $3 billion worth of new facilities over
the past decade, Mr. Sessa said, and is meeting the population
cap.

Ms. Comstock said local officials understand the department's
responsibilities and want to be good neighbors. This is not a case
of officials saying "not in my back yard."

"My point as chief of police is no additional bed space or inmates
at the California Institution for Men, please, until the state
makes a commitment to improve the perimeter security and
infrastructure to an acceptable level," she said.

Ms. Comstock points to an incident in January, when an inmate
escaped the prison and was later found in Encinitas, as an example
of the public safety concerns associated with the prison's current
condition.

According to Ms. Comstock, the inmate went over a broken shaker
fence.

Mr. Sessa said the situation has been resolved and he could not
speak in more detail about security measures taken at the prison.

"Once an inmate does escape it becomes the Chino Police
Department's responsibility to apprehend that inmate and put them
back in the institution," Ms. Comstock said. "We work with CIM to
do that, but I don't want that inmate to get out and cause any harm
to anyone in the community. Neither does the Department of
Corrections." [GN]


CHIYODA: Nov. 8 Wire Harness Settlement Final Approval Hearing
--------------------------------------------------------------
This litigation relates to Wire Harness Products purchased directly
from a defendant.

"Wire Harnesses" are electrical distribution systems used to direct
and control electronic components, wiring, and circuit boards in
motor vehicles.  "Wire Harness Products" means Wire Harnesses and
the following related products: automotive electrical wiring, lead
wire assemblies, cable bond, automotive wiring connectors,
automotive wiring terminals, high voltage wiring, electronic
control units, fuse boxes, relay boxes, junction blocks, power
distributors, and speed sensor wire assemblies used in motor
vehicles.

You were previously notified of the existence of this class action,
the nature of the Plaintiffs' claims, and settlements with the
Chiyoda, Fujikura, Lear, LEONI, G.S. Electech, Sumitomo, Tokai
Rika, and Yazaki Defendants totaling $102,736,240.10.  The Court
has granted final approval to each of those settlements and has
approved Plaintiffs' proposed plan for distribution of the net
settlement proceeds attributable to those settlements.

Plaintiffs have now reached settlements with Furukawa and
Mitsubishi Electric totaling $19,680,320.  The Court has
preliminarily approved these settlements and has provisionally
certified Settlement Classes with respect to each of them.  When
the Furukawa and Mitsubishi Electric settlement funds are added to
the amounts of the eight previously approved settlements, the total
of all settlements reached in this case is $122,416,560.10, plus
accruing interest.

If you purchased Wire Harness Products in the United States
directly from any of the Defendants during the period from January
1, 2000 through December 13, 2016, you may be a member of either or
both of the Furukawa and Mitsubishi Electric Settlement Classes.
To receive your share of the Furukawa or Mitsubishi Electric
settlement funds, you must either have previously submitted a valid
Claim Form in connection with the prior settlements identified
above, or you must submit a valid Claim Form postmarked no later
than November 14, 2018.

If you believe you are a member of the Furukawa or Mitsubishi
Electric Settlement Classes, please review the Notice which
contains information about the proposed settlement, and your rights
with respect to the settlements and related matters.

Important Dates

October 5, 2018
Opt Out Deadline

November 8, 2018 at 10:00 a.m.
Final Approval Hearing
Theodore Levin U.S. Courthouse
Courtroom 737
231 West Lafayette Boulevard
Detroit, MI 48226

November 14, 2018
Claim Filing Deadline

If you have any questions regarding the settlements or wish to
update your address, you may contact the Settlement Administrator.
Please include the case name (Wire Harness), your name, and your
return address on all correspondence.

phone:

877-845-2749 (Toll-Free)

write:

      Wire Harness Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation
      P.O. Box 5110
      Portland, OR 97208-5110

You may also contact any of Class Counsel listed below with
questions regarding the litigation or settlements.

         Steven A. Kanner
         FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
         2201 Waukegan Road
         Suite 130
         Bannockburn, IL 60015
         Telephone: (224) 632-4500

         Joseph C. Kohn
         KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
         1600 Market Street
         Suite 2500
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Telephone: (215) 238-1700

         Gregory P. Hansel
         PRETI, FLAHERTY, BELIVEAU & PACHIOS LLP
         One City Center
         P.O. Box 9546
         Portland, ME 04112-9546
         Telephone: (207) 791-3000

         Eugene A. Spector
         SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF P.C.
         1818 Market Street
         Suite 2500
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Telephone: (215) 496-0300


CINEMARK USA: Employees' Pay Stub Class Action Certified
--------------------------------------------------------
Jon Steingart, writing for Bloomberg BNA, reports that Cinemark
faces a class of movie theater employees who say the company didn't
comply with a state law that requires pay stubs to spell out
overtime pay rates.

There are at least 843 employees in California who are eligible to
join the lawsuit, lawyers for the workers who filed the lawsuit
estimated based on Cinemark's disclosures about the number of
incorrect statements it issued.

A federal judge certified the class Aug. 16. Certification means
Cinemark USA Inc. has to provide names and contact information for
employees who may have received a noncompliant pay stub. Class
members who don't op out will share in a payout that may result
from a settlement or trial win.

The purpose of the pay stub requirement is to help employees ensure
they're receiving the right pay rate for their work hours. Federal
law doesn't require extensive pay stub disclosures the way the
California labor code does.

Pay stub violations can be costly. The California law allows a $50
penalty per employee for the first violation and $100 for
subsequent violations. With 26 pay periods in a year for employers
that pay wages biweekly, penalties can add up.

The case is Amey v. Cinemark USA Inc., 2018 BL 296573, N.D. Cal.,
No. 13-cv-05669, class certified 8/16/18. [GN]


CLIF BAR & COMPANY: Joslin et al. Sue over Mislabeled Snack Bar
---------------------------------------------------------------
JAMIE JOSLIN; and COURTNEY DAVIS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CLIF BAR & COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-04941 (N.D. Cal., Aug. 14, 2018) is an
action against the Defendant arising from of its alleged deceptive
and otherwise improper business practices with respect to the
labeling of its Clif Bar White Chocolate Macadamia Nut Bar and Luna
White Chocolate Macadamia Bar.

The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the Products are
advertised and sold by the Defendant to mislead consumers into
believing that the bars contain white chocolate when they in fact
do not.

Clif Bar & Company provides nutritious and organic foods. Clif Bar
& Company was formerly known as Clif Bar, Inc. and changed its name
to Clif Bar & Company in 2005. The company was founded in 1986 and
is headquartered in Emeryville, California. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

          David Makman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DAVID A. MAKMAN
          655 Mariner’s Island, Suite 306
          San Mateo, CA 94404
          Telephone: 650-242-1560
          Facsimile: 650-242-1547
          E-mail: david@makmanlaw.com


CONSUMER LEGAL: Wash. App. Affirms Class Certification in Kihuria
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One, affirmed the
District Court's judgment denying Defendant's Motion to Certify the
Class in the case captioned  JOHN KIHURIA, individually and on
behalf of a class of similarly situated Washington residents,
Respondent, v. CONSUMER LEGAL SERVICES AMERICA, INC., a California
corporation; IRA FRAZER, individually and on behalf of the marital
community comprised of IRA FRAZER and JUDY FRAZER, Appellants, DEBT
RELIEF CENTER, INC., a Maryland corporation; BOSEDE O. ORIADE and
JOHN DOE ORIADE; and JOHN DOES 1-5, Defendants. No. 75459-9-I.
(Wash. App.).

CLSA then moved to decertify the class. The court denied the
motion.

John Kihuria, as representative, brought a class action suit
against Consumer Legal Services of America Inc., Ira Frazer, and
Judy Frazer (CLSA). The class alleged that CLSA violated the
Consumer Protection Act, chapter 19.86 RCW and violated the fee
limitations set forth in the Washington debt adjusting act, chapter
18.28 RCW.

The trial court granted the class's motion to certify the class.
The order defined the certified class as,

All residents of Washington (and/or their estates) who entered into
a contract with Consumer Legal Services America, Inc. (CLSA) for
forensic mitigation or debt settlement services. Except those who
are barred by the statute of limitations.

Standard of Review

The appellate court reviews class certification for abuse of
discretion and will not disturb a trial court's certification
decision if the record indicates the court properly considered all
CR 23 criteria.

In order to certify a class action under CR 23, a trial court must
find numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of
representation.  

Numerosity

A class should only be certified where a plaintiff demonstrates
that the proposed class is so numerous that joinder of all members
is impracticable.

CLSA argues that, because many members of the purported class must
be eliminated, the class has less than 40 members, and thus fails
the numerosity requirement.

Even if the 29 members who filed for bankruptcy were removed from
the class, and the court eliminated the class member who has
allegedly died, there would still be 37 members.

The court's analysis mirrors case law. There is no converse
presumption that classes under a certain size should not be
certified. And, in certifying the class, the trial court included
all residents of Washington and/or their estates who contracted
with CLSA for forensic mitigation or debt settlement services.
CLSA's argument to exclude individuals who filed for bankruptcy or
who are deceased fails. The trial court did not abuse its
discretion in determining that the class met the numerosity
requirement.

Typicality

CLSA next argues that the class representative, Kihuria, cannot
satisfy the typicality requirement. It argues that the class
members have different financial situations, bankruptcy statuses,
and great variations in the types of services they received.

CLSA cites Kline v. Wolf, 702 F.2d 400, 402-03 (2d Cir. 1983). In
Kline, two named plaintiffs alleged in a class action suit that the
defendants had issued false and misleading statements about Allied
Artists Industries Inc.'s financial condition to the investing
public. One of the named plaintiffs testified in his deposition
that he relied on a report which did not exist at the time he
allegedly relied on it. The other named plaintiffs testimony was
also in serious doubt, and she refused to answer critical and
relevant questions at her deposition. The court held,
Since plaintiffs' testimony on an issue critical to one of their
two causes of action was subject to sharp attack, the district
court reasonably concluded that their credibility in general was
sufficiently in doubt to justify denying them a fiduciary role as
class representatives with respect to both claims.

]This case is distinguishable from Kline. Here, the class alleged
that CLSA violated the fee limitations set forth in RCW 18.28.080.
The class based its claims on the members' individual contracts
with CLSA, and Kihuria's contract was typical of those of the other
class members. Whether Kihuria contradicted himself in testimony
did not affect the contract he had with CLSA.

Further, the procedural posture of this case differs from that in
Kline. In Kline, the court found that the credibility of the named
plaintiffs' was subject to sharp attack, making them unsuitable as
class representatives, and affirmed the denial of the motion of
class certification. Here, the class was certified and the suit
proceeded to trial. At trial, CLSA had the opportunity to attack
Kihuria's credibility, and the jury returned a verdict for the
class against CLSA.

The trial court properly concluded that Kihuria's claims were
typical in light of the class's complaint.

Commonality

CLSA next argues that common questions of law and fact do not
predominate in this case.And, CLSA contends that individual issues
predominate and a class action is not the superior method of
adjudication.

Here, in certifying the class, the trial court found, this action
presents a small set of factual and legal issues common to all
Class Members. One of the issues common to all class members was
whether the defendants engaged in debt adjusting" within the
meaning of Washington's debt adjusting statute. This is sufficient
to satisfy the CR 23(a) commonality requirement. CLSA argues that
individual inquiries are necessary to determine whether each class
member was charged fees in violation of the debt adjusting act.
But, this does not defeat the overarching common legal issue of
CLSA's liability. The trial court correctly pointed out that this
type of case, where you have a number of people, each one of whom
is alleging injury or damages, which in the scheme of things is
relatively modest it doesn't make sense to have 40 lawsuits.

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the
class met the commonality requirement, and that the issues common
to the class predominated over individual issues.

Adequacy of Representation

CLSA contends that neither Kihuria nor counsel for the class can
satisfy the adequacy test of CR 23. CLSA argues that counsel for
the class, the Scott Law Group, is not adequate because it combined
debtors with a potential right to recover with those who have filed
for bankruptcy, creating a conflict among class members. And, it
argues that Kihuria is not an adequate representative, because he
contradicted his deposition testimony.

In certifying the class, the trial court found counsel and Kihuria
adequate representatives. In denying the motion to decertify, the
court concluded that the analysis and result had not changed since
the order granting the class certification.

CLSA does not prove conflicts of interest between counsel or the
named plaintiff and the other class members. It is not a conflict
of interest that some of the class members have filed for
bankruptcy because, as mentioned above, the bankruptcy trustee can
step into the role of the consumer after the outcome of the class
action. CLSA's argument that Kihuria was not credible and therefore
could not represent the class is the same argument it raised in his
typicality challenge. As the Court concluded above, whether Kihuria
contradicted himself did not affect his ability to represent the
class. The trial proceedings did not provide a basis to reverse
this result.

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding Kihuria and
counsel adequate representatives.

Ascertainability

CLSA argues that the class is not ascertainable, because it is
defined with reference to ultimate issues, not objective facts.
CLSA asserts that the class definition here rests on whether it
violated the debt adjusting act, a contested legal conclusion.

A prerequisite to a Rule 23 action is the actual existence of a
class. The class must be sufficiently identifiable without being
overly broad. Id. The class should not be defined by criteria that
are subjective or that require an analysis of the merits of the
case.  

In its order granting the motion to certify the class, the trial
court defined the class as, All residents of Washington and/or
their estates who entered into a contract with Consumer Legal
Services, Inc. (CLSA) for forensic mitigation or debt settlement
services. Except those who are barred by the Statute of
Limitations.

The class definition does not depend on, nor does it even mention,
whether CLSA violated the debt adjusting act. The determination
that the class is ascertainable and does not rely on the merits of
the case was not error.

All of the necessary elements were present when the class was
certified. They remained present when the motion to decertify was
present. The trial court did not err in certifying the class and in
denying the motion to decertify the class.

The Court affirms.

A full-text copy of the Wash. App.'s August 27, 2018 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y9d26247 from Leagle.com.

Corey Evan Parker, Law Office of Corey Evan Parker, Counsel for
Appellant(s).

Darrell W. Scott , The Scott Law Group P.S., Counsel for
Respondent(s).


COOK COUNTY, IL: Faces Alicea Suit in N.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the County of Cook.
The case is captioned as ELIZABETH ALICEA; MICHELLE URRUTIA; KATINA
RAMOS; JACK ARTINIAN; individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COUNTY OF COOK; and SHERIFF THOMAS
J. DART, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-05381 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 8,
2018). The case is assigned to Honorable Ronald A. Guzman.

A Notice of Emergency Motion for a Preservation Order was filed by
the Plaintiffs on August 9, 2018, and was granted, in part, and
denied, in part, on August 14, 2018, by the Court.

Cook County is a county in the U.S. state of Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Thomas A. Zimmerman , Jr.
          Matthew C. De Re, Esq.
          Nickolas J. Hagman, Esq.
          Sharon Harris, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
          77 West Washington Street, Suite 1220
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 440-0020
          E-mail: tom@attorneyzim.com
                  matt@attorneyzim.com
                  nick@attorneyzim.com
                  sharon@attorneyzim.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Anthony E. Zecchin, Esq.
          COOK COUNTY STATE'S ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
          500 Daley Center, 50 West Washington
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 603-3373
          E-mail: anthony.zecchin@cookcountyil.gov


CORIZON HEALTH: Court Denies Class Certification Bid in Pennell
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Missouri, St. Joseph Division, denied Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification in the case captioned LINDA PENNELL, REBECCA FUNK,
and TONYA SMITH, o/b/o themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. CORIZON HEALTH, INC., and DOES 1-10,
Defendants. Case No. 18-06034-CV-SJ-ODS. (W.D. Mo.).

The Plaintiffs are Missouri Department of Corrections (MDOC)
inmates, incarcerated at the Chillicothe Correctional Center (CCC)
in Chillicothe, Missouri. The Plaintiffs' amended complaint
alleges, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, the Defendants
provided inhumane conditions and inadequate healthcare at CCC in
violation of the Plaintiffs' civil rights.

Rule 23(a) sets forth four prerequisites all class actions must
satisfy: (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.

The Plaintiffs do not submit evidence, via affidavit or other form,
with their motion. The propriety of class action status can seldom
be determined on the basis of the pleadings alone. The Court must
have sufficient material to determine the nature of the
allegations, and rule on compliance with the Rule 23's
requirements.  

Class certification is inappropriate at this time. With regard to
numerosity, the Court cannot determine whether the proposed class
is sufficiently numerous. Although a class of current and future
CCC inmates is likely greater in size than a nominal number, there
is no suggestion Corizon has treated each inmate housed in the
facility. Indeed, Plaintiff Funk includes no allegations specific
to her that Corizon failed to diagnose or treat a condition.

The greater concern for the Court is the typicality and commonality
requirements.
Typicality and commonality are related concepts and both are
related to adequacy. Typicality requires a demonstration that there
are other class members who have the same or similar grievances as
the plaintiff.While commonality need not be satisfied as to every
question of law and fact, a party seeking class certification must
show resolution of common issues advances resolution of individual
issues. Healthcare needs of a particular inmate are individualized
and will vary from inmate to inmate.

The Plaintiffs do not identify a policy or procedure utilized by
Corizon with any specificity, instead making vague allegations
about months-long wait times and a tendency to prescribe Ibuprofen.
Plaintiffs Smith and Pennell allege injuries which Corizon failed
to treat, but the nature of the injuries, a broken collar bone and
a dog bite, demonstrate the highly individualized aspects of
healthcare. The Court notes Plaintiff Funk makes no allegation of
an untreated injury, and thus, it is unclear how Funk could be a
class member.

The Court denies the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification
without prejudice.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 27, 2018 Order and
Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y74322st from
Leagle.com.

Linda Pennell, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly
situated persons, Rebecca Funk, on behalf of themselves and all
other similarly situated persons & Toni Smith, Plaintiffs,
represented by Joseph LaCome, LaCome Law.

Corizon Health Inc., Defendant, represented by Dwight Allan
Vermette -- dav@eckenrode-law.com -- Eckenrode-Maupin, Attorneys at
Law, J. Thaddeus Eckenrode -- jte@eckenrode-law.com --
Eckenrode-Maupin, Attorneys at Law & Theodore Hughes , The Hughes
Law Firm LLC.


CPI CARD: Agreement in Principle Reached in NY Class Action Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
CPI Card 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 parties in the case
entitled, In Re CPI Card Group Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.
1:16-CV-04531 (S.D.N.Y.) have reached an agreement in principle to
settle the class action.

On June 15, 2016, two purported CPI stockholders filed putative
class action lawsuits captioned Vance, et al. v. CPI Card Group
Inc., et al. and Chipman, et al. v. CPI Card Group Inc. in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
(the "Court") against CPI, certain of its former officers and
current and former directors, along with the sponsors of and the
financial institutions who served as underwriters for CPI’s
October 2015 initial public offering ("IPO").

The complaints, purportedly brought on behalf of all purchasers of
CPI common stock pursuant to the October 8, 2015 Registration
Statement filed in connection with the IPO, assert claims under
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the
"Securities Act") and seek, among other things, damages and costs.
In particular, the complaints allege that the Registration
Statement contained false or misleading statements or omissions
regarding CPI's customers' (i) purchases of Europay, MasterCard and
VISA chip cards (collectively, "EMV(R) cards") during the first
half of fiscal year 2015 and resulting EMV(R) card inventory
levels; and (ii) capacity to purchase additional EMV® cards in the
fourth quarter of fiscal year 2015, and the remainder of the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2015. The complaints allege that these
actions artificially inflated the price of CPI common stock issued
pursuant to the IPO.

On August 30, 2016, the Court consolidated the Vance and Chipman
actions and appointed lead plaintiff and lead counsel pursuant to
the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (the "PSLRA"). On
October 17, 2016, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended
complaint, asserting the same claims for violations of Sections 11
and 15 of the Securities Act. The amended complaint is based
principally on the same theories as the original complaints, but
adds allegations that the Registration Statement contained
inadequate risk disclosures and failed to disclose (i) small and
mid-size issuers' slower-than-anticipated conversion to EMV(R)
technology and (ii) increased pricing pressure and competition CPI
faced in the EMV(R) market.

On November 16, 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint, which was denied by the Court on October 30,
2017. On January 12, 2018, the Company filed an answer to the
amended complaint. On March 23, 2018, lead plaintiff filed his
motion for class certification. On June 11, 2018, the Company filed
an opposition to lead plaintiff's motion for class certification.

On July 31, 2018, the parties notified the Court that they had
reached an agreement in principle to settle the Class Action. The
agreement in principle is subject to confirmatory discovery by the
plaintiff, execution of a definitive settlement agreement and
supporting documentation and final approval by the Court.

CPI Card said, "The Company recorded an accrued liability as of
June 30, 2018, which is not material to the financial statements,
and reflects our estimate of the probable loss pursuant to an
allocation of the total agreed settlement amount. There was no
liability recorded as of December 31, 2017."

CPI Card Group Inc., together with its subsidiaries, engages in the
design, production, data personalization, packaging, and
fulfillment of financial payment cards. It operates through U.S.
Debit and Credit, U.S. Prepaid Debit, and U.K. Limited segments.
CPI Card Group Inc. was founded in 2007 and is headquartered in
Littleton, Colorado.


D'JAIS LLC: Faces Class Action Over Unsolicited Text Messages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jeannie O'Sullivan, writing for Law360, reports that a Jersey Shore
dance club was hit on Aug. 13 with a class action alleging its
unsolicited text messages about events and promotions invade
customers' privacy and hike up their cellphone bills, in violation
of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Club patron Mario Rivero claims he never gave his express consent
to be contacted by D'Jais LLC in Belmar, Monmouth County, through
an automatic dialing system, according to the suit filed in New
Jersey district court.

The case is captioned RIVERO v. D'JAIS, LLC, Case No.
3:18-cv-12697.  The case was filed August 13, 2018. [GN]


DEUTSCHE BANK: ERISA Class Action Settlement Terms Filed in Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John Manganaro, writing for Planadviser, reports that terms of the
settlement agreement reached between Deutsche Bank and participants
in the firm's own retirement plan have been filed with the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The settlement agreement follows a previously issued partial
decision for summary judgment, reached after the district court
first ruled the lawsuit claims, filed in December 2015, should not
be time-barred by ERISA's various statutes of limitation.
Subsequent to that decision, the court approved class action status
for the complaint in September 2017.

The case history of the litigation offers a prime example of the
incredible complexity of Employee Retirement Income Security Act
(ERISA) challenges. In the run-up to the settlement agreement,
while plaintiffs' motion for class certification was still pending,
the plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint, adding additional
allegations regarding defendants' alleged failure to adhere to plan
documents as required by ERISA and the U.S. Code.

In sum, the underlying allegations were that Deutsche Bank and
other defendants violated their fiduciary duties by offering in the
company's own 401(k) plan proprietary, high-cost investments that
profited the bank. According to the plaintiffs' amended complaints,
the Deutsche Bank Matched Savings Plan, as of 2009, had roughly
$1.9 billion in assets and offered participants 22 "designated
investment alternatives," 10 of which were "proprietary Deutsche
Bank mutual funds." The core of the complaints' allegations
concerned the inclusion of Deutsche Bank proprietary mutual funds
among the plan's offerings. According to the complaints, "Deutsche
Bank earned millions of dollars in investment management fees by
retaining [these proprietary mutual funds] in the plan."

Important to note, the Deutsche Bank defendants still deny all
liability to the class representatives; deny all of the claims made
in the action; deny all allegations of wrongdoing made in any of
the complaints in this action; and deny that the class
representatives, the plan, or any of the plan's current or former
participants suffered any losses. Defendants further maintain that
they acted prudently and loyally at all times when acting in any
fiduciary capacity with respect to the plan.

Details from the settlement

As stipulated by the settlement agreement, within 20 business days
after the date the court's preliminary approval order is entered,
Deutsche Bank or its insurers shall deposit 33% of the gross
settlement amount ($7,300,000) into the qualified settlement fund.
Subsequently, within 20 business days after the settlement
effective date, Deutsche Bank or its insurers shall deposit the
remainder of the gross settlement amount ($14,600,000) into the
qualified settlement fund.

Then, within 120 calendar days after the settlement effective date,
the gross settlement amount will be distributed from the qualified
settlement fund as follows: "(a) first, all attorneys' fees and
costs approved by the court shall be paid to class counsel within
five business days after the settlement effective date; (b) second,
any class representatives' compensation approved by the Court shall
be paid within five business days after the settlement effective
date; (c) third, all administrative expenses approved by the court
shall be paid within five (5) business days after the settlement
effective date; (d) fourth, a contingency reserve not to exceed an
amount to be mutually agreed upon by the settling parties and
approved by the court shall be set aside by the settlement
administrator for: (1) administrative expenses incurred before the
settlement effective date but not yet paid, and (2) administrative
expenses estimated to be incurred after the settlement effective
date but before the end of the settlement period; and (e) fifth,
the net settlement amount will be distributed pursuant to the plan
of allocation."

After this process, no later than February 15 of the year following
the calendar year in which Deutsche Bank makes a transfer to the
qualified settlement fund pursuant to the terms of the settlement
agreement, the firm "must timely furnish a statement to the escrow
agent, or the settlement administrator on its behalf, that complies
with Treasury Regulation 1.468B-3(e)(2), which may be a combined
statement under Treasury Regulation 1.468B3(e)(2)(ii), and shall
attach a copy of the statement to their federal income tax returns
filed for the taxable year in which Deutsche Bank, its insurers, or
agents make a transfer to the qualified settlement fund." After
setting out this groundwork, the settlement agreement presents a
10-page "plan of allocations," describing in detail how class
members will be compensated in due course.

Prospective relief also included

Beyond the monetary settlement terms already outlined, the
settlement agreement includes substantial description of
prospective relief to be provided by Deutsche Bank.

"All decisions regarding the selection, retention, removal, or
evaluation of any Deutsche fund in the plan shall be delegated to
an independent fiduciary appointed pursuant to ERISA," the
agreement states. "Deutsche Bank shall retain the independent
fiduciary to provide a written opinion, within six months of the
settlement effective date, regarding whether any of the existing
Deutsche funds or non-Deutsche funds in the plan should be replaced
with alternative investment vehicles (e.g., separate accounts or
collective trusts)."

Also notable is this description of the establishment of a
"settlement website" to help distribute relevant information to
stakeholders: "On or before the date that the settlement notices
are mailed, the settlement administrator will establish a
settlement website on which it will post the following documents or
links to the following documents: the third amended complaint,
settlement agreement and exhibits thereto, settlement notices,
former participants claim form, preliminary approval order and any
other court orders related to the settlement, and any other
documents or information mutually agreed upon by the settling
parties in writing. When filed, the settlement administrator will
also post or include links to the motion for attorneys' fees and
costs, administrative expenses, and class representatives'
compensation (and any documents submitted in support). . . . The
settlement administrator will take down the settlement website at
the conclusion of the settlement period." [GN]


DIGNITY HEALTH: Faces Vakili Suit in Calif. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dignity Health, et
al.  The case is captioned as HALEH VAKILI, AN INDIVIDUAL ON BEHALF
OF HERSELF AND ON BEHALF OF ALL PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED v.
DIGNITY HEALTH, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION and DOES 1 TO 50
INCLUSIVE, Case No. CGC18569456 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco
Cty., September 5, 2018).

Dignity Health offers healthcare services.  The Hospital provides
urgent care, ambulatory, surgery, home health, imaging, laboratory,
cancer, women's care, and wound healing services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
          BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK
          2255 Calle Clara
          La Jolla, CA 92037-3107
          Telephone: (858) 551-1223
          Facsimile: (858) 551-1232
          E-mail: norm@bamlawca.com


DIVERSIFIED ADJUSTMENT: Haner Suit Asserts FDCPA Breach
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Diversified
Adjustment Service, Inc.  The case is styled as Lee Haner,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Diversified Adjustment Service, Inc., Case No. 2:18-cv-05015
(E.D.N.Y., September 5, 2018).

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

Diversified Adjustment Service, Inc., doing business as DAS,
operates as an accounts receivable management company in America.
The Company provides third-party debt collection services and
credit bureau reporting to companies.  The Company's services
include pre-collect demand letters, skip-tracing, and receivables
management.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
          SANDERS LAW, PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 203-7600
          Facsimile: (516) 281-7601
          E-mail: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com


DMNO LLC: Louisiana Court Approves Settlement in FLSA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana granted Parties' Joint Motion to Approve the Settlement
in the case captioned JAMES BLACK, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. DMNO,
LLC, ET AL. SECTION: "E", Defendants Civil Action No. 16-2708.
(E.D. La.).

The Plaintiffs allege the Defendants violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 201 by, inter alia: (1) paying its
servers $2.15 per hour instead of the national minimum wage of
$7.25 per hour, claiming a tip credit, but requiring the servers to
participate in a tip pool that included managers (2) failing to pay
Plaintiffs one and one half times their hourly rate for the hours
they work in excess of forty hours per week and (3) requiring
Plaintiffs to attend mandatory Monday meetings, without paying
Plaintiffs an hourly wage.

STANDARD OF LAW

In order to approve a settlement proposed by an employer and
employees of a suit brought under the FLSA and enter a stipulated
judgment, a court must determine that the settlement is a fair and
reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute over FLSA provisions.

The Settlement is the Product of a Bona Fide Dispute

The Court finds a bona fide dispute exists between Plaintiffs and
Defendants with regard to whether Defendants violated the FLSA.
Numerous matters are currently in dispute, including whether
Plaintiffs were properly paid regular and overtime compensation,
whether Defendants properly claimed a tip credit, and whether
Defendants maintained accurate employment and payroll records.

During the trial of this matter, the parties offered various
witnesses and substantial evidence into the record in support of
their respective positions.

The Court finds this sufficient to conclude that, in this case,
there was both aggressive prosecution and strenuous defense to
prove a bona fide dispute.

The Settlement is Fair and Reasonable

There are six factors: (1) the existence of fraud or collusion
behind the settlement; (2) the complexity, expense, and likely
duration of the litigation; (3) the stage of the proceedings and
the amount of discovery completed; (4) the probability of the
plaintiffs' success on the merits; (5) the range of possible
recovery; and (6) the opinions of class counsel, class
representatives, and absent class members.22

The existence of fraud or collusion behind the settlement

The Court has found no indication of fraud or collusion. The
Parties have engaged in discovery, motions practice, and
negotiations to resolve this matter. The case proceeded to trial,
where both sides presented witnesses and evidence. This factor
indicates the settlement is fair and reasonable.

The complexity, expense, and likely duration of the litigation

The instant case has been pending for more than two years. Although
the discovery period concluded on March 27, 2018,26 and the Court
heard evidence at a two-day bench trial on which the Court has not
yet ruled,27 there remain numerous unresolved issues. The Court
finds that the unresolved issues and the complexity of the
litigation indicate the settlement is fair and reasonable.

The stage of the proceedings and the amount of discovery completed

In this case, the Parties have engaged in both pre-certification
discovery as well as extensive merits discovery for the last two
years. The parties have exchanged thousands of pages of documents
and undergone two rigorous settlement conferences. The case
proceeded to trial,31 and the parties reached a settlement only
after evidence had been presented. The Court, therefore, finds the
Parties have litigated the case in an adversarial manner and are
sufficiently familiar with the facts of this case to reach a fair
settlement. This factor weighs in favor of finding the settlement
fair and reasonable.

The probability of Plaintiffs' success on the merits

The Parties have taken into account the uncertain outcome and the
risk of continued litigation, as well as the difficulties and
delays inherent in such litigation and the likelihood of protracted
appellate review. The Court finds that given the unresolved
disputes between the parties and the stage at which this litigation
remains, it is unclear whether and to what extent Plaintiffs would
be meritorious. This factor indicates the settlement is fair and
reasonable.

The range of possible recovery

The settlement amounts for Plaintiffs are based on a negotiated
number of hours Plaintiffs allegedly worked but for which they were
not paid overtime and the compensation due to them for allegedly
being forced to participate in a tip pooling system that violated
the FLSA. Under the proposed settlement, Plaintiffs will be
compensated for half of their claimed minimum wage/tip credit
and/or overtime claim and an amount equal to liquidated damages on
that amount. A portion of the settlement amount due to Plaintiffs
is designated as wages and subject to applicable income and payroll
taxes and withholding.The remaining portion is designated as
damages and not subject to any taxes or withholdings.

The Court finds that all of the agreed-upon amounts are within a
range of possible recovery for the Plaintiffs, indicating the
settlement is fair and reasonable.

The opinions of class counsel, class representatives, and absent
class members
There are no absent class members, as no other servers or server
assistants consented to join the collective action on or before
July 31, 2017, the date on which the opt-in period for the class
expired. Both parties are represented by counsel. The Parties
jointly seek judicial approval of a settlement agreement that
addresses a bona fide dispute and was negotiated in good faith. The
Court finds the final factor indicates the settlement is fair and
reasonable.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 27, 2018 Order and
Reasons is available at https://tinyurl.com/yaw2nrnm from
Leagle.com.

James Black, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
employees, Mark Gandy, individually and on behalf of similarly
situated employees, Ashley Newton, individually and on behalf of
similarly situated employees, David Pierce-Feith, individually and
on behalf of similarly situated employees, Austin Lane,
individually and on behalf of similarly situated employees, Patrice
Jones, individually and on behalf of similarly situated employees,
Erin Lawrence, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
employees, Zachary Adams, individually and on behalf of similarly
situated employees, Asaria Crittenden, individually and on behalf
of similarly situated employees, Elizabeth Kuzmovich, individually
and on behalf of similarly situated employees, Larry J. Hunt, Jr.,
individually and on behalf of similarly situated employees & Carlos
Ayestas, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
employees, Plaintiffs, represented by Jessica Michelle Vasquez ,
Vasquez Law Office & Laura Lanier Catlett, Laura L. Catlett,
Attorney at Law.

Jeffrey Blair, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
employees, Plaintiff, pro se.

DMNO, LLC, Doron Moshe Rebi-Chia, Itai Ben Eli & Itamar Levy,
Defendants, represented by Steven Russell Cupp --
scup@fisherphillips.com -- Fisher & Phillips, LLP & Jaklyn Leigh
Wrigley -- jwrigley@fisherphillips.com -- Fisher & Phillips, LLP,
pro hac vice.


EMERGENCY AIR: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Whittaker Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
BRENDA WHITTAKER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EMERGENCY AIR, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 3:18-cv-08188-SPL (D. Ariz., Aug. 14, 2018) seeks to stop
the Defendant's practice of placing calls using an automatic
telephone dialing system and using an artificial or prerecorded
voice to the cellular telephones of the Plaintiff without her prior
express written consent.

Emergency Air, LLC is a company organized and existing under the
laws of the State of Arizona. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Penny L. Koepke, Esq.
          MAXWELL & MORGAN, P.C.
          4854 E. Baseline Rd., Suite 104
          Mesa, AZ 85206
          Telephone: (480) 833-1001
          Facsimile: (480) 969-8267
          E-mail: pkoepke@hoalaw.biz


FACEBOOK INC: Faces Class Action Over Ads Manager Tool
------------------------------------------------------
AdNews reports that Facebook faces a legal battle over allegedly
misleading clients on the potential reach of a campaign using the
Ads Manager tool.

Danielle A. Singer and Project Therapy, a small business that had
used Facebook for advertising, launched a class action with more
than 100 members against the social media giant.

The complaint also draws on information allegedly provided by
ex-Facebook employees and seeks class-action status for individuals
and companies who purchased advertisements on Facebook from 2013
onwards.

At the heart of the claim is that Facebook's Ads Manager tool
purports to reach significantly more users than official population
data and this had misled advertisers into spending more on the
platform than it otherwise would have.

Last year, AdNews ran an investigation that revealed Facebook had
overstated its reach in Australia by 1.7 million millennials than
official population figures, which has now grown to 1.85 million a
year on.

A similar analysis by Pivotal Research Group senior analyst Brian
Wieser found similar reach inflation of 29 million among 18-49
year-olds in the US. This highlights the issue is global, but
AdNews is not aware of any clients that have taken legal action
over Facebook's reach claims until now.

AdNews has approached Facebook for comment, but according to
reports, a Facebook spokesperson said "this suit is without merit
and we plan to defend ourselves vigorously."

The 19-page class action complaint document, obtained by AdNews,
was lodged in the US District Court for the Northern District of
California.

The document states that Facebook overstates the potential reach of
its ads to the 18-34 year-olds in every state of the US. It
provided examples of how much Facebook inflated its number of
millennial users (18-34s) in large cities.

In Dallas, Facebook says it reaches 3.2 times more millennials than
officially population figures, followed by in Houston (2.8 times),
in Los Angeles (2.4), Chicago (2.35) and New York (1.8).

Former employee: 'Reach like a PR number'

The complaint document also cites several former Facebook employees
that allege the company does not care about the accuracy of its
potential reach figures.

One "former employee", cited as a confidential witness 1, said
those within Facebook responsible for the accuracy of the potential
reach were indifferent to the actual numbers, "did not give a sh**
and the ‘Potential Reach' is "like a made-up PR number".

Another former employee cited as confidential witness 2 said
Facebook does not care about the accuracy of user numbers "so long
as advertising revenue is not negatively affected".

Another former employee, confidential witness 3, added that
Facebook was not concerned about duplicate or fake accounts when it
calculated potential reach.

Advertisers misled to spend more

The material aspects of this case are that Facebook's reach
misrepresentation induced advertisers to pay more for ads under the
belief they could reach more people than possible. This contributes
to a "distorted market price for its advertising".

Reach inflation also encouraged advertisers to purchase additional
ads on the platform and provided Facebook with an "unfair
competitive advantage over other online advertising platforms, such
as YouTube, LinkedIn and Twitter.

The document added: "Because Facebook has inflated its potential
reach, plaintiffs and putative class members purchased more
advertisements from Facebook and paid a higher price for
advertisements than they otherwise would have.

"Plaintiffs and putative class members accordingly seek
compensation and injunctive relief for violations of California's
Unfair Competition Law and for restitution."

The complaint says that audience size is an important factor when
advertisers determine where to spend their marketing dollars.

"Indeed, potential reach and estimated daily reach are the only
information Facebook provides to advertisers regarding the
anticipated performance of the ad campaign prior purchasing an
advertisement," the document added.

"Moreover, user inflation can skew an advertiser's decision making,
which is frequently based on the anticipated reach of the
advertising campaign, or ‘potential reach'.

The document added that reach inflation can have "real consequences
for an advertiser's overall communications plan". [GN]


FACEBOOK INC: Italian Consumer Advocacy Groups File Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Eric J. Lyman, writing for Xinhua, reports that around one percent
of worldwide users of social media giant Facebook are located in
Italy -- but if the company's legal woes are in indication, it
might have more than that share of its enemies in the country.

U.S.-based Facebook is the world's biggest social media network.
The company has more than 2.2 billion users worldwide, and of that
number, about 25 million -- roughly one out of 99 users -- are in
Italy.

That footprint in Italy has caused Facebook more than a few
headaches in recent years. The Milan office of the Guardia di
Finanza, Italy's financial law enforcement agency, is pursuing
Facebook for payment of at least 300 million euros (340 million
U.S. dollars) in unpaid taxes.

Additionally, two Italian consumer advocacy groups -- Altroconsumo
and Condacons -- have filed class action lawsuits against the
company, alleging improper use of user's personal information.

Along the way, the company has been the subject of probes and
rulings by Italy's privacy regulator, the Italian Communications
Authority, and the Antitrust Authority.

For its part, Facebook has consistently denied wrongdoing,
stressing that it follows all the laws in every country where it
operates, including Italy.

The latest Facebook-related headlines in Italy came from Unicredit,
the country's leading bank in terms of assets and one of the ten
largest banks in Europe. Unicredit announced it would sever all
ties with Facebook -- maintaining no presence on the network, not
using it to communicate with or advertise to clients.

To be sure, Facebook, the first global social network, has legal
issues in other countries. But in Italy, the last few years have
seen a regular stream of negative Facebook news stories.

Alberto Castelvecchi, a communications professor at Rome's LUISS
University, said the problems in Italy became more serious for the
company when it started to use financial data in its marketing.

"Italians have a kind of double personality when it comes to
sharing information," Alberto Castelvecchi told Xinhua.

"On the one hand, they like to share gossip and show where they are
on vacation. On the other hand, they don't like to have anyone look
into their financial affairs. On this count, Italians are very
private."

Innocenzo Genna, co-founder of Digit@lians, a network of
professionals in digital fields, said Facebook's controversial
association with the now-defunct Internet data analysis company
Cambridge Analytica and their possible impact on the 2016 election
in the United States have caused damage.

"After Cambridge Analytica it became more difficult to see Facebook
as an inoffensive way to keep up with distant friends," Genna said
in an interview. "There are real-world consequences for what
Facebook does, and each time Facebook expands further into our
lives, the more many people in Italy want to push back."

An official with Altroconsumo, one of the consumer rights groups
with a class action lawsuit against Facebook, said the organization
has no issues with Facebook's business model -- only in what he
said was a "lack of transparency" in the way it communicated with
users.

"The consumer has a right to understand how his or her information
is being used," Marco Pierani, Altroconsumo's director of public
affairs, told Xinhua. "So far, Facebook has not done that. What we
are seeing so far might be the tip of the iceberg." [GN]


FACEBOOK INC: Pierce Bainbridge Files Shareholder Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
David Hecht, Esq. -- dhecht@piercebainbridge.com -- and Carolynn
Beck, Esq. -- cbeck@piercebainbridge.com -- partners at law firm
Pierce Bainbridge Beck Price & Hecht LLP, told Proactive Investors
that the firm is one of the first to file a class-action lawsuits
for shareholders affected by tech giant Facebook's $120 billion
stock drop in July.

Mr. Hecht says Facebook "made misstatements about the growth of its
users" in the months before Facebook's earnings report on its drop
in revenue, adding that "things were not as rosy" as Facebook led
on, including its requirement to comply to the European Union's new
GDPR data protection rules.

The law firm is now seeking an institutional investor as it moves
forward. [GN]


FARMLAND PARTNERS: Bernstein Liebhard Files Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, on Aug. 19 disclosed that it has filed a new securities class
action lawsuit on behalf of those who purchased or acquired the
securities of Farmland Partners Inc. ("Farmland" or the "Company")
(NYSE: FPI; FPI-PB) between March 16, 2016 and July 10, 2018, both
dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit, which expands
the class period asserted in the recent lawsuit filed against the
Company concerning the revelations made by the Rota Fortunae
report, seeks to recover Farmland shareholders' investment losses.

To join the Farmland class action, and/or to discuss your legal
rights and options, please visit please visit Farmland Shareholder
Class Action Lawsuit or contact Daniel Sadeh toll free at (877)
779-1414 or dsadeh@bernlieb.com.

According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose:
(1) that Farmland artificially increased revenues by making loans
to related-party tenants who round-tripped the cash back to
Farmland as rent; (2) that as a result, Farmland's earnings during
fiscal year 2017 were materially overstated; (3) the true extent
and effect of Farmland's non-arm's length transactions; and (4) as
a result, Defendants' statements about the Company's business,
operations and prospects were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked reasonable bases at all relevant times.

On July 11, 2018, Rota Fortunae published a report stating, among
other things, that "FPI is artificially increasing revenues by
making loans to related-party tenants who round-trip the cash back
to FPI as rent; 310% of 2017 earnings could be made-up." The report
further stated that "FPI has neglected to disclose that the
majority of its loans have been made to two members of the
management team, including Jesse Hough, CEO Paul Pittman's
long-time business partner," and "[w]e found evidence that strongly
supports FPI has significantly overpaid for properties."

On this news, Farmland's stock fell $3.37 per share, or over 38%,
from its previous closing price to close at $5.28 per share on July
11, 2018, damaging investors.

The new class action is pending in the United States District Court
for the District of Colorado, under docket number 1:18-cv-02104. If
you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than September 10, 2018. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.

To join the Farmland class action, and/or to discuss your legal
rights and options, please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/farmland-partners-inc-fpi-class-action-lawsuit-73/
or contact Daniel Sadeh toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
dsadeh@bernlieb.com.

Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years. [GN]


FCA US LLC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Garcia Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
RICK GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FCA US LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-23223-FAM (S.D. Fla., Aug. 8, 2018) seeks to stop the
Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls.

FCA US LLC, together with its subsidiaries, designs, engineers,
manufactures, distributes, and sells vehicles primarily in the
United States. FCA US LLC has a collaboration with Adient to
produce seating for the Chrysler Portal concept vehicles. The
company was formerly known as Chrysler Group LLC and changed its
name to FCA US LLC in December 2014. The company is headquartered
in Auburn Hills, Michigan. FCA US LLC is a subsidiary of FCA North
America Holdings LLC. [BN]

The 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
          E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com

               - and -

          Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW, PA
          19495 Biscayne Blvd #607
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: (305) 975-3320
          E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com


FGL HOLDINGS: Cross-Motions to Dismiss BIP Suit Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
FGL Holdings 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 cross-motions to dismiss filed in the
case, Brokerage Insurance Partners v. Fidelity & Guaranty Life
Insurance Company, Fidelity & Guaranty Life, FS Holdco II Ltd, and
John Doe, is still pending.

On June 30, 2017, a putative class action complaint was filed
against FGL Insurance, FGL, and FS Holdco II Ltd in the United
States District Court for the District of Maryland, captioned
Brokerage Insurance Partners v. Fidelity & Guaranty Life Insurance
Company, Fidelity & Guaranty Life, FS Holdco II Ltd, and John Doe,
No. 17-cv-1815.

The complaint alleges that FGL Insurance breached the terms of its
agency agreement with Brokerage Insurance Partners ("BIP") and
other agents by changing certain compensation terms. The complaint
asserts, among other causes of action, breach of contract,
defamation, tortious interference with contract, negligent
misrepresentation, and violation of the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO").  

The complaint seeks to certify a class composed of all persons who
entered into an agreement with FGL Insurance to sell life insurance
and who sold at least one life insurance policy between January 1,
2015 and January 1, 2017. The complaint seeks unspecified
compensatory, consequential, and punitive damages in an amount not
presently determinable, among other forms of relief.

On September 1, 2017, FGL Insurance filed a counterclaim against
BIP and John and Jane Does 1-10, asserting, among other causes of
action, breach of contract, fraud, civil conspiracy and violations
of RICO. On September 22, 2017, Plaintiff filed an Amended
Complaint, and on October 16, 2017, FGL Insurance filed an Amended
Counterclaim against BIP, Agent Does 1-10, and Other Person Does
1-10. The parties also filed cross-Motions to Dismiss in Part,
which are pending before the Court.

FGL Holdings said, "As of the date of this report, the Company does
not have sufficient information to determine whether it has
exposure to any losses that would be either probable or reasonably
estimable."

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

FGL Holdings, through its subsidiaries, sells individual life
insurance products and annuities in the United States. The company
offers deferred annuities, including fixed indexed annuity
contracts and fixed rate annuity contracts; immediate annuities;
and life insurance products. FGL Holdings is headquartered in
Hamilton, Bermuda.


FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Lugo Appeals D.N.J. Ruling to Third Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Wendy Lugo filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit titled Wendy Lugo v. Financial Recovery Services Inc., Case
No. 2-16-cv-05639, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey.

The nature of suit is stated as consumer credit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
was filed on September 16, 2016, and assigned to Judge Madeline C.
Arleo.

Financial Recovery offers collection services to mid-size companies
across the United States.

The appellate case is captioned as Wendy Lugo v. Financial Recovery
Services Inc., Case No. 18-2956, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant WENDY LUGO, On behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, is represented by:

          Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
          Benjamin J. Wolf, Esq.
          JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC
          375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100
          Fairfield, NJ 07004
          Telephone: (973) 227-5900
          Facsimile: (973) 244-0019
          E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com
                  bwolf@legaljones.com

Defendant-Appellee FINANCIAL RECOVERY SERVICES INC. is represented
by:

          Andrew M. Schwartz, Esq.
          MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN, P.C.
          2000 Market Street, Suite 2300
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 575-2765
          E-mail: amschwartz@mdwcg.com


FIRST CONNECTICUT: Faces Karp Suit over People's United Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
SELWYN KARP, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FIRST CONNECTICUT BANCORP, INC.; JOHN J.
PATRICK, JR.; RONALD A. BUCCHI; JOHN A. GREEN; JAMES T. HEALEY JR.;
PATIENCE P. MCDOWELL; KEVIN S. RAY; and MICHAEL A. ZIEBKA,
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-02496-RDB (D. Md., Aug. 14, 2018)
alleges violation of the Securities and Exchange Act.

On June 18, 2018, First Connecticut and People's United entered
into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement"),
pursuant to which First Connecticut will merge with and into
People's United, with People's United continuing as the surviving
corporation.

Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, each share of First
Connecticut common stock issued and outstanding will be converted
into the right to receive 1.725 shares of People's United common
stock.

On July 25, 2018, to convince First Connecticut's public common
shareholders to vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction,
Defendants authorized the filing of a materially incomplete and
misleading Form S-4 Registration Statement with the SEC, in
violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

In particular, the Proxy contains materially incomplete and
misleading information concerning: (i) financial projections for
First Connecticut, People's United, and the Synergies expected to
result from the Proposed Transaction; (ii) the valuation analyses
performed by First Connecticut's financial advisor, Piper Jaffray &
Co., in support of their fairness opinion; and (iii) the background
process leading to the Proposed Transaction.

First Connecticut Bancorp, Inc. operates as the holding company for
Farmington Bank that provides various consumer and commercial
banking services to businesses and individuals in the United
States. First Connecticut Bancorp, Inc. was founded in 1851 and is
based in Farmington, Connecticut. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas J. Minton, Esq.
          GOLDMAN & MINTON, P.C.
          3600 Clipper Mill Rd., Suite 201
          Baltimore, MD 21211
          Telephone: (410) 783-7575
          Facsimile: (410) 783-1711
          E-mail: tminton@charmcitylegal.com

               - and -

          Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
          MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
          350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4405
          New York, NY 10118
          Telephone: (212) 971-1341
          Facsimile: (212) 202-7880
          E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com

               - and -

          Thomas J. McKenna, Esq.
          Gregory M. Egleston, Esq.
          GAINEY McKENNA & EGLESTON
          440 Park Avenue South, 5th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 983-1300
          Facsimile: (212) 983-0383
          E-mail: tjmckenna@gme-law.com
                  gegleston@gme-law.com


FOUR SEASONS BEAUTY: Zhang Files FLSA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Four Seasons Beauty
Spa, Inc., et. al.  The case is styled as Wen Zhang, on his own
behalf on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Four
Seasons Beauty Spa, Inc., Five Stars Beauty Spa, Inc., Four Seasons
Beauty Spa 316 Inc., Four Seasons Beauty Spa I Inc., Shenhua Wang,
Yan Chuo Zhang, Xia Zhuo, "John" Chen, "Dina" "Doe", Defendants,
Case No. 1:18-cv-08258 (S.D. N.Y., Sept. 11, 2018).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Four Seasons Beauty Spa is a privately held company in San Jose, CA
and is a business categorized under Health Spas. Records show it
was established in 2007 and incorporated in California. It is
located at 4155 Moorpark Ave, Ste 13, San Jose, CA 95117, West San
Jose.

Five Stars Beauty is a Spa that offers different types of massage
therapy. It is located at 37 W 8th St, Fl 1, New York City, NY
10011, United States, b/t 5th Ave & Mac Dougal St., Greenwich
Village

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

FUTURE TECHNOLOGIES: Dominguez Seeks Prelim. Nod of Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled RAFAEL DOMINGUEZ and CESAR
GRULLON, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly
Situated v. FUTURE TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Case No. 3:16-cv-00144-SRU
(D. Conn.), move the Court for an order preliminarily approving a
negotiated class and collective action settlement, as reflected in
the parties' Settlement Agreement.

The Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify two Settlement Classes
consisting of:

   * THE FLSA CLASS:

     all current or former technicians employed by Defendant
     during the Class Period who properly fill out and return the
     Opt-in Form (attached to the Class Notice) before the
     expiration of the Opt-In/Opt-Out/Objection Deadline; and

   * RULE 23 CLASS:

     all current or former technicians who were employed by
     Defendant in Connecticut, Nebraska, Virginia, Rhode Island,
     and Ohio during the Class Period who do not properly fill
     out and return the Opt-out Form (attached to the Class
     Notice) before the expiration of the
     Opt-In/Opt-Out/Objection Deadline.

Messrs. Dominguez and Grullon also ask the Court to appoint them as
representatives of the Settlement Classes, to confirm the law firm
of Connor & Morneau, LLP, as Class Counsel, to approve compensatory
awards in the amount of $10,000 for each Representative Plaintiff,
to award attorneys' fees and costs in the amount of $242,400, and
to direct the distribution of notice to the Settlement Class as
provided in the Settlement Agreement.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jeffrey S. Morneau, Esq.
          CONNOR & MORNEAU, LLP
          273 State Street
          Springfield, MA 01103
          Telephone: (413) 455-1730
          E-mail: jmorneau@cmolawyers.com


FXCM INC: Judge Dismisses Defrauded Investors' Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
John Petrick, writing for Law360, reports that a federal judge in
New York has dismissed a class action alleging foreign exchange
trading company FXCM Inc. defrauded investors, saying the court
found no evidence that the company made any deliberate
misrepresentations to stockholders in failing to foresee the euro's
value falling sharply against the Swiss franc.

Lead plaintiff Policemen's Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago had
argued that FXCM and its chief executive, Dror Niv, misled
investors about the risks inherent in FXCM's business. Most
notably, according to the order and opinion filed on Aug. 10.

The case is captioned International Union of Operating Engineers
Local No. 478 Pension Fund v. FXCM Inc. et al., Case No.
1:15-cv-03599 (S.D.N.Y.).  The case is assigned to Judge Kimba M.
Wood.  The case was filed May 8, 2015. [GN]


GEO GROUP: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Decision in Nwauzor Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant The Geo-Group, Inc., filed an appeal from a court ruling
in the lawsuit styled Ugochukwu Nwauzor, et al. v. The Geo-Group,
Inc., Case No. 3:17-cv-05769-RJB, in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Washington, Tacoma.

The appellate case is captioned as Ugochukwu Nwauzor, et al. v. The
Geo-Group, Inc., Case No. 18-35753, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The lawsuit is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Sept. 4, 2018, the
District Court denied the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs'
First Amended Complaint.

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

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

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

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

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

   -- Transcript must be ordered by October 5, 2018;

   -- Transcript is due on November 5, 2018;

   -- Appellant The Geo-Group, Inc.'s opening brief is due on
      December 14, 2018;

   -- Appellees Fernando Aguirre-Urbina and Ugochukwu Goodluck
      Nwauzor's answering brief is due on January 14, 2019; and

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

Plaintiffs-Appellees UGOCHUKWU GOODLUCK NWAUZOR and FERNANDO
AGUIRRE-URBINA, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, are represented by:

          Adam Jared Berger, Esq.
          Lindsay L. Halm, Esq.
          SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER
          810 Third Avenue, Suite 500
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Telephone: (206) 622-8000
          E-mail: berger@sgb-law.com
                  halm@sgb-law.com

               - and -

          Robert Andrew Free, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF R. ANDREW FREE
          P.O. Box 90568
          Nashville, TN 37209
          Telephone: (844) 321-3221
          E-mail: andrew@immigrantcivilrights.com

               - and -

          Meena Pallipamu Menter, Esq.
          MENTER IMMIGRATION LAW PLLC
          8201 164th Avenue NE, Suite 200
          Redmond, WA 98052
          Telephone: (206) 419-7332
          E-mail: meena@mmenterlaw.com

               - and -

          Devin T. Theriot-Orr, Esq.
          SUNBIRD LAW, PLLC
          1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 3200
          Seattle, WA 98154
          Telephone: (206) 962-5052
          E-mail: devin@sunbird.law

Defendant-Appellant THE GEO-GROUP, INC., a Florida corporation, is
represented by:

          Mark Emery, Esq.
          NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
          799 9th Street, NW, Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20001-4501
          Telephone: (202) 662-0210
          E-mail: mark.emery@nortonrosefulbright.com

               - and -

          Joan Kristine Mell, Esq.
          III BRANCHES LAW, PLLC
          1033 Regents Blvd., Suite, 101
          Fircrest, WA 98466
          Telephone: (253) 566-2510
          E-mail: joan@3brancheslaw.com


GLOBAL CREDIT: Mercado Class Suit Asserts FDCPA Breach
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Global Credit &
Collection Corp.  The case is titled as Beatriz Mercado,
individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v.
Global Credit & Collection Corp., Case No. 1:18-cv-05021 (E.D.N.Y.,
September 5, 2018).

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

Global Credit & Collection Corporation, also known as Affinity
Global, is a third-party collection agency, with locations around
the world.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
          SANDERS LAW, PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 203-7600
          Facsimile: (516) 281-7601
          E-mail: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com


GLOBAL TEL: Faces Another Class Action Over Prison Phone Charges
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bryan Koenig, writing for Law360, reports that Global Tel Link
Corp. has been hit with another proposed class action, this time
from a former inmate alleging in Pennsylvania federal court that
the leading prison phone service provider charges unsuspecting
callers "unconscionable" rates more than 100 times the actual
cost.

Glenn Pollard wants to represent all current and former inmates at
Pennsylvania detention facilities who since 2002 have used the
phone system provided by GTL, or who set up an "advance pay
account" with the company or its subsidiaries to receive calls from
someone.

The case is styled POLLARD v. GLOBAL TEL*LINK CORPORATION et al
Case No. 2:18-cv-03479 (E.D. Pa.).  The case is assigned to Judge
Honorable Nitza I. Quinones Alejandro.  The case was filed August
16, 2018. [GN]


GOOGLE INC: San Diego Man Files Privacy Invasion Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cal Jeffrey, writing for Techspot, reports that what just happened?
The heat against Google intensifies over its collection of user
location data. The company faces a new lawsuit and a call for an
FTC investigation over its policies and practices of tracking users
even if they turn off "Location History."

On Aug. 17, San Diego resident Napoleon Patacsil filed a lawsuit in
Federal Court alleging that Google is violating the California
Invasion of Privacy Act as well as California's constitutional
privacy guarantees. Attorneys for the plaintiff are seeking
class-action status since the policies in question affect not only
their client but also millions of other users on both Android
devices and iOS. In fact, they want two separate classes defined to
serve both groups.

After being exposed that it continues to store tracking information
on its users even after they turn off Location History, Google
quickly changed the language on its help pages to reflect that some
services do still track users. The new description does make the
search giant's location data practices more transparent, but it
does nothing to simplify or change internal policies. The negative
publicity has brought increased scrutiny on Google's collection of
user information, and it is becoming clear that providing more
transparency is not going to be enough.

In addition to being sued over the fiasco, the Electronic Privacy
Information Center (EPIC) penned a three-page letter to the Federal
Trade Commission (FTC) informing them that the Mountain View
company may have reneged on a 2011 consent decree brought against
its "Buzz Social Network."

In the agreement with the FTC, Google was ordered not to
misrepresent itself regarding data collection practices.

"IT IS ORDERED that respondent [Google], in or affecting commerce,
shall not misrepresent in any manner, expressly or by implication:
. . .(1) the purpose for which it collects and uses covered
information [user data], and (2) the extent to which consumers may
exercise control over the collection, use, or disclosure of covered
information." [emphasis FTC]

Google may have violated both of these stipulations.

The original description for Location History read, "You can turn
off Location History at any time. With Location History off, the
places you go are no longer stored."

Since the company does indeed continue to record location data with
history disabled, this statement is patently false and misleading,
putting it in violation of the first stipulation in the consent
decree.

As of Aug. 20, Google has also done nothing to facilitate users'
control over their location data. While there is a process in place
to disable tracking, it is opaque and convoluted. Technically, the
company is satisfying the letter of the decree, but not the color
or intent of it, which is to make it so users can easily control
their data.

The FTC has not formulated a formal response to EPIC's letter.
Likewise, a judge has not ruled whether there is a "sufficient
class" to grant class-action status to the lawsuit, a process which
could take months.

Ars Technica reached out to Google for comment, but received no
response. [GN]


GRAY TELEVISION: Dozier Law Alleges Price Fixing of TV Ads
----------------------------------------------------------
DOZIER LAW FIRM LLC, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GRAY TELEVISION, INC.; HEARST
COMMUNICATIONS; NEXSTAR MEDIA GROUP, INC; TEGNA INC; TRIBUNE MEDIA
COMPANY; and SINCLAIR BROADCAST GROUP, INC., Case No. 1:18-cv-05392
(N.D. Ill., Aug. 8, 2018) alleges that the Defendants engaged in an
unlawful collusion and conspired to artificially inflate the price
of purchasing local television advertisements in violation of the
Sherman Act.

According to the complaint, since at least January 1, 2014, the
Defendants unlawfully coordinated their efforts to artificially
inflate prices for television commercials. Rather than lawfully
vying for advertisers through price competition, the Defendants and
their co-conspirators instead conspired to fix prices by sharing
proprietary information, thereby reducing competition in the
market.

Gray Television, Inc., a television broadcast company, owns and
operates television stations and digital assets in the United
States. The company was formerly known as Gray Communications
Systems, Inc. and changed its name to Gray Television, Inc. in
August 2002. Gray Television, Inc. was founded in 1897 and is
headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq.
          Bethany R. Turke, Esq.
          Justin N. Boley, Esq.
          WEXLER WALLACE LLP
          55 West Monroe St., Suite 3300
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 346-2222
          E-mail: kaw@wexlerwallace.com
                  brt@wexlerwallace.com
                  jnb@wexlerwallace.com

               - and -

          Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
          Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq.
          Michelle J. Looby, Esq.
          Brittany N. Resch, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
          220 South Sixth St., Suite 2600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 333-8844
          E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
                  dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com
                  mlooby@gustafsongluek.com
                  bresch@gustafsongluek.com

               - and -

          R. Brent Irby, Esq.
          MCCALLUM HOAGLUND & IRBY, LLP
          905 Montgomery Highway, Suite 201
          Vestavia Hills, AL 35216
          Telephone: (205) 824-7767


GRAY TELEVISION: Gibbons Ford Sues over Price Fixing of TV Ads
--------------------------------------------------------------
GIBBONS FORD, LP, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GRAY TELEVISION, INC.; HEARST
COMMUNICATIONS; NEXSTAR MEDIA GROUP, INC.; TEGNA INC.; TRIBUNE
MEDIA COMPANY; and SINCLAIR BROADCAST GROUP, INC., Defendants, Case
No. 1:18-cv-05555 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 14, 2018) alleges that the
Defendants engaged in unlawful collusion and conspired to
artificially inflate the price of purchasing local television
advertisements in violation of the Sherman Act.

According to the complaint, since at least January 1, 2014, the
Defendants unlawfully coordinated their efforts to artificially
inflate prices for television commercials. Rather than lawfully
vying for advertisers through price competition, the Defendants and
their co-conspirators instead conspired to fix prices by sharing
proprietary information, thereby reducing competition in the
market.

Gray Television, Inc., a television broadcast company, owns and
operates television stations and digital assets in the United
States. The company was formerly known as Gray Communications
Systems, Inc. and changed its name to Gray Television, Inc. in
August 2002. Gray Television, Inc. was founded in 1897 and is
headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq.
          Bethany R. Turke, Esq.
          Justin N. Boley, Esq.
          WEXLER WALLACE LLP
          55 West Monroe St., Suite 3300
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 346-2222
          E-mail: kaw@wexlerwallace.com
                  brt@wexlerwallace.com
                  jnb@wexlerwallace.com

               - and -

          Simon Bahne Paris, Esq.
          Patrick Howard, Esq.
          Charles J. Kocher, Esq.
          SALTZ MONGELUZZI BARRETT & BENDESKY, P.C.
          1650 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 575-3986
          Facsimile: (215) 496-0999
          E-mail: sparis@smbb.com
                  phoward@smbb.com

               - and -

          Anthony D. Shapiro, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-7292
          Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
          E-mail: tony@hbsslaw.com


HARIHAR INC: Honeywell Sues Over Disabilities Act Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Harihar, Inc.  The
case is titled as CHERI HONEYWELL, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. HARIHAR, INC., a Florida
corporation, Case No. 1:18-cv-00169-MW-GRJ (N.D. Fla., September 5,
2018).

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

Harihar, Inc., is a Florida profit corporation, with its principal
of business located in Ft. Myers, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HERMES LANDSCAPING: Rodriquez's Foreign Workers Class Certified
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Carlos Murguia grants the Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify
Class in the lawsuit styled ANTONIO CHAVEZ RODRIQUEZ, et al. v.
HERMES LANDSCAPING, INC., Case No. 2:17-cv-02142-CM-KGG (D. Kan.).

Plaintiffs Antonio Chavez Rodriguez, Isaac Chavez Duarte, and Jose
Alfredo Soto Servin filed their Second Amended Complaint on August
16, 2017.  The Plaintiffs are Mexican nationals, who came to the
United States under the federal H-2B or H-2R temporary foreign
worker visa programs to work for the Defendant.  The Plaintiffs
allege that the Defendant failed to pay them for all the hours they
worked, including overtime doing residential and commercial
landscape work for the Defendant in the greater Kansas City area,
as well as incurring work and travel expenses for which they were
not reimbursed.

The Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938, the Kansas Wage Payment Act, the Missouri
Minimum Wage Law, as well as for breach of contract and quantum
meruit claims.  The Plaintiffs bring this suit on behalf of
themselves and all other H-2B or H-2R workers, who worked for the
Defendant since 2012 and who may seek to opt into the FLSA suit.

On January 4, 2018, the parties stipulated to conditional
certification and notice of collective action to send to putative
class members, which the Court entered on January 10, 2018.  On
February 15, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed their motion to certify
this case as a class action for claims II (Missouri Overtime
Compensation Violation); III (Kansas Wage Payment Violation); V
(Breach of Contract); VII (Prevailing Wage Rate); and VIII (Quantum
Meruit); to be appointed class representatives; to have their
counsel appointed as class counsel, and for authorization to send
notices to putative class members.


HUMMOCK POND: Faces Hernstat Suit in Calif. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hummock Pond, LLC, et
al.  The case is captioned as JILL HERNSTAT, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. HUMMOCK POND, LLC, A
CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY D/B/A TACKO and DOES 1 TO 25,
Case No. CGC18569431 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty.,
September 5, 2018).

Hummock Pond, LLC, is a California limited liability company.  The
Company operates a Mexican restaurant named Tacko located in San
Francisco, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua Bordin-Wosk, Esq.
          BORDIN SEMMER LLP
          6100 Center Drive, Suite 1100
          Los Angeles, CA 90045-9213
          Telephone: (323) 457-2110
          Facsimile: (323) 457-2120
          E-mail: jbordinwosk@bordinsemmer.com


IDEAL COLLECTION: Court Denies Dismissal of FDCPA Suit
------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida, Fort Myers Division, denied Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
the case captioned BROOKE BOND, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated Plaintiff, v. IDEAL COLLECTION SERVICES,
INC. and JOHN DOES 1-25, Defendants. Case No. 2:18-cv-150-FtM-99CM.
(M.D. Fla.).

This case is about a debt collection letter that Ideal sent to Bond
about her debt. Bond now sues Ideal for violating the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). She has field a two-count Class
Action Complaint, alleging Ideal's letter violated (1) 15 U.S.C.
Section 1692e because it was false or misleading; and (2) 15 U.S.C.
Section 1692f because it was an unfair or unconscionable means to
collect a debt.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a court may dismiss
a pleading for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted. This decision hinges on the Twombly-Iqbal plausibility
standard, which requires a plaintiff to allege sufficient facts
raising a reasonable inference "that the defendant is liable for
the misconduct alleged.

Count I: False or Misleading Representations

In Count I, Bond argues that Ideal violated 15 U.S.C. Sections
1692e(2), (5), and (10) because the letter made an empty threat of
legal action if she did not pay her debt within ten days.

Section 1692e of the FDCPA prohibits debt collectors from using any
false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in
connection with the collection of any debt. The section includes a
non-exhaustive list of potential violations including the
subsections that Bond alleges Ideal violated here.

Here, Bond claims the letter was threatening, and coercive, and
only used with the intent of scaring Plaintiff into making payment.
Taking this allegation as true, a least sophisticated consumer may
think the letter was a deceptive threat that Ideal or its client
would take legal action if the debt was not paid within ten days.
Although the letter does not expressly use the term lawsuit or some
variation, it mentions court cost, filing and attorney fees as
possible consequences. That language could deceive a least
sophisticated consumer to believe a lawsuit loomed after the
ten-day period expired.

Next, Bond argues that the letter violates 15 U.S.C. Section
1692e(5), which prohibits debt collectors from threatening to take
any action that cannot legally be taken or that is not intended to
be taken. The least sophisticated consumer standard plays no role
in analyzing Section 1692e(5) violations. Instead, the court
analysis is twofold. The court considers whether the language of
the letter constitutes a threat. If so, it then considers whether
the action threatened is one which could be legally taken. The
subsection (5) issue is simply whether or not the defendant
intended to take the action threatened. Thus, subsection (5)
requires proof of a fact which amounts to a per se violation of
Section 1692e. Assuming Ideal's letter threatened Bond, the
Complaint plausible alleges that Ideal never had any intention of
filing a lawsuit. And Ideal's lack of intent is substantiated by
its failure to act for almost a year after Bond received the
letter. Accepting these allegations as true, as the Court must,
Bond's reliance on Section 1692e(5) is plausible.

Accordingly, the Court denies Ideal's motion to dismiss as to Count
I.

Count II: Unfair or Unconscionable Attempt at Debt Collection

In Count II, Bond claims she is entitled to relief under Section
1692f.That section states, a debt collector may not use unfair or
unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt. And
courts examine Section 1692f under the least sophisticated consumer
standard. Also, conduct running afoul of § 1692e may subject a
defendant to liability under Section 1692f.  

Here, Bond alleges the letter was a threat for immediate legal
action if she did not follow its demands. She contends the least
sophisticated consumer would have construed this threat as an
unfair or unconscionable attempt to scare her into paying a debt.
Ideal simply argues the letter does not facially violate the FDCPA.
But Ideal's conclusory argument is not enough for dismissal.

The Court, therefore, denies Ideal's motion to dismiss as to Count
II.

The Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 27, 2018 Opinion
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y8kwq4d4 from
Leagle.com.

Brooke Bond, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Justin Zeig --
justin@zeiglawfirm.com -- Zeig Law Firm, LLC.

Ideal Collection Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Frederick Wiley Vollrath -- fredvollrath@aol.com -- Frederick W.
Vollrath, Attorney at Law.


INTERCOAST COLLEGES: Time to Respond in Kourembanas Suit Extended
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Maine granted
in part and denied in part Plaintiffs' Motion to Stay Proceedings
and for Extension of Time to File Opposition to Motion to Compel
Arbitration in the case captioned STEPHANIE KOUREMBANAS, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. INTERCOAST COLLEGES, Defendant. No.
2:17-cv-00331-JAW. (D. Me.)

Before the Court is the Plaintiffs' Motion to Stay Proceedings and
for Extension of Time to File Opposition to Motion to Compel
Arbitration.

The Plaintiffs initiated a class action lawsuit against InterCoast
Colleges (InterCoast), alleging under various theories that
InterCoast engaged in fraud in inducing students to borrow money
through federally-funded financial aid programs to pay for a
Licensed Practical Nursing (LPN) program operated by InterCoast in
Maine, when in fact the quality of the education in the InterCoast
LPN program was deficient and deceptively below its advertised
quality.

Federal courts possess the inherent power to stay a case for
prudential reasons. In evaluating whether to issue a stay, a court
will generally consider three factors: (1) potential prejudice to
the non-moving party, (2) hardship and inequity to the moving party
without a stay, and (3) judicial economy. The movant bears the
burden of demonstrating that a stay is appropriate.

The Court concludes that the Plaintiffs have not met their burden
of demonstrating that this case should be stayed pending resolution
of the lawsuits in the District of Columbia.

In regard to the first factor, the Court cannot know with any
precision what harm InterCoast is experiencing as a consequence of
this lawsuit.

The Court assumes that a class action pending against a for-profit
education business, like InterCoast, must mean that the business
suffers some harm from its disclosure obligations to financial
institutions, regulators, and others, and that InterCoast would
benefit from an expeditious resolution of the matter.

As to the second factor, the Plaintiffs, knowing that the
resolution of the other litigation could affect their lawsuit,
chose the timing of this newest lawsuit, and elected to file it on
August 29, 2017, after all three District of Columbia lawsuits had
been filed.

In choosing to file this lawsuit after the other cases had been
filed but before they were resolved, the Plaintiffs decided to
proceed in this Court despite the uncertainty created by the
pendency of the other lawsuits. By filing their lawsuit when they
did, the Plaintiffs created their own prejudice.

Third, it is true that once the District Court for the District of
Columbia resolves the arbitration issue and if the parties accept
its resolution, the need for the parties to research and brief the
arbitration issue and for this Court to research and decide it
would be obviated.

Thus in this sense, a stay would enhance judicial efficiency. But
the D.C. District Court could issue its decision at any time and
the parties and the Court could still take appropriate action based
on the content of the District Court's order.

The Court denies in part and grants in part the Plaintiffs' Motion
to Stay Proceedings and for Extension of Time to File Opposition to
Motion to Compel Arbitration. The Court denies the Plaintiffs'
motion insofar as they request that the Court stay this lawsuit.
The Court grants the Plaintiffs' motion insofar as they request an
extension of time to respond to the Defendant's Motion to Compel
Arbitration.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 27, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y9omfbec from Leagle.com.

STEPHANIE KOUREMBANAS, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, CARIDAD JEAN BAPTISTE, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, CATHY MANDE, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated & CATHARINE VALLEY, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented
by ANDREW P. COTTER , CLIFFORD & CLIFFORD, LLC, JAMES A. CLIFFORD ,
CLIFFORD & CLIFFORD, LLC, & RICHARD L. O'MEARA , MURRAY PLUMB &
MURRAY.

INTERCOAST COLLEGES, doing business as INTERCOAST CAREER INSTITUTE,
Defendant, represented by GEORGE T. DILWORTH , DRUMMOND WOODSUM &
JULIA G. PITNEY , DRUMMOND WOODSUM.


KAISER FOUNDATION: Underpays Service Representatives, Banks Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
DIONKA BANKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 5:18-cv-01653 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 8, 2018) seeks
from the Defendants unpaid wages, overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, injunctive and declaratory relief, penalties, and
attorneys' fees and costs.

The Plaintiff Banks was employed by the Defendant as service
representative from August 2015 to January 2016

Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., is a California corporation
headquartered in Oakland, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Yeremian, Esq.
          DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
          535 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 705
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 230-8380
          E-mail: david@yeremianlaw.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
          Jason T. Thompson, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          One Towne Square, Suite 1700
          Southfield, MI 48076
          Telephone: (248) 355-0300
          E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com
                  jjthompson@sommerspc.com


KROGER: Faces Class Action Over 10-Cent Bottle Deposits
-------------------------------------------------------
Fedor Zarkhin, writing for The Oregonian/OregonLive, reports that
four Oregon customers sued Fred Meyer's parent company Kroger in a
class action suit, claiming the grocery store chain has charged
thousands of people 10-cent bottle deposits on containers that
aren't eligible for refunds.

Thousands who've paid the extra deposit charge on exempt containers
since January 1 could be eligible for up to $200 in damages,
according to the complaint filed Aug. 13 in federal court.

"Fred Meyer understands that Oregon law does not permit it to
collect bottle deposit charges on exempt beverages but continues to
overcharge its customers anyway," the lawsuit says.

The plaintiffs' attorney, Michael Fuller, said his private
investigator found the company has been adding the surcharge to
ineligible containers in stores up and down the Willamette Valley.

"Their tills must be flush with cash with the extra money that
they're bringing in," Mr. Fuller said in an interview.

Fred Meyer spokesman Jeffery Temple said the company doesn't
comment on ongoing lawsuits. In a written statement, Mr. Temple
said the company takes immediate steps to correct any errors they
find.

"Fred Meyer has always been committed to our customers' shopping
experience. If we ever discover we have made an error we take
immediate corrective action. We will continue to be the trusted
community partner that Oregon residents have come to rely upon for
the past 96 years."

Under Oregon's bottle bill, stores can charge customers an extra 10
cents for glass, metal or plastic bottles and cans that can be
returned for a refund. Per the lawsuit, Fred Meyer has been adding
that charge to some beverages in paper cartons, which can't be
returned.

On Jan. 1 Oregon expanded the list of drinks that can be returned,
to include tea drinks, juice, energy drinks, coffee, kombucha, and
others. The expanded list did not include paper cartons.

This is Mr. Fuller's second suit this year claiming improper
charges for drinks in paper cartons. In the first suit, a Salem
woman claimed Walgreens charged extra for juice boxes. The case is
ongoing.

Mr. Fuller said he's looked for inappropriate surcharges in grocery
stores across Portland but found them to be rare, overall. [GN]


LAZER SPOT: Court OKs Summary Judgment in Featherson FLSA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Nevada granted
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment in the case captioned
LEPATRICK FEATHERSTON, on behalf of himself and all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LAZER SPOT, INC., Defendant Case No.
2:17-cv-01221-APG-GWF. (D. Nev.).

Lazer Spot moves for summary judgment, arguing that Featherston is
exempt from the FLSA's and Nevada's overtime requirements under the
Motor Carrier Act of 1935 (MCA).

Plaintiff LePatrick Featherston filed this putative class action
against Lazer Spot, Inc., for allegedly failing to pay overtime
wages required under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Nevada
law.

The FLSA requires employers to pay a minimum wage and overtime to
employees who are employed in an enterprise engaged in commerce. An
employer who violates these provisions is liable for the unpaid
wages and overtime of the affected employees, plus an equal amount
as liquidated damages. Congress has exempted various categories of
employees from the FLSA overtime requirements, including employees
subject to the MCA.

An employee is exempt under the MCA if he (1) is employed by an
employer that is subject to the Secretary of Transportation's
jurisdiction, and (2) engages in activities of a character directly
affecting the safety of operation of motor vehicles in the
transportation on the public highways of passengers or property in
interstate or foreign commerce within the meaning of the MCA.

Featherston's employment qualifies under the second prong

Featherston transported goods in interstate commerce

Featherston contends that his testimony is insufficient to show
that his transportation throughout Nevada was part of a practical
continuity of interstate movement. He argues that Lazer Spot failed
to identify the specific out-of-state customers who ordered the ice
cream, and therefore did not meet its burden to show that the
products were part of continuous transportation outside of Nevada.

Lazer Spot produced evidence showing that, in response to customer
orders for ice cream, the ice cream warehouses would request a
Lazer Spot driver to pick up empty pallets and drive them to the
warehouses for loading. Lazer Spot maintains daily gate schedules
for their deliveries to Americold's warehouses that include
information on the carrier that is responsible for transporting the
ice cream after Lazer Spot's pallets are loaded. Lazer Spot's
Nevada-Area Manager states that, based on the name of the carrier
listed on the gate schedules, she can confirm that many of those
shipments traveled out of state. Lazer Spot's evidence demonstrates
that Featherston's deliveries were part of pre-determined,
continuous, interstate shipments, and Featherston presents no
evidence to dispute that conclusion.

So, no genuine dispute remains that Featherston's job duties
included transporting goods in interstate commerce within the
meaning of the MCA exemption.

Featherston's position affected the safety of operation of motor
vehicles

Lazer Spot contends, and Featherston does not dispute, that
transporting empty pallets qualifies as transporting goods or
property in interstate commerce under the MCA. Lazer Spot also
presents undisputed evidence that Featherston operated motor
vehicles on public highways within Nevada.

Lazer Spot has thus demonstrated there is no genuine dispute that
it is subject to the Secretary of Transportation's jurisdiction and
that Featherston (1) was a driver within the MCA's meaning, (2)
transported property in interstate commerce using public highways,
and (3) directly affected the safety of operation of motor
vehicles. I therefore grant summary judgment in Lazer Spot's favor
on Featherston's FLSA claim because his position was exempt from
the FLSA's overtime requirements under the MCA.

Featherston was an exempt employee under Nevada law

Featherston also brings a claim under Nevada Revised Statutes §
608.018(1), which requires employers to pay one and one-half times
an employee's regular wage rate whenever an employee works more
than 40 hours in a week or more than 8 hours in a day. The
provisions of the state law do not apply, however, to drivers,
driver's helpers, loaders, or mechanics for motor carriers subject
to the MCA. Because Lazer Spot is subject to the MCA and
Featherston's position is exempt under the MCA with respect to his
FLSA claims), Featherston is also an exempt employee under Nevada
law. The Court thus grant summary judgment to Lazer Spot on
Featherston's state law claim.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 27, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yc5cz3be from Leagle.com.

Lepatrick Featherston, Plaintiff, represented by Christian James
Gabroy, Gabroy Law Offices & Kaine M. Messer, Gabroy Law Offices.

Lazer Spot, Inc., Defendant, represented by Aileen E. Cohen --
aec@thorndal.com -- Thorndal Armstrong Delk Balkenbush & Eisinger,
Brett C. Bartlett -- bbartlett@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP,
pro hac vice, Jeffrey L. Glaser -- jglaser@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth
Shaw LLP, pro hac vice, Katherine Smallwood --
ksmallwood@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP, pro hac vice &
Michael C. Mills -- mmills@blwmlawfirm.com -- Bauman Loewe Witt &
Maxwell, PLLC.


LLR INC: Faces Van Fraud Class Action in Alaska Dist. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against LLR, Inc., and
LuLaRoe, LLC.  The case is captioned as Katie Van, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LLR, Inc., doing
business as: LuLaRoe and LuLaRoe, LLC, Case No. 3:18-cv-00197-HRH
(D. Alaska, September 5, 2018).

The nature of suit is stated as other fraud.

LLR, Inc., doing business as LuLaRoe, is a Wyoming corporation with
its principal place of business located in Thayne, Wyoming.  LLR is
a clothing manufacturer, selling clothing nationwide.

LuLaRoe, LLC, doing business as LuLaRoe, is a California
corporation with its principal place of business located in Corona,
California.  LuLaRoe is related to LLR and provides it with
management services, including consulting, employment services,
staffing services, and maintenance of business records.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James J. Davis, Jr., Esq.
          Goriune Dudukgian, Esq.
          NORTHERN JUSTICE PROJECT
          310 K Street, Suite 200
          Anchorage, AK 99501
          Telephone: (907) 264-6634
          Facsimile: (866) 813-8645
          E-mail: jdavis@njp-law.com
                  gdudukgian@njp-law.com


LOGMEIN INC: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Aug. 20
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of LogMeIn, Inc. (NASDAQ:LOGM) from
March 1, 2017 through July 26, 2018, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for LogMeIn
investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the LogMeIn class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1389.htmlor 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 made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) LogMeIn's business
practices had negatively impacted renewal rates for certain of its
services; and (2) as a result, defendants' public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times. 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
19, 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
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1389.htmlor to discuss your rights
or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip
Kim or Zachary Halper of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653
or via email at pkim@rosenlegal.com or zhalper@rosenlegal.com.

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

CONTACT:

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


LUCKY OF PELHAM: Underpays Sushi Chefs & Cashiers, Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
Liang Chen, and Lai Yoong Low, individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Lucky of Pelham Inc., d/b/a
Pelham Palace, and Kim Kok Yap, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-07144
(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 8, 2018) seeks to recover from the Defendants
unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs.

The Plaintiff Chen was employed by the Defendants as sushi chef
from May 2014 to July 31, 2018. The Plaintiff Yoong Low was
employed as cashier from May 2015 to July 31, 2018.

Lucky of Pelham Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of
the State of New York. The Company is engaged in the restaurant
business. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Xiaoxi Liu, Esq.
          HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC.
          136-20 38th Ave., Suite 10G
          Flushing, NY 11354
          Telephone: (718) 353-8588
          E-mail: xliu@hanglaw.com


MAIN MOON: Chen Files FLSA Suit in D. New Jersey
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Main Moon Lin Inc. et
al. The case is styled as SHAN HUI CHEN
on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Main Moon Lin Inc., Jiachenglin, Jane Doe, "John" Lin,
John Doe, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-13791 (D.N.J., Sept. 11,
2018).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Main Moon is a Chinese Restaurant located at 145 Main St West
Orange, New Jersey 07052.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


MDL 2311: Nov. 8 Settlement Approval Hearing Set
------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

IN RE AUTOMOTIVE PARTS ANTITRUST
LITIGATION

CASE NO. 12-MD-02311
HON. MARIANNE O. BATTANI

In Re: INSTRUMENT PANEL CLUSTERS

THIS RELATES TO:
ALL DIRECT PURCHASER ACTIONS

2:12-cv-00201-MOB-MKM

NOTICE OF HEARING ON PROPOSED PLAN OF DISTRIBUTION OF THE NIPPON
SEIKI AND YAZAKI SETTLEMENT FUND, AND SETTLEMENT CLASS COUNSEL'S
REQUESTS FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES AND AN INCENTIVE
PAYMENT TO THE CLASS REPRESENTATIVE TO: ALL DIRECT PURCHASERS OF
INSTRUMENT PANEL CLUSTERS IN THE UNITED STATES DIRECTLY FROM ANY OF
THE DEFENDANTS FROM JANUARY 1, 1998 THROUGH
DECEMBER 27, 2016.

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS MAY BE
AFFECTED BY LITIGATION NOW PENDING IN THIS COURT.

WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS NOTICE AND WHY WAS IT SENT TO ME?

This Notice is given pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division. The
purpose of this Notice is to inform you of a hearing before the
Court to consider:

(1) A proposed plan of distribution of the Nippon Seiki and Yazaki
settlement proceeds to Settlement Class members and a proposed
Claim Form that you may submit in order to share in the Settlement
Fund proceeds; and

(2) Settlement Class Counsel's requests for an award of attorneys'
fees and reimbursement of their litigation costs and expenses, and
an incentive payment to the Class Representative.

This Notice provides information concerning the proposed plan of
distribution, and the requests for an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses and an incentive payment to the Class Representative. The
Notice also advises you of your rights to participate in the
settlement claims process and to object to the plan of
distribution, to the requests for fees and expenses, and to an
incentive payment to the Class Representative in connection with
the Court hearing on these matters.

BACKGROUND

This class action lawsuit is part of coordinated legal  proceedings
involving a number of parts used in motor vehicles. This
litigation, and the proposed settlement, relate solely to
Instrument Panel Clusters purchased directly from a Defendant. For
purposes of the settlement, Instrument Panel Clusters (also
referred to as meters) means the mounted array of instruments and
gauges housed in front of the driver of a motor vehicle.

You were previously notified of the existence of this class action,
the nature of the Plaintiff's claims, and settlements with
Defendants Nippon Seiki Co. Ltd., N.S. International Ltd., and New
Sabina Industries, Inc. (collectively, "Nippon Seiki") in the
amount of $5.25 million, and with Defendants Yazaki Corporation and
Yazaki North America, Inc. (collectively, "Yazaki") in the amount
of $2.5 million. Those settlements, in the total amount of $7.75
million (the "Settlement Fund"), were previously approved by the
Court in Orders dated December 4, 2014 and March 13, 2018,
respectively.

The other Defendants in this action, Continental Automotive
Electronics LLC, Continental
Automotive Korea Ltd. Continental Automotive Systems, Inc., Denso
Corporation, and Denso International America, have been dismissed
from this action. Thus, the proposed plan of distribution and the
requests for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses and an
incentive payment to the Class Representative will, if approved by
the Court, bring this litigation to a conclusion.

WHO IS IN THE NIPPON SEIKI AND YAZAKI SETTLEMENT CLASSES?

The Court previously certified a Direct Purchaser Nippon Seiki
Settlement Class (the "Nippon Seiki Settlement Class") and a Direct
Purchaser Yazaki Settlement Class (the "Yazaki Settlement Class").

The Nippon Seiki Settlement Class is defined as follows:

All persons or entities (but excluding Defendants, their officers,
directors and employees, as well as Defendants' parents,
predecessors, successors, subsidiaries, and affiliates) who
purchased Instrument Panel Clusters in the United States, its
territories and possessions, directly from any Defendant, including
Settling Defendants, or from any of their parents, predecessors,
successors, subsidiaries, or affiliates, during the period from
January 2001 up to and including May 16, 2014.

For purposes of the Nippon Seiki Settlement Class definition, the
following are Defendants: Yazaki Corporation; Yazaki North America
Inc.; Nippon Seiki Co. Ltd.; N.S. International Ltd.; New Sabina
Industries, Inc.; Denso Corporation; and Denso International
America, Inc.

The Yazaki Settlement Class is defined as follows:

All direct purchasers of motor vehicle Instrument Panel Clusters in
the United States directly from any of the Defendants (or their
controlled subsidiaries, affiliates or joint ventures) from January
1, 1998 through December 27, 2016.

For purposes of the Yazaki Settlement Class definition, the
following are Defendants: Yazaki Corporation; Yazaki North America,
Inc.; Continental Automotive Electronics LLC; Continental
Automotive Korea Ltd.; Continental Automotive Systems, Inc.; Denso
Corporation; Denso International America, Inc.; Nippon Seiki Co.
Ltd.; N.S. International Ltd.; and New Sabina Industries, Inc.

HOW WILL THE SETTLEMENT FUND BE DISTRIBUTED?

You were previously asked to decide whether you wanted to remain in
the Nippon Seiki and Yazaki Settlement Classes. With respect to
each of those Settlement Classes, you are bound by the decision you
made. If you remained a member of either of the Settlement Classes
and you wish to share in the settlement proceeds attributable to
that settlement, you must complete and timely return a copy of the
Claim Form that is included with this Notice. Any Claim Form
submitted electronically must be submitted on or before November
28, 2018. Any Claim Form submitted via mail must be postmarked on
or before November 28, 2018, and sent to the following address:

Instrument Panel Clusters Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation
P.O. Box 5110
Portland, OR 97208-5110

Any Settlement Class member who does not complete and submit a
valid and timely Claim Form will not be entitled to share in the
Settlement Fund proceeds. The Settlement Fund, with accrued
interest, less any amounts approved by the Court for payment of
attorneys' fees, litigation and settlement administration costs and
expenses, and an incentive payment for the Class Representative
(the "Net Settlement Fund"), will be distributed among Settlement
Class members who file a timely and valid Claim Form ("Claimants").
The Net Settlement Fund will be
distributed pro rata to all Claimants based upon their direct
purchases in the United States from Defendants during the period
from (a) January 2001 through and including May 16, 2014 (as to the
Nippon Seiki settlement proceeds), and (b) January 1, 1998 through
December 27, 2016 (as to the Yazaki settlement proceeds). The
distribution will take place as soon as practicable after review,
verification, and audit of Claim Forms by the Settlement
Administrator and approval by the Court of the Settlement
Administrator's recommendations as to the amounts to be paid to the
Claimants.

Please do not dispose of any document that reflects payments for
your direct purchases of Instrument Panel Clusters in the United
States from any Defendant during the period from January 1, 1998
through December 27, 2016. You may need those documents to complete
and substantiate your Claim Form, which will be subject to inquiry
and verification.

REQUEST FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES AND INCENTIVE PAYMENT

The Court has appointed the law firms identified below as
Settlement Class Counsel. These law firms, together with other
firms that have worked on this litigation, will file a petition for
an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of the costs and
expenses they have incurred in prosecuting the case. The request of
Settlement Class Counsel for attorneys' fees will not exceed 33 1/3
percent of the Settlement Fund. Settlement Class Counsel will also
request an incentive payment to the Class Representative in the
amount of $15,000.

The application for attorneys' fees and litigation costs and
expenses, and an incentive payment will be filed on or before
September 17, 2018. If you remained a member of either the Nippon
Seiki Settlement Class or the Yazaki Settlement Class and you wish
to object to the requests for fees and expenses or the request for
an incentive payment to the Class Representative, you must do so in
writing in accordance with the procedures for objections set forth
below. If you do not oppose any of these requests, you do not need
to take any action in that regard.

WHEN WILL THE COURT CONSIDER THESE MATTERS AND HOW CAN I TELL THE
COURT WHAT I THINK?

The Court will hold a hearing on November 8, 2018, at 11 a.m., at
the Theodore Levin United States Courthouse, 231 West Lafayette
Boulevard, Detroit, MI 48226, Courtroom 737 (or such other
courtroom as may be assigned for the hearing), to determine whether
to approve the proposed plan of distribution of the Settlement
Fund, and Settlement Class Counsel's requests for an award of
attorneys' fees and expenses and an incentive payment to the Class
Representative. The hearing may be rescheduled, continued or
adjourned, and the courtroom assigned for the hearing may be
changed, without further notice to you.

If you remained a member of either the Nippon Seiki or the Yazaki
Settlement Class and you wish to object to the proposed plan of
distribution of the Settlement Fund, or to Settlement Class
Counsel's requests for an award of attorneys' fees and litigation
expenses and an incentive payment to the Class Representative, you
must do so in writing and at your own expense. Any such objection
must include the caption of this litigation, must be signed, and
must be filed no later than October 5, 2018, with the Clerk of
Court, United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan, Southern Division, Theodore Levin United States
Courthouse, 231 West Lafayette Boulevard, Detroit, MI 48226, and
mailed to the following counsel, postmarked no later than October
5, 2018:

          Gregory P. Hansel
          PRETI, FLAHERTY, BELIVEAU & PACHIOS LLP
          One City Center
          P.O. Box 9546
          Portland, ME 04112-9546
          Telephone: (207) 791-3000

          Joseph C. Kohn
          KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
          1600 Market Street, Suite 2500
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 238-1700

          Steven A. Kanner
          FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
          2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130
          Bannockburn, IL 60015
          Telephone: (224) 632-4500

          Eugene A. Spector
          SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C.
          1818 Market Street, Suite 2500
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 496-0300

Co-Lead Counsel for the Direct Purchaser Settlement Classes

          A. Paul Victor
          WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
          200 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10166
          Telephone: (212) 294-6700

Counsel for the Nippon Seiki Defendants

          John M. Majoras
          JONES DAY
          51 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, D.C. 20001-2113
          Telephone: (202) 879-3939

Counsel for the Yazaki Defendants

If you do not object to the proposed plan of distribution of the
Settlement Fund, or to Settlement Class Counsel's requests for
attorneys' fees and expenses or the incentive payment, you do not
need to appear at the hearing or take any other action at this
time. You must, however, complete and timely submit a Claim Form if
you wish to share in the distribution of the Settlement Fund.

WHAT SHOULD I DO IF I WANT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR IF MY ADDRESS
CHANGES?

If this Notice reached you at an address other than the one on the
mailing label, or if your address changes, please send your correct
address to Instrument Panel Clusters Direct Purchaser Antitrust
Litigation, P.O. Box 5110, Portland, OR 97208-5110.

The Settlement Agreements and other public documents filed in this
litigation are available for review during normal business hours at
the offices of the Clerk of Court, United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, Theodore Levin
United States Courthouse, 231 West Lafayette Boulevard, Detroit, MI
48226. Copies of the Settlement Agreements and certain other
documents relevant to this litigation are available at
www.AutoPartsAntitrustLitigation.com. In addition, all documents
filed in the case may be obtained through the Public Access to
Court Electronic Records system, after registration and payment of
the required fees. Questions concerning the Nippon Seiki and Yazaki
settlements, the proposed plan of distribution, or the other
matters discussed in this Notice may be directed to any of the
Settlement Class Counsel identified above.

Please do not contact the Clerk of the Court or the Judge.

BY ORDER OF:
Honorable Marianne O. Battani
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan, Southern Division

DATED: AUGUST 16, 2018


MDSCRIPTS INC: Underpays Account Managers, Shages Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOAN SHAGES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MDSCRIPTS INC.; and GARY MOUNCE, Defendants,
Case No. 1:18-cv-05395 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 8, 2018) is an action
against the Defendants to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees and costs, under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Plaintiff Shages was employed by the Defendants as account
manager from June 2014 to January 24, 2018.

MDScripts Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under the
laws of the State of Florida. The Company provides software and
service solution used by providers in dispensing prescription
medications, managing medical billing, collecting and processing
lab samples to reports. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven S. Shonder, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN S. SHONDER
          1 E. Wacker Drive, Suite 2350
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 612-5191


METLIFE INC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Decapua Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID DECAPUA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. METLIFE, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-07335 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 14, 2018) seeks to stop the Defendant
from marketing its services through the use of automated text
messages in plain violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

MetLife, Inc. engages in the insurance, annuities, employee
benefits, and asset management businesses. MetLife, Inc. was
founded in 1863 and is headquartered in New York, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan D. Selbin, Esq.
          John T. Nicolaou, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10013
          Telephone: (212) 355-9500
          Facsimile: (212) 355-9592
          E-mail: jselbin@lchb.com
                  jnicolaou@lchb.com

               - and -

          Daniel M. Hutchinson, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
          Telephone: (415) 956-1000
          Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
          E-mail: dhutchinson@lchb.com

               - and -

          Matthew R. Wilson, Esq.
          Michael J. Boyle, Jr., Esq.
          MEYER WILSON CO., LPA
          1320 Dublin Road, Suite 100
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 224-6000
          Facsimile: (614) 224-6066


MEZZI MARKETING: Must Produce Docs in Katz TCPA Suit
----------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York granted Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Production in the case
captioned SAMUEL KATZ, ALEXANDER BRAURMAN, and LYNNE RHODES, on
their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Petitioners, v. MEZZI MARKETING, LLC, Respondent. No. 18-MC-2122
(NGG). (E.D.N.Y.).

Petitioners Samuel Katz, Alexander Braurman, and Lynne Rhodes seek
an order compelling Respondent Mezzi Marketing, LLC (Mezzi), to
show cause why it should not be held in contempt of court for
failure to comply with a subpoena that Petitioners have served upon
Mezzi.

That complaint alleges a variety of calls in violation of the TCPA,
including several calls which identified the originating telephone
number as (508) 202-1270. Liberty Power filed a third-party
complaint in which it alleged that Mezzi made the phone calls in
question, in breach of a contract between Liberty Power and Mezzi
whereby Mezzi agreed to perform marketing and customer acquisition
services by use of telesales activities for Liberty Power; and
that, to the extent Liberty Power is liable under the TCPA, it is
entitled to indemnification or contribution from Mezzi.

Having learned about Mezzi's alleged involvement in Liberty Power's
alleged violations of the TCPA through the McDermet litigation,
Petitioners served a subpoena for production of documents on Mezzi
via Mezzi's New Jersey agent, Mian Sultan Mehmood (Sultan).

Petitioners seek all communications, call records, audio records,
lead records, billing records, payment records, and other documents
received from, provided to, and/or related to Liberty Power, their
agents, partners, attorneys, servants, employees, assignees,
affiliates, and/or anyone acting for or on behalf of them and an
oral deposition of Mezzi.

LEGAL STANDARD

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(g), the court for the
district where compliance with a subpoena is sought may hold in
contempt a person who, having been served, fails without adequate
excuse to obey the subpoena or an order related to it. While Rule
45 grants the court power to hold a party in contempt simply on the
basis of failure to comply with a subpoena.

Service of Process

Under Rule 4, service on a corporation in the United States may be
made by delivering a copy of the subpoena to an officer, a managing
or general agent, or any other agent authorized by appointment or
by law to receive service of process.

Petitioners personally served the subpoenas and the Motion on Mezzi
at its principal place of business. This fact, by itself, would be
enough to assure the court that the requirements of Rule 45 have
been satisfied, regardless of any arguments Mezzi might make as to
whether Sultan was actually its agent for service of process.

Order to Show Cause/Motion to Compel

A court should not hold a nonparty in contempt for failure to
comply with a subpoena unless that court has already ordered the
nonparty's compliance. This court has not yet ordered Mezzi to
comply with the subpoena for production of documents. The court
therefore defers decision on Petitioners' motion to hold Mezzi in
contempt and instead treats the Motion as a motion to compel, which
it grants.  If Mezzi believes that its production of documents is
precluded by its contractual obligations to Liberty Power, it must
present that argument to this court as an excuse for its failure to
comply. Petitioners may renew their motion for contempt if, by
September 12, 2018, Mezzi has either not complied with the subpoena
or not provided the court with an adequate excuse for its
noncompliance.  

Accordingly, the Petitioners' motion for contempt is granted and
directs Mezzi either to (1) produce all documents requested in the
subpoena that was served on Mezzi on May 22, 2018; or (2) provide
this court with a memorandum of law setting forth an adequate
excuse for its noncompliance with the subpoena. Should Mezzi fail
to comply with this memorandum and order, Petitioners may renew
their motion for contempt. Mezzi is cautioned that failure to
comply with this memorandum and order may result in the undersigned
holding Mezzi in contempt of court, including the imposition of
attorneys' fees and fines.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 27, 2018 Memorandum
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y6wl9g4j from
Leagle.com.

Samuel Katz, Alexander Braurman & Lynne Rhodes, individualson their
own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Petitioners, represented by Grace E. Parasmo, Parasmo Lieberman
Law.


MIDLAND CREDIT: Wiggins Files FDCPA Suit in D. South Carolina
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management Inc., et. al. The case is styled as Brian Wiggins,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Midland Credit Management Inc., Midland Funding LLC,
John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-02512-MBS (D.S.C.,
Sept. 11, 2018).

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

Midland Credit Management (MCM) is a company that helps consumers
resolve past-due financial obligations. MCM empowers consumers
through education and payment plans, and helps them return to a
path toward improved financial health.

Midland Funding LLC is one of the nation's largest buyers of unpaid
debt. Midland Funding LLC purchases accounts with an unpaid balance
where consumers have gone at least 180 days without making a
payment, or paid less than the minimum monthly payment.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Kenneth Edward Norsworthy, Jr., Esq.
     Norsworthy Law Ltd Co
     505 Pettigru Street
     Greenville, SC 29601
     Phone: (864) 804-0581
     Fax: (864) 756-1153
     E-mail: kenorsworthy@me.com


ML ZAGER:  Violates FDCPA, Friedman Suit Says
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against M.L. Zager, P.C.  The
case is captioned as Aharon Friedman, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. M.L. Zager, P.C., Case No.
7:18-cv-08074 (S.D.N.Y., September 5, 2018).

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

The Law Office of Michael L. Zager, P.C., is a full-service, debt
collection law firm.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
          SANDERS LAW, PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 203-7600
          Facsimile: (516) 281-7601
          E-mail: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com


MRS BPO LLC: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Eilander Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against MRS BPO, LLC.  The
case is titled as Yosirel Eilander, individually and on behalf of
all those similarly situated v. MRS BPO, LLC, Case No.
1:18-cv-05009 (E.D.N.Y., September 5, 2018).

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

MRS BPO, LLC, a debt collection agency, provides accounts
receivables solutions.  The Company offers first and third party
collections services that include skip tracing, letters, human
interaction, scoring, and credit reporting; and analytic solutions
that include effective scoring and regression analysis, voice
analytics, identifying manual processes that can be automated, and
increasing customer retention levels.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
          SANDERS LAW, PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 203-7600
          Facsimile: (516) 281-7601
          E-mail: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com


MRS BPO: Seeks Third Circuit Review of Ruling in Dinaples Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant MRS BPO LLC filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit titled Donna Dinaples v. MRS BPO LLC, Case No.
2-15-cv-01435, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Pennsylvania.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
brings suit under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act against
MRS.  The Plaintiff sought certification of a class of all
consumers with an address in Westmoreland County who, beginning
November 2, 2014, through and including the final resolution of the
case, were sent one or more letters from the Defendant attempting
to collect a consumer debt allegedly owed to Chase Bank, which
displayed on the outside of the mailing a QR Code containing the
account number associated by the Defendant with that consumer's
account.

The appellate case is captioned as Donna Dinaples v. MRS BPO LLC,
Case No. 18-2972, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee DONNA DINAPLES, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Ari H. Marcus, Esq.
          Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
          MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC
          1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101
          Ocean, NJ 07712
          Telephone: (732) 695-3282
          E-mail: Ari@MarcusZelman.com
                  yzelman@marcuszelman.com

               - and -

          Mark G. Moynihan, Esq.
          MOYNIHAN LAW, P.C.
          112 Washington Place
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 889-8535
          E-mail: mark@moynihanlaw.net

Defendant-Appellant MRS BPO LLC is represented by:

          Michael D. Alltmont, Esq.
          Bryan C. Shartle, Esq.
          SESSIONS FISHMAN NATHAN & ISRAEL
          3850 North Causeway Boulevard
          Lakeway Two, Suite 200
          Metairie, LA 70002
          Telephone: (504) 828-3700
          E-mail: malltmont@sessions.legal
                  bshartle@sessions.legal

               - and -

          Andrew J. Blady, Esq.
          Ross Enders, Esq.
          SESSIONS FISHMAN NATHAN & ISRAEL
          3682 Green Ridge Road
          Furlong, PA 18925
          Telephone: (267) 544-0840
          E-mail: ablady@sessions.legal
                  renders@sessions.legal


MURRAY GOULBURN: Slater & Gordon Files Investor Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Simone Smith, writing for The Weekly Times, reports that an
investor class action against Murray Goulburn has been filed on
Aug. 20 in the Federal Court by law firm Slater and Gordon.

The claim is funded by global litigation funder IMF Bentham Ltd and
is brought on behalf of more than 1000 current and former investors
who acquired units in Murray Goulburn's listed entity MG Unit Trust
between May 29, 2015 and April 26, 2016.

According to Slater and Gordon, the claim in based on allegations
including that the MG entities misled investors by issuing the FY16
profit forecast in the PDS and/or the revised forecast in February
2016, without a reasonable basis.

The claim also alleges that MG entities are responsible for
breaches of continuous disclosure obligations under the Australian
Securities Exchange Listing Rule and the Corporations Act 2001 by
failing to announce the FY16 downgrade before April 27, 2016.

This comes more than two years after Murray Goulburn cut its
farmgate milk price in April 2016, which coupled with a similar
move from competitor Fonterra, triggered a dairy industry crisis.

When MG cut its farmgate milk price it also downgraded its net
profit after tax forecast to $39-$42 million.

This was down from a forecast of $63 million three months earlier
and an initial forecast for that same year of $85.8 million in May
2015.

The MG unit price collapsed as a result of the news in April 2016.

Slater and Gordon Senior Lawyer Andrew Paull said: "We have had
very strong interest in this class action. Our clients collectively
invested many millions of dollars in the company, on the back of
statements by Murray Goulburn that appear to have been made without
any reasonable basis.

"More than 40 per cent of that investment value was lost in April
2016, when the company ultimately withdrew its previous market
guidance.

"Murray Goulburn investors understandably feel that they have been
misled and have engaged Slater and Gordon to seek to recover their
losses in court."

Hearing dates have not been set. [GN]


MYER: Former CEO Set to Testify in Shareholder Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Myriam Robin, writing for Australian Financial Review, reports that
a multimillion-dollar class action, triggered by his very comments
in an analyst call, may be tying up his former employer in
Melbourne's courts.

But we get the feeling Bernie Brookes, Myer's former CEO turned
adjunct industry fellow at Swinburne University, has other fish to
fry.

In a LinkedIn post the day after the three-week trial started, Mr.
Brookes informed contacts of his recent unpleasant experience
trying to place an order for a Margaret River Cabernet Merlot with
Dan Murphy's online.

Seems the price was $59.70, but when he put it in his postcode, it
jumped to $71.40, because that item was more expensive at Brooks'
closest store (it seems prices vary due to Dan Murphy's local
price-matching policy).  

"SO, You buy on line and then at the checkout they adjust the price
up to the local store!!," Mr. Brookes wrote. "Dan Murphy's was WOWs
showpiece of price discounting!! I went to Kemenys and got what I
wanted at the price on the website!"

Frankly, he says, it's no wonder traditional retailers are under
attack.

Mr. Brookes' old employer Myer is under attack because for some
years it's been a rather abysmal investment for shareholders. Mr.
Brookes was expected in court on Wednesday, Aug. 15, or Thursday,
Aug. 16 to answer claims he provided verbal guidance that Myer
would grow sales that year in an analyst call in September 2014,
despite Myer's board having decided against making such a statement
a day earlier.

The Aug. 9 proceedings were notable for airing the dirty laundry of
how Myer's board decided to dump Mr. Brookes for his (now departed,
and rather unsuccessful) replacement Richard Umbers. According to
board minutes from February 2015, the board authorised then-chair
Paul McClintock to talk to Mr. Umbers about taking over. If Mr.
Umbers agreed, the minute states, the board will "terminate the
contract of Mr. Brookes with effect from 1 May 2015". Mr. Brookes
ended up leaving even earlier. This all came less than 12 months
after Mr. Brookes had been reappointed to the CEO role. [GN]


NEVADA: Court Junks Suit vs. DIR Over Lump-Sum Award Calculation
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Nevada granted
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case captioned Joseph Shannon, et
al., on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
Joseph Decker, et al., Defendants. Case No. 2:17-cv-00875-JAD-GWF.
(D. Nev.).

The Plaintiffs bring this putative class action, alleging that
current and former administrators of the Division of Industrial
Relations (DIR) violated their civil rights by failing to update
actuarial tables that insurers use to calculate lump-sum awards
under Nevada's workers' compensation scheme.

The defendants move to dismiss all of the plaintiffs' claims. They
contend that the plaintiffs (1) have failed to show that state
action caused their deprivations because private insurers, not the
state, calculated their benefits; (2) lack a property interest in a
particular calculation of a lump-sum payment; (3) were given notice
and an opportunity to be heard if they disagreed with their
lump-sum payments; (4) cannot show that the Administrators' failure
to update the actuarial table was arbitrary or irrational; and (5)
cannot show that the defendants intentionally discriminated against
them to support their equal-protection claim. The defendants also
raise a qualified-immunity defense.

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil
liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly
established statutory or constitutional rights of which a
reasonable person would have known.

The plaintiffs first contend that qualified immunity doesn't apply
to the defendants because they had a non-discretionary duty to
issue the necessary regulation and actuarial schedule for the
plaintiffs to be paid their lump sum PPD benefits. Qualified
immunity shields only actions taken pursuant to discretionary
functions and does not protect non-discretionary or ministerial
duties. Generally, ministerial, non-discretionary functions are
those that lend themselves readily to formulaic determination,
while discretionary functions are those that require particularized
judgments.

The plaintiffs fail to adequately explain how the defendants'
actions were non-discretionary. They rely on Nevada Revised Statute
Section 616C.495(5) to argue that the defendants were required to
update their actuarial tables. But, at the time that the plaintiffs
received their benefits, the statute unambiguously required only
that the defendants review the tables annually, not that they
revise or update them. As written, the statute gave the defendants
discretion to determine when or if to revise or update the
actuarial tables.

The plaintiffs next contend that the defendants' actions violated
their clearly established rights. They first appear to define that
right as the right to be free from statutory violations that
implicate the federal constitution. But that right is defined much
too generally to satisfy the qualified-immunity standard.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 27, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yab25otq from Leagle.com.

Joseph Shannon, Penny Lucille Behrens, Christopher Robert Braggs &
Jose Lopez Gomez, Plaintiffs, represented by Jason D. Mills, Neeman
& Mills, Ltd., Leon Marc Greenberg, Leon Greenberg Professional
Corporation, Dana Sniegocki, Leon Greenberg, & James P. Kemp, Kemp
& Kemp.

Joseph Decker, Steve George & Donald Soderberg, Defendants,
represented by Steven Shevorski, Nevada Office of the Attorney
General & Sarah Bradley, State of Nevada Office of the Attorney
General.


NEW JERSEY EDUCATION: Smith Moves for Certification of 3 Classes
----------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Poulson, Michael Sandberg and Leonardo Santiago, Plaintiffs
in the lawsuit titled Ann Smith, et al. v. New Jersey Education
Association, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-10381-RMB-KMW (D.N.J.), move
to certify two plaintiff classes and one defendant class in
relation to their motion for preliminary injunction.

The Plaintiff Classes consists of:

   * "all public employees in the state of New Jersey (1) who
      have resigned or will resign their union membership after
      Janus; and (2) whose employers are required by section 6 of
      the Workplace Democracy Enhancement Act to continue
      deducting union dues from their paychecks even after they
      have resigned from the union." Ms. Poulson, Mr. Sandberg,
      and Mr. Santiago would serve as the representatives of this
      class; and


   * "all public employees in New Jersey who remain subject to
      the payroll deduction of union dues that they have not
      freely and knowingly consented to since the Supreme Court's
      ruling in Janus." Ms. Poulson, Mr. Sandberg, and
      Mr. Santiago would also serve as the representatives of
      this class.

The Defendant Class consists of:

     "all public school boards and school districts in the state
      of New Jersey." The Clearview Regional High School District
      Board of Education and the Harrison Township Board of
      Education would serve as the representatives of this class.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Walter S. Zimolong, Esq.
          ZIMOLONG LLC
          P.O. Box 552
          Villanova, PA 19085
          Telephone: (215) 665-0842
          E-mail: wally@zimolonglaw.com

               - and -

          Jonathan F. Mitchell, Esq.
          MITCHELL LAW PLLC
          106 East Sixth Street, Suite 900
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 686-3940
          E-mail: jonathan@mitchell.law

Union Defendants are represented by:

          Flavio L. Komuves, Esq.
          Robert A. Fagella, Esq.
          ZAZZALI, FAGELLA, NOWAK, KLEINBAUM & FRIEDMAN
          570 Broad Street, Suite 1402
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 623-1822
          E-mail: fkomuves@zazzali-law.com
                  rfagella@zazzali-law.com

               - and -

          John West, Esq.
          Leon Dayan, Esq.
          Jacob Karabell, Esq.
          Adam Bellotti, Esq.
          BREDHOFF & KAISER PLLC
          805 15th Street N.W.
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 842-2600
          E-mail: jwest@bredhoff.com
                  ldayan@bredhoff.com
                  jkarabell@bredhoff.com
                  abellotti@bredhoff.com

The National Education Association is represented by:

          Eric Harrington, Esq.
          NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION
          1201 16th Street NW
          Washington, DC 20036-3290
          Telephone: (202) 822-7018
          E-mail: eharrington@nea.org

Clearview Board of Education is represented by:

          Frank P. Cavallo Jr., Esq.
          Andrew W. Li, Esq.
          PARKER MCCAY P.A.
          9000 Midlantic Drive, Suite 300
          P.O. Box 5054
          Mount Laurel, NJ 08054
          Telephone: (856) 596-8900
          E-mail: fcavallo@parkermccay.com
                  ali@parkermccay.com

Harrison Township Board of Education is represented by:

          Brett E.J. Gorman, Esq.
          PARKER MCCAY P.A.
          9000 Midlantic Drive, Suite 300
          P.O. Box 5054
          Mount Laurel, NJ 08054
          Telephone: (856) 596-8900
          E-mail: bgorman@parkermccay.com

Kingsway Regional School District Board of Education is represented
by:

          Jeffrey R. Caccese, Esq.
          COMEGNO LAW GROUP P.C.
          521 Pleasant Valley Avenue
          Morristown, NJ 08057
          Telephone: (856) 234-4144
          E-mail: jcaccese@comegnolaw.com

The State Defendants are represented by:

          Beth N. Shore, Esq.
          Donna S. Arons, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          DEPARTMENT OF LAW & PUBLIC SAFETY
          25 Market Street
          Trenton, NJ 08608
          Telephone: (609) 633-1972
          E-mail: beth.shore@law.njoag.gov
                  donna.arons@dol.lps.state.nj.us

The PERC Defendants are represented by:

          Christine Lucarelli, Esq.
          Don Horowitz, Esq.
          NEW JERSEY PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION
          P.O. Box 429
          Trenton, NJ 08625-0429
          Telephone: (609) 292-9830
          E-mail: mail@perc.state.nj.us


NEW YORK: Wins Approval of Deal in Caballero & Bucceri Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Magistrate Judge Cheryl L. Pollak grants preliminary approval
of the proposed settlement in the lawsuits styled OLGA CABALLERO,
JIE DU, by her friend MICHAEL TONG, ALEXANDRA NEGRON, MARIANO
VAZQUEZ, by his next friend IRAIDA VASQUEZ; and JUAN SANTOS, by his
next friend RITA BAEZ, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. SENIOR HEALTH PARTNERS, INC.; HEALTHFIRST,
INC.; HF MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC; HEALTHFIRST HEALTH PLAN, INC.;
XYZ CORPORATIONS 1-10; and HOWARD ZUCKER, as Commissioner of the
New York State Department of Health, Case No. 16 CV 0326 (CLP)
(E.D.N.Y.); and MADELINE BUCCERI, PATRICIA TRUJILLO, And LOURDES
LO, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated v.
HOWARD ZUCKER, as Commissioner of the New York State Department of
Health; HF MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC; SENIOR HEALTH PARTNERS, INC.;
HF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, INC.; HEALTHFIRST, INC.; HEALTHFIRST
HEALTH PLAN, INC., Case No. 18 CV 2380 (CLP) (E.D.N.Y.).

The Court: (1) provisionally certifies the Rule 23 Class for
purposes of settlement; (2) grants preliminary approval of the
proposed settlement, as articulated in the Settlement Agreement;
(3) appoints the Named Plaintiffs as representatives of the Class;
(4) appoints the New York Legal Assistance Group, The Legal Aid
Society, Winston & Strawn LLP, and Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton &
Garrison LLP as Class Counsel; and (5) approves the proposed Notice
of Class Action Settlement and the proposed method of
distribution.

The Fairness Hearing is scheduled for November 29, 2018, at 11:00
a.m.  Any Class Member shall have the right to appear and be heard
at the Fairness Hearing or to submit a written objection to the
Court within 14 days before the Fairness Hearing, pursuant to the
terms of the Class Notice and Settlement Stipulation.

The Plaintiffs filed suit alleging violations of the Medicaid Act,
the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, the
US. Constitution, and New York State laws.  The Plaintiffs,
recipients of Medicaid-funded home care services through two
Managed Long Term Care ("MLTC") health plans -- Senior Health
Partners or Healthfirst CompleteCare -- claimed that the
Healthfirst defendants ("Healthfirst") unlawfully 1) reduced or
threatened to reduce the Caballero Plaintiffs' home healthcare
services; 2) denied or refused to consider increases in the
Caballero Plaintiffs' home healthcare services; and 3) failed to
provide timely and adequate notice to the Caballero Plaintiffs
about the reduction or denial of services.

The Bucceri Plaintiffs allege that they have asked for an increase
in their home care services and rather than timely recording,
assessing and determining theses requests, the Defendants ignored
or used flawed systems of assessment, systematically denying or
reducing their needed service.

The proposed Settlement reached between Defendants Healthfirst and
DOH on the one hand and the combined Class, consisting of both the
Caballero and Bucceri Plaintiffs, requires the Defendant
Healthfirst to make certain changes in their practices and
policies.  Among other  things, Healthfirst agrees not to reduce or
threaten to reduce a member's Home Care Services based upon a prior
mistake; and agrees not to reduce or threaten to reduce services
based on either an eight-hour cap or a prohibition on "Additional
Findings" as a category of care.  Healthfirst further agrees to
comply with the requirements of MLTC Policy 16.07, issued on
November 17, 2016, relating to task-based assessment tools, and
with MLTC Policy 16.06, also issued on November 17, 2016, relating
to the requirements for notices proposing to reduce or discontinue
care services.

According to the Court's memorandum and order, Healthfirst also
agrees, among other things, to follow certain requirements when
evaluating a request for an increase in services; agrees not to use
the number of hours requested as the maximum if Healthfirst
determines that more are required; agrees to include information in
future versions of the Member Handbook, alerting enrollees as to
how they can request an increase; and agrees to conduct an
assessment of all Class members within 180 days after the effective
date of Settlement.


NIELSEN HOLDING: Oct. 9 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
----------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of Brower Piven, A Professional
Corporation, on Aug. 13 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Nielsen Holdings
PLC (NYSE: NLSN) ("Nielsen" or the "Company") securities during the
period between February 8, 2018 and July 25, 2018 inclusive (the
"Class Period").  Investors who wish to become proactively involved
in the litigation have until October 9, 2018 to seek appointment as
lead plaintiff.

If you wish to choose counsel to represent you and the class, you
must apply to be appointed lead plaintiff and be selected by the
Court.  The lead plaintiff will direct the litigation and
participate in important decisions including whether to accept a
settlement for the class in the action.  The lead plaintiff will be
selected from among applicants claiming the largest loss from
investment in Nielsen securities during the Class Period.  Members
of the class will be represented by the lead plaintiff and counsel
chosen by the lead plaintiff.  No class has yet been certified in
the above action.

The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by virtue of the defendants'
failure to disclose during the Class Period that the Company and
its executives violated federal securities laws by recklessly
disregarding its readiness for and the true risks of privacy
related regulations and policies including the European General
Data Protection Regulation ("GDPR") on its current and future
financial and growth prospects, failing to disclose that its
financial performance was far more dependent on Facebook, Inc.
("Facebook") and other third-party large data set providers than
previously revealed and that privacy policy changes affected the
scope and terms of access Nielsen would have to third-party data,
and that access to Facebook and other third-party provider data was
becoming increasingly restricted for Nielsen and Nielsen clients.
According to the complaint, following a July 26, 2018 announcement
of disappointing financial results for the second quarter 2018 due
in part to the negative impact that the GDPR had on the Company's
access to large data sets provided by partners like Facebook, the
value of Nielson shares declined significantly.

If you have suffered a loss in excess of $100,000 from investment
in Nielsen securities purchased on or after February 8, 2018 and
held through the revelation of negative information during and/or
at the end of the Class Period and would like to learn more about
this lawsuit and your ability to participate as a lead plaintiff,
without cost or obligation to you, please contact Brower Piven
either by email at hoffman@browerpiven.com or by telephone at (410)
415-6616.

Attorneys at Brower Piven have extensive experience in litigating
securities and other class action cases and have been advocating
for the rights of shareholders since the 1980s.  If you choose to
retain counsel, you may retain Brower Piven without financial
obligation or cost to you, or you may retain other counsel of your
choice.  You need take no action at this time to be a member of the
class. [GN]


NIELSEN HOLDINGS: Gordon Sues over 25% Drop in Share Price
----------------------------------------------------------
CRAIG GORDON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NIELSEN HOLDINGS PLC; DWIGHT MITCHELL BARNS;
and JAMERE JACKSON, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-07143 (S.D.N.Y.,
Aug. 8, 2018) alleges violation of the Securities Act of 1934.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Company's current
business and financial condition, including its forecasted
financial results, were each materially false and misleading when
made because the Defendants failed to disclose the following true
facts which were known to the Defendants or recklessly disregarded:
(a) The Company recklessly disregarded its readiness for and the
true risks of privacy related regulations and policies, including
the General Data Protection Regulation, on its current and future
financial and growth prospects; (b)  The Company's financial
performance was far more dependent on Facebook and other
third-party large data set providers than previously disclosed and
privacy policy changes affected the scope and terms of access
Nielsen would have to third-party data; (c) Access to Facebook and
other third-party provider data was becoming increasingly
restricted for Nielsen and Nielsen clients.

Then, on July 26, 2018, Nielsen shocked investors as it published
its financial results for second quarter 2018 announcing that it
had missed revenue and earnings targets and was relieving its
forecast of $800 million free cash flow for 2018, that the General
Data Protection Regulation was affecting partners and clients, and
that CEO Mitchell Barns would retire at the end of 2018.

As a result of these news, Nielsen's stock price declined more than
25% from a close of $29.57 per share on July 25, 2018 to a close of
$22.11 per share on July 26, 2018, a massive volume of 38 million
shares traded.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN
          & DOWD LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 367-7100
          Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
          E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          W. Scott Holleman, Esq.
          JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP
          99 Madison Avenue, 5th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 802-1486
          Facsimile: (212) 602-1592
          E-mail: scotth@johnsonfistel.com


O'REILLY AUTO: 9th Circuit Appeal Filed in Davidson Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Kia Davidson filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit entitled Kia Davidson v. O'Reilly Auto Enterprises, LLC,
Case No. 5:17-cv-00603-RGK-AJW, in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, Riverside.

The appellate case is captioned as Kia Davidson v. O'Reilly Auto
Enterprises, LLC, Case No. 18-56188, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
appealed from a District Court ruling.  That appellate case is
styled as Kia Davidson v. O'Reilly Auto Enterprises, LLC, Case No.
17-80260.

The District Court denied last year the Plaintiff's motion for
class certification of:

   Wage Statement Class:

   "[a]ll persons who worked for [O'Reilly] as a non-exempt,
   hourly paid employee in California (excluding Assistant Store
   Managers and Store Managers) at any time from March 29, 2016
   until April 2017"; and

   Rest Period Policy Class:

   "[a]ll person who worked for [O'Reilly] as a non-exempt,
   hourly paid employee in California (excluding Assistant Store
   Managers and Store Managers) at any time from March 29, 2013
   until the date of certification."

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

   -- Transcript must be ordered by October 4, 2018;

   -- Transcript is due on November 5, 2018;

   -- Appellant Kia Davidson's opening brief is due on
      December 13, 2018;

   -- Appellee O'Reilly Auto Enterprises, LLC's answering brief
      is due on January 14, 2019; and

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

Plaintiff-Appellant KIA DAVIDSON, individually, and on behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated, is
represented by:

          Liana Carter, Esq.
          Robert Drexler, Jr., Esq.
          Melissa Grant, Esq.
          Ryan Wu, Esq.
          Glenn A. Danas, Esq.
          Matthew Thomas Theriault, Esq.
          CAPSTONE LAW APC
          1875 Century Park East
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 556-4811
          E-mail: Liana.Carter@CapstoneLawyers.com
                  Robert.Drexler@capstonelawyers.com
                  melissa.grant@capstonelawyers.com
                  Ryan.Wu@CapstoneLawyers.com

Defendant-Appellee O'REILLY AUTO ENTERPRISES, LLC, a Delaware
corporation, is represented by:

          John Marcher Morris, Esq.
          James M. Peterson, Esq.
          Jason Conroy Ross, Esq.
          HIGGS FLETCHER & MACK LLP
          401 West A Street
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 236-1551
          Facsimile: (619) 696-1410
          E-mail: jmmorris@higgslaw.com
                  peterson@higgslaw.com
                  rossj@higgslaw.com


OFFICE SENSE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Blake P.A. Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
LAW OFFICE OF TIMOTHY CARL BLAKE P.A., individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated Plaintiff v. OFFICE SENSE, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-23301-KMM (S.D. Fla., Aug. 14, 2018) is
an action against the Defendant for violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, arising from the sending of unsolicited
facsimile advertisements to the telephone facsimile machine of the
Plaintiff and to the telephone facsimile machines of other persons
or entities that do not contain the requisite opt-out notice.

Office Sense, LLC is a Florida limited liability company with
principal office address at Miami, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shawn A. Heller, Esq.
          Joshua A. Glickman, Esq.
          SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL
          974 Howard Ave.
          Dunedin, FL 34698
          Telephone: (305) 323-6433
          E-mail: shawn@sjlawcollective.com
                  josh@sjlawcollective.com

               - and -

          Peter Bennett, Esq.
          Richard Bennett
          BENNETT & BENNETT
          1200 Anastasia Ave., Ofc 360
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 444-5925
          E-mail: peterbennettlaw@gmail.com
                  richardbennett27@gmail.com


ONTEL PRODUCTS: Dapena Sues over Sale of Defective Solar Lights
---------------------------------------------------------------
LISETTE DAPENA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ONTEL PRODUCTS CORPORATION; and WORLD PACK
USA, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-04487 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 8,
2018) alleges that the Defendants market, promote, sell and
distribute defective Solar Lights.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint, that the Solar Light sold
by the Defendants is an unsafe product, and there are numerous
reported incidents of the Solar Light causing fire, apparently as a
result of Defendants marketing, promoting, selling and distributing
a product that has been manufactured in a faulty manner and suffers
from poor quality control.

Despite numerous reports of fires caused by the overhearing of
Solar Lights, Defendants continue to market and sell the Solar
Light to consumers throughout the United States, causing them
millions of dollars in damages.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Levine, Esq.
          Michael J. Klein, Esq.
          STULL STULL & BRODY
          6 East 45th Street
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 687-7230
          Facsimile: (212) 490-2022
          E-mail: mlevine@ssbny.com
                  mklein@ssbny.com


ORACLE CORP: Sued Over "Threats and Extortive" Tactics
------------------------------------------------------
Tess Bennett, writing for Which-50, reports that enterprise
software giant Oracle is facing a class action lawsuit from
shareholders who allege company executives mislead them about what
was driving its cloud revenue growth.

The suit, filed on Aug. 10 in California by the City of Sunrise
Firefighters' Pension Fund, argues the company was lying when it
told investors its cloud sales were growing thanks to Oracle's
"unprecedented level of automation and cost savings," as well as
being "customer-focused" and "intimate partners with our
customer."

Instead, the lawsuit alleges sales were driven "threats and
extortive tactics."

"The use of such tactics concealed the lack of real demand for
Oracle's cloud services, making the growth unsustainable and
ultimately driving away customers. Among other things, the company
threatened current customers with 'audits' of their use of the
company's non-cloud software licenses unless the customers agreed
to shift their business to Oracle cloud programs," a statement
reads.  

Oracle has dismissed the allegations. A spokesperson for Oracle
told Bloomberg, "The suit has no merit and Oracle will vigorously
defend against these claims."

Historically Oracle has offered on-premise IT solutions but the
company has shifted its focus as the market shifts to cloud
computing software.

The suit specifically relates to the period of time between between
May 10, 2017 and March 19, 2018. Oracle's shares were smacked by
the market in March when the company missed its quarterly forecast
due to slower than anticipated cloud growth.

The complaint alleges, during that period Oracle violated
provisions of the Exchange Act by issuing false and misleading
press releases, filings with the US Securities and Exchange
Commission, and statements during investor and analyst conference
calls.

City of Sunrise Firefighters' Pension Fund is represented by New
York law firm Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann. The lawyers
are taking expressions of interest to join the class action. [GN]


PEARSON EDUCATION: Faces Class Action Over Privacy Invasion
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cook County Record reports that a man has filed a class action
lawsuit against educational testing center Pearson Education Inc.,
citing alleged invasion of privacy.

Lead plaintiff Kenneth Hoffman filed a complaint July 9 in Cook
County Circuit Court, claiming Pearson violated the Illinois
Biometric Information Privacy Act.

According to the complaint, Mr. Hoffman was allegedly tested at a
facility owned and operated by the defendant. As part of those
tests, the plaintiff said his finger and palm veins were scanned by
biometric devices, which captured, collected and stored the data.

However, Mr. Hoffman claims he and the other class members were not
informed that their biometric information was being collected and
did not consent to any transmission of their information to third
parties.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks statutory damages,
attorneys' fees, costs, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and
other relief the court deems just. He is represented by William
Kingston and Jad Sheikali of McGuire Law PC in Chicago.

Circuit Court of Cook County case number 18-CH-08527 [GN]


PGT INDUSTRIES: Parker FCRA Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------
The class action styled as Stephon Parker on behalf of himself and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PGT
Industries, Inc. Defendant, Case No. 18-CA-4310 filed in state
court on
August 14, 2018, was removed from the 12th Judicial Circuit in and
for Sarasota County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida on September 11, 2018, and assigned Case
No. 8:18-cv-02250-CEH-AAS.

The nature of suit is stated as Consumer Credit and was filed under
the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

PGT Industries, Inc. designs, manufactures, and supplies
residential impact-resistant windows, doors, and enclosure systems.
It offers aluminum and vinyl products for single family,
commercial, and multi-family buildings. The company also provides
porch enclosures, garage door screens, and cabana doors. It sells
its products in the Eastern United States, the Gulf Coast, the
Caribbean, and other international markets. The company was
formerly known as Vinyl Technology, Inc. and changed its name to
PGT Industries, Inc. in January 1999. The company was founded in
1980 and is based in North Venice, Florida. PGT Industries, Inc.
operates as a subsidiary of PGT, Inc.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Andrew Ross Frisch, Esq.
     Morgan & Morgan, PA
     600 N Pine Island Rd, Suite 400
     Plantation, FL 33324
     Phone: (954) 318-0268
     Fax: (954) 333-3515
     Email: afrisch@forthepeople.com

        - and -

     C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
     Morgan & Morgan, PA
     20 N Orange Ave., 14th Floor
     Orlando, FL 32802-4979
     Phone: (407) 420-1414
     Fax: (407) 245-3401
     Email: rmorgan@forthepeople.com

        - and -

     Marc Reed Edelman, Esq.
     Morgan & Morgan, PA
     One Tampa City Center Ste 700
     201 N Franklin Street
     Tampa, FL 33602-5157
     Phone: (813) 223-5505
     Fax: (813) 257-0572
     Email: MEdelman@forthepeople.com

The Defendant is represented by:

     Jacqueline M. De Leon, Esq.
     Gordon & Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLC
     100 SE 2nd St Ste 3900
     Miami, FL 33131-2153
     Phone: (305) 428-5300
     Fax: (877) 644-6209
     E-mail: jmdeleon@gordonrees.com

        - and -

     Robin Taylor Symons, Esq.
     Gordon & Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLC
     100 SE 2nd St Ste 3900
     Miami, FL 33131-2153
     Phone: (305) 428-5300
     Fax: (877) 644-6209
     E-mail: rsymons@gordonrees.com


PRIMA HOME: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA, Gallo Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Prima Home Health,
Inc., and Omar M. Abdi.  The case is styled as Jaime Gallo,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
Prima Home Health, Inc. and Omar M. Abdi, Case No.
1:18-cv-01129-TSE-MSN (E.D. Va., September 5, 2018).

The Plaintiff brings the lawsuit under the Fair Labor Standards Act
alleging denial of overtime compensation.

Prima Home Health Inc. is a Medicare certified, state-licensed and
insured home health care agency that provides home care services to
adults of all ages and children.  The Company is locally owned and
operated, in Chantilly, Virginia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregg Cohen Greenberg, Esq.
          ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC
          8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400
          Silver Spring, MD 20910
          Telephone: (301) 587-9373
          Facsimile: (240) 839-9142
          E-mail: ggreenberg@zagfirm.com


PROGRESSIVE CORP: Court Dismisses Double Damages Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio,
Eastern Division, granted Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case
captioned MAO-MSO RECOVERY II, LLC, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
PROGRESSIVE CORP., Defendant. Case No. 1:17CV686. (N.D. Ohio).

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant entered into settlement
agreements with several Medicare enrollees, obligating them to pay
the enrollees' medical expenses. The Plaintiffs thus contend that
the Defendant was a primary payer and that the MAOs covering these
Medicare enrollees were secondary payers. The Plaintiffs allege
that the Defendant failed to pay medical bills that it was
statutorily obligated to pay, resulting in economic loss to the
Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs assert claims for Double Damages under
the Private Right of Action established by the MSP in 42 U.S.C.
Section 1395y(b)(3)(A) and for Breach of Contract.

The Defendant moves to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims for lack of
jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and for failure to
state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The Defendant argues
that the Plaintiffs' claims should be dismissed for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction because the Plaintiffs do not have Article III
standing to pursue this lawsuit since they have failed to plead an
injury that is concrete and particularized.  

Next, the Defendant contends that MAOs do not have any private
right of action under the MSP provisions of the Medicare Act.  

Finally, the Defendant also argues that the FAC fails to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted because it is bereft of even
the most basic factual allegations and does not identify a single
claim that any MAO paid conditionally.

The Plaintiffs contend that they represent MAOs, who, for all
practical and legal purposes, stand in the same shoes as the
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services in providing Medicare
Benefits.

The Plaintiffs further contend that MSP provisions allow for a
private right of action by an MAO against a primary payer and cite
several cases from other circuits holding that double damages
provisions apply to MAOs.

Lastly, the Plaintiffs argue that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8
does not require Plaintiffs to allege the specific facts that
Defendant points to in its Motion to Dismiss.

Standard of Review

A facial attack is a challenge to the sufficiency of the pleading
itself. On such a motion, the court must take the material
allegations of the petition as true and construed in the light most
favorable to the nonmoving party. A factual attack, on the other
hand, is not a challenge to the sufficiency of the pleading's
allegations, but a challenge to the factual existence of subject
matter jurisdiction. On such a motion, no presumptive truthfulness
applies to the factual allegations and the court is free to weigh
the evidence and satisfy itself as to the existence of its power to
hear the case.

Lack of Jurisdiction

To satisfy Article III's standing requirements, a plaintiff must
show: (1) [he] has suffered an injury-in-fact that is (a) concrete
and particularized and (b) actual and imminent, not conjectural or
hypothetical; (2) the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged
action of the defendant; and (3) it is likely, as opposed to merely
speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable
decision.'

The Plaintiffs have failed to present any evidence demonstrating a
valid assignment from any MAO. Standing is not a mere pleading
requirement but rather an indispensable part of the plaintiff's
case, and as such, it must be supported in the same way as any
other matter on which the plaintiff bears the burden of proof,
i.e., with the manner and degree of evidence required at the
successive stages of litigation.

Here, the Plaintiffs have presented no evidence that they have
suffered an injury-in-fact. Plaintiffs have merely made conclusory
allegations in their Complaint that they have been assigned rights
of recovery from several unnamed MAOs. However, without
documentation showing that at least one the Plaintiff has been
assigned recovery rights from at least one MAO, the Court cannot
find that the Plaintiffs have satisfied their burden of proving
Article III standing. Since the Plaintiffs themselves are not MAOs,
the Plaintiffs must show an injury-in-fact by presenting a valid
assignment from an MAO. Because the Plaintiffs have not done so,
the Court finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this
case.

Therefore, for this reason, the Court grants the Defendant's Motion
and dismisses this case without prejudice.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 27, 2018 Opinion
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yb9wsfln from
Leagle.com.

MAO-MSO Recovery II, LLC, MSP Recovery, LLC & MSPA Claims 1, LLC,
Plaintiffs, represented by Christopher L. Coffin --
ccoffin@pbclawfirm.com -- Pendley Baudin & Coffin, Courtney L.
Stidham -- cstidham@pbclawfirn.com -- Pendley Baudin & Coffin, pro
hac vice, Michael L. Baum -- MBaum@BaumHedlundLaw.com -- Baum
Hedlund Aristei & Goldman, Pedram Esfandiary --
PEsfandiary@BaumHedlundLaw.com -- Baum Hedlund Aristei & Goldman,
pro hac vice -- R. Brent Wisner -- RBWisner@BaumHedlundLaw.com --
Baum Hedlund Aristei & Goldman, pro hac vice & Tracy L. Turner --
tturner@pbclawfirm.com -- Pendley Baudin & Coffin.

Progressive Corporation, Defendant, represented by David J. Farber
-- dfarber@kslaw.com -- King & Spalding, pro hac vice, Emily S.
Newton -- enewton@kslaw.com -- King & Spalding, pro hac vice,
Jeffrey S. Cashdan -- jcashdan@kslaw.com -- King & Spalding, pro
hac vice, Kenneth G. Prabucki -- kprabucki@bakerlaw.com -- Baker &
Hostetler, Michael K. Farrell -- mfarrell@bakerlaw.com -- Baker &
Hostetler & Zachary A. McEntyre -- zmcentyre@kslaw.com -- King &
Spalding, pro hac vice.

Progressive Casualty Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Jeffrey S. Cashdan, King & Spalding, Kenneth G. Prabucki, Baker &
Hostetler & Zachary A. McEntyre, King & Spalding.


PYRAMID ADVISORS: Court Grants Leave to Join Additional Defendant
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania granted Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Join an
Additional Defendant and for Leave to File an Amended Class Action
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief in the case
captioned JOHN EGAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PYRAMID ADVISORS LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP d/b/a PYRAMID HOTEL GROUP, Defendant. Civil Action No.
2:17-cv-01383. (W.D. Pa.).

Before the court is the motion of plaintiff John Egan, on behalf of
the proposed class and him,1 for leave to join an additional
defendant and for leave to file an amended class action complaint
for declaratory and injunctive relief in this case.

The Plaintiff instituted this action, alleging violations of the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Defendant Pyramid Advisors
Limited Partnership doing business as Pyramid Hotel Group (Pyramid)
filed its answer and affirmative defenses. Egan, who uses a
wheelchair, alleges that Pyramid, who manages hotels, failed to
provide transportation services in compliance with the ADA.

JOINDER OF WINEGARDNER

THe Plaintiff seeks to join Winegardner, contending that it and
Pyramid collectively manages hotels and, in doing so, share a
policy of discrimination with respect to transportation services
provided to guests at those hotels. The Defendant opposes joinder.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a)(2) permits persons to be
joined as defendants if: any right to relief is asserted against
them jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or
arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of
transactions or occurrences; and any question of law or fact common
to all defendants will arise in the action.

Pyramid contends that joinder is improper, arguing that plaintiff
cannot set forth any factual allegations that would allow this
court to infer that Winegardner is a proper defendant.

At this stage of the proceedings, plaintiff makes sufficient
allegations about the plausibility of joint liability with respect
to the Marriott Chicago Northwest (IL) and the Radisson Hotel
Lansing at the Capitol (MI). The issue whether Pyramid or
Winegardner is responsible for the alleged non-compliance with the
ADA presents a question of law or fact common to Pyramid and
Winegardner.

At this stage of the proceedings, inferences must be drawn in the
light most favorable to plaintiff. Accordingly, the joinder of
Winegardner under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20 is proper.

LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT

A district court has discretion to deny a request to amend if it is
apparent from the record that (1) the moving party has demonstrated
undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motives, (2) the amendment would
be futile, or (3) the amendment would prejudice the other party.

Pyramid contends that joining Winegardner as a defendant would be
futile, stating: plaintiff provides no substantive factual
allegations to show that Winegardner owned, managed, and/or
operated any of the hotels identified in Plaintiff's original or
proposed Amended Complaint. Plaintiff alleges that Pyramid
maintains an extensive organization chart of companies, which are
all held out to be doing business as Pyramid Hotel Group. Plaintiff
alleges that Pyramid and Winegardner collectively direct the
policies in place at all hotels that are represented as managed by
Pyramid Hotel Group' whether those hotels are managed by Pyramid
itself or an affiliated entity Plaintiff relies on Pyramid's and
Winegardner's websites to make these assertions, and as discussed
previously, there are questions of fact about whether Pyramid or
Winegardner directed the policies regarding at least two of the
hotels named in the amended complaint.

Therefore, it is plausible that Pyramid or Winegardner,
individually or jointly, violated the ADA.

The court will grant the motion of plaintiff, on behalf of himself
and the proposed class, for leave to join Winegardner as an
additional defendant and for leave to file an amended class action
complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 27, 2018 Memorandum
Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/ydhtm5ky from
Leagle.com.

JOHN EGAN, individully and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by R. Bruce Carlson --
bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com -- Carlson Lynch Sweet & Kilpela, LLP &
Kelly K. Iverson -- kiverson@carlsonlynch.com -- Carlson Lynch
Sweet Kilpela & Carpenter, LLP.

PYRAMID ADVISORS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, doing business as PYRAMID
HOTEL GROUP, Defendant, represented by Sherri A. Affrunti --
saffrunti@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith LLP.


RB MIAMI BEACH: De Lara Sues over Automatic Hotel Service Charges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUE DE LARA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RB MIAMI BEACH LLC; and SB HOTEL OWNER,
L.P., Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-23229-UU (S.D. Fla., Aug. 8,
2018) alleges violation of the Florida Unfair Deceptive Trade
Practices Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants
unlawfully charged an automatic gratuity, service charge or other
automatic fee upon the Plaintiff's purchase of food and drinks at a
restaurant, bar, mini-bar, lounge, poolside dining area, in-room
dining and other public food service establishment owned, operated
and controlled by the Defendants.

RB Miami Beach LLC is a Florida limited liability company with
principal place of business in Miami, Florida. The Company is
engaged in the hotel business. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David M. Marco, Esq.
          SMITHMARCO, P.C.
          55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 1200
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 546-6539
          Facsimile: (888) 418-1277
          E-mail: dmarco@smithmarco.com

               - and -

          Lauren KW Brennan, Esq.
          FRANCIS & MAILMAN, P.C.
          100 South Broad Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19110
          Telephone: (215) 735-8600
          Facsimile: (215) 940-8000
          E-mail: lbrennan@consumerlawfirm.com


SHAUN'S TOWING: More Truck Drivers to Join OT Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Rick Carroll, writing for The Aspen Times, reports that more truck
drivers are lining up to form a class-action lawsuit against
Shaun's Towing and Recovery because they say they weren't paid for
overtime work, but defense attorneys say federal law exempts them
from receiving the extra compensation.

At issue is a federal suit filed in December by former Shaun's
Towing employee Joseph Durrant.

Mr. Durrant's suit, which says it was filed "on behalf of all
others similarly situated" who have worked for Shaun's Towing, is
aiming to recoup unpaid overtime and other damages under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The plaintiff's next step is to achieve class-action certification
with the court's approval. They got rolling with that effort July
23 by filing a motion seeking certification that would force
Shaun's Towing to provide them the names and contact information
for all of the business's drivers over the past three years.

With that information, the plaintiffs would have 60 days to notify
the drivers about joining the class action.

Since the suit's filing in the U.S. District Court of Denver, a
combination of four current and former truck drivers have opted in
the lawsuit, court documents show.

Those employees, the suit alleges, would often work more than 40
hours a week while receiving base pay and commission every two
weeks.

"They never received the FLSA-required overtime premiums for hours
worked over 40 in a workweek," the motion says.

Mr. Durrant, who worked as a driver with Shaun's Towing from August
2015 until February 2016, earned $13 an hour plus 30 percent
commission, but he wasn't paid for what the suit calls "the
required rate of time-and-one-half for all hours worked over 40
each workweek."

The motion adds that "based on their conversations with other tow
truck drivers, Plaintiffs believe that other current and former tow
truck drivers employed by Defendants would be interested about
joining this lawsuit."

Attorney's for Shaun's towing are fighting the motion and have
until Aug. 27 to answer it.

In their formal reply to the original complaint earlier this year,
Shaun's Towing and owner Shaun Healy, through The Porto Law firm of
Kansas City, Missouri, argued that the Durrant and other employees
"are exempt from receiving overtime compensation under the FLSA as
they are subject to the Motor Carrier Act Exemption."

The Motor Carrier Act exempts employees who work overtime, provided
they are involved in interstate commerce through driving
activities, from receiving time-and-a-half pay.

Shaun's Towing argues that Mr. Durrant "was a tow truck driver and
at all times in his employee with the defendants he either
personally went over state lines to perform jobs on behalf of the
defendants or he reasonably could have been expected to drive
across state lines to perform jobs on behalf of the defendants."

Mr. Durrant's motion from July 23, however, claims that employees
of Shaun's Towing "were tasked with performing towing services
exclusively within the state of Colorado."

Shaun's Towing started in 2005 and serves the entire Roaring Fork
Valley. It also has an agreement with the city of Aspen through
which the city pays Shaun's $185 to tow vehicles to the impound lot
at the Pitkin County Landfill, while the violator pays the city
$200. Shaun's also receives $145 to impound cars in town, with the
violator paying the city $160, according to city records. [GN]


SHELTER MUTUAL: Whitaker Seeks Certification of Insureds Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned DONALD K. WHITAKER,
Individually And on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
SHELTER MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:18-cv-02091-PKH (W.D.
Ark.), moves for class certification pursuant to Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Mr. Whitaker contends that he has individual standing to bring this
action as he is a member of the proposed class, possesses the same
interest as the proposed class, and has suffered the same injustice
shared by all putative class members:

   (a) purchased a policy of insurance from the Defendant;

   (b) made a claim for med pay or PIP benefits;

   (c) had their benefits reduced by the Defendant's discounting
       scheme; and

   (d) failed to exhaust the limits of their med pay or PIP
       benefits.

Excluded from the Class are any individuals, who are employed or
controlled by Defendants and the officers, directors, agents,
servants, of Shelter and the immediate family members of any such
excluded person.  Also excluded is any judge who may preside over
this action.

Alternatively, Mr. Whitaker asks the Court to dismiss the Motion
for Class Certification without Prejudice and allow him to refile
within 30 days of the close of discovery in the scheduling order.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bill G. Horton, Esq.
          CADDELL & REYNOLDS, P.A.
          211 N 2nd Street
          Rogers, AR 72756
          Telephone: (479) 464-8269
          Facsimile: (479) 230-2202
          E-mail: bhorton@justicetoday.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          James Mel Sayes, Esq.
          MATTHEWS, SANDERS & SAYES, P.A.
          825 West Third Street
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 378-0717
          Facsimile: (501) 375-2924
          E-mail: msayes@msslawfirm.com


SHIVALAYE CORP: Violates Disabilities Act, Honeywell Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Shivalaye
Corporation.  The case is titled as CHERI HONEYWELL, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SHIVALAYE
CORPORATION, a Florida corporation, Case No. 1:18-cv-00168-MW-GRJ
(N.D. Fla., September 5, 2018).

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

Shivalaye Corporation is a domestic for profit business in Florida.
The Company does business as Knights Inn Motel located at 2820 NW
13th Street, in Gainesville, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SKIP THE DISHES: Sued Over Driver Status Misclassification
----------------------------------------------------------
Cameron MacLean, writing for CBC News, reports that days before a
Winnipeg Skip the Dishes courier filed court documents to bring a
class-action lawsuit against the online restaurant delivery
service, the company changed the terms of its contract with drivers
to get them to agree not to join any class action against it.

The lawsuit filed in Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench by Charleen
Pokornik -- which alleges the company does not fairly compensate
its drivers and misled them by telling them they are private
contractors instead of employees -- was filed on July 25.

CBC News spoke to a Skip courier in Alberta, who said that on July
19, he received a notice that the terms of their courier agreement
had changed, and they must agree to the new terms by July 26.

The driver provided CBC News with a copy of the text and screen
captions of the new agreement as it appears on a webpage for Skip
the Dishes drivers.

Among the changes was a new section, stating "[any] claim you may
have must be brought individually . . . and not as a representative
plaintiff or class member, and you will not join such claims . . .
against the Company or any related entity."

The Skip courier, who asked not to be named out of concern for his
job, said he noticed the new section, but agreed to the terms
because it is his only job. He works 50-60 hours per week, and in
August he expected to make between $2,200 and $2,300, before tax
and transportation costs.

"I don't have a lawyer, I don't have the money for a lawyer to
review things like this before I agree to them," he said. "I live
paycheque to paycheque, so I had no choice but to agree to them and
continue working."

'Legal validity' of changes in question, lawyer says
Paul Edwards, a lawyer for plaintiff Pokornik, said other Skip the
Dishes drivers brought the updated terms to their attention before
filing their statement of claim. Although they were already
planning on filing their lawsuit, the changes to the employment
terms influenced the timing of when they filed.

If a judge agrees to grant the case class certification, all Skip
the Dishes couriers would be included unless they explicitly opt
out, Mr. Edwards said. He said it's unclear what impact the new
terms will have.

"The effectiveness, the legal validity of mid-term, unilaterally
imposed contractual changes, is an issue that there's lots of legal
decisions on and may well come up in the course of this claim," he
said.

CBC News contacted Skip the Dishes for comment on this story, but a
company spokesperson declined.

"As your questions are pertinent to a matter before the courts, we
look forward to responding through the appropriate channels and at
the right time," the spokesperson said in an email.

Skip the Dishes has previously stated that it denies the
allegations in the statement of claim and told CBC News in an email
its drivers are private contractors, not employees.

On Friday, Aug. 10, a notification was sent out to all users of the
Skip the Dishes Platform, including couriers, restaurants and
customers, stating that the company had updated its terms of
service. The updated terms of service also contains a section
agreeing to resolve any disputes individually and not as part of a
class.

Ontario case could come up
An Ontario court decision in January this year may become relevant
if the case makes it before a judge.

In that case, Heller v. Uber, a judge rejected a claim by Uber
driver David Heller, who argued that Uber misclassifies its drivers
as independent contractors instead of employees, and sought class
certification in a lawsuit against the online ride-hailing
platform.

In his decision, Ontario Superior Court Justice Paul Perell said
the difference between an employee and an independent contractor
"is a fact-based determination that depends upon on a variety of
factors and not just the written or oral agreement between the
parties."

Justice Perell rejected the claim, however, because the agreement
between drivers and Uber contained a clause agreeing to resolve any
disputes through individual arbitration in the Netherlands.

Stephen Gillman represented Heller in the case. He says he plans to
take the case to the Ontario Court of Appeal on Nov. 28.

"This doesn't come up all the time, but it's certainly coming up
now. It's a product of our digiconomy.  The Manitoba labour code,
the Employment Standards Act, hasn't really caught up with new ways
that people are working in our economy," Mr. Gillman said.

"There's certainly a whiff of bad faith here, but what I suspect
Skip the Dishes is trying to stop a class action through an
arbitration clause which is precisely the issue that's going before
the Ontario Court of Appeal on Nov. 28."

Mr. Edwards expects Skip the Dishes will try to use the Ontario
case to support its argument, but he said the facts in both cases
"are completely different."

"Skip the Dishes is trying to shore up, obviously, the wording of
its contracts after the fact," he said.

The courier in Alberta said he thinks the lawsuit against Skip the
Dishes has merit.

"Companies need to abide by the law and there's a reason there's a
minimum wage in place," he said. [GN]


SOLCO HEALTHCARE: Faces Class Action Over Valsartan Drugs
---------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reports that two New York citizens have
filed a purported class action against two drug makers, alleging
they negligently sold valsartan-containing drugs that became
contaminated with a known carcinogen during the manufacturing
process.

The complaint, filed on Aug. 16 in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, says the drug makers knew or should
have known that the valsartan-containing generic medications were
contaminated with NDMA, which can cause liver cancer.

Plaintiffs Elizabeth and John Duffy filed the action on behalf of a
purported class of consumers who purchased valsartan-containing
drugs from defendants Solco Healthcare U.S. [GN]


ST. JOHN'S UNIVERSITY: Shestopal Sues over Spam Text Messages
-------------------------------------------------------------
LIJANA SHESTOPAL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ST. JOHN'S UNIVERSITY, NEW YORK,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-05384 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 8, 2018) seeks
to stop the Defendant from sending unsolicited text messages to the
wireless telephone of the Plaintiff and each of the members of the
Class without prior express written consent in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

St. John's University is an educational institution that offers
undergraduate and graduate programs. The institution provides
courses in liberal arts, science, business, education, health,
pharmaceutical science, and computers. St. John's University was
founded in 1870 and is based in Queens, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph J. Siprut, Esq.
          Ke Liu, Esq.
          SIPRUT PC
          17 North State Street, Suite 1600
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 236-0000
          Facsimile: (312) 878-1342
          E-mail: jsiprut@siprut.com
                  kliu@siprut.com


STEINHOFF: LHL Attorneys File Class Action in Johannesburg Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
EUWID reports that on Aug. 9, the South African law firm LHL
Attorneys filed a class action lawsuit in Johannesburg High Court
against Steinhoff International Holdings and its predecessor
company Steinhoff International Holdings Limited (SIHL) for damages
to investors. German law firm TILP Litigation was also involved in
the preparation of the class action. Together with LHL Attorneys
and the Dutch law firm Bynkershoek Dispute Resolution, TILP
Litigation forms an international legal cooperation on the
Steinhoff claim. According to TILP, Steinhoff is accused of
violating capital market laws and balance sheet manipulation for
several years. The lawsuit is now intended to assert claims for
damages from Steinhoff shareholders in the total amount of
approximately EUR12bn due to share purchases since 2013.

In addition to the Group holding company, banks such as Commerzbank
and Standard Chartered Bank, the accounting firms Deloitte and
Rödl & Partner as well as responsible individuals, including the
former Steinhoff CEO Markus Jooste, the former CFO Ben la Grange
and the former Chairman of the Supervisory Board Christoffel Wiese,
are also accused.

TILP had already filed a first German investor action against
Steinhoff at the Frankfurt/Main Regional Court on December 19 last
year and filed an application for the initiation of model
proceedings. The class action lawsuit now filed in South Africa in
cooperation with LHL Attorneys is, according to TILP, part of a
cross-border litigation strategy covering several countries. [GN]


TAMPA BAY RAYS: Faces Fernandez Suit in M.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tampa Bay Rays
Baseball LTD. The case is styled as Chad Fernandez individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Tampa Bay
Rays Baseball LTD, Defendant, Case No. 8:18-cv-02251-MSS-SPF (M.D.
Fla., Sept. 11, 2018).

The nature of suit is stated as Consumer Credit for Restrictions on
Use of Telephone Equipment.

Tampa Bay Rays Baseball Limited operates a league baseball team in
the United States. It is in the eastern division of the American
league. Tampa Bay Rays Baseball Limited was formerly known as Tampa
Bay Devil Rays, Ltd. and changed its name to Tampa Bay Rays
Baseball Limited in October, 2007. The company was incorporated in
1994 and is based in St. Petersburg, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David P. Milian, Esq.
     Carey Rodriguez Milian Gonya LLP
     1395 Brickell Ave Ste 700
     Miami, FL 33131
     Phone: (305) 372-7474
     Fax: (305) 372-3508
     E-mail: DMILIAN@CAREYRODRIGUEZ.COM

          - and -

     Ruben Conitzer, Esq.
     Carey Rodriguez Milian Gonya LLP
     1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 700
     Miami, Fl 33131
     Phone: (305) 372-7474
     Fax: (305) 372-7475


TIER 1 PROTECTIVE: Underpays Security Guards, Fussel Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID FUSSEL, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TIER 1 PROTECTIVE GROUP INC.; and BELGRAVE
ARELLANO MARTINEZ, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-23216-KMM (S.D.
Fla., Aug. 8, 2018) is an action against the Defendants to recover
unpaid overtime compensation and minimum wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Mr. Fussel was employed by the Defendant as security guard from
August 4, 2017 to November 12, 2017.

Tier 1 Protective Group Inc. is a Florida company doing business in
Miami-Dade County, Florida. The Company offers security services.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
          SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
          20900 NE 30 th  Avenue, Ste. 800
          Aventura, FL33180
          Telephone: (305) 503-5131
          Facsimile: (888) 270-5549
          E-mail: msaenz@saenzanderson.com


TRISTAR PRODUCTS: Arizona Appeals Order in Chapman to 6th Cir.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Movants Arizona Attorney General's Office and the state of Arizona
filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Kenneth
Chapman, et al. v. Tristar Products, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-01114,
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio at
Cleveland.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Plaintiffs
Kenneth Chapman, Jessica Vennel, and Jason Jackson bought pressure
cookers from Tristar.  The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant's
Cookers have a design defect that "allows users to open the
pressure cooker while [the pressure cooker] still contains a
significant and dangerous amount of pressure."

The appellate case is captioned as Kenneth Chapman, et al. v.
Tristar Products, Inc., Case No. 18-3847, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees KENNETH CHAPMAN, JESSICA VENNEL and JASON
JACKSON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
are represented by:

          Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19114
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          E-mail: scarson@bm.net

               - and -

          Arthur Stock, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE P.C.
          1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          E-mail: astock@bm.net

               - and -

          Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
          Adam A. Edwards, Esq.
          Mark E. Silvey, Esq.
          Lisa A. White, Esq.
          GREG COLEMAN LAW
          800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
          Knoxville, TN 37929
          Telephone: (865) 247-0080
          E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com
                  adam@gregcolemanlaw.com
                  mark@gregcolemanlaw.com
                  lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com

               - and -

          Jack Landskroner, Esq.
          Drew T. Legando, Esq.
          LANDSKRONER GRIECO MERRIMAN LLC
          1360 W. Ninth Street, Suite 200
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 522-9000
          E-mail: jack@lgmlegal.com
                  drew@lgmlegal.com

               - and -

          Tyler J. Story, Esq.
          Edward A. Wallace, Esq.
          WEXLER WALLACE LLP
          55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 3300
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 346-2222
          E-mail: eaw@wexlerwallace.com
                  tjs@wexlerwallace.com

Plaintiff-Appellee EDWINA PINON, individually and on behalf of all
persons similarly situated, is represented by:

          Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
          GREG COLEMAN LAW
          800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
          Knoxville, TN 37929
          Telephone: (865) 247-0080
          E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com

               - and -

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Meghan E. George, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN
          21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (877) 206-4741
          E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
                  mgeorge@toddflaw.com

               - and -

          David B. Levin, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN
          333 Skokie Boulevard, Suite 103
          Northbrook, IL 60062
          Telephone: (224) 218-0882
          E-mail: dlevin@toddflaw.com

               - and -

          Jack Landskroner, Esq.
          LANDSKRONER GRIECO MERRIMAN LLC
          1360 W. Ninth Street, Suite 200
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 522-9000
          E-mail: jack@lgmlegal.com

Defendant-Appellee TRISTAR PRODUCTS, INC., is represented by:

          Zachary J. Adams, Esq.
          Madeline Dennis, Esq.
          Jonathan Franklin Feczko, Esq.
          John Q. Lewis, Esq.
          TUCKER ELLIS LLP
          950 Main Avenue, Suite 1100
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 592-5000
          E-mail: zachary.adams@tuckerellis.com
                  madeline.dennis@tuckerellis.com
                  jonathan.feczko@tuckerellis.com
                  john.lewis@tuckerellis.com

               - and -

          Hugh J. Bode, Esq.
          Brian D. Sullivan, Esq.
          REMINGER CO. LPA
          101 W. Prospect Avenue, Suite 1400
          Cleveland, OH 44115
          Telephone: (216) 687-1311
          E-mail: hbode@reminger.com
                  bsullivan@reminger.com

               - and -

          Roger A. Colaizzi, Esq.
          VENABLE LLP
          600 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 344-4000
          E-mail: racolaizzi@venable.com

               - and -

          Matthew Charles O'Connell, Esq.
          Nathan F. Studeny, Esq.
          SUTTER O'CONNELL
          1301 E. Ninth Street, Suite 3600
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Telephone: (216) 928-2200
          E-mail: moconnell@sutter-law.com
                  nstudeny@sutter-law.com

Movants-Appellants ARIZONA ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE and STATE OF
ARIZONA are represented by:

          Oramel H. Skinner, Esq.
          Barry H. Uhrman, Esq.
          Dana R. Vogel, Esq.
          ARIZONA ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE
          2005 N. Central Avenue
          Phoenix, AZ 85004
          Telephone: (602) 542-8327
          E-mail: o.h.skinner@azag.gov
                  Barry.Uhrman@azag.gov
                  dana.vogel@azag.gov


TWO JINN: Underpays Bounty Hunter, McGowan Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------
DEREK MCGOWAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TWO JINN, INC.; and DOES 1-50, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 37-2018-00039551-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Super., San
Diego Cty., Aug. 8, 2018) is an action against the Defendants for
unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for
missed meal and rest periods.

Mr. McGowan was employed by the Defendants as bounty hunter from
the year 2003 to September 6, 2017.

Two Jinn, Inc., doing business as Aladdin Bail Bonds, provides bail
bond services. It provides consulting and customized payment
services. The company is based in Carlsbad, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Blake J. Woodhall, Esq.
          Bradley K. Moores, ESq.
          ELITE LEGAL GROUP, A.P.C.
          550 West C Street, Suite 700
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (858) 342-3245
          Facsimile: (619) 908-1901


UNIKRN INC: Faces Hastings Suit over Sale of UKG Tokens
-------------------------------------------------------
JOHN HASTINGS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. UNIKRN, INC.; UNIKRN BERMUDA, LTD; RAHUL
SOOD; KARL FLORES; and DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 18-2-20306-6
(Wash. Super., King County, Aug. 1, 2018) alleges violation of the
Securities Act of 1933.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the class purchased
UnikoinGold Tokens ("UKG Tokens") from the Defendants during the
UnikoinGold initial coin offering conducted between September 22,
2017 to October 22, 2017.

Over one month, beginning September 22, 2017, and ending on October
22, 2017, the Defendants conducted the Official initial coin
offering ("ICO") for UKG Tokens in an effort to raise 327,174 ETH,
then did raise 112,000 ETH, worth $29,436,000 at the time, through
the sale of UKG.

However, the end of the Official ICO did not mark the end of the
UnikoinGold ICO or the Defendants' sale of UKG Tokens to the
general public. The UnikoinGold ICO never actually ended as the
Defendants continued to offer and sell UKG Tokens to the general
public through cryptocurrency exchanges.

The Defendants attempted to avoid the reach of the U.S. securities
laws by characterizing the UKG sold during its ICO as a utility
token rather than a security, in violation of the Securities Act of
1933.

Unikrn, Inc. operates an online e-sports betting website. Its
website allows users to place bets on matches for Unikoins, a
virtual currency specific to the platform in the United States; and
for real money worldwide. The company’s website enables users to
use Unikoins at Unikrn Marketplace, where they can enter raffles to
win prizes, such as gaming PCs, headsets, gaming glasses, and other
items. Unikrn, Inc. was incorporated in 2014 and is based in
Seattle, Washington. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brad J. Moore, Esq.
          STRITMATTER KESSLER WHELAN
          KOEHLER MOORE
          3600 15th Ave W., Suite 300
          Seattle, WA 98119
          Telephone: (206) 448-1777


UNIKRN: Disgruntled Investor Files Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
William A. Ebbs, writing for bitrates, reports that the plaintiff's
allegations against Unikrn could be setting a dangerous precedent
for similar cryptocurrency startups in the sector.

Unikrn, an Esports betting platform backed by Mark Cuban, has found
itself in hot water after a disgruntled investor initiated a class
action lawsuit against the startup. John Hastings, the lead
plaintiff in the suit, believes Unikrn broke SEC regulations by
selling unregistered securities during its ICO fundraiser. His
allegations against the company could set a precedent for similar
startups in the sector.

Unikrn was founded in 2014 as a platform for esports betting. In
2017, it launched the UnikoinGold Token (UKG) through an ICO
fundraiser that raised approximately 112,720 units of Ether, worth
a little over $30 million at the time. The firm raised an
additional $16 million through something called a "Simple Agreement
for Future Tokens" (SAFT).

The Details of the Lawsuit
Hastings' lawsuit calls the validity of the SAFT contract into
question, alleging that Unikrn sold securities instead of simply
"utility tokens" -- a distinction that would put the fundraiser
under the jurisdiction of the SEC and make it beholden to all the
agency's applicable rules.

The filing states:

"Defendants have crafted a flimsy façade that UKG Tokens are not
securities by claiming they are utility tokens," "in reality, the
UnikoinGold ICO was an offer and sale of securities. Indeed, it is
evident that investors were purchasing UKG Tokens with the
expectation that those tokens would increase in value and become
worth more than the virtual currencies invested."

This isn't the first time a cryptocurrency startup has found itself
on the receiving end of legal action over alleged violations of U.S
securities law. Earlier this year, the Tezos foundation and its
founders, Author and Kathleen Breitman were named in a class action
lawsuit over the sale of unregistered securities and unfair
competition. [GN]


UNITED STATES: Court Conditionally Certifies BATF Workers Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Federal Claims granted Parties' Joint
Motion for Conditional Certification in the case captioned NICOLAS
A. BOGGS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant. No.
17-1946C. (Fed. Cl.).

Pending before the court are two motions related to conditional
certification of plaintiffs' claims as a collective action under
Section 216(b) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b).

The Plaintiffs are current or former employees of the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATF) who are or were
employed as Industry Operations Investigators or Intelligence
Research Specialists. They bring suit on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, seeking back pay, liquidated
damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and costs pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

STANDARDS FOR DECISION

An action under the FLSA may be maintained against any employer by
any one or more employees for and in behalf of himself or
themselves and other employees similarly situated. Plaintiffs in a
FLSA collective action must give their consent in writing to become
such a party and this consent must be filed in the court in which
such action is brought.

In seeking conditional certification and approval of notice, the
parties are not requesting that the court resolve factual disputes,
decide substantive issues, or make credibility determinations. If
plaintiffs are able to satisfy the similarly situated step, the
collective action will be conditionally certified and notice may be
sent to potential collective action plaintiffs.

The Plaintiffs may satisfy their evidentiary burden by
demonstrating that the pleadings, affidavits, and other available
evidence support the conclusion that potential class members are
similarly situated. If this modest factual showing has been made,
then the court may certify the collective action and approve and
authorize notice to be sent to potential collective action
plaintiffs.  

The court concludes that the requisite evidentiary showing has been
made and that the collective action may be certified.

A full-text copy of the Court of Federal Claims' August 27, 2018
Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yb9wsfln from
Leagle.com.

NICOLAS A. BOGGS, WILTON C. GLEATON, DIANE M. SCHMITT, MELANIE M.
SHEA, WILLIAM COTTER, BRYAN C. DWIGHT, PHILIP J. DZIKI, SONJA
FLADIE, STACY K. FOSTER, DESRA S. FRASER, CHERYL R. GLENN, DAVID
HAWLEY, KELLY HEIM, ANGELA M. HOOVER, ROBERT LITTLE, RICKY J.
MUSTION, TINA J. PALMIERI, MARLENE C. SHEDD, MARGARET D. SPECHT,
ANDREW D. YOUNG, ANA ALICIA MENDIVIL & DEBRA G. VAN FOSSEN,
Plaintiffs, represented by Linda Lipsett , Bernstein & Lipsett,
P.C.

USA, Defendant, represented by Ashley Akers , U.S. Department of
Justice - Civil Division (G).


UNITED STATES: Immigrants' Class Action Against ICE Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ben Leonard, writing for NBC News, reports that federal arrests of
undocumented immigrants with no criminal record have more than
tripled under President Donald Trump and may still be accelerating,
according to an NBC News analysis of Immigration and Customs
Enforcement data from his first 14 months in office.

The surge has been caused by a new ICE tactic of arresting --
without warrants -- people who are driving or walking down the
street and using large-scale "sweeps" of likely immigrants,
according to a class-action lawsuit filed in June by immigration
rights advocates in Chicago.

ICE "administrative" arrests of immigrants without criminal
convictions have spiked 203 percent in the first full 14 months of
his presidency compared to the final 14 months of the Obama
administration, growing from 19,128 to 58,010, according to NBC's
review of ICE figures. During the same time period, the numbers
show that arrests of undocumented immigrants with criminal records
grew just 18 percent.

An administrative arrest is an arrest for civil violation of
immigration law. An ICE spokesperson said that a "criminal"
conviction in this context can mean any misdemeanor or felony from
jaywalking to murder, including previous immigration offenses.

The warrants used by immigration agents for civil violations of
immigration law are called "administrative" warrants, and only need
to be signed by immigration agents, unlike criminal warrants.

The pace of arrests of immigrants without criminal convictions may
be picking up. From the seven months ended March 31, the most
recent period for which numbers are available, ICE arrested 16
percent more non-criminals than in the seven months from Feb. 1,
2017 to Aug. 31, 2017, while arresting nine percent fewer
criminals.

One of the attorneys filing suit, Mark Fleming, associate director
of litigation at the National Immigrant Justice Center, says he
believes many of the kinds of arrests that ICE is making under
President Donald Trump are completely new.

"What's really different about this enforcement action is that they
are literally doing roving stops, whether by car or on foot,
stopping people without any sort of articulable facts,"
Mr. Fleming said. "It sends a message to the Hispanic community
that we intend to racially profile you in your communities."

OBAMA VS. TRUMP
Under the Obama administration, ICE targeted undocumented
immigrants convicted of serious crimes, gang members and national
security threats. Obama still deported more people than any
previous president.

But as White House press secretary Sean Spicer said in Feb. 2017,
Obama's successor has "take[n] the shackles off" ICE, expanding the
scope of removable immigrants to include anyone in the country
illegally.

Trump's Jan. 25, 2017executive order, one of his first actions as
president, stopped exempting "classes or categories of removable
aliens from potential enforcement."

ICE executive associate director Matthew Albence testified July 31
to the Senate Judiciary Committee that in the fiscal year 2018,
nearly nine in 10 of those arrested by ICE came to ICE's attention
after an arrest for a local, state or federal criminal violation.
He said that the vast majority of them were "convicted criminal
aliens." (Unlike the official ICE statistics NBC News used in its
calculations, Mr. Albence's statistics include immigrants with
pending charges as well as criminal convictions.)

Plaintiffs in the class-action suit say that the Trump
administration's aggressive tactics are also ensnaring non-criminal
immigrants who are detained and questioned without warrants and
without probable cause.

For ICE to make a warrantless arrest, agents need to have "reason
to believe" that the person is in the country unlawfully and is
"likely to escape" before ICE can obtain a warrant, according to
federal immigration law.

The class-action was filed against ICE and the Department of
Homeland Security on behalf of likely more than 100 people arrested
and detained by ICE without warrants or an established flight risk
in a seven-day period near Chicago.

Four of the five plaintiffs named in the complaint do not have
criminal records, according to the complaint.

Mr. Fleming said that in the case of Margarito Castanon Nava, ICE
had no reason to believe he was in the country illegally or was a
flight risk when they stopped him.

Mr. Castanon, a construction worker, says he was heading home with
a co-worker on the afternoon of Sunday, May 20, 2018, after
finishing work, according to his declaration. A 17-year resident of
the U.S. with no criminal record, Mr. Castanon, 42, was driving his
truck through a Chicago suburb.

Then, unmarked cars driven by officers in street clothes pulled him
over. Although he first thought the officers were local police, Mr.
Castanon later found out they were ICE agents. They didn't give Mr.
Castanon or his passenger, also Latino, a reason for the stop and
didn't have a warrant, according to his attorney.

Another car pulled in 10 minutes later and Mr. Castanon observed
officers in generic vests that said "POLICE." He and his passenger
were arrested, but only told the arresting officers were ICE agents
when they arrived at an immigration building.

"The only thing I could think during this whole time was that they
had pulled us over to see if we had immigration papers because both
my co-worker and I appear Hispanic," Mr. Castanon said in a court
filing.

Counsel for ICE and DHS declined to comment on a list of questions
sent by NBC News, citing the pending litigation. Counsel did
provide a copy of a warrant dated May 20 for
Mr. Castanon arrest, but Mr. Fleming says the warrant was written
after ICE stopped Mr. Castanon.

ICE's complaint did not specifically dispute this claim, saying
that the warrant was "issued on the same day as their arrests." ICE
counsel did not respond to repeated requests for confirmation.

ICE declined to comment on specifics of the case because it said it
won't comment on pending litigation.

"Lack of comment should not be construed as agreement with or
stipulation to any of the allegations," ICE spokesman Matthew
Bourke wrote in an email.

'NO CHOICE BUT TO CONDUCT AT-LARGE ARRESTS'
In addition to warrantless arrests, Mr. Fleming said that
large-scale collateral arrests -- arrests of immigrants not
initially targeted by ICE -- have become common for the first time
since the George W. Bush administration.

Immigration rights advocates say these collateral arrests have been
particularly prevalent in sanctuary cities, locales that limit
their cooperation with federal immigration authorities. ICE
officials have said that the posture of sanctuary cities has forced
them to change enforcement tactics.

In response to California's state law, then-ICE director Thomas
Homans aid in October 2017 that the policy would leave ICE with "no
choice but to conduct at-large arrests in local neighborhoods and
at worksites, which will inevitably result in additional collateral
arrests." The law includes a provision that prevents state and
local law enforcement agencies from honoring ICE detainers, meaning
they do not hold individuals arrested on non-immigration-related
charges for delivery to ICE.

"While the vast majority of cities in America do cooperate with
ICE, others like San Francisco and Oakland force ICE to focus
additional resources to conduct at-large arrests in the community .
. . increasing the incidents of collateral arrests," said a
February 2018 ICE press release read.

Mr. Castanon was swept up in six-day sweep that ICE said resulted
in 156 arrests near Chicago,a sanctuary city. More than half of
those arrested had no criminal convictions.

At the time of the Chicago raid, ICE published a press release
saying sanctuary policies forced ICE to arrest106 people "at-large"
-- meaning without a warrant, Mr. Castanon's counsel argues.

In 2018, ICE has issued press releases about 27 large sweeps,
averaging more than 100 arrests each, according to data compiled by
NBC News. Of these 27, nine gave a number or percentage of those
arrested with criminal convictions and referenced sanctuary
policies -- and these had a higher rate of non-criminal arrests
than the rest of the country.

In the nine mentioning these policies, roughly 44 percent of those
arrested did not have criminal records. Nationally under Trump,
roughly 31 percent of those arrested did not have criminal records,
a proportion that has more than doubled since the Obama
administration.

"There's no check on collateral arrests in this administration,"
said Tom Jawetz, vice president of Immigration Policy at the
liberal think tank Center for American Progress. "The
administration is not distinguishing between people who would
sensibly be considered priorities and those that are simply
encountered along the way."

In one instance cited in the Chicago lawsuit, plaintiff "John Doe"
says ICE officers pulled over his van because they said they'd
observed low tire pressure. ICE has no jurisdiction to enforce
traffic laws.

On May 19, 2018, Doe says he was in the car with his boss and
several other co-workers. Like Mr. Castanon, he also worked in
construction and had lived in the Chicago area for many years.

Doe assumed the officers were local police. The officers' vehicles
surrounded his van so it could not move.

When Doe's boss asked why the van was pulled over, officers said it
was due to low tire pressure. Later, they asked Doe for
identification, and he complied. Fleming says that because people
generally want to comply with local police, when ICE agents do not
identify themselves as ICE it makes immigrants more likely to hand
over i.d. when, by law, they don't have to.

"ICE knows that what they are doing is to trick people into
providing information that is relevant to their civil immigration
status," said Mr. Fleming. "If ICE thought it wasn't effective, why
would they uniformly never identify themselves as ICE at the point
of contact?"

ICE spokesman Bourke strongly denied Mr. Fleming's assertion that
ICE officers and agents routinely fail to identify themselves as
such. Said Mr. Bourke, via email, "The use of 'POLICE' identifiers
is consistent with numerous other federal law enforcement agencies
-- for the safety of ICE officers and agents as well as the public,
ICE should be no different."

ICE arrested Doe. ICE counsel says Doe is not a citizen or U.S.
national and is "unlawfully present" in the country. ICE also
produced a copy of a warrant for Doe dated May 19, 2018, the day of
the stop, but Mr. Fleming says that as for Mr. Castanon, the
warrant was written after the stop.

In the motion to deny the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary
injunction, ICE counsel says that "even if any of the Plaintiffs
could demonstrate that the arresting ICE officer lacked probable
cause," it doesn't matter because none of the plaintiffs argue they
are lawfully present in the U.S.

All of the plaintiffs are now out on bond, Mr. Fleming says.

Asked about warrantless and collateral arrests, Mr. Bourke referred
NBC News to prior public statements, and said, "ICE conducts
targeted enforcement in compliance with federal law and agency
policy. [GN]


UNITED STATES: Judge Hears Arguments in Immigrants' Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a federal judge in Boston was set
to hear arguments in a lawsuit challenging the arrest of immigrants
seeking legal residency through marriage.

The Aug. 20 hearing was expected to address the government's
arguments to dismiss the class action lawsuit brought by the
American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, as well as the
ACLU's request for temporary relief for its clients while the case
continues.

The ACLU argues immigration officials are violating federal
regulations permitting certain spouses of U.S. citizens to pursue
lawful immigration status while remaining in the country.

The lead plaintiff in the case is Lilian Calderon, a Guatemalan
woman in Rhode Island arrested following an interview with U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services.

She was released in February after the ACLU intervened and is among
17 individuals detained following marriage interviews this year.
[GN]


UNITED TEACHERS: Sends Matthews & Tessaro Suit to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendants in the case of TINA MATTHEWS; and PAUL TESSARO,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. UNITED TEACHERS LOS ANGELES; SAN DIEGO EDUCATION
ASSOCIATION; CALIFORNIA TEACHERS ASSOCIATION; NATIONAL EDUCATION
ASSOCIATION; and DOES 1-20, inclusive, Defendants, filed a notice
to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles (Case No. BC713382) to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on August 8,
2018. The removed case is assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-06793-CAS-SK
(C.D. Cal., Aug. 8, 2018).

United Teachers Los Angeles Inc. (UTLA) operates as professional
employment union. The Union offers representation for public school
teachers, health care employees, and human service professionals,
as well as, addressing key issues and reforms. UTLA serves its
members in the State of California. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jeffrey B. Demain, Esq.
          Scott A. Kronland, Esq.
          Rebecca C. Lee, Esq.
          ALTSHULER BERZON LLP
          177 Post Street, Suite 300
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 421-7151
          Facsimile: (415) 362-8064
          E-mail: jdemain@altber.com
                  skronland@altber.com
                  rlee@altber.com


VASSAR BROTHERS: Catherine Kelly Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vassar Brothers
Medical Center.  The case is styled as Kelly, Catherine et. al.
o/b/o herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Vassar Brothers Medical Center, Defendant, Case No. 51837/2017
(N.Y. Sup. Ct., Dutchess Cty, Sept. 11, 2018).

The case type is stated as "E-Other".

Vassar Brothers Medical Center (VBMC) is a 365-bed facility that
houses the first and only cardiothoracic surgery center between
Westchester and Albany, a state-of-the-art birthing center,
pioneering centers for advanced surgery and wound care, and a Level
III Neonatal Intensive Care Unit and has been serving the Hudson
Valley since 1887.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     LOUIS GINSBERG, P.C.
     1613 NORTHERN BOULEVARD
     ROSLYN, NY 11576
     Phone:(516) 625-0105

          - and -

     WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, EDEL
     Phone: (212) 490-3000


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces Sager Suit in New Jersey District Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Volkswagen Group of
America, Inc., et al.  The case is captioned as SCOTT D. SAGER, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. VOLKSWAGEN
GROUP OF AMERICA, INC. and AUDI OF AMERICA, INC., Case No.
2:18-cv-13556 (D.N.J., September 5, 2018).

The lawsuit arises from contract-related issues.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., markets and distributes
automobiles and auto parts.  The Company, through its subsidiary,
rents, leases, and finances cars and vans.

Audi of America, Inc., offers a full line of German-engineered
luxury vehicles.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sofia Balile, Esq.
          LEMBERG LAW, LLC
          43 Danbury Road, 3rd Floor
          Wilton, CT 06897
          Telephone: (917) 981-0849
          Facsimile: (888) 953-6237
          E-mail: sofia.balile@gmail.com


WELLS FARGO: Underpays Mortgage Brokers, Hallman Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
RICH HALLMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.; and DOES 1 through
10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-01190 (W.D. Wash., Aug.
14, 2018) is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay the
Plaintiff for rest breaks, minimum wage, overtime, and vacation
pay.

The Plaintiff Hallman was employed by the Defendants as mortgage
broker.

Wells Fargo Bank, National Association provides personal, small
business, and commercial banking services. Wells Fargo Bank,
National Association was formerly known as Wells Fargo Bank
American Trust Company and changed its name to Wells Fargo Bank,
National Association in January 1962. The company was founded in
1852 and is based in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. Wells Fargo Bank,
National Association operates as a subsidiary of WFC Holdings
Corporation. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Paul D. Stevens, Esq.
          STEVENS, LC
          700 S. Flower Street, Suite 660
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 270-1211
          Facsimile: (213) 270-1223
          E-mail: pstevens@stevenslc.com


WILDERNESS ALTERNATIVE: Faces Walker Suit in Montana Dist. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wilderness
Alternative School, Inc.  The case is styled as John Walker, Lisa
Walker, C.G., a Minor Child, Roy Provost, Amy Provost, J.P., a
Minor Child, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Wilderness Alternative School, Inc., a Montana
Corporation, Case No. 9:18-cv-00156-DWM (D. Mont., September 5,
2018).

The nature of suit is stated as other fraud.

Wilderness Alternative School Inc. is a domestic profit corporation
based in Marion, Montana.  The Company, doing business as
Wilderness Treatment Center, is a healthcare provider providing a
24-hour therapeutically planned living and rehabilitative
intervention environment for the treatment of individuals with
disorders in the abuse of drugs, alcohol, and other
substances.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Keith L. Gross, Esq.
          GROSS LAW GROUP
          478 N. Babcock Street
          Melbourne, FL 32935
          Telephone: (406) 203-3373
          E-mail: keith@grosslaw.com


WINGSTOP INC: Underpays Cooks, Espinoza Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------
JESUS ESPINOZA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WINGSTOP INC. d/b/a WINGSTOP, Defendant,
Case No. 3:18-cv-02112-B (N.D. Tex., Aug. 14, 2018) is brought
against the Defendant for failure to pay the required overtime
premium rate for all hours worked over 40 per week, in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mr. Espinoza was employed by the Defendant as cook.

Wingstop Inc., together with its subsidiaries, franchises and
operates restaurants under the Wingstop brand name. Wingstop Inc.
was founded in 1994 and is headquartered in Dallas, Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Forester, Esq.
          MATTHEW HAYNIE
          1701 N. Market St., Ste 210
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Telephone: (214) 210-2100
          Facsimile: (214) 346-5909
          E-mail: jay@foresterhaynie.com



                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2018. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***