CAR_Public/180919.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, September 19, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 188

                            Headlines

248 HOSPITALITY: Underpays Restaurant Staff, Garcia et al. Claim
9019 LLC: Pena Action to Recover Overtime Pay
ADT INC: Settlement Proceedings in Wireless Encryption Suit Stayed
ADT INC: Suit over 2G-3G Radio Conversion Project Concluded
AIMBRIDGE HOSPITALITY: Faces Rivera Suit over Security Breach

ALARM.COM INC: Bid to Exclude Expert Testimonies in Abante Denied
AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Accord in Family Medicine's Suit Okayed
AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Accord in Solodyn(R) Antitrust Suit Okayed
AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Discovery Ongoing in Opana ER Related Suit
AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Discovery Ongoing in Williams Suit

AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Generic Drugs Pricing Suit Underway
AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Says Opiate Litigation Stayed
AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Vana and Stone Class Suits Dismissed
AMPCO-PITTSBURGH: 3rd Cir. Appeal on Arbitration Order Underway
ANGI HOMESERVICES: Faces Costello Class Action

BANK OF AMERICA: Heinhart Files Fraud Class Action in Fla.
BLUESTEM BRANDS: 8th Cir. Flips Arbitration Ruling in Parm's Suit
BOKF NA: Walker Sues over Extended Overdraft Fees
BOW TIE CINEMAS: Burbon Suit Asserts Disabilities Act Violation
BRANCH BANKING: Court Dismisses Gillam EFTA Suit

BROOKLYN BREWERY: Mendez Alleges Disabilities Act Violation
BUYER HERO: Court Nixes Default Judgment in Becker Suit
CANCER GENETICS: NJ Court Consolidates 2 Securities Suits
CARMEL PARTNERS: Fischler Files ADA Suit in New York
CASWELL-MASSEY LLC: Conner Class Suit Alleges ADA Violation

CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Violates FDCPA, Romanoff Suit Asserts
CENTRAL CALIFORNIA ALMOND: Court Strikes FAC in Urena Suit
CENTRAL CREDIT: Salisbury Sues over Collection of Consumer Debts
CENTURYLINK INC: Sales Practices and Securities Litigation Ongoing
CENTURYLINK INC: Tomasulo Case Settlement Remains Pending

CITIMORTGAGE INC: Calfee Suit Goes to Massachusetts District Court
CJS SOLUTIONS: Underpays Support Consultants, Gray Suit Claims
CLIENT SERVICES: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Sargent Says
CMRE FINANCIAL: Faces Zevon Suit Alleging FDCPA Violation
COLUMBIA: Suit Alleges Americans with Disabilities Act Violation

CONNECTICUT WATER: Faces Dunn Class Action over Merger Deal
CONNECTICUT WATER: Faces Tillotson Class Action over Merger Deal
CREDIT CONTROL: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Gansburg Says
CVS HEALTH: Faces Hyams Suit in California Superior Court
DAIMLER AG: Faces Pinon Suit in Northern District of Georgia

DAVITA HEALTHCARE: Fustero Sues Over Missed Breaks, Unpaid OT Wages
DCH TOYOTA: Diaz Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
DICKEY'S BBQ: Website not Blind-friendly, Matzura Suit Says
DIPSON THEATRES: Violates Disabilities Act, Burbon Suit Alleges
DITECH FINANCIAL: Marcus Sues Over Collection of Discharged Debt

DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS: Martinez Disputes Collection Calls
DUNWEIZER FABRICATION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Lopez Claims
ENHANCED RECOVERY: Lane Sues Over Auto-dialed Collection Calls
EQUIFAX INC: Fond du Lac Band Sues over Background Checks
ESSENDANT INC: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for Sept. 28

FAMILY RESIDENCES: James-Howell Seeks OT Pay under Labor Law
FANEUIL INC: Marshall Remanded to Calif. State Court
FC 8 SPRUCE: Fischler Files Suit Asserting ADA Breach
FC ONLINE: Mendez Suit Alleges Disabilities Act Violation
FIRST CLASS INTERIORS: Martinez Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay

FIRST NATIONAL: Summary Judgment Bid in Hordge FDCA Suit Denied
FIVE GUYS: Dec. 3 Deadline to File Class Certification Motion
FORCE FACTOR: Faces Seiger Suit in Western District of New York
FORT SMITH, AR: City Employees' Suit Seeks Damages
FRANCISCO PARTNERS: Gilbert Files Suit Over Buyout

GATESTONE & CO: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Alenkin Claims
GCA SERVICES: Hogg FCRA Suit Removed to Florida District Court
GRIDSUM HOLDING: Li Sues Over Share Price Drop
HAMID RAFII: Haysbert Sues over Health and Safety Hazards
HANGER INC: Continues to Defend Pontiac General Employees Suit

HARRISON GLOBAL: $1MM Settlement in Huddestun Has Prelim Approval
HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Fails to Protect Classified Info, Aguilar Says
HOLLOWAY CREDIT: Yahaira Garcia Sues over Debt Collection
HRB DIGITAL: Response to James Murphy Suit Due Sept. 24
IC SYSTEM: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Miller Suit Says

IMMEDIATE CREDIT: Rankel Class Suit Alleges FDCPA Violations
IPIC ENTERTAINMENT: Ryan-Nielson Class Suit Underway
J FLETCHER: Filing of Amended RICO Suit Partly Granted
J&B INVESTMENTS: Melendez Remanded to Calif. State Court
JERSEY CHAMP: Metzler Sues Over Illegal Text Ad Blasts

JUST BORN: Court Denies Bid to File Sur-Reply in Slack-Fill Suit
KIDVILLE INC: Settlement Reached in James Murphy Suit
KNORR-BREMSE: Lonergan Sues over No-Poach Deal
LANDMARK THEATRE: Burbon Class Suit Alleges ADA Violation
LOS ANGELES, CA: Class Certification Denied in Gonzalez-Tzita Suit

MACHOL & JOHANNES: Blanks Sues Over Alleged FDCPA Violations
MADAME PAULETTE: Website Not Accessible, Wu Suit Alleges
MARQUEE CINEMAS: Sued by Burbon for Violating Disabilities Act
MCKINSEY & CO: Sullivan Alleges Disabilities Act Violation
MDL 1203: Denial of Browning's Level 2 Matrix Benefits Claim Upheld

MDL 2100: Ct. Rules in Favor of Lead Counsel in Breach of Duty Row
MDL 2804: Sardella vs Purdue Pharma et al. Goes to N.D. Ohio
MEC GENERAL: Londono Seeks Overtime Wages under Labor Law
MENARD INC: Removes Scheffler Suit to D. Minnesota
METROPCS NEW YORK: James Murphy Suit Underway

MOSES H CONE: N.C. App. Affirms Dismissal of Awartani Suit
MSG SPORTS: Murphy Drops Suit over Disabilities Act Violation
NATIONAL AMUSEMENTS: Faces Burbon Suit Asserting ADA Violation
NATIONAL RESEARCH: Still Defends Suits in Nebraska and Wisconsin
NESTLE USA: Pretrial Conference in Murphy Suit Set for Oct. 10

NEW RIVER HOSPITALITY: Needelman Sues Over Illegal SMS Ads
NORTH AMERICAN BANCARD: Amended Bid to Certify Junk Fax Class OK'd
NORTH AMERICAN POWER: Settlement in Edwards Has Final Approval
NORTHCENTRAL UNIVERSITY: Faces Torres Suit in S.D. California
OCERA THERAPEUTICS: Sept. 27 Hearing on Bid to Junk Securities Suit

OHIO: Sheriff Faces Oscar Washington Class Suit
OLD WORLD: Quintanilla Action to Recover Overtime Pay
OTG MANAGEMENT: Pugh Seeks Withheld Tips, Unpaid Overtime Wages
PAPA MURPHY'S: Court Awards $1.85MM Attorney's Fees
PFIZER INC: Faces Sullivan Suit in Southern District of New York

PFIZER INC: Settlement with Celbrex Direct Purchasers Approved
PIONEER HOMECARE: Rodriguez Action Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
POLARITYTE INC: Moreno Hits Stock Price Drop From Denied Patent
PURDUE PHARMA: Faces Hopkins RICO Suit in District of Arizona
RANDALL-REILLY LLC: Murphy Sues Over Unsolicited SMS Ads

REGAL CINEMAS: Mendez Sues Over Disabilities Act Violations
RETRIEVAL-MASTERS: Dismissal of St. Pierre's FDCPA Suit Affirmed
SEARS ROEBUCK: $$497K Attorneys' Fees Awarded in Washer Suit
SECURITAS CRITICAL: Rodriguez Alleges Labor Code Violation
SELECT MARKETING: Azzopardi & Kosoko Sue over Free Meal Periods

SHAG SALON: Fails to Pay Proper Wages to Hair Stylists, Luce Says
SHASTA COUNTY, CA: Settlement in Jewett Suit Has Final Approval
SMITH-PALLUCK: Court Denies Leave to Amend Complaint in Thomas
SOHO GRAND HOTEL: Mercer Alleges Disabilities Act Violation
SPEARMINT RHINO: Failed to Pay Overtime Wages, Garcia Says

SUNTRUST BANK: Randle Suit Alleges Racial Discrimination
SWITCH INC: Farach Appointed Lead Plaintiff in Securities Suit
SYMONS AMBULANCE: Fails to Pay Wages to Paramedics, Marx Alleges
TAKEDA PHARMA: Class Certification Bid in Weisberg Suit Denied
TALOS ENERGY: Suits by Stone Energy Stockholders Dismissed

TELIGENT INC: Continues to Antitrust Suit over Generic Drugs
TORY BURCH: Minniti Sues Over Unsolicited SMS Ads
TRIBUNE MEDIA: Sued in Illinois & Maryland over Price of TV Ads
TRISTAR PRODUCTS: Court Approves Settlement in Chapman Suit
TSC OF LOUISIANA: Lainez Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages

UNITED STATES: Immigration Director Faces Class Suit in N.D. Cal.
UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS CLEVELAND: Mishandled Frozen Eggs, Suit Says
USG CORPORATION: Fitzgerald Balks at Merger Deal with Knauf
WAL-MART STORES: Mays' Bid to Certify Wage Statement Class Nixed
WIDEOPENWEST INC: Faces Suits in New York over IPO

WRIGHT WASTE: McCall Action to Recover Overtime Pay
XPRESSPA ONLINE: Burbon Alleges Disabilities Act Violation

                            *********

248 HOSPITALITY: Underpays Restaurant Staff, Garcia et al. Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
FORTINO GARCIA and ZAIDA CZARNECKA, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. 248 HOSPITALITY GROUP,
LLC, ELENODOROS THEODOULOU, ANGELO NICASTRO, and EVAN FROST, the
Defendants, Case No. 517074/2018 (N.Y. Sup., Ct., Aug. 21, 2018),
seeks to recover minimum wages and other damages for Plaintiffs and
their similarly situated co-workers, which include servers,
bartenders, bussers, barbacks, food runners and other similarly
situated tipped employees, who work or have worked at the
restaurant known as "Black Tap" previously located at 248 West 14th
Street in New York City, pursuant to the New York Labor Law or the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, consistent with Defendants' policy and
pattern or practice, Plaintiffs and the FLSA Collective were not
paid the full minimum wage rate for all hours worked up to 40 per
workweek and premium overtime compensation for all hours worked
beyond 40 per workweek.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Putative Collective:

          Brian S. Schaffer, Esq.
          Dana M. Cimera, Esq.
          Fitapelli & Schaffer, LLP
          28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 300-0375

The Defendants are represented by:

          Kenneth Miller, Esq.
          FROST & MILLER, LLP
          260 Madison Avenue, 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          E-mail: kmiller@frostmillerllp.com


9019 LLC: Pena Action to Recover Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------
Bolivar Pena, Francisco Suriel and Oscar Villalta, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. 9019, LLC
d/b/a Caridad Restaurant and Hilda Taveras, Bruno Taveras and
Melania Jimenez, individually, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-03713,
(E.D. N.Y., June 26, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages,
spread-of-hours wages, earned wages and overtime compensation
together with liquidated damages, compensatory damages,
pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

Plaintiffs worked at the restaurant "Caridad" located at 9019
Jamaica Avenue, Woodhaven, NY 11421. 9019 LLC was controlled and
operated by Hilda Taveras and the husband-wife team of Bruno
Taveras and Melania Jimenez. The Plaintiffs worked more than forty
hours per week but were never paid overtime for hours worked in
excess of forty hours per week despite being occasionally required
to work double shifts. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jacob Aronauer, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF JACOB ARONAUER
      225 Broadway, Suite 307
      New York, NY 10007
      Telephone: (212) 323-6980
      Facsimile: (212) 233-9238
      Email: jaronauer@aronauerlaw.com


ADT INC: Settlement Proceedings in Wireless Encryption Suit Stayed
------------------------------------------------------------------
ADT 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 proceeding related to the settlement of a
class action lawsuit over wireless encryption remains pending.

The Company is subject to five class action claims regarding
wireless encryption in certain ADT security systems.
Jurisdictionally, three of the five cases are in Federal Court (in
districts within Illinois, Arizona, and California), and both of
the remaining two cases are in Florida State Court (both in Palm
Beach County Circuit Court). Each of the five plaintiffs brought a
claim under the respective state's consumer fraud statute alleging
that The ADT Corporation and each of its consolidated subsidiaries
prior to the consummation of the ADT Acquisition) made
misrepresentations and material omissions in its advertising
regarding the unencrypted wireless signal pathways in certain
security systems monitored by The ADT Corporation.

The complaints in all five cases further allege that certain
security systems monitored by The ADT Corporation are not secure
because the wireless signal pathways are unencrypted, and can be
easily hacked. On January 10, 2017, the parties agreed to settle
all five class action lawsuits. On October 16, 2017, the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California entered an
order granting preliminary approval of the settlement. Notice to
class members was issued November 16, 2017, and the settlement is
currently in the administration process. A fairness hearing
regarding the settlement was conducted on February 1, 2018.

The Court took the matter under advisement and subsequently stayed
the settlement proceedings pending an appellate ruling on a related
legal issue. The deadline for filing claims expired on February 26,
2018.

The settlement administrator will not pay any claims until the
Court enters an order granting final approval of the settlement.

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

ADT Inc. provides security and automation solutions for homes and
businesses in the United States and Canada. It provides a range of
burglary, video, access control, fire and smoke alarm, and medical
alert solutions to residential, commercial, and multi-site
customers. ADT Inc. was founded in 1874 and is headquartered in
Boca Raton, Florida.


ADT INC: Suit over 2G-3G Radio Conversion Project Concluded
-----------------------------------------------------------
ADT Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 9, 2018, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2018, that a class action lawsuit relating to the
2G-3G Radio Conversion Project has been settled for a nominal
value.

In August 2016, the Company was served with a class action
complaint pending in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia filed by a customer alleging that The
ADT Corporation violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of
1991 ("TCPA") by calling his cell phone, which was the only
telephone number he provided to The ADT Corporation for his
customer account, as part of The ADT Corporation's efforts to
communicate with customers affected by the Federal Communications
Commission order allowing wireless carriers to sunset 2G wireless
networks.

Plaintiff seeks to represent a nationwide class of all The ADT
Corporation customers who received such calls to their cell phones
from 2013 to present. The premise of the plaintiff's claim is that
The ADT Corporation's calls were telemarketing calls, which require
a higher level of consent, and not transactional/business
relationship calls because The ADT Corporation used the 2G
transactional calls in an attempt to sell additional products and
services.

Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification. The ADT
Corporation filed its opposition to class certification and further
filed a motion for summary judgment in September 2017. The case
settled for a nominal value in May 2018 prior to the Court ruling
on the motions.

ADT Inc. provides security and automation solutions for homes and
businesses in the United States and Canada. It provides a range of
burglary, video, access control, fire and smoke alarm, and medical
alert solutions to residential, commercial, and multi-site
customers. ADT Inc. was founded in 1874 and is headquartered in
Boca Raton, Florida.


AIMBRIDGE HOSPITALITY: Faces Rivera Suit over Security Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
ARINDA RIVERA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AIMBRIDGE HOSPITALITY, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 76411515 (Fla. Cir., Hillsborough Cty., Aug. 14, 2018) is an
action against the Defendant for failure to implement or maintain
adequate data security measures for personal and non-public
information, including names and social security numbers in a
massive security breach of the Defendant's computer servers that
was discovered on March 21, 2018.

Aimbridge Hospitality, L.P., a hotel investment and management
company, owns, manages, and operates hotels in the United States.
The company was founded in 2003 and is headquartered in Carrollton,
Texas. It operates hotels in Arizona, California, Colorado,
Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri,
Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Puerto Rico,
South Carolina, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin. As of October 8,
2013, Aimbridge Hospitality, L.P. operates as a subsidiary of Lee
Equity Partners, LLC. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
          Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA , P.A.
          1110 N. Florida Avenue, Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 224-0431
          Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
          E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com
                  lcabassa@wfclaw.com
                  twells@ wfclaw.com


ALARM.COM INC: Bid to Exclude Expert Testimonies in Abante Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ABANTE ROOTER AND PLUMBING, INC., ET AL., Plaintiffs,
v. ALARM.COM INCORPORATED, ET AL., Defendants, Case No.
15-cv-06314-YGR (N.D. Cal.), Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (i)
denied Alarm.com's motion for summary judgment on the issue of
whether the Defendants are vicariously liable for the telemarketing
calls at issue in the case; (ii) denied both parties' motions for
partial summary judgment on whether the Ytel Cloud Contact Center
dialer used to place calls to members of one of the two certified
classes constitutes an Automatic Telephone Dialing System ("ATDS")
within the meaning of the TCPA; (iii) denied Alarm.com's motion to
exclude testimony of the Plaintiffs' proffered expert witnesses
pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow
Pharma-ceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).

Plaintiffs Abante, Mark Hankins, and Philip Charvat bring the class
action against Defendants Alarm.com and Alarm.com Holdings alleging
four counts: violations of (i) the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act ("TCPA") for calls made to cellular telephones; (ii) the TCPA
for calls made to residential telephone lines; (iii) 47 C.F.R.
Section 64.1200(c) for calls made to individuals who were on an
internal do-no-call list maintained by defendants and/or their
affiliates or agents; and (iv) 47 U.S.C. Section 227(c)(5) for
calls made to members of the National Do-Not-Call Registry ("DNC
Registry").

The Plaintiffs are consumers and a small business who allegedly
received telemarketing calls from Alliance Security ("Alliance") or
its agents, allegedly on behalf of Alarm.com.  They assert that
Alliance or its agents made these calls to (i) cell phone numbers
using an ATDS or an artificial or prerecorded voice and (ii)
numbers on the DNC Registry.

On May 5, 2017, the Court certified three classes for damages
pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3), which the Court subsequently modified,
decertifying one of the three classes.

Before the Court are the parties' cross motions for summary
judgment and Alarm.com's motion to exclude the Plaintiffs'
proffered expert witnesses, Anya Verkhovskaya and Randall Snyder,
from testifying in the matter.

Judge Rogers finds that the Plaintiffs have presented evidence,
which when viewed in a light most favorable to their case, suggests
that a reasonable jury may return a verdict finding that Alarm.com
is vicariously liable for the telemarketing calls at issue based on
a ratification theory.  Accordingly, she denide Alarm.com's motion
for summary judgment as to vicarious liability.

She denied (i) Alarm.com's motion for partial summary judgment as
to whether the Ytel Dialer constitutes an ATDS within the meaning
of the TCPA and (ii) the Plaintiffs' analogous and opposite motion
for partial summary judgment as to the Ytel Dialer.  She finds that
the record indicates that Nationwide, Alliance's purported agent,
used the Ytel Dialer to place calls to the cell phones of members
of the Cell Phone Class.  The Ytel Dialer provides several types of
automatic telephone dialing software services, as well as campaign
and telephone list management functions.  Ytel's Master Service
Agreement confirms that the system includes predictive dialing
technology.  Nationwide's CEO, Joseph Moretti, testified that
Nationwide used the Ytel Dialer in both manual and automatic
dialing modes and confirmed that when calls were placed while using
the automatic dialing mode, the Ytel Dialer would locate an
available call center employee, and then "beep" to signal to that
employee that they should answer the call.

The Plaintiffs offer Anya Verkhovskaya, COO of a class action
administration firm, to opine on which calls were made to numbers
on the National Do-Not-Call Registry.  The Defendants contend that
Ms. Verkhovskaya's methodology compels the exclusion of her
testimony entirely because: (i) the Plaintiffs have not obtained
authentication of or established a foundation for the call records
that Ms. Verkhovskaya analyzed; (ii) Ms. Verkhovskaya's ultimate
calculation of the number of calls that purportedly violated the
TCPA includes calls that were not connected; and (iii) Ms.
Verkhovskaya did not conduct an analysis to identify the
individuals who received the allegedly offending calls.  Based on
the foregoing, Alarm.com questions whether Ms. Verkhovskaya's
evidence is reliable and relevant to the instant lawsuit.

First, the Judge does not agree with the Plaintiffs' overreaching
assertion that any challenge to the evidence an expert relied upon
goes to the weight, not the admissibility, of the expert's
testimony.  Second, although Ms. Verkhovskaya did not exclude all
calls with suggestive tagging, including "failed," "unanswered,"
and "busy," she did identify and exclude any calls that had
duration of zero seconds.  Third, the Defendants do not provide any
authority to support the assertion that because the call records
upon which Ms. Verkhovskaya relied did not identify the recipient
of the call her testimony is unreliable and irrelevant.  For the
reasons, she denied Alarm.com's motion to exclude the testimony of
expert Anya Verkhovskaya.

The Judge also denied Alarm.com's motion to exclude the testimony
of expert Randall Snyder.  She has determined that a predictive
dialer remains an ATDS within the meaning of the TCPA as defined by
current Ninth Circuit law.  In excluding Mr. Snyder's testimony in
Marshall, she noted that even before ACA International, the
overwhelming weigh of authority found that point-and-click systems
do not constitute an ATDS as a matter of law in light of the
clicker agent's human intervention.  Further, the fact that Mr.
Snyder did not physically inspect the Ytel Dialer does not preclude
Mr. Snyder's testimony about its nature.  Alarm.com does not
contest the Plaintiffs' assertion that the Ytel Dialer had
predictive capacities, which were often utilized.

For the reasons she discussed, Judge Rogers denied Alarm.com's
motion for summary judgment on the issue of vicarious liability.
With regard to the classification of the Ytel Dialer as an ATDS,
both motions for partial summary judgment are denied.  Alarm.com's
motion to exclude testimony of the Plaintiffs' proffered expert
witnesses, Ms. Verkhovskaya and Ms. Snyder is denied.  The Order
terminates Docket Numbers 195, 198, and 205.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 3, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/y3wTyv from Leagle.com.

Abante Rooter and Plumbing, Inc., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Mark Hankins, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated & Philip J. Charvat, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
represented by Beth E. Terrell -- bterrel@terrellmarshall.com --
Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC, Anthony I. Paronich --
anthony@broderick-law.com -- Broderick & Paronich, P.C., Brian A.
Glasser -- bglasser@baileyglasser.com - Bailey and Glasser, LLP,
pro hac vice, Chiharu Gina Sekino -- csekino@sfmslaw.com --
Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah, LLP, Edward A. Broderick --
ted@broderick-law.com -- Broderick and Paronich, P.C., Elizabeth
Anne Adams -- eadams@terrellmarshall.com -- Terrell Marshall Law
Group PLLC, James C. Shah -- jshah@sfmslaw.com -- Shepherd
Finkelman Miller & Shah, LLP, Jennifer Rust Murray --
jmurray@terrellmarshall.com -- Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC, pro
hac vice, John W. Barrett -- jbarrett@baileyglasser.com -- Bailey
Glasser, LLP, pro hac vice, Jonathan Rehe Marshall --
jmarshall@baileyglasser.com -- Bailey Glasser LLP, pro hac vice,
Kerem M. Levitas -- klevitas@terrellmarshall.com -- Terrell
Marshall Law Group PLLC, Matthew Passi McCue --
mmcue@massattorneys.net -- The Law Office of Matthew P. McCue &
Ryan McCune Donovan -- rdonovan@baileyglasser.com -- Bailey
Glasser, LLP.

Alarm.com Incorporated & Alarm.com Holdings, Inc., Defendants,
represented by Kasey C. Townsend -- ktownsend@murchisonlaw.com --
Murchison & Cumming, Susan Jane Welde -- swelde@murchisonlaw.com --
Murchison & Cumming, LLP, Craig S Primis --
craig.primis@kirkland.com -- Kirkland and Ellis LLP, Daniel I.
Schlessinger, Jaszczuk P.C., Keith Lowell Gibson, Jaszczuk P.C.,
311 South Wacker Drive. Suite 1775. Chicago, Illinois 60606,
Margaret M Schuchardt, Locke Lord LLP, Martin Wojslaw Jaszczuk,
Jaszczuk P.C. & Seth Haines Corthell, Jaszczuk P.C.


AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Accord in Family Medicine's Suit Okayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2018, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the court has issued
an order granting final approval of the proposed settlement of the
class action lawsuit initiated by Family Medicine Pharmacy LLC.

On January 31, 2017, Plaintiff Family Medicine Pharmacy LLC filed a
class action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Alabama on behalf of itself and others
similarly situated against Impax alleging violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, as amended by the Junk Fax
Prevention Act of 2005 (the "Telephone Consumer Protection Act").

On March 27, 2017, Impax filed a motion to dismiss the complaint
and plaintiff filed an amended complaint on April 10, 2017. On July
18, 2017, the parties reached an agreement in principle regarding
the class settlement. On September 29, 2017, the District Court
preliminarily approved the proposed class settlement. The Court
held a hearing on March 6, 2018 and issued an order with final
approval of the proposed class settlement.

Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a specialty pharmaceutical company,
develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic
pharmaceutical products for various dosage forms and therapeutic
areas. It operates through Generic and Specialty Pharma divisions.
Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 2002 and is
headquartered in Bridgewater, New Jersey.


AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Accord in Solodyn(R) Antitrust Suit Okayed
------------------------------------------------------------------
Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2018, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the court granted
final approval of the settlement by Impax with the direct purchaser
plaintiff class, retailer plaintiffs and the end payor plaintiff
class in the Solodyn(R) Antitrust Class Actions.

From July 2013 to January 2016, 18 complaints were filed as class
actions on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers, as well as by
certain direct purchasers, against manufacturers of the brand drug
Solodyn(R) and its generic equivalents, including Impax.

On July 22, 2013, Plaintiff United Food and Commercial Workers
Local 1776 & Participating Employers Health and Welfare Fund, an
indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On July 23, 2013, Plaintiff Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc., a
direct purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On August 1, 2013, Plaintiff International Union of Operating
Engineers Local 132 Health and Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser,
filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California on behalf of itself and
others similarly situated. On August 29, 2013, this Plaintiff
withdrew its complaint from the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California, and on August 30, 2013,
re-filed the same complaint in the United States Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, on behalf of itself and others
similarly situated.

On August 9, 2013, Plaintiff Local 274 Health & Welfare Fund, an
indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On August 12, 2013, Plaintiff Sheet Metal Workers Local No. 25
Health & Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly
situated.

On August 27, 2013, Plaintiff Fraternal Order of Police, Fort
Lauderdale Lodge 31, Insurance Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser,
filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and
others similarly situated.

On August 29, 2013, Plaintiff Heather Morgan, an indirect
purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf
of itself and others similarly situated.

On August 30, 2013, Plaintiff Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 178
Health & Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly
situated.

On September 9, 2013, Plaintiff Ahold USA, Inc., a direct
purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of
itself and others similarly situated.

On September 24, 2013, Plaintiff City of Providence, Rhode Island,
an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the District of Arizona on behalf of
itself and others similarly situated.

On October 2, 2013, Plaintiff International Union of Operating
Engineers Stationary Engineers Local 39 Health & Welfare Trust
Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On October 7, 2013, Painters District Council No. 30 Health and
Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint
in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts on behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On October 25, 2013, Plaintiff Man-U Service Contract Trust Fund,
an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On March 13, 2014, Plaintiff Allied Services Division Welfare Fund,
an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf
of itself and others similarly situated.

On March 19, 2014, Plaintiff NECA-IBEW Welfare Trust Fund, an
indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf
of itself and others similarly situated.

On February 25, 2014, the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation ordered the pending actions transferred to
the District of Massachusetts for coordinated pretrial proceedings,
as In Re Solodyn (Minocycline Hydrochloride) Antitrust Litigation.

On March 26, 2015, Walgreen Co., The Kruger Co., Safeway Inc., HEB
Grocery Company L.P., Albertson’s LLC, direct purchasers, filed a
separate complaint in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Pennsylvania. On April 8, 2015, the Judicial
Panel on Multi-District Litigation ordered the action be
transferred to the District of Massachusetts, to be coordinated or
consolidated with the coordinated proceedings. The original
complaint filed by the plaintiffs asserted claims only against
defendant Medicis. On October 5, 2015, the plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint asserting claims against Impax and the other
generic defendants.

On April 16, 2015, Rite Aid Corporation and Rite Aid Hdqtrs. Corp,
direct purchasers, filed a separate complaint in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. On May 1,
2015, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation ordered the
action be transferred to the District of Massachusetts, to be
coordinated or consolidated with the coordinated proceedings. The
original complaint filed by the plaintiffs asserted claims only
against defendant Medicis. On October 5, 2015, the plaintiffs filed
an amended complaint asserting claims against Impax and the other
generic defendants.

On January 25, 2016, CVS Pharmacy, Inc., a direct purchaser, filed
a separate complaint in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Pennsylvania. On February 11, 2016, the Judicial
Panel on Multi-District Litigation ordered the action to be
transferred to the District of Massachusetts to be coordinated or
consolidated with the coordinated proceedings.

The consolidated amended complaints allege that Medicis engaged in
anticompetitive schemes by, among other things, filing frivolous
patent litigation lawsuits, submitting frivolous Citizen Petitions,
and entering into anticompetitive settlement agreements with
several generic manufacturers, including Impax, to delay generic
competition of Solodyn(R) and in violation of state and federal
antitrust laws. Plaintiffs seek, among other things, unspecified
monetary damages and equitable relief, including disgorgement and
restitution.

On August 14, 2015, the District Court granted in part and denied
in part defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaints. On October 16, 2017, the Court certified the Direct
Purchaser Plaintiffs' and End-Payor Plaintiffs' classes. Trial
began on March 12, 2018.

During March 2018, Impax separately settled all claims with the
direct purchaser plaintiff class, retailer plaintiffs and the end
payor plaintiff class for a total settlement amount of $84.5
million prior to the Combination and the cases were dismissed.  

The settlements with the class plaintiffs are subject to court
approval. The settlement with the direct purchaser plaintiff class
was preliminarily approved by the Court on March 12, 2018, and the
settlement with the end payor plaintiff class was preliminarily
approved by the Court on April 5, 2018. Both class settlements were
granted final Court approval on July 18, 2018.

Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a specialty pharmaceutical company,
develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic
pharmaceutical products for various dosage forms and therapeutic
areas. It operates through Generic and Specialty Pharma divisions.
Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 2002 and is
headquartered in Bridgewater, New Jersey.


AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Discovery Ongoing in Opana ER Related Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Amneal Pharmaceuticals, 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 discovery is ongoing
in the Opana ER(R) Antitrust class action lawsuit.

From June 2014 to April 2015, 14 complaints were filed as class
actions on behalf of direct and end-payor (indirect) purchasers, as
well as by certain direct purchasers, against the manufacturer of
the brand drug Opana ER(R) and Impax.

On June 4, 2014, Plaintiff Fraternal Order of Police, Miami Lodge
20, Insurance Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class
action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others
similarly situated.

On June 4, 2014, Plaintiff Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc., a
direct purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On June 6, 2018,
Plaintiff Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc. filed a motion to
voluntarily dismiss its complaint with prejudice. The court granted
that motion on June 11, 2018.

On June 6, 2014, Plaintiff Value Drug Company, a direct purchaser,
filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California on behalf of itself and
others similarly situated. On June 26, 2014, this Plaintiff
withdrew its complaint from the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California, and on July 16, 2014, re-filed
the same complaint in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, on behalf of itself and others
similarly situated.

On June 19, 2014, Plaintiff Wisconsin Masons' Health Care Fund, an
indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On July 17, 2014, Plaintiff Massachusetts Bricklayers, an indirect
purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf
of itself and others similarly situated.

On August 11, 2014, Plaintiff Pennsylvania Employees Benefit Trust
Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
on behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On September 19, 2014, Plaintiff Meijer Inc., a direct purchaser,
filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of itself and
others similarly situated.

On October 3, 2014, Plaintiff International Union of Operating
Engineers, Local 138 Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a
class action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on behalf of itself and others
similarly situated.

On November 17, 2014, Louisiana Health Service & Indemnity Company
d/b/a Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana, an indirect
purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana on behalf of
itself and others similarly situated.

On December 12, 2014, the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation ordered the pending actions transferred to
the Northern District of Illinois for coordinated pretrial
proceedings, as In Re Opana ER Antitrust Litigation.

On December 19, 2014, Plaintiff Kim Mahaffay, an indirect
purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the Superior Court of
the State of California, Alameda County, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated. On January 27, 2015, the Defendants
removed the action to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California.

On January 12, 2015, Plaintiff Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 178
Health & Welfare Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class
action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on behalf of itself and others
similarly situated.

On March 26, 2015 Walgreen Co., The Kruger Co., Safeway Inc., HEB
Grocery Company L.P., Albertson's LLC, direct purchasers, filed a
separate complaint in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois.

On April 23, 2015, Rite Aid Corporation and Rite Aid Hdqtrs. Corp,
direct purchasers, filed a separate complaint in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

In each case, the complaints allege that Endo engaged in an
anticompetitive scheme by, among other things, entering into an
anticompetitive settlement agreement with Impax to delay generic
competition of Opana ER(R) and in violation of state and federal
antitrust laws. Plaintiffs seek, among other things, unspecified
monetary damages and equitable relief, including disgorgement and
restitution. Consolidated amended complaints were filed on May 4,
2015 by direct purchaser plaintiffs and end-payor (indirect)
purchaser plaintiffs.

On July 3, 2015, defendants filed motions to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaints, as well as the complaints of the
"Opt-Out Plaintiffs" (Walgreen Co., The Kruger Co., Safeway Inc.,
HEB Grocery Company L.P., Albertson's LLC, Rite Aid Corporation and
Rite Aid Hdqtrs. Corp.).

On February 1, 2016, CVS Pharmacy, Inc. filed a complaint in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
The parties agreed that CVS Pharmacy, Inc. would be bound by the
Court's ruling on the defendants' motion to dismiss the Opt-Out
Plaintiffs' complaints.

On February 10, 2016, the court granted in part and denied in part
defendants' motion to dismiss the end-payor purchaser plaintiffs'
consolidated amended complaint, and denied defendants' motion to
dismiss the direct purchaser plaintiffs’ consolidated amended
complaint. The end-payor purchaser plaintiffs filed a second
consolidated amended complaint and Impax moved to dismiss certain
state law claims. On August 11, 2016, the court granted in part and
denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss the end-payor
purchaser plaintiffs' second consolidated amended complaint. Impax
has filed its answer.

On February 25, 2016, the court granted defendants' motion to
dismiss the Opt-Out Plaintiffs' complaints, with leave to amend.
The Opt-Out Plaintiffs and CVS Pharmacy, Inc. have filed amended
complaints and Impax has filed its answer.

Discovery is ongoing. No trial date has been scheduled.

Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a specialty pharmaceutical company,
develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic
pharmaceutical products for various dosage forms and therapeutic
areas. It operates through Generic and Specialty Pharma divisions.
Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 2002 and is
headquartered in Bridgewater, New Jersey.


AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Discovery Ongoing in Williams Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Amneal Pharmaceuticals, 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 discovery is ongoing
in the class action suit filed by Emielou Williams.

On August 3, 2017, Plaintiff Emielou Williams filed a class action
complaint in the Superior Court for the State of California in the
County of Alameda on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated against Impax alleging violation of California Business
and Professions Code section 17200 by violating various California
wage and hour laws. On October 10, 2017, Impax filed a Demurrer and
Motion to Strike Class Allegations.

On December 12, 2017, the Court overruled Impax's Demurrer to
Plaintiff's individual claims, however, it struck all of
Plaintiff's class allegations. On March 13, 2018, Plaintiff filed
her First Amended Complaint once again including the same class
allegations. The Company filed a Demurrer and Motion to Strike
Class Allegations on April 12, 2018 and hearing is scheduled for
August 24, 2018. Discovery is ongoing.

Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a specialty pharmaceutical company,
develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic
pharmaceutical products for various dosage forms and therapeutic
areas. It operates through Generic and Specialty Pharma divisions.
Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 2002 and is
headquartered in Bridgewater, New Jersey.


AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Generic Drugs Pricing Suit Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------
Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2018, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the company
continues to defend itself in the case, In re Generic
Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation.

From March 2016 to April 2017, 22 complaints were filed as class
actions on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers against
manufacturers of generic digoxin and doxycycline and Impax alleging
a conspiracy to fix, maintain and/or stabilize prices of these
generic products. From January 2017 to April 2017, three complaints
were filed on behalf of indirect purchasers against manufacturers
of generic lidocaine/prilocaine and Impax alleging a conspiracy to
fix, maintain and/or stabilize prices of these generic products.

On March 2, 2016, Plaintiff International Union of Operating
Engineers Local 30 Benefits Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a
class action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others
similarly situated. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on
June 9, 2016.

On March 25, 2016, Plaintiff Tulsa Firefighters Health and Welfare
Trust, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On March 25, 2016, Plaintiff NECA-IBEW Welfare Trust Fund, an
indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On April 4, 2016, Plaintiff Pipe Trade Services MN, an indirect
purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf
of itself and others similarly situated.

On April 25, 2016, Plaintiff Edward Carpinelli, an indirect
purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf
of itself and others similarly situated.

On April 27, 2016, Plaintiff Fraternal Order of Police, Miami Lodge
20, Insurance Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class
action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others
similarly situated.

On May 2, 2016, Plaintiff Nina Diamond, an indirect purchaser,
filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and
others similarly situated.

On May 5, 2016, Plaintiff UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund, an indirect
purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf
of itself and others similarly situated.

On May 6, 2016, Plaintiff Minnesota Laborers Health and Welfare
Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On May 12, 2016, Plaintiff The City of Providence, Rhode Island, an
indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the District of Rhode Island on behalf of
itself and others similarly situated.

On May 18, 2016, Plaintiff KPH Healthcare Services, Inc. a/k/a
Kinney Drugs, Inc., a direct purchaser, filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly
situated.

On May 19, 2016, Plaintiff Philadelphia Federation of Teachers
Health and Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class
action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others
similarly situated.

On June 8, 2016, Plaintiff United Food & Commercial Workers and
Employers Arizona Health and Welfare Trust, an indirect purchaser,
filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and
others similarly situated.

On June 17, 2016, Plaintiff Ottis McCrary, an indirect purchaser,
filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and
others similarly situated.

On June 20, 2016, Plaintiff Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc., a
direct purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On June 27, 2016, Plaintiff Cesar Castillo, Inc., a direct
purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf
of itself and others similarly situated.

On June 29, 2016, Plaintiff Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 33 Health
and Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly
situated.

On July 1, 2016, Plaintiff Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 178 Health
and Welfare Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly
situated.

On July 15, 2016, Plaintiff Ahold USA, Inc., a direct purchaser,
filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and
others similarly situated.

On September 7, 2016, Plaintiff United Here Health, an indirect
purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf
of itself and others similarly situated.

On September 20, 2016, Plaintiff Valerie Velardi, an indirect
purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf
of itself and others similarly situated.

On January 13, 2017, Plaintiff International Union of Operating
Engineers Local 30 Benefits Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a
class action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others
similarly situated against manufacturers of generic
lidocaine/prilocaine and the Company alleging a conspiracy to fix,
maintain and/or stabilize prices of this generic drug.

On April 17, 2017, Plaintiff UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund, an
indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated against
manufacturers of generic lidocaine/prilocaine and Impax alleging a
conspiracy to fix, maintain and/or stabilize prices of this generic
drug.

On April 25, 2017, Plaintiff Louisiana Health Service Indemnity
Company, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated
against manufacturers of generic lidocaine/prilocaine and Impax
alleging a conspiracy to fix, maintain and/or stabilize prices of
this generic drug.

On May 19, 2016, several indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed a
motion with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to
transfer and consolidate the actions in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The Judicial Panel
ordered the actions consolidated in the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania and ordered that the actions be renamed "In re Generic
Digoxin and Doxycycline Antitrust Litigation."

On January 27, 2017, plaintiffs filed two consolidated class action
complaints.

On April 6, 2017, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
ordered the consolidation of all civil actions involving
allegations of antitrust conspiracies in the generic pharmaceutical
industry regarding 18 generic drugs to the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania. The consolidated actions have been renamed In re
Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation. Consolidated
class action complaints for each of the 18 drugs were filed on
August 15, 2017. Direct purchaser plaintiffs, end-payer plaintiffs,
and indirect reseller plaintiffs filed consolidated class
complaints against Impax for two products, digoxin and
lidocaine-prilocaine.

On October 6, 2017, Impax filed a motion to dismiss the digoxin
complaint. Briefing on the motion to dismiss is complete and a
decision is pending. On February 9, 2018, the Court issued an order
denying the discovery stay and allowing certain fact discovery to
proceed.

On January 19, 2018, Plaintiffs The Kroger Co., Albertsons
Companies, LLC, and H.E. Butt Grocery Company L.P., opt-outs, filed
a complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania against 35 companies, including Impax,
alleging a conspiracy to fix, maintain and/or stabilize prices of
30 drugs and specifically digoxin and lidocaine/prilocaine with
respect to Impax. No schedule has been set.

On June 22, 2018, Plaintiffs Ahold USA, Inc., Cesar Castillo, Inc.,
FWK Holdings, L.L.C., KPH Healthcare Services, Inc., a/k/a Kinney
Drugs, Inc., and Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc. filed a
complaint on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
against 23 companies, including Impax, and one individual, alleging
a conspiracy to fix, maintain, stabilize, and/or raise prices, rig
bids, and allocate markets or customers for various drugs,
specifically glyburide-metformin and metronidazole with respect to
Impax. No schedule has been set.

On June 27, 2018, Plaintiffs Marion Diagnostic Center, LLC and
Marion Healthcare, LLC filed a motion seeking leave to file a
complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania against seven named defendants, alleging a
horizontal and vertical distributor conspiracy to fix prices and
allocate sales of lidocaine products. The Court has not ruled on
the Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file the new complaint and no
schedule has been set.

On August 3, 2018, Plaintiff Humana Inc. filed a complaint against
37 companies, including the Company, as the successor to Impax,
alleging a conspiracy to fix, maintain, stabilize, and/or raise
prices, rig bids, and allocate markets or customers for various
drugs, specifically digoxin and lidocaine-prilocaine with respect
to Impax. No schedule has been set.

Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a specialty pharmaceutical company,
develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic
pharmaceutical products for various dosage forms and therapeutic
areas. It operates through Generic and Specialty Pharma divisions.
Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 2002 and is
headquartered in Bridgewater, New Jersey.


AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Says Opiate Litigation Stayed
-----------------------------------------------------
Amneal Pharmaceuticals, 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 case In Re:
National Prescription Opiate Litigation, is being stayed.

On August 17, 2017, plaintiff Linda Hughes, as the mother of Nathan
Hughes, decedent, filed her complaint in Missouri state court
naming Amneal Pharmaceuticals of New York LLC, Impax, five other
pharmaceutical company defendants, and three healthcare provider
defendants.

Plaintiff alleges that use of defendants' opioid medications caused
the death of her son, Nathan Hughes. In her original complaint,
plaintiff requested damages against the defendants and
certification of a class action. Plaintiff abandoned her request
for a class action in her December 22, 2017, amended complaint. In
her amended complaint, plaintiff alleges causes of action against
Amneal and Impax for strict product liability, negligent product
liability, violation of Missouri Merchandising Practices Act and
fraudulent misrepresentation. The case was removed to federal court
on September 18, 2017.

It was transferred to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio on February 2, 2018, and is part of the
multidistrict litigation pending as In Re: National Prescription
Opiate Litigation, MDL No. 2804 (the "MDL").

Plaintiff has filed a motion to remand the case to Missouri state
court. That motion remains pending before the MDL court. All
activity in the case is stayed by order of the MDL court.

Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a specialty pharmaceutical company,
develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic
pharmaceutical products for various dosage forms and therapeutic
areas. It operates through Generic and Specialty Pharma divisions.
Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 2002 and is
headquartered in Bridgewater, New Jersey.


AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Vana and Stone Class Suits Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2018, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the court has issued
an order dismissing the class action complaints by Susan Vana and
David Stone.

On December 12, 2017 and December 14, 2017, Plaintiffs Susan Vana
and David Stone, respectively, filed class action complaints in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated
against Amneal and Impax alleging violations of Sections 14(a) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 generally alleging
that the Registration Statement on Form S-4 related to the
Combination contains false and misleading statements and/or
omissions concerning the financial projections of Impax, Amneal,
and the combined company; Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC's valuation
analyses and Fairness Opinions relating to Impax and Amneal;
potential conflicts of interest associated with one of Impax's
financial advisors and the Combination with Amneal; and background
information of the proposed business combination, including
confidentiality agreements entered into by Impax in connection with
the Combination.

On April 4, 2018, plaintiffs filed a Stipulation and Proposed Order
voluntarily dismissing the actions and on April 5, 2018, the court
issued an order to dismiss the actions. Plaintiffs did not file any
petition for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses by the
court-ordered deadline of June 1, 2018.

Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a specialty pharmaceutical company,
develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic
pharmaceutical products for various dosage forms and therapeutic
areas. It operates through Generic and Specialty Pharma divisions.
Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 2002 and is
headquartered in Bridgewater, New Jersey.


AMPCO-PITTSBURGH: 3rd Cir. Appeal on Arbitration Order Underway
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2018, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit has not yet made any decision on
whether the District Court erred in compelling arbitration in a
class action lawsuit.

In February 2017, the Corporation, its indirect subsidiary Akers
National Roll Company, as well as the Akers National Roll Company
Health & Welfare Benefits Plan were named as defendants in a class
action complaint filed in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania, where the plaintiffs (currently
retired former employees of Akers National Roll Company and the
United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy,
Allied Industrial, and Service Workers International Union,
AFL-CIO) alleged that the defendants breached collective bargaining
agreements and violated the benefit plan by modifying medical
benefits of the plaintiffs and similarly situated retirees.

The defendants moved to dismiss the case, and plaintiffs petitioned
the court to compel arbitration. On June 13, 2017, the District
Court compelled arbitration and denied the defendants' motion to
dismiss as moot. Defendants appealed this decision to the Third
Circuit Court of Appeals on June 21, 2017. Defendants also filed a
motion to stay arbitration pending the resolution of the appeal,
and that motion was granted on September 5, 2017. The Third Circuit
Court of Appeals held a hearing in early May to consider whether
the District Court erred in compelling arbitration. No decision has
yet been rendered.

Ampco-Pittsburgh said, "While no assurance can be given as to the
ultimate outcome of this matter, the Corporation believes that the
final resolution of this action will not have a material adverse
effect on our results of operations, financial position, liquidity
or capital resources."

Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation, together with its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells custom designed engineering products to
commercial and industrial users worldwide. The company operates in
two segments, Forged and Cast Engineered Products; and Air and
Liquid Processing.  Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation was founded in
1929 and is headquartered in Carnegie, Pennsylvania.


ANGI HOMESERVICES: Faces Costello Class Action
----------------------------------------------
ANGI Homeservices Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the company is defending
against the case, Costello v. HomeAdvisor, Inc. et al., in the U.S.
District Court, District of Colorado.

In July 2016, a putative class action, Airquip, Inc. v.
HomeAdvisor, Inc. et al., No. l:16-cv-1849, was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Colorado. The complaint, as
amended, alleges that HomeAdvisor engages in certain deceptive
practices affecting the service professionals who join its network,
including charging them for substandard customer leads or failing
to disclose certain charges.

The complaint seeks certification of a nationwide class consisting
of all HomeAdvisor service professionals since October 2012,
asserts claims of fraud, breach of implied contract, unjust
enrichment and violation of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act
("CCPA") and the federal RICO statute and seeks injunctive relief
and damages in an unspecified amount.

In December 2016, HomeAdvisor filed a motion to dismiss the RICO
and CCPA claims. In September 2017, the court issued an order
granting the motion and dismissing those claims. In October 2017,
HomeAdvisor filed an answer denying the material allegations of the
remaining claims in the complaint. Discovery is under way, and the
issue of class certification remains to be litigated.

On May 18, 2018, more than one year after the deadline to amend
pleadings, the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a second
amended complaint that would add nine new plaintiffs, five new
defendants and 55 new claims, most of them for various violations
of the laws of nine separate states.

On June 22, 2018, HomeAdvisor filed its opposition to the motion,
which remains pending. On July 16, 2018, as an apparent hedge
against denial of the motion, plaintiffs' counsel filed a separate
putative class action in the same court on behalf of the same nine
proposed new plaintiffs, naming as defendants HomeAdvisor, the
Company, IAC/InterActiveCorp and CrowdSteer Inc., and asserting 45
claims largely duplicative of those asserted in the proposed second
amended complaint in the Airquip action.

See Costello v. HomeAdvisor, Inc. et al., No. 1:18-cv-1802 (U.S.
District Court, District of Colorado).

ANGI Homeservices said, "The Company believes that the allegations
in these lawsuits are without merit and will continue to defend
vigorously against them."

ANGI Homeservices Inc. owns and operates the HomeAdvisor digital
marketplace service to connect consumers with service professionals
for home repair, maintenance, and improvement projects. The company
was incorporated in 2017 and is headquartered in Golden, Colorado.
ANGI Homeservices Inc. is a subsidiary of IAC/InterActiveCorp.


BANK OF AMERICA: Heinhart Files Fraud Class Action in Fla.
----------------------------------------------------------
Mary Beth Heinart and Richard H. Schultz, and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Bank of America N.A., Perry Santillo,
Christopher Parris, Paul Anthony Larocco, John Piccarreto and
Thomas Brenner, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00324 (M.D. Fla., June
25, 2018), seeks compensatory and punitive damages, restitution,
and all other relief resulting from common law fraud and breach of
fiduciary duty.

Santillo, Parris, Larocco, Piccarreto and Brenner allegedly
comingled investor's funds through multiple accounts under their
control. They misrepresented the performance of the purported
investments and provided account statements that falsely stated the
funds were invested in financial services, insurance, real estate
development and/or medical laboratories, says the complaint. Their
primary banking institution was Bank of America. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Harley S. Tropin, Esq.
      Tal J. Lifshitz, Esq.
      George Franjola, Esq.
      Robert J. Neary, Esq.
      KOZYAK TROPIN & THROCKMORTON LLP
      2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., 9th Floor
      Coral Gables, FL 33134
      Telephone: (305) 372-1800
      Facsimile: (305) 372-3508
      Email: hst@kttlaw.com
             tjl@kttlaw.com
             rn@kttlaw.com
             gfranjola@kttlaw.com


BLUESTEM BRANDS: 8th Cir. Flips Arbitration Ruling in Parm's Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, Jessica Parm, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bluestem Brands, Inc.,
Defendant-Appellant, Sara Arce; Anne Bowers; Nena Osorio, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Bluestem Brands, Inc.,
Defendant-Appellant, Case Nos. 17-1931, 17-1932 (8th Cir.), Judge
Bobby E. Shepherd of the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
reversed the district court's order granting in part and denying in
part the Defendant's motion to compel arbitration, and ordered the
arbitration of all the Plaintiffs' claims.

Parm, Sarah Arce, Anne Bowers, and Nena Osorio represent a class of
people who purchased goods from Bluestem and were extended a line
of credit in order to make those purchases.  As part of the
financing application, each of the Plaintiff agreed to arbitrate
any dispute arising from or relating to the credit offered or
provided to them.  After discovering that Bluestem allegedly
engaged in unscrupulous business practices, the Plaintiffs brought
these class action suits against Bluestem, asserting a number of
claims under federal and state laws.  

The cases were consolidated, and Bluestem moved to compel
arbitration.  The district court granted the motion in part and
denied it in part.  Bluestem appeals, arguing that all of the
Plaintiffs' claims fall within the scope of the arbitration
clauses.  It contends that the district court erred in its
determination that the Plaintiffs' state-law usury counts, state
and federal financial-disclosure counts, and state-law unjust
enrichment counts were not arbitrable.

Judge Shepherd holds that the district court erred in deciding that
these three groups of claims did not fall within the scope of the
arbitration agreements: (i) usury allegations; (ii) unjust
enrichment allegations; and (iii) truth-in-lending/consumer
protection allegations.  He finds that (i) the actual allegations
-- regardless of how the Plaintiffs now attempt to characterize
them -- directly involve the credit offered or provided to them;
(ii) he cannot comment one way or the other about whether the
claims would be arbitrable without knowing the facts supporting
each of the illustrations; and (iii) the district court flipped the
inquiry.  The question is not whether there was a way to interpret
the claims as falling outside the scope of the agreements; instead,
where a valid arbitration agreement exists, the claims are
arbitrable unless it may be said with positive assurance that the
arbitration clause is not susceptible of an interpretation that
covers the asserted dispute.  Accordingly, he reversed the district
court and remanded for further proceedings consistent with his
Opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 7, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/JDMxCm from Leagle.com.

Clayton Dean Halunen -- halunen@halunenlaw.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellee.

Aaron Daniel Van Oort -- aaron.vanoort@FaegreBD.com -- for
Defendant-Appellant.

Christopher J. Moreland -- moreland@halunenlaw.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellee.

Jeffrey Justman , for Defendant-Appellant.

Erin L. Hoffman -- erin.hoffman@faegrebd.com -- for
Defendant-Appellant.

Melissa S. Weiner -- mweiner@pswlaw.com -- for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Staci L. Perdue -- staci.perdue@faegreBD.com -- for
Defendant-Appellant.

Leah M. Nicholls -- lnicholls@publicjustice.net -- for
Plaintiff-Appellee.

Charles D. Moore -- moore@halunenlaw.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellee.

Jeffrey D. Kaliel -- jkaliel@tzlegal.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellee.


BOKF NA: Walker Sues over Extended Overdraft Fees
-------------------------------------------------
BERKLEY V. WALKER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. BOKF, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION d/b/a BANK
OF ALBUQUERQUE, N.A., the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00810-SCY-JHR
(D. N.M., Aug. 22, 2018), seeks to recover damages and other relief
from BOKF for its usurious assessment and collection of interest
charged on overdrawn bank accounts in the form of "Extended
Overdraft Fees" in violation of the National Bank Act.

According to the complaint, when a BOKF customer writes a check or
otherwise attempts to draw on insufficient funds in a checking or
savings account, BOKF regularly pays this overdraft. As the Federal
Reserve has recognized, "when overdrafts are paid, credit is
extended." If that account remains overdrawn for more than five
business days, BOKF collects a $6.50 Extended Overdraft Fee.
Importantly, the Extended Overdraft Fee is levied in addition to
the initial $34.50 overdraft fee that BOKF charges when it
processes a charge against an overdrawn account. But unlike the
initial overdraft fee, the Extended Overdraft Fee does not directly
result from any overdraft and is charged even though BOKF has
provided nothing new in the way of services to the consumer.

In reality, the Extended Overdraft Fee is an interest charge levied
by BOKF for the continued extension of credit made in covering a
customer's overdraft. This interest charge results solely from a
customer's failure to repay his obligation to the bank (i.e., the
extension of credit the bank provided by covering his overdraws)
within a certain time period. But instead of charging the
permissible interest rate imposed by the National Bank Act, in this
case an annual interest rate of 6%, BOKF charges an effective
annualized interest rate between 501% and 2,462%. By charging these
usurious rates, BOKF collects interest worth more than 83 times
what it may legally charge.

BOKF, National Association provides commercial and personal
banking, investment and trust, and mortgage origination and
servicing products and services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
          Michael W. Ovca, Esq.
          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589 6370
          Facsimile: (312) 589 6378
          E-mail: brichman@edelson.com
                  movca@edelson.com
                  rbalabanian@edelson.com


BOW TIE CINEMAS: Burbon Suit Asserts Disabilities Act Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bow Tie Cinemas, LLC.
The case is styled as Luc Burbon, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Bow Tie Cinemas, LLC, Case No.
1:18-cv-08157 (S.D.N.Y., September 6, 2018).

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

Bow Tie Cinemas, LLC, owns and operates motion picture theaters in
New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Connecticut, Colorado, and
Virginia.  The Company's programs include Super Tuesday, Movies and
Mimosas, Insomnia Theater, Hedda Presents the Classics, and ICP at
Chelsea.  Bow Tie Cinemas was founded in 1900 and is based in
Ridgefield, Connecticut.[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


BRANCH BANKING: Court Dismisses Gillam EFTA Suit
------------------------------------------------
Judge John A. Gibney, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division, dismissed without
prejudice the case, CHRISTINE J. GILLAM, et al, on behalf of
themselves and all individuals similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
BRANCH BANKING AND TRUST COMPANY OF VIRGINIA D/B/A/ BB&T,
Defendant, Civil Action No. 3:17-cv-722 (E.D. Va.).

The Plaintiffs in the case claim that the BB&T failed to honor
stop-payment requests out of their bank accounts.  Christine and
Ronnie Gillam and Elwood Bumbray brought the class action suit
against BB&T under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ("EFTA") for
failing to comply with their customers' requests to stop payment on
preauthorized transactions.  The Defendant moved to compel
arbitration under the terms of the Bank Services Agreement
("BSA").

The Gillams initially opened a bank account with F&M Bank.  In
2002, F&M merged with BB&T, automatically transferring the Gillams'
account to BB&T.  Before the merger, by protocol, BB&T sent the
Gillams a "Welcome Letter" with a copy of the 2002 BSA.

Under the agreements, the parties contracted to arbitrate disputes
arising from their banking relationship.  They also agreed to
arbitrate threshold issues of arbitrability, including the scope
and validity of their agreement.

In April 2017, BB&T updated the BSA and provided written notice to
Bumbray and the Gillams through their bank statements, stating: (1)
the arbitration clause of the BSA had been changed to the provided
new language, (2) continued use of the account constituted
acceptance of the changes, and (3) to find the amended 2017 Bank
Services Agreement online.

Judge Gibney finds that the parties in the case entered into an
agreement in which they agreed to arbitrate threshold contractual
issues such as the contract's scope and validity.  Before the Court
may hear the merits of the case, an arbitrator must therefore
decide the validity of the overall agreement and whether scope of
the present dispute falls within the scope of the arbitration
provision.  

He explains that dismissal is a proper remedy when all of the
issues presented in a lawsuit are arbitrable.  With the issue of
arbitrability referred to the arbitrator, nothing in the
Plaintiffs' claims remains for the Court to consider.  Accordingly,
the Court dismisses the case without prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 7, 2018 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/8fvnzB from Leagle.com.

Christine J. Gillam, On behalf of themselves and all individuals
similarly situated & Elwood Rodney Bumbray, On behalf of themselves
and all individuals similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by
Kristi Cahoon Kelly -- kkelly@kellyandcrandall.com -- Kelly &
Crandall PLC, Andrew Joseph Guzzo -- aguzzo@kellyandcrandall.com --
Kelly & Crandall PLC & Casey Shannon Nash --
casey@kellyandcrandall.com -- Kelly & Crandall PLC.

Branch Banking and Trust Company of Virginia, d/b/a BB&T,
Defendant, represented by Bryan Alan Fratkin --
bfratkin@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP.


BROOKLYN BREWERY: Mendez Alleges Disabilities Act Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Brooklyn Brewery
Corporation. The class action is captioned as Himelda Mendez, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff,
v. The Brooklyn Brewery Corporation, the Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-07610 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 21, 2018). The suit alleges Americans
with Disabilities Act violation.

Brooklyn Brewery Corporation manufactures beers. It offers its
products to bars and restaurants.[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


BUYER HERO: Court Nixes Default Judgment in Becker Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled CODY BECKER, the Plaintiff, v. BUYER HERO,
LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 0:18-cv-61656-UU (S.D. Fla.), the
Court entered an order:

   1. granting a second motion to set aside default judgment;

   2. vacating clerk's default judgment;

   3. denying as moot default judgment;

   4. denying as moot to certify class because it depends on
      facts that were deemed admitted by Defendant's default (the
      motion may be re-filed in the future if discovery yields
      facts that support it); and

   5. directing Defendant to separately file its Answer and
      Affirmative Defenses, although the Court deems it effective
      as of the date of this order.

The Defendant was served with the Complaint on July 23, 2018, and
its response was due August 13.  The Defendant did not respond and
accordingly the Court ordered the Clerk to enter default. The
Defendant thereafter moved to set aside default, but failed to
include a proposed answer and affirmative defenses, and so the
Court denied the motion.  Subsequently, the Defendant corrected
that error.


CANCER GENETICS: NJ Court Consolidates 2 Securities Suits
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BEN PHETTEPLACE, Plaintiff, v. CANCER GENETICS, INC.,
et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 2:18-CV-05612-ES-SCM (D.
N.J.), Magistrate Judge Steven C. Mannion of the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey recommended that the Court
grants Randy Clark's motions to consolidate related actions,
appoint the lead Plaintiff, and appoint the lead counsel.

Phetteplace brought the putative securities class action alleging
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  According to
Mr. Phetteplace, Cancer Genetics and its employees Panna L. Sharma,
John A. Roberts, and Igor Gitelman made misleading statements and
material omissions which artificially inflated the market price of
the company's securities, causing damage to the class Plaintiffs.

Mr. Phetteplace claims that he purchased Cancer Genetics securities
at artificially inflated prices and suffered a loss upon revelation
of the company's alleged corrective disclosure.  The putative class
consists of all those who purchased or otherwise acquired the
publicly traded securities of Cancer Genetics between March 23,
2017, and April 2, 2018.

Although Mr. Phetteplace filed the Complaint in the matter, at
issue currently is Mr. Clark's motions to consolidate related
actions, appoint the lead Plaintiff, and appoint the lead counsel.
Mr. Clark alleges that, on Jan. 16, 2018, he purchased 75,000
shares of Cancer Genetics stock at a price of $2.07 per share.  He
later sold those shares on April 3, 2018, at a price of $1.06 per
share, resulting in a $75,750 loss.

Mr. Clark seeks to consolidate the matter with Zhang v. Cancer
Genetics, Inc., No. 18-cv-06353, a related action also pending in
the Court, and asks the Court to appoint him the lead Plaintiff in
the matter and name Laurence M. Rosen, Esq., as the lead counsel
for the class.

Magistrata Judge Mannion finds that the issues of law and fact in
this matter are substantially the same as those in Zhang.  He says
these two matters are based on substantially the same conduct,
involve substantially the same claims, and name the same
Defendants.  Further, the interests of judicial economy dictate
that the Court should consolidate these two matters.  Accordingly,
he finds that consolidation of these matters is appropriate.

Because Mr. Clark's motion is unopposed, by default he satisfies
the largest financial interest requirement. The Magistrate also
finds that Mr. Clark satisfies the Rule 23(a)(3) typicality
requirement and the Rule 23(a)(4) adequacy requirement for the
purposes of the motion.

The Magistrate Judge finds that Mr. Rosen and the Rosen Law Firm
have the requisite experience, expertise, and credentials to
adequately represent the class as lead counsel.  He sees no
evidence to show that Mr. Clark's choice of counsel is so deficient
as to demonstrate that they will not fairly and adequately
represent the interests of the class.  Accordingly, he finds that
it is appropriate to appoint Laurence M. Rosen as lead counsel in
the matter.

For the foregoing reasons, Magistrate Judge Mannion respectfully
recommended that the Court grants Mr. Clark's motions to
consolidate, appoint the lead Plaintiff, and appoint the lead
counsel.  The parties have 14-days to file and serve any objections
to the Report and Recommendation.  The District Court need not
consider frivolous, conclusive, or general objections.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 7, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/D5sc5I from Leagle.com.

Randy Clark, Movant, represented by LAURENCE M. ROSEN --
lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, PA.

Ruo Fen Zhang, Movant, represented by BRUCE DANIEL GREENBERG --
bgreenberg@litedepalma.com -- LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC.

BEN PHETTEPLACE, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by LAURENCE M. ROSEN, THE ROSEN
LAW FIRM, PA.

CANCER GENETICS, INC., PANNA L. SHARMA, JOHN A. ROBERTS & IGOR
GITELMAN, Defendants, represented by KATHERINE DACEY SEIB --
kseib@goodwinlaw.com -- GOODWIN PROCTER LLP.


CARMEL PARTNERS: Fischler Files ADA Suit in New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Carmel Partners, L.P.
The case is captioned as Brian Fischler, Individually and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Carmel Partners,
L.P., doing business as: 19 Dutch, Case No. 1:18-cv-08102
(S.D.N.Y., September 6, 2018).

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

Carmel Partners, Inc. is a real estate investment firm specializing
in multifamily real estate investment strategies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
          LIPSKY LOWE LLP
          630 Third Avenue, Fifth Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 392-4772
          Facsimile: (212) 444-1030
          E-mail: doug@lipskylowe.com


CASWELL-MASSEY LLC: Conner Class Suit Alleges ADA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Conner v.
Caswell-Massey, LLC.  The case is captioned as Mary Conner,
Individually and as the representative of a class of similarly
situated persons v. Caswell-Massey, LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-08129
(S.D.N.Y., September 6, 2018).

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

Caswell-Massey, LLC, was founded in 2007 and is based in Edison,
New Jersey.  The Company's line of business includes the retail
sale of specialized lines of merchandise.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dan Shaked, Esq.
          SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
          44 Court Street, Suite 1217
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Telephone: (917) 373-9128
          Facsimile: (718) 504-7555
          E-mail: ShakedLawGroup@Gmail.com


CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Violates FDCPA, Romanoff Suit Asserts
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cavalry Portfolio
Services, LLC.  The case is titled as Susan Romanoff, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Cavalry Portfolio
Services, LLC, Case No. 2:18-cv-05041 (E.D.N.Y., September 6,
2018).

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

Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC, provides financial resolution
services. Its services cover various areas, such as collection
account and debt control.  The Company was founded in 1991 and is
based in Valhalla, New York.  Cavalry Portfolio operates as a
subsidiary of Cavalry Investments, LLC.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CENTRAL CALIFORNIA ALMOND: Court Strikes FAC in Urena Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOSE URENA, Plaintiff, v. CENTRAL CALIFORNIA ALMOND
GROWERS ASSN., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00517-LJO-EPG (E.D.
Cal.), Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean of the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of California ordered that the
Plaintiff's first amended complaint is stricken from the record.

Urena commenced the putative class action by filing a complaint on
April 13, 2018.  On May 11, 2018, the Defendant filed an answer.

On Aug. 6, 2018 -- more than 21 days after service of the
Defendant's answer -- the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint.  As
he is not entitled to amend the complaint as a matter of course, he
must file a motion or stipulation requesting leave to file an
amended complaint.  The Plaintiff did not obtain leave of the Court
and has not filed written consent by the Defendant to the filing of
an amended complaint.

Accordingly, the Magistarte Judge ordered that the Plaintiff's
first amended complaint is stricken from the record.  The Order
does not prevent the Plaintiff from filing a motion for leave of
the Court to file an amended complaint or written consent by the
Defendant.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 7, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/3pocOa from Leagle.com.

Jose Urena, as individual, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Emil Davtyan --
EDavtyan@lacare.org -- Davtyan Professional Law Corporation, Eric
Bryce Kingsley -- eric@kingsleykingsley.com -- Kingsley & Kingsley
APC & Kelsey M. Peterson-More, Kingsley & Kingsley.

Central California Almond Growers Assn., Defendant, represented by
Paul J. Bauer, Sagaser Watkins & Wieland, PC.


CENTRAL CREDIT: Salisbury Sues over Collection of Consumer Debts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Edward John Salisbury, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Central Credit Services,
Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 18-2625G (Mass. Super. Ct., Aug. 22,
2018), alleges that Central Credit Services, Inc., illegally
collected consumer debts in violations of the Massachusetts
Consumer Protection Act and Massachusetts Debt Collection
Regulations.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff's debt arose from
services which were primarily for family, personal or household
purposes and which meet the definition of a "debt" under 940 CMR
section 7.03.  CCS attempted to collect the Debt front Plaintiff
and. as such, initiated and engaged in "communications" as defined
in 940 CMR section 7.03. In or around July 2018, CCS began calling
Plaintiffs cellular telephone in an attempt to collect the Debt.
CCS called Plaintiffs cell phone at number 617-XXX-2779. CCS called
Plaintiff from, inter alia, telephone numbers 617-830-3188 and
617-275-5405. CCS called Plaintiff at an excessive and harassing
rute, placing more than two calls within a seven-day period. For
example, CCS called Plaintiff's cellular telephone on July 17, 18,
19, and July 21, 2018.  The Plaintiff suffered actual damages as a
result of CCS's unlawful conduct.

As a direct consequence of CCS's acts, practices and conduct, the
Plaintiff suffered anger, anxiety, emotional distress, fear,
frustration and embarrassment. CCS's repeated calls were
distracting and an inconvenience to Plaintiff, and an invasion of
his personal privacy. CCS's repeated calls wasted Plaintiff's time
and energy spent tending to CCS's calls.

Central Credit operates as an accounts receivable management
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sergei Lemberg, Esq.
          LEMBERG LAW LLC
          43 Danbury Road
          Wilton, CT 06897
          Telephone: (203) 653 2250
          Facsimile: (203) 653 3424
          E-mail: slemberg@lcmbcrglaw.com


CENTURYLINK INC: Sales Practices and Securities Litigation Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------------
CenturyLink, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the company continues to
defend itself in a class action suit entitled, In Re: CenturyLink
Sales Practices and Securities Litigation.

In June 2017, McLeod v. CenturyLink, a putative consumer class
action, was filed against the company in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California alleging that the company
charged some of its retail customers for products and services they
did not authorize. A number of other complaints asserting similar
claims have been filed in other federal and state courts, as well.
The lawsuits assert claims including fraud, unfair competition, and
unjust enrichment.

Also in June 2017, Craig. v. CenturyLink, Inc., et al., a putative
securities investor class action, was filed in U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York, alleging that the company
failed to disclose material information regarding improper sales
practices, and asserting federal securities law claims. A number of
other cases asserting similar claims have also been filed.

Both the putative consumer class actions and the putative
securities investor class actions have been transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota for coordinated and
consolidated pretrial proceedings as In Re: CenturyLink Sales
Practices and Securities Litigation.

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

CenturyLink, Inc. provides various communications services to
residential, business, wholesale, and governmental customers
primarily in the United States. It operates in two segments,
Business and Consumer. CenturyLink, Inc. was founded in 1968 and is
based in Monroe, Louisiana.


CENTURYLINK INC: Tomasulo Case Settlement Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
CenturyLink, 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 proposed settlement
of Jeffery Tomasulo's putative shareholder class action lawsuit is
subject to court approval, among other conditions.

CenturyLink and certain members of the CenturyLink Board of
Directors have been named as defendants in a putative shareholder
class action lawsuit filed on January 11, 2017 in the 4th Judicial
District Court of the State of Louisiana, Ouachita Parish,
captioned Jeffery Tomasulo v. CenturyLink, Inc., et al.

The complaint asserts, among other things, that the members of
CenturyLink's Board allegedly breached their fiduciary duties to
the CenturyLink shareholders in approving the Level 3 merger
agreement and, more particularly, that: the consideration that
CenturyLink agreed to pay to Level 3 stockholders in the
transaction is allegedly unfairly high; the CenturyLink directors
allegedly had conflicts of interest in negotiating and approving
the transaction; and the disclosures set forth in our preliminary
joint proxy statement/prospectus filed in December 2016 are
insufficient in that they allegedly fail to contain material
information concerning the transaction.

The complaint seeks, among other things, a declaration that the
members of the CenturyLink Board have breached their fiduciary
duties, corrective disclosure, rescissory or other damages and
equitable relief, including rescission of the transaction.

On February 13, 2017, the parties entered into a memorandum of
understanding providing for the settlement of the lawsuit.

CenturyLink said, "The proposed settlement is subject to court
approval, among other conditions, and the amount of the settlement
is not material to our consolidated financial statements."

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

CenturyLink, Inc. provides various communications services to
residential, business, wholesale, and governmental customers
primarily in the United States. It operates in two segments,
Business and Consumer. CenturyLink, Inc. was founded in 1968 and is
based in Monroe, Louisiana.


CITIMORTGAGE INC: Calfee Suit Goes to Massachusetts District Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit styled as Davidson Calfee, Robert Gatti, Daniel Korzep,
and Karen Grover, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. CitiMortgage Inc., Case No.:
2:11-cv-08324, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts on Aug. 16, 2018. The Massachusetts
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-11744 to the
proceeding. The case alleges breach of contract violation.

CitiMortgage provides mortgage products. The company offers a
portfolio of financial services, including banking, insurance, and
asset management.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gary E. Klein, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE MASSACHUSETTS ATTORNEY GENERAL
          Ashburton Place
          Boston, MA 02108
          Telephone: (617) 963 2567
          E-mail: Gary.Klein@state.ma.us

               - and -

          Charles M. Delbaum, Esq.
          Stuart T. Rossman, Esq.
          NATIONAL CONSUMER LAW CENTER
          7 Winthrop Square, 4th Floor
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 542 8010
          Facsimile: (617) 542 8028
          E-mail: cdelbaum@nclc.org
                  srossman@nclc.org

               - and -

          Kevin Costello, Esq.
          Shennan A. Kavanagh, Esq.
          KLEIN KAVANAGH COSTELLO, LLP
          85 Merrimac Street, 4th Flr.
          Boston, MA 02114
          Telephone: (617) 390 2578
          E-mail: kcostello@law.harvard.edu
                  Shennan.kavanagh@state.ma.us

Attorneys for CitiMortgage Inc.:

          Brian M Forbes, Esq.
          K&L GATES LLP
          State Street Financial Center
          One Lincoln Street
          Boston, MA 02111-2950
          Telephone: (617) 261 3100
          Facsimile: (617) 261 3175
          E-mail: brian.m.forbes@klgates.com

               - and -

          Debra Bogo-Ernst, Esq.
          Lucia Nale, Esq.
          Michele Odorizzi, Esq.
          Stephen J. Kane, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          71 South Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 782 0600
          E-mail: dernst@mayerbrown.com
                  lnale@mayerbrown.com
                  modorizzi@mayerbrown.com
                  skane@mayerbrown.com

               - and -

          R. Bruce Allensworth, Esq.
          Robert W. Sparkes , III, Esq.
          K & L GATES LLP - MA
          One Lincoln Street
          State Street Financial Center
          Boston, MA 02111-2950
          Telephone: (617) 261 3119
          Facsimile: (617) 261 3175
          E-mail: bruce.allensworth@klgates.com
                  robert.sparkes@klgates.com


CJS SOLUTIONS: Underpays Support Consultants, Gray Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
SHANA GRAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE CJS SOLUTIONS GROUP, LLC d/b/a THE HCI
GROUP; Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-07336-GHW (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 14,
2018) alleges that the Defendant improperly classified the
Plaintiff as independent contractor and were not paid proper
overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 in any given
workweek in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff Gray was employed by the Defendant as support
consultant from 2013 to 2018.

The Cjs Solutions Group, LLC, doing business as The HCI Group,
provides IT consulting services. The Company offers IT system
implementation and training, integration, infrastructure
management, cloud migration, testing, and cyber security services.
HCI Group serves customers worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Palitz, Esq.
          SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
          830 Third Avenue, 5th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (800) 616-4000
          Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
          E-mail: mpalitz@shavitzlaw.com

               - and -

          Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
          SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
          951 Yamato Rd., Suite 285
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 447-8888
          Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
          E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com

               - and -

          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          Catherine T. Mitchell, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          205 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 233-1550
          Facsimile: (312) 233-1560
          E-mail: rstephan@stephanzouras.com
                  cmitchell@stephanzouras.com


CLIENT SERVICES: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Sargent Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Client Services, Inc.
The case is captioned as Janelle Sargent, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, by and through her attorney v.
Client Services, Inc., Case No. 1:18-cv-05052 (E.D.N.Y., September
6, 2018).

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

Client Services, Inc., offers collection services.  The Company
provides accounts receivable management, debt collection services,
and customer care solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CMRE FINANCIAL: Faces Zevon Suit Alleging FDCPA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CMRE Financial
Services, Inc.  The case is titled as Randi Zevon, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CMRE Financial
Services, Inc., Case No. 6:18-cv-01443-CEM-GJK (M.D. Fla.,
September 6, 2018).

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

CMRE Financial Services, Inc., provides financial services.  The
Company offers electronic fund transfer, collection, managed care,
and training services to health care organizations.[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


COLUMBIA: Suit Alleges Americans with Disabilities Act Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against District of Columbia.
The case is captioned as M.J., by and through her next friend J.J.;
L.R., by and through her next friend D.M.; D.M.; J.J.; UNIVERSITY
LEGAL SERVICES, INC., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA; MURIEL
BOWSER, Mayor, in her official capacity; TANYA A. ROYSTER,
Director, District of Columbia Department of Behavioral Health, in
her official capacity; WAYNE TURNAGE, Director, District of
Columbia Department of Health Care Finance, in his official
capacity (via the Office of the Attorney General), Defendants, Case
No. 1:18-cv-01901-EGS (D.C., Aug. 14, 2018). The Plaintiffs allege
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is
assigned to Judge Emmet G. Sullivan.

Washington, D.C., formally the District of Columbia and commonly
referred to as Washington or D.C., is the capital of the United
States of America. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Alice Y. Abrokwa, Esq.
          NATIONAL CENTER FOR YOUTH LAW
          1313 L Street, NW, Suite 130
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 868-4788
          E-mail: aabrokwa@youthlaw.org

               - and -

          Howard Schiffman, Esq.
          SCHULTE ROTH & ZABEL LLP
          1152 Fifteenth Street, NW, Suite 850
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 729-7461
          Facsimile: (202) 730-4520
          E-mail: howard.schiffman@srz.com

               - and -

          Jason Thomas Mitchell, Esq.
          SCHULTE ROTH & ZABEL, LLP
          1152 15th Street, NW, Suite 850
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 729-7470
          E-mail: jason.mitchell@srz.com

               - and -

          Lewis L. Bossing , Jr., Esq.
          BAZELON CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH LAW
          1101 15th Street, NW, Suite 1212
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 467-5730
          Facsimile: (202) 223-0409
          E-mail: lewisb@bazelon.org

               - and -

          Ira A. Burnim, Esq.
          BAZELON CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH LAW
          1101 15th Street, NW, Suite 1212
          Washington, DC 20005-5002
          Telephone: (202) 467-5730
          Facsimile: (202) 223-0409
          E-mail: irabster@gmail.com

               - and -

          Mary Nell McGarity Clark, Esq.
          UNIVERSITY LEGAL SERVICES
          220 I Street, NE, Suite 130
          Washington, DC 20002
          Telephone: (202) 547-0198
          Facsimile: (202) 547-2662
          E-mail: mclark@uls-dc.org

               - and -

          Seth Michael Galanter, Esq.
          NATIONAL CENTER FOR YOUTH LAW
          1313 L Street NW, Suite 130
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 288-8188
          E-mail: sgalanter@youthlaw.org


CONNECTICUT WATER: Faces Dunn Class Action over Merger Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Connecticut Water Service, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2018, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the company is
facing a putative class action suit entitled, Dunn v. Benoit, et
al. over a merger transaction.

On June 14, 2018, a putative class action complaint was filed
against the members of the Board of Directors, SJW and Mr. Eric W.
Thornburg (the chief executive officer and president of SJW) on
behalf of the Company's shareholders in the Connecticut Superior
Court in the Judicial District of Middlesex under the caption Dunn
v. Benoit, et al., Case No. MMX-CV18-6021536-S (Conn. Super. Ct.).


The complaint alleges that the members of the Board of Directors
breached their fiduciary duties owed to the Company's shareholders
in connection with negotiating the Merger. The complaint further
alleges that SJW and Mr. Thornburg aided and abetted the alleged
breaches by the Board of Directors. Among other remedies, the
action seeks to recover rescissory and other damages and attorneys'
fees and costs.

Connecticut Water Service said, "The defendants believe this
lawsuit is without merit and intend to defend vigorously against
these allegations."

Connecticut Water Service, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
operates as a regulated water company. The company operates through
three segments: Water Operations, Real Estate Transactions, and
Services and Rentals.  Connecticut Water Service, Inc. was founded
in 1956 and is headquartered in Clinton, Connecticut.


CONNECTICUT WATER: Faces Tillotson Class Action over Merger Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Connecticut Water Service, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2018, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the company is
facing a putative class action suit entitled, Tillotson v. Benoit,
et al., over a merger transaction.

On June 14, 2018, a putative class action complaint was filed
against the members of the Board of Directors, SJW and Eric W.
Thornburg (the chief executive officer and president of SJW) on
behalf of the Company's shareholders in the Connecticut Superior
Court in the Judicial District of Middlesex under the caption
Tillotson v. Benoit, et al., Case No. MMX-CV18-6021537-S (Conn.
Super. Ct.).

The complaint alleges that the members of the Board of Directors
breached their fiduciary duties owed to the Company's shareholders
in connection with negotiating the Merger. The complaint further
alleges that SJW and Mr. Thornburg aided and abetted the alleged
breaches by the Board of Directors. Among other remedies, the
action seeks to recover rescissory and other damages and attorneys'
fees and costs.

Connecticut Water Service said, "The defendants believe this
lawsuit is without merit and intend to defend vigorously against
these allegations."

Connecticut Water Service, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
operates as a regulated water company. The company operates through
three segments: Water Operations, Real Estate Transactions, and
Services and Rentals.  Connecticut Water Service, Inc. was founded
in 1956 and is headquartered in Clinton, Connecticut.


CREDIT CONTROL: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Gansburg Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Credit Control, LLC.
The case is styled as Chana Gansburg, on behalf of herself and all
other similarly situated consumers v. Credit Control, LLC, doing
business as: Credit Control & Collections, LLC, Case No.
1:18-cv-05054 (E.D.N.Y., September 6, 2018).

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

Credit Control, LLC, doing business as Credit Control &
Collections, LLC, provides financial services.  The Company
provides early out solutions, collections, and debt settlement
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CVS HEALTH: Faces Hyams Suit in California Superior Court
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CVS HEALTH
CORPORATION. The class action is captioned as HYAMS, RYAN
INDIVIDUALLY ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF, AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v. CVS HEALTH CORPORATION, A RHODE ISLAND
CORPORATION; CVS PHARMACY INC., A RHODE ISLAND CORPORATION; CVS RX
SERVICES INC. A NEW YORK CORPORATION; DOES 1 TO 25; and GARFIELD
BEACH CVS, LLC A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, the Defendants, Case No.
CGC18569060 (Cal. Super. Ct., Aug. 21, 2018).

CVS is an American retail pharmacy and health care company
headquartered in Woonsocket, Rhode Island.[BN]


DAIMLER AG: Faces Pinon Suit in Northern District of Georgia
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Daimler AG. The class
action is captioned as Emily Pinon, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Daimler AG and
Mercedes Benz USA, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-03984-ODE
(N.D. Ga., Aug. 21, 2018). The suit alleges breach of contract
violation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Orinda D. Evans.

Daimler AG is a German multinational automotive corporation. The
company is headquartered in Stuttgart, Baden-Wurttemberg,
Germany.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James F. McDonough, III, Esq.
          Taylor C. Bartlett, Esq.
          W. Lewis Garrison, Jr., Esq.
          HENINGER GARRISON & DAVIS, LLC -ATL
          3621 Vinings Slope, Suite 4320
          Atlanta, GA 30339
          Telephone: (404) 996 0869
          Facsimile: (205) 380 8076
          E-mail: jmcdonough@hgdlawfirm.com
                  taylor@hgdlawfirm.com
                  wlgarrison@hgdlawfirm.com

               - and -

          K. Stephen Jackson, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF K. STEPHEN JACKSON
          2229 First Avenue North
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 252 3535
          Facsimile: (205) 252 3536


DAVITA HEALTHCARE: Fustero Sues Over Missed Breaks, Unpaid OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Fernando Fustero and Ida Dandridge individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated Plaintiff, v. Davita Healthcare
Partners, Inc. and Total Renal Care Inc. Defendants, Case No.
18-cv-01593, (D. Colo., June 25, 2018), seeks unpaid wages,
overtime compensation, a declaratory judgment, liquidated damages,
compensatory damages, punitive damages, costs and attorneys' fees
and prejudgment and post-judgment interest associated with the
bringing of this action, plus any additional relief pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants provide health care services to patients throughout the
United States and abroad, specializing in dialysis services for
patients with chronic kidney failure and end stage renal disease.

Plaintiffs were required to perform work-related duties during meal
breaks and were not paid for work-related interruptions that
occurred/occur during meal breaks during their shifts wherein they
worked more than five consecutive hours. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Colleen T. Calandra, Esq.
      Madison Fiedler Carlson, Esq.
      RAMOS LAW
      3000 Youngfield Street
      Wheat Ridge, CO 80215
      Telephone: (303) 733-6353
      Fax Number: (303) 865-5666
      Email: colleen@ramoslaw.com
             madison@ramoslaw.com
             darren@ramoslaw.com

             - and -

      Ronald L. Wilcox, Esq.
      WILCOX LAW FIRM, LLC
      383 Corona Street, #401
      Denver, CO 80218
      Telephone: (303) 594-6720
      Email: ron@wilcox.legal


DCH TOYOTA: Diaz Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
----------------------------------------------------
JAIME CENTENO DIAZ, an individual, and on behalf of others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. DCH TOYOTA OF TORRANCE, a
business form unknown; DCH TORRANCE IMPORTS, INC., a California
corporation; LITHIA MOTORS, INC., an Oregon corporation; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC718655 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Aug. 21, 2018), seeks to recover penalties arising from
unpaid wages earned and due, including but not limited to unpaid
and illegally calculated overtime compensation, illegal meal and
rest period policies, failure to pay all wages due to discharged or
quitting employees, failure to maintain required records, failure
to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to timely pay
wages during employment, failure to indemnify employees for
necessary expenditures and/or losses incurred in discharging their
duties, under the California Labor Code.

DCH Toyota of Torrance provides new and used Toyota vehicle sales,
service and financing in Southern California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J. Matem, Esq.
          Tagore Subramanian, Esq.
          Daniel J. Bass, Esq.
          MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
          1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
          Telephone: (310) 531 1900
          Facsimile: (310) 531 1901


DICKEY'S BBQ: Website not Blind-friendly, Matzura Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
Steven Matzura, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Dickey's Barbecue Restaurants, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-05741 (S.D. N.Y., June 25, 2018), seeks
preliminary and permanent injunction, compensatory, statutory and
punitive damages and fines, prejudgment and post-judgment interest,
costs and expenses of this action together with reasonable
attorneys' and expert fees and such other and further relief under
the Americans with Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights
Law and New York City Human Rights Law.

Defendant is a restaurant chain that operates Dickey's BBQ located
at 196A Flatbush Avenue, Brooklyn, NY 11217. It has a website,
www.dickeys.com that offers access to the goods and services in
connection with their physical locations, namely restaurant
locations and hours, menu, order food online, purchase giftcards
and related goods and services available both in restaurants and
online.

Plaintiff asserts that the said website is not accessible to the
blind.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
      JOSEPH H. MIZRAHI LAW P.C.
      300 Cadman Plaza West, 12 Fl.
      Brooklyn, NY 11201
      Telephone: (917) 299-6612
      Facsimile: (718) 425-8954
      Email: joseph@jmizrahilaw.com

             - and -

      Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
      Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
      GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
      150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
      New York, NY 10003-2461
      Telephone: (212) 228-9795
      Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
      Email: nyjg@aol.com
             danalgottlieb@aol.com


DIPSON THEATRES: Violates Disabilities Act, Burbon Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dipson Theatres, Inc.
The case is styled as Luc Burbon, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Dipson Theatres, Inc., Case No.
1:18-cv-08156 (S.D.N.Y., September 6, 2018).

The lawsuit arises from alleged violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

Dipson Theatres Inc. was founded in 1981.  The Company's line of
business includes operating theaters primarily engaged in the
indoor exhibition of motion pictures.[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


DITECH FINANCIAL: Marcus Sues Over Collection of Discharged Debt
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa A. Marcus, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Ditech Financial LLC, Defendant, Case No.
18-cv-04381, (N.D. Ill., June 25, 2018), seeks injunction, actual,
statutory and treble damages, attorney fees, litigation expenses
and costs of suit and such further and other relief pursuant to the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Ditech Financial, LLC is a Delaware Limited Liability Company, and
is a national provider of home loan origination and loan servicing
with offices throughout the country. On November 18, 2005,
Plaintiff executed a mortgage in favor of Mortgage Investment
Lending Associates Inc., securing the purchase of Plaintiff's
personal residence. On or around January 7, 2009, Plaintiff
defaulted on the Mortgage by failing to make full monthly payments.
On August 8, 2017, Plaintiff initiated a bankruptcy case in the
Northern District of Illinois by filing a petition for relief under
Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code and was granted a discharge on
November 7, 2017. Despite this, Defendant continued to attempt to
collect the said debt, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph S. Davidson, Esq.
      Mohammed O. Badwan, Esq.
      SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
      2500 South Highland Avenue, Suite 200
      Lombard, IL 60148
      Tel: (630) 575-8181
      Email: jdavidson@sulaimanlaw.com
             mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com


DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS: Martinez Disputes Collection Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ramon G. Martinez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Diversified Consultants Inc. and
John Does 1-25, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-05646, (C.D. Cal., June
26, 2018), seeks statutory damages, injunctive relief as well as
their reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

Defendants made auto-dialed collection calls to Martinez's phone,
says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
      Blair E. Reed, Esq.
      BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
      1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940
      Walnut Creek, CA 94596
      Telephone: (925) 300-4455
      Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
      E-Mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
              breed@bursor.com

              - and -

      Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
      BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
      369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 989-9113
      Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
      E-Mail: scott@bursor.com


DUNWEIZER FABRICATION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Lopez Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DUNWEIZER FABRICATION, INC.; DUNWEIZER
MACHINE, INC. d/b/a DUNWEIZER MACHINE AND FABRICATION; and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC717333 (Cal. Super.,
Los Angeles Cty., Aug. 14, 2018)

Mr. Lopez was employed by the Defendants as non-exempt, hourly
employee from March 2017 to January 3, 2018.

Dunweizer Machine, Inc. was founded in 2001. The company's line of
business includes manufacturing fabricated plate work products,
such as boilers. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anna R. Salusky, Esq.
          Edward Kim, Esq.
          MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC
          249 E. Ocean Blvd., Suite 814
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: (562) 590-5550
          Facsimile: (562) 590-8400
          E-mail: asalusky@mahoney-law.net
                  ekim@mahoney-law.net


ENHANCED RECOVERY: Lane Sues Over Auto-dialed Collection Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
Janine Lane, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 18-cv-00320, (M.D. Fla., June 25, 2018), seeks money
damages and injunctive relief for violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

Enhanced Recovery is a debt collection agency who attempted to
collect an obligation Lane allegedly owes. She received a telephone
call to her cellular phone number seeking to recover a debt from a
different person using an automatic dialer with a pre-recorded
voice. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      William B. Bowles, Esq.
      THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM, PLLC
      4030 S. Henderson Blvd.
      Tampa, FL 33629
      Telephone: (813) 500-1500
      Facsimile: (813) 435-2369
      Email: Billy@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com


EQUIFAX INC: Fond du Lac Band Sues over Background Checks
---------------------------------------------------------
Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, individually and on
behalf of its members and as class representative for similarly
situated federally recognized Indian Tribes and Nations, Plaintiff
v. Equifax, Inc.; and Apache Systems, Inc., Defendants, Case No.
0:18-cv-02381-DWF-LIB (D. Minn., Aug. 14, 2018) alleges violations
of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The case is assigned to Judge
Donovan W. Frank and referred to Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois.

Equifax Inc. provides information solutions and human resources
business process outsourcing services for businesses, governments,
and consumers. Equifax Inc. was founded in 1899 and is
headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew Adams III, Esq.
          HOGEN ADAMS PLLC
          1935 W. County Road B2, Suite 460
          St. Paul, MN 55113
          Telephone: (651) 842-9100
          Facsimile: (651) 842-9101
          E-mail: aadams@hogenadams.com


ESSENDANT INC: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for Sept. 28
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Essendant Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that a hearing to consider
final approval of the settlement of a class action lawsuit is
scheduled for September 28, 2018.

In 2017, the Company was named in a class action lawsuit filed by a
former employee in the Los Angeles Superior Court. During the
second quarter of 2017, the Company reached an agreement on the
general terms of a settlement to resolve this litigation. The
parties have finalized a settlement agreement, which is subject to
court approval.

On May 10, 2018, the court granted the parties' Motion for
Preliminary Approval of the settlement agreement. Notice to the
class was issued on May 31, 2018. In consideration of the
settlement, in the second quarter of 2017, the Company recorded a
$3.0 million pre-tax reserve within "Warehousing, marketing and
administrative expenses" in the Condensed Consolidated Statement of
Operations.  A hearing on final approval of the settlement
agreement is scheduled for September 28, 2018.

Essendant Inc. operates as a distributor of workplace items in the
United States and internationally. It offers janitorial and
sanitation supplies, breakroom items, foodservice consumables,
safety and security items, and paper and packaging supplies. The
company was formerly known as United Stationers Inc. and changed
its name to Essendant Inc. in June 2015. Essendant Inc. was founded
in 1922 and is headquartered in Deerfield, Illinois.


FAMILY RESIDENCES: James-Howell Seeks OT Pay under Labor Law
------------------------------------------------------------
LASHAWNE JAMES-HOWELL, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. FAMILY RESIDENCES AND
ESSENTIAL ENTERPRISES, INC; ROBERT S. BUDD; CHRIS LONG; and any
other related entities, the Defendants, Case No. 605950/2017 (N.Y.
Sup. Ct., Aug. 22, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation pursuant to the New York Labor Law. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge R. Bruce Cozzens, Jr.

According to the complaint, Mr. James-Howell typically worked five
days per week, for approximately 12 hours per shift. Despite
typically working approximately 60 hours per week, between the
start of her employment and approximately January 2017, the
Plaintiff typically received only a flat weekly rate of pay,
regardless of the number of hours she worked in a given week. The
Plaintiff is not exempt from overtime compensation under the Labor
Law. Other non-exempt employees were compensated in a manner
similar, if not the same, as James-Howell, wherein they did not
receive overtime pay at time and one-half their hourly rate for all
hours worked in excess of 40 in a given workweek. At the outset of
her employment, James-Howell was not provided with a notice of her
pay rate and pay date.

Founded in 1977, Family Residences and Essential Enterprises or
FREE is a New York State organization based in Old Bethpage, New
York, serving individuals on Long Island.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
          Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
          Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
          LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
          One Old Country Road, Ste.347
          Carle Place, NY 11514
          Telephone: (516) 873 9550

The Defendant is represented by:

          RUSKIN, MOSCOU, FALTISCHEK,P.C
          1425 Reckson Plz E. Tower 15fl.
          Uniondale, NY 11556
          Telephone: (516) 663 6600


FANEUIL INC: Marshall Remanded to Calif. State Court
----------------------------------------------------
Judge Kimberly J. Mueller of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California granted the Plaintiffs' motion to
remand the case, DONNA MARSHALL, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FANEUIL, INC., a Delaware
corporation; ALJ REGIONAL HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware corporation;
and Does 1-10 inclusive. Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-01975-KJM-CKD
(E.D. Cal.), to Sacramento County Superior Court.

The Plaintiff filed the putative class action in Sacramento County
Superior Court on July 31, 2017, making the following claims: (1)
failure to pay overtime wages; (2) failure to pay minimum wages;
(3) meal period violations; (4) rest break violations; (5) wage
statement penalties and failure to keep payroll records; (6)
failure to produce employment records; (7) failure to timely pay
wages upon termination; (8) failure to reimburse business expenses;
and (9) unfair business practices.

The Defendants removed the case to federal court, asserting
jurisdiction under basic diversity jurisdiction, and the Class
Action Fairness Act ("CAFA").  To support their contention that the
amount in controversy exceeds the requisite $75,000 for diversity
jurisdiction, the Defendants point to the complaint, noting the
Plaintiff alleges she earned approximately $16 an hour, that she
worked 8-10 hours a day, five days a week from approximately
November 2014 to December 2016.  They rely on these numbers to
calculate a total amount in controversy of $85,000.

To support their contention that the amount in controversy exceeds
the requisite $5 million under CAFA, the Defendants submit the
declaration of Faneuil's Vice President of Human Resources,
Elizabeth Veliz.  In her declaration, Veliz states Faneuil has
employed more than 2,500 non-exempt, hourly-paid employees in
California, of whom over 1,500 have been terminated on or after
October 2014, and the average hourly rate of this group of
employees during this period was roughly $12.25 per hour.  The
Defendants draw on these numbers to calculate a total amount in
controversy of $8,856,375.

The Plaintiff moves to remand, challenging the Defendants'
calculations.  The Plaintiff does not provide rebuttal evidence.
Instead, she challenges the Defendants' calculations and argues
that the Defendants do not meet their burden because they make
assumptions unsupported by evidence.  The amounts in controversy
reflect inclusion of a sum of three categories of penalties: first
with respect to diversity and second with respect to CAFA.

Judge Mueller concludes that without these amounts -- $4,410,000
for waiting time penalties, $1,406,000 for itemized wage statement
penalties, $725,200 for meal and rest break violations, and
$1,771,275.00 for attorneys' fees -- the Defendants' estimates of
the amount in controversy for the remaining claims, $543,900, does
not come close to the $5 million required for CAFA jurisdiction to
adhere.  So he needs not address those other amounts separately.
The Defendants have failed to meet their burden to establish
federal jurisdiction based either on diversity or CAFA.  He
therefore granted the Plaintiff's motion to remand to Sacramento
County Superior Court.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 7, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/tI8Woh from Leagle.com.

Donna Marshall, Plaintiff, represented by Robert J. Drexler --
Robert.Drexler@capstonelawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC, Jonathan
Sing Lee -- Jonathan.Lee@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC,
Liana Carol Carter -- Liana.Carter@capstonelawyers.com -- Capstone
Law APC & Natalie Torbati, Capstone Law, APC.

Faneuil, Inc., Defendant, represented by Douglas L. Ropel --
dropel@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C., Kelsey Elizabeth
Papst -- Kelsey.Papst@doj.ca.gov -- Littler Mendelson & Aurelio J.
Perez -- aperez@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C.

ALJ Regional Holdings, Inc., Defendant, represented by Kelsey
Elizabeth Papst, Littler Mendelson & Aurelio J. Perez, Littler
Mendelson, P.C.


FC 8 SPRUCE: Fischler Files Suit Asserting ADA Breach
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against FC 8 Spruce Street
Residential, LLC.  The case is titled as Brian Fischler,
Individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated
v. FC 8 Spruce Street Residential, LLC, doing business as: New York
by Gehry, Case No. 1:18-cv-08106 (S.D.N.Y., September 6, 2018).

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

FC 8 Spruce Street Residential, LLC, is a New York domestic limited
liability company.  The Company owns or operates New York by Gehry,
a building located at 8 Spruce Street in New York City.  The
building is a 76-story skyscraper designed by architect Frank Gehry
and is one of the tallest residential towers in the world.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
          LIPSKY LOWE LLP
          630 Third Avenue, Fifth Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 392-4772
          Facsimile: (212) 444-1030
          E-mail: doug@lipskylowe.com


FC ONLINE: Mendez Suit Alleges Disabilities Act Violation
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against FC Online Marketing,
Inc. The class action is captioned as HIMELDA MENDEZ, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. FC
Online Marketing, Inc., doing business as: Ilovekickboxing.com, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-07607 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 21, 2018). The
suit alleges Americans with Disabilities Act violation.

FC Online operates and franchises kick boxing classes and
studios.[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


FIRST CLASS INTERIORS: Martinez Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Alvarado Martinez, Alexandro Perez, Nelson Eguizabal Brito,
Carlos Castro and Alexis Marquez, Plaintiffs, v. First Class
Interiors of Naples, LLC, Jose Roberto Reyes individually and Mr.
Drywall Services, LLC,, Case No. 18-cv-00583, (M.D. Tenn., June 25,
2018), seeks redress for Defendants' willful failure to compensate
them for hours worked at the applicable federal minimum wage and
for failing to compensate them for hours worked in excess of 40
hours per week at one and one half times the regular hourly rate
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mr. Drywall is a company that provides drywall hanging and interior
finishing services to other construction contractors for commercial
and residential projects where First Class and Reyes are labor
brokers. Plaintiffs all worked on the JW Marriott hotel
construction project, located at 201 8th Ave South, Nashville, TN
37203. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

       Karla M. Campbell, Esq.
       Callie Jennings, Esq.
       BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC
       223 Rosa L. Parks Ave., 2nd Floor
       Nashville, TN 37203
       Tel: (615) 254-8801


FIRST NATIONAL: Summary Judgment Bid in Hordge FDCA Suit Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KYONNIE HORDGE, Plaintiff, v. FIRST NATIONAL
COLLECTION BUREAU, INC., et al, Defendant, Civil Action No.
4:15-CV-1695 (S.D. Tex.), Judge Keith P. Ellison of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston
Division, (i) denied First National Collection Bureau ("FNCB")s'
Motion for Summary Judgment; (ii) denied LVNV Funding, LLC
("LVNV")'s Motion for Summary Judgment; (iii) denied Resurgent
Capital Services. L.P. and Alegis Group, LLC's Motion for Summary
Judgment; and (iv) granted in part and denied in part the
Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgement.

The case is a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") class
action lawsuit.  At the core of the dispute is a letter that was
sent to the Plaintiff, a Texas resident, seeking to collect on
credit card debt.  The letter included a "settlement offer," but
did not disclose that the debt was unenforceable because the
statute of limitations had expired on the debt.

Pending before the Court are cross-motions for summary judgment.
The Plaintiff moves for summary judgment on liability, against all
the Defendants, arguing that the letter violated sections Sections
1692e and 1692f of the FDCPA as a matter of law and that all
Defendants are debt collectors subject to the FDCPA.  All the
Defendants -- FNCB, Resurgent, Alegis, and LVNV -- move for a
ruling that the letter was not a deceptive and unfair practice in
violation of Section 1692e of the FDCPA, and that the Section 1692f
claim fails as a matter of law.

Defendants Resurgent and Alegis move for summary judgment on all
claims against them because, they argue, they did not send the
letter at issue and are not debt collectors.  Defendant LVNV also
moves for summary judgment on all claims against it on the basis
that it is not a debt collector.  Defendants FNCB, Resurgent,
Alegis, and LVNV also move for the Court to deny the Plaintiff
actual damages.

Judge Ellison finds that the debt at issue must not be business
debt, but must instead be consumer debt primarily for personal,
family, or household purposes.  Ms. Carter incurred credit card
debt, and she used credit cards for groceries and household items.
Without providing evidence, the Defendants ask the Court to infer
that Ms. Carter's debt was not a consumer debt.  There is, however,
no genuine dispute that this is a consumer debt.

Next, the Judge finds that the Plaintiff has presented evidence
that whether a debt is time-barred is material information to
consumers making decisions about whether to pay a debt.  He finds
that the letter was unlawfully misleading.  Because the letter was
misleading under Section 1692e, he needs not reach Section 1692f.

Because Resurgent is a debt collector, it can be vicariously liable
for FNCB's actions carried out on Resurgent's behalf.  As both
parties state in their filings, as the general partner of
Resurgent, Alegis can be jointly and severally liable for
Resurgent's debts and obligations.

Finally, the Judge agrees with the Plaintiff that summary judgment
on actual damages is not appropriate until the class has been
notified.  The Defendants did not file reply briefs or opine on the
issue of actual damages after the Court granted class
certification.  A determination of the existence or lack of
classwide actual damages would be premature.  

For the reasons he stated, Judge Ellison (i) denied Defendant
FNCB's Motion for Summary Judgment; (ii) denied Defendant LVNV's
Motion for Summary Judgment; (iii) denied Defendants Resurgent and
Alegis's Motion for Summary Judgment; and granted in part and
denied in part the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgement.  The
Plaintiff has established liability under the FDCPA as to
Defendants FNCB, Resurgent, and Alegis.  Whether LVNV is also
liable is a disputed fact issue.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 7, 2018 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/fC282U from Leagle.com.

Kyonnie Hordge, as Independent Administrator of the Estate of
Marjorie Ann Carter, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel A. Edelman
--
dedelman@edcombs.com -- Edelman Combs & Daniel J. Ciment.

First National Collection Bureau, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Robbie LuAnn Malone -- info@robbiemalonepllc.com -- MALONE AKERLY
MARTIN PLLC & Cooper Martin Walker -- cwalker@mamlaw.com -- Malone
Akerly Martin PLLC.

LVNV Funding, LLC, Resurgent Capital Services, LP & Alegis Group,
LLC, Defendants, represented by Robbie LuAnn Malone, MALONE AKERLY
MARTIN PLLC.


FIVE GUYS: Dec. 3 Deadline to File Class Certification Motion
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California extended Class Certification Motion Deadline in the case
captioned JEREMY R. LUSK, on behalf of himself, all others
similarly situated, and the general public, Plaintiff, v. FIVE GUYS
ENTERPRISES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; ENCORE
FGBF, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1-100,
inclusive, Defendants. Case No. 1:17-CV-00762-AWI-EPG. (E.D.
Cal.).

For good cause, and pursuant to the parties' stipulation, the
parties' request to extend the time for the class certification
briefing schedule is granted as follows:

   Last Day to File
   Class Certification
   Motion                    December 3, 2018

   Last Day to File
   Opposition                January 3, 2019

   Last Day to File
   Reply in support of
   Class Cert Motion         January 17, 2019

   Hearing                   February 4, 2019,
                             at 10:30 a.m.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 6, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y9j63hrq from Leagle.com.

Jeremy R Lusk, on behalf of himself, all other similarly situated
and the general public, Plaintiff, represented by Chaim Shaun
Setareh -- shaun@setarehlaw.com -- Law Offices of Shaun Setareh &
Howard Scott Leviant -- scott@setarehlaw.com -- Setareh Law Group.

Five Guys Enterprises LLC, a Delaware limited liability company &
Encore FGBF, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendants,
represented by Kevin V. Koligian -- kkoligian@littler.com --
Littler Mendelson, P.C..


FORCE FACTOR: Faces Seiger Suit in Western District of New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Force Factor, LLC.
The class action is captioned as Jon Seiger, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Force
Factor, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 6:18-cv-06611 (W.D.N.Y., Aug.
21, 2018).[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 7th Avenue
          New York, NY 10106
          Telephone: (646) 837 7150
          Facsimile: (212) 989 9163
          E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com


FORT SMITH, AR: City Employees' Suit Seeks Damages
--------------------------------------------------
Mary Johnston, Barbara Bates Angela Slaughter, each individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. City of Fort
Smith, Arkansas, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-2152, (W.D. Ark.,
August 31, 2018) seeks monetary damages, liquidated damages,
prejudgment interest, costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees
as a result of failure to pay lawful overtime compensation for
hours worked in excess of forty hours per week under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.

Plaintiffs are hourly-paid city employees of Fort Smith. They claim
to have regularly worked in excess of forty hours per week
throughout their tenure and insists on including longevity pay in
calculating overtime pay.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Josh Sanford, Esq.
      Chris Burks, Esq.
      Allison Koile, Esq.
      SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
      One Financial Center
      650 S. Shackleford Road, Suite 411
      Little Rock, AR 72211
      Telephone: (501) 221-0088
      Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
      Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
             chris@sanfordlawfirm.com
             allison@sanfordlawfirm.com


FRANCISCO PARTNERS: Gilbert Files Suit Over Buyout
--------------------------------------------------
Jim Gilbert and Barrett O'Donnell, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Ezra Perlman, David
A. Jones, Jr., Francisco Partners IV, L.P., Francisco Partners
IV-A, L.P., FP Healthcare Holdings, Inc., FP Healthcare Merger Sub
Corporation and Chrysalis Ventures II, L.P., Case No. 2018-0453,
(D. Del., June 25, 2018), seeks (i) to enjoin defendants and all
persons acting in concert with them from proceeding with,
consummating, or closing the buyout of Connecture, Inc. by
Connecture's majority stockholders, Francisco Partners and
Chrysalis Ventures, and their affiliates, (ii) rescinding it and
setting it aside or awarding rescissory damages in the event
defendants consummate the merger, (iii) costs of this action,
including reasonable allowance for attorneys' and experts' fees,
(iv) and such other and further relief under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

Under the merger, Connecture's minority stockholders received only
$0.35 for each share of Connecture common stock they owned, while
FP Investors, Chrysalis, and certain affiliates of Chrysalis rolled
over their common and preferred shares into FP Healthcare
Holdings.

The complaint says the merger consideration was inadequate and
failed to reflect Connecture's true intrinsic value. The process
leading to the buyout was tainted by conflicts of interest, it
added.

Gilbert and O'Donnell were owners of common stock of Connecture.
[BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
      Jeremy J. Riley, Esq
      RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
      300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220
      Wilmington, DE 19801
      (302) 295-5310

             - and -

      Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
      RM LAW, P.C.
      1055 Westlakes Dr., Ste. 3112
      Berwyn, PA 19312
      Tel: (484) 324-6800
      Email: rm@maniskas.com


GATESTONE & CO: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Alenkin Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gatestone & Co
International Inc.  The case is titled as Stanislav Alenkin, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Gatestone &
Co International Inc., Case No. 1:18-cv-05050 (E.D.N.Y., September
6, 2018).

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

Gatestone & Co International Inc. operates as an employment agency.
The Company specializes in accounts receivable management and
business process outsourcing solutions, as well as provides
training programs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GCA SERVICES: Hogg FCRA Suit Removed to Florida District Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Hogg v. GCA Services Group, Inc.,
Case No. 2018-31304-CICI, was removed on September 6, 2018, from
the Volusia County Court to the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida (Orlando).  The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 6:18-cv-01454-GAP-TBS to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violations of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.

GCA Services Group, Inc., provides janitorial and human resource
services.  The Company offers custodial, contamination control,
grounds management, recycling programs, environment cleaning, and
staffing services.[BN]

Plaintiff Alicia Hogg, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
          Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA
          1110 N Florida Ave., Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602-3343
          Telephone: (813) 224-0431
          Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
          E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com
                  lcabassa@wfclaw.com

Defendant GCA Services Group, Inc., is represented by:

          Amanda Simpson, Esq.
          Stephanie Leigh Adler-Paindiris, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS, PC
          390 N Orange Ave., Suite 1285
          PO Box 3389
          Orlando, FL 32802-3389
          Telephone: (407) 246-8408
          Facsimile: (407) 246-8441
          E-mail: amanda.simpson@jacksonlewis.com
                  adlers@jacksonlewis.com


GRIDSUM HOLDING: Li Sues Over Share Price Drop
----------------------------------------------
Xuechun Li, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Gridsum Holding Inc., Guosheng Wi, Peng
Zhang, Goldman Sachs (Asia) LLC, Citigroup Global Markets Inc. and
Stifel, Nicolaus & Company Incorporated, Defendant, Case No.
18-cv-05749, (S.D. N.Y., June 25, 2018), seeks to recover damages
caused by violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue
remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

Gridsum Holding, Inc. is a holding company that designs and
develops sophisticated data analysis software for multinational and
domestic enterprises and government agencies in China. The Company
offers software that allows customers to collect and analyze
information that is collected, indexed, and stored in an organized
manner. Its American Depositary Shares (ADS) trade on the NASDAQ
Global Select Market.

In its initial public offer, Defendants failed to disclose that
Gridsum lacked effective internal control over financial reporting,
issues related to certain revenue recognition, cash flow, cost and
expense items. On this news, Gridsum's ADR price fell $1.17, or
16.04%, to close at $6.12 on April 23, 2018. Li owns Gridsum ADRs
and lost substantially. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      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
      Email: tjmckenna@gme-law.com
             gegleston@gme-law.com


HAMID RAFII: Haysbert Sues over Health and Safety Hazards
---------------------------------------------------------
NAZARETH M. HAYSBERT, an individual, and others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. HAMID RAFII, Trustee of Hamid Rafii Living Trust;
HAMID RAFII, an Individual; LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND
POWER, a Municipality; THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a Municipality;
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY, a California Corporation; and DOES
1-20, the Defendants, Case No. BC718604 (Cal. Super. Ct., Aug. 22,
2018), seeks compensation for overpayment of rent, inconvenience,
loss of enjoyment of life, loss of bodily and neurological
functioning, mental pain and suffering, annoyance, and distress.

According to the complaint, during the Summer of 2017, the
Plaintiffs and Columbia Place tenants faced dangerous and unsafe
conditions including exposed electrical wiring, low hanging
electric cables, and faulty gas appliances. The tenants made their
fears known to their landlord, Mr. Rafii, and the City of Los
Angeles, who scheduled multiple meetings and property inspections
with the other defendants spanning almost a year. These meetings
were unfruitful, and the several groups of engineers, inspectors,
and other City professionals moving through the apartments only
created further nuisance and distraction for Mr. Haysbert and the
other tenants. Despite several inspections, including at least one
failed inspection for violations of the California Health and
Safety Code and Los Angeles Municipal Code, no remedial actions
were taken by any of the Defendants. Even though the premises were
not made safer, the City of Los Angeles later granted the residence
a passing inspection with no explanation. As such, Plaintiffs still
face the same hazardous conditions nearly a year later.

The Plaintiffs have endured as a direct and proximate health and
safety hazards, and the negligent inspections, repairs, and
remedial action, or lack thereof, of the dangerous conditions in
and around Plaintiffs' residences by each of the Defendants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Azuka L. Uzoh, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF AZUKA L. UZOH
          1930 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1216
          Los Angeles, CA 90057
          Telephone: (213) 533 4130
          Facsimile: (310) 424 7140


HANGER INC: Continues to Defend Pontiac General Employees Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hanger, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2018, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2018, that the company continues to defend itself in
a securities class action suit entitled, City of Pontiac General
Employees' Retirement System v. Hanger, et al.

In November 2014, a securities class action complaint, City of
Pontiac General Employees' Retirement System v. Hanger, et al.,
C.A. No. 1:14-cv-01026-SS, was filed against the company in the
United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. The
complaint named the company and certain of its current and former
officers for allegedly making materially false and misleading
statements regarding, inter alia, the company's financial
statements, RAC audit success rate, the implementation of new
financial systems, same-store sales growth, and the adequacy of our
internal processes and controls.  

The complaint alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint
sought unspecified damages, costs, attorneys' fees, and equitable
relief.

On April 1, 2016, the court granted the company's motion to dismiss
the lawsuit for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted, and permitted plaintiffs to file an amended complaint. On
July 1, 2016, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On September
15, 2016, the company and certain of the individual defendants
filed motions to dismiss the lawsuit. On January 26, 2017, the
court granted the defendants' motions and dismissed with prejudice
all claims against all defendants for failure to state a claim.

On February 24, 2017, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Appellate
briefing was completed on August 18, 2017 and the Court of Appeals
held oral argument for the appeal on March 5, 2018. On August 6,
2018, the Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the case against
individual defendants Vinit Asar, the company's current President
and Chief Executive Officer, and Thomas Kirk, our former President
and Chief Executive Officer, but reversed the dismissal of the case
against George McHenry, our former Chief Financial Officer, and
Hanger, Inc.  

The case has been remanded back to the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas for further proceedings with
respect to the remaining claims.  

Hanger said, "We believe the remaining claims are without merit,
and intend to continue to vigorously defend against these claims."

Hanger, Inc. provides orthotic and prosthetic (O&P) services; and
distributes O&P devices and components, manages O&P networks, and
provides therapeutic solutions to patients and businesses in acute,
post-acute, and clinic settings in the United States. It operates
through two segments, Patient Care and Products & Services. Hanger,
Inc. was founded in 1861 and is headquartered in Austin, Texas.


HARRISON GLOBAL: $1MM Settlement in Huddestun Has Prelim Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARK HUDDLESTUN, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, and ROBERT BENSON, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. HARRISON GLOBAL,
LLC, doing business as BOSTON COACH, MTG ACQUISITIONS, LLC, and
DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-0253 DMS (WVG)
(S.D. Cal.), Judge Dana M. Sabraw of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California granted the Plaintiffs'
unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action
settlement.

The Plaintiffs bring a wage and hour class action suit on behalf of
current and former employees of the Defendants.  The Defendants are
limited liability corporations that operate a limousine
transportation service.  The Plaintiffs and the putative Class
Members are current and former employees of the Defendants who
worked as chauffeurs in San Francisco between March 14, 2014 and
Jan. 26, 2018, Los Angeles between March 14, 2014 and Nov. 16,
2017, and San Diego between Oct. 1, 2015 and Nov. 17, 2017.

The Plaintiffs allege the following claims for relief: (1) failure
to pay overtime compensation; (2) failure to provide meal and rest
periods; (3) failure to pay minimum, hourly, and overtime wages;
(4) failure to pay final wages; (5) failure to provide timely and
accurate wage statements; (6) unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent
business practices; and (7) civil penalties under the Private
Attorneys General Act ("PAGA").

The parties participated in a mediation before mediator Michael
Dickstein on Sept. 5, 2017.  The mediation was successful and
resulted in a settlement.

The proposed Settlement Agreement provides for a Gross Settlement
Fund of $1,050,000.  The Class Members will be allocated a share of
the Net Settlement Fund based on the number of workweeks they
worked for the Defendants during the relevant time period.  The Net
Settlement Fund is the remaining amount in the Gross Settlement
fund after deducting the following: (1) the Plaintiffs' attorneys'
fees in an amount up to 28% of the Fund, (2) actual costs not to
exceed $20,000, (3) an incentive award to the Plaintiffs in the
amount of $5,000 each, (4) the costs of the Settlement
Administrator up to a maximum of $10,000, and (5) a payment to the
Labor and Workforce Development Agency ("LWDA") for release of PAGA
claims in the amount of $6,666, 75% of which will be remitted to
the LWDA and 25% of which will become part of the Net Settlement
Fund.

Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the Defendants will give the
Settlement Administrator the Class Members' names, social security
numbers, last known addresses, home telephone number, and e-mail
addresses, as well as the dates of service and the number of
workweeks during the Settlement Period. Within 10 business days of
the entry of an order granting the motion, the Settlement
Administrator will mail a Class Notice Package.  If any Class
Notice Package sent to a Class Member is returned, the Settlement
Administrator will search for that the Class Member's more current
address and re-mail the Package.  The Class Members who desire to
be excluded from the action must submit a signed, written request
to the Settlement Administrator for exclusion.

Judge Sabraw granted the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary
approval of the settlement in the case.  Pursuant to Federal Rule
Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), she conditionally certified the
Settlement Class defined as all California Chauffeurs who worked
for Defendants Harrison Global, LLC and/or MTG Acquisitions, LLC
from March 14, 2014 to Jan. 26, 2018 (San Francisco); March 14,
2014 to Nov. 16, 2017 (Los Angeles); and Oct. 1, 2015 to Nov. 17,
2017 (San Diego), respectively.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the Judge
preliminarily certified Plaintiffs Mark Huddlestun and Robert
Benson as the Class Representatives and the Plaintiffs' counsel as
the Class Counsel solely for purposes of settlement.

She approved, as to form and content, the Notice.  Pursuant to the
Settlement Agreement, within five business days of the entry of the
Preliminary Approval Order, the Defendants will provide the
Settlement Administrator the best information in its possession,
custody, or control with respect to the names, social security
numbers, last known addresses, home telephone number, and e-mail
address for each Class Member, and the dates of service and number
of workweeks that each Class Member worked for the Defendants
during the Settlement Period.  The Settlement Administrator will
keep and maintain the information as confidential and will only use
the Social Security numbers for purposes of the Settlement
Agreement, i.e. to locate the Class Members.

The Settlement Administrator will send the Class Notice Package to
the Class Members by first class mail within 10 business days of
the entry of the Preliminary Approval Order.  A valid Claim Form
must be postmarked not more than 30 business days after the date
the Class Notice Package is mailed to the Class Members (or not
more than 10 business days after the date the Class Notice Package
is re-mailed).

The Class Members may choose to exclude themselves from the
Settlement by submitting a written objection no later than 30
business days after the date the Class Notice Package is mailed to
the Class Members (or not more than 10 business days after the date
the Class Notice Package is re-mailed).  They may object to the
Settlement no later than 30 business days after the date the Class
Notice Package is mailed to the Class Members (or not more than 10
business days after the date the Class Notice Package is
re-mailed).  The Settlement Administrator will promptly forward any
objections received to the Class Counsel and the Defendants'
counsel.

If any Class Member seeks to appear at the hearing, he or she will
file a notice of appearance with the Court and serve the Class
Counsel and the Defendants' counsel 15 days before the Final
Approval Hearing.

No later than 21 days prior to the Final Approval Hearing, the
parties will file (i) a Motion for Final Approval of Class Action
Settlement, and (ii) a sworn declaration evidencing compliance with
the provisions of the Settlement Agreement as it relates to
providing Notice.

No later than 21 days prior to the Final Approval Hearing, the
Class Counsel will file an application for attorneys' fees and
costs.  The Class Counsel will provide documentation detailing the
number of hours incurred by attorneys in litigating the action,
supported by detailed time records, as well as hourly compensation
to which those attorneys are reasonably entitled.  The Class
Counsel should be prepared to address any questions the Court may
have regarding the application for fees at the Final Approval
Hearing.

The Final Approval Hearing will be held on Feb. 22, 2019, at 1:30
p.m.  After the Final Approval Hearing, the Court may enter a Final
Order and Judgment in accordance with the Settlement Agreement that
will adjudicate the rights of the Settlement Class Members (as
defined in the Settlement Agreement) with respect to the claims
being settled.  In the event the Settlement Agreement is not
consummated for any reason, the conditional class certification
will be of no further force or effect.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 7, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/lwM7Hv from Leagle.com.

Mark Huddlestun, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel D. Bodell --
dbodell@BODELLLAWGROUP.COM -- Bodell Law Group LLP, Harry W.
Harrison -- hharrison@harrisonbodell.com -- Bodell Law Group LLP,
Scott Edward Cole -- scole@scalaw.com -- Scott Cole & Associates,
APC & Todd C. Atkins -- tatkins@bodelllawgroup.com -- Bodell Law
Group.

Robert Benson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Corey Benjamin Bennett --
cbennett@maternlawgroup.com -- Scott Cole & Associates, APC & Scott
Edward Cole, Scott Cole & Associates, APC.

Harrison Global, LLC, doing business as, Defendant, represented by
Heather Murray Sager -- hsager@vedderprice.com -- Vedder Price &
Ayse Kuzucuoglu -- akuzucuoglu@vedderprice.com -- Vedder Price
(CA), LLP.

MTG Acquisitions, LLC, Defendant, represented by Heather Murray
Sager, Vedder Price.


HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Fails to Protect Classified Info, Aguilar Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
FAUSTO AGUILAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE HARTFORD FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC.;
and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. BC717334 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles, Cty., Aug. 14, 2018) is an action against the Defendants
for their unlawful disclosure of confidential medical information
for numerous worker's compensation claimants in violation of the
Confidentiality of Medical Information Act.

The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc., through its
subsidiaries, provides insurance and financial services to
individual and business customers in the United States. The
Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. was founded in 1810 and is
headquartered in Hartford, Connecticut. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian S. Kabateck, Esq.
          Christopher B. Noyes, Esq.
          Joana Fang, Esq.
          Stephanie E. Charlin, Esq.
          KABATECK BROWN LLP
          633 W 5th St., Suite 3200
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 217-5000
          Facsimile: (213) 217-5010
          E-mail: bsk@kbklwyers.com
                  cn@kbklwyers.com
                  jf@kbklwyers.com
                  sc@kbklwyers.com


HOLLOWAY CREDIT: Yahaira Garcia Sues over Debt Collection
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Holloway Credit
Solutions, LLC. The class action is captioned as Yahaira Garcia,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Holloway Credit Solutions, LLC, the Defendant, Case
No. 5:18-cv-00434-JSM-PRL (M.D. Fla., Aug. 21, 2018). The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge James S. Moody, Jr.  The suit alleges
Fair Debt Collection Act violation.

Holloway Credit provides debt collection and management
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


HRB DIGITAL: Response to James Murphy Suit Due Sept. 24
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against HRB Digital LLC. The
class action lawsuit is captioned as James Murphy, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. HRB
Digital LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06829 (S.D.N.Y., July
30, 2018). The suit alleges Americans with Disabilities Act
violation.

In a September 10 ruling, Judge Analisa Torres granted, in part,
and denied, in part, the Defendant's Letter Motion for Extension of
Time to Answer.  By September 24, 2018, the Defendant must answer
or otherwise respond to the complaint, the ruling says.

HRB Digital LLC operates as a subsidiary of H&R Block, Inc.[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


IC SYSTEM: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Miller Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against I.C. System, Inc.
The case is titled as PAMELA MILLER, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. I.C. SYSTEM, INC., Case No.
3:18-cv-13624-AET-DEA (D.N.J., September 6, 2018).

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

I. C. System, Inc., was founded in 1941.  The Company's line of
business includes collection and adjustment services on claims and
other insurance related issues.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lawrence C. Hersh, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF LAWRENCE HERSH
          17 Sylvan Street, Suite 102B
          Rutherford, NJ 07070
          Telephone: (201) 507-6300
          E-mail: lh@hershlegal.com


IMMEDIATE CREDIT: Rankel Class Suit Alleges FDCPA Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Immediate Credit
Recovery, Inc.  The case is styled as Carlo Rankel, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Immediate Credit
Recovery, Inc., Case No. 7:18-cv-08117-KMK (S.D.N.Y., September 6,
2018).

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

Immediate Credit Recovery, Inc., provides debt recovery services.
The Company offers recovery programs for government debts,
educational institutions, and health care industries.[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


IPIC ENTERTAINMENT: Ryan-Nielson Class Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------------
iPic Entertainment Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the company continues to
defend itself in a class action suit entitled, Mary Ryan and
Johanna Nielson v. iPic-Gold Class Entertainment, LLC.

The Company is a defendant in a class action lawsuit captioned Mary
Ryan and Johanna Nielson v. iPic-Gold Class Entertainment, LLC,
Case # BC 688633, which was filed in Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles, on December 29, 2017. This
lawsuit asserts failure to pay minimum wage, pay overtime wages,
provide meal breaks and rest periods, and provide accurate itemized
wage statements with respect to certain workers.

The Company reserves for costs related to contingencies when a loss
is probable and the amount is reasonably estimable.

iPic Entertainment said, "As of this date, the Company has not made
a provision for the claim, due to the fact that it is currently not
probable nor reasonably estimable. However, the outcome of the
legal proceeding is uncertain, and depending upon what the facts
reveal once the Company has had a chance to investigate the claim,
it may choose to contest the suit or settle this claim. In either
scenario, the Company could be subject to paying an amount that
could have a material adverse impact on its results of operations
in any given future reporting period."

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

iPic Entertainment Inc. operates restaurants and theaters in the
United States. The company operates casual restaurants,
farm-to-glass full-service bars, and theater auditoriums with
in-theater dining. The company was founded in 2010 and is
headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida.


J FLETCHER: Filing of Amended RICO Suit Partly Granted
------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NUNO COSTA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. J. FLETCHER CREAMER
& SONS, INC., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No.
2:16-CV-8492-CCC-SCM (D. N.J.), Magistrate Judge Steven C. Mannion
of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey granted
in part and denied in part the Costas' motion for leave to file an
amended complaint.

The action arises from allegations that Creamer failed to pay the
Costas appropriate wages, provide contractual benefits, and
maintain working conditions in accordance with the terms of their
collective bargaining agreement.  Plaintiffs Nuno Costa, Tiago
Costa, Manuel Costa, Artur Mariano, Jr., Joao Goncalves, Hugo
Decarvalho, Richard DaCosta, Ivo Fernandez, and Giovanni Perez
originally filed their complaint in New Jersey State Court on Oct.
12, 2016.  On Nov. 15, 2016, Creamer removed the action on the
basis of federal question jurisdiction and Creamer subsequently
filed a Motion to Dismiss on Dec. 19, 2016.

Following the parties' attempt to resolve the matter through
court-ordered mediation, the Costas filed their request for leave
to amend the complaint on Feb. 3, 2018.  The proposed Amended
Complaint narrows the dispute down to six claims, asserts two new
claims pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New Jersey's
Law Against Discrimination, and alleges class/collective action
claims on behalf of all persons similarly situated.

Creamer contends the proposed amendments are futile, asserting that
they are substantively deficient and procedurally time-barred.  The
Costas argue that the relation-back doctrine permits the proposed
amendments despite the statute of limitations because the new
claims arise out of the same facts set out in their original
pleading.

Turning first to the proposed Fair Labor Act claim, Magistrate
Judge Mannion finds that the Costas' Fair Labor Act claim purports
allegations that Creamer failed to pay the Costas proper overtime
over the course of their employment.  He says it is clear that this
claim arises out of the same conduct alleged in the original
pleading, namely the Costas' unpaid wage claims against Creamer.
Accordingly, he finds that the Fair Labor Act amendment relates
back to the date of the initial filing.

Next, he addressed the Costas' request to add the Law Against
Discrimination claim after the applicable two-year statute of
limitations has elapsed.  The Costas' proposed amendment asserts
that Creamer retaliated against Plaintiffs Giovanni Perez and Hugo
DeCarvalho after they suffered workplace injuries.  The Magistrate
Judge finds that Creamer had adequate notice of the Costas' claim
and the proposed Law Against Discrimination amendment relates back.
The Costas' original Complaint also asserts Hugo was hurt on the
job twice.  Hugo never received workers compensation for his time
off from work due to his workplace injuries.  The Defendants have
failed to pay Hugo as required by law and/or retaliated against
Hugo.

Finally, the Magistrate examines the Costas' proposed amendment
seeking to assert class action allegations that vastly expand the
scope of the case.  While the Costas' claims of unpaid wages are
present in the original pleading, he finds that there were no
allegations concerning common practice or policy by Creamer, and
therefore no indication that the claims could be made on behalf of
a potentially voluminous group of the Plaintiffs.  Creamer had no
notice of the potential class/collective claims when the original
Complaint was filed and there is no suggestion that the Costas'
failure to sue on behalf of those similarly situated was due to
mistake.  In light of this, the original pleading did not give
Creamer fair notice of the grounds upon which the amendment, rests
nor did it adequately notify the Defendants of the basis for
liability the Plaintiffs would later advance in the amended
complaint.  Accordingly, he finds that the relation back doctrine
does not apply to the Costas' class action allegations.

For the foregoing reasons, Magistrate Judge Mannion granted in part
and denied in part the Costas' motion to amend.  An appropriate
Order follows.  He granted the Plaintiffs' motion to amend the
complaint with respect to the addition of the Fair Labor Act and
Law Against Discrimination claims.  He denied it with respect to
addition of a class/collective action claim.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 7, 2018 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/in6M09 from Leagle.com.

NUNO COSTA, TIAGO COSTA, MANUEL COSTA, ARTHUR MARIANO, JR., JOAO
GONCALVES, HUGO DECARVALHO, RICHARD DACOSTA, IVO FERNANDES &
GIOVANNI PEREZ, Plaintiffs, represented by ANDREW R. FRISCH, MORGAN
& MORGAN, P.A., JORDAN BRANSON DASCAL -- info+web@dascallaw.com --
DASCAL LAW LLC & JOSHUA F. MCMAHON -- JFM@SchillerMcMahon.com --
Schiler McMahon LLC.

J. FLETCHER CREAMER & SONS, INC., J. FLETCHER CREAMER & SON CREAM
RIDGE CONSTRUCTION, INC.., JOHN FLETCHER CREAMER, JR., JOSEPH
WALSH, ALBINO OLIVEIRA, THERESA WARREN, JOANNE GABIA & KIM
CHIANDUSSE, Defendants, represented by PETER J. TORCICOLLO --
ptorcicollo@gibbonslaw.com -- GIBBONS, PC, CHARLOTTE MARY HOWELLS
-- chowells@gibbonslaw.com -- GIBBONS PC, ERIC EVANS WOHLFORTH, Jr.
-- ewohlforth@gibbonslaw.com -- GIBBONS, P.C. & MITCHELL BOYARSKY
-- mboyarsky@gibbonslaw.com -- GIBBONS P.C.

ROBERT CAMPOS, Defendant, represented by DOMENICK CARMAGNOLA,
CARMAGNOLA & RITARDI, LLC & PETER J. TORCICOLLO, GIBBONS, PC.


J&B INVESTMENTS: Melendez Remanded to Calif. State Court
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHRISTIAN MELENDEZ, on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. J&B INVESTMENTS, INC., et al., Defendants,
Case No. 5:18-cv-01062-AB (KSx) (C.D. Cal.), Judge Andre Birotte,
Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California granted the Plaintiff's motion to remand and denied as
moot the Defendants' motion to dismiss or strike.

Melendez filed a Complaint in Riverside County Superior Court on
April 5, 2018.  The Complaint alleges that Defendants J&B
Investments and Gypsum Management and Supply, Inc. ("GMS") violated
various California labor laws.  J&B transports and delivers
building materials throughout California from its six regional
centers around the state.  GMS is a national company incorporated
in Georgia with a principal place of business in Georgia.  It
purchased J&B in March 2015, and J&B became a subsidiary of GMS.

Th Plaintiff began working for J&B as a truck driver in July 2013.
According to te Plaintiff, the Defendants required him to work
10-hour shifts without meal or rest breaks.  The Defendants kept
drivers so busy with deliveries that they could not take breaks and
instead had to work through them.  The Plaintiff alleges that,
instead of implementing policies to allow employees to take meal
and rest breaks, the Defendants altered time sheets to show that
employees took meal and rest breaks that did not actually occur.

Based on these allegations, the Plaintiff filed his Complaint in
Riverside County Superior Court on April 5, 2018.  The Complaint
asserts six causes of action: failure to provide meal breaks,
failure to permit rest breaks, failure to pay minimum wage, failure
to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to pay
compensation due upon separation of employment, and unfair
competition under California Business and Professions Code section
17200.

The Plaintiff brings these claims on behalf of a putative class.
The Complaint defines the putative class as all current or former
employees of the Defendants who worked as non-exempt Hourly
Employees in California from the four years prior to the filing of
the Complaint through the date of class certification.

On May 17, 2018, the Defendants removed the case to the Court.
They then filed a motion to dismiss or strike the Complaint on May
24, 2018.  The Plaintiff has opposed that motion, and the
Defendants filed a reply.  

On June 18, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a motion to remand.  The
Defendants opposed the motion, and Plaintiff filed a reply.  The
Plaintiff argues that the action should be remanded to Riverside
County Superior Court for two reasons.  First, he claims the
Defendants failed to satisfy CAFA's jurisdictional requirements.
Second, he contends that, even if the Defendants did establish the
CAFA requirements, the local controversy exception deprives the
Court of jurisdiction.

Essentially all of the Defendants' amount in controversy
calculations depend on the number of employees included in the
putative class.  Judge Birotte therefore cannot rely on any of
those calculations, and the Defendants have failed to carry their
burden of establishing that the amount in controversy exceeds $5
million.  Accordingly, CAFA does not provide the Court with subject
matter jurisdiction over the case.

He also finds that the Plaintiff's putative class seeks significant
relief from J&B, a local Defendant.  And, taking the Plaintiff's
allegations as true, J&B initiated the conduct about which the
Plaintiff complains.  The Plaintiff therefore has satisfied the
local controversy exception's significant basis requirement.
Because the Plaintiff has satisfied the significant relief and
significant basis requirements, the Plaintiff has met his burden of
establishing that the local controversy exception applies.  The
Judge must remand the case.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Birotte granted the GRANTS
Plaintiff's motion to remand.  The matter is remanded to Riverside
County Superior Court.  Because the Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction, the Judge denied as moot the Defendants' motion to
dismiss or strike.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 7, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/OQJ57G from Leagle.com.

Christian Melendez, in his individual capacity, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jordan S.
Esensten, Esensten Law & Robert L. Esensten --
resensten@esenstenlaw.com -- Esensten Law.

J and B Investments, Inc., a California Corporation & Gypsum
Management and Supply, Inc., a Georgia Corporation, Defendants,
represented by Wesley E. Stockard -- wstockard@littler.com --
Littler Mendelson PC, pro hac vice & Maggy Mokhles Athanasious --
mathanasious@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson PC.


JERSEY CHAMP: Metzler Sues Over Illegal Text Ad Blasts
------------------------------------------------------
Mark Metzler, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Jersey Champ, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-10984 (D.
N.J., June 25, 2018) seeks declaratory judgment, monetary damages,
liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, costs and reasonable
attorney's fees under the Telephone Consumers' Protection Act.

Jersey Champ is into the manufacture and marketing of jerseys. It
engaged in sending SMS en masse to secure orders for its products,
without express prior consent from its recipients, says the
complaint. [BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Ross Howard Schmierer, Esq.
      DENITTIS OSEFCHEN PRINCE PC
      315 Madison Avenue 3rd Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Tel: (646) 979-3642
      Email: rschmierer@denittislaw.com


JUST BORN: Court Denies Bid to File Sur-Reply in Slack-Fill Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DARYL WHITE, JR., Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. JUST BORN, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-04025-NKL (W.D. Mo.), Judge Nanette K.
Laughrey of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Missouri, Central Division, denied both White's Motion for Class
Certification and the Defendant's Motion for Leave to File a
Sur-Reply.

The Defendant manufactures Hot Tamales(R) and Mike and Ike(R).  The
products are regularly sold at grocery stores, convenience stores,
and other food retail outlets throughout Missouri and the rest of
the United States.  The lawsuit focuses on Just Born's packaging of
the candy.

In December 2016, White bought a box of each candy for about $1
apiece at a Dollar Store in Missouri, for his personal use.  He
alleges that he attached importance to the size of the candy boxes,
and that he was misled to believe that he was purchasing more
Product than was actually received.  He alleges that the boxes are
uniformly under-filled or slack-filled; that the slack-filled space
serves no purpose; and that had he known the boxes were
substantially slack-filled, he would not have purchased the
products, or would have purchased them on different terms.  He also
alleges that he suffered an ascertainable loss as a result of Just
Born's unlawful conduct because the actual value of the Products as
purchased was less than the value of the Products as represented.

In February 2017, White filed the putative class action, alleging
violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act ("MMPA") and
unjust enrichment based on the slack-fill in Just Born's candy
packaging.  He seeks certification of three classes -- one
consisting of only Missouri residents for the MMPA claim, and two
consisting of residents from various states for the Unjust
Enrichment claims.

Specifically, White proposes the following classes:

     1. The Missouri Consumer Class defined as follows: All
Missouri residents who purchased a 5-ounce box of Hot Tamales candy
and/or a 5-ounce box of Mike and Ike candy for personal, family, or
household purposes within the relevant statute-of-limitations
period.

     2. The Unjust Enrichment (Restatement) Multi-State Class
defined as follows: All persons residing in Arkansas, Colorado,
Connecticut, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, New
York, Oklahoma, or West Virginia who purchased a 5-ounce box of Hot
Tamales candy and/or a 5-ounce box of Mike and Ike candy for their
personal or household use within the relevant
statute-of-limitations period.

     3. The Unjust Enrichment (Appreciation) Multi-State Class
defined as follows: All persons residing in Alaska, Florida,
Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nevada,
New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South
Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Washington, or Wisconsin who
purchased a 5-ounce box of Hot Tamales candy and/or a 5-ounce box
of Mike and Ike candy for their personal or household use within
the relevant statute-of-limitations period.

White also seeks to be appointed to serve as class representative
of all three classes, and to have his attorneys appointed to serve
as the class counsel.

Judge Laughrey finds that the proposed classes do not satisfy the
requirements of both the Rule 23(b)(3) and the 23(b)(2).  Because
individual questions would predominate over common questions on
White's MMPA claim, the Missouri Consumer Class cannot be
certified.  White's Unjust Enrichment Classes cannot be certified
for the same reason.  The unjust enrichment claims thus turn on
each individual class member's knowledge at the time of purchase.
Inquiries into each class member's knowledge would dominate
litigation over the unjust enrichment claim just as they would the
MMPA claim.

In addition, although White has offered an explanation for his
continued purchase of the candy over the course of five years, it
is likely that a significant portion of the proposed classes will
not be able to do the same.  Granting class certification to a
class consisting of individuals who likely do not have standing
would be inappropriate.

As to Just Born's move for leave to file a sur-reply, seeking an
opportunity to respond to new arguments raised by White in his
reply brief, the Judge resolved the motion for class certification
in Just Born's favor without relying on the new arguments raised by
White.  The sur-reply thus is unnecessary.

For the reasons discussed, Judge Laughrey denied both White's
Motion for Class Certification, and the Defendant's Motion for
Leave to File a Sur-Reply.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 7, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/8A7ZXu from Leagle.com.

Daryl White, Jr, Plaintiff, represented by Naomi B. Spector ,
KamberLaw LLP, pro hac vice, Scott A. Kamber --
skamber@kamberlaw.com -- pro hac vice, Stephen F. Gaunt --
sgaunt@steelmanandgaunt.com -- Steelman, Gaunt & Horsefield & David
L. Steelman -- dsteelman@steelmanandgaunt.com -- Steelman, Gaunt &
Horsefield.

Just Born, Inc., Defendant, represented by Alan L. Rupe --
Alan.Rupe@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith,
Eric Y. Kizirian, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith --
Leo.Bautista@lewisbrisbois.com -- pro hac vice & Leo A. Bautista --
Eric.Kizirian@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith,
pro hac vice.


KIDVILLE INC: Settlement Reached in James Murphy Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
The parties in the class action lawsuit captioned as, James Murphy,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Kidville, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06832
(S.D.N.Y., July 30, 2018), have reached a settlement of their
dispute and agreed to dismiss the case.

According to a docket entry, the parties on August 23, 2018,
reported to the Court that they have reached a settlement on all
issues in this case.  Judge Valerie E. Caproni on August 27 held
that the action will be dismissed without costs (including
attorneys' fees) to either party on September 21, unless before
that date one or more of the parties files a letter with the Court
requesting that the action not be dismissed and stating the reasons
why the Court should retain jurisdiction over this action in light
of the parties' settlement.  To be clear, any request that the
action not be dismissed must be filed on or before September 21;
any request filed thereafter may be denied solely on that basis. If
the parties wish for the Court to retain jurisdiction over their
settlement agreement, not later than September 14, they must submit
the settlement agreement to the Court in accordance with Rule 5.A
of the Court's Individual Practices, along with a request that the
Court issue an order expressly retaining jurisdiction to enforce
their settlement agreement. All deadlines and court conferences
previously scheduled in this matter are cancelled.

The suit alleges Americans with Disabilities Act violation.

Kidville, Inc. franchises facilities offering developmental
classes, indoor playgrounds, and a retail boutique for infants
through five year olds. The Company offers music, art, and exercise
classes and an alternative pre-school program.[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


KNORR-BREMSE: Lonergan Sues over No-Poach Deal
----------------------------------------------
Patricia Lonergan alleges that Knorr-Bremse AG and other rail
equipment companies unlawfully conspired to suppress Plaintiff's
and Class members' compensation, thus Plaintiff brought this action
to recover damages, including treble damages and other appropriate
relief.

Her case is an antitrust class action brought by and on behalf of
individuals who have performed work for Defendants, who are some of
the world's largest rail equipment suppliers and subsidiaries or
business units thereof. Rail equipment personnel, like personnel in
any labor market, benefit when their employers compete for their
services. Competition in the labor market creates leverage for
personnel, which in turn leads to higher wages and greater
mobility.

According to the lawsuit, from at least 2009 to on or around April
3, 2018, the Defendants, along with other unnamed individuals and
entities acting as co-conspirators, conspired not to recruit,
solicit, or hire without prior approval each other's personnel. The
No-Poach Conspiracy, which is a per se violation of Section 1 of
the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. section 1, limited Plaintiff's and Class
members' job mobility and suppressed their compensation below the
levels that would have been available absent the Conspiracy.

On April 3, 2018, the Defendants Knorr and Wabtec announced their
agreement to settle charges brought by the Department of Justice,
following the DOJ's investigation of the No-Poach Conspiracy. DOJ
charged and Defendants Knorr and Wabtec did not dispute that
Defendants' agreements were per se violations of the Sherman Act.
DOJ charged and Defendants did not dispute that these agreements
"were facially anticompetitive because they eliminated a
significant form of competition to attract skilled labor in the
U.S. rail industry." Specifically, the DOJ further charged and
Defendants did not dispute that "these agreements denied employees
access to better job opportunities, restricted their mobility, and
deprived them of competitively significant information that they
could have used to negotiate for better terms of employment."

The case is captioned, PATRICIA LONERGAN, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
KNORR-BREMSE AG Moosacher Str. 80 Munchen, 80809 Germany; KNORR
BRAKE COMPANY LLC 1 Arthur Peck Drive Westminster, Carroll County,
Maryland 21157; NEW YORK AIR BRAKE LLC, 748 Starbucks Avenue
Watertown, New York 13601; WESTINGHOUSE AIR BRAKE TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION, 1001 Air Brake Avenue Wilmerding, Pennsylvania 15148;
WABTEC PASSENGER TRANSIT P.O. Box 11 Spartanburg, South Carolina
29304; FAIVELEY TRANSPORT, S.A. 3, rue du 19 mars 1962 92230
Gennevilliers France; and FAIVELEY TRANSPORT NORTH AMERICA, INC. 50
Beechtree Boulevard Greenville, South Carolina 29605, the
Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-01086-JFC (D. Md., Aug. 22, 2018).

Knorr-Bremse is a manufacturer of braking systems for rail and
commercial vehicles that has operated in the field for over 110
years.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class:

          Paul Mark Sandler, Esq.
          Eric R. Harlan, Esq.
          SHAPIRO SHER GUINOT & SANDLER
          250 West Pratt Street, Suite 2000
          Baltimore, MD 21201
          Telephone: (410) 385 0202
          Facsimile: (410) 539 7611
          E-mail: pms@shapirosher.com
                  erh@shapirosher.com

               - and -

          Joseph R. Saveri, Esq.
          Steve N. Williams, Esq.
          Jiamin Chen, Esq.
          V Chai Oliver Prentice, Esq.
          JOSEPH SAVERI LAWFIRM, INC.
          601 California Street, Suite 1000
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 500 6800
          Facsimile: (415) 395 9940
          E-mail: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com
                  swilliams@saverilawfirm.com
                  jchen@saverilawfirm.com
                  vprentice@saverilawfirm.com


LANDMARK THEATRE: Burbon Class Suit Alleges ADA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Landmark Theatre
Corporation.  The case is captioned as Luc Burbon, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Landmark Theatre
Corporation, Case No. 1:18-cv-08155 (S.D.N.Y., September 6, 2018).

The lawsuit arises from alleged violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

Landmark Theatre Corporation owns and operates a chain of movie
theaters.  The Company offers on-site digital video disc sales,
specialized merchandise, film festivals, special events, business
meetings, and private screenings.[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


LOS ANGELES, CA: Class Certification Denied in Gonzalez-Tzita Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Leonardo Gonzalez-Tzita, the Plaintiff, v.
City of Los Angeles, et al., the Defendant, Case No.
2:16-cv-00194-FMO-E (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando M. Olguin
entered an order on August 22, 2018:

   1. denying without prejudice Plaintiffs' motion for class
      certification and preliminary approval of class settlement;

   2. directing Plaintiffs to file a revised motion for class
      certification and preliminary approval of settlement
      agreement;

   3. advising that failure to file the motion for preliminary
      approval by the deadline set by the court shall result in
      dismissal of the case for failure to prosecute and/or to
      comply with a court order; and

   4. directing Defendant to file a brief in support of the
      motion for preliminary approval.

The Court said, "Plaintiffs are advised that the court will not
consider the Motion unless it includes a discussion and evidentiary
support, where appropriate, regarding these issues:

   (A) All class certification requirements, including
       declarations from proposed class representatives as to the
       adequacy of their representation of the class;

   (B) Whether the settlement is within a range of possible
       judicial approval, including the fairness of its terms and
       settlement amount to the class members;

   (C) The arms-length negotiation of the settlement
       discussion(s), including whether, and to what extent, the
       proposed class representatives were involved in the
       negotiation(s);

   (D) Incentive payments and the standard set forth in Radcliffe
       v. Experian Info. Solutions Inc., 715 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir.
       2013), including:

          (i) declarations from the proposed class representatives
              regarding the time, risk, and burden carried by them
              in this action, and the benefit they provided to
              counsel and/or the class throughout the litigation;

         (ii) the distribution of payments and range of award
              amounts to class members; and

        (iii) whether the incentive payments are conditioned on
              approval of the settlement;

   (E) Adequacy of the class notice, including whether and how it
       fairly apprises the putative class members of the terms of
       the proposed settlement, and of the options available to
       them in connection with the settlement and court
       proceedings:

          (i) The court prefers that settlement agreement not
              require class members to submit objections to
              counsel, the class administrator, and the court.
              It suffices for objections to be submitted in
              writing to the court, since they will thereafter be
              available to the parties on the case docket once
              the objections are filed by the clerk of the court.

         (ii) In order to ease the burden on class members in
              exercising their rights under the proposed
              settlement agreement, the court prefers that the
              settlement agreement for submission of an opt-out
              or exclusion form, to be provided to class members
              by the settlement administrator;

   (F) How the settlement will be administered, including the
       proposed amount and cap to be paid to the settlement
       administrator; and

   (G) The parties should carefully evaluate the scope of the
       release of claims. With respect to absent class members,
       the court generally disfavors broad releases and waivers
       pursuant to California Civil Code section 1542.


MACHOL & JOHANNES: Blanks Sues Over Alleged FDCPA Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Machol & Johannes
LLC.  The case is styled as Alannah L. Blanks, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. Machol & Johannes LLC, Case
No. 1:18-cv-02291 (D. Col., September 6, 2018).

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

Machol & Johannes LLC operates as a collection law firm.  The
Company offers representation in the fields of collection,
bankruptcy, and creditor rights.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas John Lyons, Jr., Esq.
          CONSUMER JUSTICE CENTER, P.A.
          367 Commerce Court
          Vadnais Heights, MN 55127
          Telephone: (612) 200-1495
          Facsimile: (651) 704-0907
          E-mail: tommy@consumerjusticecenter.com


MADAME PAULETTE: Website Not Accessible, Wu Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------
KATHY WU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MADAME PAULETTE VALET SERVICES, INC.; MADAME
PAULETTE LIC, LLC; and MADAME PAULETTE INTERIORS, LLC; Defendants,
Case No. 1:18-cv-07359-RJS (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 14, 2018) is an action
against the Defendants for its failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants'
website, www.madamepaulette.com is not equally accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

Madame Paulette Valet Services, Inc., is a corporation registered
to do business in New York. The Company operates a retail high-end
dry cleaning services, bridal and designer gown alterations and
specialty tailor. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (212) 228-9795
          Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
          E-mail: danalgottlieb@aol.com
                  nyjg@aol.com


MARQUEE CINEMAS: Sued by Burbon for Violating Disabilities Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Marquee Cinemas, Inc.
The case is styled as Luc Burbon, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Marquee Cinemas, Inc., Case No.
1:18-cv-08158 (S.D.N.Y., September 6, 2018).

The Plaintiff alleges violations of the Americans with Disabilities
Act.

Marquee Cinemas, Inc., operates as a theater.  The Company
primarily engages in the indoor exhibition of motion pictures,
digital projection, and theatre rental programs.[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


MCKINSEY & CO: Sullivan Alleges Disabilities Act Violation
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against McKinsey & Company,
Inc. The class action is captioned as Phillip Sullivan, Jr., on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff,
v. McKinsey & Company, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-07623
(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 21, 2018).  The suit alleges Americans with
Disabilities Act violation.

McKinsey & Company is an American worldwide management consulting
firm. It conducts qualitative and quantitative analysis to evaluate
management decisions across the public and private sectors.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


MDL 1203: Denial of Browning's Level 2 Matrix Benefits Claim Upheld
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: DIET DRUGS
(PHENTERMINE/FENFLURAMINE/DEXFENFLURAMINE) PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION. THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: SHEILA BROWN, et al., v.
AMERICAN HOME PRODUCTS CORPORATION, MDL No. 1203, Civil Action No.
99-20593, No. 2:16 MD 1203 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Harvey Bartle, III of
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
affirmed AHP Settlement Trust's denial of Debra K. Brownin's claim
for Matrix A-1, Level II benefits.

Miss Browning, a class member under the Diet Drug Nationwide Class
Action Settlement Agreement with Wyeth, seeks benefits from
theTrust.  Based on the record developed in the show cause process,
the Judge must determine whether claimant has demonstrated a
reasonable medical basis to support her claim for Matrix
Compensation Benefits.

To seek Matrix Benefits, a claimant must first submit a completed
Green Form to the Trust.  The Green Form consists of three parts.
The claimant or the claimant's representative completes Part I of
the Green Form.  Part II is completed by the claimant's attesting
physician, who must answer a series of questions concerning the
claimant's medical condition that correlate to the Matrix criteria
set forth in the Settlement Agreement.  Finally, the claimant's
attorney must complete Part III if claimant is represented.

In November 2015, the claimant submitted a completed Green Form to
the Trust signed by her attesting physician, Richard DiNardo, D.O.,
F.A.C.C.  Based on an echocardiogram dated Aug. 5, 2015,4 Dr.
DiNardo attested in Part II of Ms. Browning's Green Form that
claimant suffered from moderate mitral regurgitation, an abnormal
left atrial dimension, and a reduced ejection fraction in the range
of 50% to 60%.  Based on such findings, claimant would be entitled
to Matrix A-1, Level II benefits in the amount of $604,808.

In February 2016, the Trust forwarded the claim for review by Zuyue
Wang, M.D., one of its auditing cardiologists.  In the audit, Dr.
Wang concluded that there was no reasonable medical basis for
finding that claimant had moderate mitral regurgitation because she
determined that claimant's Aug. 5, 2015 echocardiogram only
demonstrated mild mitral regurgitation.  In particular, she stated,
RJA/LAA = 2.8/15.4 = 18%.  Under the definition set forth in the
Settlement Agreement, moderate or greater mitral regurgitation is
present where the regurgitant jet area ("RJA") in any apical view
is equal to or greater than 20% of the left atrial area ("LAA").

Based on the auditing cardiologist's findings, the Trust issued a
post-audit determination denying Ms. Browning's claim.  Pursuant to
the Rules for the Audit of Matrix Compensation Claims, the claimant
contested this adverse determination.  In contest, Ms. Browning
argued that there was a reasonable medical basis for finding that
her Aug. 5, 2015 echocardiogram demonstrated moderate mitral
regurgitation.

In response, the Trust argues that Ms. Browning's challenges to Dr.
Wang's credibility are unsupported.  The Trust also contends that
the applicable burden of proof is whether a reasonable medical
basis exists for the Green Form representation at issue, not who
can collect more expert opinions.  The Trust notes that while Dr.
DiNardo said that reasonable, competent doctors can differ in their
opinions, he did not identify any error in Dr. Wang's measurement
of mitral regurgitation on the Aug. 5, 2015 echocardiogram.
Finally, the Trust argues that Dr. McLean's mere disagreement with
Dr. Wang is not sufficient to carry the claimant's burden.

The Technical Advisor, Dr. Vigilante, reviewed the claimant's
echocardiograms and concluded that there was no reasonable medical
basis for finding that Ms. Browning had moderate mitral
regurgitation.

In her response to the Technical Advisor Report, Ms. Browning
argues that each of the physicians who have reviewed her
echocardiograms have provided different measurements of the level
of her mitral regurgitation.  In addition, she contends that the
court should take into consideration that she has been harmed by
Diet Drugs, that whether she has mild or moderate mitral
regurgitation is a close question, that she likely will need mitral
surgery in the future, and that she had aortic valve surgery after
the deadline to submit a claim for Matrix Benefits.

After reviewing the entire show cause record, Judge bartle finds
that Ms. Browning's arguments are without merit.  As an initial
matter, the claimant's attempt to refute the specific conclusions
of the auditing cardiologist and the Technical Advisor falls short.
Although she submitted statements from a number of cardiologists,
neither claimant nor her experts identified any specific errors in
the conclusions of the auditing cardiologist.  In fact, they simply
provided their own measurements of Ms. Browning's RJA/LAA, and her
attesting physician even observed that the level of Ms. Browning's
mitral regurgitation is near the border.  Mere disagreement with
the auditing cardiologist or the Technical Advisor without
identifying specific errors by them is insufficient to meet a
claimant's burden of proof.

In addition, he finds that the claimant's reliance on inter-reader
variability to establish a reasonable medical basis for the
attesting physician's representation that Ms. Browning had moderate
mitral regurgitation is misplaced.  The concept of inter-reader
variability is encompassed in the reasonable medical basis standard
applicable to claims under the Settlement Agreement.  

In this instance, the attesting physician's opinion cannot be
medically reasonable when the auditing cardiologist and the
Technical Advisor concluded that claimant's RJA/LAA ratio was less
than 20%, both visually and by measurement.  Adopting claimant's
argument that inter-reader variability expands the range of
moderate mitral regurgitation would allow a claimant to recover
Matrix Benefits with an RJA/LAA ratio that does not meet the
definition under the Settlement Agreement and would render
meaningless this critical provision of the Settlement Agreement.

Finally, contrary to the suggestion of Ms. Browning, causation of
her medical condition is not at issue in resolving her claim for
Matrix benefits.  Rather, claimant is required to show that she
meets the objective criteria set forth in the Settlement Agreement.


For these reasons, Judge Bartle concludes that Ms. Browning has not
met her burden of proving that there is a reasonable medical basis
for finding that she had moderate mitral regurgitation.  Therefore,
he affirmed the Trust's denial of her claim for Matrix A-1, Level
II benefits.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 7, 2018 Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/h8tKWC from Leagle.com.

WILLIAMS DAILEY, Special Master, represented by MICHAEL L.
WILLIAMS, WILLIAMS O'LEARY LLC.

VIVIAN NAUGLE, QUINTIN LAYER, Plaintiffs, represented by ARNOLD
LEVIN -- alevin@lfsblaw.com -- LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN, CHRISTOPHER
MICHAEL PLACITELLA -- cplacitella@cprlaw.com -- COHEN PLACITELLA &
ROTH PC, DIANNE M. NAST -- dnast@nastlaw.com -- NASTLAW LLC, GENE
LOCKS -- glocks@lockslaw.com -- LOCKS LAW FIRM PLLC, JOHN J.
CUMMINGS, III, CUMMINGS CUMMINGS & DUDENHEFER, MARK W. TANNER --
mtanner@feldmanshepherd.com -- FELDMAN, SHEPHERD, WOHLGELERNTER,
TANNER & WEINSTOCK, MICHAEL D. FISHBEIN, LEVIN, FISHBEIN, SEDRAN &
BERMAN, RICHARD S. LEWIS -- rlewis@hausfeld.com -- HAUSFELD LLP,
RICHARD S. WAYNE -- rswayne@strausstroy.com -- STRAUSS & TROY,
ROBERT ERIC KENNEDY, WEISMAN, KENNEDY & BERRIS, SOL H. WEISS --
sweiss@anapolweiss.com -- ANAPOL WEISS & STANLEY M. CHESLEY, WAITE,
SCHNEIDER, BAYLESS & CHESLEY CO., L.P.A..

JOAN S. LAYER, Plaintiff, represented by SOL H. WEISS, ANAPOL
WEISS.

BRENDA CHAMBERS, ISABEL CONNOR, RANDY G. ALLEN, Appellants,
represented by ARNOLD LEVIN, LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN.

CHARLENE ALLSPAUGH, Appellant, pro se.

DORIS ATANMO, Appellant, pro se.

EVELYN AMEND, Appellant, pro se.

JOAN BAKANOWSKY, Appellant, pro se.

STEVEN BERKOWITZ, Appellant, pro se.

KATHY BURROW, Appellant, pro se.

LINDA BUSBY, Appellant, pro se.

JO BUTTERFIELD, Appellant, pro se.

LINDA CASTON, Appellant, pro se.

AMERICAN HOME PRODUCTS CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by
Andrew A. Chirls, Esq. -- achirls@finemanlawfirm.com -- FINEMAN
KREKSTEIN & HARRIS PC; Kevin A. Cline, Esq. --
kevin.cline@aporter.com -- ARNOLD & PORTER LLP; Leslie Anne
Benitez, Esq. --
lbenitez@gordonrees.com -- GORDON & REES LLP; Edward F. Hanover,
III, Esq. -- ehanover@reedsmith.com --  Louis W. Schack, Esq. --
lschack@reedsmith.com -- and Milind M. Shah, Esq. --
mshah@reedsmith.com -- REED SMITH LLP.

AMERICAN HOME PRODUCTS CORPORATION, Defendant, pro se.


MDL 2100: Ct. Rules in Favor of Lead Counsel in Breach of Duty Row
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Illinois granted Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
in the case captioned JESSICA CASEY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ROGER
DENTON, et al., Defendants. Case No. 3:17-cv-00521. (S.D. Cal.).

Plaintiffs Jessica Casey, Melody Edwards, and Debbie Foster bring
their amended class action complaint for reasons stemming from the
multidistrict litigation centralized in this Court, In re Yasmin
and YAZ (Drospirenone) Marketing, Sales Practices and Products
Liability Litigation, MDL 2100, No. 3:09-md-02100-DRH-CJP (MDL or
Yaz MDL).

The Yaz MDL consolidated personal injury lawsuits relating to
various plaintiffs' use of Bayer Corporation-manufactured oral
birth control, including YAZ, Yasmin, and the generic equivalent,
Gianvi. More than 11,000 suits were consolidated into the Yaz MDL.
According to YazMDL plaintiffs, the contraceptives caused their
varying injuries as a result of thrombotic events triggered by the
components used to make the drugs.

In their Complaint, the plaintiffs allege that Lead and Liaison
Counsel breached purported fiduciary duties by failing to address
(or failing to delegate) the directives laid out in CMO No. 79.
With regards to the Lead and Liaison Counsel Defendants, the
plaintiffs specifically allege that fiduciary duties were breached
by failing to determine the plaintiffs' statuses and obtaining
their medical records and completing their Fact Sheets in
accordance with CMO No. 79; failing to submit certificates of
compliance for the plaintiffs as determined in CMO No. 79; failing
to provide case-specific expert reports as required by CMO No. 79;
and to the crux of this dispute, failing to respond to Bayer's
motions to dismiss each plaintiffs' individual case.

Lead and Liaison Counsel's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

Lead and Liaison Counsel Defendants argue that the plaintiffs'
position turns MDL leadership counsel into the individual attorneys
for all cases comprising an MDL; here, in the Yaz MDL, some 11,000
lawsuits. The Lead and Liaison Counsel argue this position is not
supported by the specific responsibilities and tasks imposed on
them by this Court via Order No. 2 and further, that the plaintiffs
have presented no facts that demonstrate the Lead and Liaison
Counsel had fiduciary duties relating to the plaintiffs' individual
cases as no attorney-client relationship existed between the Lead
and Liaison Counsel Defendants and the plaintiffs.

COUNT I - BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTIES AGAINST LEAD AND LIASION
COUNSEL

Order No. 2

To prevail on a breach of fiduciary duty claim, a plaintiff must
prove (1) that a fiduciary duty exists; (2) that the fiduciary duty
was breached; and (3) damages proximately caused by that breach.

Here, Order No. 2 very clearly sets out what responsibilities the
Lead and Liaison Counsel Defendants owed to the plaintiffs and it
is clear from the text that Order No. 2 only imposed tasks geared
towards facilitating general work product that could be used for
the common good of all the plaintiffs. Examples of some of these
specific duties include: Coordination of a document depository,
real or virtual, to be available to all participating plaintiffs'
counsel; to prepare agendas for court conferences; conduct all
discovery in a coordinated and consolidated manner on behalf and
for the benefit of all plaintiffs; explore, develop and pursue all
settlement options pertaining to any claim or portion thereof;
maintain adequate files of all pretrial matters.

Clearly, responding to the specific directives of CMO No. 79 on
behalf of a small section of individual plaintiffs was never a duty
contemplated under Order No. 2. This is made clearer even further,
by the plaintiffs CMO No. 79 applied to being represented by their
own individual attorneys and Bayer's Orders to dismiss the same
group of plaintiffs being filed in individual dockets.

Function and Purpose of MDL Leadership Counsel

Here, the undersigned selected and appointed Lead and Liaison
Counsel specifically to aid in the fair, efficient, and economical
running of the Yaz MDL; their duties to the plaintiffs enumerated
in Order No. 2. These specific duties were established with the
goal of leadership counsel coordinating general pretrial discovery
and related tasks pertinent to all Yaz filings and to avoid
duplicate filings from many individually-retained attorneys. It was
never the intention or spirit of Order No. 2 to supersede the
authority or importance of each plaintiff's individually-retained
counsel when it came to specific matters unique to each case.

Limited Fiduciary Relationship between MDL Plaintiffs and
Leadership Counsel

It is clear that while the Lead and Liaison Counsel Defendants did
have specific duties owed to the plaintiffs as a whole in the Yaz
MDL as listed in Order No. 2, none of those duties encompass the
general breadth the plaintiffs would like read in to it that is,
having lead counsel held responsible to responding to case-specific
case management orders or filing responses to defendants' motions
pertinent only to individual cases. However, this is not to say
that no fiduciary duties potentially arise between the two groups
when counsel fills leadership roles.

Indeed, instead of how the plaintiffs purport the relationship
functions, the fiduciary duties that may be created and owed by
leadership counsel in an MDL context include obligations to act
fairly, efficiently, and economically in the interests of all
parties and parties' counsel. Put differently, lead and liaison
counsel do not owe a fiduciary duty to each and every MDL plaintiff
in the traditional sense. Rather, lead and liaison counsel should
put the common and collective interests of all the plaintiffs first
while they carry out their enumerated functions. This is a far cry
from making leadership counsel liable to respond to every
individual motion and request filed in each singular case.

Plaintiffs' Interpretation of the Scope of Leadership Counsel
Duties Makes Such Positions Unworkable

Order No. 2 imposed duties on leadership counsel common to all Yaz
MDL plaintiffs and a claim against Lead and Liaison Counsel can
only stand if the alleged breach falls within the scope of the
purported duty. Were Order No. 2 to make leadership counsel
responsible for all tasks typically created and agreed upon in a
standard attorney-client relationship, like, as alleged here,
obtaining medical authorizations or records or obtaining
case-specific experts for every distinct plaintiff, there would be
no need for any of the individually retained attorneys and reading
that interpretation into the Court's Order makes little sense.
Leadership counsel of a MDL could not fathomably be held
responsible for the minute details of hundreds or in this case,
thousands, of individual cases. The proposition is unworkable.

COUNT II - RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR CLAIM AGAINST LEAD AND LIAISON
COUNSEL DEFENDANTS' RESPECTIVE LAW FIRMS

Based on the Court's analysis finding no breach of fiduciary duty
against the Lead and Liaison Counsel Defendants, the Court also
finds, by necessity, that the plaintiffs' respondeat superior claim
fails as it derives from the legally deficient first count.
Accordingly, Lead and Liaison Counsel Defendants are also entitled
to judgment on the pleadings as to Count 2 of the amended
complaint.

Accordingly, the Court grants Lead and Liaison Counsel's Rule 12(c)
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, in its entirety

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 3, 2018
Memorandum and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ydgozmom
from Leagle.com.

Jessica Casey, individually,on behalf of themselves all others
similarly situated, Melody Edwards, individually,on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated & Debbie Foster,
individually, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Kevin B. Rogers, Law Office of
Kevin Rogers.

Daniel P. Massey, individually & Daniel Massey Law Firm, P.C.,
Defendants, represented by Jeannine S. Gilleran, Litchfield Cavo
LLP & Mitchell H. Frazen, Litchfield Cavo LLP.

David M. Peterson, individually & Peterson & Associates, P.C.,
Defendants, represented by James M. Brodzik --
jbrodzik@hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP & Mark D.
Bauman -- mbauman@hinshawla.com -- Hinshaw & Culbertson.

Gregory McEwen, individually & McEwen Law Firm, Ltd., Defendants,
represented by A. J. Bronsky -- abronsky@bjpc.com -- Brown & James
& Todd A. Lubben -- tlubben@bjpc.com -- Brown & James.


MDL 2804: Sardella vs Purdue Pharma et al. Goes to N.D. Ohio
------------------------------------------------------------
LOU SARDELLA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Purdue Pharma L.P., Purdue Pharma Inc.;
Cephalon Inc.; Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.; Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.; Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Johnson &
Johnson; Noramco Inc.; Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
now known as Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Janssen Pharmaceutical
Inc., now known as Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Endo Health
Solutions Inc.; Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Allergan PLC, formerly
known as: Actavis PLS; Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., now known as
Actavis Inc.; Watson Laboratories Inc.; Actavis Pharma, Inc.,
formerly known as: Watson Pharma, Inc.; Actavis LLC; Mallinckrodt
PLC; Mallinckrodt LLC; McKesson Corporation; Cardinal Health Inc.;
merisourceBergen Drug Corporation; and Purdue Frederick Company,
Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-08706, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (Cleveland) on
Aug. 22, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:18-op-45995-DAP to the proceeding.

The Sardella case is being consolidated with MDL 2804 in re:
NATIONAL PRESCRIPTION OPIATE LITIGATION. The MDL was created by
Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation on December 5, 2017. These cases concern the alleged
improper marketing of and inappropriate distribution of various
prescription opiate medications into cities, states and towns
across the country. Responding plaintiffs' positions on
centralization vary considerably.

Plaintiffs in over 40 actions or potential tag-along actions
support centralization. Plaintiffs in 15 actions or potential
tag-along actions oppose centralization altogether or oppose
transfer of their action. In addition to opposing transfer, the
State of West Virginia suggests that the Panel delay transferring
its case until the Southern District of West Virginia court decides
its motion to remand to state court.

Third party payor plaintiffs in an Eastern District of Pennsylvania
potential tag-along action (Philadelphia Teachers Health and
Welfare Fund) oppose centralization of third partypayor actions.
Western District of Washington plaintiff City of Everett opposes
centralization and, alternatively, requests exclusion of its case.
Northern District of Illinois tag-along Plaintiff City of Chicago
asks the Panel to defer transfer of its action until document
discovery is completed. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Sarah S.
Vance, United States District Judge. The lead case is
1:17-md-02804-DAP.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric H. Jaso, Esq.
          Spiro Harrison, Esq.
          830 Morris Turnpike, Second Floor
          Short Hills, NJ 07078
          Telephone: (973) 310 4026
          Facsimile: (973) 232 0887
          E-mail: ejaso@spiroharrison.com

Attorneys for Johnson & Johnson and Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.:

          Eric Todd Kanefsky, Esq.
          CALCAGNI & KANEFSKY
          One Newark Center
          1085 Raymond Blvd., 14th Floor
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (862) 397 1796
          E-mail: eric@ck-litigation.com


MEC GENERAL: Londono Seeks Overtime Wages under Labor Law
---------------------------------------------------------
Oscar Londono, individually and on behalf of all other employees
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MEC General Construction
Corp., MEC General Development Corporation, MEC General, Inc., MEC
SUMMONS General Dry Wall Corp., Edmilson Delima a/k/a Eddie,
Roselia Delima, and Marcos Benigno, the Defendants, Case No.
712944/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Aug. 21, 2018), seeks to recover
overtime wages, damages for failure to provide wage statements,
damages for failure to provide wage notice at the time of hiring,
liquidated damages, interest, costs, and attorneys' fees from the
Defendants for alleged violations of the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked for Defendants in
excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate compensation for
the hours worked over 40 per week that he worked. The Defendants
failed to maintain accurate records of the hours Plaintiff worked,
failed to pay Plaintiff appropriately for any hours worked over 40,
whether at the straight rate of pay, or for any additional overtime
premium. The Defendants allegedly maintained a policy and practice
of requiring Plaintiff to work in excess of 40 hours per week
without providing overtime compensation required by New York State
law and regulations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lorena P. Duarte, Esq.
          HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
          136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 10G
          Flushing, NY 11354
          Telephone: (718) 353 8588


MENARD INC: Removes Scheffler Suit to D. Minnesota
--------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of TROY K. SCHEFFLER, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MENARD, INC.,
Defendant, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Second
Judicial District of the State of Minnesota, County of Ramsey (Case
No. 62-CV-18-05280) to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota on August 14, 2018, and assigned Case No.
0:18-cv-02373-SRN-LIB (D. Minn., Aug. 14, 2018). The case is
assigned to Judge Susan Richard Nelson and referred to Magistrate
Judge Leo I. Brisbois.

Menard, Inc. operates a chain of home improvement stores in the
Midwestern United States. The company was founded in 1958 and is
headquartered in Eau Claire, Wisconsin with store locations in
Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota,
Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wyoming.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented pro se.

          Beth Louise LaCanne, Esq.
          Jessica C. Richardson, Esq.
          Steven E Tomsche, Esq.
          TOMSCHE SONNESYN & TOMSCHE, P.A.
          8401 Golden Valley Road, Suite 250
          Golden Valley, MN 55427
          Telephone: (763) 521-4499
          Facsimile: (763) 521-4482
          E-mail: blacanne@tstlaw.com
                  jrichardson@tstlaw.com
                  stomsche@tstlaw.com


METROPCS NEW YORK: James Murphy Suit Underway
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against MetroPCS New York,
LLC.  The class action lawsuit is captioned as James Murphy, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff,
v. MetroPCS New York, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06831
(S.D.N.Y., July 30, 2018). The suit alleges Americans with
Disabilities Act violation.

MetroPCS filed its Answer to the complaint on September 7.

MetroPCS New York, LLC operates as a subsidiary of T-Mobile
Northeast LLC.[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


MOSES H CONE: N.C. App. Affirms Dismissal of Awartani Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANNAH AWARTANI; GILMA VARINIA BONILLA; CRYSTAL KIM
PARKER, individually and for others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v. THE MOSES H. CONE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL OPERATING CORPORATION,
Defendant, Case No. COA17-1300 (N.C. App.), Judge Richard Dietz of
the Court of Appeals of North Carolina affirmed the trial court's
dismissal of the Plaintiffs' putative class action.

The Plaintiffs appeal the trial court's dismissal of their putative
class action against the Defendant.  The theory of their lawsuit is
that the doctrine of necessaries -- a legal principle that makes a
spouse liable for the other spouse's medical expenses -- violates
the Women's Property Clause of the North Carolina Constitution,
which provides that a woman's property cannot be subject to debts
incurred by her husband.

After the trial court dismissed their claims, the Plaintiffs sought
to bypass the Appellate Court and have the state Supreme Court hear
the case directly through discretionary review.  They also asked
the Supreme Court, alternatively, to exercise its supervisory
authority and instruct the Appellate Court to ignore its earlier
precedent because without such direction from the Court, it seems
likely that no Court of Appeals panel will engage with the
constitutional issues.  The Supreme Court denied their requests.

The Plaintiffs took these unusual steps in the Supreme Court
because the Appellate Court already addressed their legal theory
several years ago.  In Moses H. Cone Mem'l Hosp. Operating Corp. v.
Hawley, it rejected the argument that the doctrine of necessaries
was inconsistent with article X, section 4 of the N.C.
Constitution.

Judge Dietz holds that many decisions of the Court, given their
caseload, lack the depth of analysis typical of the Supreme Court's
decisions.  If this lack of legal analysis on its own deprived an
opinion of precedential value, much of their jurisprudence suddenly
would cease to be controlling.  He declines the Plaintiffs'
invitation to unsettle so much of their own precedent.  What
matters is not the quality of Hawley's legal reasoning, but that
Hawley considered and rejected the same constitutional argument
that the Plaintiffs assert.

Accordingly, bound by their decision in Hawley, Judge Dietz
rejected the Plaintiffs' argument and affirmed the trial court.  If
the Plaintiffs desire further review of the constitutional issue,
they must seek relief from the Supreme Court.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 7, 2018 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/OMvRAd from Leagle.com.

Brooks, Pierce, McLendon, Humphrey & Leonard, L.L.P., by Daniel F.
E. Smith -- dsmith@brookspierce.com -- Robert J. King III --
rking@brookspierce.com -- and Elizabeth Troutman --
etroutman@brookspierce.com -- for plaintiffs-appellants.

Smith Moore Leatherwood LLP, by Matthew Nis Leerberg --
matt.leerberg@smithmoorelaw.com -- and Maureen Demarest Murray --
maureen.murray@smithmoorelaw.com -- for defendant-appellee.


MSG SPORTS: Murphy Drops Suit over Disabilities Act Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as, James Murphy, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MSG Sports &
Entertainment, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06830-VSB
(S.D.N.Y., July 30, 2018), the Plaintiff filed on September 4,
2018, a notice of voluntary dismissal, without prejudice and
without costs against the defendant.

The suit alleged Americans with Disabilities Act violation.

The Madison Square Garden Company is an American sports and
entertainment holding company based in New York City.[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


NATIONAL AMUSEMENTS: Faces Burbon Suit Asserting ADA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Amusements,
Inc.  The case is captioned as Luc Burbon, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. National Amusements, Inc., doing
business as: Showcase Cinemas, Case No. 1:18-cv-08159 (S.D.N.Y.,
September 6, 2018).

The Plaintiff alleges violations of the Americans with Disabilities
Act.

National Amusements Inc., doing business as Showcase Cinemas,
operates as a motion picture exhibition company.  The Company also
provides online ticketing, restaurant, and bar services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NATIONAL RESEARCH: Still Defends Suits in Nebraska and Wisconsin
----------------------------------------------------------------
National Research Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2018, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the company
continues to defend against a class action lawsuit filed in
Nebraska and Wisconsin.

Since the September 2017 announcement of the original proposed
recapitalization plan ("Original Transaction"), three purported
class action and/or derivative complaints have been filed in state
or federal courts by three individuals claiming to be shareholders
of the Company.

All of the complaints name as defendants the Company and the
individual directors of the Company. Two of these lawsuits were
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Nebraska, a putative class action lawsuit captioned Gennaro v.
National Research Corporation, et al., which was filed on November
15, 2017, and a putative class and derivative action lawsuit
captioned Gerson v. Hays, et al., which was filed on November 16,
2017. These lawsuits were consolidated by order of the federal
court under the caption In re National Research Corporation
Shareholder Litigation.

A third lawsuit was filed in the Circuit Court for Milwaukee
County, Wisconsin, a putative class action lawsuit captioned Apfel
v. Hays, et al., which was filed on December 1, 2017.

The allegations in all of the lawsuits were very similar. The
plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that the defendants
breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the allegedly
unfair proposed transaction, at an allegedly unfair price,
conducted in an allegedly unfair and conflicted process and in
alleged violation of Wisconsin law and the Company's Articles of
Incorporation.

The plaintiffs in these lawsuits sought, among other things, an
injunction enjoining the defendants from consummating the Original
Transaction, damages, equitable relief and an award of attorneys'
fees and costs of litigation. After the announcement of a revised
proposed recapitalization plan (the "Recapitalization"), the
plaintiffs abandoned their efforts to enjoin the transaction.
However, the plaintiffs in In re National Research Corporation
Shareholder Litigation in Nebraska filed an Amended Complaint on
March 23, 2018 seeking damages for alleged breach of fiduciary
duties in connection with the Original Transaction and alleged
omission of material facts in the proxy statement relating to the
Recapitalization. The plaintiffs in the Apfel case in Wisconsin
filed an amended complaint on April 4, 2018 seeking damages for
alleged breach of fiduciary duties in connection with the Original
Transaction and the Recapitalization.

National Research said, "The Company and its directors will defend
themselves against these lawsuits vigorously, and have moved to
dismiss both lawsuits. These motions are pending. As of June 30,
2018, no losses have been accrued as the Company does not believe
the losses are probable or estimable."

National Research Corporation provides analytics and insights that
facilitate measurement and enhancement of the patient and employee
experience in the United States and Canada. The company was founded
in 1981 and is headquartered in Lincoln, Nebraska.


NESTLE USA: Pretrial Conference in Murphy Suit Set for Oct. 10
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nestle USA, Inc. The
class action lawsuit is captioned as James Murphy, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Nestle
USA, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06833 (S.D.N.Y., July
30, 2018). The suit alleges Americans with Disabilities Act
violation.

An Initial Pretrial Conference is set for October 10 at 9:30 a.m.
in Courtroom 11A, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge
George B. Daniels.

Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses is designated to the case.

Nestle USA produces and markets food and beverage products in the
United States.[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


NEW RIVER HOSPITALITY: Needelman Sues Over Illegal SMS Ads
----------------------------------------------------------
Alexander Needelman, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. New River Hospitality Holdings,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-22577, (S.D. Fla., June 26, 2018),
seeks statutory damages and any other available legal or equitable
remedies pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Defendant operates a restaurant in Fort Lauderdale FL. To promote
its services, Defendant engages in unsolicited SMS marketing.

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
      Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com


NORTH AMERICAN BANCARD: Amended Bid to Certify Junk Fax Class OK'd
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, WEST LOOP CHIROPRACTIC & SPORTS INJURY CENTER, LTD.,
and WEST LOOP HEALTH & SPORTS PERFORMANCE CENTER, LLC, on behalf of
plaintiffs and the class members defined herein, Plaintiffs, v.
NORTH AMERICAN BANCARD, LLC, and JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case
No. 16 C 5856 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Ronald A. Guzman of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division, granted the Plaintiffs' amended motion for class
certification.

The case is a "junk fax" case.  After allegedly having received
unsolicited facsimile advertisements for NAB's goods and services,
Plaintiffs West Loop Chiropractic and West Loop Health brought the
putative class action against NAB for violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA").

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the Plaintiffs move for
certification of a class of all persons with fax numbers, who
during the Class Period, were sent faxes by or on behalf of NAB
promoting its goods or services for sale.  The "Class Period" is
defined as April 6, 8, 12, 18, 20, 25, 26, 27, and 28; May 4, 9,
12, 20, 25, and 26; June 8 and 23; and Aug. 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12,
18, and 23, 2016.

After the Court referred the Plaintiffs' amended motion to
Magistrate Judge Gilbert, Judge Gilbert issued a Report and
Recommendation recommending that the Court grants the motion.  NAB
filed objections to the Report and Recommendation pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72.  

NAB first argues that Judge Gilbert erred by concluding that the
Plaintiffs have satisfied the numerosity requirement.  Judge Guzman
agrees with Judge Gilbert's well-reasoned analysis and his
conclusion that the Plaintiffs have demonstrated numerosity.  The
Plaintiffs have made the showing that it is reasonable to believe
that a substantial number of those faxes were sent by MPP on behalf
of NAB.  Judge Gilbert did reason that the number of faxes sent
during the Class Period equates to approximately one or one-half
minute per transmission, which is not consistent with
individualized transactions with consent.  Judge Guzman agrees and
therefore will overrule NAB's Objection #1.

Judge Gilbert concluded that the Plaintiffs have satisfied the
commonality and typicality requirements because each of the
putative class members has been subjected to the same practice as
the Plaintiffs, namely, was sent a fax on NAB's behalf that
promoted NAB's goods and services, and common questions in similar
TCPA cases include whether a given fax is an advertisement under
the statute.  Judge Guzman agrees.  The Plaintiffs have submitted
evidence that they did not consent to receive the NAB faxes, as
well as evidence that the faxing activity was broadcasting -- mass
advertising -- which lends itself to a common adjudication of the
consent issue.  Therefore, he will overrule NAB's Objection #2.

He also will overruled Objection #3.  NAB objects to the conclusion
that the Plaintiffs can serve as adequate representatives, on the
ground that the consent defense applies to them. He finds that the
Plaintiffs are adequate class representatives.

He agrees with Judge Gilbert's determination that because NAB
offers only vague assertions and not specific evidence to show that
a significant percentage of the putative class members consented to
receive the NAB faxes, there is no basis to conclude that
individualized issues of consent will predominate over common
questions.  Accordingly, he will overrule Objection #4.

After de novo review of the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification, the filings submitted with respect to the motion,
the Report and Recommendation, the Objections, and the materials
filed with respect to the Objections, the Judge determines that the
Report and Recommendation was correct in all respects.
Accordingly, he adopted the Report and Recommendation in full and
granted the Plaintiffs' amended motion for class certification.  A
status hearing is set for Aug. 21, 2018, at 9:30 a.m. to discuss
the next steps in the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 7, 2018 Memorandum Opinion and
Order is available at https://is.gd/hNxFW0 from Leagle.com.

West Loop Chiropractic & Sports Injury Center, Ltd., on behalf of
plaintiffs and the class members defined herin & West Loop Health &
Sports Performance Center, LLC, on behalf of plaintiffs and the
class members defined herin, Plaintiffs, represented by Daniel A.
Edelman -- dedelman@edcombs.com -- Edelman, Combs, Latturner &
Goodwin LLC, Cathleen M. Combs, Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin
LLC, Heather A. Kolbus, Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC &
James O. Latturner, Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin LLC.

North American Bancard, LLC, Defendant, represented by Beth-Ann E.
Krimsky -- beth-ann.krimsky@gmlaw.com -- Greenspoon Marder P.a.,
pro hac vice, Lawren Zann -- lawren.zann@gmlaw.com -- Greenspoon
Marder, Pa, pro hac vice & Timothy A. Hudson --
thudson@tdrlawfirm.com -- Tabet DiVito Rothstein.


NORTH AMERICAN POWER: Settlement in Edwards Has Final Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PAUL EDWARDS, GERRY WENDROVSKY, SANDRA DESROSIERS, and
LINDA SOFFRON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. NORTH AMERICAN POWER & GAS, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 3:14-cv-01714 (VAB) (D. Conn.), Judge Victor
A. Bolden of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of
Class Action Settlement.

Paul Edwards, on behalf of himself and all persons similarly
situated, filed the initial Class Action Complaint, alleging that
North American Power & Gas ("NAPG") falsely advertised low rates in
order to induce customers into switching their energy provider.
The Plaintiffs claim that NAPG expressly breached its contracts
with class members, as well as the covenant of good faith and fair
dealing, by allegedly advertising its variable rates would
fluctuate with the market but failing to do so.  Additionally,
several of the the Plaintiffs allege violations of the Connecticut
Unfair Trade Practices Act ("CUTPA") on behalf of a putative
sub-class.

Following settlement discussions between the parties in the action
and those pending elsewhere, the parties reached a settlement under
which they intend to resolve five cases involving NAPG's alleged
misrepresentations.  The proposed settlement would involve the
claims of the class members in 11 states for breach of contract and
alleged violation of state consumer protection laws.

After notifying the Court of the proposed settlement, the
Plaintiffs moved for preliminary approval on Jan. 16, 2018.  The
Court granted preliminary approval on March 30, 2018.

The Plaintiffs now move for final approval of the class action
settlement.  They seek the following: (i) certification of the
settlement class; (ii) appointment of the Plaintiffs as
representatives of the class; (iii) appointment of their lawyers as
the class counsel; (iv) approval of the Class Action Settlement;
and, (v) approval of their proposed attorneys' fees and expenses.

The Court took the motion under advisement at a final fairness
hearing, held on Aug. 1, 2018.  Upon reviewing the Settlement
Agreement, all the filings submitted in connection with the motion,
and the information presented at the hearing, Judge Bolden granted
the motion.

Under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and for
purposes of, and solely in connection with, the Settlement, the
Judge certified the action as a class action on behalf of the
Settlement Class defined as all persons who, at any time from Feb.
20, 2012 to June 5, 2017 were customers of NAPG and paid NAPG
variable rates for electricity and/or natural gas in Connecticut,
Illinois, Maryland, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Georgia or Texas.

Seventeen persons who fall within the definition of the Settlement
Class have requested to opt out of the Settlement and have complied
with the procedures established by the Settlement Agreement and
this Court.  These individuals will not be bound by the terms of
the Settlement Agreement: Shakelia Sumrell, Rosalind Tobin, Richard
Daloe, Phyllis Kolenda, Darrell Greene, Jr., Nerwyn Whynot, Jerry
L. Rowe, George E. Chenier, Jr., Robert Weir, Jama Rothschild,
Reginald J. Williams, Alden R. Witt, Robert W. Nedd, George P.
Taylor, Tammy Held, Teresa Marois, and Joan Costabile.

The Plaintiffs have requested $3,154,805.12 in attorneys' fees for
the Class Counsel.  Upon consideration of the Plaintiffs' Motion
for an Award of Fees, the Motion is granted.  Consistent with
Section 7.5 of the Settlement Agreement, the Defendants will pay
the Class Counsel $3,154,805.12 in attorneys' fees, consistent with
the terms of the Settlement Agreement.  Under the Settlement
Agreement, this award will be paid separate and apart from the
amounts received by members of the Settling Class.

The Plaintiffs have requested $474,194.88 in expenses for the Class
Counsel.  Upon consideration of the Plaintiffs' Motion for an Award
of Expenses, the Motion is granted.  Consistent with Section 7.5 of
the Settlement Agreement, the Defendants will pay Class Counsel
$474,194.88 in expenses, consistent with the terms of the
Settlement Agreement.  Per the Settlement Agreement, this award
will be paid separate and apart from the amounts received by
members of the Settling Class.

The Plaintiffs have requested $5,000 each as Plaintiff Service
Awards.  Upon consideration of their request for Plaintiff Service
Awards, the request is granted.  Consistent with the terms of
Section 7.5 of the Settlement Agreement, the Defendant will pay
Paul Edwards, Gerry Wendrovsky, Sandra Desrosiers, Linda Soffron,
John Arcaro, Michael Tully, David Fritz and Peggy Zahn a Service
Award in the amount of $5,000 each.  Per the Settlement Agreement,
these Service Awards will be paid separate and apart from the
amounts received by members of the Settling Class.

Within 120 days from the Effective Date, the Settlement
Administrator will destroy all personally identifying information
about any Class Member in its possession, custody, or control,
including (but not limited to) any list that the Settlement
Administrator received from Defendant in connection with the
Settlement Administrator's efforts to provide Notice to Class
Members.

The Ruling and Order is a final, appealable order, and will
constitute a judgment for purposes of Rules 54 and 58 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  By incorporating the Settlement
Agreement's terms herein, Judge Bolden determines that the Final
Judgment complies in all respect with Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 65(d)(1).  The Clerk of the Court is directed to close
the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 3, 2018 Ruling and Order is
available at https://is.gd/LhpBon from Leagle.com.

Paul T. Edwards, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Robert A. Izard, Jr. --
rizard@izardnobel.com -- Izard Nobel, LLP & Seth R. Klein --
sklein@izardnobel.com -- Izard Nobel PC.

Gerry Wendrovsky, Linda Soffron & Sandra Desrosiers, Plaintiffs,
represented by Craig A. Raabe, Izard, Kindall & Raabe LLP & Seth R.
Klein, Izard Kindall & Raabe.

North American Power & Gas, LLC, Defendant, represented by Peter
George Siachos, Gordon & Rees, pro hac vice, Greil Roberts --
groberts@gordonrees.com -- Gordon & Rees LLP & William E. Murray --
wmurray@gordonrees.com -- Gordon & Rees LLP.


NORTHCENTRAL UNIVERSITY: Faces Torres Suit in S.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Northcentral
University, Inc.  The case is styled as Christina Torres,
Individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v.
Northcentral University, Inc., Case No. 3:18-cv-02069-BEN-WVG (S.D.
Cal., September 6, 2018).

The nature of suit is stated as "Contract: Other."

Northcentral University Inc. was founded in 2009.  The Company's
line of business includes the operation of colleges and
universities.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam B. Wolf, Esq.
          PEIFFER ROSCA WOLF ABDULLAH CARR & KANE APLC
          4 Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 766-3545
          Facsimile: (415) 402-0058
          E-mail: awolf@prwlegal.com


OCERA THERAPEUTICS: Sept. 27 Hearing on Bid to Junk Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Francisco Division, moved the hearing to consider
approval of the Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned IN RE OCERA
THERAPEUTICS, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION. Lease Case No.
3:17-cv-06687-RS. (N.D. Cal.), to September 27, 2018.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 6, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y9anc3e4 from Leagle.com.

Samuel P. Clarke, Plaintiff, represented by Rosemary M. Rivas --
rrivas@zlk.com -- Levi & Korsinsky LLP, Donald J. Enright --
denright@zlk.com -- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP & Elizabeth K. Tripodi --
denright@zlk.com -- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP.

William Paulus, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Rosemary M. Rivas, Levi &
Korsinsky LLP, David Eldridge Bower -- dbower@monteverdelaw.com --
Monteverde & Associates PC & Juan E. Monteverde --
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com -- Monteverde & Associates PC.

Ocera Therapeutics, Inc., Eckard Weber, Linda Grais, Wendell
Wierenga, Anne Vanlent, Steven James, Nina Kjellson, Willard Dere,
Mallinckrodt plc, MAK LLC & MEH Acquisition Co., Defendants,
represented by Anna Erickson White -- AVickery@mofo.com -- Morrison
& Foerster LLP & Christin Joy Hill -- chill@mofo.com -- Morrison &
Foerster LLP.


OHIO: Sheriff Faces Oscar Washington Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jim Neil. The class
action is captioned as Oscar L. Washington, Jr., by Limited
Appearance on behalf of himself, and other persons similarly
situated, the Petitioner, v. Jim Neil, Sheriff; Sgt. Donald
McWhorter; Mayor Dan Pillow; Robert G. Kelly, Solicitor; Walter C.
Wurster, Magistrate; Jennifer Bishop, City Prosecuting Attorney;
Curt Kissinger, Municipal Court Judge; Joseph T. Deters, County
Prosecuting Attorney; Mike DeWine, Attorney General; Michael
Backhman, Hamilton County Magistrate; Alexandria Thurner, Felony
Trial Counsel; Robert P Ruehlman, Common Pleas Judge; Russell J.
Mock, First District Court of Appeals Judge; Maureen O'Connor's,
Supreme Court of Ohio Judge, the Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-00589-MRB-KLL (S.D. Ohio, Aug. 21, 2018). The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Michael R. Barrett.

Ohio is a midwestern U.S. state stretching from the Ohio River and
Appalachian Mountains in the south to Lake Erie in the north. On
the shores of the lake is the city of Cleveland, site of the
Cleveland Museum of Art and its renowned collection of European
paintings and especially Asian art.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


OLD WORLD: Quintanilla Action to Recover Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------
Fredy Cermeno Quintanilla, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Old World Quality Corp., Old World
Quality Plumbing & Heating Corp. and Vincent Muldoon, Defendants,
Case 18-cv-03712 (E.D. N.Y., June 26, 2018), seeks to recover
unpaid minimum wages, overtime wages, and statutory damages under
the New York Labor Law and the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Old World, is a general contracting firm engaged in construction
and renovations where Plaintiff provided manual labor for
Defendant. Throughout his employment with Old World, Quintanilla
regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week without being paid
overtime, notes the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Peter A. Romero, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC
     103 Cooper Street
     Babylon, NY 11702
     Tel. (631) 257-5588
     Email: promero@romerolawny.com


OTG MANAGEMENT: Pugh Seeks Withheld Tips, Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Pugh, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. OTG Management IAH, LLC, OTG Management,
LLC and OTG Management, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-02152
(S.D. Tex., June 26, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages
and unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees
owed to him under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

OTG Management IAH, LLC, OTG Management, LLC and OTG Management,
Inc. own and operate restaurants located in airports around the
country, including the Bush Intercontinental Airport. OTG allegedly
failed to pay its servers a minimum wage based on an impermissible
tip credit and overtime compensation for their overtime hours
worked. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark Siurek, Esq.
      Patricia Haylon
      WARREN & SIUREK, L.L.P.
      3334 Richmond Ave, Suite 100
      Houston, TX 77098
      Tel: (713) 522-0066
      Fax: (713) 522-9977
      Email: msiurek@warrensiurek.com
             thaylon@warrensiurek.com


PAPA MURPHY'S: Court Awards $1.85MM Attorney's Fees
---------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington, Tacoma, issued an Order adjusting downward the
Plaintiff's Attorney's Fees in the case captioned JOHN LENNARTSON,
et al., Plaintiffs, v. PAPA MURPHY'S INTERNATIONAL LLC, Defendant.
Case No. C15-5307 RBL. (W.D. Wash.).

This matter before the Court is Plaintiff Lennartson's Motion for
Attorneys' Fees and Payment of Service Awards to Named Plaintiffs.
The class seeks $2,050,000 in fees and costs, which it claims is
both far less than the lodestar amount (hours times rates) than it
spent on the case (more than $5,400,000), and far less than the
class action benchmark of 25% of the common fund created by the
settlement, which it claims is over $23,000,000.

After determining the lodestar figure, the court should then
determine whether to adjust the lodestar figure up or down, based
on factors not subsumed in the lodestar figure.

The court agrees that the $23,000,000 potential total value of the
settlement is not a common fund, and the reasonableness of the fee
should not be measured against that amount. The question is whether
a roughly $1.8 million fee is reasonable in light of the effort it
took to settle this case on the terms that the parties agreed
upon.

Twenty billers is an eyebrow-raising number of attorneys, even if
the settlement actually approached $23 million. More importantly,
Papa Murphy's persuasively argues that, based on the redemption
rate so far, the benefit to the class is quite unlikely to approach
that amount: each class member got two $5 vouchers that are not
worth anything unless and until they are redeemed at Papa Murphy's.
Including the agreed-upon $400,000 administrative fee, the class
benefit is likely to be less than $1,000,000.

The Court agrees that a downward adjustment is appropriate. The
Court will award $1,850,000 in fees and costs. The requested Named
Plaintiff Service Awards ($15,000 each) are not opposed, and are
awarded as well.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 6, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y9cpod3l from Leagle.com.

Rita Andrews, Cassie Asleson, Susan Shay Nohr & John Lennartson, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
represented by Karin Bornstein Swope -- kswope@kellerrohrback.com
-- KELLER ROHRBACK, Mark Adam Griffin --
mgriffin@kellerrohrback.com -- KELLER ROHRBACK, Behdad C. Sadeghi
-- behdad.sadeghi@zimmreed.com -- ZIMMERMAN REED LLP, pro hac vice
& June P. Hoidal -- june.hoidal@zimmreed.com -- ZIMMERMAN REED LLP,
pro hac vice.

Phizzle, Inc., Interested Party, represented by Jeffrey Lombard --
jlombard@cooley.com -- COOLEY LLP.

Upland Software, Inc., Interested Party, represented by Rogelio
Omar Riojas, GOLDFARB & HUCK ROTH RIOJAS, PLLC.

Papa Murphy's Holdings, Inc. & Papa Murphy's International LLC,
Defendants, represented by Anthony Todaro --
anthony.todaro@dlapiper.com -- DLA PIPER US LLP, Jeffrey B. DeGroot
-- jeffrey.degroot@dlapiper.com -- DLA PIPER US LLP & Stellman
Keehnel -- stellman.keehnel@dlapiper.com -- DLA PIPER US LLP.


PFIZER INC: Faces Sullivan Suit in Southern District of New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pfizer Inc. The class
action is captioned as Phillip Sullivan, Jr., on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Pfizer Inc.,
the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-07624 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 21, 2018).
The suit alleges Americans with Disabilities Act violation.

Pfizer Inc. is an American pharmaceutical corporation headquartered
in New York City, with its research headquarters in Groton,
Connecticut. Pfizer is one of the world's largest pharmaceutical
companies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PFIZER INC: Settlement with Celbrex Direct Purchasers Approved
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2018, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2018, that the court has granted approval to the $94
million agreement entered into by the company and direct purchasers
of Celebrex to settle a class action lawsuit.

Beginning in July 2014, purported class actions were filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against
Pfizer and certain subsidiaries of Pfizer relating to Celebrex. The
plaintiffs sought to represent U.S. nationwide or multi-state
classes consisting of persons or entities who directly purchased
from the defendants, or indirectly purchased or reimbursed patients
for some or all of the purchase price of, Celebrex or generic
Celebrex from May 31, 2014 until the cessation of the defendants'
allegedly unlawful conduct.

The plaintiffs alleged delay in the launch of generic Celebrex in
violation of federal antitrust laws or certain state antitrust,
consumer protection and various other laws as a result of Pfizer
fraudulently obtaining and improperly listing a patent on Celebrex,
engaging in sham litigation and prolonging the impact of sham
litigation through settlement activity that further delayed generic
entry.

Each of the actions sought treble damages on behalf of the putative
class for alleged price overcharges for Celebrex since May 31,
2014. In December 2014, the District Court granted the parties'
joint motions to consolidate the direct purchaser and end-payer
cases, and all such cases were consolidated as of March 2015. In
October 2014 and March 2015, the company filed motions to dismiss
the direct purchasers' and end-payers' amended complaints,
respectively. In November 2015, the District Court denied in part
and granted in part our motion to dismiss the direct purchasers’
amended complaint. In February 2016, the District Court denied in
part and granted in part the company's motion to dismiss the
end-payers' amended complaint, and in August 2016, the District
Court dismissed substantially all of the end-payers' remaining
claims.

In February 2017, the District Court dismissed with prejudice all
of the end-payers' claims. In March 2017, the end-payers appealed
the District Court's order dismissing their claims with prejudice
to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. In August
2017, the District Court granted the direct purchasers' motion for
class certification.

In November 2017, Pfizer and the direct purchasers entered into an
agreement to resolve the direct purchasers' class action for $94
million. In April 2018, the court approved the agreement. In
November 2017, Pfizer and the end-payers entered into an agreement
to resolve the claims of the end-payer plaintiffs on terms not
material to Pfizer.

Pfizer Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and sells healthcare
products worldwide. It operates in two segments, Pfizer Innovative
Health (IH) and Pfizer Essential Health (EH). Pfizer Inc. was
founded in 1849 and is headquartered in New York, New York.


PIONEER HOMECARE: Rodriguez Action Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marisol Rodriguez, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Pioneer Homecare, Inc. and Patience
Emenike, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-05786 (S.D. N.Y. June 26,
2018), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime wages, and
statutory damages under the New York Labor Law and the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Pioneer Homecare is a home health care agency located at 801E 241st
St., Bronx, NY where Rodriguez worked as a nurse scheduling
coordinator. Throughout his employment with Pioneer, Rodriguez
regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week without being paid
overtime, notes the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Lawrence Spasojevich, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF JAMES F. SULLIVAN PC
     52 Duane St., 7th Floor
     New York, NY 11702
     Tel. (212) 374-0009
     Fax: (212) 374-9931
     Email: ls@jfslaw.net


POLARITYTE INC: Moreno Hits Stock Price Drop From Denied Patent
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Moreno, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. PolarityTE, Inc., Denver Lough and Jeff
Dyer, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00510, (D. Utah, June 26, 2018),
seeks compensatory and punitive damages in favor of Plaintiff,
jointly and severally, prejudgment and post-judgment interest,
reasonable attorneys' fees and experts' fees and other costs and
disbursements and such other relief for violations of the federal
securities laws.

PolarityTE is a commercial-stage biotechnology and regenerative
biomaterials company focused on discovering, designing and
developing a range of regenerative tissue products and biomaterials
for the fields of medicine, biomedical engineering and material
sciences. Its key development is SkinTE, used in split-thickness
skin grafting, full-thickness grafting, temporizing skin coverage
and/or skin substitute products. However, on June 4, 2018, the US
Patent Office rejected the patent for this technology.

On this news, PolarityTE stock plunged from $38.97 at the close of
Friday, June 22, 2018 to an open of $25.60 on Tuesday, June 26,
2018, a loss of more than 34%. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      David W. Scofield, Esq.
      PETERS SCOFIELD - A Professional Corporation
      7430 Creek Road, Suite 303
      Sandy, UT 84093-6160
      Telephone: (801) 322-2002
      Facsimile: (801) 912-0320
      Email: dws@psplawyers.com


PURDUE PHARMA: Faces Hopkins RICO Suit in District of Arizona
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Purdue Pharma LP et
al. The class action is captioned as F Kirk Hopkins, individually
and on behalf of all other similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Purdue Pharma LP; Purdue Pharma Incorporated; Purdue Frederick
Company Incorporated; Insys Therapeutics Incorporated; Teva
Pharmaceutical Industries Incorporated; Cephalon Incorporated;
Johnson & Johnson; Janssen Pharmaceuticals Incorporated; Endo
Health Solutions Incorporated; Endo Pharmaceuticals Incorporated;
Actavis PLC; Actavis Incorporated; Watson Pharmaceuticals
Incorporated; Watson Laboratories Incorporated; McKesson
Corporation; Cardinal Health Incorporated; and AmerisourceBergen
Corporation, the Defendants, Case No. (D. Ariz., Aug. 22, 2018).
The suit alleges Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
violation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Eileen S
Willett.

Purdue Pharma is a privately held pharmaceutical company owned
principally by parties and descendants of Mortimer and Raymond
Sackler.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Julia Anne Wagner, Esq.
          Sean James O'Hara, Esq.
          Todd Feltus, Esq.
          KERCSMAR & FELTUS PLLC
          7150 E Camelback Rd., Ste. 285
          Scottsdale, AZ 85251
          Telephone: (480) 421 1001
          Facsimile: (480) 421 1002
          E-mail: jaw@kflawaz.com
                  sjo@kflawaz.com
                  tfeltus@kflawaz.com


RANDALL-REILLY LLC: Murphy Sues Over Unsolicited SMS Ads
--------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Patrick Murphy, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Randall-Reilly LLC,, Defendant,
Case No. 18-cv-00519, (N.D. Tex., June 26, 2018), seeks to obtain
redress, including injunctive relief for violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

Randall-Reilly is a provider of business data and marketing
services, as well as media and events for the transportation
industry. Defendant contacts potential clients by sending
solicitation text messages to their cellular phones in an effort to
recruit drivers for Uber, an on-demand transportation service.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Dana Opitz, Esq.
      3108 San Sebastian
      Carrollton, TX 75006
      Tel: (682) 309-4862
      Email: danamarie15@gmail.com

             - and -

      Stefan Coleman, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, P.A.
      201 s. Biscayne Blvd., 28th floor
      Miami, FL 33131
      Tel: (877) 333-9427
      Fax: (888) 498.8946
      Email: law@stefancoleman.com

             - and -

      Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
      KAUFMAN P.A.
      400 NW 26TH Street
      Miami, FL 33127
      Tel: (305) 469-5881
      Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com


REGAL CINEMAS: Mendez Sues Over Disabilities Act Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Regal Cinemas, Inc.
The case is titled as Himelda Mendez, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Regal Cinemas, Inc., Case No.
1:18-cv-08160 (S.D.N.Y., September 6, 2018).

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

Regal Cinemas, Inc., operates a chain of movie theaters in the
United States.  The Company was founded in 1989 and is based in
Knoxville, Tennessee.  Regal Cinemas, Inc. operates as a subsidiary
of Regal Entertainment Group.[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


RETRIEVAL-MASTERS: Dismissal of St. Pierre's FDCPA Suit Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Cheryl Ann Krause of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit affirmed the District Court's dismissal of the cases,
THOMAS E. ST. PIERRE, Appellant in No. 17-1731, v.
RETRIEVAL-MASTERS CREDITORS BUREAU, INC., Appellant in No. 17-1941,
Case Nos. 17-1731, 17-1941 (3d Cir.).

St. Pierre is a New Jersey resident and the registered owner of a
car that he sometimes drives on New Jersey highways.  On those
occasions, he is subject to New Jersey's statutory toll
requirements.  Like many car owners in New Jersey, St. Pierre chose
to sign up for New Jersey E-ZPass, an electronic toll payment
program that facilitates toll collection.

E-ZPass accountholders agree to certain terms and conditions.  When
St. Pierre's E-ZPass account fell into arrears because he failed to
maintain a positive balance, E-ZPass assigned it to Appellee
Retrieval-Masters Credit Bureau, Inc. ("RMCB"), a private debt
collection agency, which, in turn, sent St. Pierre a collection
letter for outstanding violations owed for toll evasions in the
amount of $1,200.75.  

At issue in the case, however, is not the letter itself but the
envelope in which the letter was sent.  Visible through the
glassine window of that envelope was not only St. Pierre's name and
address, but also a quick response code and St. Pierre's account
number.  St. Pierre's amended class action complaint alleges that
the disclosure of these two pieces of information on the envelope
violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), which
prohibits the use of any unfair or unconscionable means to collect
or attempt to collect any debt.

Tthe crux of the appeal: Whether the unpaid highway tolls reflects
a consumer's obligation arising out of a transaction in which the
services which are the subject of the transaction are primarily for
personal, family, or household purposes; or a legal obligation in
the nature of a tax that falls outside the scope of the FDCPA.  The
District Court concluded the latter.  Although it held as a
threshold matter that St. Pierre had alleged an injury sufficiently
concrete to confer Article III standing and, by extension, federal
jurisdiction, St. Pierre v. Retrieval-Masters Creditors Bureau,
Inc., it dismissed St. Pierre's complaint on the ground that unpaid
highway tolls do not constitute "debt" and therefore failed to
state a claim for a violation of the FDCPA.

St. Pierre filed the appeal challenging the District Court's
characterization of the obligation to pay highway tolls, and RMCB
cross-appealed, challenging the Court's ruling on standing.

Judge Krause holds that the District Court properly concluded that
a violation of Section 1692f(8) is a legally cognizable injury that
confers standing on St. Pierre.  Even if Section 1692f(8) contains
a benign language exception, the exposure of a debtor's account
number through a glassine window is not benign because she cannot
find language exempt from Section 1692f(8) if its disclosure on an
envelope would run counter to the very reasons Congress enacted the
FDCPA.

The Judge turns to the substance of St. Pierre's claim under the
FDCPA.  She concludes that the obligation to pay highway tolls does
not satisfy the definition of "debt" under the FDCPA.  St. Pierre's
obligation to pay highway tolls does arise out of a transaction
within the meaning of the FDCPA, but while that gives him some
momentum, he cannot cross the finish line for an FDCPA claim unless
the subject of the transaction is primarily for personal, family,
or household purposes.

In sum, the Judge holds that the FDCPA is not implicated where the
bulk, if not all of the services rendered, are made without
reference to peculiar benefits to particular individuals or
property.  For the foregoing reasons, Judge Krause affirmed the
judgment of the District Court.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 7, 2018 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/ozPrCu from Leagle.com.

Michael J. Quirk, Esq. [ARGUED], Berezofsky Law Group, 40 West
Evergreen Avenue, Suite 104, Philadelphia, PA 19118-3324, Peter
Colonna Romano, Esq., Berezofsky Law Group, Woodland Falls
Corporate Center, 210 Lake Drive East, Suite 101, Cherry Hill, NJ
08002.

Christopher Markos -- cmarkos@williamscedar.com -- Esq. , Williams
Cedar, 1515 Market Street, Suite 1300, Philadelphia, PA 19102,
Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellant Thomas E. St. Pierre.

Joel D. Bertocchi, Esq. -- joel.bertocchi@akerman.com -- Carlos A.
Ortiz, Esq. -- cortiz@hinshawlaw.com -- Louis J. Manetti, Jr. --
LManetti@hinshawlaw.com -- David M. Schultz, Esq. --
dschultz@hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, 151 North
Franklin Street, Suite 2500, Chicago, IL 60606, Han Sheng Beh, Esq.
, Hinshaw & Culbertson, 800 Third Avenue, 13th Floor, New York, NY
10022, Attorneys for Defendant-Appellee Retrieval-Masters,
Creditors Bureau, Inc.


SEARS ROEBUCK: $$497K Attorneys' Fees Awarded in Washer Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In re: SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO. FRONT-LOADING WASHER
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. This Document Relates to CCU Claims,
Case No. 06 C 7023, Consolidated with Case No. 07 C 0412, No. 08 C
1832 (N.D. Ill.), Magistrate Judge Mary M. Rowland of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division, granted in part the Plaintiffs' Supplemental Motion for
Attorneys' Fees.

The case is a class action brought by washing machine purchasers
against Sears.  Whirlpool intervened in the action.  On Feb. 29,
2016, following 10 years of litigation, the Court approved the
parties' Settlement Agreement, resolving the Plaintiffs' warranty
claims under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, as well as state law
warranty claims.  Under the Settlement Agreement, the parties
agreed that the Defendants would pay the Class Counsel reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs, without reducing the amount of money
available to pay Valid Claims submitted by Settlement Class
Members.  The parties further agreed that the amount of attorneys'
fees will be determined by the Court.

On Nov. 16, 2015, the Plaintiffs filed a fee petition requesting an
award of $6 million to the class counsel.  The Defendants argued
that the Plaintiffs' request was unreasonable and asked the Court
to award no more than $890,000.  On Sept. 13, 2016, the Court
granted in part the Original Fee Motion, awarding $4,770,834 in
fees to the class counsel.

The Defendants appealed to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals
arguing that the class counsel should be awarded no than $900,000.
On Aug. 14, 2017, the Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded with
directions to award $2.7 million, an amount which constituted the
lodestar calculated by the Court but without a multiplier.  The
Court entered judgment in favor of the class counsel accordingly.

The Plaintiffs now seek: (1) $295,000 for litigating their fee
motion prior to the appeal and (2) $482,702.25 for defending their
award on appeal.  The Defendants object arguing that: (1) the
Plaintiffs' request for pre-appeal fees is untimely; (2) the
Seventh Circuit's opinion bars this Court from awarding any more
attorneys' fees to class counsel; (3) the Settlement Agreement does
not authorize any fees-on-fees; and (4) if the Court awards fees,
it should use the already-approved, lower hourly rates of the class
counsel and reduce the amount awarded based on the Plaintiffs'
limited success.

The Plaintiffs request $750 for Steven Schwartz, $650 for James
Rosemergy, $535 for Alison Gushue, and $650 for Timothy Mathews.
The Court previously approved rates of $630, $630, $425, and $510,
respectively.

Magistrate Judge Rowland awards hourly rates of $725 for Mr.
Schwartz, $650 for Mr. Mathews, $650 for Mr. Rosemergy, and $500
for Ms. Gushue.  She finds that a comparison of these approved
rates to the 2015-16 Fee Survey does not support the Defendants'
argument that all Los Angeles rates are irrelevant.  The 2015-16
Fee Survey shows that the then-current rates approved in Chambers
and Ardon were (1) for Schwartz, slightly higher than the Chicago
(and Los Angeles) market rate, (2) for Mathews, the same as
Chicago, and (3) for Gushue, slightly higher than the Chicago (and
Los Angeles) market rate.  Although Rosemergy's rate was not
assessed in Chambers or Ardon, the Magistrate finds his $650 rate
reasonable in light of its prior assessment of his experience and
credentials which placed him near the 95% median attorney rate
which was $700 in Chicago in 2015-16.

In light of all of the circumstances of the case, the Magistrate
Judge reduces the class counsels' supplemental fees award in the
district court by 20% and in the appellate court by 44%.  With
regard to the Motion Fees, the class counsel previously agreed to
request no more than $295,000 and have requested that amount.  For
Appeal Fees, based on the hourly rates, she has identified, the
lodestar amounts to $465,618.75.  Adding $260,746.50 to $236,000
brings the total award to $496,746.50.

For these reasons, Magistrate Judge Rowland granted in part the
Plaintiffs' Supplemental Motion for Attorneys' Fees in the amount
of $496,746.50.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 3, 2018 Memorandum Opinion and
Order is available at https://is.gd/2YsiQJ from Leagle.com.

Larry Butler, Plaintiff, represented by Paul M. Weiss --
paul@complexlitgroup.com -- Quantum Legal LLC, Richard J. Burke --
richard@Qulegal.com -- Quantum Legal LLC, Robert A. Clifford --
rac@cliffordlaw.com -- Clifford Law Offices, P.C., Steven A.
Schwartz -- SteveSchwartz@chimicles.com -- Chimicles & Tikellis,
Colin H. Dunn -- chd@cliffordlaw.com -- Clifford Law Offices, Eric
H. Jaso -- ejaso@seegerweiss.com -- Seeger Weiss LLP, pro hac vice,
George K. Lang-- langlawoffice@att.net -- Lang Law Office, James J.
Rosemergy -- jrosemergy@careydanis.com -- Carey, Danis and Lowe,
Jason Louis Lichtman -- jlichtman@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Jerome Mayer-cantu -- jmayercantu@lchb.com
-- Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein Llp, pro hac vice, John Tate
Spragens -- jspragens@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein, Llp, Jonathan D. Selbin -- jselbin@lchb.com -- Lieff,
Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, Llp, Jonathan Shub --
jshub@kohnswift.com -- Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.C., Mark P. Chalos --
mchalos@lchb.com -- Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, Llp,
Michael J. Flannery -- mflannery@cuneolaw.com --
Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca LLP, Sarah R. London -- slondon@lchb.com --
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, pro hac vice, Scott A.
George -- sgeorge@seegerweiss.com -- Seeger Weiss LLC & Shannon
Marie McNulty -- smm@cliffordlaw.com -- Clifford Law Offices.

Joseph Leonard, Kevin Barnes & Victor Matos, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by
Paul M. Weiss, Quantum Legal LLC, Richard J. Burke , Quantum Legal
LLC, Robert A. Clifford, Clifford Law Offices, P.C., Steven A.
Schwartz, Chimicles & Tikellis, Colin H. Dunn, Clifford Law
Offices, Eric H. Jaso, Seeger Weiss LLP, pro hac vice, George K.
Lang, Lang Law Office, James J. Rosemergy, Carey, Danis and Lowe,
Jason Louis Lichtman, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, John
Tate Spragens, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, Llp, Jonathan D.
Selbin, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, Llp, Jonathan Shub,
Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.C., Mark P. Chalos  Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann
& Bernstein, Llp, Michael J. Flannery, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca LLP,
Sarah R. London, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, pro hac
vice, Scott A. George, Seeger Weiss LLC & Shannon Marie McNulty,
Clifford Law Offices.

Alan Jarashow, Plaintiff, represented by Jason Louis Lichtman,
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Paul M. Weiss, Quantum
Legal LLC, Richard J. Burke, Quantum Legal LLC, Steven A. Schwartz,
Chimicles & Tikellis, Eric H. Jaso, Seeger Weiss LLP, pro hac vice,
George K. Lang, Lang Law Office, John Tate Spragens, Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein, Llp, Mark S. Fistos, Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing,
Edwards, Fistos and Lehrman, Sarah R. London, Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, pro hac vice, Steven R. Jaffe, Farmer
Jaffe Weissing Edwards Fistos & Lehrman, Tod N. Aronovitz,
Aronovitz Trial Lawyers & James J. Rosemergy, Carey, Danis and
Lowe.

Lauren Crane, Plaintiff, represented by Jason Louis Lichtman, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Paul M. Weiss, Quantum Legal LLC,
Richard J. Burke, Quantum Legal LLC, Steven A. Schwartz, Chimicles
& Tikellis, Eric H. Jaso, Seeger Weiss LLP, pro hac vice, George K.
Lang, Lang Law Office, Jerome Mayer-cantu, Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein Llp, pro hac vice, John Tate Spragens, Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein, Llp, Mark S. Fistos, Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing,
Edwards, Fistos and Lehrman, Sarah R. London, Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, pro hac vice, Steven R. Jaffe, Farmer
Jaffe Weissing Edwards Fistos & Lehrman, Tod N. Aronovitz,
Aronovitz Trial Lawyers & James J. Rosemergy, Carey, Danis and
Lowe.

Lawrence L'Hommedieu, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jason Louis Lichtman,
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Paul M. Weiss, Quantum
Legal LLC, Richard J. Burke, Quantum Legal LLC, Steven A. Schwartz,
Chimicles & Tikellis, Eric H. Jaso , Seeger Weiss LLP, pro hac
vice, George K. Lang, Lang Law Office, John Tate Spragens, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, Llp, Sarah R. London, Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, pro hac vice, Steven R. Jaffe, Farmer
Jaffe Weissing Edwards Fistos & Lehrman, Tod N. Aronovitz,
Aronovitz Trial Lawyers & James J. Rosemergy, Carey, Danis and
Lowe.

John Bettua & Derral Howard, Plaintiffs, represented by Jason Louis
Lichtman, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Paul M. Weiss,
Quantum Legal LLC, Richard J. Burke, Quantum Legal LLC, Steven A.
Schwartz, Chimicles & Tikellis, Eric H. Jaso , Seeger Weiss LLP,
pro hac vice, George K. Lang, Lang Law Office, John Tate Spragens,
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, Llp, Sarah R. London, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, pro hac vice, Steven R. Jaffe,
Farmer Jaffe Weissing Edwards Fistos & Lehrman, Tod N. Aronovitz,
Aronovitz Trial Lawyers & James J. Rosemergy, Carey, Danis and
Lowe.

Giuseppina P. Donia, Plaintiff, represented by Jason Louis Lichtman
, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Steven A. Schwartz,
Chimicles & Tikellis, Eric H. Jaso, Seeger Weiss LLP, pro hac vice
George K. Lang, Lang Law Office, Glenn Edward Orr, Shea Law Group,
Jerome Mayer-cantu, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein Llp, pro hac
vice, John Tate Spragens, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, Llp,
Ronald S. Kravitz, Law Offices of Ronald S. Kravitz, Sarah R.
London, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, pro hac vice &
James J. Rosemergy, Carey, Danis and Lowe.

Denise Miller, Vic Pfefer, Jeffrey A. Robinson & Sandra K.
Robinson, Plaintiffs, represented by Jason Louis Lichtman, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Steven A. Schwartz, Chimicles &
Tikellis, Eric H. Jaso, Seeger Weiss LLP, pro hac vice, George K.
Lang, Lang Law Office, Glenn Edward Orr, Shea Law Group, John Tate
Spragens, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, Llp, Natalie
Finkelman Bennett, Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah, LLC, pro hac
vice, Sarah R. London, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, pro
hac vice & James J. Rosemergy, Carey, Danis and Lowe.

Charles Napoli, Plaintiff, represented by Jason Louis Lichtman,
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Steven A. Schwartz,
Chimicles & Tikellis, Douglas P. Dehler, Shepherd Finkelman Miller
& Shah, LLC, Eric H. Jaso, Seeger Weiss LLP, pro hac vice, George
K. Lang, Lang Law Office, Glenn Edward Orr, Shea Law Group, James
E. Miller, Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah, LLC, James C. Shah,
Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah, John Tate Spragens, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, Llp, Joseph Patrick Shea, Law Offices
of Joseph Patrick Shea, Karen M. Leser-Grenon, Shepherd Finkelman
Miller & Shah, LLP, Natalie Finkelman Bennett, Shepherd Finkelman
Miller & Shah, LLC, pro hac vice, Sarah R. London, Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, pro hac vice & James J. Rosemergy, Carey,
Danis and Lowe.

Alfred Blair & Martin Champion, Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Paul M.
Weiss, Quantum Legal LLC, Richard J. Burke, Quantum Legal LLC,
Robert A. Clifford, Clifford Law Offices, P.C., Steven A. Schwartz,
Chimicles & Tikellis, Colin H. Dunn, Clifford Law Offices, Eric C.
Brunick, Brunick LLC, Eric H. Jaso, Seeger Weiss LLP, pro hac vice,
George K. Lang, Lang Law Office, James J. Rosemergy, Carey, Danis
and Lowe, Jason Louis Lichtman, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein
LLP, Jerome Mayer-cantu, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein Llp,
pro hac vice, John Tate Spragens Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein, Llp, Jonathan D. Selbin, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann &
Bernstein, Llp, Jonathan Shub, Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.C., Mark P.
Chalos, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, Llp, Michael J.
Flannery, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca LLP, Sarah R. London, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, pro hac vice, Scott A. George,
Seeger Weiss LLC, Shannon Marie McNulty, Clifford Law Offices &
Steven R. Jaffe, Farmer Jaffe Weissing Edwards Fistos & Lehrman.

Sears Roebuck & Co., Defendant, represented by Bradley B. Falkof --
bfalkof@btlaw.com -- Barnes & Thornburg, Evan B. Stephenson --
stephenson@wtotrial.com -- Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell LLP, Galen D.
Bellamy -- bellamy@wtotrial.com -- Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell LLP,
Hugh Quan Gottschalk -- gottschalk@wtotrial.com -- Wheeler Trigg
O'donnell Llp, Joel Steven Neckers -- neckers@wtotrial.com --
Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell LLP, Michael T. Williams --
williams@wtotrial.com -- Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell LLP, Sarah R.
London, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, pro hac vice &
Theresa R. Wardon -- wardon@wtotrial.com -- Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell
LLP.

Whirlpool Corporation, Intervenor Defendant, represented by Rebecca
Weinstein Bacon -- rweinstein.bacon@bbhps.com -- Bartlit Beck
Herman Palenchar & Scott LLP, Asha L.I. Spencer --
asha.spencer@bartlit-beck.com -- Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar &
Scott, Eric Reuel Olson -- eric.olson@bartlit-beck.com -- Bartlit
Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott LLP & John C. Fitzpatrick --
john.fitzpatrick@bartlit-beck.com -- Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar
& Scott Llp.


SECURITAS CRITICAL: Rodriguez Alleges Labor Code Violation
----------------------------------------------------------
STEPHANIE RODRIGUEZ, as an individual, the Plaintiff, v. SECURITAS
CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE at SERVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation;
and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC718927
(Cal. Super. Ct., Aug. 22, 2018), is an action against Defendant's
alleged systemic illegal employment practices resulting in
violations of the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants jointly and severally
have acted intentionally and with deliberate indifference and
conscious disregard to the rights of all employees by failing to
provide accurate itemized wage statements to these employees. The
policies, practices and customs of Defendants have resulted in
unjust enrichment of Defendants and an unfair business advantage
over businesses that routinely adhere to the strictures of the
California Labor Code.

Securitas Critical provides security solutions for specific
requirements in support of government contractors.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Howard L. Magee, Esq.
          Larry W. Lee, Esq.
          Kristen Agnew, Esq.
          DIVERSITY LAW GROUP
          A Professional Corporation
          515 South Figueroa Street, Suite 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 488 6555
          Facsimile: (213) 488 6554


SELECT MARKETING: Azzopardi & Kosoko Sue over Free Meal Periods
---------------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY AZZOPARDI and BRANDON KOSOKO individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. SELECT MARKETING
GROUP INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC718262 (Cal. Super. Ct., Aug.
22, 2018), alleges that Defendants have wrongfully failed to
provide Plaintiffs and aggrieved employees with timely and
duty-free meal periods.

According to the complaint, the Defendants employed Plaintiffs to
work in the sales department as telemarketers in Tarzana,
California as an hourly-paid, non-exempt employee. Mr. Brandon
Kosko worked for Defendant from approximately October 2016 to
October 2017. Mr. Timothy Azzopardi worked for Defendant from
approximately March 2016 to February 2017. Throughout the time
period involved in this case. The Defendants regularly required
Plaintiffs, and the aggrieved employees to work in excess of five
consecutive hours a day without providing a 30 minute, continuous
and uninterrupted, duty-free meal period every for five hours of
work, or without compensating Plaintiffs and the aggrieved
employees for meal periods that were not provided by the end of the
fifth hour of work or tenth hour of work. The Defendants did not
adequately inform Plaintiffs, and the aggrieved employees of their
right to take a meal period by the end of the fifth hour of work,
or, for shifts greater than 10 hours, by the end of the tenth hour
of work. Moreover, the Defendants did not have adequate written
policies or practices providing meal periods for Plaintiffs, and
the aggrieved employees, nor did Defendants have adequate policies
or practices regarding the timing of meal periods. Defendants also
did not have adequate policies or practices to verify whether
Plaintiffs and the aggrieved employees were taking their required
meal periods. Instead, Defendants' policy and practice was to not
provide meal periods in compliance with California law.

Select Marketing Group Inc. is in the business of telemarketing for
home construction and remodeling projects.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Farzad Rastegar, Esq.
          Amir Seyedfarshi, Esq.
          RASTEGAR LAW GROUP, APC
          22760 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 200
          Torrance, CA 90505
          Telephone: (310) 961 9600
          Facsimile: (310) 961 9094
          E-mail: farzad@rastegarlawgroup.com
                  amir@rastegarlawgroup.com


SHAG SALON: Fails to Pay Proper Wages to Hair Stylists, Luce Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MERIESTHER LUCE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SHAG SALON; SANDY POIRIER; and BANK OF
AMERICA, Defendants, Case No. 18-2551F (Mass. Cmmw., Suffolk Cty.,
Aug. 14, 2018) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages,
liquidated damages, penalties, attorneys' fees and costs.

The Plaintiff Luce was employed by the Defendants as hair stylist
from March 1, 2018 to June 30, 2018.

Shag Salon is a corporation organized and existing under the laws
of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The Company is a hair salon
providing hair dressing services to customers. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew A. Slatef, Esq.
          Michael T. Marshall, Esq.
          TENTINDO KENDALL CANNIFF & KEEFE LLP
          510 Rutherford Avenue
          Boston, MA 02129
          Telephone: (617)242-9600
          Facsimile: (617)242-0800
          E-mail: inaswtkcklau.com
                  mtm f tkcklaw .com


SHASTA COUNTY, CA: Settlement in Jewett Suit Has Final Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, EVERETT JEWETT, LEGAL SERVICES FOR PRISONERS WITH
CHILDREN, GLEN HAROLD EVERETT, MICHAEL DONALD ACKLEY, HAROLD ROBERT
MARQUETTE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. SHASTA COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, A
PUBLIC ENTITY; TOM BOSENKO, as Sheriff of the Shasta County; SHASTA
COUNTY, a public entity; and CALIFORNIA FORENSIC MEDICAL GROUP,
INC. a private entity; and DOES 1 through 25, in their individual
capacities, Defendants, Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC) (E.D.
Cal.), Judge Morrison C. Englund, Jr. of the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of California granted the Parties' Joint
Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement.

On April 5, 2017, the Court appointed Plaintiffs Everett Jewett,
Glen Harold Everett, Michael Donald Ackley, and Legal Services for
Prisoners with Children as the Class Representatives of the
Settlement Class, and appointed the following counsel as the Class
Counsel to represent the Settlement Class: (i) Keker, Van Nest &
Peters LLP (ii) Disability Rights Legal Center; and (iii) Atabek &
Associates, P.C.

On March 21, 2018, it provisionally certified the Settlement Class
defined as all current and future detainees and prisoners with a
Mobility Disability, who at any time from May 6, 2011 through the
Term who, because of their disabilities, need appropriate
accommodations, modifications, services, and and/or physical access
at Shasta County Jail.

Judge Englund made final the earlier provisional certification of
the Settlement Class and further confirms the appointment of the
Class Representatives and the Class Counsel to represent the
Settlement Class, as set forth.  He granted final approval of the
Settlement Agreement.

The benefits described in the Settlement Agreement are the only
consideration, fees, costs and expenses that the County Defendants
and CFMG will be obligated to give to any party or entity,
including without limitation the Class Representatives, the
Settlement Class members, and the Class Counsel in connection with
the claims asserted in the Class Action Complaint, the Settlement
Agreement and/or the payment of attorneys' fees, costs and expenses
in the action.  Mr. Everett Jewett's individual claims are not
released except as they relate to purely injunctive relief.

Pursuant to the Parties' Settlement Agreement, the Plaintiffs have
filed a separate Motion for Award of Reasonable Attorneys' Fees and
Expenses incurred through May 5, 2017.  On May 21, 2018, the Court
took the matter under submission.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 7, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/ODTqHp from Leagle.com.

Everett Jewett, Plaintiff, represented by Jon Ali Atabek, Atabek &
Associates, Maronel Barajas -- mbarajas_law@yahoo.com -- Disability
Rights Legal Center, Steven P. Ragland -- sragland@keker.com --
Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP, Ajay Sundar Krishnan --
akrishnan@keker.com -- Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP, Anna Mercedes
Rivera -- anna.rivera@drlcenter.org -- Disability Rights Legal
Center, Franco E. Muzzio -- fmuzzio@keker.com -- Keker, Van Nest &
Peters LLP, Joseph Taylor Gooch -- tgooch@keker.com -- Keker, Van
Nest & Peters LLP & Mallory L. Sepler-King --
mallory.sepler-king@drlcenter.org -- Disability Rights Legal
Center.

Glen Harold Everett, Michael Donald Ackley, Harold Robert Marquette
& Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, Plaintiffs,
represented by Anna Mercedes Rivera, Disability Rights Legal
Center, Maronel Barajas, Disability Rights Legal Center, Steven P.
Ragland, Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP, Franco E. Muzzio, Keker, Van
Nest & Peters LLP, Joseph Taylor Gooch, Keker, Van Nest & Peters
LLP & Mallory L. Sepler-King, Disability Rights Legal Center.

California Forensic Medical Group, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Jerome Martin Varanini, Law Offices of Jerome M. Varanini.

Shasta County Sheriff's Department, Sheriff Tom Bosenko & Shasta
County, Defendants, represented by Gary Charles Brickwood --
gb@brickwoodlaw.com -- Brickwood Law Office.


SMITH-PALLUCK: Court Denies Leave to Amend Complaint in Thomas
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Nevada denied
Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint in the
case captioned CANDREA THOMAS, Plaintiff, v. SMITH-PALLUCK
ASSOCIATES CORP., d/b/a LAS VEGAS ATHLETIC CLUBS, Defendant. Case
No. 2:17-cv-02001-MMD-CWH. (D. Nev.).

This is a dispute regarding repeated calls from LVAC to Thomas on
her cellular telephone regarding a debt. Thomas brought suit
against LVAC, alleging claims for negligent and willful violation
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) (claims one and
two) and for state law deceptive trade practices.

Thomas now moves to amend her complaint to (1) allege additional
facts about LVAC's automatic telephone dialing equipment, (2)
assert claims for a putative class, and (3) drop her deceptive
trade practices claim. LVAC does not oppose dropping the deceptive
trade practices claim, but it argues amendment to assert class
action claims would be futile because Thomas consented to the calls
in her LVAC membership agreement.

Thomas replies the class claims are not futile, because ambiguities
in the membership agreement must be construed against LVAC, and the
agreement does not provide for contact through an automatic
telephone dialing system for collections purposes.

LVAC moves to stay the litigation, arguing the law on what
equipment constitutes an automatic telephone dialing system is in
flux. LVAC points to two forthcoming rulings one from the FCC, the
agency tasked with construing the TCPA, and one from the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit arguing that those
decisions will alter the law governing this case.

Having reviewed and considered the unopposed motion to stay, and
for the reasons stated in the motion, the court will stay this
litigation pending the FCC or Ninth Circuit's ruling, whichever is
earlier. In particular, the court is persuaded that a stay is
appropriate because it appears the FCC is poised to determine
whether dialing equipment similar to the equipment at issue in this
case.

Given that the court is staying the litigation, it will deny the
motion to amend without prejudice for Thomas to renew the motion
and for the parties to supplement their briefs, if necessary, after
the stay is lifted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 6, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ybdjq3ob from Leagle.com.

Andrea Thomas, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew I. Knepper --
matthew.knepper@knepperclark.com -- Knepper & Clark, LLC, David H.
Krieger -- dkrieger@hainesandkrieger.com -- Haines & Krieger, LLC &
Miles N. Clark -- miles.clark@knepperclark.com -- Knepper & Clark
LLC.

Smith-Palluck Associates Corp., doing business as, Defendant,
represented by Lindsay C. Demaree -- DEMAREEL BALLARDSPAHR.COM --
Ballard Spahr LLP, Stacy H. Rubin -- RUBINS BALLARDSPAHR.COM --
Ballard Spahr LLP & Joel Edward Tasca -- TASCA BALLARDSPAHR.COM --
Ballard Spahr LLP.


SOHO GRAND HOTEL: Mercer Alleges Disabilities Act Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
STACEY MERCER, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SOHO GRAND HOTEL, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-07341-AKH (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 14, 2018) alleges violation of
the Americans with Disabilities Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant owns and controls the
website www.sohogrand.com. The Defendant failed to ensure that all
of its reservation systems, including its online reservation
systems (a) identify and describe disabled accessible features of
the Hotel in detail; (b) identify and describe disabled accessible
features of ADA compliant guest rooms in detail; (c) permit
disabled individuals to independently assess whether the Hotel and
its available guestrooms meet their individual accessibility needs,
by describing accessible and inaccessible features; and (d) allow
reservations to be taken for accessible guestrooms in the same
manner as for non-accessible guestrooms.

Soho Grand Hotel, Inc. is a corporation organized and existing
under the laws of the State of New York. The Company is engaged in
the hotel business. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nolan Klein, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF NOLAN KLEIN
          39 Broadway, Ste. 2250
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (646) 560-3230
          E-mail: klein@nklegal.com


SPEARMINT RHINO: Failed to Pay Overtime Wages, Garcia Says
----------------------------------------------------------
STEPHON GARCIA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, and on behalf o f the general public, the Plaintiff, v.
SPEARMINT RHINO CONSULTING WORLDWIDE, INC.; THE SPEARMINT RHINO
COMPANIES WORLDWIDE, INC., DBA BLUE ZEBRA ADULT CABARET, DBA DAMES
'N GAMES; and DOES 1-100, the Defendants, Case No. BC718994 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Aug. 22, 2018), alleges that Defendants violated the
California Labor Code by failing to pay all overtime wages, failing
to provide meal periods, failing to provide rest periods, and
failing to pay wages due at termination and during employment.

The action is brought on behalf of Plaintiff and all other
aggrieved employees of Defendants and/or Does who worked a shift of
at least five hours without receiving a meal period; worked four
hours, or a major fraction thereof, without receiving a ten minute
net rest break; were not provided accurate itemized wage
statements; were not paid compensation for all time worked at the
straight or overtime rate; were not paid the applicable minimum
wage; were not paid waiting time penalties; were not provided paid
sick days for all hours worked; were not reimbursed for business
expenses; and were not paid all wages owed twice per month.

Spearmint Rhino is a chain of strip clubs that operates venues
throughout the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia. The
club opened in 1989 as a supplement to the existing Peppermint
Elephant Restaurant.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William Turley, Esq.
          David Mara, Esq.
          Jamie Serb, Esq.
          Tony Roberts, Esq.
          Alexandra Shipman, Esq.
          THE TURLEY & MARA LAW FIRM, APLC
          7428 Trade Street
          San Diego, CA 92121
          Telephone: (619) 234 2833
          Facsimile: (619) 234 4048


SUNTRUST BANK: Randle Suit Alleges Racial Discrimination
--------------------------------------------------------
Tracy Randle and Allison Taylor, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Suntrust Bank, Inc. and
Suntrust Investment Services, Inc., Defendants, (D.D.C. June 26,
2018) Case No. 18-cv-01525, seeks reinstatement, compensatory and
punitive damages, costs and reasonable attorney's fees under the
Civil Rights Act of 1964.

SunTrust Bank, Inc. is a publicly-traded, financial services firm
headquartered in Atlanta GA. Plaintiffs worked for Suntrust as a
broker-dealer covering branches in Maryland and in Washington, DC.
They were allegedly subject to discrimination for being
African-American, denied of resources, promotions, titles, teaming
opportunities and business opportunities, including lucrative
client accounts because of race. [BN]

Plaintiffs appear pro se.


SWITCH INC: Farach Appointed Lead Plaintiff in Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Nevada granted
Oscar Farach's Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff
and Approval of Counsel in the case captioned MINGBO CAI,
Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff, v. SWITCH, INC., et al., Defendants. No.
2:18-cv-01471-JCM-VCF. (D. Nev.).

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated several Securities
Act provisions.

In appointing a lead plaintiff in securities class action
litigation, the court shall adopt a presumption that the most
adequate plaintiff is the person or group of persons that (aa) has
either filed the complaint or made a motion in response to a notice
under subparagraph (A)(i); (bb) in the determination of the court,
has the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the
class; and(cc) otherwise satisfies the requirements of Rule 23 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Farach is the presumptively most adequate plaintiff in this case.
He filed a timely motion in response to the notice published on
Business Wire.  Of the three individuals or entities that submitted
motions for appointment as lead counsel, Farach demonstrated the
largest financial interest in the case. Farach satisfied the
requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 in that his
claims are typical of the claims of the class and he is an adequate
representative of the class.  

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 6, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ycnk4cco from Leagle.com.

Mingbo Cai, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Laurence M. Rosen --
lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.

Oscar Farach, Lead Plaintiff, Plaintiff, represented by Lesley F.
Portnoy -- lportnoy@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP,
Lionel Z. Glancy -- lglancy@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay &
Murray LLP, Robert V. Prongay -- rprongay@glancylaw.com -- Glancy
Prongay & Murray LLP & Andrew R. Muehlbauer, Muehlbauer Law Office,
Ltd.

Kissimmee Utility Authority Employees' Retirement Plan, Movant,
represented by Brian O. O'Mara -- bomara@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Donald Powell & Thomas J Moore, Movants, represented by Patrick R.
Leverty -- pat@levertylaw.com -- Leverty & Associates Chtd.

Switch, Inc., Rob Roy, Gabe Nacht, Zareh Sarrafian, Donald Snyder,
Tom Thomas & Bryan Wolf, Defendants, represented by KEVIN M.
MCDONOUGH -- kevin.mcdonough@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP, Ava M.
Schaefer, Pisanelli Bice & Todd L. Bice, Pisanelli Bice PLLC.


SYMONS AMBULANCE: Fails to Pay Wages to Paramedics, Marx Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
CORY MARX, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SYMONS AMBULANCE; SYMONS EMERGENCY
SPECIALTIES, INC.; and DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. BC717309
(Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Aug. 14, 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.

The Plaintiff Marx was employed by the Defendants as paramedic.

Symons Emergency Specialties, Inc., doing business as Symons
Ambulance, provides ambulance services to nursing facility,
hospital, prison, clinic, medical group, and other organizations.
The company was incorporated in 1995 and is based in San
Bernardino, California with additional locations in Bishop, Corona,
Tustin, Murrieta, Beaumont, and Fallbrook, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J.D. Henderson, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF J.D. HENDERSON
          215 North Marengo Avenue, Suite 322
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (626) 529-5891
          E-mail: JDLAW@charter.net

               - and -

          John F. McCarthy, Esq.
          MCCARTHY LAW
          2851 Camino del Rio S., Suite 430
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 736-8910
          Facsimile: (844) 735-8360
          E-mail: John@McCarthyLawCA.com


TAKEDA PHARMA: Class Certification Bid in Weisberg Suit Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned Alan Weisberg, the Plaintiff, v. Takeda
Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc., the Defendant, Case No.
2:18-cv-00784-PA-JC (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Percy Anderson
entered an order:

   1. denying Plaintiff's motion for class certification;

   2. denying Plaintiff's request for leave to conduct further
      discovery, as he has not explained how such discovery would
      enable him to satisfy the requirements under Fed.R.Civ.P.
      Rule 23 for either putative class;

   3. denying as moot Takeda's evidentiary objections; and

   4. denying as moot Takeda's request to strike and for leave to
      file a sur-reply.

The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that any
uniform contract exists across the Nationwide Class, that the terms
of that contract would be the same for each class member, or that
breach could be discerned on a classwide basis. With such
individualized inquiries to be resolved, the Plaintiff has not
demonstrated that common questions predominate for the Nationwide
Class.  Accordingly, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has not
established that common questions predominate for either putative
class under Rule 23(b)(3). Plaintiff also has failed to demonstrate
that class resolution would be superior to alternative methods of
litigation, as the pervasiveness of individualized inquiries would
render this action unmanageable. Thus, the Motion is denied because
Plaintiff has failed to satisfy either requirement of Rule 23(b),
in addition to his failure to demonstrate typicality or adequacy
under Rule 23(a).


TALOS ENERGY: Suits by Stone Energy Stockholders Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------
Talos Energy Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the cases entitled, John
Heinrich v. Stone Energy Corporation, et al., Allen Miskowiec v.
Stone Energy Corporation, et al., and Anthony Franchi v. Stone
Energy Corporation, et al., have been dismissed.

On January 4, 2018 and February 2, 2018, two putative class action
complaints challenging the Transactions were filed on behalf of
purported Stone stockholders in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Delaware. The complaints are captioned John Heinrich v.
Stone Energy Corporation, et al., Case 1:18-cv-00054-GMS and Allen
Miskowiec v. Stone Energy Corporation, et al., Case
1:18-cv-00202-RGA.

On February 8, 2018, a third putative class action complaint
challenging the Transactions was filed on behalf of purported Stone
stockholders in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Louisiana and is captioned Anthony Franchi v. Stone Energy
Corporation, et al., Case 6:18-cv-00167.

The complaints assert, among other things, claims under Sections
14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act against Stone and certain
members of its board of directors and challenges the adequacy of
the disclosures made in the version of this consent solicitation
statement/prospectus filed with the SEC on December 29, 2017.

The Miskowiec and Franchi lawsuits also name Talos Energy LLC as an
additional defendant and the Franchi lawsuit names Talos Production
LLC as additional defendant.

The defendants believe that the claims asserted against them in the
lawsuits are without merit and intend to defend vigorously against
all claims asserted.

The Heinrich lawsuit was dismissed on June 6, 2018. The Miskowiec
lawsuit was dismissed on May 15, 2018. The Franchi lawsuit was
dismissed on July 25, 2018.

Talos Energy Inc., an independent oil and gas company, focuses on
the offshore exploration and production in the United States Gulf
of Mexico and the shallow waters off the coast of Mexico. The
company is headquartered in Houston, Texas.


TELIGENT INC: Continues to Antitrust Suit over Generic Drugs
------------------------------------------------------------
Teligent, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the company continues to
defend itself in a class action suit entitled, In re Generic
Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation

Teligent said, "To date, twelve putative class action antitrust
lawsuits have been filed against the Company along with
co-defendants, including Taro Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. and
Perrigo New York Inc."

One "opt-out" action has additionally been filed against the
Company along with thirty-four generic manufacturer co-defendants
regarding the pricing of econazole nitrate cream along with
twenty-nine additional drug products not manufactured or sold by
the Company.

All actions have been consolidated by the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
for pre-trial proceedings as part of the In re Generic
Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation matter, and the class
actions have been consolidated into three actions: the direct
purchaser, end payer and indirect reseller actions.

The class plaintiffs seek to represent nationwide or state classes
consisting of persons who directly purchased, indirectly purchased,
paid and/or reimbursed patients for the purchase of generic
econazole from July 1, 2014 until the time the defendants'
allegedly unlawful conduct ceased or will cease.

The opt-out plaintiffs allege a conspiracy by thirty-five generic
manufacturers to fix prices for thirty drug products, including
econazole nitrate cream, in violation of federal antitrust laws.
The opt-out plaintiffs seek treble damages for alleged price
overcharges for the thirty drug products identified in the
complaint during the alleged period of conspiracy, and also seek
injunctive relief against the defendants.

All of these cases are in their initial stages and motions to
dismiss have been filed with respect to each of the three
consolidated class actions.

Teligent said, "Due to the early stage of these cases, we are
unable to form a judgment at this time as to whether an unfavorable
outcome is either probable or remote or to provide an estimate of
the amount or range of potential loss. We believe these cases are
without merit, and we intend to vigorously defend against these
claims."

Teligent, Inc., a specialty generic pharmaceutical company,
develops, manufactures, and markets generic topical, branded
generic, and generic injectable pharmaceutical products in the
United States and Canada. Teligent, Inc. was founded in 1977 and is
based in Buena, New Jersey.


TORY BURCH: Minniti Sues Over Unsolicited SMS Ads
-------------------------------------------------
Lauren Minniti, individually and as the representative of a class
of similarly-situated persons, Plaintiff, v. Tory Burch LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-61433, (S.D. Fla., June 26, 2018), seeks
statutory and treble damages, injunctive relief, compensation and
attorney fees for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act of 1991, as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005.

Tory Burch designs and manufactures apparel and accessories. It
operates over ninety boutiques throughout the United States.
Plaintiff received two unsolicited text messages on her cellular
telephone advising her that Tory Burch had mailed her a $50 gift
card and inviting her into the Aventura mall store to use the gift
card.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
      ANDERSON & WANCA
      3701 Algonquin Road, Ste. 500
      Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
      Telephone: (847)368-1500
      Facsimile: (847)368-1501
      Email: rkelly@andersonwanca.com


TRIBUNE MEDIA: Sued in Illinois & Maryland over Price of TV Ads
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tribune Media Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the company faces
several putative class action suits related to pricing of
television advertising.

On each of July 27, 2018, July 30, 2018 and August 2, 2018, a
separate single plaintiff filed a putative class action lawsuit
against the company and Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc (Sinclair),
and in two instances, Tribune Broadcasting Company and other
as-yet-unnamed third parties, and in one instance, other named
third parties in the industry (collectively, the "Defendants") in
the United States District Court for the Districts of Maryland and
Illinois.

These lawsuits allege that the Defendants coordinated their pricing
of television advertising, thereby harming the plaintiff in each
lawsuit and other class members as direct purchasers of television
advertising. The plaintiff in each lawsuit seeks injunctive relief
and money damages caused by the alleged antitrust violations.

Tribune Media said, "We believe the above lawsuits are without
merit and intend to defend them vigorously."

Tribune Media Company, through its subsidiaries, operates as a
media and entertainment company in the United States.  Tribune
Media Company was founded in 1847 and is based in Chicago,
Illinois.


TRISTAR PRODUCTS: Court Approves Settlement in Chapman Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, KENNETH CHAPMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. TRISTAR
PRODUCTS, INC., Defendant, Case Nos. 16-CV-1114, 17-CV-2298 (N.D.
Ohio), Judge James S. Gwin of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio (i) approved the class settlement, (ii)
granted in part the attorney fee request, and (iii) denied the Ohio
class counsel's request for expenses.

In May 2016, the Plaintiffs sued Tristar.  With the lawsuit, the
Plaintiffs allege that certain pressure cookers made by Tristar had
a defect that allowed users to open the pressure cookers' lids even
though built-up pressure remained inside the pressure cooker.  As a
result, the heated contents of the pressure cooker would burst onto
the user, potentially harming them.  The Plaintiffs alleged that
the defect existed, despite Tristar's insistence that these
pressure cookers were especially safe and that the pressure
cookers' lids could not come off if pressure remained in the
cooker.

The majority of the Plaintiffs' claims survived the Defendant's
motion to dismiss.  The Court certified several state classes, but
denied certification for the Plaintiffs' requested nationwide
class.

After litigating numerous motions in limine, the parties went to
trial.  On the first trial day, the parties completed voir dire and
examined the Plaintiffs' expert and two of the named Plaintiffs.
During an afternoon break, the parties met with Magistrate Judge
Greenberg and renewed earlier discussions regarding potential
settlement.  After additional negotiations, the parties reached the
proposed settlement at issue.

While the Chapman litigation occurred in Ohio, there was also a
California action, led by Plaintiff Pinon, dealing with the same
alleged defect.  After the Chapman Plaintiffs settled, Plaintiff
Pinon transferred her case from California to the Court to join the
settlement.  Like the Chapman Plaintiffs, Plaintiff Pinon alleged
that the lid-related defect existed in Tristar pressure cookers.
Although Plaintiff Pinon's case was in an earlier stage than
Chapman, the Pinon parties had begun discovery and litigated the
Defendant's motion to dismiss to decision.  Defendant Tristar has
never admitted liability or conceded that their pressure cookers
are defective in any way.

The parties' proposed settlement applies nationwide to
approximately 3.2 million Tristar pressure cooker purchasers.  The
settlement offers several types of relief to the class members.
Importantly, to obtain any other relief, the class members must
verify that they have watched or read a transcript of a safety
video created to teach users the safe operation of their pressure
cookers.  Assuming they complete that step, the class members can
submit a claim to receive a $72.50 credit off of one of three
Tristar products.

These products are an updated version of the pressure cooker at
issue in the case (arguably with a better latching lid mechanism),
a power air fryer, or an induction cooktop set.  Each of these
products cost about $159, and the class members must pay the
difference between the product's retail cost and the value of the
credit, plus any shipping and handling fees.  Further, the class
members must buy the product directly from Defendant Tristar and
cannot combine the $72.50 credit with any other promotions
Defendant Tristar may offer.  The credit expires after 90 days.

In addition to the $72.50 credit, the settlement gives the class
members a one-year warranty extension on their Tristar pressure
cookers.  Defendant Tristar offers a similar six-year warranty to
all consumers for $30, and so the approximate value of the one-year
warranty extension is $5.  Under the settlement, Tristar also
agrees to pay up to $890,000 in notice and claims administration
costs.

The proposed settlement also includes benefits unique to the named
Plaintiffs.  The named Plaintiffs agree to settle their personal
injury and property damage claims with Defendant Tristar for
$25,000 each.  The named Plaintiffs may also seek an incentive
award of up to $10,000 for their efforts in litigating the case.
In exchange for these benefits, all the class members agree to
release all claims against Defendant Tristar relating to any
alleged defects in the pressure cookers at issue, including
personal injury or property damage claims.  Finally, as part of the
settlement, Tristar agreed that it would take no position on the
class counsel seeking fees and expenses if those fees and expenses
were less than approximately $2.5 million.

The claims administrator estimates that settlement notice reached
approximately 83 percent of class members.  As of the end of the
claims period, class members had filed 13,174 claims.  Only 137
class members asked exclusion from the class settlement.
Ninety-nine of those exclusion requests came from class members who
have a personal injury claim.  No class members objected to the
proposed settlement.

The parties seek the Court's approval of their proposed class
settlement and attorney's fee request.  On July 12, 2018, the Court
held a fairness hearing on the proposed class settlement and fee
request.  At that hearing, the class counsel and the defense
counsel argued in favor of approving the settlement.  However, the
United States Department of Justice and a representative for 18
State Attorneys General argued against the settlement and
accompanying attorney's fee request.

In objecting to the settlement, the Government Representatives
mostly complain that the Plaintiffs' attorney fee application seeks
too much.  They posit that the settlement would have been greater
if the attorney fee application had been lower.  In response, the
Defendant Tristar represented that the attorney fee application was
independent of the settlement amount and represented that Defendant
Tristar would not pay any higher settlement regardless if the
attorney fee application had been lower.

Judge Gwin granted the parties' motion to approve the proposed
settlement.  He certified the nationwide class as defined in the
proposed settlement.  He also approved $7,500 incentive awards for
Plaintiffs Chapman, Vennel, and Jackson, and a $6,000 incentive
award for Plaintiff Pinon.  Finally, the Judge granted in part and
denied in part the class counsel's motion for attorney's fees and
costs.  He approved $1,980,382.59 for the class counsel's fees, and
denied the Ohio class counsel's request for expenses.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 3, 2018 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/mT7dar from Leagle.com.

Edwina Pinon, Individually and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by David B. Levin, Law Office of
Todd M. Friedman, Meghan E. George & Todd M. Friedman .

Tristar Products, Inc., Defendant, represented by Pamela M.
Ferguson, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, Shawn A. Toliver --
Shawn.Toliver@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith,
John Q. Lewis -- john.lewis@tuckerellis.com -- Tucker Ellis,
Jonathan F. Feczko -- jonathan.feczko@tuckerellis.com -- Tucker
Ellis, Madeline Dennis -- madeline.dennis@tuckerellis.com -- Tucker
Ellis, Mark F. Ram , Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy & Zachary J. Adams
-- zachary.adams@tuckerellis.com -- Tucker Ellis.


TSC OF LOUISIANA: Lainez Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Lainez and Yenni Sanchez, on behalf of themselves and other
similarly situated individuals, v. TSC of Louisiana, LLC, Matthew
Sotile, LIJ Construction, LLC and Hector Sanchez, Defendants, Case
No. 18-cv-00811, (M.D. La., August 31, 2018) seeks restitution of
unpaid wages, an award of damages, attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

TSC is a construction contractor providing construction services,
primarily drywall installation, metal framing and ceiling work on
major projects in Louisiana. LIJ is in the business of providing
laborers to perform construction work. Plaintiffs were employed by
the defendants to perform construction work in the Parish of East
Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Plaintiffs claim that they have worked in
excess of 50 hours per week without being paid overtime wages.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel B. Davis, Esq.
      Randall E. Estes, Esq.
      ESTES DAVIS LAW, LLC
      850 North Boulevard
      Baton Rouge, LA 70802
      Telephone: (225) 336-3394
      Facsimile: (225) 384-5419
      Email: dan@estesdavislaw.com


UNITED STATES: Immigration Director Faces Class Suit in N.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lee Francis Cissna,
Director, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. The
case is captioned as J.L.; M.V.B.; M.D.G.B.; J.B.A.; individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LEE
FRANCIS CISSNA, Director, United States Citizenship and Immigration
Services; KIRSTJEN M. NIELSEN, Secretary, United States Department
of Homeland Security; ROBERT COWAN, Director, National Benefits
Center of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services;
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; and UNITED STATES
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, Defendants, Case No.
5:18-cv-04914-NC (N.D. Cal., Aug. 14, 2018). The case is assigned
to Judge Nathanael M. Cousins.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is a component of
the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS). [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Sirena Peleka Castillo, Esq.
          MANATT PHELPS PHILLIPS LLP
          11355 W Olympic Blvd
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (310) 312-4336
          E-mail: scastillo@manatt.com

               - and -

          Adrianne Elizabeth Marshack, Esq.
          Matthew P. Kanny, Esq.
          MANATT PHELPS PHILLIPS LLP
          11355 W. Olympic Blvd
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (310) 312-4000
          Facsimile: (310) 312-4224
          E-mail: amarshack@manatt.com
                  mkanny@manatt.com

               - and -

          Judith Maura London, Esq.
          610 South Ardmore Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90005
          Telephone: (213) 385-2977
          E-mail: jlondon@publiccounsel.org

               - and -

          Kathleen Elizabeth Ingra Wise, Esq.
          MANATT PHELPS PHILLIPS LLP
          11355 W. Olympic Blvd
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (310) 312-4100
          E-mail: kwise@manatt.com

               - and -

          Keith Lee Wurster, Esq.
          LAWYER'S COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL
          RIGHTS OF THE SAN FRANCISCO
          131 Steuart Street, Suite 400
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 543-9444
          E-mail: kwurster@lccr.com

               - and -

          Mary Tanagho Ross, Esq.]
          610 South Ardmore Ave
          Los Angeles, CA 90005
          Telephone: (213) 385-2977
          Facsimile: (213) 385-9089
          E-mail: mross@publiccounsel.org

               - and -

          Matthew Brent Golper, Esq.
          MANATT PHELPS PHILLIPS LLP
          695 Town Center Drive, 14th Floor
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (714) 371-2511
          E-mail: mgolper@manatt.com

               - and -

          Sara Lynn Van Hofwegen, Esq.
          610 S Ardmore Ave
          Los Angeles, CA 90005
          Telephone: (213) 201-4712
          E-mail: svanhofwegen@publiccounsel.org


UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS CLEVELAND: Mishandled Frozen Eggs, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A.C. and B.C., on behalf of themselves and all other persons
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS
CLEVELAND MEDICAL CENTER; UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS HEALTH SYSTEM, INC.;
UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS FERTILITY CENTER; and UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS
AHUJA MEDICAL CENTER, INC., the Defendants, Case No. CV 18 902584
(Ohio Court of Common Pleas Cuyahoga County, Aug. 22, 2018),
alleges that Defendants grossly mishandled and destroyed frozen
eggs and embryos entrusted to their care, causing irreparable
harm.

According to the complaint, UH promised to preserve and protect
Plaintiffs and class members' eggs and embryos until they were
ready to use them. Despite a keen awareness of the precious,
fragile and irreplaceable nature of the eggs and embryos in their
care, UH kept Plaintiffs' eggs and embryos in a liquid nitrogen
storage tank that it knew was failing. UH disabled the safety alarm
system meant to alert staff if the tank failed. Sometime between
March 3 and 4, 2018, there was an uncontrolled rise in temperature
in the failing storage tank in which Plaintiffs' eggs and embryos
were stored. No one was alerted until it was too late. As a result
of UH's conduct, approximately 4,000 eggs and embryos were
destroyed, affecting more than 950 individuals and families,
including Plaintiffs. As one of UH's representatives has reportedly
said of the incident, "It's absolutely devastating."

University Hospitals of Cleveland is a major not-for-profit medical
complex in Cleveland, Ohio, United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul W. Vincent, Esq.
          Adam J. Vincent, Esq.
          VINCENT ESQUIRE, LTD.
          26600 Detroit Road, Suite 250
          Westlake, OH 44145
          Telephone: (440) 907 0077
          Facsimile: (440) 214 7484
          E-mail: Paul@VincentEsq.com
                  Adam@VincentEsq.com

               - and -

          Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Esq.
          Lexi J. Hazam, Esq.
          Sarah R. London, Esq.
          Tiseme G. Zegeye, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 956 1000
          Facsimile: (415) 956 1008
          E-mail: ecabraser@lchb.com
                  lhazam@lchb.com
                  slondon@lchb.com
                  tzegeye@lchb.com


USG CORPORATION: Fitzgerald Balks at Merger Deal with Knauf
-----------------------------------------------------------
SUSAN FITZGERALD, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. USG CORPORATION, STEVEN F.
LEER, JENNIFER F. SCANLON, JOSE ARMARIO, WILLIAM H. HERNANDEZ,
RICHARD P. LAVIN BRIAN KENNEY, GRETCHEN R. HAGGERTY, MATHER CARTER,
JR. THOMAS A. BURKE, GEBR. KNAUF KG, GEBR. KNAUF
VERWALTUNGSGESELLSCHAFT KG, C&G VERWALTUNGS GMBH, WORLD CUP
ACQUISITION CORPORATION, BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY INC., BERKSHIRE
HATHAWAY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEBRASKA, BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY
ASSURANCE CORPORATION, NATIONAL INDEMNITY COMPANY, GENERAL RE LIFE
CORPORATION, GENERAL REINSURANCE CORPORATION, and, GENERAL RE
CORPORATION, the Defendants, Case No. 2018-0603 (Del. Ch., Aug. 13,
2018), seeks to enjoin a shareholder vote on a proposed buyout, or,
in the event that the shareholder vote is held, enjoin the
consummation of the Proposed Buyout, until such time as the Company
receives the requisite number of shares required by Section 203 for
the consummation of the Proposed Buyout and shareholders are
adequately informed that they are in the midst of a hostile
takeover of USG.

The case is a shareholder class action brought by Plaintiff on
behalf of USG shareholders against Defendants for violations of
statutory law, breaches of fiduciary duty, and/or other violations
of state law arising out of their efforts to effectuate the sale of
USG to Knauf.

According to the complaint, on June 10, 2018, USG entered into an
agreement and plan of merger with Knauf and World Cup Acquisition
Corporation, pursuant to which Merger Sub will merge with and into
the Company, with the Company surviving as a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Knauf. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement,
USG shareholders will receive $44 in cash for each share of USG
common stock that they own. This Merger Consideration and the
Proposed Buyout are the result of the Board's reactionary response
to coordinated and sustained pressure exerted by the Company's
largest shareholders, Knauf and Berkshire. As a result of this
coordinated activity, the Board suffered a stunning loss at its
annual meeting, at which all four of its recommended directors up
for election failed to secure the votes they needed to win
election. Shortly thereafter, and despite months of publicly and
privately fending off Knauf's advances, the Board surrendered to
Knauf and Berkshire and agreed to a sale to Knauf that it had both
publicly and privately decided was inadequate and not in
shareholders' best interests.

Worse, the Board, Knauf, and Berkshire intend to submit the
Proposed Buyout to shareholders both (i) in violation of 8 Del. C.
section 203, which requires a supermajority vote of all USG
shareholders not affiliated with Knauf and Berkshire, and (ii)
without informing USG shareholders that they are voting on a
hostile takeover of their Company. Specifically, on July 20, 2018,
the Board authorized the filing of a Form PREM 14A Preliminary
Proxy Statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The
Proxy fails to include information identifying the Proposed Buyout
as a hostile takeover attempt governed by Section 203 and
misrepresents the number of affirmative votes of USG common
stockholders required under that section to complete the Merger.

USG Corporation, also known as United States Gypsum Corporation, is
an American company which manufactures construction materials, most
notably drywall and joint compound.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
          Miles D. Schreiner, Esq.
          MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
          The Empire State Building
          350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4405
          New York, NY 10118
          Telephone: (212) 971 1341
          E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
                  mschreiner@monteverdelaw.com

               - and -

          Blake A. Bennett, Esq.
          COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A.
          The Brandywine Building
          1000 West Street, 10th Floor
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 984 3800


WAL-MART STORES: Mays' Bid to Certify Wage Statement Class Nixed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned LERNA MAYS, the Plaintiff, v. WAL-MART
STORES, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-02318-AB-KK (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Andre Birotte Jr. entered an order:

   1. denying plaintiff's motion for class certification;

   2. dismissing Plaintiff's second cause of action for violation
      of California Labor Code section 226(a) for lack of
      standing; and

   3. directing Plaintiff to file an amended complaint in an
      attempt to cure the standing defects.

The Court explained it cannot certify a class when the named
Plaintiff has failed to allege facts sufficient to support
standing.  The Court cited Lierboe v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins.
Co., 350 F.3d 1018, 1022–23 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that a class
may only be represented by a named plaintiff with standing); and
Pence v. Andrus, 586 F.2d 733, 736–37 (9th Cir. 1978) ("In class
actions, the named representatives must allege and show that they
personally have been injured, not that injury has been suffered by
other, unidentified members of the class to which they belong and
which they purport to represent.").

The Court also held that Plaintiff's second cause of action is
dismissed for lack of standing, citing Bernhardt v. Cty. of Los
Angeles, 279 F.3d 862, 868 (9th Cir. 2002) (holding that district
courts may dismiss sua sponte an action for lack of standing)
(citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3)).


WIDEOPENWEST INC: Faces Suits in New York over IPO
--------------------------------------------------
WideOpenWest, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the company faces a
putative class action suit in New York involving the company's
initial public offering.

In June and July of 2018, putative class action complaints were
filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York against
WideOpenWest, Inc. and certain of the Company's current and former
officers and directors, as well as Crestview Advisors, L.L.C.,
Avista Capital Partners, and each of the underwriter banks involved
with the Company's initial public offering (IPO).

The complaints allege violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 in connection with the IPO. The
plaintiffs seek to represent a class of stockholders who purchased
stock pursuant to or traceable to the IPO. The complaint seeks
unspecified monetary damages and other relief.

WideOpenWest said, "The Company believes the complaint and
allegations to be without merit and intends to vigorously defend
itself against these actions. The Company is unable at this time to
determine whether the outcome of the litigation would have a
material impact on our results of operations, financial condition,
or cash flows."

WideOpenWest, Inc. operates as a cable operator in the United
States. It provides high-speed data, cable television, voice over
IP-based telephony, and business-class services to residential and
business services customers.


WRIGHT WASTE: McCall Action to Recover Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------
Harvie L. McCall, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Wright Waste Management, LLC and Becky
Wright, individually, Defendants, Case 18-cv-02127 (S.D. Tex., June
25, 2018), seeks to recover overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, costs of court,
pre-judgment and post-judgment interest under the provisions of the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Wright Waste Management, LLC is a Houston-based company that
specializes in providing recycling services for commercial and
industrial businesses. McCall is a driver who collects and
transports materials to be recycled within the Houston area.
Defendants failed to pay McCall overtime premiums for any hours
worked over forty per week, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Douglas B. Welmaker, Esq.
      WELMAKER LAW PLLC
      Austin, TX 78715
      Phone: (512) 799-2048
      Fax: (512) 253-2969
      Email: doug@welmakerlaw.com


XPRESSPA ONLINE: Burbon Alleges Disabilities Act Violation
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Xpresspa Online
Shopping, LLC. The class action is captioned as Luc Burbon, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff,
v. Xpresspa Online Shopping, LLC, the Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-07609 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 21, 2018). The suit alleges Americans
with Disabilities Act violation.

XpresSpa operates a network of airport spas for business and
leisure travelers. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



                            *********

S 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 ***