CAR_Public/180920.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, September 20, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 189

                            Headlines

ACCC INSURANCE: Faces Fairman Class Suit in S.D. Mississippi
ADVANCED RETAIL: Williams Seeks Overtime Pay for Merchandisers
ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Sued by Castro in N.Y. Over FDCPA Violations
AMERICAN YUEXIANGGUI: Chiu Files Suit Asserting FLSA Breach
AMERICOLLECT INC: Class Certification Sought in Kijek Suit

AMPIO PHARMACEUTICALS: Shaffer Sues Over Share Price Drop
ASCENSIONPOINT RECOVERY: Machnik's Bid for Certification Stayed
ASPLUNDH TREE: Belloso Wins Certification of Employee Class
BAPTIST HEALTH: Blake Tishman's Bid to Certify TCPA Class Denied
BENCO DENTAL: Agrees to Settlement in Class-Action Lawsuit

BLACK ISLAND: Faces Honeywell ADA Suit in M.D. Fla.
BUFFALO, NY: Lathrop Sues BOE to Recover Overtime Pay
C&C SECURITY: Lepe Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
CALIFORNIA-NEVADA METHODIST: Aman Seeks Unpaid Wages & OT Pay
CALIFORNIA: Passes Bill Restoring Workers' Right to Class-Action

CAMDEN DEVELOPMENT: Appeals Order in Morris Suit to 9th Cir.
CARRINGTON MORTGAGE: Ritenour's Class Cert. Motion Denied
CHILDREN'S MERCY: J.H. Suit Moved to Western District of Missouri
COACH INC: Vaughn Seeks Certification of 2 Store Manager Classes
CROSSROADS CORRECTIONAL: Local Attorneys Prep Class Suit

CULPEPER COUNTY, VA: Rios Files Civil Rights Class Suit
CV SCIENCES: Bragar Eagel Files Class Action Lawsuit
CV SCIENCES: Rosen Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
DAIRY FARMERS: 9,000 Farmers Paid in Class Action Suit
DAKOTA COUNTY, MN: Sued by Lutgens Over Civil Rights Violations

DEFENDERS INC: Certification of FLSA Collective Action Sought
DOUGH MANAGEMENT: Rechtoris Files Suit Over Below Min. Wages
EL FOGON: Naranjo Seeks to Recover OT Pay, Damages
ELDORADO LOUNGE: Jackson Seeks Review of Ruling in Braxton Suit
EQUIFAX INC: Duncan Man Files Class Action Suit After Cyber Attack

FAUZIA KHAN: Whitney Seeks to Certify Class of Cook County Inmates
FCA US: Faces Cummings Suit in N. Dist. New York
FUN BRANDS: Website not Accessible to Blind People, Wu Says
G. M. GOLDMAN: Chertok Sues over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
GENERAL INFORMATION: Devon Smith Suit Goes to South Carolina

GLOBAL CREDIT: Wins Prelim. Nod of Class Deal in Williams Suit
GOSPEL FOR ASIA: Court Certifies Class, Subclass in Murphy Suit
HERBALIFE LTD: Rodgers Suit over Live Events Transferred to Calif.
HESKA CORP: Court Certifies Class in Fauley Suit
HLY CHINESE: Li Sues Over Fair Labor Standards Act Violations

ILLINOIS: Wage Class Certification Sought in Singer Suit
INDEPENDENT TRUCKERS: Northrup Clarifies Class of Subscribers
JAMBA INC: Turner et al. Allege False Advertising of Smoothies
JPMORGAN CHASE: African American Advisors File Discrimination Suit
JPMORGAN CHASE: Wins Prelim. Approval of Senegal Suit Settlement

JUNO THERAPEUTICS: Pomerantz LLP Discloses Settlement of Lawsuit
JUST ENERGY: Evangelista Seeks to Certify Class
KAISER FOUNDATION: Williams Seeks Overtime Pay under Labor Code
LANNETT COMPANY: Kaskela Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
LONG ISLAND CONCRETE: Fails to Pay Wages, Perez et al. Say

LOUISIANA: Hamilton's Bid to Certify Prisoners Class Tossed
MCCARTHY BURGESS: Calonge Sues in E.D.N.Y. Over FDCPA Violations
MCDONALD'S: Violated FCRA with Background Checks on Job Applicants
MDL 2741: Barnes et al. vs Monsanto Consolidated in N.D. Calif.
MDL 2741: Bookout et al. vs Monsanto Consolidated in N.D. Calif.

MDL 2741: Boudreaux et al. vs Monsanto Consolidated in N.D. Calif.
MDL 2741: Carroll et al. vs Monsanto Consolidated in N.D. Calif.
MDL 2741: Dutton-Smith vs Monsanto Consolidated in N.D. Calif.
MDL 2741: Hachmeister vs Monsanto Consolidated in N.D. Calif.
MDL 2741: Hoffman et al. vs Monsanto Consolidated in N.D. Cal.

MDL 2741: Hurst vs Monsanto Consolidated in N.D. Calif.
MEDICAID: Caregivers File Federal Suit Over Budgeting System
MEDNAX INC: Bragar Eagel Files Class Action
MERCK & CO: Hoppers Sues over Sale of Zostavax Vaccine
MERCK & CO: Roberts Sues over Sale of Zostavax Vaccine

MICHAEL MARINOV: Wins Bid to Strike Wrong Memo in Garcia Suit
MIDLAND CREDIT: Williams Suit Moved to E.D. Pennsylvania
MONSANTO COMPANY: Coats Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MRS BPO: Guralenko Files Suit Over FDCPA Breach
NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Panzarella Sues Over Illegal Collection Calls

NEVADA: Shannon Appeals Decision in Suit v. DIR Over Lump-Sum Award
NEWPORT SYNDICATE: Newlyweds Sue Over Hep A Exposure
OISHI THAI: Violates Disabilities Act, Gomez Class Suit Claims
OXY USA: Hitch Moves to Certify Class of Royalty Owners in Kansas
OXY USA: Whisenant Suit Moved to Western District of Oklahoma

PAPA JOHN'S: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
PENNSYLVANIA: Class-Action Suits vs. PHEAA Target Practices
PRIMEFLIGHT AVIATION: Kuhn Suit Moved to E.D. California
PROGRESSIVE INSURANCE: Stedman Suit Moved to W.D. Washington
PROMPT NURSING: Filipino Nurses Class Certified in "Paguirigan"

QUEEN'S HARBOUR: Faces Story Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct.
REGIONAL MEDICAL: Faces MSPA Suit in M. Dist. Florida
REPROMED: Law Firms Team Up on Proposed Class Action
ROYAL WINNIPEG: Canada's Ballet World Rocked by Abuse Scandal
SAN BERNARDINO, CA: McKibben Wins Prelim. OK of $950K Settlement

SANFORD LP: Spacone Appeals Class Cert. Denial to 9th Circuit
SCRIPPS EXECUTIVE: Meisenheimer Sues over Inaccurate Pay Check
SECORP INDUSTRIES: Court Certifies Class in Jensen Suit
SETERUS INC: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Heinitz Alleges
SHAMROCK FOODS: 9th Circuit Appeal Filed in Ruiz Class Suit

SINCLAIR BROADCAST: My Philly Lawyer Asserts Sherman Act Breach
SOUTHERN ILLINOIS UNIV: Ahad's Bid for Class Certification Denied
SPRINGFIELD, MA: Disability Law Appeals Dist. Ct. Ruling
STAGE STORES: Crosby Moves for Certification of Class Under FLSA
STARBUCKS CORP: Court Denies Petition for Rehearing in Wage Suit

SUBARU: To Settle Lawsuit Over WRX, WRX STI Engines
SUNTRUST: Saint-Simon Suit Moved to S.D. Florida
SUPERVALU INC: Wallace Balks at United Natural Foods Merger Deal
SUSHI HOUSE: Accused by Gomez Suit of Violating Disabilities Act
TBC CORP: Court Certifies Colorado & Florida Classes

THALES AVIONICS: Faces Hamadah Wage-and-Hour Suit
THIRD ROUND: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Mesch Suit Says
TIGAMAN INC: $1.3M Sale of Roswell Property to Steven Approved
TORONTO HYDRO: Faces Lawsuit Over High Rise Fire
UNITED STATES: Class Cert. Bid in Lucas Suit Denied w/o Prejudice

USG CORP: Lowinger Seeks to Halt Sale to Gebr. Knauf
VOLUME SERVICES: Jeffries Appeals FCRA Suit Dismissal
WESTERN EXPRESS: Hutto Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
WILLIAMS & FUDGE: Consumers Sue Student Loan Financial Company
YONKERS RACING: Website not Accessible to Blind, Mendez Says


                            *********

ACCC INSURANCE: Faces Fairman Class Suit in S.D. Mississippi
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ACCC Insurance
Company.  The case is captioned as Melvin Fairman, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ACCC Insurance
Company, Case No. 2:18-cv-00162-KS-MTP (S.D. Miss., September 10,
2018).

The lawsuit arises from insurance-related disputes.

ACCC Insurance Company provides personal auto insurance.  ACCC is a
privately held company founded in 1997 and its corporate office is
located in Houston, Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ADVANCED RETAIL: Williams Seeks Overtime Pay for Merchandisers
--------------------------------------------------------------
MEAGHAN WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ADVANCED RETAIL
MERCHANDISING, INC., Case No. 8:18-cv-02104-VMC-AEP (M.D. Fla.,
Aug. 23, 2018), alleges that the Defendant failed to pay overtime
to their merchandisers, including Meaghan Williams, as required by
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, ARM employed merchandisers like
Williams to install shelves in stores and stock them with
merchandise. Although merchandisers regularly worked many hours in
excess for 40 per week, ARM paid them a fixed weekly amount without
any overtime pay in violation of the FLSA.

Advanced Retail provides retail merchandising services to retailers
and brand marketers to support their merchandising activities.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
          20 N. Orange Ave., 16th Floor
          P.O. Box 4979
          Orlando, FL 32802-4979
          Telephone: (407) 420 1414
          Facsimile: (407) 425 8171
          E-mail: RMorgan@forthepeople.com


ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Sued by Castro in N.Y. Over FDCPA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alltran Financial,
LP.  The case is titled as Alex Castro, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Alltran Financial, LP, Case No.
2:18-cv-05055 (E.D.N.Y., September 7, 2018).

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

Alltran Financial, LP, specializes in revenue cycle, accounts
receivable, and contact center solutions within healthcare,
financial services, higher education, and government industries in
the Unites States.  The Company also offers, among other things,
pre-service coverage and cleanup, and charge entry and physician
billing services; and Medicaid eligibility and self pay collection
services.[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


AMERICAN YUEXIANGGUI: Chiu Files Suit Asserting FLSA Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Yuexianggui
of LI LLC and Xing Mei Chen.  The case is titled as Yvonne Chiu, on
her own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated v.
American Yuexianggui of LI LLC and Xing Mei Chen, Case No.
2:18-cv-05091 (E.D.N.Y., September 10, 2018).

The Plaintiff accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

American Yuexianggui of Li LLC is a New York domestic limited
liability company with a corporate address in Old Westbury, New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Troy, Esq.
          TROY & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
          41-25 Kissena Boulevard, Suite 119
          Flushing, NY 11355
          Telephone: (718) 762-1324
          E-mail: troylaw@troypllc.com


AMERICOLLECT INC: Class Certification Sought in Kijek Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Donna Kijek and Thomas Whalen move the Court to certify the class
described in the complaint of their lawsuit styled DONNA KIJEK and
THOMAS WHALEN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. AMERICOLLECT, INC., Case No. 2:18-cv-01428-DEJ (E.D.
Wisc.), and further ask that the Court both stay the motion for
class certification and to grant them (and the Defendant) relief
from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules and
requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the
Motion.

Dicta in the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v.
Gomez, left open the possibility that a defendant facing a class
action complaint could moot a class representative's case by
depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of the
plaintiff's individual claim with the court and having the court
enter judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to the filing of a
class certification motion, the Plaintiffs assert, citing
Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016).

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with
the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the
certification motion.  Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891,
896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First
Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of
that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class
from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs.").

While the Seventh Circuit has held that the specific procedure
described in Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual settlement
of a class representative's claims, the same decision cautions that
other methods may prevent a plaintiff from representing a class,
the Plaintiffs tell the Court, citing Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco,
Inc., No. 16-3574, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10839 *9-10 (7th Cir. June
20, 2017).  The Plaintiffs assert that one defendant has attempted
a similar tactic by sending a certified check to the proposed class
representative. Bonin v. CBS Radio, Inc., No. 16-cv-674-CNC (E.D.
Wis.); see also Severns v. Eastern Account Systems of Connecticut,
Inc., Case No. 15-cv-1168, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23164 (E.D. Wis.
Feb. 24, 2016).

The Plaintiffs are obligated to move for class certification to
protect the interests of the putative class, the Plaintiffs
contend.

As the Motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when
short motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended
motion is filed, the Plaintiffs argue.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as class
representatives, and to appoint Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, as class
counsel.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
          Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482-8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
          E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com
                  jfruchter@ademilaw.com
                  bslatky@ademilaw.com


AMPIO PHARMACEUTICALS: Shaffer Sues Over Share Price Drop
---------------------------------------------------------
Steven Shaffer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Ampio Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Michael
Macaluso and Thomas E. Chilcott, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-02252
(D. Colo., August 31, 2018), seeks statutory damages and any other
available legal or equitable remedies resulting from violations of
the federal securities laws.

Ampio is a biopharmaceutical company which focuses on the
development of therapies for the treatment of prevalent
inflammatory conditions. It was developing Ampion, a low molecular
anti-inflammatory biologic, for the treatment of pain due to
osteoarthritis of the knee.

Defendants failed to disclose that Ampion's clinical trials were
inadequate and not well-controlled. On this news, shares of Ampio
fell $2.25 per share or over 78% to close at $0.61 per share on
August 8, 2018. Shares continued to fall another 21.3% the next
day. Shaffer purchased Ampio common stock and lost substantially,
says the complaint. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

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


ASCENSIONPOINT RECOVERY: Machnik's Bid for Certification Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. William E. Duffin grants the motion to stay further
proceedings on motion for class certification filed by the
Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled AUDREY MACHNIK v. ASCENSIONPOINT
RECOVERY SERVICES LLC, Case No. 2:18-cv-01375-WED (E.D. Wisc.).

On September 5, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a class action complaint.
At the same time, the Plaintiff filed what the Court commonly
refers to as a "protective" motion for class certification.  In
this Motion the Plaintiff moved to certify the class described in
the complaint but also moved the Court to stay further proceedings
on that Motion.

In Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011),
the court suggested that class-action plaintiffs "move to certify
the class at the same time that they file their complaint."  "The
pendency of that motion protects a putative class from attempts to
buy off the named plaintiffs."  However, because parties are
generally unprepared to proceed with a motion for class
certification at the beginning of a case, the Damasco court
suggested that the parties "ask the district court to delay its
ruling to provide time for additional discovery or investigation."

Hence, the Plaintiff's motion to stay further proceedings is
granted, Judge Duffin rules.  The parties are relieved from the
automatic briefing schedule set forth in Civil Local Rule 7(b) and
(c).

Moreover, Judge Duffin states, for administrative purposes, it is
necessary that the Clerk terminate the Plaintiff's Motion for class
certification.  However, this Motion will be regarded as pending to
serve its protective purpose under Damasco.


ASPLUNDH TREE: Belloso Wins Certification of Employee Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled MILTON ANTONIO BELLOSO, the Plaintiff, v.
ASPLUNDH TREE EXPERT, CO. and ASPLUNDH TREE EXPERT, LLC, the
Defendants, Case No. 6:17-cv-02020-PGB-GJK (M.D. Fla.), the Hon.
Judge Paul Byron entered an order on August 24, 2018:

   1. conditionally certifying a class of:

      "all Employees of Asplundh who: (1) are or were employed as
      "General Foreperson" in Regions 50, 52, and 55 during the
      preceding three (3) years; (2) were paid an "hourly rate";
      and (3) worked more than forty hours in a work week without
      being paid proper overtime compensation";

   2. appointing Plaintiff's Counsel as class counsel;

   3. directing Defendants to provide Plaintiff with the names,
      job titles, dates of employment, last known addresses,
      telephone numbers, and email addresses for everyone in the
      class; and

   4. directing Plaintiff to revise notice by Magistrate Judge's
      Report and Recommendation and as modified by this Order.


BAPTIST HEALTH: Blake Tishman's Bid to Certify TCPA Class Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Jose Martinez denied without prejudice the motion for
class certification filed by the Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled
BLAKE TISHMAN, P.A., a Florida professional corporation,
individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly-situated persons v. BAPTIST HEALTH SOUTH FLORIDA INC.,
BAPTIST SLEEP CENTERS, LLC, and JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No.
0:17-cv-62230-JEM (S.D. Fla.).

Judge Martinez instructed the Plaintiff to re-file the Motion at
the appropriate time.

The Plaintiff filed causes of action against the Defendant,
alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and
conversion as a result of the Defendants sending the Plaintiff
unsolicited advertisement by facsimile.  Two days later, the
Plaintiff filed the Motion, requesting that the Court certify this
class:

    "Each person or entity that was sent one or more telephone
     facsimile messages after November 14, 2013 about outpatient
     diagnostic tests or home sleep tests available from or
     through Baptist Health South Florida or Baptist Sleep
     Centers."

The Plaintiff concedes additional discovery is necessary for the
Court to determine whether to certify the Class.  The Defendants
object to class certification on the basis that it is premature.


BENCO DENTAL: Agrees to Settlement in Class-Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Kernan, writing for Times Leader, reports that a
class-action lawsuit accusing Benco Dental of conspiring with two
other dental-supply distributors has been settled, according to a
statement issued on August 30 by the Pittston Township-based
company.

Reports say one of the parties involved will be paying out tens of
millions of dollars. But the exact settlement terms for Benco
remain unclear.

The suit, initially filed in February 2016, accused the company of
scheming with Patterson Companies Inc., of Minnesota, and Henry
Schein Inc., of New York, to falsely inflate prices by pressuring
dentists to not shop with cheaper distributors.

The three companies combined make up 80 percent of the
dental-supplies market.

In Benco's statement, it maintains it did nothing wrong, in spite
of reaching the settlement.

"While we continue to believe that the lawsuit's claims are without
merit, settlement allows us to avoid the time, expense and inherent
uncertainty of litigation," a company spokesperson wrote. "In
agreeing to the settlement, Benco made no admission of liability.
We can now refocus our efforts on what we do best: driving
dentistry forward."

While Benco made no reference to the amount it would be paying in
the settlement, New York-based Newsday is reporting that Henry
Schein is expected to pay out $38.5 million.

Schein also told Newsday that co-defendant Patterson Companies was
expected to settle. Bloomberg reported that Patterson's stock price
tumbled after Henry Schein's announcement of the settlement.

The suit, initially filed by Dr. Sander I. White, a Delaware County
dentist, claims the anti-competitive actions of Benco and the other
companies began in at least February 2012.

In April 2015, Benco consented to a $300,000 judgment in a Texas
lawsuit that involved similar accusations.

The Texas Dental Association (or TDA) claimed Benco and its
partners conspired to boycott the TDA's 2014 annual meeting in
attempts to stifle a new distributor. Benco similarly made no
admission of wrongdoing in that case, and the $300,000 paid was to
the state of Texas to cover legal fees.[GN]


BLACK ISLAND: Faces Honeywell ADA Suit in M.D. Fla.
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Black Island
Management LLC.  The case is styled as Cheri Honeywell,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Black Island Management LLC, a Florida limited liability company,
Case No. 2:18-cv-00603-SPC-MRM (M.D. Fla., September 10, 2018).

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

Black Island Management LLC is a Florida limited liability company
located in Fort Myers Beach, Florida.  The Company does business as
Lovers Key Beach Club & Resort/Flippers On The Bay.  The Flippers
On The Bay restaurant is located at Lovers Key Resort in Fort Myers
Beach.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jessica Lynn Kerr, Esq.
          THE ADVOCACY GROUP, LLC
          200 SE 6th St., Suite 504
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301-3424
          Telephone: (954) 282-1858
          Facsimile: (844) 786-3694
          E-mail: jkerr@advocacypa.com


BUFFALO, NY: Lathrop Sues BOE to Recover Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey C. Lathrop, individually and on behalf of a class of others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Board of Education for the
Buffalo City School District, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00957 (W.D.
N.Y., August 31, 2018), seeks to recover past and continuing unpaid
overtime work, past and continuing underpaid overtime compensation
(not at one and one-half regular rate of pay, liquidated damages,
prejudgment interest, post-judgment interest, costs, attorney's
fees, declaratory and injunctive relief, and any other such relief
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Buffalo Public School District is a publicly funded school district
organized and operating under the laws of the State of New York
under the NY Board of Education. Lathrop, a Chief
Engineer/Custodian, worked in excess of forty hours in a work week
and were not compensated for such overtime work, say the conplaint.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Paul D. Weiss, Esq.
     BARTLO, HETTLER, WEISS, &TRIPI
     22 Victoria Boulevard
     Kenmore, NY 14217
     Tel: (716) 873-8833
     Email: pweiss@bhwtlaw.com
            bnatale@bhwtlaw.com


C&C SECURITY: Lepe Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
------------------------------------------------------
ALVARO LUIS LEPE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. C&C SECURITY PATROL, INC., a California
corporation; and DOES l through 50, inclusive, the Defendant, Case
No. RG18918190 (Cal. Super. Ct., Aug. 24, 2018), seeks to recover
unpaid wages including regular wages and overtime wages under the
California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants had a consistent policy
of (1) unlawfully failing to pay Representative Plaintiff and Class
Members for all hours worked, by including but not limited to
shaving off hours worked by Representative Plaintiff and Class
Members by rounding of their punch times; (2) failing to pay
Representative Plaintiff and Class Members overtime wages for more
than 8 hours of work in a work-day and/or more than 40 hours in a
work-week; (3) failing to pay Representative Plaintiff and Class
Members double-time wages for more than 12 hours of work in a
work-day and for wages earned over 8 hours worked on the seventh
day worked in a work-week; (4) unlawfully failing to provide
Representative Plaintiff and Class Members with timely, statutorily
mandated meal and rest periods and/or failing to properly
compensate them for meal and rest period violations; (5) unlawfully
failing to reimburse Representative Plaintiff and Class Members for
business expenditures incurred in performing their job duties, (6)
willfully failing to provide Representative Plaintiff and Class
Member with accurate semi-monthly itemized wage statements that
correctly identified the name of the employer; and (7) violating
California's Unfair Competition Law.[BN]

Attorneys for Representative Plaintiff and the Plaintiff Class:

          Kevin Allen, Esq.
          Daniel Yelton, Esq.
          VELTON ZEGELMAN P.C.
          1261 Lincoln Avenue, Suite 208
          San Jose, CA 95125
          Telephone: (408) 505 7892
          Facsimile: (408) 228 1930
          E-mail: kallen@vzfirm.com
                  dvelton@vzfirm.com

               - and -

          Daniel A. Menendez, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL A. MENENDEZ
          1261 Lincoln Avenue, Suite 208
          San Jose, CA 95125
          Telephone (408) 479 4969
          Facsimile (408) 273 6912
          E-mail: daniel@siliconvalleylegal.com


CALIFORNIA-NEVADA METHODIST: Aman Seeks Unpaid Wages & OT Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------
LAURIE AMAN, an individual, on behalf of 141 1 herself and others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CALIFORNIA-NEVADA METHODIST
HOMES; and DOES 1 thru 50, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No.
RG18918017 (Cal. Super. Ct., Aug. 23, 2018), seeks payment of
unpaid wages and overtime under the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, from at least four years prior to the
filing of this action continuing to the present, the Defendant has
had a consistent policy of failing to pay wages and/or overtime to
all Proposed Class members when they work more than eight hours in
a day or forty hours in a week. The Plaintiff and other members of
the Proposed Class were not properly compensated for overtime at
the appropriate rate of pay because Defendant failed to blend shift
differential and/or "other" pay into their regular rate of pay for
the purposes of determining the appropriate overtime rate. As such,
Plaintiff and the Proposed Class were paid at a regular rate less
than the rate required under California law.

The Defendant provides retirement living options to seniors.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class:

          Eric B. Kingsley, Esq.
          Kelsey M. Szamet, Esq.
          KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY, APC
          16133 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1200
          411 Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 990 8300
          Facsimile: (818) 990 2903
          E-mail: eric@kingsleykingsley.com
                  kelsey@kingsleykingsley.com

               - and -

          Walter L. Haines, Esq.
          UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP, PC
          E-mail: admin@uelglaw.com
          5500 Bolsa Avenue, Suite 201
          Huntington Beach, CA 92649
          Telephone: (562) 256 1047
          Facsimile: (562) 256 1006


CALIFORNIA: Passes Bill Restoring Workers' Right to Class-Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
California's state senate passed a state assembly bill that will
prevent employers from forcing workers to sign mandatory
arbitration clauses as a condition of employment.

The bill, known as AB 3080, comes as an urgent response to a recent
U.S. Supreme Court ruling. In May, the Court ruled that companies
can force employees to sign a class-action lawsuit waiver that
sends any such disputes to private arbitration instead. This ruling
effectively stripped workers nationwide of their access to
class-action lawsuits when it comes to workplace disputes, as it is
widely expected that most non-unionized companies nationwide will
force new hires and even existing employees to sign these waivers,
which significantly limit an employer's exposure to legal
liability.

This poses a significant threat to the welfare, safety, and
prosperity of workers, as class-action lawsuits are often the only
effective means of recourse against an employer who is mistreating
their employees or engaging in illegal activities.

Carney Shegerian, the head of Los Angeles employment law firm
Shegerian & Associates, noted that the Supreme Court ruling ignores
this fact.

"Class-action lawsuits are sometimes the only mechanism an ordinary
person has against a company that's breaking the law," Shegerian
said. "The majority on the Supreme Court made this ruling because
they'd rather the law be friendly to businesses than hold those
businesses accountable for breaking the law."

Shegerian continued, "That ruling is essentially a giveaway to the
rich, one that comes on the backs of workers who are suffering
illegal treatment on the job -- like sexual harassment, for
example. That's why the state legislature passed this new bill so
quickly."

AB 3080 arose from the #MeToo movement, because one of the common
consequences of private arbitration is that it allows sexual
misconduct to be hidden, so that other workers, clients, and
customers at a company won't know that a given employee is actually
a sexual predator.

"We are at a time in this country when these age-old workplace
abuses are finally coming into the light," Shegerian said, "and of
course it's drawing a backlash from the rich and powerful, and
their supporters on the Supreme Court. Fortunately, ordinary
workers and their families also have a voice in the government, as
AB 3080 shows."

AB 3080 also attempts to protect itself from the inevitable legal
challenges against it by allowing employees to sign the
class-action waivers if they want to. Previous efforts in
California to outlaw the waivers altogether failed, in large part
because it was expected that such a law would be preempted either
by federal law or by the Supreme Court. By allowing workers to sign
the waivers voluntarily, there is no restriction of their rights
either way.

The bill now goes to Gov. Jerry Brown's desk for final signature.

Headquartered in Santa Monica, California and with offices in San
Diego, San Francisco, & New York, Shegerian & Associates is a law
firm specializing in protecting the rights of employees who have
been wronged by their employers. Carney Shegerian, Trial Lawyer of
the Year Award winner for 2013, has won 80 jury trials in his
career, including 37 seven-figure verdicts. Shegerian & Associates
is passionately dedicated to serving the needs of its clients. For
more information about the firm, visit www.ShegerianLaw.com. [GN]


CAMDEN DEVELOPMENT: Appeals Order in Morris Suit to 9th Cir.
------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Camden Development, Inc., filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit titled Katrina Morris v. Camden Development,
Inc., Case No. 2:18-cv-03089-GW-FFM, in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California, Los Angeles.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of Los Angeles (Case No. BC697449).  The Plaintiff seeks to
recover alleged unpaid overtime, unpaid meal period premiums,
unpaid rest period, and unpaid minimum wages under the California
Labor Code.

The appellate case is captioned as Katrina Morris v. Camden
Development, Inc., Case No. 18-80108, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Respondent KATRINA MORRIS, individually, and on behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated, is
represented by:

          Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
          LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC
          410 Arden Avenue
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 265-1020
          Facsimile: (818) 265-1021
          E-mail: edwin@lfjpc.com

Defendant-Petitioner CAMDEN DEVELOPMENT, INC., an unknown business
entity; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, is represented by:

          Brandon Reed McKelvey, Esq.
          MEDINA MCKELVEY LLP
          983 Reserve Drive
          Roseville, CA 95678
          Telephone: (916) 960-2211
          E-mail: brandon@medinamckelvey.com


CARRINGTON MORTGAGE: Ritenour's Class Cert. Motion Denied
---------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Cormac J. Carney entered an order in the lawsuit entitled
CANDICE RITENOUR, individually and on behalf of other members of
the general public similarly situated, and CHERYL WEISER,
individually and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated v. CARRINGTON MORTGAGE SERVICES, LLC, and DOES 1
through 100, Case No. 8:16-cv-02011-CJC-DFM (C.D. Cal.):

   -- granting the Defendant's motion to deny class
      certification; and

   -- denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

On September 30, 2016, Plaintiffs Candice Ritenour and Cheryl
Weiser filed this putative class action in California Superior
Court, County of Orange, against Defendant Carrington Mortgage
Services, LLC ("CMS"), alleging claims on behalf of all current and
former hourly CMS employees in California.  On November 4, 2016,
the Defendant removed the action to the District Court pursuant to
the Class Action Fairness Act.  The Plaintiffs' operative Second
Amended Complaint ("SAC") asserts eight state law causes of action
for violations of the California Labor Code and Business &
Professions Code: (1) failure to pay overtime wages, (2) failure to
provide meal periods, (3) failure to provide rest periods, (4)
failure to pay minimum wages, (5) failure to timely pay final
wages, (6) failure to provide compliant wage statements, (7)
failure to reimburse business expenses, and (8) unlawful business
practices.

The Plaintiffs' proposed class consists of all current and former
hourly-paid or nonexempt employees who worked for CMS at any time
from September 30, 2012 to final judgment.  The Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification additionally outlines five distinct
subclasses: (1) the "Meal Period Subclass," consisting of all
members who worked at least one shift for more than five hours at
any time during the relevant period, (2) the "Rest Period
Subclass," consisting of all members who worked at least one shift
of three and one-half hours or more at any time during the relevant
period, (3) the "Wage Statement Subclass," consisting of all
members who earned commissions or non-discretionary pay that "was
not used to calculate the regular rate of pay" necessary for
calculating overtime, (4) the "Waiting Time Subclass," consisting
of all members of the Meal and Rest Period Subclasses whose
employment with CS has terminated, and (5) the "Unfair Competition
Law Subclass," consisting of all members who were subjected to
"CMS' unlawful, unfair, and/or fraudulent business acts or
practices."

In his order, Judge Carney notes that the Plaintiffs have failed to
show any "strict policy" regarding breaks or premiums, let alone
one that applied to the entire class.  Because the Plaintiffs have
failed to show a uniform policy of failing to pay meal and rest
period premiums, a wage statement claim on that basis fails, Judge
Carney explaints.

Judge Carney also states that a class action is not the superior
method for adjudicating the Plaintiffs' claims.  Given that the
Plaintiffs have failed to show that CMS adopted a facially invalid
policy with respect to meal and rest periods, meal and rest period
premiums, or wage statements, the Court would have to consider
putative class members' individual circumstances on a
person-by-person basis.

"Because classwide adjudication would require adjudication of
putative class members' claims on an individual basis, the 23(b)(3)
superiority requirement is not met," Judge Carney opines, citing
See Gonzalez v. OfficeMax N. Am., 2012 WL 5473764, at *5 (C.D. Cal.
Nov. 5, 2012).


CHILDREN'S MERCY: J.H. Suit Moved to Western District of Missouri
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled J.H., by and through his Next
Friend A.H. individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Children's Mercy Hospital, the
Defendant, Case No. 1816-CV17775, was removed from the Circuit
Court of Jackson County, Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Missouri (Kansas City) on Aug. 24, 2018.
The Missouri Western District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
4:18-cv-00675-ODS to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Ortrie D. Smith.

Children's Mercy Hospital is a 367-bed comprehensive pediatric
medical center in Kansas City, Missouri that integrates clinical
care, research and medical education to provide care for patients
ages birth to 21.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Martin M. Loring, Esq.
          HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP - KCMO
          4801 Main Street, Suite 1000
          Kansas City, MO 64112-2551
          Telephone: (816) 983 8142
          Facsimile: (816) 983 8080
          E-mail: martin.loring@huschblackwell.com


COACH INC: Vaughn Seeks Certification of 2 Store Manager Classes
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled MARTHA VAUGHN, on behalf of
herself, all others similarly situated v. COACH, INC., DBA COACH
LEATHERWARE CALIFORNIA INC., a Maryland corporation; and DOES 1-50
inclusive, Case No. 3:16-cv-04633-VC (N.D. Cal.), ask the Court to
certify these classes:

   (1) Retail Store Manager Class:

       All individuals employed by Coach in the position of Store
       Manager at any Coach Retail Store in California at any
       time between June 29, 2012 and December 31, 2014; and

   (2) Small Outlet Store Manager Class:

       In addition to Plaintiff, all individuals employed by
       Coach in the position of Store Manager at any Coach Outlet
       Store with (a) annual sales in the lowest ten percent of
       Coach Outlet stores in California at any time after
       January 1, 2015, or (b) annual sales that would place the
       Coach Outlet store within the group comprising the lowest
       ten percent of Coach Outlet stores nationally at any time
       after January 1, 2015.

The Plaintiff also seeks certification of such sub-classes as are
necessary to manage the proposed class, including penalty
sub-classes limited in time by the applicable statutes of
limitation.

Ms. Vaughn further asks the Court to (1) appoint her as
representative of the classes, or later proposed and approved by
the Court and any other sub-class the Court may devise; (2) to
appoint Stanley D. Saltzman, Esq., of Marlin & Saltzman and Shaun
Setareh, Esq., and H. Scott Leviant, Esq., of Setareh Law Group as
Class Counsel; and (3) to issue other orders as necessary to
effectuate the Court's certification Order.

The Court will commence a hearing on November 29, 2018, at 10:00
a.m., to consider the Motion.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shaun Setareh, Esq.
          H. Scott Leviant, Esq.
          SETAREH LAW GROUP
          9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 888-7771
          Facsimile: (310) 888-0109
          E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com
                  scott@setarehlaw.com

               - and -

          Stanley D. Saltzman, Esq.
          MARLIN & SALTZMAN, LLP
          29800 Agoura Road, Suite 210
          Agoura Hills, CA 91301
          Telephone: (818) 991-8080
          Facsimile: (818) 991-8081
          E-mail: ssaltzman@marlinsaltzman.com


CROSSROADS CORRECTIONAL: Local Attorneys Prep Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Tod Palmer, writing for 41 KSHB Kansas City, reports that two local
attorneys, Henry C. Service, Esq. and Arimeta DuPree, Esq are
gathering information and documents for a legal takedown of the
Missouri Department of Corrections.

Service told 41 Action News that he's currently working to certify
a group of several dozen inmates for a class-action lawsuit against
Crossroads Correctional Center in Cameron, Missouri.

Among the complaints, which family and friends voiced during a
press briefing on September 1 with the Service and DuPree,
conditions at Crossroads are unsanitary, the food service is
unsatisfactory, and understaffing has led to Constitutional
violations of inmates' rights.

"People visiting contracted MRSA," Service said, referring to a
drug-resistant strain of staphylococcus bacteria common in some
prisons and hospitals. "It's unsanitary and there's been no action
from the health department. If a child can get it from visiting,
imagine what it's like for the people in there."

Family and friends complain of being able to visit loved ones.

Inmates, many of who were involved in an "uprising" in May to
protest the conditions at the prison, have complained of being on
forced lockdown months after the incident due to understaffing.

"It's not a staffing issue," Service said. "It's a human rights
issue."

Service and DuPree are asking inmates and their families to gather
relevant documents as well as lodge and log complaints as part of
the evidence-gathering process.

The problems at the prison haven't been limited to inmate
complaints.

The prison has consistently denied access to legislators and press
seeking to assess the facility's conditions, especially since the
May unrest, in violation of Missouri law.

"Not to confuse the issue, but it sounds similar to another set of
facilities where people were subjected to inhumane treatment and
access to document the conditions was denied," Service said. "That
seems to be the new normal. You cover it up, and don't even do a
good cover up, then you look the press or politicians right in the
eye and say everything is fine when it's not."

Crossroads may only be the tip of the iceberg.

"We want to expand it," Service said.

But for now, he's content to try and make a difference at
Crossroads.

Some family members and friends of Crossroads inmates are planning
protests, hoping to draw more attention to the issues at the
facility.[GN]


CULPEPER COUNTY, VA: Rios Files Civil Rights Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Scott Jenkins.  The
case is titled as Francisco Guardado Rios, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Scott Jenkins, Sheriff of Culpeper
County, Virginia, in his individual capacity, Case No.
3:18-cv-00082-GEC (W.D. Va., September 10, 2018).

The Plaintiff alleges violations of the Civil Rights Act.

Scott Jenkins is the Sheriff of Culpeper County, Virginia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rachel Emily Nadas, Esq.
          Simon Y. Sandoval-Moshenberg, Esq.
          Sophia Leticia Gregg, Esq.
          LEGAL AID JUSTICE CENTER
          6066 Leesburg Pike #520
          Falls Church, VA 22041
          Telephone: (571) 620-5230
          Facsimile: (703) 778-3454
          E-mail: rnadas@justice4all.org
                  simon@justice4all.org
                  sophia@justice4all.org

               - and -

          Victor M. Glasberg, Esq.
          VICTOR M. GLASBERG & ASSOCIATES
          121 South Columbus Street
          Alexandria, VA 22314
          Telephone: (703) 684-1100
          Facsimile: (703) 684-1104
          E-mail: vmg@robinhoodesq.com


CV SCIENCES: Bragar Eagel Files Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. discloses that a class action lawsuit
has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Nevada on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired CV Sciences, Inc., securities between June 19,
2018 and August 20, 2018, (the "Class Period").  Investors have
until October 23, 2018 to apply to the Court to be appointed as
lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects.  Specifically, Defendants failed to
disclose that its Patent #15/426,617: (1) received a non-final
rejection from the USPTO on April 27, 2017; (2) a final rejection
from the USPTO on December 14, 2017; and (3) as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' statements about CV Sciences' business,
operations, and prospects, were materially false and/or misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

If you purchased CV Sciences securities during the Class Period or
continue to hold shares purchased before the Class Period, have
information, would like to learn more about these claims, or have
any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or
interests with respect to these matters please;

         Brandon Walker, Esq.
         Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
         Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
         Telephone: (212) 355-4648
         Website: www.bespc.com
         Email: fortunato@bespc.com
                walker@bespc.com [GN]


CV SCIENCES: Rosen Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, disclosed the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of CV Sciences, Inc., from June 19, 2017 through August
20, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to
recover damages for CV Sciences investors under the federal
securities laws.

To join the CV Sciences class action, go to
https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1405.html or call Phillip Kim,
Esq. or Zachary Halper, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or zhalper@rosenlegal.com for information on
the class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, defendants during the Class Period made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) CV Sciences received a non-final rejection from
the U.S. Patent Trademark Office ("USPTO") on April 27, 2017
regarding its principal pharmaceutical product, CVSI-007; (2) CV
Sciences received a final rejection from the USPTO on December 14,
2017 regarding CVSI-007; and (3) as a result of the foregoing,
defendants' statements about CV Sciences' business, operations, and
prospects, were materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October
23, 2018. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1405.html
Follow us for updates on LinkedIn:
https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-rosen-law-firm or on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/rosen—firm.

View source version on
businesswire.com:https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20180829005455/en/

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


DAIRY FARMERS: 9,000 Farmers Paid in Class Action Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Boston Herald reports that thousands of Northeast dairy farmers are
receiving their share of a $50 million settlement, nearly nine
years after the farmers filed a class-action lawsuit against a
national dairy marketing cooperative.

Dairy Farmers of America paid an average of $4,000 to nearly 9,000
farms to settle a lawsuit that accused the marketing group of
trying to drive down milk prices.

The 2009 class-action lawsuit charged Dairy Farmers of America; its
marketing arm, Dairy Marketing Services; and Dallas-based Dean
Foods with working together to monopolize the market for raw milk
in the Northeast.

Dean Foods agreed to a separate $30 million settlement in 2011.

The deals covered farmers in Delaware, Connecticut, Maryland,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania,
Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and the District of Columbia.
[GN]


DAKOTA COUNTY, MN: Sued by Lutgens Over Civil Rights Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against County of Dakota, et
al.  The case is captioned as Bryant Lutgens, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. County of Dakota, Loren
Hanson, Jalen Sneddeker, Katherine Forbes and Ken Rodning, Case No.
0:18-cv-02634 (D. Minn., September 10, 2018).

The Plaintiff alleges civil rights violations.

Dakota County is the third-most populous county in the U.S. state
of Minnesota.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua R. Williams, Esq.
          Timothy M. Phillips, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JOSHUA R. WILLIAMS
          2836 Lyndale Avenue South, Suite 160
          Minneapolis, MN 55408
          Telephone: (612) 486-5540
          E-mail: jwilliams@jrwilliamslaw.com
                  tphillips@jrwilliamslaw.com


DEFENDERS INC: Certification of FLSA Collective Action Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled TEDDY ARCHER, TREY BERNADOU, SEDETRIC
CHAMBLISS, ERVIN DESIR, BRODRICK FRANCIS, JAMES HUTCHINSON, DANIEL
MANOFSKY, DEVON SPRINGER, ERIC STEWART, JESSE SWANSON, ANDREW
WALLS, CALVIN WESLEY, CHRIS WOODRUFF, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. DEFENDERS, INC.,
the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00470-RGA (D. Del.), the Plaintiffs
ask the Court to conditionally certify a Fair Labor Standards Act
collective action and approve a notice to be sent to members of the
class.  Specifically, the Plaintiffs seek to certify a class
consisting of:

   "all Security Advisors who are currently or were previously
   employed by Defenders as Security Advisors, who were not paid
   for work performed by them, particularly for time spent in
   connection with their travel to and from installation job
   sites and their attendance at lengthy meetings mandated by
   Defenders".

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ted E. Trief, Esq.
          Shelly L. Friedland, Esq.
          Stan Gutgarts, Esq.
          TRIEF & OLK
          150 E. 58th Street, 34th Floor
          New York, NY 10155
          Telephone: (212) 486 6060
          E-mail: ttrief@triefandolk.com

               - and -

          Peter S. Pearlman, Esq.
          COHN LIFLAND PEARLMAN
          HERRMANN & KNOPF LLP
          Park 80 Plaza West One,
          250 Pehle Avenue, Suite 401
          Saddle Brook, NJ 07663
          Telephone: (201) 845 9600
          E-mail: psp@njlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Macy D. Hanson, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF MACY D. HANSON, PLLC
          The Echelon Center
          102 First Choice Drive
          Madison, MS 39110
          Telephone: (601) 853 9521
          E-mail: macy@macyhanson.com

               - and -

          Brian D. Long, Esq.
          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 295 5310
          E-mail: BDL@rl-legal.com


DOUGH MANAGEMENT: Rechtoris Files Suit Over Below Min. Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Corey Rechtoris, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff, v. Dough Management, Inc. and James Gronemann,
individually, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00708, (N.D. Ind., August
31, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime hours
owed under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Indiana Minimum
Wage Law.

Defendant operates numerous Domino's Pizza franchise stores and
employs delivery drivers who use their own automobiles to deliver
pizza and other food items to their customers. However, they used
an unreasonably low approximation of the vehicle expenses causing
their wages to fall below the federal minimum wage, notes the
complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew Haynie, Esq.
      FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
      1701 N. Market Street, Suite 210
      Dallas, TX 75202
      Tel: (214) 210-2100 phone
      Fax: (214) 346-5909
      Website: www.foresterhaynie.com


EL FOGON: Naranjo Seeks to Recover OT Pay, Damages
--------------------------------------------------
Juan Naranjo individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Pizza and Tacos El Fogon Corp., Taqueria el
Fogon 2 Corp. and Filiberto Meza-Wattal, Case No. 18-cv-04979,
(E.D. N.Y., September 1, 2018), seeks to recover overtime
compensation, spread-of-hours pay, unlawful deductions and
breach-of-contract and quantum meruit damages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, Wage Theft Prevention
Act and related provisions from Title 12 of New York Codes, Rules
and Regulations.

Defendants operate as "El Fogon," a restaurant located at 638
Manhattan Avenue, Brooklyn NY 11222 where Naranjo worked as a
delivery worker.  The Plaintiff contends that his duties included
greater or equal time spent in non-tipped functions, such as
dishwashing, sweeping and mopping, cleaning the counters, bathroom,
basement and sidewalk, among others.  Yet, the Defendants paid him
at the lowered tip credit rate. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lina Franco, Esq.
      Lina Franco Law, P.C.
      42 Broadway, Suite 12-126
      New York, NY 10004
      Tel (800) 933-5620


ELDORADO LOUNGE: Jackson Seeks Review of Ruling in Braxton Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Kenneth Jackson filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit styled MAURLANNA BRAXTON et al. v. ELDORADO LOUNGE,
INC. et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-03661-BPG, in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Maryland at Baltimore.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, in a Second
Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs filed a wage action against two
Baltimore nightclubs at which they previously worked: Eldorado and
Four One Four LLC, doing business as Kings & Diamonds.  They also
sued Defendant Kenneth Jackson, who owns El Dorado and holds a
one-half ownership interest in Kings & Diamonds.

In particular, the Plaintiffs allege violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"); the Maryland Wage and Hour Law ("MWHL"), as
amended, of the Labor and Employment Article; and the Maryland Wage
Payment and Collection Law ("MWPCL").  In support of their claims,
the Plaintiffs allege that they were employed by the Defendants as
exotic dancers, but were not paid a minimum wage.  Rather, they
were paid by commission, receiving half the price of the drinks
that customers of the clubs bought for them.

The appellate case is captioned as Maurlanna Braxton v. Kenneth
Jackson, Case No. 18-2051, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Fourth Circuit.[BN]

Defendant-Appellant KENNETH JACKSON, of Baltimore, Maryland,
appears pro se.

Plaintiffs-Appellees MAURLANNA BRAXTON, BRITTANY SCOTT, STEPHANIE
GAMBLE and BRIONNA WILLIAMS, On Behalf of Themselves and Other
Similarly Situated Individuals, are represented by:

          Kenneth Christopher Gauvey, Esq.
          LAW PRACTICE OF KEN C. GAUVEY, LLC
          201 North Charles Street
          Baltimore, MD 21201
          Telephone: (410) 346-2377
          E-mail: kgauvey@gauveylaw.com

Defendants ELDORADO LOUNGE, INC., and FOUR ONE FOUR, LLC, are
represented by:

          Russell Anthony Neverdon, Sr., Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF RUSSELL A. NEVERDON, SR., LLC
          711 Saint Paul Street
          Baltimore, MD 21202
          Telephone: (410) 235-2184
          E-mail: ransr@neverdonlaw.com


EQUIFAX INC: Duncan Man Files Class Action Suit After Cyber Attack
------------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Fraser, writing for Vancouver Sun, reports that a Duncan man
has filed a class-action lawsuit against Equifax after a cyber
attack on the credit-monitoring service in 2017 breached the
private information of thousands of Canadians.

Daniel Thalheimer, 46, says he was a client with Equifax and got a
letter from the company in October last year informing him that his
personal data and information had been compromised, a situation he
fears leaves him open to the ongoing risk of identity theft and
fraud.

The company didn't say exactly which information was impacted but
indicated that his file included his social insurance number, name,
address, date of birth, phone number and email address. The file
also had his username, password and secret question and answer for
the Equifax website.

"With that information, you'd be able to walk into a bank and pose
as me and have every document you need to get something,"
Thalheimer said. "So that scares me the most."

His lawsuit, which was filed in B.C. Supreme Court and is believed
to be the second such suit in B.C. and the third in Canada to be
filed, says that the breach occurred between May 13 and July 30,
2017 and could have been avoided.

It claims that the data breach occurred because of a vulnerability
in a website application, which was exploited to gain access to
files.

The developer of the website application was notified of the
vulnerability on Feb. 14, 2017 and an upgrade, which fixed the
vulnerability, was released on March 6, 2017, says the suit.

Equifax was notified directly that without the upgrade a remote
attacker could exploit the identified vulnerability and take
control of an affected system, says the lawsuit.

Despite a company policy to implement security patches within 48
hours of notification, the upgrade was not installed by Equifax
until July 30, 2017, well after the breach had occurred, claims the
suit.

On Sept. 7, 2017, Equifax, which has its principal executive
offices in Atlanta but has a wholly owned subsidiary in Canada,
announced that approximately 143 million U.S. consumers and an
unspecified number of Canadians were impacted by the data breach.

Equifax Canada issued a press release on Sept. 19, 2017 saying that
100,000 Canadians were affected.

But less than a month later it stated that the number of Canadians
whose personal information was impacted was actually about 8,000,
with a further 11,670 Canadians whose credit card information was
affected, according to the lawsuit.

In March, the company said a further 2.4 million U.S. consumers had
been impacted by the breach.

Contained within Equifax's letter to Thalheimer was an offer for 12
months complimentary credit monitoring under a company plan that he
had already been a member of at the time.

David Moriarty, Esq. -- dm@rklitigation.ca -- a lawyer for
Thalheimer, said that he was aware of at least one other similar
class action lawsuit filed in B.C. and one in Ontario.

When there is more than one class action lawsuit filed in a case,
frequently counsel for the plaintiffs will work together and
prosecute the action collectively, he added.

"We're not part of any consortium or agreement at this stage.
Whether we end up in one in the future, I don't know. We'll have to
wait and see. It's very early for us."

The lawsuit seeks to have the case certified as a class-action suit
and also seeks general, special, aggravated and punitive damages.

Equifax Canada said in an email that there would be no comment on
ongoing litigation.[GN]


FAUZIA KHAN: Whitney Seeks to Certify Class of Cook County Inmates
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned Demetrius Whitney, individually and for a
class, the Plaintiff, v. Fauzia Khan, Thomas Dart, Sheriff of Cook
County, and Cook County, Illinois, the Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-04475 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to certify
a class of:

   "all inmates at the Cook County Department of Corrections on
   or after January 1, 2017, assigned to be treated by the
   Residential Treatment Unit Dental Clinic, who have made a
   written request for dental care because of acute pain and who
   suffered prolonged dental pain because of lack of treatment."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patrick W. Morrissey, Esq.
          Thomas G. Morrissey, Esq.
          THOMAS G. MORRISSEY, LTD.
          10150 S. Western Ave.
          Chicago, IL. 60643
          Telephone: (773) 233 7900


FCA US: Faces Cummings Suit in N. Dist. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against FCA US LLC.  The case
is captioned as Lisa Cummings, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. FCA US LLC, Case No.
5:18-cv-01072-GTS-TWD (N.D.N.Y., September 7, 2018).

The nature of suit is stated as other fraud.

FCA US LLC designs, engineers, manufactures, and sells vehicles.
The Company offers passenger cars, utility vehicles, mini-vans,
trucks and commercial vans, as well as distributes automotive
service parts and accessories.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd S. Garber, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER LLP
          445 Hamilton Avenue, Suite 605
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Telephone: (914) 824-3281
          Facsimile: (914) 824-1561
          E-mail: tgarber@fbfglaw.com


FUN BRANDS: Website not Accessible to Blind People, Wu Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
KATHY WU AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the
Plaintiffs, v. FUN BRANDS CENTERS II LLC AND BOUNCEU OF BROOKLYN
INC., the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-07705 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 23,
2018), alleges that Defendants failed to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually
impaired people.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff is a visually-impaired
and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to
read website content using her computer. The Plaintiff uses the
terms "blind" or "visually-impaired" to refer to all people with
visual impairments who meet the legal definition of blindness in
that they have a visual acuity with correction of less than or
equal to 20 x 200. Some blind people who meet their definition have
limited vision. Others have no vision. Based on a 2010 U.S. Census
Bureau report, approximately 8.1 million people in the United
States are visually impaired, including 2.0 million who are blind,
and according to the American Foundation for the Blind's 2015
report, approximately 400,000 visually impaired persons live in the
State of New York.

The Defendants' denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby and
in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Because Defendants' website, www.bounceu.com, is not equally
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates
the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a
change in Defendants' corporate policies, practices, and procedures
so that Defendants’ website will become and remain accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers.[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: nyjg@aol.com
                  danalgottlieb@aol.com


G. M. GOLDMAN: Chertok Sues over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL CHERTOK, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. G. M. GOLDMAN & ASSOCIATES, INC., an
Illinois corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2018CH10744 (Ill.
Cir. Ct., Aug. 24, 2018), alleges that the Defendant made
unsolicited telephone calls to residential or cellular telephones
in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs residential telephone
number is listed on the National Do-Not-Call Registry, and was
listed on the DNC Registry at all relevant times. The Plaintiff
received five unsolicited phone calls on his residential telephone
number on July 10, 2018; July 25, 2018; August 8, 2018; August 13,
2018; and August 14, 2018. 9. The Defendant is responsible for
making or causing the making of the phone calls that Plaintiff
received. The Plaintiff never provided his residential telephone
number to Defendant for any purpose whatsoever. The Plaintiff never
gave, and Defendant never received, Plaintiffs nor express written
consent to Defendant to receive phone calls on his residential
telephone. The Defendant, whose products or services were solicited
in the phone calls, derived economic benefit from the calls.

G. M. Goldman & Associates, Inc. is doing business in insurance
services industry.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff and the Class:

          Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq.
          Sharon A. Harris, Esq.
          Matthew C. De Re, Esq.
          Nickolas J. Hagman, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
          www.attomeyzim.com
          77 West Washington Street, Suite 1220
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 440 0020
          Facsimile: (312) 440 4180
          E-mail: tom@attorneyzim.com
                  sharon@attorneyzim.com
                  matt@attorneyzim.com
                  nick@attorneyzim.com


GENERAL INFORMATION: Devon Smith Suit Goes to South Carolina
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Devon Smith, Individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. General
Information Services, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00230,
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio to the U.S. District Court for the District of
South Carolina (Columbia) on Aug. 23, 2018. The South Carolina
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-02354-MGL to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Mary Geiger
Lewis. The suit alleges Fair Credit Reporting Act violation.

General Information is a provider of accurate, objective
information to the insurance underwriting community.[BN]

Attorneys for Devon Smith, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated:

          Steven Charles Babin, Jr., Esq.
          Brandi L. Staley, Esq.
          Lance Chapin, Esq.
          CHAPIN LEGAL GROUP LLC
          580 South High Street, Suite 330
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 221 9100
          Facsimile: (614) 221 9272

               - and -

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

Attorneys for General Information Services, LLC:

          Acacia Marie Perko, Esq.
          REMINGER CO., LPA
          200 Civic Center Drive, Suite 800
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 232 2628
          Facsimile: (614) 232 2410

               - and -

          Cindy D Hanson, Esq.
          KILPATRICK TOWNSEND AND STOCKTON LLP
          1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 2800
          Atlanta, GA 30309-4530
          Telephone: (404) 815 6500
          E-mail: cindy.hanson@troutman.com

               - and -

          H. Scott Kelly, Esq.
          Troutman Sanders, Esq.
          600 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 3000
          Atlanta, GA 30308
          Telephone: (804) 697 2202


GLOBAL CREDIT: Wins Prelim. Nod of Class Deal in Williams Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on September 12, 2018, in the case
captioned Samuel Williams v. Global Credit & Collections, et al.,
Case No. 1:17-cv-03323 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held
before the Honorable Gary Feinerman.

The minute entry states that for the reasons set forth on the
record, the Joint Motion for an order Conditionally Certifying
Class and Granting Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement
Agreement is granted.

The parties are to meet and confer on proposed fairness and final
approval hearing dates, then contact Courtroom Deputy Jackie Deanes
for scheduling.


GOSPEL FOR ASIA: Court Certifies Class, Subclass in Murphy Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Timothy L. Brooks grants in part and denies in part the
Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class Action filed in the lawsuit
captioned GARLAND D. MURPHY, III, MD, and PHYLLIS MURPHY,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
GOSPEL FOR ASIA, INC.; GOSPEL FOR ASIA-INTERNATIONAL; K.P.
YOHANNAN; GISELA PUNNOSE; DANIEL PUNNOSE; DAVID CARROLL; and PAT
EMERICK, Case No. 5:17-cv-05035-TLB (W.D. Ark.).

Judge Brooks certifies this nationwide class to pursue Civil RICO
claim:

     All persons in the United States who donated money to GFA
     from January 1, 2009 through the date the Class is certified
     for Project Codes 1000-4900.  Excluded from the Class are
     unknown donors; Defendants, their subsidiaries, affiliates,
     and employees; all persons who make a timely election to be
     excluded from the Class; governmental entities; the Special
     Discovery Master appointed in this case; and the Judge to
     whom this case is assigned and his/her immediate family.

This subclass is certified to pursue claims for fraud, unjust
enrichment, and violations of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade
Practices Act under Arkansas law:

     All persons in Arkansas who donated money to GFA from
     January 1, 2009 through the date the Class is certified for
     Project Codes 1000-4900.  Excluded from the Class are
     unknown donors; Defendants, their subsidiaries, affiliates,
     and employees; all persons who make a timely election to be
     excluded from the Class; governmental entities; the Special
     Discovery Master appointed in this case; and the Judge to
     whom this case is assigned and his/her immediate family.

Plaintiffs Garland D. Murphy, III, MD., and Phyllis Murphy are
designated as Class Representatives for both defined classes.

The Court designates the Stanley Law Group as Lead Class Counsel
and the Bassett Law Firm as Class Counsel.

Judge Brooks rules that no later than October 10, 2018, the Lead
Class Counsel must submit a motion for approval of a proposed plan
of notice and the proposed notice forms, in accordance with Rule
23(c)(2)(B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

GFA is a Christian missionary organization operating in South Asia,
mainly in India.  To fulfill its charitable purposes, GFA solicits
donations from donors across the world.

According to the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order, this lawsuit
centers on the Plaintiffs' claims that, despite numerous
representations, GFA did not, in fact, spend the donated -- and
designated -- money in accordance with the donors' wishes or with
GFA's representations.  All told throughout the proposed class
period, the parties agree that approximately $375 million in
donations are at issue.  As a result, the Plaintiffs have asserted
a number of causes of action against GFA, including Civil Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act claims, fraud, unjust
enrichment, and an Arkansas-specific claim under the ADTPA.


HERBALIFE LTD: Rodgers Suit over Live Events Transferred to Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled JEFF RODGERS, PATRICIA RODGERS,
MICHAEL LAVIGNE, JENNIFER LAVIGNE, CODY PYLE, JENNIFER RIBALTA,
IZAAR VALDEZ, FELIX VALDEZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. HERBALIFE, LTD.;
HERBALIFE INTERNATIONAL, INC.; HERBALIFE INTERNATIONAL OF AMERICA,
INC., MARK ADDY, JILLIAN ADDY, DENNIS DOWDELL, GARRAIN S. JONES,
CODY MORROW, CHRISTOPHER REESE, GABRIEL SANDOVAL, EMMA SANDOVAL,
JOHN TARTOL, LESLIE R. STANFORD, FERNANDO RANCEL, LORI BAKER,
MANUEL COSTA, MARK DAVIS, JENNY DAVIS, DANIELLE EDWARDS, GRAEME
EDWARDS, THOMAS P. GIOIOSA, SANDRA GIOIOSA, ALCIDES MEJIA, MIRIAM
MEJIA, PAULINA RIVEROS, RON ROSENAU, CAROL ROSENAU, AMBER WICK,
JASON WICK, JORGE DE LA CONCEPCION, DISNEY DE LA CONCEPCION,
JENNIFER MICHELI, GUILLERMO RASCH, CLAUDIA RASCH, SAMUEL HENDRICKS,
AMY HENDRICKS, BRADLEY HARRIS, PAYMI ROMERO, ARQUIMEDES G.
VALENCIA, RYAN BAKER, KRISTOPHER BICKERSTAFF, MARK MATIKA, ENRIQUE
CARILLO, DANIEL J. WALDRON, SUSAN PETERSON, MICHAEL KATZ, and DEBI
KATZ, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-23429, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Western
Division - Los Angeles) on Aug. 27, 2018. The California Central
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-07480-DDP-MRW to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Dean D.
Pregerson.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs seek to recover "from a
corrupt organization of individuals and entities who act together,
using misrepresentation and deceit, to sell access to a series of
emotionally manipulative live events. The events are pitched as the
guaranteed pathway to attaining life changing financial success
with the multi-level marketing business opportunity sold by
Defendant Herbalife. Events are held each month in dozens of
locations across the country, and range in size from 200 to 20,000
attendees."

If Defendants told the truth -- that there is no correlation
between financial success and event attendance -- Plaintiffs would
not have attended these so-called Circle of Success events, would
not have paid for tickets to Circle of Success events, and would
not have paid for incidental expenses (such as hotel and airfare)
to attend Circle of Success events.

According to a report by Curt Anderson for Fox News, the Rodgers
estimate they lost over $100,000, including about $20,000 spent on
attending Herbalife events. Now, the couple and others are suing
the multi-level marketing company that sells its products through a
network of distributors who recruit more distributors. The
potential class-action case could involve more than 100,000
plaintiffs and might mean as much as $1 billion in damages.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Etan Mark, Esq.
          Donald J. Hayden, Esq.
          Lara O'Donnell Grillo, Esq.
          MARK MIGDAL & HAYDEN
          80 S.W. 8th Street, Suite 1999
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 374-0440
          E-mail: etan@markmigdal.com
                  don@markmigdal.com
                  lara@markmigdal.com
                  eservice@markmigdal.com

               - and -

          Jason Jones, Esq.
          E-mail: jason@jonesatlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Gopi K. Panchapakesan, Esq.
          Mark T. Drooks, Esq.
          Paul S Chan, Esq.
          BIRD MARELLA BOXER WOLPERT
            NESSIM DROOKS LINCENBERG RHOW PC
          1875 Century Park East 23rd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201 2100
          Facsimile: (310) 201 2110
          E-mail: gkp@birdmarella.com
                  mtd@birdmarella.com
                  pchan@birdmarella.com

               - and -

          Steve I. Silverman, Esq.
          Todd Alan Levine, Esq.
          Erin E Bohannon, Esq.
          KLUGER KAPLAN SILVERMAN
            KATZEN AND LEVINE PL
          201 South Biscayne Boulevard 17th Floor
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 379 9000
          Facsimile: (305) 379 3428
          E-mail: ssilverman@klugerkaplan.com
                  tlevine@klugerkaplan.com
                  ebohannon@klugerkaplan.com

               - and -

          Zachary Scott Foster, Esq.
          QUARLES BRADY LLP
          101 East Kennedy Blvd., Suite 3400
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 387 0300
          Facsimile: (813) 387 1800
          E-mail: zachary.foster@quarles.com


HESKA CORP: Court Certifies Class in Fauley Suit
------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned SHAUN FAULEY, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, the
Plaintiff, v. HESKA CORPORATION and JOHN DOES 1-10, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:15-cv-02171 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Jorge Alonso
entered an order on August 24, 2018, granting Plaintiff's motion
for class certification of:

   "all persons or entities who were successfully sent one or
   more facsimiles regarding Heska Corporation's goods or
   services from March 12, 2011, through July 21, 2014, that
   either (1) contain no "opt-out notice" explaining how to stop
   future faxes or (2) contain an opt-out notice stating, "To
   unsubscribe from Heska's promotional faxes, please call 800-
   464-3752, ext. 4565 or fax (970) 619-3008, and indicate your
   clinic name and fax number."

A status hearing was set for September 11, 2018 at 9:30 a.m.


HLY CHINESE: Li Sues Over Fair Labor Standards Act Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against HLY Chinese Cuisine
Inc., et al.  The case is titled as Chao Ping Li, individually and
on behalf of all other employees similarly situated, and Jian Li,
individually and on behalf of all other employees similarly
situated v. HLY Chinese Cuisine Inc., doing business as: New HLY
Chinese Cuisine, Hua Yao and Tao Liu, Case No. 1:18-cv-05077
(E.D.N.Y., September 10, 2018).

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

HLY Chinese Cuisine Inc. is a New York domestic business
corporation and operates a Chinese restaurant business.  The
Company does business as New HLY Chinese Cuisine, a restaurant in
Flushing, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Rui Ma, Esq.
          HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
          136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 10G
          Flushing, NY 11354
          Telephone: (718) 353-8588
          Facsimile: (718) 353-6288
          E-mail: rma@hanglaw.com


ILLINOIS: Wage Class Certification Sought in Singer Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned RICHARD SINGER,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, an Illinois Municipal
Corporation; and PACE SUBURBAN BUS SERVICE, a division of the
Regional Transportation Authority, Case No. 1:18-cv-00199 (N.D.
Ill.), asks the Court to certify his second and third causes of
action as a class action.

Mr. Singer filed his complaint requesting relief on behalf of all
Pace bus operators, who performed uncompensated work for Pace,
thereby suffering damages of unpaid regular and overtime wages.
His first cause of action was filed as a collective action pursuant
to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b), and the second and third causes of
action were filed as a class action under Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, the latter based on violations of the
Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage Payment and
Collection Act.

The class under Rule 23 is defined as:

     All Pace bus operators who performed uncompensated work for
     Pace, for the three years prior to the complaint filing
     date, through the present, and who suffered similar wage and
     related damages as alleged in the complaint (hereinafter the
     "Illinois Wage Class").

Mr. Singer also asks the Court to approve future notice to the
class of the pending action and appoint his counsel to serve as
class counsel.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott C. Polman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF SCOTT C. POLMAN
          8130 N. Milwaukee Ave.
          Niles, IL 60714
          Telephone: (847) 292-1989
          Facsimile: (847) 510-0581
          E-mail: spolman.law@comcast.net

               - and -

          Stephen A. Chareas, Esq.
          STEPHEN A. CHAREAS, LTD.
          8034 N. Milwaukee Ave.
          Niles, IL 60714
          Telephone: (847) 692-3388
          Facsimile: (847) 692-0400
          E-mail: sacltd@sbcglobal.net


INDEPENDENT TRUCKERS: Northrup Clarifies Class of Subscribers
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to the Court's Order, the Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled
John Northrup, Individually and on Behalf of a Class of Similarly
Situated Individuals v. Independent Truckers Group, Inc., David E.
Lindsey, Innovative Health Insurance Partners, LLC, and Cyberx
Group, LLC, Case No. 8:17-cv-01890-CEH-JSS (M.D. Fla.), files his
Supplement to Motion for Class Certification.

The clarified class definition is stated as:

     All cellular telephone subscribers in the United States who
     had a phone number listed in the Call Logs (filed at Docket
     Nos. 54-5 through 54-9), where the Call Logs' entry for the
     phone number reflects that the June 30, 2017 "Obama Care"
     text message was "delivered" in the "Status" column; and
     where the phone number was assigned to a cell phone (as
     opposed to a landline or VoIP line) on June 30, 2017.

Mr. Northrup explains that the class is limited to those entries on
the Call Logs that are noted as "delivered" in the "Status" column.
As stated in his original Motion for Class Certification, this
narrows the universe of potential class members from 5,745 (which
is the total number of text messages sent) to 2,717, the number of
text messages that were noted as "delivered." The Call Logs clearly
identify, in the "Status" column, which text messages were
delivered.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Cory S. Fein, Esq.
          CORY FEIN LAW FIRM
          712 Main St., #800
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (281) 254-7717
          Facsimile: (530) 748-0601
          E-mail: cory@coryfeinlaw.com

               - and -

          Seth M. Lehrman, Esq.
          EDWARDS POTTINGER LLC
          425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 524-2820
          Facsimile: (954) 524-2822
          E-mail: seth@epllc.com


JAMBA INC: Turner et al. Allege False Advertising of Smoothies
--------------------------------------------------------------
TERI TURNER and DAVID LUNDQUIST, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. JAMBA, INC. and JAMBA
JUICE COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-05168-DMR (N.D.
Cal., Aug. 23, 2018), seeks to enjoin Jamba Juice from continuing
its false advertising of "Jamba Juice Smoothies".

According to the complaint, absent enjoining this false
advertising, Jamba Juice will continue to mislead Plaintiff
Lundquist and the other members of the New York Subclass as to the
ingredient and nutritional profile of the Smoothies and, in doing
so, irreparably harm each of the New York Subclass members. As a
direct and proximate result of Jamba Juice’s violation of New
York General Business Law section 350, the Plaintiff and the other
members of the New York Subclass have also suffered an
ascertainable loss of monies. By reason of the foregoing, the
Plaintiff and the other members of the New York Subclass also each
seek actual damages or statutory damages of $500, whichever is
greater, pursuant to New York General Business Law section
350-e(3), and punitive damages.

Jamba Juice controls and directs the ingredients, offerings,
layout, and marketing for all Jamba Juice retail locations, whether
directly owned or franchised. Jamba Juice's retail locations
purportedly offer, among other products, "whole fruit and vegetable
smoothies". Capitalizing on consumer demand, Jamba Juice markets
its Smoothies as simple and nutritious. Jamba Juice claims, among
other things, that the Smoothies will rejuvenate your body with
healthy goodness and "help you be the best version of yourself."
Jamba Juice's Smoothies, however, do not contain the ingredients,
nutritional profile, and/or benefits marketed by it.

Jamba Juice owns, operates, and franchises "Jamba Juice" retail
locations across the United States.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiffs Teri Turner and David Lundquist and the
Proposed Class:

          Maia C. Kats, Esq.
          Matthew B. Simon, Esq.
          CENTER FOR SCIENCE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST
          1220 L Street, Northwest, Suite 300
          Washington, District of Columbia 20005
          Telephone: (202) 777-8381
          Facsimile: (202) 265-4954
          E-mail: mkats@cspinet.org
                  msimon@cspinet.org

               - and -

          Michael R. Reese, Esq.
          George V. Granade, Esq.
          REESE LLP
          100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10025
          Telephone: (212) 643 0500
          Facsimile: (212) 253 4272
          E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com
                  ggranade@reesellp.com


JPMORGAN CHASE: African American Advisors File Discrimination Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jerome Senegal, Erika Williams, Brent Griffin, Irvin Nash, Amanda
Jason and Kellie Farrish, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A., Case
No. 18-cv-06006 (N.D. Ill., August 30, 2018), seeks compensatory
and punitive damages, prejudgment interest and attorneys' fees,
costs and disbursements, equitable, injunctive and legal relief.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. is a publicly-traded, global financial
services firm and Fortune 500 corporation that is incorporated in
Delaware and headquartered in New York City. JPMorgan Chase Bank,
N.A. is a wholly owned subsidiary of JPMorgan Chase and a
nationally chartered bank. Plaintiffs are African American Chase
financial advisors who work or worked as registered brokers and
have been subjected to race discrimination and discriminatory
policies and practices. They claim that African Americans are
subject to higher rates of attrition and lower pay. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Linda D. Friedman, Esq.
      Suzanne E. Bish, Esq.
      George S. Robot, Esq.
      STOWELL & FRIEDMAN LTD.
      303 W. Madison, Suite 2600
      Chicago, IL 60606
      Tel: (312) 431-0888
      Email: lfriedman@sfltd.com
             sbish@sfltd.com
             grobot@sfltd.com


JPMORGAN CHASE: Wins Prelim. Approval of Senegal Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on September 12, 2018, in the case
styled Jerome Senegal, et al. v. JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A., Case No.
1:18-cv-06006 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the
Honorable Manish S. Shah.

The minute entry states that the motion to seal and the motion for
preliminary approval are granted.  The parties engaged in
pre−suit investigation and mediation, at arm's length, and used a
mediator.

The proposed non−monetary and monetary relief are within the
range of reasonableness for preliminary approval, because they
provide tangible prospective and compensatory remedies commensurate
with the claims and litigation risk in the case, according to the
Minute Entry.  The notice and claim procedures are reasonable and
the proposed neutral administrator is qualified and appropriate.

For settlement purposes, the Rule 23 requirements are met and the
class certified, Judge Shah opines.

A final approval hearing is set for December 18, 2018, at 10:30
a.m.  The motion for final approval and fee petition are due on
December 11, 2018.


JUNO THERAPEUTICS: Pomerantz LLP Discloses Settlement of Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

In re JUNO THERAPEUTICS, INC.

No. C16-1069-RSM

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED

SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION



TO:

ALL PERSONS OR ENTITIES THAT PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED
PUBLICLY TRADED COMMON STOCK OF JUNO THERAPEUTICS, INC. ("JUNO")
FROM JUNE 4, 2016 TO NOVEMBER 22, 2016, BOTH DATES INCLUSIVE (THE
"CLASS PERIOD").

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY.  YOUR RIGHTS
MAY BE AFFECTED BY PROCEEDINGS IN THIS ACTION.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington, that a hearing will be held on
November 16, 2018, at 11:00 a.m., before the Honorable Ricardo S.
Martinez at the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington, 700 Stewart Street, Suite 13134, Seattle, WA
98101-9906, to determine whether (1) the proposed Settlement of the
Class's claims against Defendants for $24,000,000 cash should be
approved as fair, reasonable and adequate; (2) the proposed Plan of
Allocation is fair and reasonable, and should be approved; (3) the
application by Class Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses should be approved; (4) the Class Plaintiffs' application
for reimbursement of costs and expenses should be granted; and (5)
the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against Defendants as
set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement filed with the Court.

If you purchased or acquired Juno common stock between June 4, 2016
and November 22, 2016, your rights may be affected by the
Settlement of this Action.  If you have not received a detailed
Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action, Motion for
Attorneys' Fees and Expenses, and Final Approval Hearing (the
"Notice") and a copy of the Proof of Claim and Release Form (the
"Proof of Claim"), you may obtain copies by writing to the
Settlement Administrator at Juno Therapeutics Securities
Litigation, Settlement Administrator, c/o A.B. Data, Ltd., P.O. Box
170500, Milwaukee, WI 53217, Phone: 1-800-329-4562, or access the
forms at www.junotherapeuticslitigation.com.

If you are a member of the Class and wish to share in the
Settlement money, you must submit a Proof of Claim no later than
November 6, 2018, establishing that you are entitled to recovery.
As further described in the Notice, you will be bound by any
judgment entered in the Action, regardless of whether you submit a
Proof of Claim, unless you exclude yourself from the Class, in
accordance with the procedures set forth in the Notice, by no later
than November 2, 2018.  Any objections to the Settlement, proposed
Plan of Allocation or attorney's fees and expenses must be filed
and served, in accordance with the procedures set forth in the
Notice, no later than November 2, 2018.

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, may be made to Class
Counsel:  Leigh Handelman Smollar, Esq., Pomerantz LLP, 10 South La
Salle Street, Suite 3505, Chicago, IL 60603, lsmollar@pomlaw.com.

INQUIRIES SHOULD NOT BE DIRECTED TO THE COURT,

THE CLERK'S OFFICE, THE DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL.

Dated:  August 30, 2018

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON  [GN]


JUST ENERGY: Evangelista Seeks to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned DANIEL EVANGELISTA, the Plaintiff, v. JUST
ENERGY MARKETING CORP., ET AL., the Defendants, Case No.
8:17-cv-02270-CJC-SS (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court
on September 24, 2018, for an order:

   1. certifying a class and Plaintiff's class claim for failure
      to reimburse expenses necessarily incurred in performing
      work for Defendants; and

   2. designating Plaintiff as the class representative and
      designating Plaintiff's counsel as class counsel.

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          William J. Turner, Esq.
          Asha Dhillon, Esq.
          JONES, BELL, ABBOTT, FLEMING &FITZGERALD L.L.P.
          601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3460
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-5759
          Telephone: (213) 485 1555
          Facsimile: (213) 689 1004
          E-mail: wmturner@jonesbell.com
                  adhillon@jonesbell.com

               - and -

          Francisco Cabada, Esq.
          Sayema J. Hameed, Esq.
          CABADA & HAMEED LLP
          1055 East Colorado Boulevard, Suite 500
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (626) 204-4080
          E-mail: cisco@cabadahameed.com
                  sayema@cabadahameed.com


KAISER FOUNDATION: Williams Seeks Overtime Pay under Labor Code
---------------------------------------------------------------
ADONIA WILLIAMS, an individual, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, and on behalf of the State of California as a
private attorney general, the PLAINTIFF, v. KAISER FOUNDATION
HEALTH PLAN, INC., a California Corporation, KAISER FOUNDATION
HOSPITALS, a California Corporation, and DOES 1 thru 50, inclusive,
the Defendant, Case No. RG18917898 (Cal. Super. Ct., Aug. 23,
2018), alleges that Defendants failed to pay overtime and failed to
provide lawful rest periods and pay non-compliant rest period
premiums in violation of the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff, the Classes, and the
aggrieved employees consistently worked shifts more than four hours
or a major fraction thereof, including shifts in excess of eight
hours. They also often worked more than 40 hours in a week, but
were not subject to collective bargaining agreements. The
Defendants had a uniform and consistent policy of failing to pay
wages and/or overtime and at the proper amounts to Plaintiff, the
Overtime Classes, and the Overtime Aggrieved Employees when they
work more than eight hours in a day and/or 40 hours in a week.

Kaiser Foundation is a mental health organization based in
Canada.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Classes:

          Craig J. Ackermann, CA
          ACKERMANN & TILAJEF, P.C.
          1180 South Beverly Drive, Suite 610
          Los Angeles, CA 90035
          Telephone: (310) 277 0614
          Facsimile: (310) 277 0635
          E-mail: cja@ackermanntilajef.com

               - and -

          David S. Winston, Esq.
          WINSTON LAW GROUP, P.C.
          1180 South Beverly Drive, Suite 610
          Los Angeles, CA 90035
          Telephone: (424) 288 4568
          Facsimile: (424) 532 4062
          E-mail: david@employmentlitigators.com

               - and -

          Jonathan Melmed, Esq.
          MELMED LAW GROUP P.C.
          1180 South Beverly Drive, Suite 610
          Los Angeles, CA 90035
          Telephone: (310) 824 3828
          Facsimile: (310) 862 6851
          E-mail: jm@melmedlaw.com


LANNETT COMPANY: Kaskela Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------
Kaskela Law LLC has filed a shareholder class action lawsuit
against Lannett Company, Inc. (NYSE: LCI) ("Lannett" or the
"Company") on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities
between February 7, 2018 and August 17, 2018, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

Investors who purchased Lannett's securities during the Class
Period may, no later than October 26, 2018, seek to be appointed as
a lead plaintiff representative of the investor class.  For
additional information please visit
http://kaskelalaw.com/case/lannett/.

Lannett develops, manufactures, packages, markets, and distributes
drugs that address a wide range of therapeutic areas.  At all
relevant times, Lannett had an exclusivity agreement with its
primary supplier, Jerome Stevens Pharmaceuticals ("JSP").  JSP's
products have historically accounted for over one-third of
Lannett's sales.

On August 20, 2018, Lannett disclosed that its distribution
agreement with JSP will not be renewed.  Following this news,
shares of Lannett's common stock fell $8.15 per share, or over 60%,
to close on August 20, 2018 at $5.35.

The shareholder class action complaint alleges that defendants made
a series of false and misleading statements and failed to disclose
to investors during the Class Period that: (i) Lannett faced a
substantial risk of the loss of its exclusivity agreement with JSP;
(ii) accordingly, Lannett's reported revenues were unsustainable,
and (iii) as a result, Lannett's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.  The complaint further
alleges that, as a result of the foregoing, investors purchased
Lannett's securities at artificially inflated prices during the
Class Period and have suffered significant investment losses.

Lannett investors with financial losses in excess of $100,000 who
seek to take a proactive role in this action are encouraged to
contact Kaskela Law LLC (D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.) at (888) 715-1740
or skaskela@kaskelalaw.com to discuss their legal rights and
options.  Investors may also submit their information to the firm
online at http://kaskelalaw.com/case/lannett/.

         D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.
         KASKELA LAW LLC
         201 King of Prussia Road
         Suite 650
         Radnor, PA 19087
         Telephone: (484) 258 – 1585
                    (888) 715 – 1740
         Email: skaskela@kaskelalaw.com [GN]


LONG ISLAND CONCRETE: Fails to Pay Wages, Perez et al. Say
----------------------------------------------------------
JOHNNY PEREZ, ARCADIO FRIAS, and NESTOR RAMIREZ, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated who were employed by
Long Island Concrete Inc., the Plaintiffs, v. LONG ISLAND CONCRETE
INC., THOMAS J. PERNO, TJM CONSTRUCTION CORP., ZHL GROUP INC.,
LANMARK GROUP, INC., THE GUARANTEE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA USA,
VIGILANT INSURANCE COMPANY, THE OHIO CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,
and JOHN DOE BONDING COMPANIES 1-10, the Defendants, Case No.
654227/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Aug. 24, 2018), seeks to recover
prevailing wages, supplemental benefits, overtime wages and other
monies, which Plaintiffs were statutorily and contractually
entitled to receive for work they performed on behalf of Defendants
within the State of New York, at various locations, including but
not limited to, 424 Wythe Avenue, FDNY Rescue Company Firehouse 2
and The Park Avenue Armory.

According to the complaint, ZHL and Lanmark, as the prime
contractors, entered into one or more Public Works Contracts,
containing provisions mandating that they pay and/or ensure payment
of prevailing rates of wages and supplemental benefits to
Plaintiffs. These prevailing wage rates and supplemental benefits
to Plaintiffs were incorporated by reference into the Public Works
Subcontracts between ZHL and LIC as well as Lanmark and LIC. The
promise to pay and ensure payment of prevailing wages and
supplemental benefits stated in the Public Works Contracts was made
for the benefit of all workers furnishing labor on the sites of the
Public Works Projects and, as such, the workers furnishing labor on
the sites of the Public Works Projects are the third-party
beneficiaries of that promise and the contracts entered into
between Defendants and government agencies.

Long Island Concrete, Inc. is a heavy concrete construction
contractor serving construction mangers and contractors in
NYC.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Steven Arenson, Esq.
          ARENSON, DITTMAR & KARBAN
          200 Park Avenue, Suite 1700
          New York, NY 10166
          Telephone: (212) 490 3600


LOUISIANA: Hamilton's Bid to Certify Prisoners Class Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Shelly D. Dick terminated the Motion for Class
Certification filed by the Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled MARCUS
HAMILTON, WINTHROP EATON, MICHAEL PERRY, on their behalf, and on
behalf of a class of similarly situated prisoners v. DARREL VANNOY,
Warden of Angola; BURL CAIN, former Warden of Angola; JAMES CRUZE,
Warden of Death Row; LESLIE DUPONT, Deputy Warden of Security; and
JAMES LEBLANC, Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Public
Safety Corrections, Case No. 3:17-cv-00194-SDD-RLB (M.D. La.).

According to the Court order, the Plaintiffs' Motion is being
withdrawn on consent of all Parties under two conditions:

   1. the withdrawal of the Motion is without prejudice and with
      leave to refile after notification to the assigned
      Magistrate Judge that the Parties have not been able to
      reach a settlement; and

   2. any such refiled motion to certify the class shall relate
      back to December 15, 2017, the date of the original filing
      of the Motion.

The hearing set for September 13, 2018, is canceled.


MCCARTHY BURGESS: Calonge Sues in E.D.N.Y. Over FDCPA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against McCarthy, Burgess &
Wolff, Inc.  The case is styled as Michael R. Calonge, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. McCarthy, Burgess &
Wolff, Inc., Case No. 2:18-cv-05061 (E.D.N.Y., September 7, 2018).

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

McCarthy, Burgess & Wolff, Inc. provides bankruptcy services. The
Company offers outsourcing, third party collection, reporting, and
analytic services.  McCarthy, Burgess & Wolff serves customers in
the State of Ohio.[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


MCDONALD'S: Violated FCRA with Background Checks on Job Applicants
------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Ahearn, writing for Employment Screening Resources, reports
that a class action lawsuit filed in a Florida court claims that
fast food giant McDonald's allegedly violated the federal Fair
Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) when it conducted background checks on
job applicants by failing to obtain proper authorization and
disclosure in violation of the FCRA, according to a report from Top
Class Actions.

Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Danny O'Neill claims he
and other job seekers were subject to background checks when they
applied to work at McDonald's and were unaware that a consumer
report would be pulled because the disclosure in the hiring
paperwork contained other distracting information.

Top Class Actions reports that O'Neill -- who applied for job with
McDonald's in March 2018 -- also claims he and other job applicants
subject to background checks during the application process were
not properly notified of the consumer report that McDonald's pulled
as required by the FCRA.

The McDonald's class action lawsuit states: The FCRA… makes is
presumptively unlawful to obtain and use a "consumer report" for an
employment purpose. Such use becomes lawful if and only if the
"user" -- in this case Defendant -- has complied with the FCRA's
strict disclosure and authorization requirements.

Plaintiff was distracted from the disclosure by the presence of
additional information in the purported FCRA Disclosure.
Specifically, Defendant unlawfully inserted extraneous provisions
into forms purporting to grant Defendant authority to obtain and
use consumer report information for employment purposes.

Top Class Actions reports the class action lawsuit against
McDonald's seeks to represent a nationwide Class of all current
employees and job applicants who were not provided proper
disclosure and authorization under the FCRA and is seeking damages
for the alleged violations of the FCRA.

The lawsuit is O'Neill v. McDonald's Corporation, Case No.
8:18-cv-02038-SDM-AEP, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida.

Section 1681b(b)(2) of the FCRA requires users of consumer reports
such as McDonald's to make "a clear and conspicuous disclosure" in
writing to consumers before the report is procured "in a document
that consists solely of the disclosure" indicating a report may be
obtained for employment purposes.

McDonald's is not the only company to face lawsuit for alleged FCRA
violations. In July 2018, a subsidiary of PepsiCo agreed to pay
$1.2 million to settle a class action lawsuit that claimed the
company violated the FCRA "by procuring background reports for
employment purposes without making certain required disclosures."

Passed by Congress in 1970, the FCRA promotes the accuracy,
fairness, and privacy of consumer information contained in the
files of consumer reporting agencies (CRAs) and is intended to
protect consumers from the willful and/or negligent inclusion of
inaccurate information in their credit reports.

In May 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled consumers must prove
"concrete injury" in lawsuits for alleged "bare" violations of
federal statutes like the FCRA in a case, Spokeo v. Robins,
involving a man who claimed he suffered an injury when Spokeo
published incorrect information about him on its site.

The U.S. Supreme Court stated in its opinion: Article III standing
requires a concrete injury even in the context of a statutory
violation. For that reason, Robins could not, for example, allege a
bare procedural violation, divorced from any concrete harm, and
satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement of Article III.

In January 2018, the Supreme Court denied a petition for a writ of
certiorari that sought a review of its opinion following a ruling
in August 2017 by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Appeals Court on remand
from the Supreme Court that found Robins had sufficient concrete
injury under Article III of the U.S. Constitution.

The fact that employers are still targeted in class action lawsuits
for technical violations of the FCRA even after the Supreme Court
ruling in Spokeo is one of the "ESR Top Ten Background Check
Trends" for 2018 selected by leading global background check firm
Employment Screening Resources® (ESR).

"In no way did the Supreme Court decision in Spokeo mean employers
could relax obligations for FCRA compliance," said ESR founder and
CEO Attorney Lester Rosen. "Employers must ensure they comply with
the FCRA and work with a background screening firm that understands
the FCRA inside and out." [GN]


MDL 2741: Barnes et al. vs Monsanto Consolidated in N.D. Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled CLIFFORD BARNES AND PATRICIA
BARNES, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, BAYER CORPORATION and
BAYER AG, the Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-01065, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri
to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
(San Francisco) on Aug. 28, 2018. The Northern District of
California of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:18-cv-05253-VC to the proceeding.

This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiffs as a direct
and proximate result of Defendant negligent and wrongful conduct in
connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the
active ingredient glyphosate.

The Barnes case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re: Roundup
Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on October
3, 2016. These actions share common factual questions arising out
of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, particularly its
active ingredient, glyphosate, causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.
Plaintiffs each allege that they or their decedents developed
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over the course of
several or more years. Plaintiffs also allege that the use of
glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients, in particular the
surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), renders Roundup
even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues concerning
general causation, the background science, and regulatory history
will be common to all actions.

In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions
in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that
centralization in the Northern District of California will serve
the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just
and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will
eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial
rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and
Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the
parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the
MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is
3:16-md-02741-VC.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Seth S. Webb, Esq.
          BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C.
          211 North Broadway, Suite 1600
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 222 2222
          Facsimile: (314) 421 0359
          E-mail: sethw@getbc.com


MDL 2741: Bookout et al. vs Monsanto Consolidated in N.D. Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled CAROL BOOKOUT AND DONNIE BOOKOUT,
the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, BAYER CORPORATION and BAYER
AG, the Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-01073, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San
Francisco) on Aug. 28, 2018. The Northern District of California
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-05259-VC to the proceeding.

This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiffs as a direct
and proximate result of Defendant negligent and wrongful conduct in
connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the
active ingredient glyphosate.

The Bookout case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re: Roundup
Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on October
3, 2016. These actions share common factual questions arising out
of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, particularly its
active ingredient, glyphosate, causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.
Plaintiffs each allege that they or their decedents developed
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over the course of
several or more years. Plaintiffs also allege that the use of
glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients, in particular the
surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), renders Roundup
even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues concerning
general causation, the background science, and regulatory history
will be common to all actions.

In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions
in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that
centralization in the Northern District of California will serve
the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just
and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will
eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial
rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and
Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the
parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the
MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is
3:16-md-02741-VC.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Seth S. Webb, Esq.
          BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C.
          211 North Broadway, Suite 1600
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 222 2222
          Facsimile: (314) 421 0359
          E-mail: sethw@getbc.com

Attorneys for Bayer Corporation:

          W. Jason Rankin, Esq.
          HEPLERBROOM LLC-EDWARDSVILLE
          130 North Main Street
          P.O. Box 510
          Edwardsville, IL 62025
          Telephone: (618) 307 1138
          Facsimile: (618) 656 1364
          E-mail: wjr@heplerbroom.com


MDL 2741: Boudreaux et al. vs Monsanto Consolidated in N.D. Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled STEVE BOUDREAUX AND DEBRA
BOUDREAUX, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, BAYER CORPORATION
and BAYER AG, the Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-01066, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Missouri to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California (San Francisco) on Aug. 28, 2018. The Northern District
of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-05254-VC to the
proceeding.

This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiffs as a direct
and proximate result of Defendant negligent and wrongful conduct in
connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the
active ingredient glyphosate.

The Boudreaux case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re:
Roundup Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order
of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on
October 3, 2016. These actions share common factual questions
arising out of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide,
particularly its active ingredient, glyphosate, causes
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Plaintiffs each allege that they or their
decedents developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over
the course of several or more years. Plaintiffs also allege that
the use of glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients, in
particular the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA),
renders Roundup even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues
concerning general causation, the background science, and
regulatory history will be common to all actions.

In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions
in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that
centralization in the Northern District of California will serve
the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just
and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will
eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial
rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and
Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the
parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the
MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is
3:16-md-02741-VC.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Seth S. Webb, Esq.
          BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C.
          211 North Broadway, Suite 1600
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 222 2222
          Facsimile: (314) 421 0359
          E-mail: sethw@getbc.com


MDL 2741: Carroll et al. vs Monsanto Consolidated in N.D. Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled RICHARD A. CARROLL AND PAULETTA S.
CARROLL, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, BAYER CORPORATION and
BAYER AG, the Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-01061, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri,
to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
(San Francisco) on Aug. 28, 2018. The Northern District of
California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-05250-VC to the
proceeding.

This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiffs as a direct
and proximate result of Defendant negligent and wrongful conduct in
connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the
active ingredient glyphosate.

The Carroll case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re: Roundup
Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on October
3, 2016. These actions share common factual questions arising out
of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, particularly its
active ingredient, glyphosate, causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.
Plaintiffs each allege that they or their decedents developed
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over the course of
several or more years. Plaintiffs also allege that the use of
glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients, in particular the
surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), renders Roundup
even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues concerning
general causation, the background science, and regulatory history
will be common to all actions.

In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions
in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that
centralization in the Northern District of California will serve
the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just
and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will
eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial
rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and
Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the
parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the
MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is
3:16-md-02741-VC.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Seth S. Webb, Esq.
          BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C.
          211 North Broadway, Suite 1600
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 222 2222
          Facsimile: (314) 421 0359
          E-mail: sethw@getbc.com


MDL 2741: Dutton-Smith vs Monsanto Consolidated in N.D. Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled BRENDA DUTTON-SMITH, the
Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, BAYER CORPORATION and BAYER AG,
the Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-01072, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San
Francisco) on Aug. 28, 2018. The Northern District of California
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-05257-VC to the proceeding.

This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiffs as a direct
and proximate result of Defendant negligent and wrongful conduct in
connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the
active ingredient glyphosate.

The Dutton-Smith case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re:
Roundup Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order
of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on
October 3, 2016. These actions share common factual questions
arising out of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide,
particularly its active ingredient, glyphosate, causes
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Plaintiffs each allege that they or their
decedents developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over
the course of several or more years. Plaintiffs also allege that
the use of glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients, in
particular the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA),
renders Roundup even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues
concerning general causation, the background science, and
regulatory history will be common to all actions.

In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions
in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that
centralization in the Northern District of California will serve
the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just
and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will
eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial
rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and
Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the
parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the
MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is
3:16-md-02741-VC.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Seth S. Webb, Esq.
          BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C.
          211 North Broadway, Suite 1600
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 222 2222
          Facsimile: (314) 421 0359
          E-mail: sethw@getbc.com

Attorney for Bayer Corporation

          W. Jason Rankin, Esq.
          HEPLERBROOM LLC-EDWARDSVILLE
          130 North Main Street
          P.O. Box 510
          Edwardsville, IL 62025
          Telephone: (618) 307 1138
          Facsimile: (618) 656 1364
          E-mail: wjr@heplerbroom.com


MDL 2741: Hachmeister vs Monsanto Consolidated in N.D. Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled JAKE E. HACHMEISTER, the
Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, BAYER CORPORATION and BAYER AG,
the Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-01064, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San
Francisco) on Aug. 28, 2018. The Northern District of California
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-05251-VC to the proceeding.

This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiffs as a direct
and proximate result of Defendant negligent and wrongful conduct in
connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the
active ingredient glyphosate.

The Hachmeister case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re:
Roundup Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order
of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on
October 3, 2016. These actions share common factual questions
arising out of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide,
particularly its active ingredient, glyphosate, causes
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Plaintiffs each allege that they or their
decedents developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over
the course of several or more years. Plaintiffs also allege that
the use of glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients, in
particular the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA),
renders Roundup even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues
concerning general causation, the background science, and
regulatory history will be common to all actions.

In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions
in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that
centralization in the Northern District of California will serve
the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just
and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will
eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial
rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and
Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the
parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the
MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is
3:16-md-02741-VC.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Seth S. Webb, Esq.
          BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C.
          211 North Broadway, Suite 1600
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 222 2222
          Facsimile: (314) 421 0359
          E-mail: sethw@getbc.com


MDL 2741: Hoffman et al. vs Monsanto Consolidated in N.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled KATHY HOFFMAN and HARRY HOFFMAN,
the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No.
4:18-cv-01209, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California (San Francisco) on Aug. 27, 2018.
The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:18-cv-05237-VC to the proceeding.

This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiffs as a direct
and proximate result of Defendant negligent and wrongful conduct in
connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the
active ingredient glyphosate.

The Hoffman case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re: Roundup
Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on October
3, 2016. These actions share common factual questions arising out
of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, particularly its
active ingredient, glyphosate, causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.
Plaintiffs each allege that they or their decedents developed
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over the course of
several or more years. Plaintiffs also allege that the use of
glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients, in particular the
surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), renders Roundup
even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues concerning
general causation, the background science, and regulatory history
will be common to all actions.

In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the lawsuits
involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the
Northern District of California will serve the convenience of the
parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of
this litigation. Centralization will eliminate duplicative
discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings (including with
respect to discovery, privilege, and Daubert motion practice); and
conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the
judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is the Hon. Judge Vince
Chhabria. The lead case is 3:16-md-02741-VC.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Seth S. Webb, Esq.
          BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C.
          211 North Broadway, Suite 1600
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 222 2222
          Facsimile: (314) 421 0359
          E-mail: sethw@getbc.com


MDL 2741: Hurst vs Monsanto Consolidated in N.D. Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled WILLIAM HURST, the Plaintiffs, v.
MONSANTO COMPANY, BAYER CORPORATION, and BAYER AG, the Defendants,
Case No. 4:18-cv-01070, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Missouri to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco) on
Aug. 28, 2018. The Northern District of California Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-05256-VC to the proceeding.

This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiffs as a direct
and proximate result of Defendant negligent and wrongful conduct in
connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the
active ingredient glyphosate.

The Hurst case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re: Roundup
Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on October
3, 2016. These actions share common factual questions arising out
of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, particularly its
active ingredient, glyphosate, causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.
Plaintiffs each allege that they or their decedents developed
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over the course of
several or more years. Plaintiffs also allege that the use of
glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients, in particular the
surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), renders Roundup
even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues concerning
general causation, the background science, and regulatory history
will be common to all actions.

In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions
in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that
centralization in the Northern District of California will serve
the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just
and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will
eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial
rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and
Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the
parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the
MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is
3:16-md-02741-VC.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Seth S. Webb, Esq.
          BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C.
          211 North Broadway, Suite 1600
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 222 2222
          Facsimile: (314) 421 0359
          E-mail: sethw@getbc.com


MEDICAID: Caregivers File Federal Suit Over Budgeting System
------------------------------------------------------------
David Beard, writing for The Dominion Post, reports that caregivers
for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities point
out flaws in the new state Medicaid budgeting system in recent
filings in a federal class action lawsuit.

Program budget caps and other problems prevent their clients and
family members from getting the care they need and prevent families
from getting the support they need, they say in statements filed to
support the case.

The program is the Department of Health and Human Resources'
Medicaid Title XIX Intellectual/Developmental Disability (IDD)
Waiver program, operated by DHHR's Bureau for Medical Services
(BMS). It serves 4,684 people enrolled, with a waiting list of more
than 1,200, according to DHHR.

The case is a class action suit filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern district of West Virginia by Mountain State
Justice -- originally on behalf of five waiver clients and later
broadened to take in the whole group -- against the DHHR secretary,
originally Karen Bowling, now Bill Crouch.

The filings from July and August are chiefly lawyerly wranglings
over who should be granted summary judgment.

But included in last week's papers are five declarations by
caregivers and family members about flaws in the new care budget
system created to replace the old secret, arbitrary algorithm
determined by the court to violate due process.

Rebecca Curtis, IDD Waiver manager for the Jackson County
Development Center, said she's noticed several trends.

One, most individuals are receiving budgets lower than 2017. People
living at home -- rather than in Intensive Support Setting (ISS)
sites -- have seen the steepest reductions. Four clients have had
to stop or reduce day habilitation services, which are services to
allow the client to pursue skills and interests outside the home.

Three family caregivers speak to the problems of service caps --
typically caps on the amount of hours for a particular service such
as direct care or respite time. (Documents abbreviate the names for
client privacy.)

For example, Bo M. requested $50,000 worth of services though he
needs $73,000 worth, according to the state assessment and budget
formula. He didn't try to get more.

"Bo did not need more money than what was assigned to him," the
caregiver said. "Rather, Bo needed services that he was not
permitted to access due to the arbitrary service caps that were
implemented by DHHR in 2015." Because the caps are absolute, Bo
didn't bother asking for more. "Bo was unable to use the full
amount of his assigned budget and unable to meet his needs, due to
the arbitrary service caps."

Tracy G. has a family member, Alexa, on the waiver. Tracy gave up
her job for a lower-paying one to care for Alexa. She would need
50-60 hours per week to be able to return to her old job, including
commuting time. Respite care hours caps don't allow that.

"The suggestion that I could move all my respite care to the week
leaving me with only a little over an hour of respite each weekend
day is not feasible." That wouldn't even get her to the grocery
store.

"Alexa requires 24-hour care and receiving almost no respite on the
weekends is very difficult on me and on my family and my emotional
wellbeing."

Mountain State Justice alleges discrimination

In addition to calling attention to reduced access to services in
its IDD Waiver lawsuit, Mountain State Justice also alleges that
the Department of Health and Human Resources discriminates against
the majority of waiver recipients by allotting more money to those
who live outside their homes.

In a recent filing, Mountain State said DHHR's new budget matrix
system allots smaller budgets to the 75 percent of waiver clients
who live at home than to the 25 percent who live in intermediate
care facilities, nursing homes and group homes.

"When budgets limit the ability to obtain services, smaller budgets
necessarily limit access to all services, increasing community
isolation and decreasing available options," it said.

It cites the examples of two wavier clients who will be eligible
for base budgets of $44,231 to stay at home. But without any
changes in services or their medical conditions, they could receive
$123,279 by moving to a group home.

A group home setting, it said, poses no additional care or
financial burdens on the families. So, DHHR is "discriminating
against community-based recipients by favoring institutionalized
recipients with more or better services, programs or activities."

DHHR counters in its recent filing, "The differences between the
process for authorizing those [home-based] services and the process
for authorizing services provided to individuals living in
institutions is not 'discrimination,' but simply reflects the
reality that these are different benefits that are alternatives to
each other."

It continues, "For members living with their families, waiver
services are intended to supplement, not supplant, care from family
members. Even so, for those waiver members and families who desire
to do so, DHHR permits family members to be paid to provide care,
and over 3,000 family members are paid to do so."

'Frozen' funding

In a July filing, DHHR's Patricia Nisbet, director of the Office of
Home and Community Based Services in the Bureau for Medical
Services, made some statements about the waiver program's annual
budget shortfalls.

"The state legislature has not appropriated any additional money to
the IDD Waiver program since 2013, and funding for the program has
been frozen at $89 million per year." But spending increased every
year and was running about $65 million per year over budget.

The overspending and subsequent client waiver budget and service
cuts have been documented and reported here many times.

However, Nisbet's statement that the budget was "frozen" doesn't
jibe with testimony BMS has given to the Legislature. BMS officials
admitted in at least one committee meeting that they never asked
for more money despite the annual overruns.

Legislators asked why no one called attention to the problem and
BMS officials said the figures were included in budget documents
presented to the finance committees.

Legislators said later that putting numbers in documents isn't the
same as calling attention to the numbers and asking for help.

Asked about this discrepancy, Mark Drennan, executive director of
the West Virginia Behavioral Healthcare Providers Association, told
The Dominion Post in an email exchange, "It is up to the department
to request an improvement package. To my knowledge they have not
requested one. The Legislature could choose not to increase the
line, but they did not 'freeze' it. If they need more funding they
should request it with a detailed explanation."

Nisbet notes in her filing that West Virginia spends more per
person than all but two other states.

The Dominion Post asked DHHR why it never asked for more money
during the time in question.

It said in an email, "The IDD Waiver program is reported on
independently each month by DHHR's Bureau for Medical Services to
the Legislature and has been on the agenda for discussion in budget
presentations for the last several years.

"The funding for the IDD Waiver program has continued to be at the
same level since 2012. Structural changes to the program have
resulted in additional wavier slots being added to the program
within the allocated budget by the Legislature.

"DHHR is committed to caring for the most vulnerable citizens in
the state and Medicaid's ability to control cost growth in the IDD
waiver will result in more West Virginians being served."[GN]


MEDNAX INC: Bragar Eagel Files Class Action
-------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. reminds investors that a class action
lawsuit has been commenced on behalf of stockholders of MEDNAX,
Inc..  Stockholders have until the deadlines listed below to
petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional
information about each case can be found at the link provided.

Class Period: February 2, 2016 - July 27, 2017

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 10, 2018

The complaint alleges that, on July 28, 2017, Mednax announced,
during its second quarter earnings call with investors and
analysts, that the company failed to complete any acquisitions of
anesthesiologist practices during the quarter.  Significantly, the
company also disclosed that any future anesthesiologist
acquisitions were unlikely, which Mednax attributed to the
"challenging" payor mix combined with "continued . . . growth in
compensation expense for nurse anesthetists."

To learn more about the MEDNAX class action go to:
https://bespc.com/mednax/.

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a New York-based law firm
concentrating in commercial and securities litigation.  For
additional information about Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. please go
to www.bespc.com.

         Brandon Walker, Esq.
         Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
         Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
         Tel. No. (212) 355-4648
         E-mail: walker@bespc.com
                 fortunato@bespc.com [GN]


MERCK & CO: Hoppers Sues over Sale of Zostavax Vaccine
------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT HOPPER, an individual; and RITA HOPPER, an individual, the
Plaintiffs, vs. MERCK & CO., INC., MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP., the
Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-13262 (D.N.J., Aug. 28, 2018), alleges
that Plaintiff sustained severe and permanent personal injuries as
a result of the manufacture, marketing, advertising, promotion,
distribution and/or sale of Zostavax (TM).

According to the complaint, despite information and potential
correlation between being administered the Zostavax vaccine and
developing an infection within a relatively short period of time,
leading to the development of shingles or varicella-zoster virus
pneumonia, Merck failed to properly address and provide this
information both to patients and the medical providers prescribing
the vaccine.

Robert Hopper was inoculated with Defendants' Zostavax vaccine on
or about October 10, 2016 from a Walmart pharmacy located in
Hartselle, AL 35640 for routine health maintenance and for the
prevention of shingles. The vaccine did not prevent shingles, but
rather caused Plaintiff to contract a persistent strain of herpes
zoster. Shortly after receiving Defendants' Zostavax vaccine
Plaintiff developed a painful rash on the left side of his face,
surrounding his left eye, accompanied by headaches and a reduction
in left eye vision. In response to these complaints, on or about
October 16, 2016, the Plaintiff presented to Decatur Med-Surg.
Clinic and was diagnosed as suffering from shingles, and it was
recommended that Plaintiff follow-up with an optometrist for future
evaluation.

On October 17, 2016, Plaintiff presented to Louis Cain, M.D., an
optometrist at the Laser Eye Center, P.C., located in Huntsville,
AL 35802, and it was noted that Plaintiff exhibited a severe
reduction in his left eye vision. Thereafter, on or about April 26,
2018, Plaintiff underwent extracapsular cataract removal surgery to
remove a cataract that developed as a result of the damage to his
left eye. As a direct and proximate result of these malfunctions,
the Plaintiff suffered painful injuries and damages, and required
extensive medical care and treatment. As a further proximate
result, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer
significant medical expenses, and pain and suffering, and other
damages.

Zostavax was designed, developed, marketed, and sold with the
intended purpose of preventing shingles, which is caused by the
varicella zoster virus (VZV). Varicella zoster is a virus that
causes chickenpox. Once the varicella zoster virus causes
chickenpox, the virus remains inactive (dormant) in the nervous
system for many years. VZV can be reactivated due to factors such
as disease, stress, aging, and immune modulation caused by
vaccination. When reactivated, varicella zoster replicates in nerve
cells and is carried down the nerve fibers to the area of skin
served by the ganglion that harbored the dormant virus.

In May of 2006, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the
Zostavax (TM) vaccine to be marketed and sold in the United States
by Merck. Zostavax (TM) was initially indicated for the "the
prevention of herpes zoster (shingles) in individuals 60 years of
age and older when administered as a single-dose." FDA Approval
Letter, May 25, 2006. FDA approval was based in large part on the
results of the Shingles Prevention Study (SPS) supported by
Merck.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nicholas R. Farnolo, Esq.
          NAPOLI SHKOLNIK, LLC
          400 Broadhollow Road
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (212) 397 1000
          E-mail: nfarnolo@napolilaw.com


MERCK & CO: Roberts Sues over Sale of Zostavax Vaccine
------------------------------------------------------
DIANA ROBERTS, the Plaintiff, v. MERCK & CO., INC. and MERCK SHARP
& DOHME CORP., the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-13141 (D.N.J., Aug.
23, 2018), alleges that Plaintiff sustained severe and permanent
personal injuries as a result of the manufacture, marketing,
advertising, promotion, distribution and/or sale of Zostavax (TM).


According to the complaint, despite information and potential
correlation between being administered the Zostavax vaccine and
developing an infection within a relatively short period of time,
leading to the development of shingles or varicella-zoster virus
pneumonia, Merck failed to properly address and provide this
information both to patients and the medical providers prescribing
the vaccine.

On or about September 11, 2016, Ms Diana Roberts received the
Zostavax vaccine for its intended purpose: the prevention of
shingles. As a direct result of the vaccine, Plaintiff suffered
from a Shingles outbreak, in addition to chronic pain, rash and
lesions to various parts of his body. The Plaintiff did not have a
Shingles outbreak until February 16, 2017. As a direct result of
the vaccine, Ms. Roberts suffered mental and emotional distress due
to resulting physical limitations and seriousness of her
condition.

Further, as a tragic consequence of Merck's wrongful conduct, the
Plaintiff suffered serious, progressive, permanent, and incurable
injuries, as well as significant conscious pain and suffering,
mental anguish, emotional distress, loss of enjoyment of life,
physical impairment and injury. The Plaintiff incurred medical
expenses and other economic harm as a direct result of use of
Zostavax (TM).

Zostavax was designed, developed, marketed, and sold with the
intended purpose of preventing shingles, which is caused by the
varicella zoster virus (VZV). Varicella zoster is a virus that
causes chickenpox. Once the varicella zoster virus causes
chickenpox, the virus remains inactive (dormant) in the nervous
system for many years. VZV can be reactivated due to factors such
as disease, stress, aging, and immune modulation caused by
vaccination. When reactivated, varicella zoster replicates in nerve
cells and is carried down the nerve fibers to the area of skin
served by the ganglion that harbored the dormant virus.

In May of 2006, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the
Zostavax (TM) vaccine to be marketed and sold in the United States
by Merck. Zostavax (TM) was initially indicated for the "the
prevention of herpes zoster (shingles) in individuals 60 years of
age and older when administered as a single-dose." FDA Approval
Letter, May 25, 2006. FDA approval was based in large part on the
results of the Shingles Prevention Study (SPS) supported by
Merck.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nicholas R. Farnolo, Esq.
          NAPOLI SHKOLNIK, LLC
          400 Broadhollow Road
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (212) 397 1000
          E-mail: nfarnolo@napolilaw.com


MICHAEL MARINOV: Wins Bid to Strike Wrong Memo in Garcia Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on September 12, 2018, in the case
entitled Andres Garcia, et al. v. Michael Marinov, et al., Case No.
1:18-cv-03525 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the
Honorable Robert M. Dow Jr.

The minute entry states that:

   -- Defendants' unopposed motion to strike incorrectly filed
      memorandum in support of motion to dismiss and to
      substitute instanter, corrected memorandum is granted; and

   -- Briefing schedule on the pending motions [4], [6] and [38]
      is as follows:

      * responses are due on October 9, 2018;
      * replies are due on October 23, 2018;
      * motion is taken under advisement; and
      * the Court will issue a ruling by mail.


MIDLAND CREDIT: Williams Suit Moved to E.D. Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled SONDRA WILLIAMS, ON BEHALF OF
HERSELF AND ALL OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED CONSUMERS, the Plaintiff,
v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., the Defendant, Case No.
2018-06330-TT, was removed from the Court of Common Please of
Chester County, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia) on Aug. 23, 2018. The Pennsylvania
Eastern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-03611-JHS to
the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Hon. Joel H.
Slomsky. The suit alleges Fair Debt Collection Act violation.

Midland Credit, a licensed debt collector, assists customers in
resolving past-due financial obligations through various education
and payment.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Nicholas J. Linker, Esq.
          ZEMEL LAW LLC
          1373 Broad St., Suite 203-C
          Clifton, NJ 07013
          Telephone: (862) 227 3106
          E-mail; nl@zemellawllc.com

Attorneys for Midland Credit Management, Inc.:

          Lauren M. Burnette, Esq.
          MESSER STRICKLER LTD
          450-106 State Road 13 N, Suite 326
          St. Johns, FL 32259
          Telephone: (904) 201 9120
          E-mail: lburnette@messerstrickler.com


MONSANTO COMPANY: Coats Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mildred Coats, Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case
No. 4:18-cv-01403-SNLJ (E.D. Mo., Aug. 23, 2018), seeks to recover
damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of
Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the
design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting,
marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the
herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient
glyphosate.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff maintains that Roundup
(TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health,
unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and
lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated
with its use. The Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking
thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were
avoidable.

Monsanto Company was an agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology
corporation. It was headquartered in Creve Coeur, Greater St.
Louis, Missouri.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kirk J. Goza, Esq.
          GOZA & HONNOLD LLC
          9500 Nall Ave. Suite 400
          Overland Park, KS 66207
          Telephone: (913) 451 3433
          Facsimile: (913) 839 0567
          E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com


MRS BPO: Guralenko Files Suit Over FDCPA Breach
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against MRS BPO, LLC.  The
case is styled as Dmytro Guralenko, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. MRS BPO, LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-05056
(E.D.N.Y., September 7, 2018).

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          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


NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Panzarella Sues Over Illegal Collection Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Panzarella and Joshua Panzarella, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly-situated, Plaintiff, v. Navient
Solutions, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-03735 (E.D. Pa., August
31, 2018), seeks compensatory damages including interest,
reasonable costs and expenses incurred in this action, including
counsel fees and expert fees, rescission or a rescissory measure of
damages and such equitable/injunctive or other relief under the
Telephone Consumers Protection Act.

Defendants attempted to collect a debt incurred by the Panzarellas
arising from a student loan, notes the complaint. They placed
unauthorized calls using an automatic telephone dialing system with
a pre-recorded or artificial voices. Plaintiffs expressly revoked
any prior express consent to receive calls to her cellular phone,
it adds.

Navient Solutions, Inc. -- https://www.navient.com/about --
provides loan management, servicing and asset recovery solutions to
clients in higher education and business clients, as well as
federal, state, and local governments. The company offers financial
services in the areas of education loan, private student loan and
asset recovery. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David P. Mitchell, Esq.
      MANEY & GORDON, P.A.
      101 East Kennedy Blvd., Suite 3170
      Tampa, FL 33602
      Telephone: (813) 221-1366
      Fax: (813) 223-5920
      Email: David@MitchellConsumerLaw.com

             - and -

      Robert P. Cocco, Esq.
      ROBERT P. COCCO, P.C.
      1500 Walnut Street, Suite 900
      Philadelphia, PA 19102
      Tel: (215) 351-0200


NEVADA: Shannon Appeals Decision in Suit v. DIR Over Lump-Sum Award
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Joseph Shannon, Penny Lucille Behrens, Christopher
Robert Braggs and Jose Lopez Gomez filed an appeal from a court
ruling in their lawsuit styled Joseph Shannon, et al. v. Joseph
Decker, et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-00875-JAD-GWF, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Nevada, Las Vegas.

Joe "JD" Decker is the Administrator for the Division of Industrial
Relations in Nevada's Department of Business and Industry.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Sept. 17, 2018, the
District Court granted the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case.

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

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

The appellate case is captioned as Joseph Shannon, et al. v. Joseph
Decker, et al., Case No. 18-16697, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Appellants Penny Lucille Behrens, Christopher Robert
      Braggs, Jose Lopez Gomez and Joseph Shannon's opening brief
      is due on November 7, 2018;

   -- Appellees Joseph Decker, Steve George and Donald L.
      Soderberg's answering brief is due on December 7, 2018; and

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

Plaintiffs-Appellants JOSEPH SHANNON, PENNY LUCILLE BEHRENS,
CHRISTOPHER ROBERT BRAGGS and JOSE LOPEZ GOMEZ, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Leon Greenberg, Esq.
          Dana Sniegocki, Esq.
          LEON GREENBERG PROFESSIONAL CORP.
          2965 S. Jones Boulevard, E-4
          Las Vegas, NV 89146
          Telephone: (702) 383-6085
          E-mail: leongreenberg@overtimelaw.com
                  dana@overtimelaw.com

               - and -

          James P. Kemp, Esq.
          KEMP & KEMP
          7435 W. Azure Drive
          Las Vegas, NV 89130
          Telephone: (702) 258-1183
          E-mail: jp@kemp-attorneys.com

Defendants-Appellees JOSEPH DECKER, STEVE GEORGE and DONALD L.
SODERBERG, in their individual capacities, are represented by:

          Sarah A. Bradley, Esq.
          AGNV - NEVADA OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          100 North Carson Street
          Carson City, NV 89701
          Telephone: (775) 684-1213
          E-mail: sbradley@ag.nv.gov

               - and -

          Steven G. Shevorski, Esq.
          AGNV - OFFICE OF THE NEVADA ATTORNEY GENERAL
          (LAS VEGAS)
          555 East Washington Avenue
          Las Vegas, NV 89101
          Telephone: (702) 486-3420
          E-mail: SShevorski@ag.nv.gov


NEWPORT SYNDICATE: Newlyweds Sue Over Hep A Exposure
----------------------------------------------------
James Leggate, writing for 9 WCP Cincinnati, reports that a
newlywed couple filed a class action complaint against the Newport
Syndicate after they allege their entire wedding was exposed to
hepatitis A.

Jeff and Kameron Slavey held their wedding reception with 240
guests at the Syndicate on Aug. 3. The party racked up a bill of
more than $13,000, according to the lawsuit, which was filed in
Campbell County circuit court on August 29.

But on Aug. 15, the Northern Kentucky Health Department alerted the
newlyweds that they needed to inform all their guests that they may
have been exposed to hepatitis A, and they they should get
vaccinated immediately.

Health officials declared an outbreak of hepatitis A in Northern
Kentucky on Aug. 15, saying there had been 56 cases of the virus,
including an employee at the Newport Syndicate. NKY health
officials warned that the employee was handling food at the venue
from July 25 to Aug. 11.

The Aug. 15 warning gave the couple just 48 hours to notify all of
their guests within the two-week incubation window for hepatitis A,
according to the lawsuit.

The potential exposure to the virus created "fear, stress and
trauma" for the couple and their guests, the lawsuit alleges. Even
worse, Kameron Slavery and some of the wedding guests were pregnant
on the day of the wedding. Their fear was even greater, according
to the lawsuit.

Newport Syndicate general manager Betsi Rutkowski said she couldn't
immediately comment on the lawsuit.

The employee in question is "completely fine," Rutkowski said.

The lawsuit alleges the Newport Syndicate breached its duty to
maintain a safe eating environment by employing a person with
hepatitis A, and that the venue was negligent by serving food that
may not have been safe to eat.

After the employee was diagnosed, the Newport Syndicate disinfected
all surfaces which may have been contaminated and advised its
employees to get vaccinated. Hygiene practices were also
reinforced.

"We went immediately into full force action ... We still wanted to
make sure all guests that come into this building feel safe, and
we've done everything we can do," Rutkowski previously told WCPO.

It is uncommon to contract hepatitis A from a restaurant employee,
according to health officials. They still advised anyone who ate at
the Syndicate from July 25 to Aug. 11 to get vaccinated, and to
always wash their hands thoroughly after using the bathroom and
before preparing food.[GN]


OISHI THAI: Violates Disabilities Act, Gomez Class Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Oishi Thai, LLC.  The
case is styled as Andres Gomez, on his own and on behalf of all
other individuals similarly situated v. Oishi Thai, LLC, Case No.
1:18-cv-23681-DPG (S.D. Fla., September 7, 2018).

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

Oishi Thai, LLC, operates the Oishi Thai Restaurant located in
North Miami Beach, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


OXY USA: Hitch Moves to Certify Class of Royalty Owners in Kansas
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled HITCH ENTERPRISES, INC., on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. OXY USA Inc.,
Case No. 6:18-cv-01030-EFM-KGG (D. Kan.), seeks certification of
this class:

     All royalty owners in Kansas wells: (a) where Oxy USA Inc.
     was the operator (or, as a non-operator, separately marketed
     gas); (b) who were paid royalties for production of gas,
     NGLs, or Helium from July 1, 2007 to April 30, 2014; and (c)
     whose gas was moved over the ONEOK/West Texas Gas/NNG lines
     to the Jayhawk Plant for processing.

     Excluded from the Class are: (1) the Office of Natural
     Resources Revenue, formerly known as the Mineral Management
     Service (Indian tribes and the United States); (2) all
     presiding judge(s) together with their immediate family
     members; (3) Oxy USA Inc. its affiliates, its
     predecessors-in-interest, and their respective employees,
     officers, and directors; and (4) royalty owners who receive
     royalty under the leases expressly allowing the deduction of
     processing expenses.

     These leases all provide for royalties on gas to be paid at
     market value "less a proportionate part of any . . . taxes
and
     the costs incurred by Lessee in delivering, processing or
     otherwise marketing such gas or other substances."  The
     Lease Schedule identifies these seven (7) leases as "Express
     Deduction" or "ED" Leases: OXY-HITCH-00001401;
     OXY-HITCH-00001404; OXY-HITCH-00001407; OXY-HITCH-00001410;
     OXY-HITCH-00001413; OXY-HITCH-00001416; and
     OXY-HITCH-00001419. These ED Leases are all dated in 2007,
     share lessors with the surname Watson, and cover one or more
     wells in Section 24, Township 30S, Range 32W in Haskell
     County, Kansas.

This royalty owners' class action seeks recovery for Defendant's
failure to properly pay royalties on gas produced from hundreds of
Kansas wells and processed under one gas contract to more than
1,800 royalty owners who have leases that contain the implied duty
to market under Kansas law.

The Plaintiff also asks the Court to appoint it as class
representative, and to appoint its counsel as class counsel.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rex A. Sharp, Esq.
          Barbara C. Frankland, Esq.
          Ryan C. Hudson, Esq.
          Scott B. Goodger, Esq.
          REX A. SHARP, P.A.
          5301 W. 75th Street
          Prairie Village, KS 66208
          Telephone: (913) 901-0505
          Facsimile: (913) 901-0419
          E-mail: rsharp@midwest-law.com
                  bfrankland@midwest-law.com
                  rhudson@midwest-law.com
                  sgoodger@midwest-law.com


OXY USA: Whisenant Suit Moved to Western District of Oklahoma
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Tony R. Whisenant on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. OXY USA Inc., the
Defendant, Case No. CJ-17-00012, was removed from the Beaver County
District Court to the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Oklahoma (Oklahoma City) on Aug. 23, 2018. The Oklahoma Western
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:18-cv-00819-HE to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Joe Heaton.

OXY USA offers exploration, production, and marketing of crude oil
and natural gas. OXY USA Inc. was formerly known as Cities Service
Oil and Gas Corp.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Rex A Sharp, Esq.
          REX A SHARP PA
          5301 W 75th St
          Prairie Village, KS 66208
          Telephone: (913) 901 0505
          Facsimile: (913) 901 0419
          E-mail: rsharp@midwest-law.com

Attorneys for OXY USA Inc.:

          Lisa T Silvestri, Esq.
          GABLE & GOTWALS
          100 W 5th St., Suite 1100
          Tulsa, OK 74103-4217
          Telephone: (918) 595 4800
          Facsimile: (918) 595 4990
          E-mail: lsilvestri@gablelaw.com


PAPA JOHN'S: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, disclosed the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Papa John's International, Inc. (NASDAQ:PZZA) from
February 25, 2014 through July 19, 2018, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Papa John's
investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Papa John's class action, go to
https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1379.html or call Phillip Kim,
Esq. or Zachary Halper, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or zhalper@rosenlegal.com for information on
the class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, defendants during the Class Period made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) Papa John's executives, including John H.
Schnatter, engaged in a pattern of sexual harassment and other
inappropriate workplace conduct; (2) Papa John's Code of Ethics and
Business Conduct was inadequate to prevent the foregoing
misconduct; (3) the foregoing conduct would foreseeably have a
negative impact on Papa John's business and operations, and expose
Papa John's to reputational harm, heightened regulatory scrutiny,
and legal liability; and (4) as a result, Papa John's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims
that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October
29, 2018. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1379.html

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

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


PENNSYLVANIA: Class-Action Suits vs. PHEAA Target Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------
Deb Erdley, writing for Trib Live, reports that Arianne Gallagher
knew attending law school at the University of Pittsburgh would
require taking on a lot of debt.

The native of Chicora, a tiny borough in Butler County, already had
borrowed for her undergraduate education from Pitt but believed she
could handle more debt and tap the federal government's
income-based loan repayment plan to repay the money. The plan
allows borrowers who work public service jobs to pay a percentage
of their income every year and then forgives any remaining debt
after a decade.

Like thousands of others, Gallagher counted on student loan
payments being akin to paying rent or car payments.

That is not the case.

Today, she is a plaintiff in one of 10 class-action lawsuits filed
against the Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency that
have been bundled in federal court in Philadelphia. The plaintiffs
-- borrowers from 10 states -- say they represent tens of thousands
who have been saddled with additional debt because PHEAA cannot or
will not properly process their payments.

The agency, which conducts its federal loan business as FedLoan
Servicing, does not comment on pending litigation, spokesman Keith
New said. But he maintains PHEAA is living up to the terms of its
contracts with the U.S. Department of Education. The federal agency
hired PHEAA to process payments on 7.6 million student loans, which
represents about a quarter of the $1.3 trillion in federal student
loan debt owed by 44 million Americans.

The consolidated PHEAA suit is the latest sign of trouble in the
student loan arena.

Both PHEAA and Navient, the nation's largest student loan servicer,
are awash in lawsuits filed by state attorneys general and angry
borrowers who claim the agencies make it difficult for them to
remain current in payments.

In 2016, the federal direct student loan program, one of several
federal loan programs, saw 1.1 million defaults — which equals
about 3,000 a day, or one every 28 seconds.

Rohit Chopra, a U.S. Federal Trade commissioner and former student
loan ombudsman for the federal Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau, analyzed the numbers and said they bear "an uncanny
resemblance" to problems in the mortgage servicing market that set
off the recession a decade ago.

"The default rates on student loans are alarmingly high," Chopra
said. "And there are some serious questions about how student loan
servicers might be responsible for many of these defaults.
Importantly, in the federal student loan program it is easy to
avoid default if you get the right information because all
borrowers are entitled to repay their loans based on income."

Chopra said PHEAA, the nation's second-largest student loan
servicer, at the end of last year had the lowest percentage of
borrowers in current repayment status, the highest percentage of
those considered severely delinquent and highest percentage who had
defaulted.

"Ultimately, we need to wake up to the fact that our student loan
system is badly broken," Chopra said. "We are overdue for an
overhaul because today too many people are worse off by going to
college and college should be about getting ahead, not getting
pushed behind."

Mounting debt

Gallagher hasn't defaulted and insisted she intends to repay her
debt. But PHEAA has made that increasingly difficult and has added
$13,000 to the total of what she owes, which now stands at
$160,000, she said.

Today, Gallagher, 32, works for the federal government in
Washington, D.C.

She always hoped to land there. She knew she'd never earn the kind
of money made by attorneys in high-profile private practices. But
that was OK.

"I thought I could have an opportunity to help people working
public service or advocacy," said Gallagher, who earned an
undergraduate degree from Pitt in 2008.

Gallagher hoped to work at a job she loved, make ends meet and be
debt free in 10 years through income-based repayments in the public
service loan forgiveness program.

Participants in the plan must certify their income to PHEAA every
year. The agency then recalculates monthly payments based on the
borrower's adjusted income.

That's where things went awry, Gallagher said.

Every year, she would certify her paperwork to PHEAA In January.
But the agency failed to process her paperwork in time in 2014,
2016 and 2017. In 2014, PHEAA placed Gallagher in forbearance — a
kind of financial limbo — while it resolved her account. She
wasn't permitted to make a payment that February while loan
servicers recalculated her payments.

That added an extra month onto her payment plan.

The agency placed her into forbearance again in 2016 for two
months, which added another two months of payments for Gallagher.
PHEAA then capitalized the interest she owed, adding another
$13,000 to what she owed — a move that meant interest began
ticking up on even more debt.

In 2017, when she inquired about whether a different payment plan
might be more advantageous, PHEAA changed her payment plan over the
phone and more than doubled her monthly payment to $1,900.

By then, she began talking to lawyers at Carlson Lynch in
Pittsburgh. They filed a lawsuit on her behalf late last year.

"I took on the debt, and I know I'm responsible for paying it. I
just don't want it to be this high," Gallagher said.

'All over it'

No one ever anticipated PHEAA would grow to what it has become. A
judge on the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals recently wrote
that it now operates more like a private corporation than a state
agency.

The Pennsylvania Legislature created PHEAA in 1963 to insure
student loans issued through banks and tasked the agency with
making higher education more accessible to Pennsylvanians.

Today, it makes most of its income processing and collecting
payments on a portfolio of more than $400 billion in student debt
-- which is more than 10 times the annual budget of the state that
created PHEAA. The agency's board includes 18 state lawmakers, two
appointees by Gov. Tom Wolf and the state secretaries of banking
and education.

Pennsylvania lawmakers tapped $101 million of PHEAA's profits this
year to help underwrite a state grant program for 150,000 needy
Pennsylvania college students. The grants capped out at $4,123 this
year.

The agency usually wins when borrowers sue -- but the cost of
defending lawsuits is adding up, and officials have noticed.

Between January 2016 and this April, the PHEAA paid $2.5 million
for outside lawyers to work on 32 cases alone. The agency also paid
more than $1.8 million to settle 29 lawsuits between Jan. 1, 2015,
and June 30.

As the tobacco and asbestos industries learned, there is a
potential for hundreds of billions of dollars in payouts to those
on the losing side in multidistrict class-action suits.

State Sen. Wayne Fontana, a Brookline Democrat and PHEAA board vice
chairman, said the lawsuits often are discussed during closed-door
executive sessions.

PHEAA officials maintain many of the lawsuits are frivolous,
Fontana said.

"Sometimes it is just someone trying to get out of paying their
loans, but I don't just dismiss them. I ask about them. . . . They
eat into what we have to pay for student grants," Fontana said.

"The disturbing thing is everyone is suing these days, and the cost
to defend those suits is high. We're defending these things. Is it
the case that somebody here is not being efficient or being unfair?
I don't know that that's the case," he said. "But if you think
we're not conscious of it, that's not the case. We're all over it
and looking at the costs."

Serve and collect

But the multidistrict litigation in Philadelphia is different.

Consolidation is a special process reserved for complex cases with
numerous defendants. Tobacco and asbestos cases were handled
similarly, as are cases involving deadly missteps by the
pharmaceutical industry. Such filings can culminate in massive
financial payouts.

PHEAA should be concerned, Chopra said.

He said PHEAA's status as the sole servicer for the public service
loan forgiveness program -- the one into which Gallagher enrolled
-- focused a spotlight on the agency.

Congress predicted the program that began in 2007 would see the
debts of many borrowers forgiven in 10 years. Yet, only a handful
has made it through the maze of repayment. Chopra said he hears
complaints almost daily about borrowers who have submitted
paperwork to PHEAA repeatedly without success.

"There is not a day goes by that we don't hear from borrowers
struggling to navigate the public service loan forgiveness
program," Chopra said. "Some wonder whether the Department of
Education is exercising adequate oversight on its servicers."

Plaintiffs in the pending class-action suit in Philadelphia wonder
whether it's a matter of negligence on the part of the agency, or
whether PHEAA's contracts actually incentivize delays that increase
borrowers' debt and add months or years to payments PHEAA was hired
to collect.

Borrowers enrolled in public service loan forgiveness tend to stay
on top of payments and are vocal about such issues, said Persis Wu,
a lawyer with the National Consumer Law Center. As additional data
comes in, it may settle the argument once and for all. But Wu said
it likely won't go away anytime soon.

"PHEAA is an incredibly complicated organization in that it has
incredibly aggressive collection tactics and that has it collecting
from the people it was originally trying to serve," Wu said.[GN]


PRIMEFLIGHT AVIATION: Kuhn Suit Moved to E.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Herta Guadalupe Kuhn on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the
general public, the Plaintiff, v. PrimeFlight Aviation Services,
Inc., doing business as: PrimeFlight of DE, Inc, a Delaware
Corporation; which will do business in California; and Prime Flight
Aviation Services, Inc., an Ohio Corporation, the Defendants, Case
No. 34-02018-00235596, was removed from the California Superior
Court, County of Sacramento, to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California (Sacramento) on Aug. 27, 2018.  The
California Eastern District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:18-cv-02340-JAM-AC to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge John A. Mendez.

PrimeFlight provides airline services, aircraft services and
airport services using cutting-edge technology and a commitment to
safety.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Meghan Sherry Maertz, Esq.
          Oman Otkupman, Esq.
          OTKUPMAN LAW FIRM
          28632 Roadside Drive, Suite 203
          Agoura Hills, CA 91301
          Telephone: (818) 293 5623
          E-mail: meghan@olfla.com
                  roman@olfla.com

Attorneys for PrimeFlight Aviation Services:

          Collin Dennis Cook, Esq.
          Christopher M. Ahearn, Esq.
          FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
          One Embarcadero Center, Suite 2050
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 490 9000
          Facsimile: (415) 490 9001
          E-mail: ccook@fisherphillips.com
                  cahearn@laborlawyers.com


PROGRESSIVE INSURANCE: Stedman Suit Moved to W.D. Washington
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Joel Stedman and Karen Joyce, on
Behalf of Herself and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. Progressive Insurance Co., a foreign automobile
insurance company, the Defendant, Case No. 18-00002-18376-6-SEA,
was removed from the King County Superior Court to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington (Seattle) on
Aug. 24, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:18-cv-01254 to the proceeding.

Progressive Corporation is one of the largest providers of car
insurance in the United States. The company also insures
motorcycles, boats, RVs and commercial vehicles, and provides home
insurance through select companies.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Duncan Calvert Turner, Esq.
          BADGLEY MULLINS TURNER PLLC
          19929 Ballinger Way Ne, Ste 200
          Seattle, WA 98155
          Telephone: (206) 621 6566
          E-mail: dturner@badgleymullins.com

               - and -

          Randall C Johnson, Jr. Esq.
          MYERS & COMPANY
          1530 Eastlake Avenue East
          Seattle, WA 98102
          Telephone: (206) 890 0616
          E-mail: rcjj.law@gmail.com

Attorneys for Progressive Insurance Co.:

          James Raymond Morrison, Esq.
          Paul Karlsgodt, Esq.
          BAKER HOSTETLER LLP (WA)
          999 3RD AVE., STE 3600
          SEATTLE, WA 98104
          Telephone: (206) 332 1380
          E-mail: jmorrison@bakerlaw.com
                  pkarlsgodt@bakerlaw.com


PROMPT NURSING: Filipino Nurses Class Certified in "Paguirigan"
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Nina Gershon grants the motion for class certification
filed in the lawsuit titled ROSE ANN PAGUIRIGAN, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PROMPT NURSING
EMPLOYMENT AGENCY LLC d/b/a/ SENTOSA SERVICES, SENTOSACARE LLC,
SENTOSA NURSING RECRUITMENT AGENCY, BENJAMIN LANDA, BENT PHILIPSON,
BERISH RUBENSTEIN a/k/a BARRY RUBENSTEIN, FRANCIS LUYUN, GOLDEN
GATE REHABILITATION & HEALTH CARE CENTER LLC, and SPRING CREEK
REHABILITATION AND NURSING CENTER, Case No. 17-cv-1302 (NG) (JO)
(E.D.N.Y.).

The Plaintiff's motion to certify a class comprised of all nurses,
who were recruited by the Defendants in the Philippines and were
employed by the Defendants in the United States at any time since
December 23, 2008, is granted against all the Defendants and with
respect to all claims under Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.

Judge Gershon appoints the Plaintiff's counsel as class counsel
pursuant to Rule 23(g).  The Plaintiff is directed to submit,
within 30 days of the date of this Order, a proposed form of notice
in accordance with Rule 23(c)(2)(B).

Plaintiff Rose Ann Paguirigan brings claims for violations of the
Trafficking Victims Protection Act and declaratory judgment against
the Defendants.  The Plaintiff also brings a breach of contract
claim against Prompt Nursing, Landa, Philipson, and Rubenstein.


QUEEN'S HARBOUR: Faces Story Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Queen's Harbour Yacht
& Country Club Owners Association Inc. and MAY Management Services,
Inc.  The case is styled as Nicole Story, On Behalf Of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Queen's Harbour Yacht & Country Club Owners
Association Inc. and MAY MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., Case No.
16-2018-CA-006181-XXXX-MA (Fla. Cir. Ct., Duval Cty., September 10,
2018).

Queens Harbour Yacht & Country Club Owners Association Inc. is a
property owners association.  Queen's Harbour Yacht and Country
Club is a gated community in Jacksonville, Florida.

MAY Management Services, Inc., was founded in 1988.  The Company's
line of business includes renting, buying, selling and appraising
real estate.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan Garrett Moore, Esq.
          FIRST COAST CONSUMER LAW
          340 3rd Avenue S, Suite A
          Jacksonville Beach, FL 32250-6767
          Telephone: (904) 242-7070
          E-mail: ryan@beacheslaw.com


REGIONAL MEDICAL: Faces MSPA Suit in M. Dist. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Regional Medical
Center Bayonet Point Volunteers Association, Inc.  The case is
captioned as MSPA Claims 1, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability
Company, as Assignee of Florida Healthcare Plus, on behalf of
itself and all other similarly situated Medicare Advantage
Organizations in the State of Florida v. Regional Medical Center
Bayonet Point Volunteers Association, Inc., a Florida Profit
Corporation, Case No. 8:18-cv-02224-SDM-JSS (M.D. Fla., September
7, 2018).

The nature of suit is stated as "Contract: Recovery Medicare."

Regional Medical Center Bayonet Point Volunteers was founded in
1981 and is headquartered in Hudson, Florida.  The Company's line
of business includes providing general medical and surgical
hospital services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Frank Carlos Quesada, Esq.
          MSP RECOVERY LAW FIRM
          5000 SW 75th Ave., Suite 400
          Miami, FL 33155
          Telephone: (305) 614-2222
          Facsimile: (866) 582-0907
          E-mail: fquesada@msprecovery.com


REPROMED: Law Firms Team Up on Proposed Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Tamara Shephard, writing for Toronto.com, reports that two law
firms are moving forward co-operatively toward filing a
certification motion with the courts on a proposed class action
lawsuit against an Etobicoke-based fertility company after a
storage tank malfunction.

Toronto woman Qi Zhang, 39, told the Toronto Star in July that she
was devastated after learning a malfunction destroyed her frozen
eggs.

Zhang is suing ReproMed, the Etobicoke-based Toronto Institute for
Reproductive Medicine, through her law firm Gluckstein and Harte,
seeking more than $25 million in special and aggravated damages.

The lawsuit, detailed in a statement of claim filed on July 5 at
the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, alleges the company was
negligent in inspecting, monitoring and maintaining embryos, sperm
and eggs in its storage freezer.

In late May, the freezer experienced a vacuum pump failure and the
temperature rose, which destroyed its storage content, according to
the statement of claim.

The lawsuit names ReproMed and its director, Dr. Alfonso P. Del
Valle, as well as the U.S.-based cryogenic tank manufacturer Chart
Industries and its distributor, Praxair Canada Inc.

Anne Spafford, Esq.-- aspafford@lerners.ca-- a lawyer at Lerners
LLP, who represents ReproMed and Del Valle, said they are aware of
the lawsuit, but would not comment on it as the matter is before
the courts.

Jillian Evanko from Chart Industries also said they do not comment
on pending litigation.

Praxair Canada Inc. did not respond to the Guardian's requests for
comment.

The court must certify the action as a class action before it may
proceed.

Toronto law firm Siskinds LLP had also filed a notice of action on
June 14 at the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Brampton on
behalf of a Mississauga couple.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs caution the 47 people affected by the
malfunction against accepting any deals with the clinic prior to
receiving legal advice. Those affected may contact lawyer Jordan
Assaraf, Esq. -- assaraf@gluckstein.com -- or at 416-408-4252 or
lawyer Bridget Moran, Esq. -- bridget.moran@siskinds.com -- or at
519-660-7842.

Zhang, who spoke to The Toronto Star through a translator, said she
had stored 65 of her eggs with ReproMed earlier this year at a cost
of more than $10,000.

As a "single mother with no partner," Zhang said storing her eggs
gave her hope for expanding her family in the future.

The statement of claim indicates her doctor emailed Zhang early in
June with news the freezer had failed.

"I sat in my car and I was crying for a long period of time," she
told the Star. "I was so terrified. The security for my future is
now gone."

Zhang said it was particularly difficult to tell her seven-year-old
daughter she may never have siblings.

Jordan Assaraf, lawyer with Gluckstein and Harte, said there's a
failure to regulate fertility clinics in Ontario.

"We inspect restaurants, why not inspect fertility clinics,"
Assaraf said in an email to The Guardian. "The corner store is
inspected more than the place of business which stores and
preserves your reproductive material (eggs, embryos and
sperm)."[GN]


ROYAL WINNIPEG: Canada's Ballet World Rocked by Abuse Scandal
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Guardian, reports that from a small dance company on the
prairies of Canada it grew into one of the country's most
prestigious cultural institutions -- gaining international
prominence as the first ballet in the Commonwealth to receive the
royal charter from the Queen.

Now, however, the spotlight is on the Royal Winnipeg Ballet for
other reasons, after an Ontario court gave the go-ahead to a
class-action lawsuit alleging that a former instructor pressurised
students -- many of them underage -- to pose for semi-nude or nude
photographs and later may have sold some of the pictures online.

The allegations are connected to the ballet's school, which
recruits and trains aspiring dancers from across Canada and around
the world.

After years of whispers, former students began speaking out in
2012; media picked up on the story three years later. The
allegations span nearly 30 years and show a pattern: accusing an
instructor who doubled as the ballet's photographer of cajoling
them into taking off their clothes so that he could photograph them
in various stages of undress or in sexually provocative positions.
The accusations are among a series of claims that have rocked
Canada's most vaunted cultural institutions, from women who came
forward with stories of CBC broadcaster Jian Ghomeshi in 2014 to a
sexual harassment complaint against the former artistic director of
the Montreal Symphony Orchestra, Charles Dutoit.

The orchestra has launched an investigation. After denying the
allegations, Ghomeshi was found not guilty in 2016 of four counts
of sexual assault and one count of choking, while Dutoit has denied
the allegation.

Sarah Doucet was a student at the Royal Winnipeg Ballet school in
the 1990s. She said she was 16 or 17 when she approached Bruce Monk
to take photographs of her for her portfolio. Initially, nothing
seemed amiss when the two met to take a few shots of her in the
dance studio. After that, Monk suggested they move to a private
office for headshots, she claimed.

He closed the office door before setting up his camera, she said.
"And then he slowly, gently but very persistently, insisted I
removed the straps off my shoulders," Doucet claimed. Worried about
upsetting an instructor at the highly competitive school, Doucet
said she did as she was told.

Monk then took several topless photographs of her, she claimed. "I
don't remember how it ended. I've tried, but I don't know how I got
out of the room but it didn't go any further," she said. Humiliated
by what had happened, she did not tell anyone at the time about her
experience.

None of the allegations against Monk or the Royal Winnipeg Ballet
has been proved in court. Both Monk and the ballet have filed
statements of defence denying the accusations.

As other students began coming forward with similar accounts,
police in Winnipeg launched an investigation in 2015. It was then
that allegations also emerged that Monk -- an accomplished
photographer whose images hang on the walls of Canada's National
Gallery -- had been selling some of the pictures online, according
to the statement of claim.

The discovery added another layer to the trauma, said Doucet, now
46 and living in Toronto. The thought that pictures of her topless
might be hanging on a wall somewhere in the world, she said, "is
highly triggering and traumatising".

Crown prosecutors in Manitoba ultimately decided not to lay charges
against Monk, citing the slim chances of obtaining a conviction.
According to court documents, the police investigation had focused
on three women, including Doucet, who had all been photographed
before 1993 -- the year that Canada strengthened its laws on
child-abuse images. The documents noted that Monk's conduct, if
proven, was "not unlawful" under the child-abuse images laws in
force at the time, according to crown attorneys.

Doucet turned to the civil courts. "This was the only thing that I
had left," she said. "It was the only avenue to get them to take
responsibility for what they've done."

The class action, filed earlier this summer with Doucet as the lead
plaintiff and on behalf of former students who claim they had their
pictures taken in a private setting by Monk between 1984 and 2015,
alleges that Monk breached his fiduciary duty to the students. It
also argues that the Royal Winnipeg Ballet was vicariously liable
for Monk's interactions with students, said lawyer Margaret
Waddell, Esq. -- marg@waddellphillips.ca

"They were the ones that put a camera in his hands and told the
students that they were to expect to be photographed by him, and
created the environment, we say, where this was allowed to
happen."

The Royal Winnipeg Ballet declined to comment on the lawsuit or the
allegations. Monk, who was dismissed in 2015, did not respond to a
request for comment sent to his lawyer.

Among the issues the court is expected to consider, said Waddell,
is whether students can meaningfully consent when being told to do
something by an instructor who wields control over their career.
"Imagine being, for example, a 16-year-old student and your
instructor is telling you to remove your clothes so that he can
photograph you," she said. "That can be a highly traumatic
experience whether or not he then uses those photographs to publish
them online and sell them for his own gain."

For Doucet, the focus is now on steeling herself for what could be
a years-long court battle -- something she never imagined when she
went public with her allegation. "The past four years have been the
hardest four years of my life," she said.

Speaking out has dislodged emotions she had long buried, adding to
her struggles with trusting men in positions of power. "The way
that it spreads into family and friends and work life and personal
life and self-esteem -- it affects everything," she said. "It's
time for us to stop feeling like we did something, like we were
complicit in this, because we weren't."[GN]


SAN BERNARDINO, CA: McKibben Wins Prelim. OK of $950K Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Jesus G. Bernal granted the Plaintiffs' Motion to
Certify Class and Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action
Settlement in the lawsuit captioned Dan McKibben, et al. v. John
McMahon, et al., Case No. 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP (C.D. Cal.).

John McMahon is the Sheriff of the San Bernardino County,
California.

Two settlement classes are certified for settlement purpose only:

   a. Damages Class:

      Individuals who, between October 22, 2012 (two years prior
      to the filing of the original complaint, which is the
      statute of limitations period under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983)
      and March 31, 2018 (the end of the month in which the
      settlement was reached in principle) were gay, bisexual,
      and/or transgender inmates housed in the Alternative
      Lifestyle Tank of the San Bernardino County Jail facility
      known as West Valley Detention Center; and

   b. Injunctive Relief Class:

      Individuals who currently are, or in the future will be,
      gay, bisexual, and/or transgender inmates housed in the San
      Bernardino County jails, including but not limited to those
      housed in the Alternative Lifestyle Tank.

The key financial terms of the Settlement Agreement are:

   -- Gross settlement amount ("Class Fund"): $950,000;

   -- Expert, consulting, mediation costs: $37,000;

   -- Settlement administration costs: $40,00;

   -- Service award to class representatives: $60,500;

   -- Net settlement amount: $812,500; and

   -- Attorneys' fees and costs: $1,100,000.

Barrett S. Litt, Esq., David McLane, Esq., and Lindsay Battles,
Esq., of Kaye, McLane, Bednarski & Litt, and Melissa Goodman, Esq.,
Amanda Goad, Esq., Brendan Hamme, Esq., and Aditi Fruitwala, Esq.,
of the ACLU Foundation of Southern California are appointed as
class counsel for purposes of settlement only.

Named Plaintiffs Pedro Guzman, Nick Ou, Sean Lint, Anthony Oliver,
Timothy Walker, Ilich Vargas, William Kennedy, Jonathan Robertson,
Steve Aka Lynn Price, Bryan Bagwell, Christopher Crawford,
Frederick Crockan, Taheash White, Michael Aka Madison Hatfield, and
Kevin Aka Veronica Pratt are preliminarily appointed as class
representatives.

JND Legal Administration is appointed as the settlement
administrator.  The settlement notice is approved in form and
substance for use in the administration of the Settlement
Agreement.

The Court grants the parties the authority to finalize the contact
information, Web site address, response dates, and fairness hearing
dates in accordance with this Order.

Settlement class members will have until January 7, 2019, to file a
claim, opt-out, or file an objection to the Settlement Agreement.

The final approval hearing is scheduled for February 11, 2019, at
9:00 a.m.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Barrett S. Litt, Esq.
          KAYE MCLANE BEDNARSKI AND LITT LLP
          975 East Green St.
          Pasadena, CA 91106
          Telephone: (626) 844-7660
          Facsimile: (626) 844-7670
          E-mail: blitt@kmbllaw.com

               - and -

          Amanda C. Goad, Esq.
          ACLU OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
          1313 W 8th Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 977-9500
          E-mail: agoad@aclu.org

The Defendants are represented by:

          Nathan A. Oyster, Esq.
          BURKE WILLIAMS AND SORENSEN LLP
          444 S Flower St., Suite 2400
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 236-0600
          Facsimile: (213) 236-2700
          E-mail: noyster@bwslaw.com


SANFORD LP: Spacone Appeals Class Cert. Denial to 9th Circuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff David Spacone filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit titled David Spacone v. Sanford, LP, Case No.
2:17-cv-02419-AB-MRW, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, Los Angeles.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Aug. 23, 2018, the Hon.
Andre Birotte, Jr., entered an order denying Plaintiff's motion for
class certification of:

    "all individuals who purchased one or more KG Stay Fresh
     Container Products in California from January 31, 2013,
     until the date of trial."

The Court found that class certification is not appropriate because
Spacone (1) lacks standing to raise claims under the Consumers
Legal Remedies Act, False Advertising Law, and Unfair Competition
Law, (2) fails to provide the Court an ascertainable proposed
class, (3) presents an atypical member of his proposed class under
Rule 23(a)(3), and (4) is not an adequate class representative.

The appellate case is captioned as David Spacone v. Sanford, LP,
Case No. 18-56208, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript must be ordered by October 10, 2018;

   -- Transcript is due on November 9, 2018;

   -- Appellant David Spacone's opening brief is due on
      December 19, 2018;

   -- Appellee Sanford, LP answering brief is due on January 22,
      2019; and

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

Plaintiff-Appellant DAVID SPACONE, individually, and on behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated, is
represented by:

          Liana Carter, Esq.
          Robert Kenneth Friedl, Esq.
          Jordan L. Lurie, Esq.
          Bevin Allen Pike, Esq.
          Ryan Wu, Esq.
          Tarek Zohdy, Esq.
          CAPSTONE LAW APC
          1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 556-4811
          E-mail: Liana.Carter@CapstoneLawyers.com
                  robert.friedl@capstonelawyers.com
                  Jordan.Lurie@capstonelawyers.com
                  Bevin.Pike@capstonelawyers.com
                  Ryan.Wu@CapstoneLawyers.com
                  tarek.zohdy@capstonelawyers.com

Defendant-Appellee SANFORD, LP, Erroneously Sued As Elmers
Products, Inc., a Delaware corporation, is represented by:

          Jean-Paul P. Cart, Esq.
          SCHIFF HARDIN LLP
          One Market
          Spear Street Tower
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 901-8732
          Facsimile: (415) 901-8701
          E-mail: jcart@schiffhardin.com


SCRIPPS EXECUTIVE: Meisenheimer Sues over Inaccurate Pay Check
--------------------------------------------------------------
CRYSTAL MEISENHEIMER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. SCRIPPS EXECUTIVE HEALTH MEDICAL GROUP,
INC., a private, non-profit entity; SCRIPPS HEALTH, a private,
non-profit entity; SCRIPPS HEALTH AND HEALING CENTER, a private,
non-profit entity; SCRIPPS HEALTH INPATIENT PROVIDERS MEDICAL
GROUP, INC., a private, non-profit entity; SCRIPPS HEALTH PLAN
SERVICES, INC., a private, non-profit entity; and DOES 1 through
25, Inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 37-2018-00042819-CU-OE-CTL
(Cal. Super. Ct., Aug. 24, 2018), alleges that Defendants have
failed to provide Plaintiffs with adequate and accurate wage
statements with defects including but not limited to failing to
provide the name and address of the employing entity, among other
defects.

According to the complaint, on March 24, 2014, the Plaintiff began
working for Defendants at Defendants' hospital located at 10666
North Torrey Pines Road, La Jolla, CA 92037. The Defendants issued
inadequate pay stubs to Plaintiff and to the Plaintiff Class.
Specifically, itemized statement failed to provide the name of the
legal entity which is the employer and provided an incorrect
address in violation of Labor Code section 226(a)(8). The itemized
statements provided to Plaintiff stated "Scripps Health Payroll",
which as far as Plaintiff can ascertain is not a legal entity or a
registered fictitious business name in the County of San
Diego.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua D. Gruenberg, Esq.
          Josh P. Pang, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JOSHUA D. GRUENBERG
          2155 First Avenue
          San Diego, CA 92101-3542
          Telephone: (619) 230 1234
          Facsimile: (619) 230 1074

               - and -

          Efaon Cobb, Esq.
          Justin Hewgill, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF HEWGILL & COBB
          2169 First Avenue
          San Diego, CA 92101-3542
          Telephone: (619) 786 7459
          Facsimile: (619) 377 6026


SECORP INDUSTRIES: Court Certifies Class in Jensen Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned Jensen, the Plaintiff, v. Secorp
Industries, the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-02890-RGK-GJS (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge R. Gary Klausner entered an order granting
Plaintiff's motion for class certification.

The Court concludes that the plaintiff met all all four factors for
certification:

     1. Each class member would likely have little individual
interest in controlling the litigation. Because each class member's
claim would arise from SECORP's failure to pay for on call hours
and would be based on the same legal argument, there would be
little need to independently litigate a substantially similar case
31 times over. To be sure, some putative class members' individual
recoveries may be high enough to justify an individual lawsuit, but
an individual lawsuit would still be unnecessarily duplicative and
time-consuming given the commonalities here.

     2. The Court is not aware of any litigation already begun
against SECORP related to this issue.

     3. The proposed class is comprised of workers based off the
coast of the Central District of California, and the case turns on
the application of California state labor law, so it is desirable
to concentrate litigation of the claims here.

     4. The likely difficulties in managing the class do not
outweigh the benefits. As the Court has explained, it can resolve
the issue of liability "in one stroke."  While it may be necessary
to make individual damages determinations, the Court can base such
determinations on straightforward mechanical calculations. Such an
approach would be simpler than managing substantially similar
lawsuits.


SETERUS INC: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Heinitz Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Seterus, Inc.  The
case is titled as Robert J. Heinitz, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated, and Sandra L. Heinitz, on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated v. Seterus, Inc., Case No.
1:18-cv-01076-LEK-ATB (N.D.N.Y., September 7, 2018).

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

Seterus, Inc., operates as a loan servicing company.  The Company's
services include loan application, underwriting, processing, vendor
management, document preparation and loan closing.  Seterus was
formerly known as IBM Lender Business Process Services Inc. and
changed its name in July 2011.  The company was founded in 2007 and
is based in Grand Rapids, Michigan.  Seterus, Inc. operates as a
subsidiary of International Business Machines Corporation.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Elmer R. Keach, III, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ELMER ROBERT KEACH, III, P.C.
          One Pine West Plaza, Suite 109
          Albany, NY 12205
          Telephone: (518) 434-1718
          Facsimile: (518) 770-1558
          E-mail: bobkeach@keachlawfirm.com


SHAMROCK FOODS: 9th Circuit Appeal Filed in Ruiz Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Raul Guerrero, Mario Ruiz and Robert Torres filed an
appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit entitled Mario Ruiz, et
al. v. Shamrock Foods Company, Case No. 2:17-cv-06017-SVW-AFM, in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Los
Angeles.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Sept. 4, 2018, the Hon.
Stephen V. Wilson grants the Defendant's motion for summary
judgment and moots the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class.

According to its civil minutes, the Court granted the Defendant's
Motion for Summary Judgment because the named Plaintiffs lack
standing to pursue the one claim in this case.  Thus, the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification is moot.

The Plaintiffs, commercial drivers who were employed by Shamrock in
California, have filed a class action lawsuit, alleging on their
behalf and the putative class, a single claim for a procedural
violation of the disclosure requirements under the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.

The appellate case is captioned as Mario Ruiz, et al. v. Shamrock
Foods Company, Case No. 18-56209, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Appellants Raul Guerrero, Mario Ruiz and Robert Torres'
      opening brief is due on November 9, 2018;

   -- Appellee Shamrock Foods Company's answering brief is due on
      December 10, 2018; and

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

Plaintiffs-Appellants MARIO RUIZ, RAUL GUERRERO and ROBERT TORRES,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are
represented by:

          Aashish Yadvendra Desai, Esq.
          DESAI LAW FIRM, P.C.
          3200 Bristol Street
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (949) 614-5830
          Facsimile: (949) 271-4190
          E-mail: aashish@desai-law.com

Defendant-Appellee SHAMROCK FOODS COMPANY, an Arizona corporation,
is represented by:

          Kara Maciel, Esq.
          CONN MACIEL CAREY LLP
          5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 660
          Washington, DC 20015
          Telephone: (202) 909-2730
          E-mail: kmaciel@ebglaw.com

               - and -

          Andrew Jonathon Sommer, Esq.
          CONN MACIEL CAREY LLP
          870 Market Street, Suite 1111
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Telephone: (415) 268-8881
          E-mail: asommer@connmaciel.com


SINCLAIR BROADCAST: My Philly Lawyer Asserts Sherman Act Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
My Philly Lawyer, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc.,
Tribune Media Company, Tribune Broadcasting Company, LLC and Does
1-20, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-02713, (D. Md., August 31, 2018)
seeks damages, injunctive relief and other relief for violation of
Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

Defendants are media companies who are accused by the Plaintiff of
conspiring to fix, raise, stabilize, and maintain prices for
commercials to be aired on broadcast television stations throughout
the United States by sharing competitively sensitive information
through their advertising sales teams.

My Philly Lawyer is a law firm located in Philadelphia, PA and
purchased television advertising from one or more of the
Defendants. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John R. Solter, Jr., Esq.
      AZRAEL, FRANZ, SCHWAB & LIPOWITZ, LLC
      101 E. Chesapeake Avenue, 5th Floor
      Baltimore, MD 21286
      Tel: (410) 821-6800
      Email: jsolter@azraelfranz.com

             - and -

      Eugene A. Spector, Esq.
      William G. Caldes, Esq.
      SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C.
      1818 Market Street, Suite 2500
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Tel: (215) 496-0300
      Fax: (215) 496-6611
      Email: espector@srkattorneys.com
             bcaldes@srkattorneys.com

             - and -

      David P. McLafferty, Esq.
      MCLAFFERTY LAW FIRM, P.C.
      923 Fayette Street
      Conshohocken, PA 19428
      Tel: (610) 940-4000
      Fax: (610) 940-4007
      Email: dmclafferty@mclaffertylaw.com


SOUTHERN ILLINOIS UNIV: Ahad's Bid for Class Certification Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Sue E. Myerscough denied the Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification filed in the lawsuit titled SAJIDA AHAD, MD, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. BOARD OF
TRUSTEES OF SOUTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY and SIU PHYSICIANS &
SURGEONS, INC., Case No. 3:15-cv-03308-SEM-TSH (C.D. Ill.).

The Court finds that the Plaintiff has not shown the requirements
of commonality and typicality under Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure.

Plaintiff Sajida Ahad, M.D., brings this suit alleging gender-based
pay discrimination on behalf of herself and a class of female
physicians employed by Defendants: the Board of Trustees of
Southern Illinois University and SIU Physicians & Surgeons, Inc.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants paid the Plaintiff and
other female physicians substantially lower compensation than male
physicians for the same or similar work.  The Plaintiff brings her
claims pursuant to the Illinois Equal Pay Act, and the Illinois
Civil Rights Act.


SPRINGFIELD, MA: Disability Law Appeals Dist. Ct. Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Disability Law Center, Inc., M. W. and
Parent/Professional Advocacy League filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit titled S.S., et al. v. City of Springfield,
et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-30116-MGM, in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Massachusetts, Springfield.

The appellate case is captioned as M.W., a minor, by his parents,
et al. v. City of Springfield, et al., Case No. 18-1867, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Sept. 7,
2018, Defendants Springfield Public Schools and Springfield, MA,
filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit.  That appellate
case is entitled S.S., et al. v. City of Springfield, et al., Case
No. 18-1813.

The District Court previously granted the Defendants' Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings based on the Absence of IDEA Exhaustion
in the case.

The one-count complaint alleged the Defendants violated Title II of
the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), with respect to S.S. and
members of the proposed class by failing to provide the educational
programs and services that would have allowed them equal access to
the educational resources offered students attending neighborhood
schools.  In the course of arguing that the Plaintiffs lack
standing, the Defendants raised concerns about IDEA exhaustion.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that Docketing
Statement, Transcript Report/Order form, and Appearance form are
due on September 24, 2018.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant M. W., a minor, by his parents, L.N. and A.N.,
on behalf of himself and other similarly situated students, is
represented by:

          Elizabeth M. Bresnahan, Esq.
          Jeff Goldman, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          1 Federal Street
          Boston, MA 02110-1726
          Telephone: (617) 951-8945
          E-mail: elizabeth.bresnahan@morganlewis.com
                  jeff.goldman@morganlewis.com

Plaintiffs-Appellants PARENT/PROFESSIONAL ADVOCACY LEAGUE,
DISABILITY LAW CENTER, INC., and S. S., a minor, by his mother,
S.Y., on behalf of himself and other similarly situated students,
are represented by:

          Alison Barkoff, Esq.
          CENTER FOR PUBLIC REPRESENTATION
          1825 K St. NW, Suite 600
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 854-1270
          E-mail: abarkoff@cpr-us.org

               - and -

          Michael D. Blanchard, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          1 State Street
          Hartford, CT 06103-0000
          Telephone: (860) 240-2700
          E-mail: michael.blanchard@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          Matthew T. Bohenek, Esq.
          Elizabeth M. Bresnahan, Esq.
          Jeff Goldman, Esq.
          Robert E. McDonnell, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          1 Federal Street
          Boston, MA 02110-1726
          Telephone: (617) 951-8945
          E-mail: matthew.bohenek@morganlewis.com
                  elizabeth.bresnahan@morganlewis.com
                  jeff.goldman@morganlewis.com
                  robert.mcdonnell@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          Ira A. Burnim, Esq.
          Jennifer Mathis, Esq.
          BAZELON CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH LAW
          1101 15th St, NW, Suite 1212
          Washington, DC 20005-5002
          Telephone: (202) 467-5730
          E-mail: irab@bazelon.org
                  jenniferm@bazelon.org

               - and -

          Sandra J. Staub, Esq.
          CENTER FOR PUBLIC REPRESENTATION
          22 Green St.
          Northampton, MA 01060-0000
          Telephone: (413) 586-6024
          E-mail: ddorfman@cpr-ma.org
                  sstaub@cpr-ma.org

Defendants-Appellees SPRINGFIELD, MA and SPRINGFIELD PUBLIC SCHOOLS
are represented by:

          Stephen L. Holstrom, Esq.
          Mary Jane Kennedy, Esq.
          Melinda Marsh Phelps, Esq.
          BULKLEY RICHARDSON & GELINAS LLP
          1500 Main Street, Suite 2700
          Springfield, MA 01115-5507
          Telephone: (413) 781-2820
          E-mail: sholstrom@bulkley.com
                  mkennedy@bulkley.com
                  mphelps@bulkley.com

Defendants-Appellees SPRINGFIELD, MA, SPRINGFIELD PUBLIC SCHOOLS,
DOMENIC J. SARNO, JR., in his official capacity as Mayor of City of
Springfield, and DANIEL J. WARWICK, in his official capacity as
Superintendent of Springfield Public Schools, are represented by:

          Edward M. Pikula, Esq.
          CITY OF SPRINGFIELD
          36 Court St., Room 210
          Springfield, MA 01103-0000
          Telephone: (413) 787-6085
          E-mail: attyemp@aol.com

Defendant-Appellee SPRINGFIELD, MA, is represented by:

          Mary Ellen MacDonald, Esq.
          BULKLEY RICHARDSON & GELINAS LLP
          1500 Main Street, Suite 2700
          Springfield, MA 01115-5507
          Telephone: (617) 368-2500
          E-mail: mmacdonald@bulkley.com

               - and -

          Lisa Caryl deSousa, Esq.
          CITY OF SPRINGFIELD
          1600 E Columbus Ave.
          Springfield, MA 01103
          Telephone: (413) 886-5205
          E-mail: ldsousa@springfieldcityhall.com

Defendant DOMENIC J. SARNO, JR., in his official capacity as Mayor
of City of Springfield, is represented by:

          Melinda Marsh Phelps, Esq.
          BULKLEY RICHARDSON & GELINAS LLP
          1500 Main Street, Suite 2700
          Springfield, MA 01115-5507
          Telephone: (413) 272-6237
          E-mail: mphelps@bulkley.com

Interested Party S. B. is represented by:

          Elizabeth M. Bresnahan, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          1 Federal Street
          Boston, MA 02110-1726
          Telephone: (617) 951-8638
          E-mail: elizabeth.bresnahan@morganlewis.com

Interested Party UNITED STATES is represented by:

          Karen L. Goodwin, Esq.
          U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
          300 State St., Suite 230
          Springfield, MA 01105-2926
          Telephone: (413) 785-0269
          E-mail: karen.goodwin@usdoj.gov

               - and -

          Anne Langford, Esq.
          U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          950 Pennsylvania Ave NW
          Washington, DC 20530-0001
          Telephone: (202) 616-2727
          E-mail: anne.langford@usdoj.gov

               - and -

          Michelle L. Leung, Esq.
          Cynthia A. Young, Esq.
          U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
          1 Courthouse Way, Suite 9200
          Boston, MA 02110-0000
          Telephone: (617) 748-3626
          E-mail: Michelle.Leung@usdoj.gov


STAGE STORES: Crosby Moves for Certification of Class Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned MAYA CROSBY and DENEEN
PATTON, on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated v.
STAGE STORES INC., Case No. 3:18-cv-00503 (M.D. Tenn.), ask the
Court to conditionally certify a Fair Labor Standards Act class
consisting of:

     All persons who at any time from May 30, 2015 through the
     date of final judgment in this matter have worked as hourly,
     non-exempt employees whose titles included without
     limitation Sales Associates, Visual Associates, eCommerce
     Fulfillment Associates, Custodian Freight Associates,
     Counter Managers, Cosmetic Sales Mangers, Beauty Advisors,
     and Assistant Store Managers (collectively "Hourly Workers")
     in Defendant's United States locations that operate under
     the brand names Stage, Peebles, Goody's, Bealls, and Palais
     Royal.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to authorize the issuance of
notice to potential collective members pursuant to the Plaintiffs'
proposed notice distribution process, notifying them of this action
and of their right to join this action by filing a consent form in
accordance with Section 16(b) of the FLSA.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Molly Brooks, Esq.
          Elizabeth V. Stork, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
          685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 245-1000
          E-mail: mb@outtengolden.com
                  estork@outtengolden.com

               - and -

          Laura Iris Mattes, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
          One California Street, 12th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 638-8800
          Facsimile: (415) 638-8810
          E-mail: imattes@outtengolden.com

               - and -

          Charles P. Yezbak, III, Esq.
          YEZBAK LAW OFFICE PLLC
          2002 Richard Jones Rd. Suit B-200
          Nashville, TN 37215
          Telephone: (615) 250-2000
          E-mail: yezbak@yezbaklaw.com


STARBUCKS CORP: Court Denies Petition for Rehearing in Wage Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
John Breslin, writing for Northern California Record, reports that
the California Supreme Court has denied a petition from Starbucks
for a rehearing after issuing an earlier opinion that state
wage-and-hour laws do not include the federal "de minimis"
doctrine.

The court modified slightly the wording of its July 26 opinion, but
denied the rehearing petition in a case involving a shift
supervisor who claimed he was not paid for regular off-the-clock
work.

In its short ruling denying the petition, the Supreme Court stated,
"We hold that the relevant California statutes and wage order have
not incorporated the de minimis doctrine found in the FLSA."

The "de minimis" doctrine, in place for many decades and
incorporated into the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, essentially
states that employers do not have to pay for the small amount of
time an employee spends on the premises after clocking out, usually
calculated at anywhere between 10 or 15 minutes and less.

Douglas Troester, a shift supervisor who worked for the company for
17 months, sued for unpaid wages after clocking out. He had to
activate the store alarm, lock the front door and walk workers to
their cars, which took him an additional four to 10 minutes a
shift, according to the lawsuit.

It was calculated he worked an extra 13 hours, with lost wages
amounting to just over $100.

But the Supreme Court said, while the rule may inform state law, it
is not applicable in California to regular work, however small the
amount of time it takes, that "the relevant statutes and wage order
do not allow employers to require employees to routinely work for
minutes off the clock without compensation."

The justices did "leave open" the argument against wage claims for
irregular and brief activities.

There are concerns that the Supreme Court ruling could lead to an
uptick in class action claims. Indeed, within hours of the opinion
being handed down, the case was cited in a motion that argued for
class certification against retailers, H&M.

But defense lawyers Michael S. Kan, Esq. and Kevin D. Phillips,
Esq. of Epstein, Becker and Green, argued that while there may be
an increase in class action lawsuits, the Supreme Court "rejected
the application of the rule under the facts presented, it did not
address a much larger question."

And that question, they argued in a post, is whether "highly
individualized" arguments over small amounts of time could justify
certification.

"And while Troester certainly suggests that employers in California
will face an increased number of class actions alleging that
certain insignificant amounts of time should have been compensated,
plaintiffs' difficulty in actually getting classes certified on
such claims appears relatively unchanged," they wrote.[GN]


SUBARU: To Settle Lawsuit Over WRX, WRX STI Engines
---------------------------------------------------
Patrick Everett Tadeo, writing for Yahoo News, reports that
following a class-action lawsuit filed against Subaru of America in
2017 alleging that the 2.5-liter engine of Subaru WRX and WRX STI
models made between 2012 to 2017 are prone to failing prematurely,
the Japanese carmaker has reportedly agreed to settle with the
complainants.

In the lawsuit, the complainants alleged that Subaru knew of the
defects with the engine's rotating assemblies, specifically its
connecting rod bearings, main bearings, and the channels of engine
lubrication, yet failed to tell its customers about it. Based on
the lawsuit, metal debris within the engine oil hampers the oil's
ability to protect the engine's components, resulting in excessive
contact between the engine bearings that culminates with the engine
failing prematurely.

According to CarComplaints.com, the original lawsuit was filed in
late 2017. A separate lawsuit with the same issue was also filed in
the same court in December 2017. As more complaints about the issue
surfaced, the two lawsuits were then consolidated and refiled in
March 2018 before Subaru decided to settle the lawsuit.

Recently, both Subaru and the complainants have agreed to a
settlement which will then be enforced following the approval of
the judge.

The agreed-to settlement are:

-- Subaru will cover the repairs as part of an extended warranty
for the affected vehicles for up to eight years or 100,000 miles
(160,934 kilometers), whichever comes first.

-- Subaru will compensate customers who experienced the alleged
issue prior to selling or trading in their cars up to a maximum of
USD4,000.

-- Subaru will reimburse customers up to 100 percent of expenses
incurred for the parts and labor paid to repair the vehicle with
the dealer during the extended warranty period.

-- Subaru will reimburse customers who had their car serviced in an
independent repair shop as long as the car was first presented to a
Subaru dealership although a cap will be set on the amount–from
USD3,500 to USD6,500–depending on the parts to be replaced

-- Subaru will reimburse all towing and rental car expenses
incurred as a result of the repair if it (the repair) required more
than two full days in a single period.

-- The attorneys of both parties have also agreed that certain
conditions and modifications done to the car will exclude it from
being repaired under the extended warranty, like changes to the
engine control units or the use of any "piggyback" devices to alter
the signals from the engine control units.

So, do you have a 2012-2017 Subaru WRX or WRX STI that fits the
bill?[GN]


SUNTRUST: Saint-Simon Suit Moved to S.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled ERLANDE SAINT-SIMON and other
similarly situated employees, the Plaintiff, v. SUNTRUST, the
Defendant, Case No. 18-024927-CA-01, was removed from the Circuit
Court for Miami-Dade County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Florida (Miami) on Aug. 23, 2018. The
Florida Southern District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:18-cv-23416-RNS to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr. The suit alleges Fair Labor
Standards Act violation.

SunTrust is an American bank holding company. It had US$199 billion
in assets as of March 31, 2018.[BN]

Attorneys for Erlande Saint-Simon and other similarly situated
employees:

          Jason Saul Remer, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          Court House Tower
          44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416 5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416 5005
          E-mail: jremer@rgpattorneys.com

Attorneys for SunTrust:

          Caryn Diamond Shaw, Esq.
          Andrew X. Froman, Esq.
          FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
          200 South Orange Avenue, Suite 1100
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (407) 541 0888
          Facsimile: (407) 541 0887
          E-mail: cshaw@fisherphillips.com
                  afroman@laborlawyers.com


SUPERVALU INC: Wallace Balks at United Natural Foods Merger Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN WALLACE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. SUPERVALU, INC., DONALD R. CHAPPEL,
IRWIN S. COHEN, PHILIP L. FRANCIS, MARK GROSS, ERIC G. JOHNSON,
MATHEW M. PENDO, FRANCESCA RUIZ DE LUZURIAGA, FRANK A. SAVAGE, and
MARY A. WINSTON, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01311-UNA (D.
Del., Aug. 24, 2018), alleges that the Defendants violated Sections
14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, in
connection with a proposed merger between SuperValu and Jedi Merger
Sub, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of United Natural Foods, Inc.

According to the complaint, on July 25, 2018, the Board caused the
Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger, pursuant to
which SuperValu's stockholders will receive $32.50 in cash for each
share of SuperValu common stock they hold.  On August 21, 2018, to
convince SuperValu shareholders to vote in favor of the Proposed
Merger, the Board authorized the filing of a materially incomplete
and misleading Proxy Statement on Schedule 14A with the Securities
and Exchange Commission, in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act. The date of the shareholder meeting was
scheduled for September 6, 2018. While Defendants are touting the
fairness of the Merger Consideration to the Company's shareholders
in the Proxy, they have failed to disclose certain material
information that is necessary for shareholders to properly assess
the fairness of the Proposed Merger, thereby rendering certain
statements in the Proxy false and/or misleading.

In particular, the Proxy contains materially incomplete and
misleading information concerning (i) the financial projections for
the Company; and (ii) potential conflicts of interests with the
Company's financial advisors, Barclays Capital Inc. and Lazard
Freres & Co. LLC.  It is imperative that the material information
that has been omitted from the Proxy is disclosed to the Company's
shareholders prior to the forthcoming shareholder vote, so that
they can properly exercise their corporate suffrage rights.

SuperValu, Inc. is an American retailing company. The corporation,
headquartered in the Minneapolis suburb of Eden Prairie, Minnesota,
has been in business for nearly a century.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Van Gorder, Esq.
          Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
          James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          20 Montchanin Road, Suite 145
          Wilmington, DE 19807
          Tel.: (302) 482-3182
          E-mail: mvangorder@faruqilaw.com
                  nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
                  jwilson@faruqilaw.com


SUSHI HOUSE: Accused by Gomez Suit of Violating Disabilities Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sushi House, Co.  The
case is titled as Andres Gomez, on his own and on behalf of all
other individuals similarly situated v. Sushi House, Co., Case No.
1:18-cv-23683-RNS (S.D. Fla., September 7, 2018).

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

Sushi House, Co., is a privately held company in Aventura, Florida.
The Company operates Sushi Bars.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TBC CORP: Court Certifies Colorado & Florida Classes
----------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JULIE HAMILTON, et al., the Plaintiffs,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
TBC CORPORATION, et al., the Defendants, Case No.
2:17-cv-01060-DMG-JEM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Dolly M. Gee
entered an order on August 24, 2018:

   1. certifying a Colorado Class with respect to Plaintiffs'
      claims under Colorado law:

      "all persons who reside in Colorado who purchased or
      acquired a Power King Towmax STR trailer tire, from
      February 9, 2014 to the present."

      Excluded from the Class are (1) governmental entities;
      (2) Defendants, any entity in which Defendants have a
      controlling interest, and Defendants' officers, directors,
      affiliates, legal representatives, employees, co-
      conspirators, successors, subsidiaries and assigns; (3) the
      judicial officers and their immediate family members and
      associated court staff assigned to this case; and (4) those
      persons who have suffered personal injuries as a result of
      the alleged defects of the Power King Towmax STR trailer
      tire.

   2. certifying Florida Class with respect to the Florida
      Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act claim:

      "all persons who reside in Florida who purchased or
      acquired a Power King Towmax STR trailer tire, from
      February 9, 2013 to the present."

      Excluded from the Class are (1) governmental entities;
      (2) Defendants, any entity in which Defendants have a
      controlling interest, and Defendants' officers, directors,
      affiliates, legal representatives, employees, co-
      conspirators, successors, subsidiaries and assigns; (3) the
      judicial officers and their immediate family members and
      associated court staff assigned to this case; and (4) those
      persons who have suffered personal injuries as a result of
      the alleged defects of the Power King Towmax STR trailer
      tire.

   3. certifying Sam Flowers as the representative of the
      Colorado Class and Nestor Diaz as representative of the
      Florida Class; and

   4. certifying law firm of Keller, Fishback & Jackson LLP as
      class counsel.


THALES AVIONICS: Faces Hamadah Wage-and-Hour Suit
-------------------------------------------------
EYAD HAMADAH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. THALES AVIONICS, INC. dba THALES INFL
YT EXPERIENCE, a Delaware corporation, MORSON INTERNATIONAL INC., a
Delaware corporation, DOMINIQUE GIANNONI, an individual, BENJAMIN
LEUNG, an individual; and DOES 1-100, the Defendants, Case No.
30-2018-01014075-CU-OE-rnc (Cal. Super. Ct., Aug. 23, 2018),
alleges that Defendants failed to pay minimum wages, failed to pay
overtime compensation, failed to pay for all hours worked, failed
to provide meal periods, failed to provide rest breaks, and failed
to provide itemized wage statements, under the California Labor
Code.`

The case arises out of Defendants' ongoing egregious violations of
California's wage and hour laws. The Defendants have committed, and
continue to commit, these violations purposefully, with the intent
to cut costs by depriving their employees of the wages to which
they are entitled, as is evidenced by the fact that Defendants have
taken deliberate steps to cover up their violations.

Thales Avionics, Inc. manufactures navigation systems, radars, and
surveillance systems for the aerospace industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Caleb Liang, Esq.
          Kevin B. Kelly, Esq.
          LLT ATTORNEYS LLP
          300 South Grand Ave., 14th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 612 8900
          Facsimile: (213) 612-3773


THIRD ROUND: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Mesch Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Third Round, L.P., et
al. The case is styled as Keyla Mesch and Victoria Adams,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Third Round, L.P., Second Round, L.P. and Second Round Sub, LLC,
Case No. 2:18-cv-05085 (E.D.N.Y., September 10, 2018).

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

Third Round, L.P., is a Texas Limited Partnership with a principal
place of business in Travis County, Texas.  Second Round, L.P., is
a Texas Limited Partnership with a principal place of business in
Travis County.  Second Round Sub, LLC, is a Texas Limited Liability
Company with a principal place of business in Travis County.

The Defendants are regularly engaged, for profit, in the collection
of debts allegedly owed by consumers, and are "debt collectors" as
defined by the FDCPA.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
          BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 203-7600
          Facsimile: (516) 706-5055
          E-mail: csanders@barshaysanders.com


TIGAMAN INC: $1.3M Sale of Roswell Property to Steven Approved
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Lisa Ritchey Craig of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
Northern District of Georgia authorized Tigaman, Inc.'s sale of the
real property known as 1002 Canton Street, Roswell, Georgia to
Steven Peters, LLC, for $1,275,000.

A hearing on the Motion was held on Sept. 10, 2018.

Subject to and contingent upon Live Oak Banks' receipt of the Live
Oak Payment, the Real Property will be transferred free and clear
of all interests, liens, encumbrances, and/or alleged secured
indebtedness of any kind or nature, with all such Real Property
Interests to attach to any net proceeds of the $1,275,000 gross
sales price in the order of their priority.

The sale of the Real Property is subject to the following
conditions, which the Debtor is authorized to fulfill: (A) Live Oak
Bank will receive at closing, immediately available funds
constituting all net proceeds from the sale of the Real Property
(after payment of only necessary, normal, customary, and reasonable
closing fees and expenses, including pro-rated real property taxes,
and realtor's or broker's commissions, if any), and which Live Oak
Payment will be provided by Live Oak Bank, and which Live Oak
Payment will be received by Live Oak Bank no later than 5:00 p.m.
(ET) on the closing date; (B) delivery of a draft HUD-1 settlement
statement, not later than one business days in advance of the
closing of the sale of the Real Property, evidencing and confirming
proposed payment of only necessary, normal, customary, and
reasonable closing fees and expenses, payment of all net proceeds
to Live Oak Bank, and that no proceeds from the sale of the Real
Property are to be paid to the Debtor, any of the Debtor's
affiliates or insiders; and (C) delivery of a true and correct copy
of the actual, fully executed settlement statement, not later than
three business days after the closing of the sale of the Real
Property, confirming and evidencing payment of only necessary
normal, customary, and reasonable closing fees and expenses,
payment of all net proceeds to Live Oak Bank, and that the Debtor,
the Debtor's affiliates received no proceeds from the sale of the
Real Property.  In the event Live Oak Bank objects to the HUD-1
settlement statement, then the counsel for the Debtor may
coordinate and schedule an expedited hearing on any remaining
issues with notice to Live Oak Bank and the United States Trustee.

The Closing Attorney is only authorized to disburse the following
funds at closing: (A) the Live Oak Payment, (B) Payment of any real
property taxes and (C) if Live Oak Bank does not object, payment of
other necessary normal, customary, and reasonable closing fees and
expenses, except broker commissions.  All other funds, including,
but not limited to, broker commissions will be held in escrow by
the Closing Attorney until further order of the Court.

Pursuant to, and in accordance with, Federal Rule of Bankruptcy
Procedure 6004(h), and notwithstanding the possible applicability
of any Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure or statute that might
otherwise provide to the contrary, the terms and provisions of the
Order will be immediately effective and enforceable upon its entry,
and no stay of execution, enforceability or effectiveness will
apply to the Order.

The Purchaser:

          STEVEN PETERS, LLC
          10400 Woodstock Road
          Roswell, Georgia

                        About Tigaman Inc.

Tigaman, Inc., owns a cat clinic in Roswell, Georgia.

Tigaman, Inc., previously filed a voluntary petition for relief
under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code (Bank. N.D. Ga. Case No.
13-59458) on May 1, 2013.

Tigaman again sought protection under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy
Code (Bankr. N.D. Ga. Case No. 18-63874) on Aug. 17, 2018.  In the
petition signed by Michael Ray, president, the Debtor disclosed
$1,701,329 in assets and $1,541,335 in liabilities.

TORONTO HYDRO: Faces Lawsuit Over High Rise Fire
------------------------------------------------
Kamil Karamali, writing for Global News, reports that the gymnasium
of the Rosedale Day School in Toronto's St. James Town district has
been transformed into somewhat of a department store, with clothes,
backpacks and school supplies all laid out on rows of tables.

It's also got all the hustle and bustle you'd normally expect
during the back-to-school shopping season, except all of the
customers have one thing in common -- they're all displaced
residents of 650 Parliament.

"I'm so grateful what's being done by the city and the Red Cross,"
said Mohan Abadi.

He, his two children and pregnant wife were some of the roughly
1,500 residents left homeless after a six-alarm fire tore through
the 650 Parliament Street apartment building on Aug. 21.

On August 28, Mayor John Tory had made a public plea for clothing
and financial donations -- and Toronto delivered.

"I would say by 36 hours, we probably had enough to accommodate the
initial commitment which was a set of clothing and shoes for every
child -- which is 320 kids, and now we have way in excess of that,"
said Tory.

Every family displaced by the highrise fire was allowed to walk out
of the gym with 20 items.

But many of the residents are looking for a lot more than that,
with a lot of uncertainty revolving around their living
situations.

Many of them have been staying at hotels, but were kicked out for
the Labour Day long weekend since many of the rooms were booked.

Abadi says his family had to leave their hotel on August 31 and
will only be able to stay at their current accomodations until late
September.

"My wife is nine months pregnant, high-risk pregnancy," said Abadi.
"She will definitely have the baby before the 22nd of September,
and we're going to have our baby in a motel. It's very pathetic to
think of this sort of thing."

Mayor Tory was swarmed by concerned residents on his way to the
school, where the donated goods were kept. Many of them asked the
city to step in and do more.

Hicham Jbara showed the mayor how much his hand was shaking from
stress and anger because he and his wife aren't sure what their
next move will be.

"Myself on August 28, I don't know where I' m going to go. I had a
heart attack three months ago," said Jbara. "I don't need another
heart attack."

John Tory said the city is helping the landlord, who is trying to
find apartments for the residents. But they are only able to find
them "10 at a time."

"If there's a cost involved, we're going to send [the landlord] a
bill," said Tory. "If they don't pay the bill, we're going to add
it to their property taxes or commence legal action."

"I realize there's frustration . . . that we can't act faster,"
added Tory. "In the city, you know it's tight. So finding apartment
and other hotel rooms is a challenge for us, but we're addressing
that challenge."

Tory adds that of the 1,500 displaced residents, about half of them
found places to stay with friends and families. Approximately 700
need temporary homes in hotels or rental units. Out of that number,
about 200 are in "an uncertain state."

"The goal is to have everybody housed better than a community
center," said Tory. "But at the very least, people will be in
community center where they are well fed or well looked after."

Now, two law firms have combined forces to kick-start the initial
stages of a class-action lawsuit, on behalf all the residents,
against the building management and Toronto Hydro.

"Strength is in numbers in an action like this. It's not
economically feasible for one individual to commence a lawsuit
because, relatively speaking, each individual does not have an
enormous claim to pursue," said Sharon Strosberg, Esq. --
sharon@strosbergco.com -- partner at Strosberg Sasso Sutts LLP.

Strosberg, who has also partnered with Charney Lawyers, adds that
the plaintiff(s) will be seeking monetary reimbursement, but the
extent of that depends on how long they're out of their homes.

"As we understand . . . what kind of losses they're incurring, I'll
be able to know more as the story unfolds, could be two months
could be six months, we don't know right now," said Strosberg.

The Notice of Action filed says the plaintiff(s) claims $20 million
in "general damages and the cost of administering the plan of
distribution of the recovering this action" and $10 million in
"special damages, pecuniary damages, aggravated damages and
punitive damages."

Strosberg says the next step is to file a statement of claim within
the next 30 days, where a judge will then determine whether it's
appropriate to move forward with the case as a class-action
lawsuit.[GN]


UNITED STATES: Class Cert. Bid in Lucas Suit Denied w/o Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Dolly M. Gee entered a Civil Minutes in the lawsuit
entitled Lucas R., et al. v. Alex Azar, et al., Case No.
2:18-cv-05741-DMG-PLA (C.D. Cal.):

   -- denying the Defendants' motion to dismiss as moot; and

   -- denying without prejudice the Plaintiffs' motion for class
      certification.

Alex Michael Azar, II, is United States Secretary of Health and
Human Services.

On June 29, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed a Class Action Complaint
("CAC") alleging four causes of action: (1) denial of due process
arising out of the Office of Refugee Resettlement's ("ORR's")
policies and practices concerning custodians' fitness; (2) denial
of due process arising out of ORR's policies and practices relating
to the restrictive placement of alien minors; (3) a cause of action
arising out of ORR's unlawful administration of psychotropic drugs;
and (4) a cause of action arising out of ORR's policy and practice
of blocking legal assistance in matters relating to custody,
medication, and release.

On August 2, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking
certification of certain classes of alien minors, who are subject
to the policies and practices alleged in the CAC.  On August 17,
2018, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the CAC.  The motion
for class certification and the motion to dismiss are set for a
hearing on September 21, 2018 at 9:30 a.m.

On September 7, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Class
Action Complaint ("FAC") as a matter of right.  Among other things,
the FAC: (1) joins two new Plaintiffs to this action (i.e., Sirena
P. and Benjamin F.), (2) includes a fifth cause of action for
discrimination on the basis of disability in violation of Section
504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and (3) indicates that the
Plaintiffs intend to represent two new classes of alien minors whom
ORR has allegedly discriminated against on the basis of their
disabilities.

In light of the Plaintiffs' FAC, the Court denies as moot
Defendants' motion to dismiss.

The Court further denies without prejudice the Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification.  Given that the Defendants seek the
dismissal of this action, it is appropriate to resolve any such
motion to dismiss before or at the same time that the Court
determines whether to certify the Plaintiffs' proposed classes,
Judge Gee opines.

"Additionally, because Plaintiffs intend to represent two new
proposed classes, the interests of judicial economy and efficiency
counsel against ruling on the pending class certification motion,"
Judge Gee notes.  "If Defendants intend to move to dismiss the FAC,
then the forthcoming motion to dismiss and motion for class
certification shall both be noticed for a hearing at the same date
and time."


USG CORP: Lowinger Seeks to Halt Sale to Gebr. Knauf
----------------------------------------------------
Robert Lowinger, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. USG Corporation, Jose Armario, Thomas A.
Burke, Matthew Carter, Jr., Gretchen R. Haggerty, William H.
Hernandez, Brian A. Kenney, Richard P. Lavin, Steven F. Leer and
Jennifer F. Scanlon, Case No. 18-cv-05989, (N.D. Ill., August 30,
2018), Defendants, seeks to enjoin defendants and all persons
acting in concert with them from proceeding with, consummating or
closing the acquisition of USG Corporation by Gebr. Knauf KG and
its indirect wholly-owned subsidiary, World Cup Acquisition
Corporation; rescinding it in the event defendants consummate the
merger; rescissory damages; costs of this action, including
reasonable allowance for plaintiff's attorneys' and experts' fees;
and such other and further relief under the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.

Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, USG's stockholders
will receive $43.50 in cash for each share of USG common stock they
own.

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

USG, through its subsidiaries and joint ventures, is a manufacturer
of building materials for residential, non-residential
construction, as well as gypsum, performance materials and
ceilings. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bruce C. Howard, Esq.
      SIPRUT PC
      17 N. State Street, Suite 1600
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Tel: (312) 236-0000
      Fax: (312) 948-9212
      Email: bhoward@siprut.com

             - and -

      Aaron Brody, Esq.
      Michael J. Klein, Esq.
      STULL, STULL & BRODY
      6 East 45th Street
      New York, NY 10017
      Tel: (212) 687-7230
      Email: abrody@ssbny.com


VOLUME SERVICES: Jeffries Appeals FCRA Suit Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Doris Jeffries filed an appeal from a court ruling in her
lawsuit entitled Doris Jeffries v. Volume Services America, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-01788-CKK, in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Columbia.

The appellate case is captioned as Doris Jeffries v. Volume
Services America, Inc., et al., Case No. 18-7139, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Sept. 18, 2018, Judge
Colleen Kollar-Kotelly granted Defendant Volume's Motion to Dismiss
the case.

The Plaintiff used a credit card to make a purchase from the
Volume, doing business as Centerplate and Centerplate/NBSE, and, in
some fashion, 10 Doe Defendants.  To memorialize the transaction,
the Defendants provided the Plaintiff with one or more
electronically printed receipts that contained the following pieces
of information from her credit card: the full 16-digit card number,
the expiration date, and the brand.

The Plaintiff brought a putative class action against the
Defendants for allegedly violating the Fair and Accurate Credit
Transactions Act of 2003.  FACTA amended the Fair Credit Reporting
Act of 1970.  The transaction allegedly occurred after the
effective date of the amendment.

Centerplate seeks dismissal of the action under Rules 12(b)(1) and
12(b)(6) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Judge Kollar-Kotelly finds that the Plaintiff cannot escape her
obligation to establish standing under Article III simply by
pointing to the potential availability of relief on the merits.
She has found that the Plaintiff has not alleged a sufficiently
imminent risk of harm such that she experienced a concrete injury
in fact.  Rather, the Plaintiff has merely speculated as to a
potential future injury.  Only if the Plaintiff had experienced a
concrete injury in fact, even without any actual damage, could the
Court proceed to consider the Plaintiff's entitlement to statutory
damages, ruled Judge Kollar-Kotelly.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that Application
for Admission is due on October 10, 2018.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant Doris Jeffries, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Chant Yedalian, Esq.
          CHANT & COMPANY
          1010 N. Central Ave.
          Glendale, CA
          Telephone: (877-574-7100
          E-mail: chant@chant.mobi

Defendant-Appellee Volume Services America, Inc., doing business as
Centerplate And Centerplate/nbse, is represented by:

          Mark Bayer, Esq.
          BARNES & THORNBURG LLP
          2100 McKinney Avenue, Suite 1250
          Dallas, TX 75201-6908
          Telephone: (214) 258-4101
          E-mail: mark.bayer@btlaw.com

               - and -

          Scott Neal Godes, Esq.
          BARNES & THORNBURG LLP
          1717 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 500
          Washington, DC 20006-4623
          Telephone: (202) 289-1313
          E-mail: scott.godes@btlaw.com


WESTERN EXPRESS: Hutto Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit entitled Hutto, et al. v. Western Express Inc., et al.,
Case No. CIVDS1820597, was removed on September 7, 2018, from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Bernardino to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California (Eastern Division - Riverside).  The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 5:18-cv-01909 to the proceeding.

The lawsuit arises from labor-related issues.

The Plaintiffs are Jacquelyn Hutto and John McDaniel, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated.

Western Express Inc. is a Tennessee Corporation and does business
as Western Express Transport of California Inc.  Western Express is
an asset based truckload carrier.  The Company offers truckload
van, dedicated fleet, flatbed transportation, expedited truck &
rail, and logistics services throughout the United States.[BN]

Defendant Western Express Inc. is represented by:

          Richard D. Marca, Esq.
          VARNER AND BRANDT LLP
          3750 University Avenue, Sixth Floor
          Riverside, CA 92501
          Telephone: (951) 274-7777
          Facsimile: (951) 274-7770
          E-mail: Richard.Marca@varnerbrandt.com


WILLIAMS & FUDGE: Consumers Sue Student Loan Financial Company
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jenie Mallari-Torres, writing for Northern California Record,
reports that consumers have filed a class-action lawsuit against a
student loan financial company, alleging they received unsolicited
calls and text messages that advertised services.

The class-action lawsuit was filed against Williams & Fudge Inc.
and Does 1-10, student loan financial company, claiming a violation
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The plaintiffs
seek up to $1,500 for each call, according to the lawsuit.

Jogert Abrantes filed a complaint individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated on Aug. 29, in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of California, against the defendants
alleging that they violated the TCPA through intrusive and unwanted
calls.

The consumers allege that in September 2017 they "suffered invasion
of their privacy and intrusion on their seclusion, caused by
defendants' transmission of unsolicited text messages to advertise
their service," according to the complaint.

The calls and text messages were transmitted with equipment that
had the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers, according
to the complaint.

The plaintiffs hold Williams & Fudge Inc. and Does 1-10
responsible, because the defendants allegedly continued to make
calls without prior express consent to place the calls, and
unlawfully utilized an automatic telephone dialing system and/or an
artificial or pre-recorded voice.

The plaintiffs request a trial by jury and seek judgment against
defendants for statutory and treble damages, and all other relief
that the Court deems just.

They are represented by Todd M. Friedman, Esq. --
tfriedman@toddflaw.com -- Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. --
abacon@toddflaw.com -- Meghan E. George, Esq. --
mgeorge@toddflaw.com -- and Thomas E. Wheeler, Esq. --
rtwheelerlaw@gmail.com -- of Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman in
Woodland Hills.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California Case
number 18-cv-01169 [GN]


YONKERS RACING: Website not Accessible to Blind, Mendez Says
------------------------------------------------------------
HIMELDA MENDEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. YONKERS RACING CORPORATION d/b/a
EMPIRE CITY CASINO, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-07699
(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 23, 2018), alleges that Defendant failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people.

According to the complaint, the Defendant's denial of full and
equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its goods and
services offered thereby and in conjunction with its physical
locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans
with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and
legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read
website content using her computer. Plaintiff uses the terms
"blind" or "visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual
impairments who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they
have a visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x
200. Some blind people who meet this definition have limited
vision. Others have no vision.

Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1
million people in the United States are visually impaired,
including 2.0 million who are blind, and according to the American
Foundation for the Blind’s 2015 report, approximately 400,000
visually impaired persons live in the State of New York. Because
Defendant's website, www.empirecitycasino.com, is not equally
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates
the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a
change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures
so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers.

Yonkers Racing Corporation owns and operates a gaming and
entertainment facility.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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



                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2018. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***