CAR_Public/180924.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, September 24, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 191

                            Headlines

296 SOUTHLAKE: Improperly Classified Staff, Swearingen Claims
42-44 EAST: Zhang Seeks Unpaid Wages & Overtime under FLSA
ADIDAS AMERICA: Duke Suit Moved to Southern Dist. of California
AFSCME CALIFORNIA: Hernandez Sues over Union Dues
AIR CANADA: Mary Dukes Sues over Background Checks

ALASKA COMMUNICATIONS: Appeals Order in Peterson Suit to 9th Cir.
ALIBABA.COM INC: Bid to Strike Class Allegations in Keck Denied
APPLIED UNDERWRITERS: Court Modifies Case Schedule in Shasta
AQUA ELITE: Rodriguez Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Texts
ARIEY NUSSBAUM: Neri Files Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages

AUSTRALIA: Light Rail Class Action Filed in NSW Supreme Court
BEALL'S INC: Court Certifies Area Managers Class
BISHOP REHABILITATION: Residents May Get $640 Settlement Payout
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Faces Robocall Class Action in Massachusetts
CALIFORNIA: Bryan Blue Files Suit vs. CDCR in Calif. Super. Court

CANADA: Ontario Sued Over Cancellation of Basic Income Pilot
CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Saraci Suit Alleges FDCPA Violations
CARMAR TRANSPORTATION: Pfeffer et al. Seek Unpaid Wages
CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Natadze Files Suit in N.Y.  Over FDCPA Breach
CBS CORP: Faces Shareholder Class Action Over Les Moonves Claims

CBS CORP: Oct. 26 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
CENTRAL PORTFOLIO: Illegally Collects Debts, Servin Suit Claims
CHOICE HOTELS: DiFlavis Suit Asserts FLSA Violation
CIGNA CORP: Lead Plaintiff Opposes Motion to Dismiss ERISA Suit
COMPASS GROUP: Oliver Suit Moved to Northern District of Illinois

CORECIVIC INC: Dew Suit Moved to Middle District of Tennessee
D & A SERVICES: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Pulla Suit Says
DHM MARBLE: Fails to Pay OT Under FLSA & AMWA, O'Shaughnessy Says
DIRECTV LLC: Womble Bond Attorney Discusses Class Action Ruling
DR PEPPER/SEVEN UP: 9th Circuit Appeal Filed in Becerra Suit

DUANE READE: Pryce et al. Seek Overtime Pay under FLSA
ELECTRONIC ARTS: Ex-NFL Players' Class Certification Bid Denied
EQUIFAX INC: Fond du Lac Band Suit Moved to N.D. Georgia
EROS: 2d Cir. Affirms Securities Class Action Dismissal
ESPARZA ENTERPRISES: Court Grants Casildo Leave to File TAC

ESPN: Wigdor Takes Over Adrienne Lawrence's Sex Harassment Suit
ESURANCE INSURANCE: Morrison Suit Transferred to W.D. Washington
EYE DOCTORS: Faces Grant Suit in Middle District of Florida
FAT BRANDS: Kaskela Law Files Shareholder Class Action Over IPO
FINANCIAL ASSET: Loveday Seeks to Certify Class

FLAGSHIP RESORT: Wins Summary Judgment in TCCWNA Suit
FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Reidt ERISA Suit in Conn.
GENERAL MILLS: Fails to Disclose Glyphosate Content, Paracha Says
GEORGIOS OF GREENSPOINT: Handy Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA
H.H. FRANCHISING: Holley Seeks to Certify Caregivers Class

HEARST COMMUNICATIONS: Crowley Webb Alleges Inflated TV Ad Rates
HELEN CHAITMAN: Faces Shulman & Ross Class Suit over Madoff Gig
HIGH TECH: Ramirez-Abarca Sues for FLSA, Wage and Hour Law Breach
HUTCHINSON TREE: 4th Circuit Appeal Filed in Berber Suit
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Hid Powertrain Defect in Santa Fe Models, Suit Says

IMPINJ INC: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action in Wash.
J E H ENTERPRISES: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Wage Class Action
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: 3rd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Talc Powder Suit
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: India Must Overhaul Regulatory Process
LACI TRANSPORT: Stingley FLSA Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay

LANNETT CO: Faces Class Action, Oct. 26 Lead Plaintiff Deadline
LEVY PREMIUM: Unlawfully Retained Employee Gratuities, Padder Says
MDL 2274: Whiting Suit Transferred to E.D. Pa.
MDL 2504: Amazon Wins Summary Judgment in PMWA Suit
MDL 2742: ERISA Plaintiffs Appeal Decisions in Securities Suit

MDL 2804: Brand vs Purdue Pharma et al. Consolidated in N.D. Ohio
MDL 2804: Hopkins v Purdue Pharma et al. Consolidated in N.D. Ohio
MDL 2804: Konig vs Purdue Pharma et al. Consolidated in N.D. Ohio
MDL 2804: Medina vs Purdue Pharma et al. Consolidated in N.D. Ohio
MDL 2804: Norwood Selectmen Split on Joining Opioid Suit

MDL 2804: Streiter v Purdue Pharma et al. Consolidated in N.D. Ohio
MDL 390: Court Opens MDL to Retain Jurisdiction Over Plaisance Suit
MONSANTO: Agent Orange Class Action Still Faces Challenges
MONTGOMERY, NY: Appeals Hill Suit Class Cert. Ruling to 2nd Cir.
MOORE LANDSCAPES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Valerio et al. Claim

MUNICIPIO DE SAN JUAN: Certification of Law Enforcers Class Sought
NETFLIX INC: Suit by City of Creve Coeur Moved to E.D. Missouri
NFL: Hernandez Daughter's Quest for Justice Continues
ONE KEY: Class Action Law Firm Challenges CFMMEU Deal
OPCOM INC: Accused by DiCarlo Suit of Violating Disabilities Act

PALM BEACH, CA: Nov. 13 Hearing Set in Kosberg-Scharf Case
PARKWAY VILLAGE: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Kertis Suit Says
PATENAUDE & FELIX: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Rosales Seeks to Certify Class
POWERCOR: Australian Premier Calls for Help for Bushfire Victims

PRECISION CONCEPTS: Lewis Seeks to Certify Class
PRESSLER & PRESSLER: Settlement of Watkins Suit Has Final Approval
PROVIDENCE COMMUNITY: Brinson Appeals Ruling to Eleventh Circuit
PURDUE PHARMA: Lopez Brings RICO Class Suit in Utah
SETERUS INC: Adams Sues over Debt Collection Practices

SHERWIN-WILLIAMS CO: Court Dismisses Toxic Chemical Class Action
SLAKEY BROTHERS: Faces Verdina Suit in California State Court
SMITH & NEPHEW: Bottenus Sues over BIRMINGHAM HIP Resurfacing Cup
SMITH & NEPHEW: Ravitz Sues over BIRMINGHAM HIP Resurfacing Cup
SONY CORP: Awaits Decision in Fake Michael Jackson Songs Case

TD BANK: Court Compels Production of Wrong Number Call Data
TEMP-TATIONS LLC: Website not Accessible to Blind, Slade Says
TENNANT COMPANY: Watson Suit Moved to Eastern Dist. of California
TESLA INC: Faces Chamberlain Suit over Musk's Go-Private Tweet
TESLA INC: Won't Pursue $72-Bil. Take-Private Deal Amid Suits

TIME INC: Court OKs Voluntary Dismissal of Securities Fraud Suits
TRADER JOE'S: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Brumfield MMWA Suit
TURNER OIL: Court Approves Class Settlement in Stanley Suit
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Judge Set to Decide on Dulberg Case on Oct. 29
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Lead Plaintiff Seeks Court Nod on Settlement

UNIKRN: ICO Class Action May Have Implications for Token Issuers
UNITED STATES: 19 Kentucky Counties Sign Up for PILT Settlement
UNITED STATES: Hughes County Joins PILT Class Action
USG CORPORATION: Lowinger Balks at Merger Deal with Knauf KG
UTAH: Suit vs Spencer Cox Moved to Federal District Court

UTHERA: Must Face Fraud Class Action Over Cosmetic Procedure
VALLEY NATIONAL: Ct. Overrules Conditional Certification Objection
VENGROFF WILLIAMS: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Velez Says
VISIONPRO CONNECTIONS: Faces Fearon, et al. in New York Sup. Ct.
VISIONPRO CONNECTIONS: Underpays Cable Technicians, Fearon Says

WALMART: Faces Fraud Class Action Over Hacked Gift Cards
XIAMEN AIR: Airport Incident Ripe Test for Passenger Class Suit
YOGA JOINT: Mittelmark Files Suit in Fla. Over TCPA Breach
ZHEJIANG HUAHAI: Faces Jones Suit Over Adulterated Valsartan

                            *********

296 SOUTHLAKE: Improperly Classified Staff, Swearingen Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case, WILLIS SWEARINGEN, Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. 296 SOUTHLAKE, LTD,
296 SOUTHLAKE GP, LLC, JAMES CHARNQUIST and ALTON SCAVO, the
Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-00276 (S.D. Tex., Sept. 6, 2018),
seeks to recover overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the provisions of Sections
207 and 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of all
current and former employees who worked for 296 Southlake, LTD, 296
Southlake GP, LLC, James Charnquist or Alton Scavo at any time from
three years preceding the filing of the Original Complaint through
the final disposition of this matter.

According to the complaint, the Defendants improperly classified
Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members as independent
contractors. The Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members routinely
work (and worked) in excess of 40 hours per workweek, however,
Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members were not paid overtime of
at least one and one-half their regular rates for all hours worked
in excess of 40 hours per workweek. The Defendant knowingly and
deliberately failed to compensate Plaintiff and the Putative Class
Members overtime of at least one and one-half their regular rates
for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members:

          Clif Alexander, Esq.
          Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
          Lauren E. Braddy, Esq.
          Alan Clifton Gordon, Esq.
          Carter T. Hastings, Esq.
          George Schimmel, Esq.
          ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
          819 N. Upper Broadway
          Corpus Christi, TX 78401
          Telephone: (361) 452 1279
          Facsimile: (361) 452 1284
          E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
                  austin@a2xlaw.com
                  lauren@a2xlaw.com
                  cgordon@a2xlaw.com
                  carter@a2xlaw.com
                  geordie@a2xlaw.com


42-44 EAST: Zhang Seeks Unpaid Wages & Overtime under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------
Ming Zhang, individually and on behalf of All Other Employees
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. 42-44 EAST BROADWAY
RESTAURANT INC d/b/a HWA YUAN SZECHUAN, Chen Lieh Tang, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-08178 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 7, 2018),
alleges that Defendants have willfully and intentionally committed
widespread violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York
Labor Law by engaging in a pattern and practice of failing to pay
their employees, including Plaintiff, compensation for all hours
worked, overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each
workweek, spread of hours, as well as failing to provide their
employees, including Plaintiff, with wage notice at the time of
hiring and wage statements.

According to the complaint, throughout her employment with
Defendants, the Plaintiff was not required to punch time cards or
otherwise track her work hours. Nevertheless, for the last three
weeks of Plaintiff's employment, she was required by Defendants to
sign on her receipt of wage payment. The workhours, if any, on the
wage receipts did not reflect the actual hours that Plaintiff
worked. Throughout her employment with Defendants, Plaintiff was
not compensated for all hours worked above 40 in each workweek
according to state and federal laws. Throughout her employment with
Defendants, Plaintiff was not overtime-exempt under federal and
state laws.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and Proposed FLSA Collective:

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


ADIDAS AMERICA: Duke Suit Moved to Southern Dist. of California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Christian Duke, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Adidas
America, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 37-02018-00033037-CU-BT-CTL,
was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San
Diego, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California (San Diego) on Sept. 7, 2018. The Southern District of
California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-02081-LAB-NLS to
the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Larry Alan
Burns.

Adidas America manufactures and supplies sport shoes, apparel, and
accessories for men, women, boys, girls, and infants and
toddlers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey R Krinsk, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN AND KRINSK
          550 W. C Street, Suite 1760
          San Diego, CA 92101-3593
          Telephone: (619) 238 1333
          Facsimile: (619) 238 5425
          E-mail: jrk@classactionlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          David F McDowell, Esq.
          MORRISON AND FOERSTER
          555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3500
          Los Angeles, CA 90013-1024
          Telephone: (213) 892 5200
          Facsimile: (323) 210 1316
          E-mail: dmcdowell@mofo.com


AFSCME CALIFORNIA: Hernandez Sues over Union Dues
-------------------------------------------------
Liliana Hernandez, a former member of AFSCME Local 3299, commenced
a class action on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
alleging that the union and other defendants violated her rights by
establishing an "agency shop," where employees were compelled to
pay money to AFSCME Local 3299 and its affiliates as a condition of
employment.  The lawsuit claims the defendants are continuing to
violate Ms. Hernandez's rights by deducting union dues from her
paycheck -- even after she clearly and unequivocally communicated
to both the union and her employer that she wants to terminate her
union membership and halt the payroll deductions of union related
fees.

Ms. Hernandez sues on behalf of two separate classes:

     1. One class consists of current or former members of AFSCME
California or its affiliates who chose to remain in the union and
pay full membership dues, but who never would have joined the union
had they not been compelled to work in an unconstitutional agency
shop.

     2. The other class consists of all employees in bargaining
units represented by AFSCME California or its affiliates who: (1)
want to resign their union membership and terminate financial
support of the union; (2) would choose to leave the union and 10
terminate financial support if they were fully informed of their
constitutional right to do so; or (3) would decline to opt in to
union membership by providing "clear and affirmative assent" if
they were fully informed of their constitutional rights.

The case is captioned, Liliana Hernandez, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. AFSCME California;
AFSCME Local 3299, as representative of the class of all chapters
and affiliates of AFSCME California; The Regents of the University
of California; Edmund G. Brown, in his official capacity of
Governor of the State of California; Xavier Becerra, in his
official capacity as Attorney General of the State of California;
Mark Gregersen, Eric Banks, Priscilla Winslow, Erich Shiners, and
Arthur A. Krantz, in their official capacities as chair and members
of the California Public Employment Relations Board, the
Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-02419-WBS-EFB (E.D. Cal., Aug. 31,
2018).[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff and Proposed Class:

          Jonathan F. Mitchell, Esq.
          MITCHELL LAW PLLC
          106 East Sixth Street, Suite 900
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 686 3940

               - and -

          Bradley Benbrook, Esq.
          BENBROOK LAW GROUP, PC
          400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2530
          Sacramento, CA 95814
          Telephone: (916) 447 4900


AIR CANADA: Mary Dukes Sues over Background Checks
--------------------------------------------------
MARY DUKES, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. AIR CANADA, the Defendant,
Case No. 8:18-cv-02176-EAK-JSS (Fla. Cir. Ct., 13th Judicial
Circuit, Hillsborough Cty., Aug. 31, 2018), seeks to recover
statutory damages, costs and attorneys' fees, equitable relief, and
other appropriate relief under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

As part of its hiring processes, the Defendant uses consumer
reports to make employment decisions.  According to the complaint,
while the use of consumer report information for employment
purposes is not per se unlawful, it is subject to strict disclosure
and authorization requirements under the FCRA. The Defendant
willfully violated these requirements in multiple ways, thereby
systematically violating Plaintiff's rights and the rights of other
Putative Class members.

The complaint alleges that Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. section
1681b(b)(2)(A)(i) by procuring consumer reports on Plaintiff and
other Putative Class members for employment purposes, without first
making the statutorily mandated disclosures to them in the format
required by the statute. Under this subsection of the FCRA,
Defendant is required to disclose to its employees -- in a document
that consists solely of the disclosure -- that it may obtain a
consumer report on them for employment purposes. This disclosure
must be made by employers prior to obtaining copies of employees'
or prospective employees' consumers reports.  The Defendant failed
to provide Plaintiff and other Putative Class members with a
separate document consisting solely of Defendant's disclosure,
stating that Defendant may obtain a consumer report on any person
for employment purposes. The Defendant also violated this
requirement by failing to provide this disclosure to Plaintiff and
other Putative Class members prior to obtaining a copy of the
person's consumer report.

Air Canada is the flag carrier and the largest airline of Canada by
fleet size and passengers carried. The airline, founded in 1937,
provides scheduled and charter air transport for passengers and
cargo to 207 destinations worldwide.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
          Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
          1110 N. Florida Avenue, Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Main Number: (813) 224 0431
          Direct Dial: (813) 379 2565
          Facsimile: (813) 229 8712
          E-mail: lcabassa@wfclaw.com
                  bhill@wfclaw.com
                  twells@wfclaw.com


ALASKA COMMUNICATIONS: Appeals Order in Peterson Suit to 9th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Alaska Communications Systems, Group, Inc., and Alaska
Communications Systems Holdings, Inc., filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit titled Laura Peterson, et al. v. Alaska
Communications Systems, et al., Case No. 3:12-cv-00090-TMB, in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska, Anchorage.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
arose from the Defendants' alleged serious and longstanding
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Alaska Wage and
Hour Act.

The lawsuit alleges that the Defendants have systematically denied
their sales and marketing employees basic overtime pay required
under federal and state law.

The appellate case is captioned as Laura Peterson, et al. v. Alaska
Communications Systems, et al., Case No. 18-80111, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Respondents LAURA LEE PETERSON, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, MATTHEW SMITH, HILARY
FISHER and JENNIFER CARGILE are represented by:

          Michael Douglas Palmer, Esq.
          SANFORD HEISLER, LLP
          1350 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (646) 402-5653
          E-mail: mpalmer@sanfordheisler.com

Defendants-Petitioners ALASKA COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS, GROUP, INC.,
and ALASKA COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS HOLDINGS, INC., DBA Alaska
Communications, are represented by:

          Douglas S. Parker, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON PC
          121 SW Morrison Street, Suite 900
          Portland, OR 97204
          Telephone: (502) 221-0309
          E-mail: dparker@littler.com


ALIBABA.COM INC: Bid to Strike Class Allegations in Keck Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for Northern District of
California, San Jose Division issued an Order denying Defendants’
Motion to Strike Class Allegations in the case captioned MICHEL
KECK, Plaintiff, v. ALIBABA.COM, INC., et al., Defendants. Case No.
17-cv-05672-BLF. (N.D. Cal.)

Before the Court is the Defendants  motion to strike class
allegations or deny class certification.

This action arises out of the Plaintiff's allegations that Alibaba
Defendants operated online marketplaces where Chinese merchants
sold the Plaintiff's copyrighted artwork without authorization.

The Plaintiff seeks to represent class members pursuant to Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a), 23(b)(1), 23(b)(2), and 23(b)(3).

She alleges a general class defined as:

     A class consisting of owners of U.S. copyrights to pictorial,
graphic, or visual works who own the copyright to at least one such
work that has been or is being reproduced or displayed on
Alibaba.com, AliExpress, or Taobao and offered for sale without the
permission of the owner.

LEGAL STANDARD

Even courts that have been willing to entertain such a motion early
in the proceedings have applied a very strict standard to motions
to strike class allegations on the pleadings. Only if the court is
convinced that any questions of law are clear and not in dispute,
and that under no set of circumstances could the claim or defense
succeed may the allegations be stricken.

The Defendants first argue that the typicality and commonality
requirements of Rule 23(a) cannot be met. They contend that
Plaintiff cannot show typicality because her copyright infringement
claims are different from the claims of putative class members and
that Plaintiff's claims based on contributory and vicarious
liability require detailed factual investigations.

As to commonality, Alibaba Defendants assert that Plaintiff cannot
show questions of law or fact common to the class.

Typicality does not require that the Plaintiff's claims to be
factually identical to the claims of the proposed class members and
the requirement may be satisfied by showing that the claims arise
from the same course of conduct and are based on the same legal
theory.

Upon reviewing the Complaint and the parties' briefing, the Court
is unconvinced that any questions of law are clear and not in
dispute such that under no set of circumstances could Plaintiff
would be able to meet Rule 23(a)'s typicality requirement.
Moreover, as Plaintiff argues, discovery may reveal that Alibaba
Defendants had a practice, for example, allowing merchants to
violate copyrights and ignoring take down notices, that may expose
them to liability.

Accordingly, the Court finds that it is premature to address at the
pleading stage whether
Plaintiff can satisfy the typicality requirement.  

The Court reaches the same conclusion as to the commonality
requirement under Rule 23(a) as well as predominance and
superiority requirements under Rule 23(b)(3).

The Alibaba Defendants' arguments with respect to certification
under Rule 23(b)(1) and Rule 23(b)(2) are also unpersuasive.
Alibaba Defendants claim that there is no risk under Rule
23(b)(1)(A) of inconsistent or varying adjudications which would
establish incompatible standards of conduct for the party opposing
the class. They further contend that Plaintiff cannot establish
that separate adjudications would impair the rights of class
members to protect their interests under Rule 23(b)(1)(B). The
Court does not find these arguments to be persuasive. At this stage
of the proceedings, without the benefit of a developed record, the
Court simply cannot conclude that Plaintiff will be unable to meet
her burden under Rule 23.  

The Alibaba Defendants' motion to strike class allegations or deny
class certification is denied without prejudice to their ability to
raise the arguments presented in this motion at a later stage of
the proceedings.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 30, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ycafnf2u from Leagle.com.

Michel Keck, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, represented by Doris Cheng -- dcheng@walkuplawoffice.com
-- Walkup, Melodia, Kelly & Schoenberger, Jason W. Earley, Hare
Wynn Newell and Newton LLP, Bruce Jones McKee, Hare Wynn Newell and
Newton, pro hac vice, Christopher Scott Randolph, Jr., Hare Wynn
Newell and Newton, pro hac vice, David Glenn Hymer --
vrobertson@bradley.com -- Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, pro hac
vice, Ellen S. Presley -- eblake@bradley.com -- Bradley Arant Boult
Cummings LLP, pro hac vice, Linda Anne Friedman --
eblake@bradley.com -- Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, pro hac
vice, Michael Albert Kelly, Walkup, Melodia, Kelly & Schoenberger,
Michael Richard Pennington -- lstewart@bradley.com -- Bradley Arant
Boult Cummings LLP, pro hac vice, Scott Ashley Powell, Hare Wynn
Newell and Newton, pro hac vice & Tempe Dorinda Smith, Hare Wynn
Newell and Newton, pro hac vice.

Alibaba.com, Inc., Defendant, represented by David Ramraj Singh --
david.singh@weil.com -- Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP, Jared R.
Friedmann -- jared.friedman@weil.com -- Weil, Gotshal and Manges
LLP, pro hac vice, R. Bruce Rich -- bruce.rich@weil.com -- Weil
Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac vice & Jonathan Bloom --
jonathan.bloom@weil.com -- Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP, pro hac
vice.

Alibaba Group (U.S.) Inc., Alibaba Group Holding Ltd. & Alibaba.com
Hong Kong Ltd., Defendants, represented by David Ramraj Singh ,
Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP, Jared R. Friedmann , Weil, Gotshal
and Manges LLP & Jonathan Bloom , Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP, pro
hac vice.

Taobao China Holding Ltd., Defendant, represented by David Ramraj
Singh , Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP, Jared R. Friedmann , Weil,
Gotshal and Manges LLP & Jonathan Bloom , Weil, Gotshal & Manges,
LLP.


APPLIED UNDERWRITERS: Court Modifies Case Schedule in Shasta
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California issued an Order modifying the Case Schedule in the cases
captioned SHASTA LINEN SUPPLY, INC., a California corporation and
all those similarly situated, and ALPHA POLISHING, INC. d/b/a
GENERAL PLATING CO., Plaintiffs, v. APPLIED UNDERWRITERS INC.,
APPLIED UNDERWRITERS CAPTIVE RISK ASSURANCE COMPANY, INC.,
CALIFORNIA INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., and APPLIED RISK SERVICES,
INC., Defendants, PET FOOD EXPRESS LTD., a California corporation
and all those similarly situated and ALPHA POLISHING, INC. d/b/a
GENERAL PLATING CO., Plaintiffs, v. APPLIED UNDERWRITERS INC.,
APPLIED UNDERWRITERS CAPTIVE RISK ASSURANCE COMPANY, INC.,
CALIFORNIA INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., and APPLIED RISK SERVICES, INC.
Defendants. Case Nos. 2:16-CV-00158-WBS-AC, 2:16-CV-01211-WBS-AC
(E.D. Cal.).

The Parties, through their counsel of record, that the following
deadlines in the scheduling order dated February 6, 2018, as
modified on July 17, 2018, will be extended as follows:

Event Old Date New Date Opposition to
class certification motion:             October 12, 2018

Reply to opposition:                    December 7, 2018

Hearing:                                January 14, 2019

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 30, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yammcawv from Leagle.com.

Shasta Linen Supply, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by  Craig E.
Farmer -- cfarmer@farmersmithlaw.com -- Farmer Smith & Lane LLP,
Glen L. Abramson -- gabramson@bm.net -- Berger Montague PC, pro hac
vice & John L. Hall -- jhall@farmersmithlaw.com -- Farmer Smith &
Lane LLP.

Applied Underwriters, Inc., a Nebraska Corporation, Applied
Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Company, Inc., a British Virgin
Islands Company, California Insurance Company, a Registered
California Insurance Company & Applied Risk Services, Inc., a
Nebraska Corporation, Defendants, represented by Jeanette Barzelay
-- jeanette.barzelay@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper LLP, Spencer Y. Kook
-- skook@hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, Shand Scott
Stephens -- shand.stephens@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper LLP & Travis
R. Wall -- twall@hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP.

Applied Underwriters, Inc., a Nebraska Corporation, Counter
Claimant, represented by Shand Scott Stephens, DLA Piper LLP &
Travis R. Wall, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP.

Shasta Linen Supply, Inc., Counter Defendant, represented by Craig
E. Farmer, Farmer Smith & Lane LLP, Glen L. Abramson, Berger
Montague PC, pro hac vice, John Douglas Moore, Law Office of John
Douglas Moore & John L. Hall , Farmer Smith & Lane LLP.


AQUA ELITE: Rodriguez Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Texts
-----------------------------------------------------------
JOSE GLEN RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. AQUA ELITE EVENTS, INC. d/b/a PRIME LUXURY
RENTALS, a Florida Corporation, Case No. 1:18-cv-23707-MGC (S.D.
Fla., September 11, 2018), seeks to secure redress for alleged
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt the Defendant's
alleged illegal conduct of sending unsolicited marketing texts,
which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment,
aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of thousands of
individuals.

Aqua Elite Events, Inc., doing business as Prime Luxury Rentals, is
a charter company that rents luxury vehicles to clients.  The
Defendant is a Florida corporation whose principal office is
located in Hallandale Beach, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


ARIEY NUSSBAUM: Neri Files Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ariey Nussbaum, et
al.  The case is styled as Marcelo Rivera Neri, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated v. Ariey Nussbaum, Islam Abbas,
also known as: Sammy, Haim Wysoki and Dov Moshe, Case No.
1:18-cv-08321 (S.D.N.Y., September 12, 2018).

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act by not paying overtime compensation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Faillace, Esq.
          MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 317-1200
          Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
          E-mail: Michael@Faillacelaw.com


AUSTRALIA: Light Rail Class Action Filed in NSW Supreme Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Parris, writing for Newcastle Herald, reports that the team
behind a Newcastle light rail class action filed a similar suit on
behalf of Sydney traders in the NSW Supreme Court on
Aug 28.

Mitry Lawyers and cafe owner and politician Angela Vithoulkas
lodged the lawsuit on behalf of more than 60 Sydney business
owners.

The move is an indication the law firm has secured third-party
litigation funding for the action, something it also will need for
the Newcastle action to progress.

Class action expert Dr Peter Cashman, the director of the
University of Sydney's Social Justice Program, told the Newcastle
Herald that litigation funders were "not in the business of wasting
money on losing cases".

"No litigation funder would touch this without independent advice
from pretty experienced counsel," Dr Cashman said.

"If a funder is going to support it, and they do quite extensive
due diligence, that always sends an interesting message both to the
court and the other side.

"They know that this has legs, because the funders are prepared to
finance it. They really are hard-nosed. They're very risk-averse."

Mitry Lawyers will argue that Transport for NSW "undertook the
project in a manner which caused severe consequences and in a
manner that could have been avoided", according to a media
statement.

"Those consequences caused undue nuisance upon business owners and
landlords in the affected zones."

Lawyer Richard Mitry said the loss and damage suffered by the
businesses was "substantial and appreciably greater in degree than
that suffered by the general public".

Dr Cashman said the litigants would need to show that the
government owed the traders a duty of care.

"It will certainly be of interest, but whether it has legal merit
is the acid test," he said.

"The problem is there's a constraint on the extent to which the
common law extends liability, because … there's a question of
whether they owe a duty of care.

"And, even if they did, there's a question of whether they breached
it . . . I'm not sure of the facts as to whether or not they did in
the sort of way that was unduly disruptive.

"There's also these various statutory provisions that give some
degree of, I wouldn't say immunity from suit, but sometimes it's
often much harder to sue government entities and their subsidiary
bodies than it is people who aren't governed by particular
legislation.

"I think it just raises some very interesting and possibly
difficult questions."

Dr Cashman, who has acted in several high-profile class actions
throughout Australia, said he was not aware of a similar class suit
over a government infrastructure project.

Ms Vithoulkas and Mr Mitry were in Newcastle in August signing up
businesses for a separate class action.

They garnered 39 signatures in a day and expect to have more than
50.

Ms Vithoulkas, a City of Sydney councillor who is running for the
Upper House in next year's state election, closed the doors on her
16-year-old George Street cafe, Vivo, on Aug. 24 after almost three
years of light rail works.

She said businesses had begun to feel substantial downturn and
difficulty from the moment the Sydney construction started.

"One business owner told us that it was as if a tap had been turned
off, and I experienced that in my business, too," she said.   

"As small businesses we are absolutely committed to progress across
the nation, but we should not have to pay for this progress with
our livelihood and that of our families.

"I guarantee the premier or the prime minister wouldn't like to
close up shop in their business for a light rail that many believe
doesn't need to even be installed." [GN]


BEALL'S INC: Court Certifies Area Managers Class
-------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled DONNA CIOMCIA, individually and on behalf of
a11 others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. BEALL'S, INC.,
the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-14444-JEM (S.D. Fla), the Hon.
Judge Jose E. Martinez entered an order:

   1. granting Plaintiffs' Motion to conditionally certify action
      and to authorize notice;

   2. certifying collective action consisting of:

      "all of Defendant's Area Manager employees at Florida
      locations since December 20, 2014";

   3. directing Defendant to produce to Plaintiffs, to the extent
      not already provided, by September 21. 2018, the full
      names, addresses, and e-mail addresses of every employee
      classified as an Area Manager at a Florida store since
      December 20, 2014; and

   4. directing parties to submit a joint proposed notice to the
      Court by September 21, 2018.


BISHOP REHABILITATION: Residents May Get $640 Settlement Payout
---------------------------------------------------------------
James T. Mulder, writing for syracuse.com, reports that about 450
people who lived in Bishop Rehabilitation and Nursing Center
between Dec. 15, 2017 and June 13, 2018 could get payments
averaging $640 under the terms of a settlement that has received
preliminary approval in Onondaga County Supreme Court.

The class action lawsuit settlement requires the owner of the
nursing home, formerly known as James Square, to pay $495,000,
about $300,000 of which will go to residents and former residents.

The size of payments will be based on how long a person lived in
the nursing home. Someone who lived there six months would get more
than someone who stayed there a few days.

The suit against the nursing home claims short staffing at the
facility harmed residents, some of whom were left lying in their
own feces and urine for hours.

Clinton Square Operations, which bought the nursing home in
December and is upgrading it, agreed to settle with Jeremiah
Frei-Pearson, a lawyer who filed the suit on behalf of residents
and former residents. The owner also agreed to increase staffing
and take other steps to improve the facility.

A class action suit is one in which a group of people who have
suffered similar harm sue as a group and potentially share in any
settlement.

Also named as defendants in the suit are former owners River
Meadows LLC, James Square Nursing Home Inc. and 918 James Receiver
LLC. They have not settled. The class action case against them is
expected to go to trial next year.
Mr. Frei-Pearson said he expects to collect more money from them
for residents and former residents.

"The prior owners made a profit on the backs of the most vulnerable
people in our society and we want that profit back," Mr.
Frei-Pearson said.

Residents and former residents of the nursing home will receive
notices explaining the settlement and giving them the chance to opt
out of the settlement or object to it. Mr. Frei-Pearson said those
notices should go out soon once the nursing home provides a final
list of residents and former residents.

Payments will be issued if the settlement gets final approval from
the court after a hearing late this year or in early 2019, Mr.
Frei-Pearson said.

The state Attorney General's Office raided the nursing home at 918
James St. last summer and seized records as part of an
investigation of patient care. That investigation is still
pending.[GN]


BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Faces Robocall Class Action in Massachusetts
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alison Noon, writing for Law360, reports that a Texas man who
believes Boston Scientific Corp. has been blowing up his phone with
automated invitations to sales events filed a class action in
Massachusetts federal court over the weekend claiming he's far from
the only person the medical device manufacturer has been
robocalling this year.

Steven Sandoe claimed Boston Scientific violated the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act with unsolicited calls asking people to
attend "Control Your Pain educational seminars." The events
allegedly market the Marlborough, Massachusetts-based company's
branded spinal cord stimulator.

The case is styled Sandoe v. Boston Scientific Corporation, Case
No. 1:18-cv-11826.  The case was filed August 26, 2018. [GN]


CALIFORNIA: Bryan Blue Files Suit vs. CDCR in Calif. Super. Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, et al.  The case is
styled as BRYAN BLUE, DAVID A. BROWN, MICHAEL R. LARKIN and JOHN K.
MOONEY, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DOES AND DOE ENTITIES 1-10,
INCLUSIVE, and STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Case No. CGC18569670 (Cal.
Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., September 12, 2018).

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation is
responsible for the operation of the California state prison and
parole systems.  The California Department of Human Resources is
the California government agency responsible for human resource
management of state employees, including issues related to salaries
and benefits, job classifications, training, and recruitment.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gregg McLean Adam, Esq.
          MESSING ADAM & JASMINE LLP
          235 Montgomery St., Suite 828
          San Francisco, CA 94104-2913
          Telephone: (415) 845-6517
          Facsimile: (415) 266-1128
          E-mail: gregg@majlabor.com


CANADA: Ontario Sued Over Cancellation of Basic Income Pilot
------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Riley, writing for Kawartha Lakes, reports that four Lindsay
residents have launched a proposed class-action lawsuit for breach
of contract against the province in the wake of the Progressive
Conservative government's cancellation of the basic income pilot
project.

Dana Bowman and Tracey Mechefske said at an event to launch the
suit on Aug. 27 that they had made plans to improve their lives
when they signed up for the pilot in April 2017, providing the
government with detailed personal information to be approved and
expecting the pilot to run its three-year term.

Mike Perry, a social advocate for the program who is also a lawyer,
is representing the plaintiffs in the action, which he filed in
court on Aug. 27. He is handling the case pro bono. The two other
plaintiffs are Susan Lindsay and Grace Marie Doyle Hillion.

Roderick Benns, publisher of the social advocacy magazine The
Lindsay Advocate, organized the event, saying the pilot program
"was a chance to change the channel on how we look at poverty."

Under the program launched by the Liberals to run in the test
communities of Lindsay, Thunder Bay and Hamilton-Brant, more than
4,000 people were given a basic income of up to $17,000 a year.
Couples received up to $24,000.

About 2,000 people in Lindsay enrolled. Those on the Ontario
Disability Support Program (ODSP) or Ontario Works were transferred
to the program's payments. [GN]


CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Saraci Suit Alleges FDCPA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Capital Management
Services, L.P.  The case is titled as Sunaj Saraci, on behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Capital
Management Services, L.P., Case No. 1:18-cv-05149 (E.D.N.Y.,
September 12, 2018).

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

Capital Management Services L.P. operates as a collections agency,
providing delinquent receivables resolutions.  The Company monitors
and tracks debt collection laws, state licensing, company profile,
and client contractual expectations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Maxim Maximov, Esq.
          MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP
          1701 Avenue P
          Brooklyn, NY 11229
          Telephone: (718) 395-3459
          Facsimile: (718) 408-9570
          E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com


CARMAR TRANSPORTATION: Pfeffer et al. Seek Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
MARK PFEFFER, VLADIMIR TSITLIDZE, SERGIO DOMINGUEZ, TIMOTHY OSTROM,
GEORGE VALDEZ, and LAURA MARZANO, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. CARMAR
TRANSPORTATION, INC., d/b/a KEY LIME TAXI, a Florida Corporation,
the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-10150-KMM (S.D. Fla., Sept. 1,
2018), alleges that Key Lime failed to pay Plaintiffs and the Class
Members they hired any compensation whatsoever in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.  The Plaintiffs and the FLSA
Class Members were compensated exclusively by Key Lime's customers.
Key Lime misclassified Plaintiffs and the FLSA Class Members as
independent contractors when they were, in fact, employees as that
term is defined by the FLSA.

Carmar Company is a licensed and bonded freight shipping and
trucking company running freight hauling business from Oak Grove,
Minnesota.

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Chad E. Levy, Esq.
          David M. Cozad, Esq.
          LEVY & LEVY, P.A.
          1000 Sawgrass Corporate Parkway, No. 518
          Sunrise, FL 33323
          Telephone: (954) 763 5722
          Facsimile: (954) 763 5723
          E-mail: chad@levylevylaw.com


CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Natadze Files Suit in N.Y.  Over FDCPA Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cavalry Portfolio
Services, LLC.  The case is titled as David Natadze, on behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Cavalry
Portfolio Services, LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-05147 (E.D.N.Y.,
September 12, 2018).

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Maxim Maximov, Esq.
          MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP
          1701 Avenue P
          Brooklyn, NY 11229
          Telephone: (718) 395-3459
          Facsimile: (718) 408-9570
          E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com


CBS CORP: Faces Shareholder Class Action Over Les Moonves Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dominic Patten, writing for Deadline, reports that Les Moonves
won't be charged by the Los Angeles County District Attorney's
office, and the independent investigations CBS Corp's board has
instigated over allegations of sexual misconduct against the CEO
are ongoing, but an angry shareholder wants to take the company and
its top execs to court.

"Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational
and compliance policies," says Gene Samit in a filing on Aug. 27
seeking to kick off a class action suit against Mr. Moonves, CBS
COO Joseph Ianniello and CBS Corp itself over the response to
claims leveled by a half a dozen women against Mr. Moonves in a
damning July 27 New Yorker piece.

"On this new, CBS's stock price fell $3.52, or 6.12%, to close at
$54.01 on July 27, 2018," the paperwork prepared by the NYC and
Chicago offices of Pomerantz LLP states. "As a result of
Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous
decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff
and other Class members have suffered significant losses and
damages."

CBS Corp declined comment when contacted by Deadline today about
the federal complaint that seeks a jury trial.

Almost a month after the Moonves allegations went public and as the
company continues to lock legal horns with Shari Redstone and
National Amusements over who controls the media organization and a
possible re-merger with Viacom, the stock today stands at around
$53.64.

Such shareholder suits as this usually come one after another when
a company and its boss face the unsteady footing CBS appears to be
on. While a few result in actual settlements, they usually go
nowhere fast or get piled under paperwork.

In this case, Mr. Samit and his attorneys are putting their
shoulder into the idea that the CEO and COO "made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) CBS
executives, including the Company's CEO, Defendant Moonves, had
engaged in widespread workplace sexual harassment at CBS; (ii)
CBS's enforcement of its own purported policies was inadequate to
prevent the foregoing conduct; (iii) the foregoing conduct, when
revealed, would foreseeably subject CBS to heightened legal
liability and impede the ability of key CBS personnel to execute
the Company's business strategy."

As Deadline said, nothing from CBS so far, but don't be surprised
if when it does say something it will be a variation of what Mr.
Moonves said in July.

"I recognize that there were times decades ago when I may have made
some women uncomfortable by making advances," the still CBS chief
was quoted as saying in the New Yorker's July 27 story in a
statement. "Those were mistakes, and I regret them immensely. But I
always understood and respected -- and abided by the principle --
that 'no' means 'no,' and I have never misused my position to harm
or hinder anyone's career." [GN]


CBS CORP: Oct. 26 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Aug. 27 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against CBS Corporation ("CBS" or the "Company") (NYSE:
CBS; CBS.A) and certain of its officers and directors.   The class
action, filed in United States District Court, Southern District of
New York, and docketed under index 18-cv-07796, is on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased
or otherwise acquired CBS securities between February 14, 2014,
through July 27, 2018, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"),
seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the
federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company
and certain of its top officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased or acquired common shares of
CBS between February 14, 2014, and July 27, 2018, both dates
inclusive, you have until October 26, 2018, to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.   To discuss
this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW),
toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of
shares purchased.

CBS is a mass media company with operations in the entertainment,
cable networks, publishing, and local media segments.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that:  (i) CBS executives, including the
Company's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Leslie "Les"
Moonves, had engaged in widespread workplace sexual harassment at
CBS; (ii) CBS's enforcement of its own purported policies was
inadequate to prevent the foregoing conduct; (iii) the foregoing
conduct, when revealed, would foreseeably subject CBS to heightened
legal liability and impede the ability of key CBS personnel to
execute the Company's business strategy; and (iv) as a result,
CBS's public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

On July 27, 2018, various media outlets reported that The New
Yorker would shortly publish an article, discussing an
investigative report detailing allegations of sexual misconduct by
Moonves and other executives at the Company.

On this news, CBS's stock price fell $3.52, or 6.12%, to close at
$54.01 on July 27, 2018.

With offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Paris, The
Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its
practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class
litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the
dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the
field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later,
the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established,
fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud,
breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has
recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of
class members.[GN]


CENTRAL PORTFOLIO: Illegally Collects Debts, Servin Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
EMMANUEL SERVIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CENTRAL PORTFOLIO CONTROL, INC., a Minnesota
Corporation; and, JOHN AND JANES DOES 1 THROUGH 25, Case No.
1:18-cv-01421-WCG (E.D. Wisc., September 11, 2018), arises from the
Defendants' alleged illegal practices in attempting to collect an
alleged debt, in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

CPCI is a for-profit corporation formed under the laws of the state
of Minnesota.  CPCI maintains its principal place of business in
the City of Minnetonka, Hennepin County, Minnesota.  The true names
and capacities of the Doe Defendants are presently unknown to the
Plaintiff.

CPCI regularly collects or attempts to collect debts alleged to be
owed others.  CPCI is a business the principal purpose of which is
the collection of debts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Philip D. Stern, Esq.
          Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq.
          Francis R. Greene, Esq.
          STERN THOMASSON LLP
          150 Morris Avenue, 2nd Floor
          Springfield, NJ 07081
          Telephone (973) 379-7500
          E-mail: Philip@SternThomasson.com
                  Andrew@SternThomasson.com
                  Francis@SternThomasson.com


CHOICE HOTELS: DiFlavis Suit Asserts FLSA Violation
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Choice Hotels
International, Inc.  The case is captioned as GINA DIFLAVIS, FOR
HERSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. CHOICE HOTELS
INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No. 2:18-cv-03914-GEKP (E.D. Pa.,
September 12, 2018).

The Plaintiff alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Choice Hotels International, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
operates as a hotel franchisor worldwide.  The Company operates
through Hotel Franchising and SkyTouch Technology segments.  The
Company franchises lodging properties under the brand names of
Comfort Inn, Comfort Suites, Quality, Clarion, Sleep Inn, Econo
Lodge, Rodeway Inn, MainStay Suites, Suburban Extended Stay Hotel,
Cambria hotels & suites, and Ascend Hotel Collection.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David J. Cohen, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS LLP
          604 Spruce Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215) 873-4836
          E-mail: dcohen@stephanzouras.com


CIGNA CORP: Lead Plaintiff Opposes Motion to Dismiss ERISA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Danielle Nichole Smith, writing for Law360, reports that a former
Macy's employee on Aug. 27 urged a Pennsylvania federal judge not
to toss her proposed class action accusing Cigna and American
Specialty Health of wrongly shifting administrative costs to plan
participants, arguing that she made plausible allegations under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

Lead plaintiff Kathleen Kilroy opposed the motions to dismiss from
Cigna Corp., Cigna Health and Life Insurance Co., American
Specialty Health Inc. and American Specialty Health Group Inc.

The case is styled KILROY v. CIGNA CORPORATION et al, Case No.
2:18-cv-01557 (E.D. Pa.).  The case is assigned to Judge Nitza I
Quinones Alejandr.  The case was filed April 13, 2018. [GN]


COMPASS GROUP: Oliver Suit Moved to Northern District of Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Anthony Oliver, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Compass
Group USA, Inc. doing business as: Canteen a Delaware Corporation,
the Defendant, Case No. 2018-CH-09355, was removed from the Circuit
Court of Cook County, Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on Aug. 31, 2018. The
Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:18-cv-05998 to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge John J. Tharp, Jr.

Compass Group provides foodservice management and support services
in the United States and Canada.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eugene Y. Turin, Esq.
          MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
          55 W. Wacker Dr., 9th Fl.
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 893 7002
          E-mail: eturin@mcgpc.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Joseph Clark Wylie, II, Esq.
          Alexandria Dea Bond, Esq.
          Paul W. Sweeney, Jr., Esq.
          K&L GATES LLP
          70 West Madison, Suite 3100
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 372 1121
          E-mail: joseph.wylie@klgates.com
                  lexi.bond@klgates.com
                  paul.sweeney@klgates.com


CORECIVIC INC: Dew Suit Moved to Middle District of Tennessee
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Joshua Dew, Individually, and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v.
CoreCivic, Inc., A Maryland Corporation, the Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-01500, was removed/transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the District of Maryland to the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Tennessee (Nashville) on Sept. 7, 2018. The
Middle District of Tennessee Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:18-cv-00847 to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
District Judge Aleta A. Trauger. The suit alleges Fair Labor
Standards Act violation.

CoreCivic, formerly the Corrections Corporation of America, is a
company that owns and manages private prisons and detention centers
and operates others on a concession basis.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kelly E Cook, Esq.
          WYLY & COOK, PLLC
          4101 Washington Ave
          Houston, TX 77007
          Telephone: (713) 236 8330
          Facsimile: (713) 863 8502
          E-mail: kcook@wylycooklaw.com

               - and -

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

Attorneys for CoreCivic, Inc.:

          Eunju Park, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          815 Connecticut Ave, N.W., Suite 400
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 842 3400
          E-mail: EPark@littler.com


D & A SERVICES: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Pulla Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against D & A Services, LLC,
and JH Portfolio Debt Equities, LLC.  The case is captioned as Ruth
Pulla, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. D & A Services, LLC, and JH Portfolio Debt Equities, LLC, Case
No. 1:18-cv-05143 (E.D.N.Y., September 12, 2018).

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

D & A Services is a collection agency.  JH Portfolio Debt Equities,
LLC, provides private equity investment services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DHM MARBLE: Fails to Pay OT Under FLSA & AMWA, O'Shaughnessy Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SERGIO O'SHAUGHNESSY, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. DHM MARBLE GRANITE & TILE, LLC; DENNIS DUNLAP
and MICHELLE DUNLAP, Case No. 1:18-cv-01057-SOH (W.D. Ark.,
September 11, 2018), alleges that the Defendants fail to pay the
Plaintiff and others overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.

DHM Marble Granite & Tile, LLC, is a domestic limited liability
company created and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the
state of Arkansas.  Dennis Dunlap and Michelle Dunlap are principal
members and/or officers of DHM Marble.

DHM Marble, which operates from a centralized office in Smackover,
Arkansas, provides on-site construction services and employs
installers/fabricators/laborers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel Ford, Esq.
          Chris Burks, Esq.
          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          One Financial Center
          650 South Shackleford, Suite 411
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Telephone: (501) 221-0088
          Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
          E-mail: daniel@sanfordlawfirm.com
                  chris@sanfordlawfirm.com
                  josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


DIRECTV LLC: Womble Bond Attorney Discusses Class Action Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Troutman, Esq. -- eric.troutman@wbd-us.com -- of Womble Bond
Dickinson (US) LLP, in an article for the National Law Review,
wrote that business lines are always looking to expand their pool
of leads through cross-marketing efforts, especially following a
corporate merger.  But as a new decision out of the Northern
District of California proves, it is sometimes best to not rush in
with telemarketing campaigns, even if consumer contract terms with
new corporate affiliates appear secure.

In Revtich v. DirecTV, LLC, Case No. 18-cv-01127, 2018 WL 4030550
(N.D. Cal. Aug. 23, 2018) the Court denied DirecTV's bid to compel
arbitration of a putative TCPA class action leveraging an
arbitration provision within a class representative's mobile
services agreement with corporate sibling AT&T Mobility ("AT&T").
The class representative sued DirecTV for marketing calls it
apparently made to AT&T customers following a corporate merger in a
bid to leverage those new leads. Plaintiff sued in a class action
contending that he did not consent to those calls. Although the
Court agreed that corporate siblings can enforce arbitration
provisions, it ultimately denied the motion finding that the
consumer could not have anticipated arbitrating claims against
corporate entities that would become affiliated with AT&T in the
future. The result means that business lines seeking to leverage
new markets following corporate mergers cannot count on courts to
faithfully enforce arbitration provisions to defeat class actions
in TCPA cases arising out of such calls.

Here's the background: The Plaintiff in Revtich entered into a
contract with AT&T for cell phone service back in 2006. The
wireless agreement covered all claims and disputes that might arise
with AT&T, and any corporate sibling. It was not limited to
disputes arising out of the wireless relationship. And it required
arbitration of all claims including claims against "affiliates" of
AT&T.

The wireless agreement also afforded AT&T the right send
information regarding "other matters we believe may be of interest
to you."  You see where this is headed.

As mentioned, the wireless agreement is from 2006. Apparently in
2011 DirecTV and AT&T both ended up owned by the same parent
company–AT&T, Inc. This–DirecTV argues–means that AT&T and
DirecTV are now "affiliates" under the arbitration agreement in the
AT&T wireless services agreement. And since the arbitration
agreement between Plaintiff and AT&T is not limited to claims
arising out of the wireless agreement surely DirecTV can leverage
the arbitration agreement in its favor.

But not so fast. True, reasoned the court, that the agreement might
reasonably be read to encompass claims arising in the future,
unrelated to the wireless agreement, and against a corporate
sibling, but it cannot be reasonably read to afford cover to an
entity that "fortuitously" became affiliated with AT&T years after
the agreement was signed. On that basis the Court denied DirecTV's
motion and required it to stand in fight the class action in
federal court.

Notably Chief Magistrate Judge Spero is known as a thoughtful and
independent voice on a court that does tend to lean a bit liberal,
so this is not just the Northern District of California behaving
badly. Rather, Revtich demonstrates the corproate entities should
not be bullish about expanding existing contractual arbitration
terms–and perhaps other contractual terms–to include and
protect corporate siblings added in the future. Further, although
Revtich does not (yet) address contractual consent clause, you can
rest assured that the Plaintiff will try to expand the reasoning
the court applied in denying arbitration when it comes time to test
the contours of consent granted by the class in the AT&T wireless
agreement. While denial of the arbitration motion will surely
result in costly litigation for DirecTV, a substantive finding that
consent was invalid across the class might work  "destruction" on a
Proverbial scale.[GN]


DR PEPPER/SEVEN UP: 9th Circuit Appeal Filed in Becerra Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Shana Becerra filed an appeal from a court ruling in her
lawsuit entitled Shana Becerra v. Dr Pepper/Seven Up, Inc., Case
No. 3:17-cv-05921-WHO, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Francisco.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge William
H. Orrick denied Dr Pepper's motion to transfer venue but granted
its motion to dismiss with leave to amend.

Ms. Becerra alleges that she is a consumer of the soft drink
product Diet Dr Pepper.  She believed that Diet Dr Pepper would
assist in weight loss or healthy weight management due to the use
of the term "diet" in the name of the product and on its label, but
has since learned that studies and articles suggest that artificial
sweeteners, including those used in Diet Dr Pepper, may instead
cause weight gain.  She brings the putative class action on behalf
of herself and a California class of similarly- situated consumers
for damages and equitable relief, including an injunction to stop
Dr Pepper from marketing its Diet Dr Pepper product as "diet."

The Plaintiff brings suit on behalf of herself and a California
class alleging false and misleading advertising, in violation of
California's False Advertising Law ("FAL"), Consumers Legal
Remedies Act ("CLRA"), and Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), as well
as breach of both express and implied warranty.

The appellate case is captioned as Shana Becerra v. Dr Pepper/Seven
Up, Inc., Case No. 18-16721, 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 11, 2018;

   -- Transcript is due on November 13, 2018;

   -- Appellant Shana Becerra's opening brief is due on
      December 20, 2018;

   -- Appellee Dr Pepper/Seven Up, Inc.'s 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 SHANA BECERRA, on behalf of herself, all others
similarly situated, and the general public, is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Melanie Persinger, Esq.
          THE WESTON FIRM
          1405 Morena Boulevard, Suite 201
          San Diego, CA 92110
          Telephone: (619) 798-2006
          E-mail: melanie@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com

               - and -

          John Weston, Esq.
          SACKS WESTON DIAMOND LLC
          1845 Walnut Street, Suite 1600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 925-8200
          E-mail: jweston@sackslaw.com

Defendant-Appellee DR PEPPER/SEVEN UP, INC., is represented by:

          Ariel D. House, Esq.
          BAKER BOTTS LLP
          101 California Street, Suite 3600
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 291-6200
          E-mail: ariel.house@bakerbotts.com

               - and -

          Van Beckwith, Esq.
          BAKER BOTTS LLP
          2001 Ross Avenue
          Dallas, TX 75201-2980
          Telephone: (214) 953-6505
          E-mail: van.beckwith@bakerbotts.com

               - and -

          Evan Young, Esq.
          BAKER BOTTS LLP
          98 San Jacinto Blvd., Suite 1500
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 322-2554
          E-mail: evan.young@bakerbotts.com

               - and -

          Stuart Christopher Plunkett, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
          425 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
          Telephone: (415) 268-7000
          E-mail: stuart.plunkett@bakerbotts.com


DUANE READE: Pryce et al. Seek Overtime Pay under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------
CARMEN OHOTENCO and CHANTE PRYCE, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. DUANE READE INC. and
WALGREEN CO., the Defendants, Case No. 518143/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.,
Sept. 7, 2018), seeks to recover overtime compensation and other
damages for Plaintiffs and their similarly situated co-workers,
salaried Look Boutique Managers who work or have worked at any
Duane Reade location in New York.

According to the complaint, Duane Reade is a wholly owned
subsidiary of Walgreens. Duane Reade is the leading retail
drugstore chain in New York, with over 100 locations in the New
York metropolitan area. 1 3. As part of its operations, Duane Reade
employed LBMs and, until on or about September 21, 2016, and paid
them on a salaried basis. However, despite their titles and their
salaried pay, LBMs spent the vast majority of their time performing
non-exempt duties. Regardless of the number of hours worked, LBMs
did not receive overtime compensation. As a result, Duane Reade
misclassified LBMs as exempt employees under the New York Labor
Law, Article 6, sections 190 et seq. and Fair Labor Standards Act.
[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Putative Class:

          Brian S. Schaffer, Esq.
          Arsenio Rodriguez, Esq.
          FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
          28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 300 0375

               - and -

          James P. Walsh, Jr.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          502 Carnegie Center
          Princeton, NJ 08540
          Telephone: (609) 919 6647
          E-mail: james.walsh@morganlewis.com


ELECTRONIC ARTS: Ex-NFL Players' Class Certification Bid Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ronald Katz, writing for Law360, reports that the video game
manufacturer Electronic Arts Inc., in addition to portraying
current National Football League teams in its highly successful
"Madden" video games, used to portray what EA referred to as
"historic" teams. Retired NFL players filed a class action
complaint in the Northern District of California against EA for
misappropriating their rights of publicity. On Aug. 17, the
district court judge denied the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification on the grounds.[GN]


EQUIFAX INC: Fond du Lac Band Suit Moved to N.D. Georgia
--------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior
Chippewa, individually and on behalf of Its Members and as Class
Representative for similarly situated federally recognized Indian
Tribes and Nations, the Plaintiff, vs Equifax Inc. and Apache
Systems, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 0:18-cv-02381, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia (Atlanta) on Sept. 7, 2018.  The Northern District of
Georgia Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-04257-TWT to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Thomas W.
Thrash, Jr.  The lawsuit alleges breach of contract.  The Lead case
is Case No. 1:17-md-02800-TWT.

Equifax Inc. is a consumer credit reporting agency. Equifax
collects and aggregates information on over 800 million individual
consumers and more than 88 million businesses worldwide. Founded in
1899 and based in Atlanta, Georgia, it is one of the three largest
credit agencies along with Experian and TransUnion.[BN]

Attorneys for Equifax, Inc.:

          Christopher J. Haugen, Esq.
          Joseph W. Lawver, Esq.
          MESSERLI & KRAMER, P.A.
          100 South Fifth Street
          1400 Fifth Street Towers
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 672 3730
          Facsimile: (612) 672 3777


EROS: 2d Cir. Affirms Securities Class Action Dismissal
-------------------------------------------------------
RAPIDTV News reports that the two-year lawsuit alleging malpractice
by Indian film and VOD service provider Eros International has
finally ended.

In a filing dated 21 August 2018, the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a Summary Order affirming the
US District Court's earlier dismissal, with prejudice, of the
putative securities class action that was originally filed in
November 2015. In the original case, complaint alleged that Eros
and certain individual defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On 26 September 2017, the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
dismissed, with prejudice, the putative securities class action.

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

The dismissal of the action comes only days after Eros
International announced its first quarter 2019 results and its
likely strategy for the rest of the financial year. [GN]


ESPARZA ENTERPRISES: Court Grants Casildo Leave to File TAC
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California issued an Order approving a stipulation granting
Plaintiff's Leave to File Third Amended Complaint in the case
captioned OLGA CASILDO; JAIME CHINO SEVERIANO, as individuals, on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated Plaintiffs, v.
ESPARZA ENTERPRISES, INC; and DOES 1 thru 50, inclusive,
Defendants. Case No. 1:17-cv-00601-LJO-JLT. (E.D. Cal.).  The
Defendant will have 30 days from the date of the filing of the
Third Amended Complaint to file a responsive pleading.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 30, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yblkyjnc from Leagle.com.

Olga Casildo, Plaintiff, represented by Eric Bryce Kingsley --
eric@kingsleykingsley.com -- Kingsley & Kingsley APC, Kelsey M.
Peterson-More, Kingsley & Kingsley, Mario Martinez --
mmartinez@farmworkerlaw.com -- Martinez Aguilasocho & Lynch, APLC &
Ariel J. Stillershulman, Kingsley & Kingsley APC.

Jaime Chino Severiano, Plaintiff, represented by Eric Bryce
Kingsley , Kingsley & Kingsley APC,Kelsey M. Peterson-More ,
Kingsley & Kingsley & Mario Martinez , Martinez Aguilasocho &
Lynch, APLC.

Esparza Enterprises, Inc., Defendant, represented by Daniel K.
Klingenberger -- dklingenberger@lebeauthelen.com -- LeBeau-Thelen,
LLP.


ESPN: Wigdor Takes Over Adrienne Lawrence's Sex Harassment Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Storace, writing for Law.com, reports that a new law firm
has taken over Adrienne Lawrence's sexual harassment and
retaliation lawsuit against mega-sports network ESPN. Wigdor LLP
took over the case earlier in August.

The new attorneys representing former ESPN anchor and legal analyst
Adrienne Lawrence in her federal sexual harassment lawsuit against
the sports network hope to make the case a class action lawsuit.

In an Aug. 24 interview with the Connecticut Law Tribune, Wigdor
LLP partners Michael Willemin -- mwillemin@wigdorlaw.com -- and
Jeanne Christensen -- jchristensen@wigdorlaw.com -- said there are
many past and current female employees of the Bristol-based network
who were allegedly sexually harassed like Ms. Lawrence. The
attorneys said they will seek class action status as soon as they
are officially admitted on the case by a judge. That procedural
matter, Ms. Christensen said, should be done soon.

"We are not going to delay. Once we are admitted into the case (pro
hac vice) and can appear, our intention is to 100 percent proceed
with the case on a class basis," Mr. Willemin said. "ESPN has
promoted a systematic culture and policy and practice to permit
males in a position of power to discriminate against women."

Mr. Willemin, whose firm took over the case from Lachtman Cohen and
Yankwitt LLP Aug. 15, said the class would take into consideration
the statute of limitations period. "Depending on what the causes of
action are, it (statute of limitations) can be anywhere from three
to four years." Mr. Willemin would not say how many women would be
listed in the class, but said, "it will be a significant number."

Wigdor was founded in 2003 and is based in New York City. The firm
has 12 attorneys, including seven partners and five associates.
Employment litigation and the handling of sexual harassment and
discrimination lawsuits are among the firm's special areas of
litigation, according to its website.

Lawrence, a former attorney herself, has accused ESPN of failing to
address her highly publicized complaints of harassment and abuse
against SportsCenter anchor John Buccigross. Lawrence claims that,
soon after she arrived at ESPN in August 2015, she was merely
"fresh meat" and was soon being harassed by Mr. Buccigross.
Lawrence clams she was fired in August 2017 for complaining about
the alleged abuse.

Lawrence, who according to her Twitter account, is a Madden NFL 18
sideline reporter based in her native California, claims ESPN
personalities have a "long history of sexually harassing and
mistreating women that is well documented and incontrovertible."
The lawsuit cites nine causes of action including sexual
discrimination and harassment, negligent supervision, creating a
hostile work environment, and aiding abetting and retaliation.

While the lawsuit seeks an unspecified amount of monetary damages,
Mr. Willemin said it's more than just money for Ms. Lawrence.

"She wants to take this through to the end," said Mr. Willemin, who
has been representing victims of sexual harassment for seven years.
"She is committed to cleaning up what is a very, very toxic and
inappropriate workplace at ESPN. She is hoping this lawsuit will
assist in accomplishing that goal and also to make it easier for
other women who have been subjected to similar treatment to come
forward and not be alone."

Mr. Willemin said he is proud to represent Ms. Lawrence. "This is
an important case," he said. "We take pride in representing an
individual who has been subjected to retaliation and harassment and
discrimination. We also take pride in representing someone who is
going up against one of the most powerful companies in the world."
ESPN is owned by the Walt Disney Co.

Said Ms. Christensen: "This kind of behavior is hard to shock us,
because we've been doing this (representing victims of alleged
sexual harassment) for so long. It's (sexual harassment and
misconduct) built into the culture there (at ESPN)."

ESPN is represented by Raymond Bertrand and Patrick Shea, both
partners with Paul Hastings. Neither attorney responded to a
request for comment on Aug. 27.

In court papers filed in April, ESPN claimed the suit has no
merit.

"Lawrence claimed that ESPN employee John Buccigross sent her
unsolicited and inappropriate text messages. ESPN responded by
publishing the relevant text messages, refuting Lawrence's
mischaracterization of her relationship and communications with
Buccigross," ESPN wrote in its motion to dismiss. "Now, in the face
of public criticism that she misrepresented facts to the Boston
Globe, Lawrence is attempting to use this court to silence ESPN.
But, Connecticut law does not allow her to punish the company for
exercising its constitutionally protected rights to free expression
and to petition the government."

The court papers filed by ESPN continue: "Her claim is deficient as
a matter of law because the excerpted text messages published by
ESPN are accurate and no reasonable person would find them highly
offensive. In the face of this undeniable fact,
Ms. Lawrence attempts to bolster her claim and seize more headlines
with an untethered conspiracy theory ESPN deployed bot armies and
fake Twitter accounts to condemn her."

Prior to joining ESPN, Ms. Lawrence was employed at McGuireWoods in
Washington, D.C. and Greenberg Traurig in New York City. She had
previously clerked for Judge Eric Washington at the D.C. Court of
Appeals and as litigation associate at Arent Fox. She also taught
criminal and tort law at Strayer University. In 2008, at age 24,
Lawrence received her law degree from the George Washington
University Law School. [GN]


ESURANCE INSURANCE: Morrison Suit Transferred to W.D. Washington
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Mikeshia Morrison, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Esurance Insurance Company, a foreign automobile insurance company,
the Defendant, Case No. 18-00002-19723-6, was removed from the King
County Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington (Seattle) on Sept. 6, 2018. The Western
District of Washington Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-01316
to the proceeding. The suit alleges violations over the parties'
insurance policy agreement.

Esurance Insurance Services, Inc. is an American insurance company.
It sells auto, home, motorcycle, and renters insurance direct to
consumers online and by phone. Its primary competitors are other
direct personal insurance writers, mainly GEICO and
Progressive.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          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

               - and -

          Ryan C. Nute, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF RYAN C NUTE
          19929 Ballinger Way NE Ste 200
          Shoreline, WA 98155
          Telephone: (206) 330 0482
          Facsimile: (206) 774 6036
          E-mail: ryan@rcnutelaw.com

Attorneys for Defendant:

          Gavin William Skok, Esq.
          FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP (SEATTLE)
          1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 4500
          Seattle, WA 98154
          Telephone: (206) 624 3600
          Facsimile: (206) 389 1708
          E-mail: gskok@foxrothschild.com


EYE DOCTORS: Faces Grant Suit in Middle District of Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Eye Doctors Optical
Outlet, P.A.  The lawsuit is captioned as Ditmar Grant,
individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. Eye Doctors Optical Outlet, P.A., the Defendant,
Case No. 8:18-cv-02178-SDM-CPT (M.D. Fla., Aug. 31, 2018). The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Steven D. Merryday. The suit alleges
restrictions on use of telephone equipment.

Eye Doctors Optical Outlet, P.A. was founded in 1986. The company's
line of business includes the retail sale of eyeglasses and contact
lenses.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
          110 S.E. 6th Street, Suite 1744
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 907 1136
          Facsimile: (855) 529 9540
          E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com


FAT BRANDS: Kaskela Law Files Shareholder Class Action Over IPO
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kaskela Law LLC has filed a shareholder class action lawsuit
against FAT Brands Inc. (NASDAQ: FAT) ("FAT Brands" or the
"Company") on behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the
Company's common stock pursuant and/or traceable to FAT Brand's
initial public offering ("IPO") of common stock on or around
October 23, 2017.

IMPORTANT DEADLINE ALERT:  Investors who purchased FAT Brands'
common stock may, no later than October 23, 2018, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the investor class.
FAT Brands investors are encouraged to contact Kaskela Law LLC (D.
Seamus Kaskela, Esq.) at (484) 258–1585 or (888) 715–1740, or
skaskela@kaskelalaw.com, to discuss their important legal rights
and options.  Investors may also submit their information online at
http://kaskelalaw.com/case/fat-brands-inc/.

On or about October 23, 2017, FAT Brands completed its initial
public offering ("IPO") of common stock, selling shares to
investors at $12.00 per share.

The complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose, in
connection with the IPO, that: (1) FAT Brands' sales growth had
significantly declined; (2) sales growth at Ponderosa & Bonanza was
significantly below the level which FAT Brands had believed when it
agreed to acquire those brands in March 2017; (3) the fast-casual
dining sector was saturated and facing significant headwinds and a
slowdown in growth, largely caused by customers fleeing to lower
cost and quicker options; (4) FAT Brands' free cash flow was less
than its annual $5 million dividend obligations; (5) the Wiederhorn
family planned to merge Fog Cutter Capital Group Inc. into FAT
Brands following the IPO; and (6) Fog Cutter Capital and the
Wiederhorn family that owned it had already once run Fog Cutter
Capital/Fatburger into bankruptcy, resulting in its stock being
delisted after attempting to go on an acquisition spree, much like
the spree they were undertaking at FAT Brands at the time of the
IPO.

The value of FAT Brands' common stock significantly declined as the
market learned the truth about the Company's business metrics and
financial prospects, which existed at the time of the IPO.  FAT
Brands' common stock currently trades at approximately $8.00 per
share, or approximately 25% lower than the price that the common
stock was sold to investors less than one-year earlier in the IPO.

FAT Brands investors who purchased the Company's common stock and
suffered an investment loss are encouraged to immediately contact
Kaskela Law LLC.  Kaskela Law LLC -- http://www.kaskelalaw.com--
exclusively prosecutes shareholder actions in state and federal
courts throughout the country on behalf of investors. [GN]


FINANCIAL ASSET: Loveday Seeks to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned MELISSA LOVEDAY, individually and on
behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, the Plaintiff, v.
FINANCIAL ASSET MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC., the Defendant, Case No.
2:18-cv-10218-GAD-MKM (E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiff asks the Court
for an order certifying a class of:

   "all persons with a Michigan address, whom from January 18,
   2017, through January 18, 2018, were sent a form letter from
   FAMS, attempting to collect a debt in which the last date of
   payment or date of default was more than six years prior to
   the sending of the letter, that did not disclosing that the
   consumer could not be sued on the debt, and/or that did not
   disclose that a payment on the debt would restart the statute
   of limitations. Excluded from this request are persons whom
   Defendant attempted to collect a federally backed student
loan."

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Curtis C. Warner, Esq.
          WARNER LAW FIRM, LLC
          350 S. Northwest Hwy., Ste. 300
          Park Ridge, IL 60068
          Telephone: (847) 701 5290
          E-mail: cwarner@warner.legal


FLAGSHIP RESORT: Wins Summary Judgment in TCCWNA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for District of New Jersey granted
Defendant Flagship Resort Development Corporation d/b/a FantaSea
Resorts (Flagship), La Sammana Ventures, LLC (La Sammana), and
Atlantic Palace Development Corp.'s (Atlantic Palace) Motion for
Summary Judgment in the case captioned GAETANO TIRRI, BRIAN KALMUS,
and KELLY TAYLOR, on behalf of themselves and the putative class,
Plaintiffs, v. FLAGSHIP RESORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION d/b/a
FANTASEA RESORTS, LA SAMMANA VENTURES, LLC d/b/a FANTASEA RESORTS,
and ATLANTIC PALACE DEVELOPMENT CORP. d/b/a FANTASEA RESORTS,
Defendants.  Civil Action No. 3:16-cv-1771-BRM-TJB. (D.N.J.).

This lawsuit arises out of the Plaintiffs' purchase of timeshare
ownership interests in a condominium in Atlantic City, New Jersey
from the Defendants. The Amended Complaint asserts claims for (1)
violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, (Count One); (2-3)
violations of the Truth-in-Consumer Contact, Warranty, and Notice
Act (TCCWNA) (Counts Two and Four); (4) violations of the New
Jersey Fair Foreclosure At. (Fair Foreclosure Act) (Count Three);
and (5) breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing (Count
Five).

LEGAL STANDARD

Summary Judgment

Summary judgment is appropriate if the pleadings, depositions,
answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with
the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to
any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a
judgment as a matter of law.

There can be no genuine issue as to any material fact, however, if
a party fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the
existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on
which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial. A complete
failure of proof concerning an essential element of the nonmoving
party's case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d), [i]f a nonmovant
shows by affidavit or declaration that, for specified reasons, it
cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition, the court
may:(1) defer considering the motion or deny it;(2) allow time to
obtain affidavits to take discovery; or(3) issue any other
appropriate order.

Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment

Defendants' Alleged Failure to Provide a Notice of Foreclosure

The Fair Foreclosure Act states, in relevant part, "Before any
residential mortgage lender may commence any foreclosure  the
residential mortgage lender shall give the residential mortgage
debtor notice of such intention at least 30 days in advance of such
action."

The Defendants argue they never commenced foreclosure actions
against the Plaintiffs and therefore were never subject to the Fair
Foreclosure Act's requirement to send a NOI.

The Plaintiffs' argument that the Defendants' offered proof does
not comply with 28 U.S.C. Section 1746(2) is without merit.
Passarella's affidavit is sworn and notarized. Further, Plaintiffs'
mere denial of Defendants' assertion that there has been no
foreclosure is inadequate. Defendants adequately support their
motion pursuant to Rule 56(c); therefore, the burden shifts to
Plaintiffs to go beyond the pleadings and by [their] own
affidavits, or by the depositions, answers to interrogatories, and
admissions on file, designate specific facts showing that there is
a genuine issue for trial. Plaintiffs cite no evidence to support
the contention that Defendants have commenced foreclosure actions.


The Court finds the Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on
Count Four, because the Defendants had no obligation to serve NOIs.
Under New Jersey law, a foreclosure plaintiff must send a NOI to a
defendant before commencing a foreclosure action, but if there is
no foreclosure action there is no need for a NOI.  

The Court finds there is no dispute of fact as to whether the
Defendants were required to serve Plaintiffs with NOIs, and
therefore Defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law as
to Count Four.

Defendants alleged deprivation of plaintiffs' right to redeem their
ownership interest by requiring DILs to be escrowed

Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2A:50-61, waivers by the debtor of rights
provide pursuant to the Fair Foreclosure Act are against public
policy, unlawful, and void unless given after default pursuant to a
work agreement in a separate written document signed by the debtor
New Jersey courts have held, a mortgagor may not deprive himself of
a right to redeem even by an express agreement for that purpose if
such agreement is a part of, or may contemporaneously with, the
conveyance.

The Defendants argue they are entitled to summary judgment as to
Counts One, Two, and Five, which are based on the Defendants'
alleged transfer of the Plaintiffs' property interest back to the
Defendants by way of the DILs. The Defendants contend the
Plaintiffs were not deprived of their right to redeem because the
DILs have never left escrow. The Defendants maintain the Plaintiffs
have not been deprived of their right to redeem their ownership
interest because title reports show the Plaintiffs still own the
property they purchased.

The Court finds the Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on
Counts One, Two, and Five, because the plain language of the Escrow
Agreement states the Plaintiffs could rescind the DILs at any
time.

The Court finds significance in the Plaintiffs' lack of a response
to Defendants' arguments about the Plaintiffs' right to rescind.
The Plaintiffs do not attempt to explain how the DIL deprived them
of their right to redeem when they retained the right to rescind
the DIL without penalty. The Plaintiffs rely on Mallozzi, which
they argue stands for the proposition that New Jersey law prohibits
the practice of requiring a borrower to execute a DIL
contemporaneously with the conveyance of the property. Even if the
Court were to accept the Plaintiffs' interpretation of Mallozzi,
the fact the Plaintiffs could rescind the DILs distinguishes this
case from the facts in Mallozzi, where there was no mention of a
right to rescind. The Court finds DILs did not constitute a waiver
of rights in violation of N.J.S.A. Section 2A:50-61, because the
Escrow Agreement granted Plaintiffs the right to rescind the DILs
without penalty.

Because the DILs did not deprive the Plaintiffs of their right to
redeem, the Court finds Defendants are entitled to summary judgment
as a matter of law as to Counts One, Two, and Five. Therefore, the
Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 30, 2018 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yaz7vk4h from Leagle.com.

GAETANO TIRRI, on behalf of themselves and the putative class,
BRIAN KALMUS, on behalf of themselves and the putative class &
KELLY TAYLOR, on behalf of themselves and the putative class,
Plaintiffs, represented by DAVID J. DISABATO , DISABATO &
BOUCKENOOGHE LLC & LISA R. BOUCKENOOGHE , DISABATO & BOUCKENOOGHE
LLC.

FLAGSHIP RESORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, doing business as FANTASEA
RESORTS, LA SAMMANA VENTURES, L.L.C., doing business as FANTASEA
RESORTS & ATLANTIC PALACE DEVELOPMENT CORP., doing business as
FANTASEA RESORTS, Defendants, represented by EDWIN JOSEPH JACOBS,
Jr., JACOBS & BARBONE & LOUIS M. BARBONE , JACOBS & BARBONE, ESQS.


FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Reidt ERISA Suit in Conn.
--------------------------------------------------------
MARY REIDT, on behalf of the Frontier Communications 401(k) Savings
Plan and all others similarly situated v. FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS
CORP., THE RETIREMENT INVESTMENT & ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE AND
JOHN/JANE DOES 1-10, Case No. 3:18-cv-01538 (D. Conn., September
11, 2018), alleges violations of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974.

The action concerns the Plan's alleged excessive concentration in
Verizon Communications, Inc. common stock.  The Defendants, which
are fiduciaries of the Plan, breached their fiduciary duty under
the ERISA by failing to timely liquidate the Plan's significant
holdings in Verizon common stock, and by deciding to concentrate
Plan investments in Verizon common stock, the Plaintiff contends.

Frontier is a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of
business in Norwalk, Connecticut.  The Committee is an
unincorporated association with a principal place of business in
Norwalk.  The Committee's members are appointed by the Retirement
Plan Committee of the Frontier Communications Board of Directors.
The names and identities of the Doe Defendants are not currently
known.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert A. Izard, Esq.
          Mark P. Kindall, Esq.
          Douglas P. Needham, Esq.
          IZARD, KINDALL & RAABE, LLP
          29 South Main Street, Suite 305
          West Hartford, CT 06107
          Telephone: (860) 493-6292
          Facsimile: (860) 493-6290
          E-mail: rizard@ikrlaw.com
                  mkindall@ikrlaw.com
                  dneedham@ikrlaw.com

               - and -

          Gregory Y. Porter, Esq.
          Mark G. Boyko, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
          1054 31st Street, NW, Suite 230
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 463-2101
          Facsimile: (202) 463-2103
          E-mail: gporter@baileyglasser.com
                  mboyko@baileyglasser.com


GENERAL MILLS: Fails to Disclose Glyphosate Content, Paracha Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NATASHA PARACHA, On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. GENERAL MILLS, INC., a Delaware
Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-07659-CJC-JEM (C.D.
Cal., Aug. 31, 2018), alleges that the Defendant failed to disclose
the fact that its food products contain or likely contain
glyphosate and continuing to sell the Products in packages omitting
this information.

The Defendant manufactures, markets, sells, and distributes various
food products. This lawsuit concerns four of those products:
Cheerios Toasted Whole Grain Oat Cereal, Nature Valley Granola
Protein Oats n' Honey, Nature Valley Crunchy Granola Bars - Oat's
n' Honey, and Lucky Charms. In marketing its Products, Defendant
seeks to appeal to the consuming public's ever-growing health
consciousness and increasing appetite for nutritious, wholesome
foods that will benefit their health and avoidance of
highly-processed foods with non-healthy attributes such as GMOs,
artificial additives, gluten, added sugars, and hydrogenated oils,
the lawsuit says.

According to the complaint, the Defendant had a duty to disclose
the fact that its Products contain or likely contain glyphosate and
that glyphosate is a probable carcinogen -- which was known to the
Defendant and unknown and/or not reasonably accessible to Plaintiff
and consumers -- on its Product labels where the disclosure could
be viewed by Plaintiff and consumers at the point-of-sale.  The
Defendant has and continues to deceive and mislead consumers,
including Plaintiff.  As a result of the Defendant's misleading
half-truths and material nondisclosures, consumers will continue to
purchase the Defendant's Products that, unbeknownst to them,
contain or likely contain glyphosate.

The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and other
similarly situated consumers who purchased the Products to halt the
dissemination of this misleading and deceptive advertising message,
correct the misleading perception it has created in the minds of
consumers, and obtain redress for those who have purchased the
Products. Based on violations of California unfair competition
laws, the Plaintiff seeks declaratory, injunctive, and
restitutionary relief for consumers who purchased the
Products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patricia N. Syverson, Esq.
          Manfred P. Muecke, Esq.
          Elaine A. Ryan, Esq.
          Carrie A. Laliberte, Esq.
          BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
          600 W. Broadway, Suite 900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 798-4593
          E-mail: psyverson@bffb.com
                  mmuecke@bffb.com
                  eryan@bffb.com
                  claliberte@bffb.com

               - and -

          Stewart M. Weltman, Esq.
          Todd L. McLawhorn, Esq.
          Michael Chang, Esq.
          SIPRUT PC
          17 North State Street
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 236 0000
          E-mail: sweltman@siprut.com
                  tmclawhorn@siprut.com
                  mchang@siprut.com


GEORGIOS OF GREENSPOINT: Handy Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHAN HANDY, on Behalf of Himself and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. GEORGIOS OF GREENSPOINT MALL, INC., GEORGIOS
OF SHARPSTOWN CENTER, INC. and EMAN SROUR, Case No. 4:18-cv-03229
(S.D. Tex., September 11, 2018), seeks to recover alleged unpaid
wages, including overtime, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Georgios of Greenspoint Mall, Inc., is a corporation organized
under the laws of Texas.  Georgios of Sharpstown Center, Inc., is a
corporation organized under the laws of Texas.  Emad Srour is an
officer, employee, manager or agent of the Corporate Defendants.

The Defendants operate a chain of clothing stores under the trade
name Georgios.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Beatriz Sosa-Morris, Esq.
          SOSA-MORRIS NEUMAN ATTORNEYS AT LAW
          5612 Chaucer Drive
          Houston, TX 77005
          Telephone: (281) 885-8844
          Facsimile: (281) 885-8813
          E-mail: BSosaMorris@smnlawfirm.com

               - and -

          John Neuman, Esq.
          SOSA-MORRIS NEUMAN ATTORNEYS AT LAW
          5612 Chaucer Drive
          Houston, TX 77005
          Telephone: (281) 885-8630
          Facsimile: (281) 885-8813
          E-mail: JNeuman@smnlawfirm.com


H.H. FRANCHISING: Holley Seeks to Certify Caregivers Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned ROSEANN GEIGER and SHERRI HOLLEY,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. H.H. FRANCHISING SYSTEMS, INC., d/b/a HOME HELPERS,
a foreign corporation; GLENKAT, INC.; KATHLEEN HOLDEN, an
individual; and GLENN HOLDEN, an individual, the Defendants, Case
No. 3:17-cv-00738-FDW-DSC (W.D.N.C.), Plaintiff Sherri Holley asks
the Court to conditionally certify a collective action and
facilitate notice.

Holley filed a revised motion to clarify the identity of the moving
party. The lawsuit has been stayed as to Roseann Geiger, the other
named plaintiff who, along with Holley, filed the original motion
to conditionally certify a collective action.  Holley's claims have
not been stayed. Holley seeks payment of unpaid minimum wages and
overtime wages owed to her and other similarly situated in-home
caregiver employees due to violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Attorney for Plaintiffs and Putative Class Members:

          L. Michelle Gessner, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF MICHELLE GESSNER, PLLC
          435 East Morehead Street
          Charlotte, NC 28202
          Telephone: (704) 234 7442
          E-mail: michelle@mgessnerlaw.com

Attorneys for Defendant:

          Kimberly Sullivan, Esq.
          HORACK, TALLEY, PHARR & LOWNDES, P.A.
          301 South College Street, Suite 2600
          Charlotte, NC 28202-6006
          E-mail: ksullivan@HorackTalley.com

               - and -

          William S. Cherry, III,. Esq.
          MANNING, FULTON & SKINNER, P.A.
          3605 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 500
          Raleigh, NC 27619
          E-mail: cherry@manningfulton.com

               - and -

          Fredric A. Cohen, Esq.
          CHENG COHEN, LLC
          311 North Aberdeen Street, Suite 400
          Chicago, IL 60607
          E-mail: marlen.cortez@chengcohen.com


HEARST COMMUNICATIONS: Crowley Webb Alleges Inflated TV Ad Rates
----------------------------------------------------------------
CROWLEY WEBB AND ASSOCIATES, INC., on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. HEARST COMMUNICATIONS,
INC.; GRAY TELEVISION, INC.; NEXSTAR MEDIA GROUP, INC.; TEGNA INC.;
TRIBUNE MEDIA COMPANY; and SINCLAIR BROADCAST GROUP, INC., the
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-07976 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 5, 2018),
alleges that the Defendants engaged in unlawful collusion and
conspired to artificially inflate the price of local television
advertisements in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

The Defendants sell television advertising to local advertisers in
multiple Designated Market Areas throughout the U.S.  New York City
is the Defendants' largest DMA, reaching more than 7.3 million
households.  A DMA is a geographic area for which A.C. Nielsen
Company furnishes broadcast television stations, and others with
data to aid in evaluating audience size and composition.

The Plaintiff seeks to represent a Class consisting of all persons
and entities in the U.S. who paid for all or a portion of
advertisement time on local TV provided by the Defendants from at
least January 1, 2012, until the effects of their unlawful conduct
cease.

According to the complaint, the Defendants unlawfully shared
information and coordinated efforts to artificially inflate prices
for TV commercials. Specifically, instead of competing with each
other on prices for advertising sales, as competitors normally do,
the Defendants and their co-conspirators shared proprietary
information and conspired to fix prices and reduce competition in
the market.  On July 26, 2018, The Wall Street Journal and other
media outlets reported that Sinclair, Tribune, and certain
independent local television stations are the subjects of an
ongoing U.S. Department of Justice investigation regarding whether
communication between the stations' ad sales teams led to higher
rates for TV commercials. Later that day, Newsmax.com, an online
news journal, reported that Defendants Hearst, Nexstar, and Tegna
are also subjects in the DOJ probe.

The impact of the Defendants' unlawful and anticompetitive conduct
is ongoing and continues to this day, and requires injunctive
relief to prevent future harm to Plaintiff and members of the
Class, the complaint says. Until the publication of reports
regarding the DOJ investigation on July 26, 2018, the Defendants
fraudulently concealed their unlawful conduct from Plaintiff and
members of the Class, and Plaintiff and members of the Class had no
way of knowing the advertising rates they were paying were the
result of unlawful collusion.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class

          Robert N. Kaplan, Esq.
          Jeffrey P. Campisi, Esq.
          KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
          850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 687 1980
          Facsimile: (212) 687 7714
          E-mail: rkaplan@kaplanfox.com
                  jcampisi@kaplanfox.com

               - and -

          Arthur N. Bailey, Esq.
          Marco Cercone, Esq.
          RUPP BAASE PFALZGRAF CUNNINGHAM, LLC
          1600 Liberty Building
          424 Main Street
          Buffalo, NY 14202
          Telephone: (716) 664 2967
          E-mail: bailey@ruppbaase.com
                  Cercone@ruppbaase.com


HELEN CHAITMAN: Faces Shulman & Ross Class Suit over Madoff Gig
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case, KEVIN SHULMAN and CARAN ROSS, in their capacities as
co-trustees of the FLORENCE SHULMAN POUROVER TRUST; and ESTELLE
HARWOOD, individually and in her capacity as trustee of the ESTELLE
HARWOOD REVOCABLE TRUST; on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs HELEN DAVIS CHAITMAN, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-08125 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 6, 2018),
alleges that Ms. Chaitman actively concealed basic information from
her net winner clients, including her hourly rate (as well as the
hourly rates of other, unidentified persons charging time to the
file), what specific work she was performing, and how much time she
spent on those unknown tasks.  Instead, Ms. Chaitman simply
forwarded her net winner clients invoices stating the total amount
allegedly due, without any backup or description.

According to the complaint, on or about December 11, 2008, when
Bernard Madoff was arrested, thousands of people learned that they
had fallen victim to the largest Ponzi scheme in American history.
Many had lost their life savings and were desperate to find someone
to help them recover. Although many lawyers offered their services,
Ms. Chaitman stood apart from the rest because she vowed to stand
up to Irving Picard, who was responsible for clawing back funds
received by "net winners" and distributing those funds to "net
losers."

Ms. Chaitman's self-promotion as a savior for other Madoff victims
paid off. Within a short amount of time, she had signed up hundreds
of clients who agreed to pay her hourly fees to defend them against
Mr. Picard's clawback lawsuits. Ms. Chaitman's clients, however,
had been swindled twice. First by Madoff, and again by Ms.
Chaitman. Ms. Chaitman's greed, the lawsuit claims, caused her to
violate the first rule of professional ethics: an attorney cannot
simultaneously represent clients with directly adverse interests.
Ms. Chaitman represented both net winners and net losers in a
zero-sum game; the more money collected from some of her clients
(the net winners), the more available to be distributed to her
other clients (the net losers). Ms. Chaitman's clients, therefore,
were in direct conflict with each other.

To make matters worse, Ms. Chaitman herself is a net loser, which
means she personally stands to receive money taken from her net
winner clients. This conflict cannot be waived. At the same time,
Ms. Chaitman represented a third group of Madoff investors who
sought to keep assets out of Mr. Picard's liquidation proceedings
altogether: the so-called "early investors." These clients claim
that some of their Madoff profits are not subject to clawbacks
because they allegedly were booked before Madoff turned his
"legitimate" operation into a fraud. "Early investors" are thus in
conflict with both net losers and net winners: Net losers miss out
on contribution from early investors to defray their losses, and
net winners find themselves responsible for a larger shortfall.

Beyond the irreconcilable conflict, Ms. Chaitman bilked hundreds of
thousands of dollars (if not more) from each of her net winner
clients by actively discouraging them from settling Mr. Picard’s
clawback actions. When asked, Ms. Chaitman mispresented to her net
winner clients that Mr. Picard never would settle for less than
100% of what he claimed he was owed. In reality, Mr. Picard imposed
no such all-or-nothing condition on settlements. This
misrepresentation allowed Ms. Chaitman to continue billing these
clients hourly for unnecessary -- and often unproductive -- work.
This lawsuit is brought to vindicate the rights of Ms. Chaitman's
clients, who trusted that she would protect their best interests
but have now discovered her misconduct.

This action is related to an action pending in this jurisdiction
against Becker & Poliakoff, LLP and Chaitman LLP brought by the
same plaintiffs and proposed class representatives. Those
defendants have moved the Court to dismiss that action on grounds
that there is a lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Class
Action Fairness Act (CAFA).  The Plaintiffs in that action have
moved the Court to amend their complaint to add Ms. Chaitman as a
defendant, which plaintiffs contend will cure any jurisdictional
defect (should one exist).  The present complaint filed against Ms.
Chaitman is brought to protect any statute of limitations, and will
be dismissed if leave to amend is granted in the related
action.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Proposed Class Representatives:

          Dylan Ruga, Esq.
          STALWART LAW GROUP
          41 East 11th Street, 11th Fl.
          New York, NY 0003
          Telephone: (212) 651 9070
          E-mail: dylan@stalwartlaw.com

               - and -

          Paul A. Traina, Esq.
          Ian P. Samson, Esq.
          STALWART LAW GROUP
          1100 Glendon Ave., Ste. 1840
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Phone: (310) 954-2000
          E-mail: paul@stalwartlaw.com
                  ian@stalwartlaw.com


HIGH TECH: Ramirez-Abarca Sues for FLSA, Wage and Hour Law Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE RAMIREZ-ABARCA v. HIGH TECH LANDSCAPES, INC., and PAUL
CERNUTO, Individually, Case No. 3:18-cv-13778 (D.N.J., September
11, 2018), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all others
similarly situated alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law.

The Defendants engaged in a policy and practice of requiring the
Plaintiff and members of the putative collective to regularly work
in excess of 40 hours per week, without providing overtime
compensation as required by applicable federal and New Jersey state
law, the Plaintiff alleges.

High Tech is a New Jersey corporation, with its principal office
located in Branchburg, Somerset County, New Jersey.  Paul Cernuto
has been an owner, partner, officer or manager of High Tech.

The Defendants own, operate, and manage a landscape and
construction business, which services the tri state area.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew I. Glenn, Esq.
          Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq.
          JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A.
          301 N. Harrison Street, Suite 9F, #306
          Princeton, NJ 08540
          Telephone: (201) 687-9977
          Facsimile: (201) 595-0308
          E-mail: Aglenn@jaffeglenn.com
                  jjaffe@JaffeGlenn.com


HUTCHINSON TREE: 4th Circuit Appeal Filed in Berber Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Adrian Berber filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit styled Adrian Berber v. Hutchinson Tree Service, et al.,
Case No. 5:15-cv-00143-D, in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of North Carolina at Raleigh.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Aug. 23,
2018, the Hon. James C. Dever III granted in part and denied in
part the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional class certification and
court-authorized notice concerning the Plaintiff's Fair Labor
Standards Act claim and for class certification concerning his
North Carolina Wage and Hour Act, on behalf of:

    "individuals who performed work on Piedmont's gas pipelines
     and right-of-way throughout, at a minimum, various parts of
     North Carolina, whose duties included, but were not limited
     to, tree pruning, tree removal, tree trimming, land
     clearing, and stump grinding for Hutchison Tree Service,
     Craig Hutchison, Northstar Energy Services, Inc., and
     Piedmont Natural Gas, Inc., (collectively "Defendants")
     whom named Plaintiff alleges jointly employed him and all
     of those similarly situated employees, whom paid named
     Plaintiff and all similarly situated employees as lump-sum
     or hourly paid laborers, and whom were suffered or
     permitted to work while not being paid their appropriate
     regular-rate, straight-time, promised rate(s), and overtime
     compensation for all hours worked, at any time from April 3,
     2012, until the termination of the contract, or until
     approximately January, 2015."

The appellate case is captioned as Adrian Berber v. Hutchinson Tree
Service, et al., Case No. 18-2061, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant ADRIAN BERBER, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Gilda Adriana Hernandez, Esq.
          Emma Jean Smiley, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF GILDA A. HERNANDEZ
          1020 Southhill Drive
          Cary, NC 27513
          Telephone: (919) 741-8693
          Facsimile: (919) 869-1853
          E-mail: ghernandez@gildahernandezlaw.com
                  esmiley@gildahernandezlaw.com

Defendants-Appellees HUTCHINSON TREE SERVICE and CRAIG HUTCHINSON
are represented by:

          Zebulon Dyer Anderson, Esq.
          SMITH, ANDERSON, BLOUNT, DORSETT, MITCHELL
          & JERNIGAN, LLP
          P. O. Box 2611
          Raleigh, NC 27602-2611
          Telephone: (919) 821-6735
          Facsimile: (919) 821-6800
          E-mail: zanderson@smithlaw.com

Defendant-Appellee PIEDMONT NATURAL GAS COMPANY, INC., is
represented by:

          William J. McMahon, IV, Esq.
          Kristine Marie Sims, Esq.
          CONSTANGY, BROOKS & SMITH, LLC
          Century Plaza
          100 North Cherry Street
          Winston-Salem, NC 27101-0000
          Telephone: (336) 721-1001
          Facsimile: (336) 748-9112
          E-mail: bmcmahon@constangy.com
                  ksims@constangy.com

Defendant-Appellee NORTHSTAR ENERGY SERVICES, INC., is represented
by:

          Robert George Lian, Jr., Esq.
          AKIN, GUMP, STRAUSS, HAUER & FELD, LLP
          1333 New Hampshire Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20036-1564
          Telephone: (202) 887-4000
          Facsimile: (202) 887-4288
          E-mail: blian@akingump.com

               - and -

          Christopher Andrew Page, Esq.
          YOUNG MOORE & HENDERSON, PA
          P. O. Box 31627
          Raleigh, NC 27622
          Telephone: (919) 782-6860
          Facsimile: (919) 782-6753
          E-mail: chris.page@youngmoorelaw.com


HYUNDAI MOTOR: Hid Powertrain Defect in Santa Fe Models, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
JAN SCHECHTER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA and HYUNDAI MOTOR
COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-13634 (D.N.J., Sep. 6,
2018), alleges that Defendants wrongfully and intentionally
concealed one or more defects that cause, among other issues,
significantly delayed acceleration -- including but not limited to
delayed acceleration when turning or merging onto a road or highway
-- loss of power, and rough shifting of 2017-2018 Hyundai Santa Fe
or 2017-2018 Hyundai Santa Fe Sport vehicles.

According to the complaint, the Powertrain Defect has forced
members of the Classes to incur out of pocket costs to remediate
the defect. In the case of Plaintiff, Hyundai refused to provide
him with a meaningful resolution to this dangerous issue, despite
numerous attempts by Plaintiff to have the Powertrain Defect
remedied by Hyundai. Hyundai has also failed to provide members of
the Classes with any fix or remedy for the Powertrain Defect,
despite voluminous customer complaints. The Powertrain Defect has
been documented to occur without warning during vehicle operation,
thereby posing an extreme and unreasonable safety hazard to
drivers, passengers, other motorists and pedestrians. Many Class
Vehicle owners have reported a significant delay in the Class
Vehicle's response while attempting to accelerate from a stop
and/or while cruising in situations that require the ability to
accelerate rapidly (e.g., merging on to the highway, changing
lanes, etc.). Other Class Vehicle owners have reported jerking,
lurching, and/or engine revving associated with the delayed
acceleration.

Hyundai Motor America, Inc. designs, manufactures, and sells
vehicles in the United States. The company provides sedans,
crossovers/SUVs.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Frederick J. Klorczyk III, Esq.
          Joel D. Smith, Esq.
          Andrew Obergfell, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300 4455
          Facsimile: (925) 407 2700
          E-mail: fklorczyk@bursor.com
                  jsmith@bursor.com
                  aobergfell@bursor.com


IMPINJ INC: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action in Wash.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP  on Aug. 27 announced that a class
action has been commenced on behalf of purchasers of Impinj, Inc.
(NASDAQ:PI) publicly traded securities during the period between
May 4, 2017 and August 2, 2018 (the "Class Period"). This action
was filed in the Western District of Washington and is captioned
Montemarano v. Impinj, Inc., et al., No. 18-cv-1264.

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any
investor who purchased Impinj publicly traded securities during the
Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. A lead
plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing
the litigation. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its
choice. An investor's ability to share in any potential future
recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. If you
wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later
than 60 days from August 7, 2018. If you wish to discuss this
action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights
or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Darren Robbins of
Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at
djr@rgrdlaw.com. You can view a copy of the complaint as filed at
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/impinj/.

The complaint charges Impinj and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Impinj sells integrated circuit ("IC") tags ("tag ICs"), which,
when connected to an item, are called endpoints. These endpoints
function as a tag system that provides wireless information about
tagged items. Impinj also sells reader ICs that enable wireless
communication with the tag ICs.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose adverse information regarding Impinj's business,
operations and prospects. Specifically, the complaint alleges
defendants failed to disclose that the addition of large customers
in 2016 had driven a contraction in Impinj's ability to fulfill its
production obligations, which resulted in lead times between 10 and
12 weeks instead of the normal baseline time range of 4 to 6 weeks;
that increased sales of IC endpoints were not indicative of strong
demand being driven by increased product adoption, but rather, they
were the result of customers purchasing increased inventory to
account for extended production lead times; and that Impinj lacked
adequate accounting and reporting controls. As a result of this
information being withheld from the market, Impinj securities
traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period,
with its stock price reaching a high of more than $59 per share.

On February 1, 2018, Impinj announced it was reducing its revenue
guidance and that its long-time CFO had resigned. On this news, the
price of Impinj common stock declined more than $10 per share, or
nearly 47%, to close at $12.16 per share on February 2, 2018. Then
on August 2, 2018, Impinj announced that it was delaying the
release of its second quarter 2018 results. The Company also
disclosed that in response to having received a complaint from a
former employee, the Audit Committee of its Board of Directors had
commenced an independent investigation and had retained independent
counsel to assist in the investigation. Impinj stated that it could
not "predict the duration or outcome of the investigation, and
[would] not be in a position to file [its] Form 10-Q until the
Audit Committee complete[d] its investigation." Impinj also
announced preliminary second quarter 2018 financial results that
day, disclosing that it had reduced its inventory balance by $1.4
million. On this news, Impinj's share price fell $3.02 per share,
or nearly 14%, on August 3, 2018.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Impinj publicly traded securities during the Class Period (the
"Class"). The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has
extensive experience in prosecuting investor class actions
including actions involving financial fraud.

Robbins Geller -- http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- is a law firm
representing investors in securities litigation. With 200 lawyers
in 10 offices, Robbins Geller has obtained many of the largest
securities class action recoveries in history.  For five
consecutive years, ISS Securities Class Action Services has ranked
the Firm in its annual SCAS Top 50 Report as one of the top law
firms in both amount recovered for shareholders and total number of
class action settlements.  Robbins Geller attorneys have helped
shape the securities laws and recovered tens of billions of dollars
on behalf of aggrieved victims. Beyond securing financial
recoveries for defrauded investors, Robbins Geller also specializes
in implementing corporate governance reforms, helping to improve
the financial markets for investors worldwide. [GN]


J E H ENTERPRISES: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Wage Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The San Francisco Labor law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug
Bhowmik De Blouw LLP, filed a class action lawsuit against J E H
Enterprises, Inc., alleging that the company failed to lawfully
provide meal and rest periods and pay minimum wages to their
California employees working for the company. The class action
lawsuit against J E H Enterprises, Inc., is currently pending in
the San Francisco County Superior Court, Case No. CGC-18-568768.

The lawsuit filed against J E H Enterprises, Inc., alleges the
DEFENDANT'S meal period policies and practices were unlawful
because PLAINTIFFS and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members were far too
over-booked and overworked to take a timely off-duty thirty (30)
minute meal period. The lawsuit further alleges that the failure of
J E H Enterprises, Inc., to provide the legally required meal and
rest period is evidenced by the company's business records.

Additionally, the lawsuit alleges PLAINTIFFS and other CALIFORNIA
CLASS Members as a business expense, were required by DEFENDANT to
use their own personal cellular phones as a result of and in
furtherance of their job duties as employees for DEFENDANT but were
not reimbursed or indemnified by DEFENDANT for the cost associated
with the use of their personal cellular phones for DEFENDANT's
benefit.

For more information about the class action lawsuit against J E H
Enterprises, Inc., call (858) 952-0354 to speak to Attorney
Nicholas De Blouw.

Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw, LLP is a labor law firm
with law offices located in San Diego County, Riverside County, Los
Angeles County, Sacramento County, and San Francisco County. The
firm has a statewide practice of representing employees on a
contingency basis for violations involving unpaid wages, overtime
pay, discrimination, harassment, wrongful termination and other
types of illegal workplace conduct. [GN]


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: 3rd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Talc Powder Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, affirmed the
District Court's judgment granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
the case captioned IN RE: JOHNSON & JOHNSON TALCUM POWDER PRODUCTS
MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND LIABILITY LITIGATION, Mona Estrada,
Appellant. No. 17-2980. (3rd Cir.).

This is an appeal from the District Court’s dismissal of the
complaint.

Plaintiff Mona Estrada alleges that a woman's perineal use of
Defendant Johnson & Johnson's Baby Powder can lead to an increased
risk of developing ovarian cancer.

The District Court dismissed Estrada's complaint without prejudice
for lack of Article III standing, and granted her leave to amend.
After Estrada informed the District Court that she chose not to
amend and would stand on her complaint, the District Court
dismissed the case.  In concluding that Estrada did not have
Article III standing, the District Court explicitly considered
whether Estrada's allegations fell within any one of three
different theories of economic injury: (1) alternative product; (2)
premium price; and (3) benefit of the bargain.

The District Court concluded that Estrada's allegations also failed
to fit within this theory of harm because she purchased and
received Baby Powder that successfully did what the parties had
bargained for and expected it to do: eliminate friction on the
skin, absorb excess moisture, and maintain freshness.  

On appeal, Estrada rejects the significance of the Baby Powder
performing these functions. She contends that although she received
Baby Powder that eliminated friction on the skin, absorbed excess
moisture, and maintained freshness, she was also promised that the
Baby Powder would be safe. Instead, Estrada contends, the product
was unsafe.  

STANDING JURISPRUDENCE

To establish standing, a plaintiff must have (1) suffered an injury
in fact, (2) that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of
the defendant, and (3) that is likely to be redressed by a
favorable judicial decision.

First, the party must show that he or she suffered an invasion of a
legally protected interest. Second, the party must show that the
injury is both concrete and particularized. Finally, the party must
show that his or her injury is actual or imminent, not conjectural
or hypothetical.

To start, Estrada's promise to provide us with a means to
conceptualize her injury at some future time does nothing to assist
us in determining whether Estrada has standing at this stage. In
order to allege that she has suffered an economic injury as a
result of simply purchasing Baby Powder, Estrada must allege that
she purchased Baby Powder that was worth less than what she paid
for. This is not to say that a plaintiff is required to allege the
exact value of her economic injury at the pleading stage.
Calculating and proving damages is indeed one of the major phases
of a civil trial, and a plaintiff need not develop detailed
economic models at the pleading stage to establish that she has
standing.

But even at the pleading stage, a plaintiff must set forth
sufficient factual allegations that, if proven true, would permit a
factfinder to determine that she suffered at least some economic
injury.  

Although injury-in-fact is not Mount Everest, it is more than a
desert mirage. While the evidentiary burdens placed on a plaintiff
at the pleading stage are minimal, our precedent requires the
plaintiff to do more than simply pair a conclusory assertion of
money lost with a request that a defendant pay up. Estrada fails to
allege even that the Baby Powder provided her with an economic
benefit worth one penny less than what she paid. The Court must,
therefore, conclude that she received the benefit of her bargain
and has suffered no economic injury.

First, such presumptions would turn the standing question on its
head. It is well-settled law that the Court presume that federal
courts lack jurisdiction unless the contrary appears affirmatively
from the record.

The Court cannot conclude that we have jurisdiction by presuming
that Estrada would pay less for unsafe powder when she fails to
even plead as much. And our refusal to leap to such a conclusion is
supported by Estrada's apparent desire to continue purchasing Baby
Powder in the future despite being aware of its alleged health
risks. It is worthy of note that Estrada's desire to continue
purchasing Baby Powder is not conditioned on the powder being sold
at a discounted price. In the absence of that condition, we would
be hard-pressed to presume that Estrada wishes to continue to buy
Baby Powder at anything other than its current market price, i.e.,
the very price she has repeatedly paid for the product over the
last six decades.

The second reason we cannot presume that Estrada suffered an
economic injury by failing to receive safe powder is factual.
Although Estrada contends that Baby Powder is unsafe, her own
allegations require us to conclude that the powder she received
was, in fact, safe as to her.As we described early in this opinion,
Estrada did not allege that she developed ovarian cancer, nor did
she allege she is at risk of developing ovarian cancer in the
future as a result of her Baby Powder use. Estrada's references to
Baby Powder being unsafe as to others are not relevant to
determining whether Estrada has standing herself.  

The Court could not conclude that Estrada has standing even if she
were to contend that, by unsafe powder, she meant not only powder
that would cause her to develop ovarian cancer but also powder that
would put her at risk of developing ovarian cancer. To be sure, had
Estrada alleged that she was at risk of developing ovarian cancer,
she may have established standing based on a theory of future
physical injury. Because litigants and jurists cannot predict the
future, the law will sometimes permit plaintiffs to establish
standing based on injuries that are likely to occur later in time.

But Estrada chose not to allege any risk of developing ovarian
cancer in the future. Given the absence of such an allegation,
Estrada cannot now claim that she was ever at risk of developing
ovarian cancer.

In sum, although Estrada characterizes her Baby Powder purchases as
economic injuries for which she is entitled to relief, she has
failed to allege that the economic benefit she received from that
powder was anything less than the price she paid. In short, she
received the benefit of her bargain. Today, the Court therefore
explicitly hold what might heretofore have been obvious: a
plaintiff does not have Article III standing when she pleads
economic injury from the purchase of a product, but fails to allege
that the purchase provided her with an economic benefit worth less
than the economic benefit for which she bargained.

RESTITUTION

In addition to seeking monetary damages, Estrada seeks disgorgement
of revenues and profit pursuant to the law of restitution. An
examination of Estrada's complaint reveals that her restitution
claims are supported by only two conclusory assertions. First,
Estrada alleges that Johnson & Johnson has been able to sell the
product for more than it otherwise would have had it properly
informed consumers about the safety risks. Second, Estrada contends
that Johnson & Johnson reaped and continues to reap enormous
profits from [its] deceptive marketing.

These two statements are nothing more than conclusory assertions
and are therefore inadequate to provide Estrada with Article III
standing.  

Estrada must do more than simply characterize her purchases as
economic injuries. The same rationale holds true as to her
restitution claims, Estrada cannot invoke the federal judicial
power simply by asserting that Johnson & Johnson has earned
unlawful profits. Estrada's conclusory assertions are further
weakened by her alleged desire to purchase Baby Powder in the
future despite knowing of its alleged health risks. If Estrada
herself wishes to purchase Baby Powder whether or not she knows of
those health risks, why would the same not hold true for other
consumers? And if other consumers were to purchase Baby Powder
whether or not they were warned of the alleged health risks, how
did Johnson & Johnson earn unlawful profits by failing to offer
such warnings? Estrada's two conclusory assertions provide us not
even a hint as to how we might answer these basic questions.

In sum, Estrada's restitution claims are based on nothing more than
mere conjecture. She pleads no facts upon which a factfinder could
conclude that Johnson & Johnson has been able to sell more Baby
Powder than it could have had it informed consumers of the alleged
health risks. We therefore conclude that Estrada lacks standing to
seek relief in the form of restitution.

The judgment of the District Court will be affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Third Circuit's September 6, 2018 Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/ydxfzd2e from Leagle.com.

Timothy G. Blood [ARGUED], Blood Hurst & O'Reardon, 501 West
Broadway, Suite 1490, San Diego, CA 92101.

Charles L. Gould , Alison D. Hawthorne , W. Daniel Miles, III ,
Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles, 218 Commerce Street,
Montgomery, AL 36104, Counsel for Appellant.

Adam M. Kaplan , Matthew D. Powers [ARGUED], James K. Rothstein ,
O'Melveny & Myers, Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor, San
Francisco, CA 94111, Counsel for Appellee.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: India Must Overhaul Regulatory Process
---------------------------------------------------------
The Economic Times reports that the faulty hip implant made by
Johnson & Johnson that were put inside some 4,700 patients, four of
whom died and 3,600 of whom cannot be traced, hold up a mirror to
India's healthcare regulation, and the picture is not pretty.

India needs comprehensive healthcare data storage and management,
globally conversant regulation of implants and drugs and strict
codes of conduct for medical companies that penalise unethical
conduct.

The prosthetic, manufactured by a subsidiary of J&J, got clearance
from America's Food and Drug Administration in 2005. It secured
approval for sale in India in 2006 for three years and renewed its
application in April 2009, fortifying it with a declaration of no
product complaints in September.

It obtained a renewed licence in December 2009, and began the
process of importing them in September. But in December 2009, the
product had already been recalled in Australia. And the recall
became global in August 2010.

The company misbehaved by denying product complaints and going
ahead with licensing and import after it had already recalled the
product in Australia. The company agreed to a settlement of $2.47
billion to around 8,000 claimants in the US by end-2013.

Yet, India waited till 2017 to set up a committee to investigate,
which submitted its report in February 2018, recommending at least
Rs 20 lakh compensation for patients, and reimbursement by the
company for revision surgeries till August 2025. The government
must implement these recommendations.

The Companies Act allows those who suffer from these faulty
implants to move a class-action suit against J&J. More to the
point, the government must draw the right lessons and overhaul its
regulatory process and apparatus. Healthcare data storage and
management must become mandatory. [GN]


LACI TRANSPORT: Stingley FLSA Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------------------
RENEE STINGLEY, on behalf of herself, and all other plaintiffs
similarly situated, known and unknown v. LACI TRANSPORT INC. AND
VLADETA MARKOVITC, INDIVIDUALLY, Case No. 1:18-cv-06221 (N.D. Ill.,
September 11, 2018), seeks to recover wages, including overtime
pay, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Portal-to-Portal
Act, and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

Laci Transport Inc. owns and operates an automobile assembly plant
and repair service yard in South Holland, Illinois.  Vladeta
Markovitc is the owner of the Corporate Defendant.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John William Billhorn, Esq.
          BILLHORN LAW FIRM
          53 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 840
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 853-1450
          E-mail: jbillhorn@billhornlaw.com


LANNETT CO: Faces Class Action, Oct. 26 Lead Plaintiff Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Aug. 27
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Lannett Company, Inc. (NYSE:LCI)
from February 7, 2018 through August 17, 2018, inclusive (the
"Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Lannett
investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Lannett class action, go to
https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1404.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) Lannett faced a substantial risk of the loss of
its exclusivity agreement with Jerome Stevens Pharmaceuticals; (2)
accordingly, Lannett's reported revenues were unsustainable; and
(3) as a result, Lannett'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
26, 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-1404.html or to discuss your
rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact
Phillip Kim, Esq. or Zachary Halper, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll
free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
zhalper@rosenlegal.com.

Rosen Law Firm -- http://www.rosenlegal.com-- represents investors
throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities
class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. [GN]


LEVY PREMIUM: Unlawfully Retained Employee Gratuities, Padder Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
DIPON PADDER, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. LEVY PREMIUM FOODSERVICE LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP; BROOKLYN EVENTS CENTER, LLC; and any other related
entities, the Defendant, Case No. 518187/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Sept.
7, 2018), seeks unpaid compensation, including gratuities and
wages, interest, attorney's fees, and costs pursuant to New York
Labor Law.

According to the complaint, beginning in approximately September
2012 and continuing through the present, the Defendants have
engaged in a policy and practice of unlawfully retaining employees'
gratuities at all of Defendants' catered events held in the State
of New York. A reasonable customer would believe that the mandatory
charge was in fact a gratuity for Plaintiff and similarly situated
service employees.  However, the Defendants have failed to
distribute the proceeds collected from the assessment of the
mandatory charge to Plaintiff and similarly situated employees, and
instead retained the money for their own benefit.[BN]

Attorneys for the Named Plaintiff & Putative Class:

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


MDL 2274: Whiting Suit Transferred to E.D. Pa.
----------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as WILLIAM T. WHITING v.
CITIMORTGAGE, INC., Case No. 2:11-cv-08327, was transferred on
September 12, 2018, from the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia).

The Pennsylvania District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:18-cv-03894-ER to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is part of the multidistrict litigation titled In Re:
Citimortgage, Inc. Home Affordable Modification Program ("HAMP")
Litigation, MDL No. 2:11-ml-02274-DSF-PLA.

Each of the Plaintiffs in the litigation is a borrower, who sought
loan modification from CitiMortgage governed by the form contract.
They allege on behalf of a proposed class of tens of thousands
CitiMortgage of borrowers that CitiMortgage breached its
contractual obligation to make any decision by the applicable date
certain regarding their eligibility for loan modification.[BN]

Plaintiff WILLIAM T. WHITING, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, is represented by:

          Eric Lechtzin, Esq.
          Sherrie R. Savett, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3038
          Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
          E-mail: elechtzin@bm.net
                  ssavett@bm.net

Defendant CITIMORTGAGE INC. is represented by:

          Marc C. Singer, Esq.
          SAIBER LLC
          18 Columbia Turnpike, Suite 200
          Florham Park, NJ 07932
          Telephone: (973) 622-3333
          E-mail: msinger@saiber.com

               - and -

          Lucia Nale, Esq.
          Stephen J. Kane, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          71 South Wacker Dr.
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 701-7074
          E-mail: lnale@mayerbrown.com
                  skane@mayerbrown.com

               - and -

          Martin C. Bryce, Jr., Esq.
          Maura Ellen McKenna, Esq.
          BALLARD SPAHR ANDREWS AND INGERSOLL, L.L.P.
          1735 Market Street, 51st Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 864-8238
          Facsimile: (215) 864-9511
          E-mail: Bryce@ballardspahr.com
                  mckennam@ballardspahr.com


MDL 2504: Amazon Wins Summary Judgment in PMWA Suit
---------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Kentucky, Louisville Division, granted Defendant's Motion for
Summary Judgment in the case captioned IN RE: AMAZON.COM, INC.,
FULFILLMENT CENTER FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT (FLSA) AND WAGE AND
HOUR LITIGATION. THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO Heimbach, et al., v.
Amazon.com, Inc., et al., MDL Docket No. 2504 (W.D. Ky.).

Plaintiffs Neal Heimbach and Karen Salasky bring this class-action
lawsuit against Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon.com.DEDC, LLC (Amazon),
and Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. (Integrity) seeking
compensation under the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (PMWA) for
time spent undergoing security screenings at the Amazon facility
where they worked.

Motion for Summary Judgment

Summary judgment is required when the moving party shows, using
evidence in the record, that there is no genuine dispute as to any
material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law.

In Busk, the Supreme Court held that time spent undergoing and
waiting to undergo security screenings was not compensable under
the FLSA. 135 S. Ct. at 519. The Busk Court's decision rested upon
its interpretation of the Portal-to-Portal Act, which amended the
FLSA to exempt employers from liability for activities which are
preliminary to or postliminary to the principal activity or
activities. Because time spent undergoing security screenings was
not a principal activity, the Court reasoned that such time was not
compensable under the FLSA.  

The Plaintiffs argue that Busk has no bearing on this case because
the Portal-to-Portal Act amendments do not apply to the PMWA. In
support, they cite Bonds v. GMS Mine Repair & Maintenance, Inc. But
in Bonds, the court merely observed that the Pennsylvania General
Assembly had not adopted the Portal-to-Portal Act. No.
2:13-cv-1217, 2015 WL 5602607, at *11 (W.D. Pa. Sept. 23, 2015).

The Plaintiffs also cite In re Cargill Meat Solutions Wage & Hour
Litigation, where the court noted, in the context of a preemption
analysis, that the Portal-to-Portal Act did not supplant the
traditional power of the state to more generously regulate wage[s]
and hours via [its] own state regulations. Thus, neither case
supports Plaintiffs' argument that this Court is foreclosed from
considering federal law, including the Portal-to-Portal Act
amendments, in interpreting the PMWA.

The Portal-to-Portal Act amended the FLSA. As this Court explained
in Vance,  Vance v. Amazon.com, Inc.,No. 3:14-md-2504, 2016 WL
1268296, at *3 (W.D. Ky. Mar. 31, 2016), aff'd, 852 F.3d 601 (6th
Cir. 2017), those amendments are not separate and distinct from the
FLSA. Rather, the Portal-to-Portal Act is simply a clarifying
amendment that carves out preliminary and postliminary' activities
from the aegis of compensable work. It does not alter the FLSA's
construct or make substantive changes to the FLSA's concepts about
work, overtime, or the like. It simply clarifies that some
activities do not count as `work.

The Court concludes that it is proper to consider the
Portal-to-Portal Act amendments, and the Supreme Court's
interpretation thereof, in construing and applying the PMWA. The
Supreme Court has held that post-shift security screenings are not
compensable work under the FLSA as amended by the Portal-to-Portal
Act.  

The Court therefore finds that time spent undergoing or waiting to
undergo security screenings is not compensable under the PMWA. As a
result, the Plaintiffs no longer have a viable claim under
Pennsylvania law, and the Court will grant the defendants' motion
for summary judgment.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 30, 2018 Memorandum
Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ybrja25y from
Leagle.com.

Neal Heimbach & Karen Salasky, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs, represented by J. Chris Sanders,
Jacob R. Rusch, Johnson Becker, PLLC, Jason J. Thompson --
jthompson@sommerspc.com -- Sommers Schwartz, P.C., Jesse L. Young
-- jyoung@KreisEnderle.com -- Kreis, Enderle, Hudgins & Borsos,
P.C., Mark J. Gottesfeld -- mgottesfeld@winebrakelaw.com --
Winebrake & Santillo, LLC, Peter D. Winebrake --
pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com -- Winebrake & Santillo, LLC, R. Andrew
Santillo -- asantillo@winebrakelaw.com -- Winebrake & Santillo, LLC
& Timothy J. Becker, Johnson Becker, PLLC.

Amazon.com, Inc. & Amazon.com.DEDC, LLC, Defendants, represented by
Joseph A. Nuccio, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Michael J. Puma --
michael.puma@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Richard
G. Rosenblatt -- richard.rosenblatt@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis
& Bockius LLP & William O. Mandycz -- wmandycz@morganlewis.com --
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP.

Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Martha J. Keon -- mkeon@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, PC, J.
Andrew Inman -- jinman@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.S.C. &
Sarah B. Fask -- sfask@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, PC.


MDL 2742: ERISA Plaintiffs Appeal Decisions in Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The ERISA Plaintiffs in the multidistrict litigation titled In re:
SunEdison, Inc., Securities Litigation, MDL No. 16-md-2742, in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York
City), filed an appeal from the District Court's Opinion and Order,
and Judgment both dated August 6, 2018.

The appellate case is captioned as In re: SunEdison, Inc.,
Securities Litigation, Case No. 18-2621, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge P. Kecin
Castel excluded Balyasny Asset Management L.P. and Luxor Capital
Group, LP, from the proposed settlement class in the litigation.
The order relates to: In Re: Terraform Global, Inc. Securities
Litigation.

On December 19, 2017, the Court granted the lead Plaintiff's
unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action
settlement, and approved the class-wide notice of settlement.
Paragraph 11 of the Court-approved Notice sets forth the manner for
requesting exclusion.[BN]

Appellants ERISA Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert Ira Harwood, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          712 5th Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 935-7400
          E-mail: rharwood@glancylaw.com

Defendants-Appellees Ahmad Chatila, Brian Wuebbels and SunEdison,
Inc., are represented by:

          Charles N. Insler, Esq.
          HEPLERBROOM LLC
          211 North Broadway
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 241-6160
          E-mail: cinsler@heplerbroom.com

Defendants-Appellees Antonio R. Alvarez, Emmanuel Hernandez,
Clayton Daley, Jr., James B. Williams, Georganne Proctor and Randy
H. Zwirn are represented by:

          James H.R. Windels, Esq.
          DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP
          450 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 450-4978
          E-mail: james.windels@davispolk.com

Defendant-Appellee Steven Tesoriere is represented by:

          Richard Rosen, Esq.
          PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP
          1285 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 373-3000
          E-mail: rrosen@paulweiss.com

Defendant-Appellee Peter Blackmore is represented by:

          Gregory Peter Boden, Esq.
          WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
          350 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 443-5411
          E-mail: gregory.boden@wilmerhale.com

Defendants-Appellees Jeremy Avenier and Martin Truong are
represented by:

          Norman J. Blears, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          1001 Page Mill Road, Building 1
          Palo Alto, CA 94304
          Telephone: (650) 565-7000
          E-mail: nblears@sidley.com

Defendants-Appellees BTG Pactual US Capital LLC, Barclays Capital
Inc., Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Deutsche Bank Securities Inc.,
Goldman, Sachs & Co. LLC, J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, MCS Capital
Markets, LLC, Macquarie Capital (USA) Inc., Merrill Lynch, Pierce,
Fenner & Smith Incorporated, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Itau BBA USA
Securities, Inc., SMBC Nikko Securities America, Inc., SG Americas
Securities, LLC, Kotak Mahindra, Inc., Credit Agricole CIB, Credit
Suisse Group AG, Societe Generale and Santander Bank, N.A., are
represented by:

          Adam Selim Hakki, Esq.
          SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP
          599 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 848-4924
          E-mail: ahakki@shearman.com

Defendant-Appellee Alejandro Hernandez is represented by:

          Daniel H. Bookin, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          2 Embarcadero Center
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 984-8786
          E-mail: dbookin@omm.com

Defendant-Appellee KPMG LLP is represented by:

          Charles William McIntyre, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS LLP
          2001 K Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 857-1742
          E-mail: cmcintyre@mcguirewoods.com

Defendants-Appellees Board of Directors of SunEdison, Inc.,
SunEdison, Inc., Investment Committee and Matthew Herzberg are
represented by:

          Glenn E. Davis, Esq.
          HEPLERBROOM LLC
          211 North Broadway
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 241-6160
          E-mail: gdavis@heplerbroom.com

Defendant-Appellee Terraform Global, Inc., is represented by:

          Jessica L. Lewis, Esq.
          WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
          60 State Street
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: (617) 526-6000
          E-mail: jessica.lewis@wilmerhale.com

Defendants-Appellees TerraForm Power, Inc.

          Howard Morris Shapiro, Esq.
          WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
          1875 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 663-6606
          E-mail: howard.shapiro@wilmerhale.com

Defendants-Appellees Phelps Morris, Matthew Martin and James Welsh
are represented by:

          Mark B. Blocker, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          1 South Dearborn Street
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 853-7000
          E-mail: mblocker@sidley.com


MDL 2804: Brand vs Purdue Pharma et al. Consolidated in N.D. Ohio
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, Kimberly Brand, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Purdue Pharma L.P., Purdue
Pharma Inc.; Cephalon Inc.; Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.;
Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.; Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc.;
Johnson & Johnson; Noramco Inc.; Ortho-McNeil-Janssen
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., now known as Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc.;
Janssen Pharmaceutical Inc., now known as Janssen Pharmaceuticals
Inc.; Endo Health Solutions Inc.; Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc.;
Allergan PLC, formerly known as: Actavis PLS; Watson
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., now known as Actavis Inc.; Watson
Laboratories Inc.; Actavis Pharma, Inc., formerly known as: Watson
Pharma, Inc.; Actavis LLC; Mallinckrodt PLC; Mallinckrodt LLC;
McKesson Corporation; Cardinal Health Inc.; merisourceBergen Drug
Corporation; and Purdue Frederick Company, Inc., the Defendants,
Case No. 4:18-cv-00653, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Ohio (Cleveland) on Sept. 6, 2018. The
Northern District of Ohio Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:18-op-46047-DAP to the proceeding.

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

Plaintiffs in over 40 actions or potential tag-along actions
support centralization. Plaintiffs in 15 actions or potential
tag-along actions oppose centralization altogether or oppose
transfer of their action.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert L Kinsman, Esq.
          KRAUSE & KINSMAN LLC
          4717 Grand Ave., Suite 250
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 760 2700
          Facsimile: (816) 760 2800
          E-mail: robert@krauseandkinsman.com


MDL 2804: Hopkins v Purdue Pharma et al. Consolidated in N.D. Ohio
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, F. Kirk Hopkins, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Purdue Pharma L.P., Purdue
Pharma Inc.; Cephalon Inc.; Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.;
Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.; Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc.;
Johnson & Johnson; Noramco Inc.; Ortho-McNeil-Janssen
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., now known as Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc.;
Janssen Pharmaceutical Inc., now known as Janssen Pharmaceuticals
Inc.; Endo Health Solutions Inc.; Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc.;
Allergan PLC, formerly known as: Actavis PLS; Watson
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., now known as Actavis Inc.; Watson
Laboratories Inc.; Actavis Pharma, Inc., formerly known as: Watson
Pharma, Inc.; Actavis LLC; Mallinckrodt PLC; Mallinckrodt LLC;
McKesson Corporation; Cardinal Health Inc.; merisourceBergen Drug
Corporation; and Purdue Frederick Company, Inc., the Defendants,
Case No. 2:18-cv-02646, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the District of Arizona to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Ohio (Cleveland) on Sept. 6, 2018. The
Northern District of Ohio Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:18-op-46044-DAP to the proceeding.

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

Responding plaintiffs' positions on centralization vary
considerably. Plaintiffs in over 40 actions or potential tag-along
actions support centralization.  Plaintiffs in 15 actions or
potential tag-along actions oppose centralization altogether or
oppose transfer of their action.

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

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

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


MDL 2804: Konig vs Purdue Pharma et al. Consolidated in N.D. Ohio
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, Michael Konig individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Purdue Pharma L.P., Purdue
Pharma Inc.; Cephalon Inc.; Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.;
Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.; Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc.;
Johnson & Johnson; Noramco Inc.; Ortho-McNeil-Janssen
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., now known as Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc.;
Janssen Pharmaceutical Inc., now known as Janssen Pharmaceuticals
Inc.; Endo Health Solutions Inc.; Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc.;
Allergan PLC, formerly known as: Actavis PLS; Watson
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., now known as Actavis Inc.; Watson
Laboratories Inc.; Actavis Pharma, Inc., formerly known as: Watson
Pharma, Inc.; Actavis LLC; Mallinckrodt PLC; Mallinckrodt LLC;
McKesson Corporation; Cardinal Health Inc.; merisourceBergen Drug
Corporation; and Purdue Frederick Company, Inc., the Defendants,
Case No. 0:18-cv-61960, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for Southern District of Florida to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Ohio (Cleveland) on Sept. 6, 2018.
The Northern District of Ohio Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:18-op-46041-DAP to the proceeding.

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

Plaintiffs in over 40 actions or potential tag-along actions
support centralization. Plaintiffs in 15 actions or potential
tag-along actions oppose centralization altogether or oppose
transfer of their action.

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

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Kimberly A. Slaven, Esq.
          Jordan Alexander Shaw, Esq.
          ZEBERSKY PAYNE LLP.
          110 SE 6 Street, Suite 2150
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 595 6063
          Facsimile: (954) 595 6063
          E-mail: kslaven@zpllp.com
                  jshaw@zpllp.com


MDL 2804: Medina vs Purdue Pharma et al. Consolidated in N.D. Ohio
------------------------------------------------------------------
ELI MEDINA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Purdue Pharma L.P., Purdue Pharma Inc.;
Cephalon Inc.; Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.; Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.; Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Johnson &
Johnson; Noramco Inc.; Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
now known as Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Janssen Pharmaceutical
Inc., now known as Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Endo Health
Solutions Inc.; Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Allergan PLC, formerly
known as: Actavis PLS; Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., now known as
Actavis Inc.; Watson Laboratories Inc.; Actavis Pharma, Inc.,
formerly known as: Watson Pharma, Inc.; Actavis LLC; Mallinckrodt
PLC; Mallinckrodt LLC; McKesson Corporation; Cardinal Health Inc.;
merisourceBergen Drug Corporation; and Purdue Frederick Company,
Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00369, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (Cleveland) on
Sept. 6, 2018. The Northern District of Ohio Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 1:18-op-46048-DAP to the proceeding.

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

Responding plaintiffs' positions on centralization vary
considerably. Plaintiffs in over 40 actions or potential tag-along
actions support centralization. Plaintiffs in 15 actions or
potential tag-along actions oppose centralization altogether or
oppose transfer of their action. In addition to opposing transfer,
the State of West Virginia suggests that the MDL Panel delay
transferring its case until the Southern District of West Virginia
court decides its motion to remand to state court. Third party
payor plaintiffs in an Eastern District of Pennsylvania potential
tag-along action (Philadelphia Teachers Health and Welfare Fund)
oppose centralization of third party payor actions. Western
District of Washington plaintiff City of Everett opposes
centralization and, alternatively, requests exclusion of its case.
Northern District of Illinois tag-along Plaintiff City of Chicago
asks the Panel to defer transfer of its action until document
discovery is completed.

Presiding Judge in the MDL is Sarah S. Vance, United States
District Judge. The lead case is 1:17-md-02804-DAP.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Steven Wieland, Esq.
          MOONEY WIELAND SMITH & ROSE PLLC
          405 South 8th Street, Suite 295
          Boise, ID 83702
          Telephone: (208) 401 9219
          Facsimile: (208) 401 9218
          E-mail: steven.wieland@mwsrose.com


MDL 2804: Norwood Selectmen Split on Joining Opioid Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Libon, writing for Patch, reports that whatever way the
board of selectmen decides to go when it comes to joining the
national lawsuit against the makers and distributors of opioids,
there's a good chance it will be a 3-2 vote.

The board was scheduled to vote on the lawsuit agreement, but an
apparent 2-2 tie forced the board to table their decision until
they have perfect attendance.  Selectman Paul Bishop was not
present at the Aug. 21 meeting.

If a vote was taken, it would have been selectmen Allan Howard and
Helen Abdallah Donohue voting against joining the lawsuit with
William Plasko and Chairman Thomas Maloney voting in support of
joining the lawsuit.

Mr. Howard said he didn't want to be apart of the class action
lawsuit because of the possibility that the town could get nothing,
despite their efforts.

"Just too many ifs in my opinion," Mr. Howard said.  "What
disturbed me is how many different items they put down that were
negative against the Town of Norwood. It's supposed to be
professionals doing this."

The lawsuit, which many towns have joined, seeks damages that
resulted from the opioid crisis.  The attorneys are working on
contingency, meaning that they only get paid if the lawsuit is
successful or results in a settlement.

"Towns are doing this, states are doing this. I don't want to be
the only one left out of the possible good that may come to the
community," Mr. Plasko said.

"This is one of those things I'd hate to see Walpole get $2 million
and Norwood gets nothing," Mr. Maloney added. [GN]


MDL 2804: Streiter v Purdue Pharma et al. Consolidated in N.D. Ohio
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, NADJA STREITER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Purdue Pharma L.P., Purdue
Pharma Inc.; Cephalon Inc.; Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.;
Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.; Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc.;
Johnson & Johnson; Noramco Inc.; Ortho-McNeil-Janssen
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., now known as Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc.;
Janssen Pharmaceutical Inc., now known as Janssen Pharmaceuticals
Inc.; Endo Health Solutions Inc.; Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc.;
Allergan PLC, formerly known as: Actavis PLS; Watson
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., now known as Actavis Inc.; Watson
Laboratories Inc.; Actavis Pharma, Inc., formerly known as: Watson
Pharma, Inc.; Actavis LLC; Mallinckrodt PLC; Mallinckrodt LLC;
McKesson Corporation; Cardinal Health Inc.; merisourceBergen Drug
Corporation; and Purdue Frederick Company, Inc., the Defendants,
Case No. 3:18-cv-01425, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the District of Connecticut to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Ohio (Cleveland) on Aug. 22, 2018. The
Northern District of Ohio Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:18-op-46045-DAP to the proceeding.

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

Plaintiffs in over 40 actions or potential tag-along actions
support centralization. Plaintiffs in 15 actions or potential
tag-along actions oppose centralization altogether or oppose
transfer of their action. In addition to opposing transfer, the
State of West Virginia suggests that the MDL Panel delay
transferring its case until the Southern District of West Virginia
court decides its motion to remand to state court. Third party
payor plaintiffs in an Eastern District of Pennsylvania potential
tag-along action (Philadelphia Teachers Health and Welfare Fund)
oppose centralization of third partypayor actions. Western District
of Washington plaintiff City of Everett opposes centralization and,
alternatively, requests exclusion of its case. Northern District of
Illinois tag-along Plaintiff City of Chicago asks the Panel to
defer transfer of its action until document discovery is completed.
Presiding Judge in the MDL is Sarah S. Vance, United States
District Judge. The lead case is 1:17-md-02804-DAP.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          Brendan J. O'Rourke, Esq.
          Heather Spaide, Esq.
          ZELDES, NEEDLE &COOPER, PC
          263 Tresser Blvd, 14th Floor
          Stamford, Connecticut 06901
          Telephone: (203) 332 5797
          Facsimile: (203) 333 1489
          E-mail: borourke@znclaw.com
                  hspaide@znclaw.com

               - and -

          William S. Consovoy, Esq.
          Thomas R. McCarthy, Esq.
          Michael H. Park, Esq.
          CONSOVOY MCCARTHY PARK PLLC
          3033 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 700
          Arlington, VA 22201
          Telephone: 703 243 9423
          E-mail: will@consovoymccarthy.com
                  tom@consovoymccarthy.com
                  park@consovoymccarthy.com

               - and -

          Ashley Keller, Esq.
          Travis Lenkner, Esq.
          Seth Meyer, Esq.
          KELLER LENKNER LLC
          150 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2570
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 741 5220
          E-mail: ack@kellerlenkner.com
                  tdl@kellerlenkner.com
                  sam@kellerlenkner.com


MDL 390: Court Opens MDL to Retain Jurisdiction Over Plaisance Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri, Eastern Division, issued a Memorandum and Order granting
Parties' Joint Motion to Stay and Compel Arbitration in the case
captioned KEITH PLAISANCE, Plaintiff, v. AVID LIFE MEDIA, INC., et
al., Defendants. Case No. 4:16-cv-01940-JAR, MDL No. 2669. (E.D.
Mo.).

The Court also grants in part the Plaintiff's Motion for
Reconsideration of its July 18, 2018 Order, for the limited purpose
of compelling arbitration in this case and staying proceedings
pending judgment on the arbitration award or ruling on any motion
to vacate or modify the arbitration award. Accordingly, the Court
modifies its July 18, 2018 order closing the MDL proceedings [MDL
Doc. No. 390] for the limited purpose of retaining jurisdiction
over this case (or any other individual case the Court may identify
in a separate order involving plaintiffs who have properly
opted-out of the class action settlement) pursuant to the other
provisions of this Order. In all other respects, the MDL
proceedings, including all proceedings related to the Class Action
Settlement, remain closed.

The parties will arbitrate this case pursuant to the terms of the
applicable arbitration agreement contained in the Ashley Madison
Terms and Conditions of Use; 2) the arbitration hearing shall take
place in New Orleans, Louisiana on a date to be determined by the
parties and the arbitrator; 3) the parties have consented to the
jurisdiction of this Court to enter judgment on the arbitration
award or to rule on any motion to vacate or modify the arbitration
award; and 4) this case is STAYED pending the arbitration award and
the entry by this Court of judgment on the arbitration award or a
ruling by this Court on any motion to vacate or modify the
arbitration award.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 30, 2018 Memorandum
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y975vxz5 from
Leagle.com.

Keith Plaisance, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher Hicks
Carbine , Martzell & Bickford,Lawrence J. Centola, III, MARTZELL
AND BICKFORD & Scott R. Bickford , Martzell & Bickford.

Avid Life Media, Inc. & Avid Dating Life, Inc., doing business as
Ashley Madison, Defendants, represented by Richard P. Cassetta --
Richard.Cassetta@bclplaw.com -- BRYAN CAVE LLP & Peter William Bay
-- Peter.Bay@bclplaw.com -- Bryan Cave LLP.


MONSANTO: Agent Orange Class Action Still Faces Challenges
----------------------------------------------------------
Viet Nam News reports that Vietnamese victims of Agent Orange have
once again had their hopes for justice rekindled. But despite the
recent landmark ruling against Monsanto in a San Francisco court,
major obstacles remain on the path towards justice.

On August 11, the US court ruled that the multinational
agrochemical corporation was liable for the health issues of a
former groundskeeper, Dewayne Johnson, who claims that Monsato's
weed-killer product (Roundup) contains carcinogens that cause his
cancers.

The company was ordered to pay US$289 million as compensation for
past and future economic losses and punitive damages to the
American citizen, in a closely watched case that bears many
similarities to the legal battle waged on behalf of Vietnamese
victims.

The US chemical group Monsanto has long been associated with the
Agent Orange devastation in Viet Nam.

It was one of the main suppliers of more than 80 million litres of
herbicides which contain Agent Orange that US troops sprayed over
southern Viet Nam in the period from 1961-71, to clear out the
dense tracts of tropical jungles that served as the hideouts of the
Vietnamese military forces.

Of the total volume, 44 million litres were Agent Orange,
containing nearly 370 kilograms of dioxin. Studies have showed that
only 80 grams of dioxin in the water supply system of a city of 8
million could kill off the entire population, still, Monsanto and
other chemical groups insist that their products were not harmful
to humans' health.

The Government of Viet Nam estimates that around 4.8 million
Vietnamese were exposed to the toxic substance. Three million
people have grappled with debilitating diseases including various
types of cancers, neural damage and reproductive failures. Birth
deformities and mental impairments continue to haunt even the third
and fourth generation of descendants of those originally exposed to
dioxin, fourty years after the war ended.

Legal fight

Quách Thành Vinh, Chief of Office and Director of Liaison Lawyers
Office for the Hà Nội-based Viet Nam Association for Victims of
Agent Orange/Dioxin (VAVA), said that the court ruling set a
fortuitous legal precedent that will help settle similar cases in
which victims of chemical toxins seek compensation, including the
association's own case.

The association filed its first class-action suit in 2004, which
pinned the blame on a total of 37 US chemical manufacturers –
including Dow Chemical and Monsanto. However, the case was rejected
three times by American courts, which claimed that there was no
legal basis for the plaintiff's claims. The courts said that since
the chemical companies produced these herbicides on request by the
federal Government, they could not be held liable for their
effects.

The court also ruled that at that time, there was little concrete
evidence establishing a causal relation between the herbicide Agent
Orange and the health issues of the victims.

Fortunately, recent scientific achievements have made it much
easier to identify whether the illnesses were caused by the
dioxin.

In the US, the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of
Sciences has identified 13 diseases related to Agent Orange
occurring in American veterans after their service in Viet Nam.
Vietnamese-based researchers established a list of 17 diseases
caused by exposure to dioxin, signed by Minister of Health Nguyễn
Thị Kim Tiến in 2008.

In addition, as their immune systems were debilitated by the toxin,
the Vietnamese victims also easily fell ill to a siege of other
diseases that a healthy person could easily overcome.

The association is gearing up for the next legal endeavours on
behalf of nearly 3 million Vietnamese victims.

But numerous American lawyers sympathetic to the cause and
persistent in their pursuit of justice have urged Vietnamese
plaintiffs to wait for a second lawsuit, Vinh from VAVA said.

The enlisting of American lawyers was critical as the case involves
complaints against US-based companies, according to US laws and US
judges will be presiding, according to Vinh.

"Their expertise with the US legal system and their support for us
will certainly help tip the scales in our favour."

Next steps

The association, aside from litigation attempts, is still
tirelessly working to bring justice to the Vietnamese victims by
seeking support from influential politicians, scientists and
progressive-minded people across the world, and lobbying
sympathetic lawmakers in the US to draft bills asking the US
Government to accept responsibility for the devastation in Viet Nam
as well as to take part in clean-up efforts and help the victims.

Merle Ratner, the American co-ordinator of the US-based Viet Nam
Agent Orange Relief & Responsibility Campaign, agreed that the
ruling given by the US court holds "historical significance" and
important implications.

Frequently hailed by Vietnamese media as a faithful friend of the
Vietnamese people, Ratner has been a constant presence in the
years-long legal battles against chemical manufacturers.

However, the fight against Monsanto still has a long way to go, at
least until the final verdict of the appellate court is handed
down, as Monsanto has already announced its intention to appeal the
decision, she said in an interview.

In 2009, an international court opened in France to deal with the
AO matter and Vietnamese victims. However, both the US Government
and sued companies refused to appear.

On April 18, 2017, the Monsanto Tribunal in The Hague, the
Netherlands, after six months of investigation and two days of
testimony, decided that Monsanto was guilty of ecocide, causing
long-term consequences on the ecosystem of various nations,
including Viet Nam.

But Monsanto rejected the ruling.

The multinational giant, no stranger to controversy and legal
suits, has always denied that it is to blame for the consequences
of Agent Orange, saying that the weapon "was only produced for, and
used by, the government," and pointing out that it was just one of
nine manufacturers of the same toxin supplied to the army during
the period of 1965-69.

Despite claiming blamelessness, the chemical giant still agreed to
settle out of court to compensate American war veterans who filed a
class-action suit against the company with $180 million. Meanwhile,
Vietnamese suffering continues to be disregarded.

The Vietnamese Government each year spends more than VNĐ10
trillion ($431.1 million) to provide monthly allowance and cover
health care and physical rehabilitation expenses for victims of
Agent Orange.

Currently, the US has organised several clean-up operations at some
of their former military bases such as the Đà Nẵng airport or
Biên Hoà airport, provide humanitarian assistance for people with
disabilities in Viet Nam, including victims of Agent Orange, but
these efforts still cannot fully make up for the devastation, pain
and loss that Agent Orange causes in Viet Nam.

The Government of Viet Nam, in an official response, said it
welcomed the $289 million verdict against Monsanto and asked that
Monsanto, along with other suppliers of herbicides for the US Army
during the bloody war in Viet Nam, offer proper redress for the
Vietnamese victims.

"No matter how difficult and prolonged this case might be, we won't
ever give up on it, for the sake of the millions of Vietnamese
victims," said Vinh of the Agent Orange Victims' Association said.
[GN]


MONTGOMERY, NY: Appeals Hill Suit Class Cert. Ruling to 2nd Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants County of Montgomery, Michael Amato and Michael Franko
filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled as Hill,
et al. v. County of Montgomery, et al., Case No. 14-cv-933, U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of New York (Syracuse).

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Sept. 6, 2018, the Hon.
Judge Brenda K. Sannes granted the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification as to a liability class, and certified these Primary
Class and Sub-Classes:

    * Primary Class:

      "all detainees who have been or will be placed into the
      custody of the Montgomery County Jail and were detained for
      at least two consecutive weeks. The class period commences
      on July 24, 2011, and extends to the date on which
      Montgomery County is enjoined from, or otherwise ceases,
      enforcing its policy, practice and custom of refusing to
      provide an appropriate amount of nutritional sustenance to
      all detainees admitted to the Montgomery County Jail.
      Specifically excluded from the class are Defendant and any
      and all of its respective affiliates, legal
      representatives, heirs, successors, employees or assignees.

    * Pre-Trial Detainee Sub-Class:

      "all members of the Primary Class but who were housed as a
      Pre-Trial Detainee, in that they had not yet been convicted
      of their charges"; and

    * Post-Trial Detainee Sub-Class:

      "all members of the Primary Class, but who were housed as a
      Post-Trial Detainee, in that they had been convicted of
      their charges, either by a plea or jury trial";

The appellate case is captioned as Hill, et al. v. County of
Montgomery, et al., Case No. 18-2605, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Defendants-Petitioners County of Montgomery, Michael Amato and
Michael Franko are represented by:

          Jonathan M. Bernstein, Esq.
          GOLDBERG SEGALLA LLP
          80 Southwoods Boulevard
          Albany, NY 12211
          Telephone: (518) 463-5400
          E-mail: jbernstein@goldbergsegalla.com

Plaintiffs-Respondents Perry Hill and James Rogers, both
individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated,
are represented by:

          Elmer Robert Keach, III, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ELMER ROBERT KEACH, III
          1 Pine West Plaza
          Albany, NY 12205
          Telephone: (518) 434-1718
          E-mail: bobkeach@keachlawfirm.com


MOORE LANDSCAPES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Valerio et al. Claim
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, SAMUEL VALERIO, JOSE PAZ, RUBEN GARCIA, BARDOMIANO PAZ,
EVARISTO VALERIO, LUIS MONDRAGON, SERGIO APARICIO, RAUL BERMUDEZ,
RODRIGO VALERIO, JAVIER MORA, MARCOS HUERTA, JAIME MORA, the
Plaintiffs, vs MOORE LANDSCAPES, LLC, the Defendant, Case No.
2018L009656 (Ill., Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., Sept. 6, 2018), alleges
that Defendant failed to pay Plaintiffs prevailing wage for
laborers, in violation of Defendant's Contract with the Chicago
Park District and other Public Bodies, pursuant to the Illinois
Prevailing Wage Act.

According to the complaint, Mr. Jose Paz was entitled to be paid a
prevailing wage, pursuant to the contracts, and Statute of $ S41.20
per hour. The Defendant violated the Illinois Prevailing Wage Act,
and the contract by refusing to pay Plaintiff the prevailing wages,
and paying him $18.00 per hour. The Plaintiff has been affected by
Defendant's practices, specifically their failure to properly pay
prevailing wages. Pursuant to 820 ILCS 130/11 Plaintiff is entitled
to recover unpaid wages for five years prior to the filing of this
suit, plus punitive damages in the amount of 2% per month of the
amount of underpayments.[BN]

Moore provides exterior and interior landscape maintenance,
construction, holiday decor, snow removal, and interior
plantscapes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert Habib, Esq.
          77 W. Washington Street Suite 1506
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 201 1421


MUNICIPIO DE SAN JUAN: Certification of Law Enforcers Class Sought
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled MINERVA SANCHEZ ROSA, MOISES DIAZ DIAZ, AND
EDGARDO ALICEA, and their conjugal partnerships, Individually, and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, vs.
MUNICIPIO DE SAN JUAN, CARMEN YULIN CRUZ, in her official capacity,
JOSE CALDERO, in his official capacity, the Defendants, Case No.
3:18-cv-01558-FAB (D.P.R.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an
order conditionally certifying a collective action and facilitate
notice to:

     "all law enforcement officers employed by Defendant Municipio
de San Juan as hourly paid, non-exempt, law enforcement officers,
or other similarly titled positions at any time during the relevant
statute of limitations period."

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Jane Becker Whitaker, Esq.
          BECKER & VISSEPO, PSC
          San Juan, Puerto Rico 00902-3914
          Telephone: (787) 585 3824
          E-mail: janebeckerwhitaker@gmail.com

               - and -

          Jean Paul Vissepo Garriga, Esq.
          VISSEPO LAW
          E-mail: jp@vissepolaw.com

               - and -

          J. Barton Goplerud, Esq.
          Brandon M. Bohlman, Esq.
          SHINDLER, ANDERSON, GOPLERUD & WEESE, P.C.
          5015 Grand Ridge Drive, Suite 100
          West Des Moines, IO 50265-5749
          Telephone: (515) 223 4567
          Facsimile: (515) 223 8887
          E-mail: goplerud@sagwlaw.com
                  bohlman@sagwlaw.com


NETFLIX INC: Suit by City of Creve Coeur Moved to E.D. Missouri
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled City of Creve Coeur, Missouri, the
on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Netflix, Inc. and Hulu LLC, the Defendants, Case No.
18SL-CC02819, was removed from the Circuit Court, St. Louis County,
Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri (St. Louis) on Sept. 6, 2018. The Missouri Eastern
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:18-cv-01495-SNLJ to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Stephen N.
Limbaugh, Jr. The suit alleges violations related to
cable/satellite TV services.

Netflix, Inc. is an American over-the-top media services provider,
headquartered in Los Gatos, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carl J. Lumley, Esq.
          CURTIS AND HEINZ, P.C.
          130 S. Bemiston Ave., Suite 200
          St. Louis, MO 63105-1951
          Telephone: (314) 725 8788
          Facsimile: (314) 725 8789
          E-mail: clumley@lawfirmemail.com

               - and -

          Elkin L. Kistner, Esq.
          BICK AND KISTNER, PC
          101 S. Hanley Road, Suite 1280
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 571 6823
          Facsimile: (314) 727 9071
          E-mail: elkinkis@bick-kistner.com

               - and -

          John W. Hoffman, Esq.
          KOREIN TILLERY LLC
          505 N. Seventh Street
          One U.S. Bank Plaza, Suite 3600
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241 4844
          Facsimile: (314) 588 7036

               - and -

          John F. Mulligan , Jr.
          101 S. Hanley, Suite 1280
          Clayton, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 725 1135
          Facsimile: (314) 727 9071
          E-mail: jfmulliganjr@aol.com

               - and -

          Joseph Holland Neill, Esq.
          BICK AND KISTNER, PC
          101 S. Hanley Road, Suite 1280
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 727 7765
          Facsimile: (314) 727 9071
          E-mail: joey@bick-kistner.com

Attorneys for Netflix, Inc.:

          Robert P. Berry, Esq.
          BERRY AND SILBERBERG PC
          16150 Main Circle Drive, Suite 120
          St. Louis, MO 63017
          Telephone: (314) 480 5881
          Facsimile: (314) 480 5884
          E-mail: rberry@berrysilberberg.com

               - and -

          David C. Baxter, Esq.
          BERRY AND SILBERBERG PC
          16150 Main Circle Drive, Suite 120
          St. Louis, MO 63017
          Telephone: (314) 480 5881
          Facsimile: (314) 480 5884
          E-mail: dbaxter@berrysilberberg.com


NFL: Hernandez Daughter's Quest for Justice Continues
-----------------------------------------------------
Boston Sports Extra reports that on October 16, 2017 Shayanna
Jenkins Hernandez filed a loss of parental consortium lawsuit in
Massachusetts Superior Court against three NFL entities and helmet
maker Riddell on behalf of her daughter, Avielle regarding Aaron
Hernandez's diagnosis of CTE. Two potentially important recent
court filings the case back into focus.

These photos probably represent the last time young Avielle saw her
father. They were taken near the conclusion of a double murder
trial in which Aaron Hernandez was found not guilty in the murders
of Safiro Furtado and Daniel de Abreu, though he remained in prison
for his 2015 conviction in the death of Odin Lloyd. Five days
later, in the early morning hours of April 19, 2017, he committed
suicide by hanging himself in his prison cell.

Hernandez's life was a study in contradictions.  He was a star
tight end for the NFL's longest running dynasty, New England
Patriots, and by all accounts was a loving father.  But Hernandez
had a long history of emotionally-charged erratic behavior stemming
back to his college football days and possibly even high school.
Eventually this led to credible charges of homicide.  Because of a
Massachusetts law based on a legal principle known as "abatement ab
initio". This requires a judge to vacate convictions of a person
whose appeal had not been heard at the time of his death his
conviction for the death of Odin Lloyd was vacated.

The life and death of Aaron Hernandez prompted much public
discussion as to how an intelligent and talented young man who "had
it all," could so callously disregard human life and in doing so,
destroy his own future.  A likely answer to the question came on
September 21, 2017 when the findings of Boston University CTE
researcher Ann McKee were announced by Jose Baez, one of the
attorneys representing Hernandez.  Hernandez suffered from "the
most severe case they had ever seen in someone of Aaron's age,"
Baez told the press.  There are four levels of classification for
CTE, with level four representing the most severe stage.  Hernandez
pathology was of level four severity.  McKee likened the damage to
Hernandez's brain to that of players well into their 60s, but
Hernandez was only 27.

Avielle (referred to in some court filings as "AH") seeks to hold
the NFL and helmet maker Riddell responsible for the brain damage
that her father sustained, ultimately ended his life and robbed her
of a relationship with him.  Unlike many other brain injury related
claims against the NFL, however, Avielle doesn't blame the Patriots
team or anyone in the league for that matter, for their treatment
of her father when he played, because CTE is a progressive disease
that takes years to develop.  Hernandez was affected with CTE long
before he was drafted.  Aaron started playing tackle football when
he was only five years old (ironically Avielle's current age).
Early symptoms of CTE began to manifest while he was in high
school.  By the time he entered the NFL he had already received
twenty years of football exposure, and this is what she seeks to
hold the NFL accountable for.  Because of the NFL's intentional
deceptive representations to the public regarding football induced
brain injury, that persisted through the entirety of her father's
life, Aaron's parents unknowingly placed him in danger at a tender
age based on the NFL's misrepresentations, which ultimately cost
Aaron his life and robbed a child of her father and his love.

Shortly after the lawsuit was filed in Massachusetts Superior
Court, the NFL sought to have the case removed to federal court
based on arguments of Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA) § 301
preemption.  In response, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation moved the case to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(EDPA) which presides over the NFL's massive concussion settlement
as well as opt-out cases from that settlement.

Once the case landed in EDPA, the NFL sought to have the case
dismissed on preemption grounds.

Two questions are utilized by the courts to make this
determination.

In it, he pointed out the obvious -- that only state law causes of
action were pled by the plaintiff.  "Defendants' entire position
rests on impermissibly contorting Plaintiff's allegations and then
applying them to a collective bargaining agreement ("CBA")
extrinsic to the removal record in an attempt to force square pegs
into the round hole of § 301 preemption. This is precisely the
type of jurisdictional manipulation that the Supreme Court has
admonished.

His argument recaps decades of deception and misrepresentation to
the public, which the plaintiff believes led to her father's brain
damage and ultimately his death. This excerpt references the
defendants' financing of sham "science" that was then distributed
through legitimate medical journals to confound the public and
protect their profits.


Many other examples were included in the response, derived from the
eighty-six-page lawsuit, the bulk of which described in detail the
defendants' cover-ups and disinformation campaign.

He also noted that of the four defendants, only one, the NFL
Management Counsel is a party to collective bargaining, and
certainly the five-year-old plaintiff has never been.

Though court rulings have been uneven as to their interpretation of
§ 301, and the NFL has had much success with preemption based on
this statute, the facts clearly do not favor the NFL in this
instance.

Another motion to dismiss filed by the NFL may, however, prove to
be more challenging.  In this motion the NFL seeks dismissal of the
lawsuit on grounds that Aaron Hernandez, and by extension, Avielle
is a class member to the settlement and as such has no standing to
sue the league.  The settlement definition of a class member was
included in the filing.

The lawsuit asserts that Hernandez is not a class member due to the
fact he never officially retired.  When Hernandez was arrested for
the murder of Odin Lloyd, the Patriots voided his contract and
placed him on waivers.  He went unclaimed, and after he cleared
waivers, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell announced that, while
charges against Hernandez were pending, the NFL would not approve
any contract signed by Hernandez until he held a hearing to
determine whether Hernandez should face suspension or other action
under the league's Personal Conduct Policy.  This was how Aaron
Hernandez's career ended. Had the ruling in which he was convicted
of Odin Lloyd's murder been overturned on appeal, it is likely that
Hernandez would have sought employment with an NFL team.

The NFL points out in their brief, however, that in order to be
exempted from the "retired NFL player" status as defined in the
settlement agreement, a player must actively be seeking work with a
team, which Hernandez was unable to do because of his
incarceration.

It appears that Hernandez's best defense against this could be
regarding notice to the class.

It seems reasonable that Hernandez could be located, since his
incarceration at Souza-Baranowski Correctional Center was widely
known.  If no individual notice was issued to him or members of his
family, due to restrictions in accessing internet and television,
it could possibly be argued that Avielle's claim should be
exempted.

If notice was issued and the definition of class member was so
vague as not to indicate that he would automatically be included in
the class, this could be a potential argument.

Another argument might stem from the fact that Avielle's claim is
not similarly sufficient to other claims made against the NFL
because unlike settlement claims arising from the retired players'
NFL careers, her claim is based not on the fact that he played NFL
football, but that he played youth football due to the NFL's
deceptive and misleading information that was applied at the youth
level, which the NFL also funded.

Advocacy for Fairness in Sports did not receive an immediate
response from Attorney Brad Sohn, when comment was requested,
although it's completely reasonable that an attorney would not wish
to prematurely reveal his litigation strategy, therefore the above
arguments are this writer's speculation.

If the court rules that Hernandez was a class member, and Avielle
by default, and that he did receive proper notice (or fail to find
exemption through some other avenue), then she would be "entitled"
to file a claim, but according to settlement terms, the claim would
be quickly denied because the settlement only compensates Death
with CTE if it occurred between January 1, 2006 and July 7, 2014.
Thus far in the settlement, no exceptions to this rule have been
granted, including the claim filed by the family of Mike Webster,
the first NFL player diagnosed with CTE after his death in 2002,
and Dr. Bennet Omalu's eye-opening publication of his findings in
2005.

It's important to remember as this case unfolds that at the center
of it is an innocent child.

While if Hernandez is guilty of the crimes he is accused of, they
can't be justified by CTE, but they can be better understood in
this context.

A Sports Illustrated longform article in which Aaron's brother
Jonathan shares his recollections, he noted that he began noticing
behavioral changes in Aaron after the death of their father in
2006.  Perhaps he wasn't able to bounce back since he'd already
sustained twelve years of football damage to his brain.  One of the
primary symptoms of CTE is emotional volatility.

"He had a very big heart. That's what's craziest about all this.
There is a disconnect. He would open up his arms to anyone,"
Jonathan Hernandez recalled through the SI article, "I don't know.
I just know he cared about people." Now, the person that Aaron
Hernandez cared most about, his daughter, will grow up with only
phantom memories of her father, along with all the news bits that
profiled his fall from grace. The child deserves better. [GN]


ONE KEY: Class Action Law Firm Challenges CFMMEU Deal
-----------------------------------------------------
David Marin-Guzman, writing for Australian Financial Review,
reports that a class action law firm has intervened against the
Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union over
concerns the mining union's settlement of $3.5 million in alleged
underpayments robs its clients of potential claims.

ACT firm Adero Law was seeking to be heard in the Federal Court
over a CFMMEU deal with global labour hire firm Fircroft to not
overturn its mining subsidiary's invalid enterprise agreement on
grounds it could be contrary to non-union members' interests.

One Key Workforce had been facing collapse due to a CFMMEU court
win last year that held the company's EA was invalid, potentially
throwing 1100 casuals onto the black coal industry award. The award
bans casuals and would entitle the employees to years of annual and
sick leave pay.

However, the CFMMEU has now agreed not to get final orders quashing
One Key's agreement in return for Fircroft paying its members a
confidential settlement and negotiating a new "industry leading"
agreement with the union.

Adero Law, which this year launched class actions against BHP
Billiton and labour hire company Chandler McLeod over their
engagement of casuals, is understood to represent about 45 former
One Key workers who are not members of the CFMMEU.

The firm is understood to have raised concerns that One Key and the
CFMMEU did not consult non-union members over the deal and that the
settlement could be contrary to their clients' interests.

A full bench of the Federal Court was set to hear the parties'
objections on Aug. 28 after judges raised their own concerns that
the CFMMEU-One Key settlement may breach criminal anti-phoenixing
laws designed to prevent companies from blocking workers recovering
their entitlements.

Law firm 'riding our back': CFMMEU
However, CFMMEU president Tony Maher insisted the union's position
"did nothing to cut across the rights of others" and that non-union
workers could still apply to quash the agreement and pursue
underpayments.

He said the union had advertised across work sites for One Key
workers to join the union if they wanted to be part of its
litigation.

"If you don't get on the train, you don't get the benefit," he told
The Australian Financial Review. "They [Adero] should bring their
own case . . . they're riding on our back, a bit like a jockey."

Part of the deal involved the CFMMEU negotiating an agreement with
FES Coal, a new labour hire entity that Fircroft set up in June.

The "greenfields" agreement, which does not require an employee
vote and was approved by the Fair Work Commission in August,
includes casual conversion clauses, time limits on fixed-term
employment, arbitration access, and annual wage rises of 2.5 per
cent a year.

In documents submitted to the commission, Mr Maher said the
agreement was "part of a broader agreement between the parties
aimed at establishing a co-operative and mutually beneficial
relationship and ending extensive litigation that has involved both
parties".

"The agreement attempts to provide increased job security for
labour hire employees in the coal mining industry while maintaining
the commercial viability of the employer."

The agreement is a victory for the CFMMEU, which has targeted One
Key since it rose from obscurity to become one of the major
suppliers of labour in the coal industry in just a few years.

The union claimed the company had done so by securing "rock bottom"
enterprise agreements that avoided collective bargaining and gave
it a huge tendering advantage over other labour hire operators that
provided higher wages.

Mr Maher told the Financial Review that the deal, together with a
recent ruling that "regular" casuals are entitled to leave
entitlements, had put an "end to the permanent casual" in the
mining industry. [GN]


OPCOM INC: Accused by DiCarlo Suit of Violating Disabilities Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Opcom, Inc.  The case
is titled as David DiCarlo, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Opcom, Inc., doing business as: Steve Player,
Case No. 1:18-cv-08294 (S.D.N.Y., September 12, 2018).

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

Headquartered in New Taipei City, Taiwan, Opcom, Inc., is a global
digital imaging and lighting solution innovator.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PALM BEACH, CA: Nov. 13 Hearing Set in Kosberg-Scharf Case
----------------------------------------------------------
William Kelly, writing for Palm Beach Daily News, reports that with
two lawsuits resolved and a $22.6 million loan nearly spent, Palm
Beach is moving forward and will soon issue bonds to finance a bulk
of the cost of burying all overhead utility lines on the island.

Earlier in August, the Town Council unanimously approved up to $60
million in bonds to be issued for 30 years. The town can expect to
"lock in" an interest rate of around 3.8 percent in mid-September,
and the money will be available in early October, said Jay Glover,
managing director with PFM Financial Advisors, a town consultant.

By waiting longer, the town would have risked having to borrow at a
higher rate, increasing the cost of the debt, he said.

"Locking this in today . . . really takes a lot of risk off the
table," Mr. Glover said.

The plan is to use special assessments of private property owners
to pay the bond debt. The town began collecting the assessments on
tax bills last November. Property owners have been allowed to
prepay their assessments in full to avoid paying interest costs.

Construction began last year on the first of eight phases to bury
all overhead power, cable television and phone lines on the island.
The project is scheduled to be completed in 2026. Officials have
estimated the construction cost at around $100 million.

The town is using a variety of means to cover the cost. It has
relied on $22.6 million in short term, low-interest bank loans,
known as "commercial paper," to finance the early stages. But the
$22.6 million is almost entirely spent, and more money will soon be
needed to move forward, according to Finance Director Jane Le
Clainche.

The council also decided to help finance the undergrounding project
using half of the town's proceeds from the county's 1 cent sales
surtax, which amounts to an estimated $550,000 a year over a period
of 10 years, beginning last year.

Mr. Glover said Palm Beach can expect to do a separate bond issue
of about $10 million to $15 million in about three years to
continue financing the project. IRS rules require the bond money to
be spent within three years of being issued, so the amount of bonds
issued cannot far exceed the pace of construction.

"That is what constrains us to the $60 million," Mr. Glover said.

Voters narrowly approved a $90 million bond issue to finance the
project in a March 2016 referendum. But the council postponed
issuing the bonds until after a resident's lawsuit challenging the
referendum could be resolved.

In March, Florida's 4th District Court of Appeal in West Palm Beach
upheld a lower court's dismissal of South End resident Arthur
Goldmacher's lawsuit. He alleged in the suit that the referendum
ballot language was misleading because it didn't specify that
property taxes would be used to pay for the project only if it
wasn't covered by the special assessments.

The town's attorney, Robert Wilkins, countered that the ballot
language did not say or imply that property taxes would be used as
the primary method of paying the bonds.

Palm Beach County Circuit Judge Cymonie Rowe found that the
referendum ballot language was neither misleading nor inconsistent
and didn't violate any town laws. Rowe said the town could issue
the bonds.

Two other lawsuits were filed challenging financing plans for the
undergrounding project.

Only one is still active. But Rick Miller, a lawyer with Locke
Lord, Palm Beach's bond counsel, said on Aug. 24 that the remaining
suit does not challenge the bond issue but rather the town's
ability to assess property owners to pay for the project.

In 2017 in Palm Beach County Circuit Court, North End resident
Michael Scharf and South End resident Carol Kosberg filed a
class-action suit alleging the assessments are invalid because
officials relied on a consultant's "arbitrary assessment
methodology" to determine the benefits of the undergrounding on
individual properties.

The town has said it's using assessment methodology that has been
upheld by the courts in other cases.

The Kosberg-Scharf case is scheduled for a Nov. 13 hearing so a
judge can decide whether to certify it as a class-action suit.

If the case goes to trial and if the judge were to find that the
assessment methodology used by the town was arbitrary, the town
would have an opportunity to use a different assessment methodology
for the project, Miller said.

Moreover, the bonds are ultimately supported by the "full faith and
credit of the town," meaning the full taxing power of the town,
Miller said. So if assessments aren't used to repay the bonds,
property taxes could be used for that purpose, he said.

The third lawsuit, filed by a Palm Beach Towers property owner,
also did not challenge the bonds or referendum language.

In June, a judge ruled for the town in its legal battle with PBT
Real Estate LLC, which contended that owners of the 273 units at
the Towers should not be assessed to pay for the undergrounding
because their utilities already are buried.

U.S. District Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks, for the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida, granted the town's
motion that he rule on the matter without allowing it to go to
trial. Judge Middlebrooks said the town demonstrated that, when
setting the assessments, that it had considered factors other than
whether a parcel already had undergrounded its utilities.

The Palm Beach Towers' board of directors said it was not involved
with the lawsuit.

As of early June, the town said it spent more than $400,000 in
legal costs defending against the three suits. [GN]


PARKWAY VILLAGE: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Kertis Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
LAKENDRA KERTIS v. PARKWAY VILLAGE, INC., Case No.
4:18-cv-00650-KGB (E.D. Ark., September 11, 2018), is brought on
behalf of the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated under the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act as a
result of the Defendant's alleged failure to pay them overtime
compensation.

Parkway Village, Inc., is a domestic nonprofit corporation, which
operates Parkway Village, an assisted living facility for senior
citizens.  The Facility is located at 14300 Chenal Parkway in
Little Rock, Arkansas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PATENAUDE & FELIX: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled MEGAN VOEKS, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. PATENAUDE & FELIX,
A.P.C., TD BANK USA, N.A., and TARGET CORPORATION, the Defendants,
Case No. 2:18-cv-01393 (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court
for an order certifying classes, appointing Plaintiff as class
representative, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as Class
Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the Court may
deem appropriate. The Plaintiff further asks that the Court stay
this class certification motion until an amended motion for class
certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties relief
from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and requirement
that Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents in support of
this motion.

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.
Plaintiff cites these cases: Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., No.
16-3574, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10839 *9-10 (7th Cir. June 20, 2017).
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).

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          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


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Rosales Seeks to Certify Class
--------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned IRIS ROSALES, the Plaintiff, v. PORTFOLIO
RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00997
(N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:

   a. certifying a class of:

      "all persons with Illinois addresses to whom Portfolio
      Recovery Associates, L.L.C. sent, from February 7, 2017
      through February 7, 2018, a letter containing the following
      statement: "The law limits how long you can be sued on a
      debt. Because of the age of your debt, we will not sue you
      for it and we will not restart the statute of limitations
      on the debt if you make a payment";

   b. appointing herself as Class Representative;

   c. appointing James C. Vlahakis as Class Counsel; and

   d. directing Defendant to identify the total number of class
      members who received the subject collection letter(s) as
      framed by the above proposed class definition.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James Vlahakis, Esq.
          SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
          2500 South Highland Avenue, Suite 200
          Lombard, IL 60148
          Telephone: (630) 581 5456
          E-mail: jvlahakis@sulaimanlaw.com


POWERCOR: Australian Premier Calls for Help for Bushfire Victims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Katrina Lovel, writing for The Standard, reports that Premier
Daniel Andrews has called on Powercor to work with victims of the
St Patrick's Day bushfires to resolve a tangled legal muddle that
is leaving many of them without money to rebuild their lives almost
six months after the blazes devastated the region.

"Given the hardship suffered by many of those affected by the St
Patrick's Day fires, we would encourage Powercor to work with the
community to resolve this matter as quickly as possible," Mr
Andrews said.

Member for Polwarth Richard Riordan, who met with Powercor, called
for the government to act when he raised the plight of farmers and
families who were still reeling after the devastating fires in
parliament.

"It is becoming apparent by the day that immediate government
intervention is required to help steer the progress of recovery,"
he said.

"Recent developments in law have seen the 'class action' legal
option take over at times of disaster."

However, Mr Riordan said that it was causing more problems than it
solved.

"The rush for a legal field day has come at the expense of the
financial, emotional and mental well being of many of the fire
victims," he said.

"The business model of law firms should be a secondary
consideration at these traumatic times.

"We now know farmers that just want to be compensated for loss and
move on with their lives are being prevented by the process."

He said the legal system as it is playing out in Western Victoria
is preventing individual farmers and communities from dealing
directly with power companies who Energy Safe Victoria have already
found to be either responsible or partially responsible for some of
the fires.

"In the aftermath of such devastation it is in everyone's best
interest for issues of liability and responsibility to be resolved
immediately," he said.

"Ten-year legal battles that consume millions, and make millions
for the lawyers involved cannot be allowed to continue, while hard
working farmers and communities are left to wait and bare the
ongoing cost and loss of disasters such as fire."

Jack Kenna is one of those farmers who has been lobbying government
ministers to enforce change after a snapped powerpole on his
property sparked the Garvoc blaze.

"The politicians have got to own up to privatisation not working
and we shouldn't have to go through this pain when it wasn't our
fault," he said.

"We shouldn't have to pay for legal fees. This model is well and
truly broken, they have to fix it.

"By the time both lots of lawyers go at it, the cost and length of
time, at the finish of it all you'd be lucky to have enough left
over for a slab of beer."

He wants power companies to be more accountable.

"I don't dislike anyone enough to want anyone else to go through
what we're going through," he said.

He said he was speaking up for future generations who were unlucky
enough to get burnt out.

Mr Andrews said the network businesses had a duty to minimise
bushfire danger and risks to safety and property.

While Energy Safe Victoria's technical investigators identified the
cause of the fire, the government said legal investigations were
still under way to determine if there had been any breaches of the
Act or regulations. [GN]


PRECISION CONCEPTS: Lewis Seeks to Certify Class
------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JONATHAN LEWIS on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. PRECISION CONCEPTS
GROUP LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00064-LCB-JEP
(M.D.N.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:

   1. conditionally certifying this action and for court-
      authorized notice pursuant to section 216(B) of the Fair
      Labor Standards Act;

   2. approving proposed FLSA notice of this action and the
      consent form;

   3. producing names, last known mailing addresses, last-known
      cell phone numbers, email addresses, work locations, and
      dates of employment of all putative plaintiffs within 15
      days of the Order; and

   4. distributing Notice and Opt-in Form via first class mail,
      email, and text message to all putative plaintiffs of the
      conditionally certified collective, with a reminder mailing
      to be sent 45-days after the initial mailing to all non-
      responding putative plaintiffs.

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Gilda Adriana Hernandez, Esq.
          Emma J. Smiley, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF GILDA A. HERNANDEZ, PLLC
          1020 Southhill Drive, Suite 130
          Cary, NC 27513
          Telephone: (919) 741 8693
          Facsimile: (919) 869 1853
          E-mail: ghernandez@gildahernandezlaw.com
                  esmiley@gildahernandezlaw.com


PRESSLER & PRESSLER: Settlement of Watkins Suit Has Final Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned TREMAINE WATKINS, on behalf of herself and
those similarly situated, v. PRESSLER & PRESSLER, LLP aka Pressler
and Pressler, LLP: JOHN DOE 1-10: and XYZ SETTLEMENT CORPORATION
1-10, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00119-MCA-LDW (D.N.J.), the
Hon. Judge Madeline C. Arleo entered an order:

   1. granting final approval of proposed settlement and
      directing parties to consummate settlement according to
      terms of the Settlement Agreement;

   2. directing Defendant to fund the bank account to be
      established by the Settlement Administrator in the amount
      of $30,590.00 within 14 days from the date this Order is
      entered;

   3. within 21 days of the date of this Order, directing
      Settlement Administrator to mail each Settlement Class
      member their check according to the formula and process set
      forth in the Settlement Agreement;

   4. directing that funds from uncashed checks shall be paid as
      a cy pres award to the Civil Justice Clinic at Rutgers
      School of Law;

   5. directing Defendant to pay $3,000.00 to Tremaine Watkins
      within seven days of the date of this Order; and

   6. directing Defendant to pay Class Counsel's fees and costs
      in the amount of $65,000, which payment includes costs,
      time already spent and time to be spent attending hearings,
      and the monitoring of the settlement.


PROVIDENCE COMMUNITY: Brinson Appeals Ruling to Eleventh Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Christina Brinson filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit entitled Christina Brinson v. Providence Community
Corrections, Case No. 2:15-cv-00099-LGW-RSB, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Georgia.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Christina
Brinson pled guilty in Georgia's Wayne County State Court to
several misdemeanor offenses.  The State Court imposed fines on
Brinson and sentenced her to four one-year terms of confinement,
but the court allowed her to serve the sentences on probation.  The
Wayne County State Court, along with Wayne County itself,
contracted with Defendant Providence for the private provision of
probation services.  So the State Court in Brinson's case referred
Ms. Brinson to Providence for probation.

Ms. Brinson filed suit in federal court, attacking Georgia's
private-probation system and seeking relief on behalf of a class of
individuals, who have paid probation-related fees to Providence in
Georgia.  In Count I of her complaint, she seeks an order declaring
the statute authorizing Georgia's private-probation system,
unconstitutional on a number of grounds under the U.S. and Georgia
Constitutions.  Count I also seeks a declaration that the Services
Agreement is void for not having been properly approved or
re-approved by Wayne County and the Wayne County State Court.  In
Count II, Ms. Brinson seeks damages under the Georgia-law theory of
"money had and received" based on the fees she paid pursuant to the
allegedly void Services Agreement.

The appellate case is captioned as Christina Brinson v. Providence
Community Corrections, Case No. 18-13699, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that the
Appellee's Certificate of Interested Persons is due on or before
September 28, 2018, as to Appellee Providence Community
Corrections.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant CHRISTINA BRINSON, and all other persons
similarly situated, is represented by:

          John C. Bell, Jr., Esq.
          BELL & BRIGHAM
          457 Greene St.
          PO Box 1547
          Augusta, GA 30903-1547
          Telephone: (706) 722-2014
          E-mail: john@bellbrigham.com

               - and -

          Jason Randall Clark, Esq.
          JASON CLARK, PC
          2225 Gloucester St.
          Brunswick, GA 31520
          Telephone: (912) 230-1423
          E-mail: jason@jasonclarkpc.com

               - and -

          John B. Long, Esq.
          TUCKERLONG, PC
          PO Box 2426
          Augusta, GA 30903
          Telephone: (706) 722-0771
          E-mail: jlong@tuckerlong.com

               - and -

          John Ryd Bush Long, Esq.
          JOHN R. B. LONG PC
          411 Telfair St.
          Augusta, GA 30901-2451
          Telephone: (706) 722-7573
          E-mail: jlongattorney@aol.com

Defendant-Appellee PROVIDENCE COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS is represented
by:

          Glenn S. Bass, Esq.
          William Welsh Horlock, Jr., Esq.
          SCRUDDER BASS QUILLIAN HORLOCK TAYLOR & LAZARUS, LLP
          900 Cir 75 Pkwy., Suite 850
          Atlanta, GA 30339-3053
          Telephone: (770) 612-9200
          E-mail: gbass@scrudderbass.com
                  bhorlock@scrudderbass.com

               - and -

          Michael Rosen Baumrind, Esq.
          Tiana S. Mykkeltvedt, Esq.
          BONDURANT MIXSON & ELMORE, LLP
          1201 W Peachtree St. NW, Suite 3900
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 881-4128
          E-mail: baumrind@bmelaw.com
                  mykkeltvedt@bmelaw.com


PURDUE PHARMA: Lopez Brings RICO Class Suit in Utah
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Purdue Pharma LP, et
al.  The case is styled as Michael Lopez, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Purdue Pharma LP, Purdue
Pharma Inc., The Purdue Frederick Company, Insys Therapeutics, Teva
Pharmaceutical Industries, Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Cephalon,
Johnson & Johnson, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Endo Health Solutions,
Endo Pharmaceuticals, Actavis PLC, Actavis, Watson Pharmaceuticals,
Watson Laboratories, McKesson Corporation, Cardinal Health and
Amerisourcebergen, Case No. 2:18-cv-00719-DB (D. Utah, September
12, 2018).

The lawsuit arises from alleged violations of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

Purdue Pharma L.P. manufactures pharmaceutical products.  The
Company researches, develops, produces, and markets prescription
and over-the-counter medicines and healthcare products such as pain
medication, laxatives, first aid products, and dietary
supplements.

The Defendants are pharmaceutical companies that discover, develop,
produce, market and sell drugs and other pharmaceutical
products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard Eric Shelton, Esq.
          DEWSNUP KING OLSEN WOREL HAVAS MORTENSEN
          36 S State St., Suite 2400
          Salt Lake City, UT 84111-0024
          Telephone: (801) 257-1554
          E-mail: rshelton@dkowlaw.com


SETERUS INC: Adams Sues over Debt Collection Practices
------------------------------------------------------
The case, TRACY ADAMS, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. SETERUS, INC., the Defendant,
Case No. 2:18-cv-12731-DPH-EAS (E.D. Mich., Sept. 4, 2018), seeks
to recover damages under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and
the Michigan Regulation of Collection Practices Act.

This class action is filed pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure on behalf of all persons who are members of the
Class to whom Seterus has sent or will send a Michigan Final Letter
during the applicable Class Period.  The Plaintiff, on her own
behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated, seeks redress
from Seterus' systematic use of misleading, deceptive, unfair and
unlawful debt collection practices to collect upon residential
consumer mortgage loans.  Specifically, Seterus allegedly sends
homeowners form letters (Michigan Final Letter) stating that the
borrowers are in default of their mortgages and that their failure
immediately to make a full and complete payment of all arrearages
will result in acceleration of their loan, and commencement of
foreclosure proceedings. In truth, however, it has been Seterus'
policy and practice not to accelerate loans, or to initiate
foreclosure proceedings, in instances where there is an arrearage,
so long as the borrower makes a partial payment sufficient to bring
the arrearage within a set parameter.

According, each of the Michigan Final Letters sent by Seterus
falsely and misleadingly suggests that Seterus will accelerate the
loan or commence foreclosure proceedings absent full payment, in
contradiction to Seterus' actual policy not to accelerate a loan or
commence foreclosure proceedings so long as any payment sufficient
to bring the loan less than 45 days delinquent is made prior to the
expiration date set forth in the Michigan Final Letter. The
Michigan Final Letter sent by Seterus to Plaintiff and others
similarly situated is a false and misleading threat of acceleration
and foreclosure designed to intimidate borrowers into making
payments to Seterus that are beyond their means and beyond what is
necessary to avoid acceleration and save their homes from
foreclosure.

Seterus is a specialty loan servicing company.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class:

          Andrew J. McGuinness, Esq.
          122 S Main St, Suite 118
          P O Box 7711
          Ann Arbor, MI 48107
          Telephone: (734) 274 9374
          E-mail: drewmcg@topclasslaw.com

               - and -

          Scott C. Harris, Esq.
          WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON, LLP
          900 W Morgan St
          Raleigh, NC 27603
          Telephone: (919) 600 5000
          E-mail: scott@wbmllp.com

               - and -

          Edward H. Maginnis, Esq.
          Karl S. Gwaltney, Esq.
          Asa C. Edwards, Esq.
          MAGINNIS LAW PLLC
          4801 Glenwood Ave, Suite 310
          Raleigh, NC 27612
          Telephone: (919) 526 0450
          E-mail: emaginnis@maginnislaw.com
                  kgwaltney@maginnislaw.com
                  aedwards@maginnislaw.com


SHERWIN-WILLIAMS CO: Court Dismisses Toxic Chemical Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin reports that a New Jersey federal court has dismissed
a toxic chemical class action suit, opining that the plaintiffs
were "essentially asking this court to greenlight a Class Area
defined as anywhere there is contamination."

In the Aug. 21 opinion, the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey declined to do so, saying that individual issues of
exposure, causation, and damages preclude class certification.

In the class action complaint, the plaintiffs argued that The
Sherwin-Williams Co. manufactured products a plant in Gibbsboro,
N.J., using hazardous substances that were released into the
surrounding area. [GN]


SLAKEY BROTHERS: Faces Verdina Suit in California State Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Slakey Brothers Inc.
The case is captioned as Robert Verdina, on behalf of himself all
others similarly situated and on behalf of the general public, the
Plaintiff, v. Does 1-100 and Slakey Brothers Inc., the Defendants,
Case No. 34-2018-00239945-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento
Cty., Aug. 31, 2018). The suit alleges employment related
violation.

Slakey Brothers operates as a wholesale distributor of plumbing,
heating and air conditioning equipment, and parts in the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William Turley, Esq.
          The Turley & Mara Law Firm, APLC
          7428 Trade St, San Diego, CA 92121-2410
          Telephone: (619) 234 2833
          Facsimile: (619) 234 4048
          E-mail: bturley@turleylawfirm.com


SMITH & NEPHEW: Bottenus Sues over BIRMINGHAM HIP Resurfacing Cup
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, VALERIE H. Q. BOTTENUS, the Plaintiff, v. SMITH & NEPHEW,
INC. AND SMITH & NEPHEW, PLC, the Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-02764 (D. Md., Sept. 7, 2018), seeks judgment against the
Defendants in an amount in excess of $75,000.00, together with
pre-judgment and post judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs
of this action as may be recoverable, punitive or exemplary
damages, treble damages as may be recoverable, and for such further
relief as this Court deems just and reasonable, as a direct and
proximate result of Defendants' improper training and marketing to
U.S. surgeons on the implantation of the BIRMINGHAM HIP Resurfacing
cup with its modular femoral head and modular head sleeve and
femoral stem in violation of one or more of these federal statutory
and regular standards, an unreasonably dangerous (BHR) acetabular
cup and an unreasonably dangerous combination of Smith & Nephew
products in a THA system which were not approved for use with one
another, were implanted in Plaintiff and failed, and such failure
directly caused and/or contributed to the severe and permanent
injuries sustained and endured by Plaintiff.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff had a Smith & Nephew
total hip arthroplasty system implanted, including BHR acetabular
cup, modular femoral head, emperion stem and sleeve in her left hip
on February 4, 2011, by Dr. Friedrich Boettner at the Hospital for
Special Surgery in New York, New York. On or about April 5, 2018,
Plaintiff underwent a revision of her left hip due to hip pain,
elevated levels of cobalt and chromium, metallosis, adverse tissue
reaction, osteolysis, and other complications caused by the failure
of the Defendant's BHR metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty system
(THA). Plaintiff's revision surgery was performed by Dr. Michael B.
Cross at Hospital for Special Surgery in New York, New York. In his
operative note, Dr. Cross describes metallic debris, metallosis and
osteolysis as a result of the premature failure of the device. In
addition to her surgery, the Plaintiff underwent many other medical
treatments and procedures to treat her ongoing left hip injuries.
At the time of the initial implant procedure, neither Plaintiff or
Plaintiff's surgeon was aware of the myriad problems associated
with the BHR when used in a THA operation. In fact, Smith & Nephew
continued to promote the THA total hip system as a safe alternative
to other metal-on-metal hip devices despite the THA not being a
safer alternative and not being approved for sale in the U.S.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert K. Jenner, Esq.
          1829 Reisterstown Road, Suite 350
          Baltimore, MD 21208
          Telephone: (410) 413 2155
          Facsimile: (410) 982 0122
          E-mail: RJenner@jennerlawfirm.com


SMITH & NEPHEW: Ravitz Sues over BIRMINGHAM HIP Resurfacing Cup
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case, JOYCE D. RAVITZ AND ELLEN GARVEY, the Plaintiffs, v.
SMITH & NEPHEW, INC. AND SMITH & NEPHEW, PLC, the Defendants, Case
No. 1:18-cv-02767 (D. Md., Sept. 7, 2018), seeks judgment against
the Defendants in an amount in excess of $75,000.00, together with
pre-judgment and post judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs
of this action as may be recoverable, punitive or exemplary
damages, treble damages as may be recoverable, and for such further
relief as this Court deems just and reasonable, as a direct and
proximate result of the Defendants' improper training and marketing
to U.S. surgeons on the implantation of the BIRMINGHAM HIP
Resurfacing cup with its modular femoral head and modular head
sleeve and femoral stem in violation of one or more of these
federal statutory and regular standards.

The lawsuit claims that an unreasonably dangerous (BHR) acetabular
cup and an unreasonably dangerous combination of Smith & Nephew
products in a THA system, which were not approved for use with one
another, were implanted in Plaintiff and failed.  That failure
directly caused and/or contributed to the severe and permanent
injuries sustained and endured by Plaintiff.

Specifically, Ms. Ravitz had a Smith & Nephew total hip
arthroplasty system implanted, including an BHR acetabular cup,
modular femoral head, echelon stem and sleeve in her left and right
hip on July 10, 2007, by Dr. Steven Stuchin at the NYU Hospital for
Joint Disease in New York, New York. On May 30, 2018, Plaintiff
underwent a revision of her left hip due to hip pain, elevated
levels of cobalt and chromium, metallosis, adverse tissue reaction,
osteolysis, pseudo tumors, cobalt toxicity, severe bone loss, and
other complications caused by the failure of the Defendant's
Birmingham Hip Resurfacing metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty
system ("THA"). Plaintiff's revision surgery was performed by Dr.
Alejandro Gonzalez Della Valle at Hospital for Special Surgery in
New York, New York. Dr. Gonzalez Della Valle found evidence of
severe bone loss, metallosis, and three pseudo tumors on
Plaintiff's left femur, among other injuries, as a result of the
premature failure of the device. In addition to her surgery, the
Plaintiff underwent many other medical treatments and procedures to
treat her ongoing left hip injuries.

At the time of the initial implant procedure, neither Plaintiff or
her surgeon was aware of the myriad problems associated with the
BHR when used in a THA operation. In fact, Smith & Nephew continued
to promote the THA total hip system as a safe alternative to other
metal-on-metal hip devices despite the THA not being a safer
alternative and not being approved for sale in the U.S.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert K. Jenner, Esq.
          1829 Reisterstown Road, Suite 350
          Baltimore, MD 21208
          Telephone: (410) 413 2155
          Facsimile: (410) 982 0122
          E-mail: RJenner@jennerlawfirm.com


SONY CORP: Awaits Decision in Fake Michael Jackson Songs Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sputnik International reports that Sony Corporation's music
division is not exactly denying reports accusing the entertainment
behemoth of manufacturing fake Michael Jackson performances and
selling them to an unwitting pubic.

Sony, in responding to reports in the press that it has admitted to
selling recordings it claimed were sung by Michael Jackson but are
in fact fakes, instead directed all questions to a lawyer
associated with the deceased King of Pop's estate.

According to widespread accusations, the songs "Breaking News,"
"Keep Your Head Up" and "Monster," on the 2010 Sony release
"Michael" attributed to Jackson are not him at all, but either a
sound-alike singer or some very careful audio software
manipulation.

Several fans who purchased the release sued the album's producers
-- a long list that includes Lenny Kravitz and Neff-U -- in a 2014
class-action case, claiming that the three songs in question were
not sung by Jackson prior to his death in 2009.

The class-action suit is winding its way through the judicial
system and Sony, in a statement, now does not quite deny the
charges.

"No one has conceded that Michael Jackson did not sing on the
songs," noted Zia Modabber, a lawyer representing Jackson's estate,
in a carefully worded statement.

Ms. Modabber added that, "The hearing Aug. 27 was about whether the
First Amendment protects Sony Music and the estate," cited by
Rolling Stone.

"There has been no ruling on the issue of whose voice is on the
recordings," the lawyer claimed.

Industry watchers note that in December 2017, both defendants
agreed that "it might be possible" that the performances by Michael
Jackson had been faked, but asserted at the time that the label
could not be held responsible for fraud, as the album producers
claimed that the singing voice was legitimate.

A judgment on whether the label and the estate can be tried is due
within three months, according to Bloomberg.

Michael Jackson is arguably the most successful musical act in
history, with an estimated minimum 750 million albums sold as of
2009 -- including 'Thriller,' the highest-selling record of all
time -- and 13 Grammy Awards, prior to his untimely death at the
age of 50, attributed to the misuse of freely-available opioid
painkillers and anaesthetics. [GN]


TD BANK: Court Compels Production of Wrong Number Call Data
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota
granted in part and denied  in the part Plaintiff's motion to
compel "wrong number" call data in the case alleging violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) captioned Sara
Diaz-Lebel, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. TD Bank USA, N.A.; and Target Corporation,
Defendants. No. 17-5110 (MJD/BRT). (D. Minn.).

The Plaintiff moves to compel a full response to the following
document request: For each telephone number coded by YOU with a
wrong party, third party, and/or other code, abbreviation,
designation, or other marking showing that the telephone number is
a wrong number or otherwise belongs to a person who does not have a
Target REDcard contract with YOU or TD BANK, ESI showing: (a) the
telephone number called, (b) the date, time, and duration of each
call, (c) the DIALER used to place the call, (d) whether the call
included a prerecorded and/or artificial voice, and (e) the TSYS
account notes for that number.

The Plaintiff wants all records from both Buckets that were tagged
with the WP code.

The Defendants estimated that the hits in Bucket One would be
around 300,000. The collection of Bucket One is not burdensome.
However, some type of cross-reference to Bucket Two is necessary to
analyze the ratio of WP hits related to the class as compared to
unrelated WP codes.

The sheer burden and proportionality concerns prevent this Court
from ordering that all documents responsive to this request be
produced. Plaintiff's alternative proposals did not end the
inquiry, because Plaintiff wanted Target to collect and process a
significant number of documents now, reserving the right to demand
all of the documents later.  .

At the hearing, this Court discussed a number of compromise
positions, which Defendants' counsel agreed to consider,
potentially using a subset of records from 2016 from both Buckets
as an appropriate sampling. During the course of the hearing,
Defendants represented that numerosity would not be challenged in
class certification proceedings. Plaintiff, however, insisted that
she should still have access to all documents after class
certification. In other words, a compromise now would not alter
Plaintiff's demand for potentially all of the documents later.

Despite the appropriateness of the nothing option, this Court, in
the interests of justice, will order something and will require
Target to produce all of the Bucket One records and at least 1,000
corresponding account records in 2016 from Bucket Two. Target must
collect and preserve, but not produce, all account records in 2016
in the event it is necessary to cross-reference additional 2016
records, via a showing of sufficient good cause. While this Court
understands that this is a burden to Target, the balance of the
burden with the benefit warrants this approach.

Target's confidentiality concerns regarding mass production of
hundreds of thousands or even tens of thousands of account records
is also addressed. The parties must work to confirm protective
order protocol for the production.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Production of wrong
number call data is granted in part and denied in part; and the
Plaintiff's Motion to Compel documents relating to willful or
knowing TCPA violations is denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 30, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yan6nvgu from Leagle.com.

Sara Diaz-Lebel, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Aaron Siri, Siri & Glimstad
LLP, pro hac vice, Andrew Richard Kaufman, Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein, LLP, pro hac vice, Daniel M. Hutchinson, Lieff,
Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein LLP, pro hac vice, Jarrett L. Ellzey,
Hughes Ellzey, pro hac vice, Robert K. Shelquist --
rkshelquist@locklaw.com -- Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP & W. Craft
Hughes, Hughes Ellzey, LLP, pro hac vice.

TD Bank USA, N.A. & Target Corporation, Defendants, represented by
Brian Melendez -- brian.melendez.com -- Barnes & Thornburg LLP.


TEMP-TATIONS LLC: Website not Accessible to Blind, Slade Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
LINDA SLADE, Individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. TEMP-TATIONS, LLC,
the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-08130 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 6, 2018),
alleges that Temp-tations failed to design, construct, maintain,
and operate its website -- http://www.Temp-tations.com/-- to be
fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other
blind or visually-impaired persons, in violation of the Americans
with Disabilities Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff is a visually-impaired
and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to
read website content using his 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. The Defendant is denying blind and visually-impaired
persons throughout the United States with equal access to the goods
and services.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class:

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


TENNANT COMPANY: Watson Suit Moved to Eastern Dist. of California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Edward Watson, an Individual,
Individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, and the
general public, the Plaintiff, v. Tennant Company, a Minnesota
Corporation and Does, the Defendants, Case No. FCS051313, was
removed from the Solano Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of California (Fresno) on Sept. 7, 2018.
The Eastern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:18-at-00660 to the proceeding. The suit alleges violation of
state labor laws.

The Tennant Company is a company with about 3000 employees that
provides cleaning products and solutions. It is a company that is
listed in the New York Stock Exchange. Tennant's products are used
to clean and coat surfaces.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

Attorneys for Tennant Company:

          Jeffrey C. Bils, Esq.
          CAROTHERS DISANTE & FREUDENBERGER, LLP
          707 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 5150
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 612 6300
          Facsimile: (213) 612 6301
          E-mail: jbils@cdflaborlaw.com


TESLA INC: Faces Chamberlain Suit over Musk's Go-Private Tweet
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case, WILLIAM CHAMBERLAIN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TESLA INC.; and ELON MUSK,
Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-04876-JSW (N.D. Cal., Aug. 10, 2018)
seeks to recover compensable damages caused by the Defendants'
violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants
materially misled investors as to the following material facts: (i)
contrary to Tesla CEO Elon R. Musk's statements that funding had
been "secured" to take Tesla private at $420 per share, no such
funding had been secured; (ii) contrary to Musk's statement that
investor support to take Tesla private "is confirmed", there was no
such confirmation. As a result, the public statements by the
Defendants herein were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

Tesla, Inc. designs, develops, manufactures, and sells electric
vehicles, and energy generation and storage systems in the United
States, China, Norway, and internationally. The company was
formerly known as Tesla Motors, Inc. and changed its name to Tesla,
Inc. in February 2017. Tesla, Inc. was founded in 2003 and is
headquartered in Palo Alto, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Reed R. Kathrein, Esq.
          Michael W. Stocker, Esq.
          Danielle Smith, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          715 Hearst Ave., Suite 202
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Telephone: (510) 725-3000
          Facsimile: (510) 725-3001
          E-mail: reed@hbsslaw.com
                  mikes@hbsslaw.com
                  danielles@hbsslaw.com


TESLA INC: Won't Pursue $72-Bil. Take-Private Deal Amid Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alexandria Sage and Jessica DiNapoli, writing for Reuters, report
that Tesla Inc Chief Executive Elon Musk said late on Aug. 24 he
would heed shareholder concerns and no longer pursue a $72 billion
deal to take the luxury electric car maker private, abandoning an
idea that stunned investors and drew regulatory scrutiny.

The decision to leave Tesla as a publicly listed company raises new
questions about its future. Tesla shares have been trading well
below their Aug. 7 levels, when Mr. Musk announced on Twitter that
he was considering taking Tesla private for $420 per share, as
investors wondered what this meant for Mr. Musk's ability to steer
the company to profitability.

Mr. Musk and Tesla also face a series of investor lawsuits and a
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission investigation into the
factual accuracy of Musk's tweet that funding for the deal was
"secured."

Mr. Musk said on Aug. 24 that his belief that there is more than
enough funding to take the company private was reinforced during
the process, but said he abandoned the bid based on feedback from
shareholders and because the effort was proving to be more
time-consuming and distracting than anticipated.

"Although the majority of shareholders I spoke to said they would
remain with Tesla if we went private, the sentiment, in a nutshell,
was 'please don't do this,'" Mr. Musk wrote in a blog post.

Mr. Musk, who owns about a fifth of Tesla, said previously that he
envisioned taking the company private without the standard method
of a leveraged buyout, in which all the other shareholders would
cash out and the deal would be funded primarily with new debt.

Mr. Musk estimated that two-thirds of Tesla shareholders would have
chosen an option of "rolling" their stakes into a private company.
That would significantly reduce the amount of money needed for the
deal and avoid further burdening Tesla, which has a debt pile of
$11 billion and negative cash flow.

However, Mr. Musk said on Aug. 24 that a number of institutional
shareholders explained that they have internal compliance issues
that limit how much they can invest in a private company. He also
said there was no proven path for most retail investors to own
shares were Tesla to go private.

That contrasts sharply with an Aug. 7 tweet, when Mr. Musk said:
"investor support is confirmed."

T. Rowe Price Group, Fidelity Investments and Scotland's Baillie
Gifford, which are top Tesla shareholders, declined to comment.

Mr. Musk also said previously that Saudi Arabia's PIF, which bought
a stake in Tesla earlier this year of just under 5 percent, could
help fund the cash portion of the deal, though sources close to the
sovereign wealth fund had played down that prospect. PIF is in
talks to invest in aspiring Tesla rival Lucid Motors Inc, Reuters
reported on Aug. 26.

Six members of Tesla's board of directors said in a separate
statement that they were informed on Aug. 23 by Mr. Musk that he
was abandoning his take-private bid. The board then disbanded a
special committee of three directors it had set up to evaluate any
offer that Musk submitted.

"We fully support Elon as he continues to lead the company moving
forward," the board said.

However, some corporate governance experts said Mr. Musk's handling
of the take-private bid could pressure the board to assert its
independence and consider ways to rein him in by, for example,
bringing in a chief operating officer.

"They have someone in charge who has raised serious doubts in the
financial and public community about his ability to take the
company forward. This will make it harder to invest" in Tesla, said
Charles Elson, director of the corporate governance center at the
University of Delaware.

SHORT SELLERS EMBOLDENED
In explaining his reasons to take Tesla private earlier this month,
Mr. Musk cited pressure from short sellers -- investors who look to
profit on bets that a company's stock will decline.

Some short sellers were emboldened by his U-turn. Christopher
Irons, founder of investigative research website
quoththeravenresearch.com, said it showed Musk was nowhere near as
close to taking the company private as he had claimed.

"Personally, I'm going to look to see how the stock opens on
Monday, Aug. 27. If it does not drop precipitously based on this, I
will personally view it as an opportunity to add to my short
position," said Mr. Irons, whose out-of-the money put options make
money if Tesla's stock declines.

Jim Chanos of Kynikos Associates, which has been shorting Tesla,
said on Aug. 25: "The corporate governance disaster that is Tesla
continues. Keep in mind that Musk informed the board on Aug. 24,
according to his Aug. 24 night post."

Tesla shares closed at $322.82 on Friday, Aug. 24.

One of Tesla's biggest challenges is ramping up production of its
latest vehicle, the Model 3, which is critical to its profitability
goals.

Mr. Musk has said repeatedly since April that Tesla has no need to
raise new capital and has promised the company will be profitable
and cash-flow positive in the third and fourth quarters.

However, Citigroup Inc analysts said earlier in August that if a
go-private transaction is looking less likely, "It would be wise
for Tesla to at least try to raise significant new equity capital
sooner rather than later," so it can inspire investor confidence.
[GN]


TIME INC: Court OKs Voluntary Dismissal of Securities Fraud Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York granted Plaintiff's Motion for Voluntary Dismissal in the
cases captioned JOEL ROSENFELD, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TIME INC., RICHARD BATTISTA,
DAVID A. BELL, JOHN M. FAHEY, MANUEL A. FERNANDEZ, DENNIS J.
FITZSIMONS, BETSY D. HOLDEN, KAY KOPLOVITZ, RONALD S. ROLFE, DANIEL
L. ROSENWEIG, KATIE J. STANTON, and MICHAEL P. ZEISSER, Defendants,
DAVID PILL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. TIME INC., RICHARD BATTISTA, DAVID A. BELL, JOHN M.
FAHEY, MANUEL A. FERNANDEZ, DENNIS J. FITZSIMONS, BETSY D. HOLDEN,
KAY KOPLOVITZ, RONALD S. ROLFE, DANIEL L. ROSENWEIG, KATIE J.
STANTON, and MICHAEL P. ZEISSER, Defendants. Nos. 17cv9886 (DLC),
17cv9971 (DLC) (S.D.N.Y.).

The Plaintiffs sought equitable relief on behalf of a putative
class of shareholders for federal securities law violations, but
were quickly dismissed by the named plaintiffs before a lead
plaintiff could be appointed pursuant to the procedures set out in
the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA).

Voluntary Dismissals with Prejudice and the PSLRA

15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(c)(1) requires that: "in any private action
arising under the Exchange Act, upon final adjudication of the
action, the court shall include in the record specific findings
regarding compliance by each party and each attorney representing
any party with each requirement of Rule 11(b) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure as to any complaint, responsive pleading, or
dispositive motion."

This provision, unlike certain other provisions of the PSLRA, is
not limited to putative class action litigation. For the reasons
previously explained by this Court, however, a voluntary dismissal
without prejudice is not a final adjudication that triggers a
compelled review by the court of compliance with the dictates of
Rule 11. Other courts in this district have since adopted the same
analysis.  

Blaser and the cases that have followed do not address the
situation in this case: whether a voluntary dismissal with
prejudice is a final adjudication within the meaning of the PSLRA.
The principles outlined in Blaser, however, compel the conclusion
that it is not. Accordingly, the PSLRA does not require a review of
the plaintiffs' complaints under Rule 11. The Court therefore will
not review them for that purpose.

The Clerk of Court shall close these cases as voluntarily
dismissed.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 30, 2018 Opinion
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ya79sw4h from
Leagle.com.

Joel Rosenfeld, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Richard Adam Acocelli, Jr. --
racocelli@weisslawllp.com -- WeissLaw LLP.


TRADER JOE'S: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Brumfield MMWA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York granted Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case captioned TYOKA
BRUMFIELD, et al., Plaintiffs, v. TRADER JOE'S COMPANY, DOTTA FOODS
LP, and F.J. SANCHEZ SUCESORES, S.A.U., Defendants. No. 17 Civ.
3239 (LGS). (S.D.N.Y.).

The Defendants move to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Rule
12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, and Rule 9(b) for failure to
state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or
mistake.

The Plaintiffs bring this purported class action against the
Defendants seeking to represent a nationwide class of consumers who
purchased Trader Joe's Black Truffle Flavored Extra Virgin Olive
Oil.  The Second Amended Complaint raises eleven causes of action:
(1) violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, (MMWA); (2) breach
of express warranty; (3) breach of implied warranty of
merchantability; (4) unjust enrichment; (5) deceptive acts or
practices under New York Gen. Bus. Law Section 349; (6) false
advertising under New York Gen. Bus. Law Section 350; (7) negligent
misrepresentation; (8) fraud; (9) violation of the California
Consumers Legal Remedies Act; (10) violation of the California
False Advertising Law and (11) violation of California's Unfair
Competition Law.

STANDARD
To survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint
must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state
a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.

State Consumer Protection Statutory Claims

To prevail on their consumer fraud claims under New York and
California law, Plaintiffs must establish that allegedly deceptive
advertisements were likely to mislead a reasonable consumer acting
reasonably under the circumstances.

The Plaintiffs raise two arguments as to why the Complaint's
statutory claims should survive. First, the Plaintiff notes that
Trader Joe's sells numerous products labeled X-flavored' that
actually contain the referenced flavor as an ingredient, providing
seven examples. The Plaintiffs further state that they are not
aware of a single product that Trader Joe's sells as X-flavored'
where the referenced flavor is not included as an actual
ingredient. This argument lacks merit. Obviously, one way for
Trader Joe's to ensure that their X-flavored products taste like X
is to include actual X in the product; however, reasonable
consumers are not so naïve as to believe that including actual X
in the product is the only way to make the product X-flavored. The
fact that Trader Joe's Mango Black Tea contains mango does not mean
that a reasonable consumer would assume that Black Truffle Flavored
Olive Oil necessarily contains black truffles.

Second, the Plaintiff argues that reasonable consumers are likely
to be deceived because Trader Joe's is renowned for selling gourmet
products at relatively low prices and consumers are unlikely to
know how expensive truffles are or how much truffle is required to
make real truffle oil. This argument also lacks merit. A
hypothetical reasonable consumer of truffle flavored oil would know
something about the expense and rarity of truffles, signaling that
the $4.99 price for Trader Joe's truffle flavored oil is too good
to be true for actual truffle infused oil. The causes of action
under NYGBL Section 349, NYGBL Section 350, the California
Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the California False Advertising Law
and the California Unfair Competition Law are dismissed.

Breach of Warranty Claims

Express Warranty

In order to establish a breach of express warranty under New York
law, a plaintiff must show (1) a material statement constituting a
warranty, (2) the buyer's reliance on this warranty as a basis for
their purchase, (3) breach of the warranty and (4) injury to the
buyer caused by the breach.  

Here, the Complaint does not pleaded facts sufficient to show a
breach of express warranty. The Complaint identifies only one
express warranty: Trader Joe's expressly warranted that Trader
Joe's Truffle Oil was, in fact, flavored by black truffle. However,
that is not what the Product label warrants; it states that the
olive oil is Black Truffle Flavored. That is what Plaintiffs
received when they purchased the Product  olive oil that tasted
like black truffle. As a result, the fact that the Product did not
contain actual black truffle did not constitute a breach of express
warranty, and that claim is dismissed.

Implied Warranty

Similarly, under California law, to maintain a claim for breach of
implied warranty, a plaintiff must allege (1) that he intended to
use the product for a particular purpose; (2) that the defendant
had reason to know of this purpose; (3) that the plaintiff relied
on defendant's skill or judgment to provide a product suitable for
this purpose; (4) that the defendant had reason to know that buyers
relied on its skill or judgment; (5) that the product was unfit for
the purpose for which it was purchased; and (6) that it
subsequently damaged the plaintiff.

Here, the Complaint fails to state a claim for breach of implied
warranty because the Complaint pleads nothing to suggest that the
Product was unfit for its intended purpose making food taste like
black truffle. As discussed above, Plaintiffs received what Trader
Joe's advertises, Black Truffle Flavored Olive Oil that tastes like
truffles. Although the Complaint lists negative physical side
effects of ingesting 2,4-dithiapentane, these allegations do not
assert that the Product was unfit to be consumed. Accordingly, the
claim for breach of implied warranty is also dismissed.
The MMWA

The MMWA is a remedial statute designed to improve the adequacy of
information available to consumers, prevent deception, and improve
competition in the marketing of consumer products. Accordingly, the
MMWA creates no additional bases for liability, but allows a
consumer to recover damages under existing state law, and
attorneys' fees. As a result, claims under the Act stand or fall
with the express and implied warranty claims under state law.
Because Plaintiff's claims for express and implied warranty are
dismissed, the MMWA claim is also dismissed.

Additional Tort Claims

The Complaint asserts claims for unjust enrichment, negligent
misrepresentation and fraud. For the following reasons, these
claims are also dismissed.

Unjust Enrichment

The basic elements of an unjust enrichment claim in New York
require proof that (1) defendant was enriched, (2) at plaintiff's
expense, and (3) equity and good conscience militate against
permitting defendant to retain what plaintiff is seeking to
recover.   

The Plaintiff asserts both statutory and tort claims. All of the
claims in the Complaint  including unjust enrichment are premised
on the same alleged misrepresentation by Trader Joe's. Accordingly,
Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim is dismissed as duplicative of
their other claims under both New York and California law.  

Negligent Misrepresentation and Fraud

Under both New York and California law, a claim for negligent
misrepresentation or fraud must plead facts sufficient to show that
a defendant made a false representation.

The Complaint does not plead a false representation. The Product's
label truthfully states that the product is black truffle flavored,
because its synthetic ingredients taste like black truffle. The
claims for fraud and negligent misrepresentation are dismissed
under both New York and California law.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 30, 2018 Opinion
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yahpfwog from
Leagle.com.

Tyoka Brumfield, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated & Cynthia Torocsik, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Joshua David
Arisohn -- jarisohn@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher P.A.

Trader Joe's Company, Defendant, represented by Dawn Sestito --
dsestito@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers, LLP, Hannah Yael Shay
Chanoine -- hchanoine@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP & Raymond
Collins Kilgore -- ckilgore@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP.

Dotta Foods LP, Defendant, represented by Leonard Frederick Lesser
-- llesser@simonlesser.com -- Simon Lesser P.C., George Salmas --
George.Salmas@TheFoodLawyers.com -- The Food Lawyers & Michael
Hambly -- mhambly@salmas-law.com -- The Food Lawyers.

F.J. Sanchez Sucesores, S.A.U., Defendant, represented by Jeffrey
H. Warshafsky -- jwarshafsky@proskauer.com -- Proskauer Rose &
Lawrence I. Weinstein -- lweinstein@proskauer.com -- Proskauer Rose
LLP.


TURNER OIL: Court Approves Class Settlement in Stanley Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio,
Eastern Division, issued an Order adopting Magistrate Judge's
Report and Recommendation in the case captioned JONATHAN STANLEY,
et al., Plaintiffs, v. TURNER OIL & GAS PROPERTIES, INC.,
Defendant. Case No. 2:16-cv-386. (S.D. Ohio).

This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Deavers's
Report and Recommendation.
The R&R recommends granting two motions: (1) Plaintiffs' Motion
for Attorney Fees, and (2) the parties' Joint Motion for Approval
of Class Action Settlement.

Counsel has provided the additional information requested in the
R&R, including a calculation breakdown showing how counsel
determined the proportionate reduction to the settlement fund, a
total list of anticipated payouts to the class members, and a
clarification of the amount of the cy pres fund and the name of the
recipient charities.

No objections to the R&R were filed.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 30, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ya7w7kvx from Leagle.com.

Jonathan Stanley, Mary Elliott, Mark C. Ramach, Joshua Foote, Sean
Barber, Jason Wiemann, Michael W. Babin, Robert Stovall, Patti
Stovall, Sarabeth Yoder, Derek Dierkes, Maria Rizkall-Gerguis,
Shaun Weidman, Diana Carman, Catherine Sakla, Jason Bigley, Emily
Sullivan, Christina Hanna, Caroline Chesher & Heather Atkinson,
Plaintiffs, represented by Edward Reilley Forman --
eforman@marshallforman.com -- Marshall and Forman LLC, John
Spenceley Marshall -- jmarshall@marshallforman.com -- Marshall and
Forman, LLC, Louis Abraham Jacobs -- info@marshallforman.com --
Marshall and Morrow LLC, Samuel Micah Schlein --
sschlein@marshallforman.com -- Marshall and Forman LLC & Matthew A.
Schwartz -- schwartzmatthew@sullcrom.com -- Law Office of Matthew
A. Schwartz.

Turner Oil & Gas Properties, Inc, Defendant, represented by
Jonathan Rea Secrest -- JSecrest@dickinsonwright.com -- Dickinson
Wright PLLC & Sara H. Jodka -- SJodka@dickinsonwright.com --
Dickinson Wright PLLC.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Judge Set to Decide on Dulberg Case on Oct. 29
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Murphy, writing for Taxi Point, reports that in February of
last year a class action lawsuit was filed in a San Francisco
federal court alleging that Uber were consistently under-paying
drivers based on the company's own formula.

The suit named; Dulberg V. Uber, represented over 4,500 uber
drivers looks to now be settled, with an overall payment of
$345,622 being agreed.

If a federal judge approves the agreement it will see each driver
receive a sum of $75 before attorneys' fees are calculated.

Lead plaintiff Martin Dulberg had claimed that due to the company's
own formula to calculate fares, drivers were receiving between 70
and 80 percent of any given trip rather than the 80 percent they
would've expected when they first started working for the
ride-hailing firm.

According to a report in arstechnica, the issue with the fare
calculations started when Uber began to offer upfront pricing.

Mr. Dulberg claimed that before upfront pricing was introduced, the
fare was calculated based on a single formula: the fare determined
by the fare calculation. It ties both the driver's payment and
Uber's fee into that single formula.

When Uber introduced upfront pricing it changed the way it
calculated fares, this time it used a formula that would calculate
payments using a "Two-Fare" calculation: one upfront to charge
passengers and another after the journey with actual accurate
inputs for time/distance. This is where the plaintiffs claim the
discrepancies occurred.

Uber has claimed that with the introduction of upfront pricing,
most drivers have in fact "benefited" financially from the the new
formula.

Judge Alsup is said to meet with both sides on October 29 to
announce the decision. [GN]


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Lead Plaintiff Seeks Court Nod on Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cara Bayles, writing for Law360, reports that the man representing
a class of more than 9,000 Uber drivers asked a California federal
judge to bless a deal that would end claims that the ride-hailing
company's so-called upfront pricing model denies drivers their fair
share of riders' payments.

On Aug. 24, lead plaintiff Martin Dulberg asked U.S. District Court
Judge William Alsup to preliminarily approve a $345,622 settlement
ending claims that Uber Technologies Inc. breached its own services
agreement by paying drivers based on the actual distance they
drove.

The case is styled Dulberg v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al, Case
No. 3:17-cv-00850 (N.D. Calif.).  The case is assigned to Judge
William Alsup. The case was filed February 21, 2017 [GN]


UNIKRN: ICO Class Action May Have Implications for Token Issuers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crowdfund Insider reported that a class action lawsuit was filed
against Unikrn and their initial coin offering (ICO).  The company
raised approximately $30 million in an ICO in late 2017. Unikrn was
founded by Rahood Sahul, who is no neophyte when it comes to tech
and venture capital.  He has worked for big name firms like
Microsoft and Hewlett Packard, in fact, his bio indicates he was
the founder of Micrsoft Ventures. Not a small accomplishment.
Unikrn is a venture backed firm that captured the attention of some
high profile investors early on in its existence. In many ways, Mr.
Sahul was on a great trajectory until this most recent hurdle.  In
doing the ICO for Unikrn, the company did file for a Reg D
exemption -- something every US issuer of a digital asset is doing
to remain compliant within the law.  So why the lawsuit? Did Unikrn
actually do something wrong?

The copy of the Form D is available here.  The issuer indicates it
was offering a SAFT or Simple Agreement for Future Tokens. Again,
fairly common in the crypto world.

Mr. Sahul has not spoken much publicly about the lawsuit -- legal
counsel has most certainly suggested its best to be quiet about any
legal proceedings.  He is on the record calling the lawsuit
meritless and saying his company has great lawyers.  But legal
proceedings in the US can be a tricky thing. Even more so in an
emerging area of securities law.  So CI reached out to Securities
Attorney and CI Contributor Sam Guzik for his point of View. Mr.
Guzik explains;

"The principal allegations of the Complaint are that Unikrn and its
affiliates sold a "'security" (UKG Tokens) without registering
these securities under Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933.
Assuming the Token is a security, unless the defendants can show
the availability of an exemption from registration, investors in
this offering would be entitled to rescind their investment
(receive their money back).  Based upon the allegations in the
Complaint, yet unproven, the Token certainly appears to have the
earmarks of a security, given allegations of an expectation of
profit based primarily upon the efforts of others (the so called
Howey test).  And likely, the defendants have already admitted that
the Tokens were securities -- by reason of filing a Form D with the
SEC stating that the Tokens are securities."

So so far, so good.  The company did what it is expected to do. Mr.
Guzik continues;

"So this case will likely turn on whether the Tokens were sold
under a valid exemption from registration, and one can expect that
the defendants will assert that the requirements of the exemption
from registration under SEC Regulation D, the SEC's "safe harbor"
rule for private placements, were met -- or if not, the statutory
private placement exemption under Section 4(a)(2) of the Securities
Act."

According to Mr. Guzik, this is where things may get dicey. He
posits that filing the appropriate form with the SEC may not be
enough;

"Whether or not an exemption from registration is available will
turn on the facts of the case, which, even as allegations in the
Complaint, are far from clear.  But some things are certain.  For
starters, the defendants will have the burden of proof to show that
the issuer complied with all of the terms of an exemption.  Filing
a Form D alone will not cut it, and the Complaint does provide some
red flags which portend that this offering may very well not have a
valid exemption from registration."

Mr. Guzik says a section of the complaint could be crucial to the
case.  He points to the allegations in Paragraph 42 of the
Complaint:

42. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges
that Defendants have continuously sold UKG to the general public
through cryptocurrency exchanges following the end of the Official
ICO in October 2017.  [emphasis added]

At this point, we are not certain exactly when the token began
trading but it shows up on CoinMarketCap at commencing around
November 2017.  Mr. Guzik explains part of the problem associated
with trading on a crypto exchange;

"The sale of Tokens by or for the account of the issuer in a public
cryptocurrency exchange would most likely indicate that neither
Regulation D nor the statutory private placement exemption would be
available.  Furthermore, Regulation D (and Section 4(a)(2)) require
that the issuer take reasonable precautions to ensure that the
original investors in the offering do not resell the securities to
the public absent a separate exemption for the resale.  If
reasonable precautions were not taken by the issuer, there goes the
safe harbor exemption of Regulation D, even if all of the original
investors were verified accredited investors (the Complaint is
silent on this) and the other requirements of Regulation D were
met."

To make the waters even murkier is the fact the SEC has not been
exceptionally clear about the status of these crypto exchanges.
Guzik adds there is absolutely no allegations of fraud by the
plaintiff attorneys -- something that has accompanied every other
class action filed against an ICO.  If this one happens to go to
trial, for whatever reason, every single crypto active attorney
will be analyzing how the courts handle this case.

"I expect that if the Plaintiffs are able to get past the usual
procedural hurdles (class certification and meeting technical
pleading requirements) the defendants will have a strong incentive
to settle. In this regard the Plaintiffs have not (yet) alleged
that the defendants committed fraud," states Mr. Guzik.  "The fraud
area is another Pandora's Box that could be revisited by the
Plaintiffs once discovery commences -- followed by an amended
Complaint and perhaps inviting a closer look by the SEC -- if the
discovered facts are sufficient to allege fraud.  Sometimes it is
better to cut a deal (and potential losses) sooner rather than
later, rather than to face the uncertainty and expense of
protracted litigation.  Securities class actions which survive
attacks on the pleadings usually fit this paradigm and settle
sooner rather than later.  This case is unlikely to be the
exception to the rule."

This is all speculation right now, and this case will take some
time to meander through the legal process, but what is clear is
that everyone in the crypto industry will be watching it. [GN]


UNITED STATES: 19 Kentucky Counties Sign Up for PILT Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Forward Kentucky reports that about half the counties in Kentucky
are eligible for settlement payments from a class-action lawsuit --
but only 19 have signed up to actually get the money. Why?

The details are pretty straight-forward.

   * Fifty-nine counties in Kentucky are eligible for payments from
the federal government because the feds are using land in the
county, thus keeping the county from including the land in its
property taxes.

   * These payments are called Payment In Lieu of Taxes (PILT).

   * The payments are based on the number of acres in the county
that are used by the federal government. For some counties, the
payments can be substantial. For example, in 2018, McCreary County
is scheduled to receive $461,095.

   * A certain county in another part of the country realized that
they had been underpaid in their PILT payments, and filed suit to
recover the difference. Other counties joined in, and eventually a
class-action lawsuit was filed and won. The government had to pay
all 1,952 counties the back pay they were owed.

   * Some counties were owed as much as $150,000 and some as little
as $100.

   * The big difference with this class action suit is that the
counties affected are not automatically added to the payout –
they have to opt in. And that's where this story starts.

Out of the 59 counties in Kentucky that are eligible to receive
money from the PILT lawsuit, only 19 have opted in. It's a pretty
simple procedure: you fill out a form and send it in. But even so,
40 counties have ignored the communications from the law firm
handling the suit. And the deadline is September 14.

Now granted, the amounts are not that large. And, if the judge
agrees, the law firm keeps 1/3 of the payments for itself.

Still, if someone is going to send you money, and all you have to
do to get it is fill out a form, why wouldn't you do that?

Here are the 59 counties eligible for back PILT payments, the
amount they are eligible for, and whether or not they have opted
in. If you live in one of the not-yet-in counties, especially ones
with a few thousand dollars on the table, perhaps you could bring
this to the attention of your county executive.


County Amount Opted In?
McCreary County $8,869 Yes
Trigg County $8,132 Yes
Lyon County $5,486 Yes
Pulaski County $5,093 Yes
Edmonson County $4,867 Yes
Clay County $4,601
Laurel County $4,247
Russell County $3,938 Yes
Leslie County $3,708
Rowan County $3,469
Wayne County $2,951
Whitley County $2,933 Yes
Lawrence County $1,983
Menifee County $1,889 Yes
Taylor County $1,683
Adair County $1,647 Yes
Pike County $1,635
Morgan County $1,506 Yes
Barren County $1,414
Clinton County $1,380
Jackson County $1,376
Spencer County $1,293 Yes
Bath County $1,275
Floyd County $1,264
Johnson County $1,206
Rockcastle County $1,017
Carter County $997
Grayson County $981
Powell County $960
Owsley County $883 Yes
Hart County $869 Yes
Wolfe County $811 Yes
Allen County $766
Elliott County $760
Breckinridge County $527 Yes
Bell County $522 Yes
Union County $462
Knott County $455
Lee County $421
Cumberland County $417 Yes
Perry County $384
Livingston County $347
Harlan County $333
Estill County $296
Anderson County $238
Ballard County $219
Jefferson County $120
Henderson County $97
Letcher County $43 Yes
Larue County $36
Nelson County $31
Gallatin County $24
Greenup County $23
Calloway County $19
Hancock County $17
Hardin County $12     Yes
Bracken County $10
Knox County $4
Warren County $4 [GN]

UNITED STATES: Hughes County Joins PILT Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Stephen Lee and Dave Askins, writing for Capital Journal, report
that Hughes County Commissioners voted 5-0 on Aug. 20 to join in a
class-action lawsuit against the federal government that says the
feds underpaid counties for the "payments in lieu of taxes" (PILT)
due to the counties for three years.

The county commission has to decide by mid-September whether to
opt-in on the lawsuit to receive money already decided on by a
court.

The court decision in Kane County, Utah, vs. the U.S. government,
found that the feds underpaid counties across the nation for the
fiscal years 2015, 2016 and 2017 in PILT funding.

It amounts to about $18 million total in underpayments now owed to
hundreds of counties. Several counties in South Dakota have already
opted to join in the class action lawsuit, including Stanley
County.

Hughes County is due to receive $89,226 this year in PILT funding
from the federal government, aimed to make up for the lack of
property taxes assessed on 32,951 acres of federally owned land.

The shortage over the three previous years in PILT funding to
Hughes County amounts to $3,421.

The attorneys who brought the class-action lawsuit in Utah are
expected to be awarded perhaps a third of the money nationwide.
That would mean Hughes County's share of the underpaid would be
more like $2,292.

County Manager Kevin Hipple told the commissioners that the case
"already has been litigated," so the county doesn't have to hire an
attorney or fight the case in court.

Signing up to join in will result in the underpaid amount coming to
the county.

"It's money," said Commissioner Roger Inman. It seems a good
chance, as long as "there is no cost to us," he said.

Commissioner Tom Tveit made the motion to opt in to the lawsuit,
with the proviso the county will not spend any money from its
budget to take part in the class-action.

The Stanley County Commission in Fort Pierre voted to join in the
class-action earlier in August. [GN]


USG CORPORATION: Lowinger Balks at Merger Deal with Knauf KG
------------------------------------------------------------
The case, ROBERT LOWINGER, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the 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, the Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-01362-UNA (D. Del., Sept. 2, 2018), stems from a proposed
transaction announced on June 11, 2018, pursuant to which USG
Corporation will be acquired by Gebr. Knauf KG and its indirect
wholly owned subsidiary, World Cup Acquisition Corporation.  The
lawsuit alleges violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On June 10, 2018, USG's Board of Directors caused the Company to
enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Knauf. Pursuant to
the terms of the Merger Agreement, if the Proposed Transaction is
approved by USG's shareholders and completed, USG's stockholders
will receive $43.50 in cash for each share of USG common stock they
own, plus a conditional special cash dividend of $0.50 per share if
the Proposed Transaction is approved by USG's stockholders at the
special stockholder meeting, which is scheduled to take place on
September 26, 2018.

On August 23, 2018, Defendants filed a proxy statement with the
United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with
the Proposed Transaction. The Proxy Statement omits material
information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders
the Proxy Statement false and misleading.

USG Corporation, also known as United States Gypsum Corporation, is
an American company which manufactures construction materials, most
notably drywall and joint compound. The company is the largest
distributor of wallboard in the United States and the largest
manufacturer of gypsum products in North America.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Aaron Brody, Esq.
          STULL, STULL & BRODY
          6 East 45th Street
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 687 7230
          Facsimile: (212) 490 2022
          E-mail: abrody@ssbny.com


UTAH: Suit vs Spencer Cox Moved to Federal District Court
---------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned TRUTH ABOUT PROPOSITION no. 2, a Utah
non-profit corporation, DR. BRUCE H. WOOLEY, an individual, WALTER
J. PLUMB III, an individual, ARTHUR BROWN, an individual, and BRUCE
F. RIGBY, an individual, on behalf of those similarly-situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. SPENCER J. COX, in his official capacity as
Lieutenant Governor of Utah; Curtis Koch, in his official capacity
as the County Clerk of Davis County, Utah; the STATE OF UTAH; and
DOES 1-20 inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 180905858 (3rd Jud.
Dist. Ct. and for Salt Lake Cty.), the Defendant gives Notice of
Removal of the civil action to the United States District Court in
and for the District Of Utah, Central Division. The District Of
Utah Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-00702-BCW (D. Utah,
Sept. 6, 2018) to the proceeding.[BN]

Counsel for Spencer J. Cox:

          David N. Wolf, Esq.
          Andrew Dymek, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE UTAH ATTORNEY GENERAL
          160 East 300 South, Sixth Floor
          P.O. Box 140856
          Salt Lake City, UT 84114-0856
          Telephone: (801) 366 0100
          Facsimile: (801) 366 0101
          E-mail: dnwolf@agutah.gov
                  adymek@agutah.gov


UTHERA: Must Face Fraud Class Action Over Cosmetic Procedure
------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reports that a California federal judge has
refused to dismiss a purported class action alleging the
manufacturer of the Ulthera cosmetic skin-tightening device misled
consumers into believing it was FDA approved, ruling that the state
consumer law claims are not preempted because they parallel federal
regulations.

On Aug. 16, Judge Morrison C. England of the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of California further found the
fraud-based claims were pled with the requisite particularity.

"Ultherapy" is a non-surgical cosmetic procedure that involves the
use of ultrasound procedures to tighten skin tissue and reduce the
appearance of wrinkling. [GN]


VALLEY NATIONAL: Ct. Overrules Conditional Certification Objection
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York overruled Defendant's Objection on Order granting Conditional
Class Certification in the case captioned MARITZA GASTON and GEORGE
GALLART, on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. VALLEY NATIONAL BANCORP and VALLEY NATIONAL BANK,
Defendants. Case No. 17-CV-1886 (FB) (SMG). (E.D.N.Y.).

The Plaintiffs brought a class action and a collective action under
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law
against Defendants Valley National Bancorp and Valley National Bank
(VNB), alleging that they are or were employed as Bank Service
Managers (BSMs) at VNB and were underpaid due to being
misclassified as exempt employees under FLSA.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), a party may serve and
file objections to non-dispositive pretrial orders issued by a
magistrate judge. When a party files a timely objection, the
district judge must modify or set aside any part of the order that
is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law. A finding is clearly
erroneous when although there is evidence to support it, the
reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite
and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.

In its objection, VNB makes two principal arguments.

First, it argues that the Magistrate Judge misapplied the
modest-plus standard, contending that substantial discovery has
already taken place. Second, it claims that the Magistrate Judge
improperly shifted the burden to it to produce evidence to disprove
conditional certification. Neither argument is persuasive.

On the record before the Court, there is no indication that the
order was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. In fact, very
little discovery has taken place, with only the three witnesses
deposed. As the Magistrate Judge found, there is nothing in the
depositions inconsistent with the assertions in the affidavits that
non-exempt work was a tiny percentage of their time.

VNB's second argument is unavailing as well. First, VNB cites a
comment from the oral argument in which the Magistrate Judge said
he saw nothing in Plaintiffs' depositions contradicting their
affidavits.

VNB argues that this amounts to a standard in which employers can
only defeat conditional certification motions by establishing that
such testimony is perjurious. But the fact that such testimony is
often sufficient is not a result of improper burden-shifting, but
rather a consequence of the low evidentiary threshold the modest
showing called for at the first step of the conditional
certification motion.

VNB's objection is overruled.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 30, 2018 Memorandum
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7q38gc3 from
Leagle.com.

Maritza Gaston, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Gregg I. Shavitz, Shavitz Law
Group, P.A., Michael Joseph Scimone -- mscimone@outtengolden.com --
Outten & Golden LLP, Paolo C. Meireles, Shavitz Law Group, P.A.,
Sally J. Abrahamson -- sabrahamson@outtengolden.com -- Outten &
Golden LLP & Justin Mitchell Swartz -- jms@outtengolden.com --
Outten & Golden LLP.

George Gallart, Plaintiff, represented by Sally J. Abrahamson ,
Outten & Golden LLP & Justin Mitchell Swartz , Outten & Golden
LLP.

Valley National Bancorp & Valley National Bank, Defendants,
represented by James Lemonedes -- jlemonedes@foxrothschild.com --
Fox Rothschild LLP, Glenn Sklaire Grindlinger --
ggrindlinger@foxrothschild.com -- Fox Rothschild LLP & Keith Andrew
Reinfeld -- kreinfeld@foxrothschild.com -- Fox Rothschild LLP.


VENGROFF WILLIAMS: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Velez Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vengroff Williams,
Inc.  The case is captioned as Aida Velez, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Vengroff Williams, Inc.,
Case No. 1:18-cv-23747-MGC (S.D. Fla., September 12, 2018).

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

Vengroff Williams, Inc., provides receivables management and
business process outsourcing services.  The Company offers third
party recovery, insurance services, medical subrogation, revenue
cycle management, medical collections, invoice and statement
processing, payment monitoring, and legal solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


VISIONPRO CONNECTIONS: Faces Fearon, et al. in New York Sup. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Visionpro
Connections, Inc. The lawsuit is captioned as ROHAN FEARON, ET AL
vs. VISIONPRO CONNECTIONS, INC., D/B/A VISIONPRO ET AL., Case No.
508064/2018 (New York Supreme Court, Kings County, Sept. 7, 2018).

Visionpro is doing business in the staffing industry.[BN]


VISIONPRO CONNECTIONS: Underpays Cable Technicians, Fearon Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
ROHAN FEARON, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. VISIONPRO CONNECTIONS, INC.,
d/b/a VISIONRPRO, VISIONPRO CORP. d/b/a VISIONPRO, VISIONPRO
NETWORKS d/b/a VISIONPRO, and any other affiliated entities that
employed Plaintiff and members of the Putative Class, the
Defendants, Case No. 508064/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Sept. 7, 2018),
seeks to recover wages and benefits under the New York Labor Law.

The Defendants provide installation services to customers of
Cablevision Systems Corp. and other regional cable providers. The
Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs
overtime and time and one-half their regular rate of pay; failed to
reimburse Plaintiffs for business expenses borne for the benefit
and convenience of the Defendants; and unlawfully deducted wages
from Plaintiffs' paychecks.

The Defendants paid Plaintiffs a piece rate for each job performed.
The Defendants failed to ensure that Plaintiff and the Putative
Class members were paid the appropriate overtime wage required
under the NYLL and NYCRR. The Plaintiffs were required to use
Defendants' company trucks when performing jobs for customers. From
approximately April 2012 continuing through the present, the
Plaintiffs were required to purchase their own equipment and tools,
and pay the cost for parking incurred in furtherance of Defendants'
business. Until approximately 2015, Plaintiffs were also required
to purchase their own gas, in furtherance of Defendants' business.

The Defendants maintained a policy and practice of deducting monies
from its cable technicians' wages for, inter alia, missing cable
boxes. The reduction of wages imposed by these deductions was not
agreed upon in writing with the technicians in violation of the
NYLL.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and Putative Class:

          Lloyd Ambinder, Esq.
          Michele Moreno, Esq.
          Joel Goldenberg, Esq.
          Virginia & Ambinder, LLP
          40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 943 9080
          Facsimile: (212) 943 9082
          E-mail: mmoreno@vandallp.com


WALMART: Faces Fraud Class Action Over Hacked Gift Cards
--------------------------------------------------------
Danielle Serino, writing for WKYC, reports that sales of gift cards
are predicted to hit $160 billion dollars this year.

So, you would think stores would work hard to make sure shoppers
keep buying them.

But one of the biggest retailers in the world has run into a
problem with the cards it sells in its own name.

Walmart, was just hit with a class action lawsuit, over fraud
connected with its cards.

And it seems some customers who purchased them are doing anything
but "Saving Money and Living Better" like Walmart's slogan
promises.

"They should have taken care of this a long time ago," says
long-time customer Charlie Pettit.

Mr. Pettit, who called us from Colorado said, when he returned a
laptop from Walmart to the store, they would only credit him with a
$550 gift card.

When he tried to sell that card to someone on Craigslist, he says
the would-be buyer told him,

"There was no money on the card. I said, 'I just got $550 dollars
on it'. And he said, someone got to you then."

Pettit says he called Walmart, but claims they told him it wasn't
their problem.

And on Walmart's website it says, customers are responsible for
keeping their gift card password safe.

Problem is, the company is accused of not keeping the cards safe
before they're sold.

Attorney Craig Heidemann, who filed a class action lawsuit against
the company in Missouri, where his client lost $50 dollars,
explains how the fraud happens.

"While the gift cards are on the shelves, somebody would come in,
scrape off the tamper strip on the back and record the secret
information. So that before the gift cards are sold, the numbers
are obtained by hackers. And when the money is put on card they're
able to be the first ones to suck off money on the card online, by
making fraudulent purchases."

Thieves can also simply snap a photo of the card number, and once
the card is activated, go online and take out the money.

The lawsuit alleges that:

   -- The fraudulent practice is common and known to Walmart.

   -- Associates are not properly trained to inspect gift cards for
tampering.

   -- The company refused to replenish the balance on cards or
refund money.


That's despite the fact, Heidemann says, other companies protect
their customers.

"Visa, Mastercard, American Express, when they sell their prepaid
gift cards at Walmart, you'll notice they're inside a wrapped
packaging that would have to be ripped opened and the card would
have to be taken out in order to steal the secret data from it."

As angry as Pettit is with Walmart, the bigger problem is the
financial hardship that he's now dealing with.

"My wife and I are livingon her $700 dollar disability check. $700
dollars doesn't go far," he tells us.

Statement from Walmart:

"We take any fraud in connection with our gift cards seriously and
have measures designed to help guard against these types of crimes.
Like many retailers, we are continuing to look at this issue, the
controls we have in place and how we can enhance our gift card
program to better protect customers. We are reviewing the complaint
and will respond appropriately with the court." [GN]


XIAMEN AIR: Airport Incident Ripe Test for Passenger Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Atty. Lorna Patajo-Kapunan, writing for Business Mirror, reports
that Republic Act 776, otherwise known as the Civil Aeronautics Act
of the Philippines, mandates that the Department of Transportation
and Communications (now the Department of Transportation (DOTr),
through the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB), "regulate the economic
aspect of aviation and develop and promote the air potential of the
Philippines, with due regard to public interest and convenience."
Furthermore, Republic Act 7394, otherwise known as the Consumer Act
of the Philippines, mandates that the Department of Trade and
Industry (DTI) "protect the consumers against deceptive, unfair and
unconscionable sales acts or practices and from misleading
advertisements and fraudulent sales promotions."

Pursuant to such mandates, DOTC-DTI Joint Administrative Order 1,
Series of 2012 "Providing for a Bill of Rights for Air Passengers
and Carrier Obligations" was promulgated in December 2012.

This little known Administrative Order came to light because of the
recent Xiamen Air fiasco. The Regulations provided thereunder
"apply to all aspects of contracts of carriage for flights or
portions of a flight into, from, and within the territory of the
Philippines operated by Philippine air carriers, and flights or
portions of a flight from the territory of the Philippines operated
by foreign air carriers" (Section 3).

On August 19, 2018, a Xiamen Air Boeing aircraft skidded off a
runway at Ninoy Aquino International Airport. This caused 300
flights to be canceled, delayed or redirected, which affected at
least 45,000 passengers who were stuck in the three Naia terminals,
some without food, beverages and hotel accommodations. Many
overseas Filipino workers had given their last money to their
families who bid them good-bye at the Airport and had no money to
spend during their long, uncertain wait. Some OFWs feared they had
lost their employment contracts as they were a no-show with their
prospective employers abroad.

Clearly, under these circumstances, someone has to be held
responsible and liable criminally, administratively and civilly for
damages to those affected passengers. Obviously, Xiamen Air is the
principal culprit.  Manila International Airport Authority says
Xiamen Air will need to pay at least P15 million. This is a paltry
amount not commensurate to the chaos and furor they caused, which
Miaa said cover only the cost of manpower and rental of crane and
equipment used to lift the jet off the field. The entire crew
should be detained pending further investigation. Domestic carriers
Philippine Airlines, Cebu Pacific, Philippine Air Asia, Cathay
Pacific and Singapore Airlines had apologies for the inconvenience
their passengers suffered. But providing food, beverages and in few
instances hotel accommodations do not excuse these carriers from
failing to respond immediately with replacement flights,
rescheduling of canceled flights, rescheduling of planes, crew and
operational resources. Naia personnel, from sheer volume of
affected passengers and pressure of work, were reportedly outright
discourteous.

Where was the government while this crisis was ongoing at the Naia?
Clearly, the Department of Transportation should have weighed in
as the Miaa, the Civil Aeronautics Board and the Civil Aviation
Authority of the Philippines -- agencies directly involved with
airport operations, air carriers and airline passengers are under
the supervision of the DOTr. The agency's bleak response was a
statement of Secretary Arthur P. Tugade that this Naia mayhem is an
"eye-opener" and cause for "the review of emergency protocols and a
revisiting of the Air Passenger Bill of Rights."

Attorney Kapunan said "Fortunately, my family decided to go to
Montemar Beach Resort in Bataan instead of flying out during that
fatal long weekend. Otherwise, I would have immediately gathered
signatures of the affected passengers to protest the incompetence,
inefficiency and discourtesy of airport personnel. I would have
demanded the immediate detention and full investigation of Xiamen
Air pilots and crew for their blatant disregard and disrespect for
our Philippine aviation regulations."

"This is ripe for a class action suit to test whether the Air
Passengers Bill of Rights truly protects the ordinary air
passengers -- not the powers that be. And certainly, our government
must be petrified with the reality that a single aircraft stuck on
a runway can cripple the operations of the entire airport for
several days. This elevates the issue from protection of air
passengers to the bigger issue of national security and defense."

That must be the lesson the government learned from this
"eye-opener"! [GN]


YOGA JOINT: Mittelmark Files Suit in Fla. Over TCPA Breach
----------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL MITTELMARK, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. THE YOGA JOINT SOUTH, LLC, and YOGA JOINT-
DEERFIELD, LLC, Case No. 0:18-cv-62138-WPD (S.D. Fla., September
11, 2018), arises from Defendants' alleged violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Defendants use text messages as a means to market their
business and promote their business to former customers and
potential future customers, according to the complaint.  As a
result of Defendants' actions, the Plaintiff contends, the
Defendants caused thousands of unsolicited text messages to be sent
to his and Class Members' cellular telephones, causing them
injuries, including invasion of their privacy, aggravation,
annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and conversion.

Yoga South owns and operates a yoga studio in Fort Lauderdale,
Florida.  Yoga Deerfield owns and operates a yoga studio in
Deerfield Beach, Florida.

The Defendants are part of a larger five-location group of yoga
studios operating under the Yoga Joint name.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
          HIRALDO P.A.
          401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 400-4713
          E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com


ZHEJIANG HUAHAI: Faces Jones Suit Over Adulterated Valsartan
------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES JONES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ZHEJIANG HUAHAI PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD., a Chinese
corporation; PRINSTON PHARMACEUTICAL, INC., a Delaware corporation;
SOLCO HEALTHCARE U.S., LLC, a Delaware limited liability company;
and HUAHAI US, INC., a New Jersey corporation, Case No.
4:18-cv-01525-RLW (E.D. Mo., September 11, 2018), arises from the
Defendants' respective manufacturing, distribution and sale of
valsartan generic prescription medications adulterated with
N-nitrosodimethylamine, a carcinogenic substance.

Valsartan is a prescription medication mainly used for the
treatment of high blood pressure and congestive heart failure.

The Plaintiffs allege that due to manufacturing defects originating
in Defendant Zhejiang Huahai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.'s facility in
China, certain generic formulations of valsartan have become
adulterated with an organic chemical known as
N-nitrosodimethylamine.

Zhejiang Huahai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., is a corporation
organized and existing under the laws of the People's Republic of
China, and maintains its principal place of business in Zhejiang,
China.  Zhejiang touts on its Web site that it is a large scaled
modern pharmaceutical group that integrates formulations, APIs
(Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients) and intermediates.

Huahai US, Inc., is a corporation organized and existing under the
laws of the state of New Jersey, and maintains its principal place
of business in Cranbury, New Jersey.  Huahai manufactures, markets
and distributes valsartan for use in generic drugs.  Huahai is a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Zhejiang focusing on the sales and
marketing of APIs and Intermediates, and lists valsartan as one of
its products.

Prinston Pharmaceutical, Inc., is a corporation organized and
existing under the laws of the state of Delaware, and maintains its
principal place of business in Cranbury, New Jersey.  Prinston
manufactures, markets and distributes generic drugs, including the
prescription drug valsartan.

Solco Healthcare U.S., LLC, is a limited liability company
organized under the laws of the state of Delaware, and maintains
its principal place of business in Cranbury.  Prinston is the sole
member of Solco.  Solco is the U.S. sales and marketing "division"
of Prinston.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lanny Darr, Esq.
          DARR LAW OFFICES, LTD.
          307 Henry Street, Suite 406
          Alton, IL 62002
          Telephone: (618)208-6828
          Facsimile: (618)433-8519
          E-mail: darr@darrfirm.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 ***