CAR_Public/180926.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, September 26, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 193

                            Headlines

ALLERGAN INC: Court Enters Final Judgment in Securities Suit
AMEDISYS HOLDING: Summary Judgment Bid in TCPA Suit Partly Granted
APPLIED OPTOELECTRONICS: Bid to Drop Abouzied Suit Still Pending
AV HOMES: Franchi Suit Alleges Exchange Act Violation
BANDAS LAW: Court Narrows Claims in Edelson RICO Suit

BANK OF AMERICA: Fernandez Moves to Certify Class and Subclass
BATH & BODY: Website not Accessible to Blind, Kathy Wu Says
BET INFORMATION: Dillon Suit Alleges FCRA and FLSA Violations
BRADLY COUNTY: Eden Files Suit in E.D. Tennessee
BROTHER INTL: Friedman Sues over Toner Cartridge Printing Capacity

CAMELBAK PRODUCTS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wage, Mosqueda-Zavala Says
CHESAPEAKE APPALACHIA: Sixth Circuit Appeal Filed in Back Suit
CHEVRON USA: Status Conference in Anderson Continued to Sept. 28
CLIENT SERVICES: Corea Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
CONSUMER REPORTS: Sued for Illegally Disclosing Watterson's Info

CR ENGLAND: 10th Cir. Vacates Harper Class Certification
DERMALOGICA LLC: Johnson Seeks to Recoup Overtime & Minimum Wages
DEUTSCHE BANK: Royal Park Suit Stayed Pending RMBS Suit Resolution
DOMINICK DORIA: Romero Files FLSA Suit in S.D. New York
DOMINION ENERGY: Appeals Ruling in Metzler Asset Suit to 4th Cir.

ECLINICALWORKS LLC: Licari Amends Bid to Certify Three Classes
ELECTROLUX HOME: Suit Over Defective Gas Ovens Dismissed
EXXON MOBIL: Court Narrows Claims in Ramirez Securities Suit
FCA US: Can Compel Private Inspection of Vehicles in Rasnic Suit
FCA US: Court Affirms Summary Judgment in Faltermeier MMPA Suit

FEDERAL HOME: Court Strikes Feinstein Expert Testimony
FIRST NATIONAL: Eagle Suit Alleges FDCPA Violation
FONTEM US: Court Dismisses Consumer Class Suit
FREEDOMROADS LLC: Court Enters Arbitration Ruling in Piner Suit
FXCM INC: 2nd Amended Securities Class Suit Dismissed

GAINESVILLE CAPITAL: Quarterman Files ADA Suit in N.D. Florida
GENE BY GENE: 9th Cir. Affirms Denial of Cole Class Certification
GERBER PRODUCTS: Dismissal of Hobbs Suit Over GSG False Ad Denied
GLA COLLECTION: Toogood Sues Over Misleading Collection Practices
HARRIS COUNTY, TX: 5th Cir. Stays O'Donnell Class Suit

HOMESTREET BANK: Kuzich Conditional Class Cert Partly OK'd
HUTCHISON TREE: Berber Class Conditional Certification Partly OK'd
IMG WORLDWIDE: Sullivan Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
INTERNATIONAL TEXTILE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Arakilian Says
JESSE CASARES: JT's Frames' Bid to Certify Class Under Advisement

JUST ENERGY: Court Issues Protective Order in Evangelista Suit
KEIHIN CORP: Vitec Sues Over Fuel Injection System Price-Fixing
KELLER WILLIAMS: Dressel Seeks Damages for TCPA Breach
KOHL'S CORP: Ankcorn's Bid to Certify Class Entered and Continued
L.L. BEAN: Court Grants Leave to Amend Shirley Suit

LAS VEGAS, NV: Fails to Pay OT to Firefighters, Scheumann Claims
LUX COSMETIC: Olivera Moves for Certification of Class Under FLSA
LUX COSMETIC: Rivera Seeks Certification of Class Under FLSA
M&M SEACREST: Honeywell Files ADA Suit in S.D. Florida
MAGELLAN HEALTHCARE: Court Denies Certification of Malvern Class

MARKETSOURCE INC: Sept. 28 Deadline to Comply w/ Discovery Order
MARRIOTT EMPLOYEES: Payne Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP: Settlement in Finerman Has Final Approval
MARTHA STEWART LIVING: Sullivan Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MCCORMICK & CO: Court Narrows Claims in Holve Class Suit

MCKESSON CORP: OT Class Action Obtains Conditional Certification
MDL 2262: $43MM Attorneys' Fees Awarded in Antitrust Suit
MDL 2617: $115MM Settlement in Data Breach Suit Has Final Approval
MERCK & CO: Albisano et al. Suit Moved to E.D. Pennsylvania
MERCK & CO: Bravo et al. Suit Moved to E.D. Pennsylvania

MILWAUKEE, WI: Ct. Refuses to Certify Inmates Class in Wilke Suit
MODESTO AREA: Berry Appeals E.D. Calif. Ruling to Ninth Circuit
MV PUBLIC TRANS: Faces Arnold Wage-and-Hour Suit
NATIONAL RECOVERY: Wins Final OK of $14K Deal in Zirogiannis Suit
NEW YORK: Court Narrows Claims in Paige Class Suit

NORTH BAY: Patients' Hospital Data Breach Class Action Certified
NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Taubenfliegel Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
NRJM INC: Joint Bid to Stay Proceedings, Notice Approval Filed
NUDGE LLC: Time to File Class Certification Bid Extended
OCWEN LOAN: Settlement in Grant FDCA Suit Has Prelim Approval

PARAGON CONTRACTING: Edson Suit Alleges FDCPA Violation
PEOPLE'S UNITED: Parshall Suit Underway in Connecticut State Court
PERMANENTE MEDICAL: Wins Final Approval of $37,500 Wolf Suit Deal
PETROBRAS: Court Awards $12K Attorneys' Fees in Securities Suit
PTZ INSURANCE: Summary Judgment Bid in Legg Suit Partly Granted

RETRIEVAL MASTERS: Seventh Circuit Appeal Filed in Cooper Suit
REVLON INC: Flint Files False Labeling Suit in New York
ROCK ISLAND COUNTY, IL: Court Dismisses Macon Prisoners Suit
ROCKY MOUNTAIN: Thrasher Class Suit Alleges EFTA Violation
SAFEGUARD PROPERTIES: Bid to Set Status Conference in Bund Denied

SAFEGUARD PROPERTY: Summary Judgment in Schlaf FDCPA Suit Upheld
SODASTREAM INT'L: Zucker Class Suit Challenges Sale to PepsiCo
SONY CORP: Averts Class Action Over Fake Michael Jackson Vocal
SOOTHE INC: Tolbert et al. Seek Payment of OT & Expenses
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Judge Rejects Class Action Over Fingerprints

SPLC: Class Action Over Public Defender System Certified
SURNAIK HOLDINGS: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Amended Barker Suit
T&B MANAGEMENT: Class of Servers, Bartenders Certified in "Chavez"
TATA CONSULTANCY: Bid for Judgment on Pleadings in Slaight Denied
TD AMERITRADE: Court Certifies Class of Clients in Klein Suit

TERRA INDUSTRIES: Sued by Priebe for Not Paying Minimum, OT Wages
TERRACE DINER: Underpays Busboys, Clemente Santos Claims
TESLA INC: Robbins Geller Files Securities Fraud Class Action
TRADER JOE'S: Brumfield Appeals Order and Judgment to 2nd Circuit
TRES AMIGOS: Flynn Suit Alleges FLSA Violation

TRI-COUNTY ELECTRIC: Court Dismisses Smith Suit
TRISTAR PRODUCTS: Arizona Appeals Ruling in Chapman Class Suit
TUOLUMNE COUNTY, CA: Ct. Won't Approve Kerzich FLSA Suit Deal
UBS: Settles Class Action Over Disabilities Act Violations
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Court Denies Trujillo's Bid to Certify Class

UNIVERSAL HANDICRAFT: Settlement in Mollicone Has Final Approval
US ALLIANCE: Velazquez Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA
US EXPRESS: Faces Class Action in Va. Over Recruitment Robocalls
WAL-MART STORES: Holzum Suit Remanded to Missouri State Court
WAL-MART: Responds to Pregnant Workers' Discrimination Complaint

WESTCHESTER, CA: Lamont Wants to Change Venue to S.D. New York
WILLIAMS-SONOMA INC: Case Mngt Statement in Kutza Due Oct. 18
[*] William Fry Attorneys Discuss Class Action Implications of GDPR

                            *********

ALLERGAN INC: Court Enters Final Judgment in Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge David O. Carter of the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, Southern Division, has entered final
judgment in the case, IN RE ALLERGAN, INC. PROXY VIOLATION
SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 8:14-cv-02004-DOC-KESx (C.D. Cal.)

The case arises out of the decision, in February 2014, by
Canadian-based pharmaceutical company Valeant and hedge fund
management company Pershing Square to team up to help Valeant
pursue a combination with Irvine-based pharmaceutical company
Allergan.  Between February and April, Pershing Square acquired
9.7% of Allergan's shares.  In the end of April, Valeant disclosed
its intention to acquire Allergan, after which stock prices
increased significantly, and in June 2014, Valeant publicly
announced a tender offer for Allergan shares after Allergan's board
of directors had rebuffed an unsolicited merger proposal.  

Ultimately, another bidder named Actavis acquired Allergan after
offering shareholders $219 per share -- more than the $200 per
share Valeant offered.  Nonetheless, as a result of the significant
rise in stock prices coinciding with Valeant's attempted
acquisition and Actavis' successful effort, Pershing Square earned
over $2 billion in profits on its stake of Allergan shares.

The Plaintiffs subsequently brought the class action, alleging that
the Valeant Defendants and Pershing Defendants violated federal
securities laws and regulations in connection with Valeant's tender
offer for Allergan, specifically by employing an illegal insider
trading and front-running scheme that deprived a class of Allergan
shareholders of billions of dollars.

By Order dated March 15, 2017, the Court certified the Action to
proceed as a class action on behalf of all persons who sold
Allergan common stock contemporaneously with purchases of Allergan
common stock made or caused by the Defendants during the period
Feb. 25, 2014 through April 21, 2014, inclusive and were damaged
thereby.

The Parties have entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of
Settlement dated Jan. 26, 2018, that provides for a complete
dismissal with prejudice of the claims asserted against the
Defendants in the Action on the terms and conditions set forth in
the Stipulation, subject to the approval of the Court.

By Order dated March 19, 2018, the Court: (i) preliminarily
approved the Settlement; (ii) ordered that notice of the proposed
Settlement be provided to the Class; (iii) provided Class Members
with the opportunity to object to the proposed Settlement; and (iv)
scheduled a hearing regarding final approval of the Settlement.  It
conducted a hearing on June 12, 2018 to consider, among other
things, (i) whether the terms and conditions of the Settlement are
fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Class, and should therefore
be approved; and (ii) whether a judgment should be entered
dismissing the Action with prejudice as against the Defendants;
and

Judge Carter, having reviewed and considered the Stipulation, and
the Settlement, granted the Parties' Settlement.  He dismissed with
prejudice the Action and all of the claims asserted against the
Defendants by the Plaintiffs and the other Class Members.  The
Parties will bear their own costs and expenses, except as otherwise
expressly provided in the Stipulation.

Separate orders will be entered regarding approval of a plan of
allocation and the motion of the Lead Counsel for an award of
attorneys' fees and reimbursement of Litigation Expenses.  Such
orders will in no way affect or delay the finality of the Judgment
and will not affect or delay the Effective Date of the Settlement.

There is no just reason to delay the entry of the Judgment as a
final judgment in te Action.  Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court
is expressly directed to immediately enter the final judgment in
the Action.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 14, 2018 Judgment is available
at https://is.gd/YyH1yC from Leagle.com.

Anthony Basile, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Albert Y. Chang --
mail@bottinilaw.com -- Bottini and Bottini Inc., Joanna W. LiCalsi
-- jlicalsi@gmail.com -- Law Office of Joanna W LiCalsi, Joseph
Winters Cotchett -- jcotchett@cpmlegal.com -- Cotchett Pitre and
McCarthy LLP, Mark Cotton Molumphy -- mmolumphy@cpmlegal.com --
Cotchett Pitre and McCarthy LLP, Yury A. Kolesnikov , Bottini and
Bottini Inc & Francis A. Bottini, Jr., Bottini and Bottini Inc.

Patrick T. Johnson, Plaintiff, represented by Eli R. Greenstein --
egreenstein@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer and Check LLP, Stacey
M. Kaplan -- skaplan@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer and Check
LLP, Darren J. Check -- dcheck@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer
and Check LLP, pro hac vice, Edward G. Timlin --
edward.timlin@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein Litowitz Berger and
Grossmann LLP, pro hac vice, Gregory M. Castaldo, Kessler Topaz
Meltzer and Check LLP, pro hac vice, Jeremy P. Robinson --
Jeremy@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein Litowitz Berger and Grossmann LLP,
pro hac vice, Joshua E. D'Ancona -- jdancona@ktmc.com -- Kessler
Topaz Meltzer and Check LLP, pro hac vice, Joshua Materese, Kessler
Topaz Meltzer and Check LLP, pro hac vice, Justin O. Reliford --
jreliford@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer and Check LLP, pro hac
vice, Lee D. Rudy -- lrudy@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer and
Check LLP, pro hac vice, Paul Aaron Breucop -- pbreucop@ktmc.com --
Kessler Topaz Meltzer and Check LLP & Richard D. Gluck --
rich.gluck@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein Litowitz Berger and Grossmann
LLP.

Iowa Public Employees Retirement System & State Teachers Retirement
System of Ohio, Plaintiffs, represented by Angus Fei Ni, Bernstein
Litowitz Berger and Grossmann LLP, pro hac vice, Eli R. Greenstein,
Kessler Topaz Meltzer and Check LLP, Gregory M. Castaldo, Kessler
Topaz Meltzer and Check LLP, pro hac vice, Joshua Materese, Kessler
Topaz Meltzer and Check LLP, pro hac vice, Kurt Hunciker, Bernstein
Litowitz Berger and Grossmann LLP, pro hac vice, Paul Aaron
Breucop, Kessler Topaz Meltzer and Check LLP & Richard D. Gluck,
Bernstein Litowitz Berger and Grossmann LLP.

Patricia Robinson, Movant, represented by Laurence M. Rosen, The
Rosen Law Firm PA.

State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio, Movant, Eli R.
Greenstein, Kessler Topaz Meltzer and Check LLP, Stacey M. Kaplan,
Kessler Topaz Meltzer and Check LLP, Darren J. Check, Kessler Topaz
Meltzer and Check LLP, pro hac vice, Edward G. Timlin, Bernstein
Litowitz Berger and Grossmann LLP, pro hac vice, Gregory M.
Castaldo, Kessler Topaz Meltzer and Check LLP, pro hac vice, Jeremy
P. Robinson, Bernstein Litowitz Berger and Grossmann LLP, pro hac
vice, Joshua E. D'Ancona, Kessler Topaz Meltzer and Check LLP, pro
hac vice, Joshua Materese, Kessler Topaz Meltzer and Check LLP, pro
hac vice, Justin O. Reliford, Kessler Topaz Meltzer and Check LLP,
pro hac vice, Lee D. Rudy, Kessler Topaz Meltzer and Check LLP, pro
hac vice, Paul Aaron Breucop, Kessler Topaz Meltzer and Check LLP &
Richard D. Gluck, Bernstein Litowitz Berger and Grossmann LLP &
Ryan T. Degnan, Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer and Check LLP, pro
hac vice.

Iowa Public Employees Retirement System, Movant, represented by Eli
R. Greenstein, Kessler Topaz Meltzer and Check LLP, Stacey M.
Kaplan, Kessler Topaz Meltzer and Check LLP, Darren J. Check,
Kessler Topaz Meltzer and Check LLP, pro hac vice, Edward G.
Timlin, Bernstein Litowitz Berger and Grossmann LLP, pro hac vice,
Gregory M. Castaldo, Kessler Topaz Meltzer and Check LLP, pro hac
vice, Jeremy P. Robinson, Bernstein Litowitz Berger and Grossmann
LLP, pro hac vice, Joshua E. D'Ancona, Kessler Topaz Meltzer and
Check LLP, pro hac vice, Joshua Materese, Kessler Topaz Meltzer and
Check LLP, pro hac vice, Justin O. Reliford, Kessler Topaz Meltzer
and Check LLP, pro hac vice, Lee D. Rudy, Kessler Topaz Meltzer and
Check LLP, pro hac vice, Paul Aaron Breucop, Kessler Topaz Meltzer
and Check LLP & Richard D. Gluck, Bernstein Litowitz Berger and
Grossmann LLP & Ryan T. Degnan, Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer and
Check LLP, pro hac vice.

Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, Movant, represented by
Richard D. Gluck, Bernstein Litowitz Berger and Grossmann LLP.

Timber Hill LLC, Movant, represented by Marc M. Seltzer, Susman
Godfrey LLP.

Victoria Browning, Movant, represented by Francis A. Bottini, Jr.,
Bottini and Bottini Inc.

Valeant Pharmaceutical International, Inc. & Valeant
Pharmaceuticals International, Defendants, represented by John C.
Hueston -- jhueston@hueston.com -- Hueston Hennigan LLP, Robert A.
Sacks -- sacksr@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan and Cromwell LLP, Allison
Lauren Libeu -- alibeu@hueston.com -- Hueston Hennigan LLP, Brian
T. Frawley -- frawleyb@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan and Cromwell LLP,
pro hac vice, Daniel A. Loevinsohn -- loevinsohnd@sullcrom.com --
Sullivan and Cromwell LLP, Jackson Samuel Trugman, Sullivan and
Cromwell LLP, Laura Kabler Oswell -- oswelll@sullcrom.com --
Sullivan and Cromwell LLP, Moez M. Kaba -- mkaba@hueston.com --
Hueston Hennigan LLP & Steven N. Feldman -- sfeldman@hueston.com --
Hueston Hennigan LLP.

AGMS, Inc., Defendant, represented by Robert A. Sacks , Sullivan
and Cromwell LLP & Brian T. Frawley, Sullivan and Cromwell LLP, pro
hac vice.

Pershing Square Capital Management, L.P., PS Management, GP, LLC,
PS Fund 1, LLC & William A. Ackman, Defendants, represented by Mark
C. Holscher, Kirkland and Ellis LLP, Michael J. Shipley, Kirkland
and Ellis LLP, Austin C. Norris, Kirkland and Ellis LLP, C. Robert
Boldt, Kirkland and Ellis LLP, Eileen M. Patt, Kraker Levin
Naftalis and Frankel LLP, pro hac vice, Jay Bhimani , Kirkland and
Ellis LLP, John P. Coffey, Kramer Levin Naftalis and Frankel LLP,
pro hac vice, Norman C. Simon, Kramer Levin Naftalis and Frankel
LLP, pro hac vice, Robert S. Cohen, Taylor and Cohen LLP, pro hac
vice, Seth F. Schinfeld, Kramer Levin Naftalis and Frankel LLP, pro
hac vice, Tanya Louise Greene, Kirkland and Ellis LLP & Zachary S.
Taylor, Taylor and Cohen LLP, pro hac vice.

Michael Pearson, Defendant, represented by Daniel G. Murphy , Loeb
and Loeb LLP, Robert A. Sacks, Sullivan and Cromwell LLP, Ada
Fernandez-Johnson , Debevoise and Plimpton LLP, pro hac vice, Bruce
E. Yannet , Debevoise and Plimpton LLP, pro hac vice, Daniel A.
Loevinsohn, Sullivan and Cromwell LLP, Jackson Samuel Trugman ,
Sullivan and Cromwell LLP, Jonathan R. Tuttle, Debevoise and
Plimpton LLP, pro hac vice, Laura Kabler Oswell, Sullivan and
Cromwell LLP & Walter Allan Edmiston, Loeb and Loeb LLP.

Pershing Square, L.P., Pershing Square II, L.P., Pershing Square
International, Pershing Square Holdings, Ltd. & Pershing Square GP,
LLC, Defendants, represented by Mark C. Holscher, Kirkland and
Ellis LLP, Michael J. Shipley, Kirkland and Ellis LLP, Austin C.
Norris, Kirkland and Ellis LLP, C. Robert Boldt, Kirkland and Ellis
LLP & Jay Bhimani, Kirkland and Ellis LLP.

Hon. James L. Smith, Special Master, pro se.

Robert O'Brien, Special Master, pro se.

RBC Capital Markets, LLC, Barclays Capital Inc., Paul Parker &
Andrew Burch, Interested Partys, represented by Peter Ian Altman,
Akin Gump Strauss Hauer and Feld LLP.

Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, Interested
Party, represented by Amber L. Fitzgerald , Fried Frank Harris
Shriver and Jacobson LLP.

Allergan, Inc., Objector, represented by Kristin Nicole Murphy ,
Latham and Watkins LLP.


AMEDISYS HOLDING: Summary Judgment Bid in TCPA Suit Partly Granted
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ADVANCED REHAB AND MEDICAL, P.C., Plaintiff, v.
AMEDISYS HOLDING, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-01149-JDB-egb
(W.D. Tenn.), Judge J. Daniel Breen of the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Tennessee, Eastern Division, granted in
part and denied in part the Defendant's motion for partial summary
judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

In its first amended class action complaint filed Jan. 31, 2018,
against the Amedisys, Advanced Rehab, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, alleged
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991
("TCPA"), as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005.

Amedisys, a provider of home health care and hospice services,
received referrals from physicians and health care clinics who
determined their patients were in need of such care.  In an effort
to facilitate those referrals, the Defendant routinely sent
facsimile transmissions to health care providers from whom it had
received prior referrals.

The transmissions at issue in the amended pleading contained an
"opt-out" notice which read as follows: "You may request not to
receive future faxes from us.  To stop receiving our faxes, please
call (888) 755-2327 or send a fax to (855) 782-6508.  You must
include the specific telephone number of the fax machine(s) at
which you do not wish to receive faxes.  Failure to comply with
your request within 30 days is unlawful.  

The Opt-Out Notice appeared at the bottom of each page next to a
graphic of a check box.

Advanced Rehab has alleged, among other things, that the Opt-Out
Notice violated the Act.  In the instant motion, the Defendant
seeks partial summary judgment as to its compliance with the
statutory notice provisions in an effort to streamline the
substantive and class issues before the Court in the case.

In response to the motion, the Plaintiff seeks denial of the relief
sought as to (1) whether the Opt-Out Notice was clear and
conspicuous; (2) whether the Notice set forth the requirements for
a proper opt-out request; and (3) whether the Notice complied with
the requirements of Section 227(d).

Judge Breen finds, as a matter of law, that the Notice was clear
and conspicuous for purposes of the TCPA.  Therefore, the
Defendant's motion for summary judgment on that issue will be
granted.

Next, the Judge rejected as an unpersuasive game of semantics the
Plaintiff's assertion that the notice failed to inform recipients
that an opt-out request must be in a specific form, as the notice
made clear that a request would not be honored unless it was sent
to the Defendant through one of the enumerated options.  The FCC
has made it clear that no specific wording is required.  He is
unpersuaded by the Plaintiff's position.  Accordingly, summary
judgment with respect to subparagraph (E)(ii) will be granted.

Subparagraph (E)(iii) is another matter.  Amedisys has proffered no
argument as to whether the Notice satisfied this subparagraph.5, 6
Thus, the Judge is unable to determine if relief is appropriate.
The motion for summary judgment based on this subparagraph will
therefore be denied.

Finally, the Plaintiff claims that the Opt-Out Notice failed to
comport with Section 227(d)(1)(B).  Because the Section
227(d)(1)(B) information appeared at the top of the page and the
Notice was placed at the bottom, the argument goes, Amedisys has
failed to establish the notice was sufficient as a matter of law.
Once again, the Judge hoolds that the nonmovant cites to no case
authority to support its assertion.  However, the Defendant offers
little in the way of substantive argument in support of summary
judgment.  Accordingly, based on the dearth of briefing on this
subject by either party, he is uninclined to grant summary
judgment.

For the reasons articulated, Judge Breen denied the Defendant's
motion for summary judgment as to the issues involving 47 U.S.C.
Sections 227(b)(2)(E)(iii) and (d)(1)(B) and granted as to the
remainder.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 15, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/tcSIuO from Leagle.com.

Advanced Rehab and Medical, PC, A Tennessee corporation,
individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly-situated persons, Plaintiff, represented by represented
by Brian John Wanca -- bwanca@andersonwanca.com -- ANDERSON &
WANCA, pro hac vice, Ryan
Michael Kelly -- rkelly@andersonwanca.com -- ANDERSON & WANCA, pro
hac vice & Benjamin Cole Aaron, NEAL & HARWELL PLC.

Amedisys Holding, LLC, Defendant, represented by Kevin C. Baltz --
kevin.baltz@butlersnow.com -- BUTLER SNOW LLP.


APPLIED OPTOELECTRONICS: Bid to Drop Abouzied Suit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a Texas
securities class action lawsuit remains pending, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018.

On August 5, 2017, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Texas against the Company and two of
its officers in Mona Abouzied v. Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.,
Chih-Hsiang (Thompson) Lin, and Stefan J. Murry,  et al., Case No.
4:17-cv-02399.  The complaint in this matter seeks class action
status on behalf of the Company's shareholders, alleging violations
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the
Company, its chief executive officer, and its chief financial
officer, arising out of its announcement on August 3, 2017 that "we
see softer than expected demand for our 40G solutions with one of
our large customers that will offset the sequential growth and
increased demand we expect in 100G."

A second, related action was filed by Plaintiff Chad Ludwig on
August 16, 2017 (Case No. 4:17-cv-02512) in the Southern District
of Texas.  The two cases were consolidated before Judge Vanessa D.
Gilmore.

On January 22, 2018, the court appointed Lawrence Rougier as Lead
Plaintiff and Levi & Korinsky LLP as Lead Counsel.  Lead Plaintiff
filed an amended consolidated class action complaint on March 6,
2018.  The amended complaint requests unspecified damages and other
relief.  The Company disputes the allegations and intends to
vigorously contest the matter.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss on April 4, 2018.  Lead
Plaintiff filed a response in opposition to the motion to dismiss
on May 4, 2018, and briefing was completed on May 21, 2018.
Further deadlines in this matter have been stayed until the court
issues a decision on the pending motion to dismiss.

Applied Optoelectronics, Inc. is a leading, vertically integrated
provider of fiber-optic networking products, primarily for four
networking end-markets: internet data center, cable television, or
CATV, telecommunication, or telecom and fiber-to-the-home, or FTTH.
The company is based in Sugar Land, Texas.


AV HOMES: Franchi Suit Alleges Exchange Act Violation
-----------------------------------------------------
Adam Franchi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. AV Homes, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-01161 (D. Del.,
August 3, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for violation of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

This action stems from a proposed transaction announced on June 7,
2018, pursuant to which AV Homes, Inc. will be acquired by Taylor
Morison Home Corporation and its affiliates.

The Plaintiff alleged that the registration statement that the
Defendants filed on July 13, 2018, omits material information with
respect to the proposed transaction, which renders the registration
statement false and misleading.

The Plaintiff is an owner of AV Homes common stock.

The Defendant AV Homes is a Delaware corporation and maintains its
principal executive offices at 6730 N. Scottsdale Road, Suite 150,
Scottsdale, Arizona 85253. AV Home's common stock is traded on the
NasdaqGS under the ticker symbol "AVHI."

The Individual Defendants are members of the AV Homes' board of
directors. [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
      Tel: (302) 295-5310
      Fax: (302) 654-7530
      E-mail: bdl@rl-legal.com
              gms@rl-legal.com


BANDAS LAW: Court Narrows Claims in Edelson RICO Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
In the case, EDELSON PC, an Illinois professional corporation,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. THE BANDAS LAW FIRM PC, a Texas professional
corporation, CHRISTOPHER BANDAS, an individual, LAW OFFICES OF
DARRELL PALMER PC d/b/a DARRELL PALMER LAW OFFICE, a suspended
California professional corporation, JOSEPH DARRELL PALMER, an
individual, NOONAN PERILLO & THUT LTD., an Illinois corporation, C.
JEFFREY THUT, an individual, GARY STEWART, an individual and JOHN
DOES 1-20, Defendants, Case No. 16 C 11057 (N.D. Ill.), Judge
Rebecca R. Pallmeyer of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted in part and denied
in part the Defendants' motions to dismiss the Plaintiff's
state-law claims.

The parties to the case are all involved in class action
litigation, but the two sides play very different roles.  Plaintiff
Edelson is an Illinois law firm that frequently represents
consumers in class action lawsuits.  The Defendants regularly
involve themselves in these case by filing what the Plaintiff
alleges are frivolous objections in order to leverage lucrative
payoffs.  It alleges that the class counsel agree to these payoffs
because the alternative is unacceptable: the price to be paid for
resisting demands of these "professional objectors" is delayed
relief for class members and a long and costly appeals process.

The Plaintiff brings the suit on behalf of itself and others
similarly affected by the Defendants' allegedly extortionate
practices.  The Defendants in the case include Texas attorney
Christopher Bandas and his firm, The Bandas Law Firm PC; California
attorney Joseph Darrell Palmer and his firm, Law Offices of Darrell
Palmer PC; and Illinois attorney C. Jeffrey Thut and his firm,
Noonan Perillo & Thut Ltd.  The Plaintiff has also sued numerous
other non-attorneys -- California resident Gary Stewart and 20
additional John Doe Defendants -- who allegedly aided Bandas,
Palmer, and Thut by identifying class action lawsuits and serving
as the class objectors.

Although courts nationwide have denounced the Defendants' behavior
-- and, in the case of Palmer, suspended him from the practice of
law -- the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants' conduct amounts
to something more: criminal racketeering.  The Plaintiff sued the
Defendants for violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations ("RICO") Act, alleging a pattern of racketeering
activity that includes extortion, bribery, and money laundering,
among other offenses.

The Plaintiff also asserted claims under Illinois state law for
abuse of process and the unauthorized practice of law.  Finally,
the Plaintiff urged the court to label Bandas, Thut, and Palmer
"vexatious litigants" and issue a permanent injunction pursuant to
the All Writs Act.  Defendants Bandas, Thut, and Stewart moved to
dismiss the Plaintiff's claims under Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).

In a previous opinion, the Court granted the Defendants' motions in
part and dismissed the Plaintiff's federal RICO claims for failure
to allege predicate acts of racketeering.  It reserved judgment on
the Plaintiff's state law claims, however, pending further briefing
on whether it had subject-matter jurisdiction to hear them,
following dismissal of the related federal claims.

In response to the Court's order to show cause, the Plaintiff
argues that its state law claims are properly before the Court
under either supplemental jurisdiction, or traditional diversity
jurisdiction.  Defendant Bandas responds that supplemental
jurisdiction is improper because Illinois courts remain open to the
Plaintiff and the putative class, and, further, that the Plaintiff
cannot meet the $75,000 amount in controversy threshold required to
bring the suit in diversity.

Now that it has dismissed Thut and the 20 John Doe Defendants from
the suit, the Court is satisfied that is has subject-matter to hear
the merits of the Plaintiff's state-law claims.  It therefore turns
to the Defendants' Motions to Dismiss for failure to state a claim
under FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6).  

Judge Pallmeyer finds that the tort abuse of process is narrow and
disfavored by Illinois law.  The Plaintiff's alleged injury does
not come close to meeting the usual standard.  This fact militates
against expanding abuse of process liability to cover settlement
demands that are, as explained earlier, difficult to distinguish
from lawful hard bargaining or from demands to settle ordinary
frivolous lawsuits, which courts do not consider extortion.  Count
IV of the Amended Complaint is dismissed.  As Count IV is the only
remaining claim asserted against Defendant Stewart, Stewart is also
dismissed from the lawsuit.

The Plaintiff's final claim seeks an injunction against Defendants
Bandas and Palmer for the unauthorized practice of law pursuant to
the Illinois Attorney Act.  It seeks the injunction to prevent
Bandas and Palmer from collecting any of the $225,000 in
"attorneys' fees" that Bandas demanded at the mediation session in
exchange for withdrawing the objection, and, more generally, from
engaging in similar schemes in Illinois.

The Judge finds that Bandas is licensed to practice only in Texas,
and Palmer is not licensed to practice anywhere.  This is not to
say that Plaintiff has already proved its case that either Bandas
or Palmer performed the alleged legal services in Illinois as
required by the Act, however.  The Plaintiff has alleged that
Bandas and Palmer covertly managed the Clark v. Gannett Co.
litigation and drafted all of the pleadings for in-state
figureheads (Thut and Stewart) with the explicit purpose of evading
the Court's jurisdiction.  The Judge concludes only that these
allegations are sufficient to state a plausible claim for the
unauthorized practice of law.

As the Court stated in its previous opinion, the Defendants have
engaged in a pattern of reprehensible conduct that has harmed the
Plaintiff and others and benefits no one other than the Defendants
themselves.  Judge Pallmeyer is troubled by the fact that until now
the Court's decisions appear to leave the Plaintiff and those
similarly affected without an adequate remedy -- and may fail to
deter the Defendants from further rent-seeking.  She can only
repeat the Court's earlier advice that the class counsel facing
similar demands may be best served by calling the professional
objector's bluff and seeing the objector's appeal through to its
conclusion.

The Judge also notes that the Supreme Court has recently
transmitted an amendment of FED. R. CIV. P. 23 to Congress.  If
allowed to go into effect, the new Rule would require district
court approval before any objector can withdraw an objection or
appeal in exchange for money or other consideration.

For the reasons stated, Judge Pallmeyer is satisfied by the
Plaintiff's showing that the Court has subject-matter jurisdiction
to hear the dispute.  Revisiting the Defendants' Motions to Dismiss
the Plaintiff's state-law claims, she granted the motions with
respect to Count IV of the Amended Complaint, and denied them them
with respect to Count V.  Defendants Thut, Stewart, and the John
Doe Defendants are dismissed from the action.  The case will
proceed only on the injunctive relief sought in Count V of the
Amended Complaint, which  is asserted by tge Plaintiff on its own
behalf against Defendants Bandas and Palmer.  The Plaintiff is
welcome to re-assert its requests for judicial action pursuant to
the All Writs Act during the course of the litigation.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 20, 2018 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/zHSLBj from Leagle.com.

Edelson PC, Plaintiff, represented by Eve-Lynn J. Rapp --
erapp@edelson.com -- Edelson P.C., Alexander Glenn Tievsky --
atievsky@edelson.com -- Edelson Pc, Benjamin Harris Richman --
brichman@edelson.com -- Edelson PC, Ryan D. Andrews --
randrews@edelson.com -- Edelson P.C. & Rafey S. Balabanian --
rbalabanian@edelson.com -- Edelson PC.

The Bandas Law Firm PC, Christopher Bandas & Gary Stewart,
Defendants, represented by Darren Mark Raven Van Puymbrouck --
dvan@freeborn.com -- Freeborn & Peters, LLP, Alexander S.
Vesselinovitch -- avesselinovitch@freeborn.com -- Freeborn &
Peters, LLP & Matthew Thomas Connelly -- mconnelly@freeborn.com --
Freeborn and Peters.

Noonan Perillo & Thut Ltd & C. Jeffery Thut, Defendants,
represented by Chris C. Gair -- cgair@gairlawgroup.com -- Gair
Eberhard Nelson Dedinas Ltd, Joseph R. Marconi --
marconij@jbltd.com -- Johnson & Bell, Ltd., Kristi Lynn Nelson --
knelson@gairlawgroup.com -- Gair Eberhard Nelson Dedinas Ltd, Brian
C. Langs -- langsb@jbltd.com -- Johnson & Bell Ltd., Thomas
Reynolds Heisler -- theisler@gairlawgroup.com -- Gair Eberhard
Nelson Dedinas Ltd & Victor J. Pioli -- pioliv@jbltd.com -- Johnson
& Bell, Ltd.


BANK OF AMERICA: Fernandez Moves to Certify Class and Subclass
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Fernandez, Alex Yong, and Joshua Boswell, the named plaintiffs
in the consolidated actions entitled Fernandez/Yong v. Bank of
America, NA., et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-06104-MWF-JC, and Boswell v.
Bank of America, et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-06120-GW-RAO (C.D. Cal.),
move for an order certifying the case as a class action for these
class and subclass:

   * Class:

     All current or former California residents who worked for
     Defendant at its financial centers selling or originating
     mortgages at any time beginning August 17, 2013 through the
     date notice is mailed to the Class.

   * Overtime Subclass:

     All current or former California residents who worked for
     Defendant at its financial centers selling or originating
     mortgages at any time beginning August 17, 2013 through the
     date notice is mailed to the Class, and who were classified
     as exempt from overtime.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint their counsel, Joshua
H. Haffner, et al., and Graham G. Lambert, et al., of Haffner Law
PC, Paul Stevens, et al., of Stevens L.C., and Mark Thierman, et
al., and Joshua Buck, et al., of Thierman Buck LLP to serve as
counsel to the class.  The Plaintiffs further ask the Court to
authorize notice to the class of the pending action and its
members' right to opt-out under Rule 23(d)(2) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure.

The Court will commence a hearing on November 19, 2018, at 10:00
a.m., to consider the Motion.

Plaintiffs JOSE FERNANDEZ, ET AL., are represented by:

          Joshua H. Haffner, Esq.
          Graham G. Lambert, Esq.
          HAFFNER LAW PC
          445 South Figueroa St., Suite 2325
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 514-5681
          Facsimile: (213) 514-5682
          E-mail: jhh@haffnerlawyers.com
                  gl@haffnerlawyers.com

               - and -

          Paul Stevens, Esq.
          STEVENS, LC
          700 S. Flower Street, Suite 660
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 270-1211
          Facsimile: (213) 270-1223
          E-mail: pstevens@stevenslc.com

Plaintiffs JOSHUA B. BOSWELL, ET AL., are represented by:

          Mark R. Thierman, Esq.
          Joshua D. Buck, Esq.
          Leah L. Jones, Esq.
          THIERMAN BUCK LLP
          7287 Lakeside Drive
          Reno, NV 89511
          Telephone: (775) 284-1500
          Facsimile: (775) 703-5027
          E-mail: mark@thiermanbuck.com
                  josh@thiermanbuck.com
                  leah@thiermanbuck.com


BATH & BODY: Website not Accessible to Blind, Kathy Wu Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
KATHY WU AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the
Plaintiffs, v. BATH & BODY WORKS DIRECT, INC. AND BATH & BODY
WORKS, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-08323 (S.D.N.Y., Sept.
12, 2018), alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually
impaired people.

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BET INFORMATION: Dillon Suit Alleges FCRA and FLSA Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Felicia Dillon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BET Information Systems, Inc. dba Survey.Com, Case No.
4:18-cv-04717 (N.D. Calif., August 6, 2018), is brought against the
Defendant for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff Felicia Dillon is a resident of California. She was
classified as an independent contractor by Defendant in January
2018 to July 2018. She worked for Defendant as a Merchandiser in
various third party retail stores in California.

The Defendant BET Information Systems, Inc., doing business as
Survey.com, provides on-demand merchandising services to third
party retailers throughout the country. Defendant operates a mobile
app through which its Merchandisers can receive schedules and
assignments, report their progress, and track their compensation
from Defendant, which is transferred to them via PayPal and
consists entirely of a fixed piece rate for each project completed.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Trenton R. Kashima, Esq.
      Jeffrey R. Krinsk, Esq.
      FINKELSTEIN & KRINSK LLP
      550 West C St., Suite 1760
      San Diego, CA 92101-3593
      Tel: (619) 238-1333
      Fax: (619) 238-5425
      E-mail: trk@classactionlaw.com
              jrk@classactionlaw.com


BRADLY COUNTY: Eden Files Suit in E.D. Tennessee
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bradley County,
Tennessee et al. The case is styled as Darrell Eden, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Bradley
County, Tennessee, Sheriff Eric Watson, Captain Gabriel Thomas,
John Doe, Jane Doe, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00217 (E.D. Tenn.,
Sept. 18 2018).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights.

Bradley County is a county located in the southeastern portion of
the U.S. state of Tennessee. As of the 2010 census, the population
was 98,963.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joseph Alan Jackson, II, Esq.
     Spears, Moore, Rebman & Williams P.C.
     601 Market Street, Suite 400
     Chattanooga, TN 37402
     Phone: (423) 757-0404
     Email: JAJ@smrw.com


BROTHER INTL: Friedman Sues over Toner Cartridge Printing Capacity
------------------------------------------------------------------
ZEEY FRIEDMAN, ESQ. D/B/A THE FRIEDMAN LAW FIRM, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, 3401 Enterprise
Parkway, Suite 330 Cleveland, OH 44122, the Plaintiff, vs. BROTHER
INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION C/O CORPORATION SERVICE COMPANY 50 West
Broad Street Suite 1330 Columbus, OH 43215, the Defendant, Case No.
18 903618 (Ohio Ct. of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga Cty., Sept. 12,
2018), alleges that the Defendant designed its printers and toner
cartridges such that they deny the Plaintiff and class members
access to the full printing capacity of their toner
cartridges.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patrick J. Perotti, Esq.
          Nicole T. Fiorelli, Esq.
          Frank A. Bartela, Esq.
          Dworken & Bernstein Co., L.P.A.
          60 South Park Place
          Painesville, OH 44077
          Telephone: (440) 352 3391
          Facsimile: (440) 352 3469
          E-mail: pperotti@dworkenlaw.com
                  nfiorelli@dworkenlaw.com
                  fbartela@dworkenlaw.com


CAMELBAK PRODUCTS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wage, Mosqueda-Zavala Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ALICIA MOSQUEDA-ZAVALA, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. CAMELBAK PRODUCTS, LLC, a Delaware
corporation; VISTA OUTDOOR, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES
1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. BC721315 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los
Angeles Cty., September 13, 2018), accuses the Defendants of
failing to, among other things, pay minimum and straight time
wages, to pay overtime wages and to provide meal periods.

CamelBak Products, LLC, is a business entity conducting business in
numerous counties throughout the state of California, including in
Los Angeles County.  CamelBak manufactures and sells hydration
products and solutions.  CamelBak's products include hydration
packs for bike, outdoor, run, winter, mountain bike, downhill,
commuter, downhill/freeride, hike/alpine, ski/board, stand up
paddle, and multi-sport applications; and every day, sport/bike,
filtering, purification, insulated, stainless steel, and glass
water bottles, as well as pitchers and travel mugs.

Vista Outdoor, Inc., is a foreign corporation that has not
designated a principal business office in California.  Vista
designs, manufactures, and markets consumer products for outdoor
sports and recreation markets in the United States and
internationally.  The Plaintiff does not know the true names or
capacities of the Doe Defendants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kane Moon, Esq.
          Justin F. Marquez, Esq.
          Allen Feghali, Esq.
          MOON & YANG, APC
          1055 W. Seventh St., Suite 1880
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 232-3128
          Facsimile: (213)232-3125
          E-mail: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com
                  justin.marquez@moonyanglaw.com
                  allen.feghali@moonyanglaw.com


CHESAPEAKE APPALACHIA: Sixth Circuit Appeal Filed in Back Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Thomas R. Back filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit titled Thomas Back v. Chesapeake Appalachia, L.L.C., et
al., Case No. 7:16-cv-00192, in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Kentucky at Pikeville.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
was filed on September 2, 2016.

Chesapeake Energy is a petroleum and natural gas exploration and
production company headquartered in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

The appellate case is captioned as Thomas Back v. Chesapeake
Appalachia, L.L.C., et al., Case No. 18-5975, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant THOMAS R. BACK, Individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Clark C. Johnson, Esq.
          KAPLAN JOHNSON ABATE & BIRD LLP
          710 W. Main Street, Suite 400
          Louisville, KY 40202
          Telephone: (502) 242-9042
          E-mail: cjohnson@kaplanjohnsonlaw.com

Defendants-Appellees CHESAPEAKE APPALACHIA, L.L.C., and CHESAPEAKE
ENERGY CORPORATION are represented by:

          Matthew A. Stinnett, Esq.
          DICKINSON WRIGHT LLP
          300 W. Vine Street, Suite 1700
          Lexington, KY 40507
          Telephone: (859) 231-8500
          E-mail: mstinnett@dickinsonwright.com


CHEVRON USA: Status Conference in Anderson Continued to Sept. 28
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JENNIFER ANDERSON, on behalf of herself and on behalf
of a Class of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
CHEVRON U.S.A., INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through
100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00103-EMC (N.D. Cal.),
Judge Edward M. Chen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Francisco Division, continued the
status conference set for Aug. 16, 2018 at 10:30 a.m. to Sept. 28,
2018 at 10:30 a.m.

The Plaintiff filed her Class Action Complaint on Sept. 7, 2016 in
Contra Costa County Superior Court (Case No. MSC16-01724).  On Nov.
16, 2016, she filed her First Amended Class Action Complaint
("FAC"), which is the operative pleading, asserting the following
causes of action against Defendant: (1) failure to pay wages
pursuant to the FLSA; (2) failure to pay overtime compensation; (3)
failure to provide meal periods; (4) failure to provide rest
periods; (5) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements;
(6) failure to pay wages for hours worked; (7) failure to pay wages
due and payable twice monthly; (8) failure to comply with written
request to inspect or copy records; (9) failure to reimburse
business expenses; (10) failure to pay wages upon termination of
employment; (11) unlawful competition and unlawful business
practices; and (12) violations of the Private Attorneys' General
Act ("PAGA").

The Defendant removed the action to the Court on Jan. 9, 2017.  On
May 5, 2017, the Court conducted its Initial Case Management
Conference with the Parties and, in advance of the Conference, the
counsel conducted meet and confer discussions and exchanged
correspondence, including regarding the possibility of early
amicable resolution of the Plaintiff's class and collective claims
through private mediation.  Per the May 5, 2017 Case Management
Conference, the Court set a further conference as well as a
mediation completion deadline for Sept. 14, 2017.

The parties completed the first session of mediation on Oct. 16,
2017 in San Francisco with Michael Dickstein, Esq., and made
substantial progress towards arriving at a resolution.  They left
their initial mediation session with an agreement to reengage after
30 days through continued negotiations facilitated by Mr.
Dickstein.  The Counsel for the parties and the Vincent Clack,
Orlando Sampayo and Albert Vega Jr., et al. v. Chevron
Corporations, et al., Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC649514.
The counsel agreed to mediate the case jointly and have been
working diligently on resolving the matter making continued moves
after the Oct. 16, 2017 mediation through the mediator.

The Plaintiffs continue to confer and correspond with each other
and with Mr. Dickstein and are working to determine if a Settlement
of both matters is possible and to address the necessary procedure
for seeking approval of a global resolution.  However, given that
the parties are attempting to resolve two separate actions, with
over a dozen claims, and the complexity of the allegations,
defenses, and alleged damages/penalties, the settlement process has
taken longer than the parties expected.  Further, the Defendant's
counsel started trial in another matter on Feb. 20, 2018 which is
expected to last approximately four weeks.

The parties have all conducted a first round of written discovery
and the first session of the Plaintiff's deposition was completed
in Tennessee.  In order to save costs and resources, the parties
elected to focus of ongoing settlement discussions before engaging
in further discovery.

The parties therefore respectfully request the Court to continue
the upcoming Status Conference set for Aug. 16, 2018, at 10:30 a.m.
to Sept. 28, 2018 at 10:30 a.m., or to a date thereafter that is
convenient to the Court.  The parties are continuing to engage in
active settlement discussions.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 15, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/QIEEHQ from Leagle.com.

Jennifer Anderson, on behalf of herself and other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Richard Edward Quintilone, II
-- req@quintlaw.com -- Quintilone and Associates, Bianca Alexandra
Sofonio -- bianca@carterlawfirm.net -- The Carter Law Firm,
Cornelia Dai, Hadsell Stormer & Renick, LLP, Jay Edward Smith --
js@gslaw.org -- Gilbert & Sackman, A Law Corporation, Joshua Finley
Young -- jyoung@gslaw.org -- Gilbert & Sackman, A Law Corporation,
Randy R. Renick -- rrr@hadsellstormer.com -- Hadsell Stormer &
Renick, LLP & Roger Richard Carter -- rcarter@carterlawfirm.net --
The Carter Law Firm.

Chevron U.S.A. Inc., Defendant, represented by Robert D. Eassa --
RDEassa@duanemorris.com -- Duane Morris LLP & Delia Alexandra
Isvoranu -- DISVORANU@DUANEMORRIS.COM -- Duane Morris LLP.


CLIENT SERVICES: Corea Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Client Services, Inc.
The case is styled as Steve Corea on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Client Services, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-05237 (E.D. N.Y., Sept. 18, 2018).

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

Client Services, Inc. operates as a customer relationship
management company that offers a suite of accounts receivable
management, business processing outsourcing (BPO), and healthcare
solutions. It provides customer care, technical support, customer
acquisition, cross sell/up-sell, customer retention,
product/account activation, appointment setting/reminders, disaster
support, first notice of loss, market research, customer
satisfaction surveys, and multi-channel interaction management
services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Mitchell L. Pashkin, Esq.
     775 Park Avenue, Ste. 255
     Huntington, NY 11743
     Phone: (631) 335-1107
     Email: mpash@verizon.net


CONSUMER REPORTS: Sued for Illegally Disclosing Watterson's Info
----------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT WATTERSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. CONSUMER REPORTS, INC., Case No.
1:18-cv-00513-WES-PAS (D.R.I., September 13, 2018), alleges
violations of Rhode Island's Video, Audio and Publication Rentals
Privacy Act.

The Defendant rented, exchanged, and/or otherwise disclosed
personal information about the Plaintiff's Consumer Reports
magazine subscription to data aggregators, data appenders, data
cooperatives, and list brokers, among others, which in turn
disclosed his information to aggressive advertisers, the Plaintiff
alleges.  As a result, the Plaintiff received a barrage of unwanted
junk mail, says the complaint.

Consumer Reports, Inc., is a New York not-for-profit corporation
with its principal place of business located in Yonkers, New York.
Consumer Reports does business throughout Rhode Island, New York,
and the entire United States.  As a magazine publisher that sells
subscriptions to consumers, Consumer Reports is a retailer or
distributor of publications.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter N. Wasylyk, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF PETER N. WASYLYK
          1307 Chalkstone Avenue
          Providence, RI 02908
          Telephone: (401) 831-7730
          Facsimile: (401) 861-6064
          E-mail: pnwlaw@aol.com

               - and -

          Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
          Joseph I. Marchese, Esq.
          Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (646) 837-7150
          Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
          E-mail: scott@bursor.com
                  jmarchese@bursor.com
                  pfraietta@bursor.com


CR ENGLAND: 10th Cir. Vacates Harper Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Milton Harper; Ronnie Stevenson; Jonathan Mitchell,
individuals, on behalf of themselves, and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. C.R. ENGLAND, INC., a
corporation, Defendant-Appellee. WILLIAM H. GRADIE; SANG KIM;
WILLIAM BORSCHOWA; TONY RUIZ; ROMI FRANCESCU, Objectors-Appellants,
Case No. 17-4008 (10th Cir.), Judge Gregory A. Phillips of the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit vacated the district court's
class certification and remanded for further proceeding.

A group of current and former truck drivers brought the
wage-and-hour class action against CRE -- a national provider of
transportation services -- contesting the legality of its
piece-rate payment system and training programs.  The parties
reached a settlement agreement, which the district court, after
certifying the class, approved over some class members' objections.
Those class members appealed, contesting the class certification
and challenging the settlement's contents.

The case involves two class actions: Harper v. CRE and Gradie v.
CRE.  In February 2016, Milton Harper sued CRE in California state
court on behalf of himself and a putative class.  In April 2016,
Harper filed a First Amended Complaint, adding Ronnie Stevenson and
Jonathan Mitchell as named plaintiffs, and adding a claim.  After
this, CRE and the Plaintiffs agreed to enter into mediation.

On Aug. 30, 2016, the parties notified the court that they planned
to settle.  They incorporated the details in a Joint Stipulation
for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, filed Oct. 3,
2016.  The settlement would resolve all the claims asserted in the
Harper action, as well as any other claims arising out of the same
facts, allegations, transactions, or occurrences during the class
period.  The settlement would thus end another action brought by an
unnamed class member.

On April 20, 2016, William H. Gradie filed suit against CRE in
California state court on behalf of himself and a putative class.
The complaint alleged ten claims, all stemming from CRE's
employment practices.  The 10 claims were: (1) unlawful deductions
from wages; (2) unpaid minimum and overtime wages; (3)
misrepresentation; (4) failure to provide off-duty meal breaks or
premium pay; (5) failure to provide off-duty rest breaks or premium
pay; (6) failure to provide accurate, itemized wage statements; (7)
failure to provide timely wage payments; (8) usury; (9) unlawful
and unfair business practices; and (10) violation of the Private
Attorneys General Act of 2004.

CRE removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California; it too was then transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Utah.  On Oct. 11, 2016, after
having reached agreement with the Harper plaintiffs, CRE moved to
stay all proceedings in the Gradie action.  The district court
agreed, staying the case pending the exhaustion of all appellate
rights in Harper.

By the time of the settlement, the Harper and Gradie claims mostly
overlapped.  The claims belong to two categories: the wage claims
and the contract claims.

The original Harper complaint and the First Amended Complaint
didn't include the contract-claim allegations.  But the Second
Amended Complaint, filed on July 11, 2016, did.  The Gradie
complaint, filed April 20, 2016, contained these claims from the
beginning.

The second set of claims arose from the Education and Employment
Contract that the Harper and Gradie plaintiffs claim some drivers
signed.  The drivers alleged that CRE forced some drivers to sign
the contract, which, they argued, illegally charged them for
training costs and had an illegal liquidated-damages clause and a
usurious interest rate.  The drivers sought compensation for the
illegally charged business expenses.

Under the proposed settlement agreement, CRE agreed to make a
payment of $2.35 million to resolve all of the claims asserted in
the Harper action, as well as any other claims arising out of the
same facts, allegations, transactions, or occurrences during the
class period.  This covered the Gradie claims.

On Oct. 6, 2016, the district court issued a preliminary approval
order certifying the class for purposes of settlement under Rule
23(b)(3).  Some class members, including Gradie, timely opted out
of the settlement.  On Nov. 14, 2016, Gradie, Sang Kim, William
Borschowa, Tony Ruiz, and Romi Francescu filed a motion to
intervene in the case.  The next day, they filed their objections
to the proposed settlement.

On Dec. 12, 2016, the district court issued a memorandum and order
overruling the Objectors' objections, granting approval of the
class settlement, and awarding attorney's fees.  The court also
awarded attorney's fees to the class counsel.

In a later order, the district court confirmed the certification of
the class for settlement purposes, granted final approval of the
class-action settlement, and entered final judgment.  In its order,
the court concluded that, for settlement purposes only, the class
had satisfied Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3).  And the district court
noted that, for the classes certified solely to effectuate a
settlement, the court needn't address Rule 23(b)(3)'s manageability
requirement.  The Objectors timely appealed, challenging the class
certification and the settlement's fairness.

Judge Phillips explains that in its analysis, the district court
didn't discuss Rule 23(a)'s requirements of numerosity,
commonality, typicality, or fair and adequate representation.
Indeed the only mention of any Rule 23 classification comes when
the district court explains what criterion it didn't consider.
This leaves the Judge without a sufficient record to review.  He
can't determine whether the district court abused its discretion
when the district court didn't explain how or why it exercised its
discretion.

The class action settlements are premised upon the validity of the
underlying class certification.  The class actions may only be
certified if the trial court is satisfied, after a rigorous
analysis, that the prerequisites of Rule 23(a) have been satisfied.
Thus, he vacated and remanded for the district court to more
meaningfully explain its bases for the class certification.

In doing so, Judge Philippes notes that he has taken no position on
the appropriateness of the suggested class or the settlement
agreement.  Rather, he holds only that the district court fell
short of its obligation to analyze, independently and rigorously,
the proposed class' suitability.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 14, 2018 Order and Judgment is
available at https://is.gd/eNTbbR from Leagle.com.


DERMALOGICA LLC: Johnson Seeks to Recoup Overtime & Minimum Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SHAYE JOHNSON, individually, on behalf of all others similarly
situated, and as a representative of other aggrieved employees v.
DERMALOGICA, LLC, a California LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY; and DOES
1 through 250, inclusive, Case No. BC721313 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los
Angeles Cty., September 13, 2018), alleges violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business & Professions
Code.

Ms. Johnson brings the lawsuit to recover payment for alleged
unpaid meal period premiums, rest break premiums, overtime and
minimum wage.

Dermalogica, LLC, is a California limited liability company.
Dermalogica is skin care product company.  The Plaintiff does not
know the true names or capacities of the Doe Defendants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary R. Carlin, Esq.
          Brent S. Buchsbaum, Esq.
          Laurel N. Haag, Esq.
          Ian M. Silvers, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF CARLIN & BUCHSBAUM LLP
          555 East Ocean Boulevard, Suite 818
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: (562) 432-8933
          Facsimile: (562) 435-1656
          E-mail: gary@carlinbuchsbaum.com
                  brent@carlinbuchsbaum.com
                  laurel@carlinbuchsbaum.com
                  ian@carlinbuchsbaum.com


DEUTSCHE BANK: Royal Park Suit Stayed Pending RMBS Suit Resolution
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Alison J. Nathan of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York stayed the case, Royal Park Investments SA/NV,
Plaintiff, v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, Defendant, Case
No. 17-CV-5916 (AJN), including the motion to dismiss, pending
resolution of the case, Royal Park Invs. SA/NV v. Deutsche Bank
Nat'l Tr. Co., Case No. 14-CV-4394 (AJN)(BCM), the underlying
litigation.

Royal Park and Deutsche Bank arises from another related action
pending before the Court, the underlying litigation.  In this
putative class action, the Plaintiff alleges that Deutsche Bank has
been illegally reimbursing its own legal fees and costs incurred in
the underlying litigation from the assets of the Covered Trusts at
issue in the underlying litigation.  Royal Park sues to enjoin
Deutsche Bank from using the funds and to receive reimbursement for
the funds it has wrongfully taken.

The underlying litigation concerns residential mortgage-backed
securities ("RMBS") trusts.  Specifically, there are 10 Trusts at
issue, and Royal Park acquired RMBS in each of the 10 trusts, all
of which are provided trustee services by Deutsche Bank.  All of
the Trusts are covered by Pooling and Servicing Agreements
("PSAs"), which govern the sale of a pool of mortgage loans.  The
underlying litigation alleges that Deutsche Bank violated its
contractual duties under the PSAs.

In the action, Royal Park alleges that Deutsche Bank has spent an
enormous amount on legal expenses, incurring unreasonable expenses
in defending itself in the underlying litigation, and that it has
been paying for its defense from the funds belonging to the Covered
Trusts and the very investors suing it.  Additionally, Royal Park
asserts that the PSAs do not contain provisions providing for the
advancement of Deutsche Bank's legal fees and costs; rather it may
only receive indemnification and subsequent reimbursement of those
fees and costs which are permitted.

The instant action is brought as a putative class action on behalf
of all current and former investors who held RMBS certificates in
the Covered Trusts during the time when Deutsche Bank improperly
paid for its legal fees and costs in the underlying litigation from
the Covered Trusts' assets and were damaged as a result, and brings
claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, conversion,
breach of trust, equitable accounting, and declaratory judgment.

On Oct. 10, 2017, Deutsche Bank moved to dismiss the Complaint in
its entirety, arguing that Royal Park lacks standing, that the
plain language of the PSAs forecloses Royal Park's breach of
contract and declaratory judgment claims, and that the
non-contractual claims also be dismissed for various reasons.  
Alternatively, if the Court does not dismiss all of the claims,
Deutsche Bank asks the Court to stay the action pending resolution
the underlying litigation.

In light of the minimal prejudice that would fall upon any party or
non-party regardless of the resolution of the motion, Judge
Nathan's analysis ultimately turns on what is most efficient for
the Court.  On this factor, she finds that a stay of proceedings
pending resolution of the underlying litigation is the more
efficient way to sequence resolution of these two related actions,
and may be necessary to avoid unnecessary determinations.

Specifically, were she to find that the PSAs allow for the
Trustee's indemnification of its legal fees and expenses defending
itself in an action brought by certificateholders, she would still
need to determine whether Deutsche Bank's actions fall within the
exception to indemnification for expenses incurred because of
willful misconduct, bad faith, or negligence in the performance of
any of the Trustee's duties.  Issues of Deutsche Bank's misconduct
and/or negligence in the performance of its duties are at the very
heart of the underlying litigation.  Those issues are almost
certain to be the subject of further discovery pending in the
underlying litigation, and resolution of the underlying litigation
will involve a determination of whether Deutsche Bank exercised its
rights and powers with the same degree of care and skill as a
prudent person would exercise.

Accordingly, while it is not necessarily the case that resolution
would involve a duplicative determination, the probability that it
might outweighs the negligible prejudice Royal Park would suffer
from any delay, and the Judge is persuaded to stay the action,
including the motion to dismiss, pending resolution of the related
issues in the underlying litigation.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Nathan stayed the action pending
resolution of the related case, 14-cv-4394.  Because the parties
may seek to supplement their briefing when the stay is lifted, she
denied the motion to dismiss without prejudice to its refiling once
the stay is lifted.  Deutsche Bank must refile any motion to
dismiss within 30 days following the resolution of the underlying
litigation.  The Order resolves Dkt. No. 14.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 10, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/Qz8CqE from Leagle.com.

Royal Park Investments SA/NV, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Lucas F. Olts
-- lolts@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP,
Christopher M. Wood -- cwood@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP, Kevin S. Sciarani, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP,
Steven W. Pepich -- stevep@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP & Samuel Howard Rudman -- srudman@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee, Defendant,
represented by Bernard J. Garbutt, III -- bgarbutt@morganlewis.com
-- Morgan, Lewis and Bockius LLP, Michael Stephan Kraut --
michael.kraut@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis and Bockius LLP &
Grant R. MacQueen -- grant.macqueen@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis
& Bockius, LLP.

National Credit Union Administration Board, as Liquidating Agent,
Amicus, represented by Scott K. Attaway --
sattaway@kellogghansen.com -- Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd & Evans,
P.L.L.C. & John Anton Libra -- jlibra@koreintillery.com -- Korein
Tillery, LLC.


DOMINICK DORIA: Romero Files FLSA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dominick Doria & Son
Wholesale Produce Inc. et al. The case is styled as Segundo Luis
Romero individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Dominick Doria & Son Wholesale Produce Inc. doing
business as: Dom Doria & Son Produce, Charles Doria, Jose Luis
Ganzhi, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-08508 (S.D. N.Y., Sept. 18
2018).

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

Dominick Doria & Son Wholesale Produce Inc. is a privately held
company in Jericho, NY and is a Single Location business which is
located at 53 Orange Drive, Jericho, NY 11753.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


DOMINION ENERGY: Appeals Ruling in Metzler Asset Suit to 4th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Dominion Energy, Inc., and Sedona Corp. filed an appeal
from a court ruling in the lawsuit titled Metzler Asset Management
GmbH, et al. v. Dominion Energy, Inc., et al., Case No.
3:18-cv-00505-MBS, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
South Carolina at Columbia.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Sept. 14, 2018, Judge
Margaret B. Seymour granted the Plaintiffs' motion to remand the
case.

Plaintiffs Metzler and Heinz, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, filed the shareholder class action
complaint in the Richland County, South Carolina, Court of Common
Pleas on Feb. 8, 2018.  The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants
Aliff; Bennett; Cecil; Decker; Hagood; Miller; Roquemore; Sloan;
and Trujillo, as members of the Board of Directors of SCANA Corp.,
breached their fiduciary duties to the shareholders of SCANA in
certain respects.  They further allege that Defendants Dominion and
Sedona aided and abetted the Board of Directors in breaching their
fiduciary duties.

Dominion and Sedona Corp. removed the action to the Court on
February 21, 2018, contending that the Court has subject matter
jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA").

The appellate case is captioned as Metzler Asset Management GmbH,
et al. v. Dominion Energy, Inc., et al., Case No. 18-2066, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees METZLER ASSET MANAGEMENT GMBH, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, and JOSEPH HEINZ, on
behalf of himself and all other similarly situated, are represented
by:

          Lawrence P. Eagel, Esq.
          Melissa A. Fortunato, Esq.
          BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, PC
          885 3rd Avenue
          New York, NY 10022-0000
          Telephone: (212) 308-5888
          E-mail: eagel@bespc.com
                  fortunato@bespc.com

               - and -

          Graham Lee Newman, Esq.
          RICHARD A. HARPOOTLIAN, PA
          1410 Laurel Street
          P. O. Box 1090
          Columbia, SC 29201
          Telephone: (803) 252-4848
          E-mail: gln@harpootlianlaw.com

Defendants-Appellants DOMINION ENERGY, INC., and SEDONA CORP. are
represented by:

          Brian Emory Pumphrey, Esq.
          Brian David Schmalzbach, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS, LLP
          800 East Canal Street
          P. O. Box 3916
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 775-7745
          E-mail: bpumphrey@mcguirewoods.com
                  bschmalzbach@mcguirewoods.com

               - and -

          William Walter Wilkins, Esq.
          Burl F. Williams, Esq.
          NEXSEN PRUET
          55 East Camperdown Way
          P. O. Box 10648
          Greenville, SC 29603
          Telephone: (864) 282-1128
          E-mail: bwilkins@nexsenpruet.com
                  bwilliams@nexsenpruet.com


ECLINICALWORKS LLC: Licari Amends Bid to Certify Three Classes
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled LICARI FAMILY CHIROPRACTIC
INC., a Florida corporation, and PETER LICARI, individually and as
the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons v.
ECLINICALWORKS, LLC and JOHN DOES 1-5, Case No.
8:16-cv-03461-MSS-JSS (M.D. Fla.), file the instant amended motion
for class certification, identifying three potential classes:

   * Class A:

     All persons or entities who were successfully sent a
     facsimile on or about February 4, 2014, from eClinicalWorks,
     LLC which states "eClinicalWorks V10 is here!", and which
     contained an opt out notice the same or similar to the
     following: "If you would like to opt out from fax
     communications please go to
     www.eclinicalworks.com/optoutfax."

   * Class B:

     All persons or entities who were successfully sent a
     facsimile on or about February 4, 2014, from eClinicalWorks,
     LLC which states "eClinicalWorks V10 is here!", and which
     contained an opt out notice the same or similar to the
     following: "If you would like to opt out from fax
     communications please go to
     www.eclinicalworks.com/optoutfax," excluding the 3,759
     persons/entities listed in ECW004598 under Tab 9 ("Unique
     ECW").

   * Class C:

     All persons or entities who were successfully sent a
     facsimile on or about February 4, 2014, from eClinicalWorks,
     LLC which states "eClinicalWorks V10 is here!", and which
     contained an opt out notice the same or similar to the
     following: "If you would like to opt out from fax
     communications please go to
     www.eclinicalworks.com/optoutfax," excluding the 14,735
     persons/entities listed in ECW004598 under Category 4 ("SSS
     All Unique").

The case arises out of a fax-advertising campaign wherein facsimile
advertisements were sent to the Plaintiffs and the proposed Classes
in one broadcast conducted on February 4, 2014.  The Plaintiffs
allege they received the fax advertisement on February 4, 2014, and
brought separate lawsuits alleging that the Fax violated the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991.

The Plaintiffs also seek an order from the Court appointing them as
class representatives and appointing the law firms of Anderson +
Wanca and Montgomery, Rennie and Jonson as class counsel.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
          ANDERSON + WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368-1500
          Facsimile: (847) 368-1501
          E-mail: rkelly@andersonwanca.com

               - and -

          Matthew E. Stubbs, Esq.
          MONTGOMERY, RENNIE & JONSON
          36 E. Seventh Street, Suite 2100
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 241-4722
          Facsimile: (513) 241-8775
          E-mail: mstubbs@mrjlaw.com


ELECTROLUX HOME: Suit Over Defective Gas Ovens Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SHELLEY STEWART and ROBERT STEWART, on behalf of
themselves and all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
ELECTROLUX HOME PRODUCTS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:17-CV-01213-LJO-SKO (E.D. Cal.), Judge Sheila K. Oberto of the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
dismissed Plaintiffs Shelly Stewart's and Robert Stewart's
individual claims with prejudice, and the putative class claims
without prejudice.

On Sept. 8, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint
asserting 11 causes of action against Electrolux.  On Jan. 9, 2018,
the Court granted in part and denied in part Electrolux's motion to
dismiss the Plaintiffs' class action complaint.

On Jan. 23, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed an amended class action
complaint asserting seven causes of action against Electrolux.  On
April 13, 2018, the Court granted in part and denied in part
Electrolux's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' amended class action
complaint.  The Plaintiffs' remaining causes of action against
Electrolux, asserted individually and on behalf of putative class
members, are: (1) violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act; (2)
violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act; and (3) unjust
enrichment.

On April 27, 2018, Electrolux filed an answer to the Plaintiffs'
amended class action complaint.  The parties desire to compromise
and settle all matters and issues in dispute between them,
including the action, to avoid the uncertainty, inconvenience, and
expense of further litigation.

Therefore, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
41(a)(1)(A)(ii), the parties stipulated to and Judge Oberto agreed
to that (i) the dismissal of the Plaintiffs' individual claims
against Electrolux with prejudice; and (ii) the dismissal of the
putative class member claims without prejudice.  In light of this,
the action has been terminated.  Accordingly, the Clerk of the
Court is directed to close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 15, 2018 Order is available at
https://bit.ly/2QNYq3W from Leagle.com.

Shelly Stewart, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated & Robert Stewart, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Eric Steven Johnson
-- ejohnson@simmonsfirm.com -- Simmons Hanly Conroy LLC, pro hac
vice, Gregory F. Coleman -- greg@gregcolemanlaw.com -- Greg Coleman
Law PC, pro hac vice, Mitchell M. Breit -- mbreit@simmonsfirm.com
-- Simmons Hanly Conroy, pro hac vice & Crystal Gayle Foley --
cfoley@simmonsfirm.com -- Simmons, Hanly, Conroy, LLC.

Electrolux Home Products, Inc., Defendant, represented by Phillip
J. Eskenazi -- peskenazi@HuntonAK.com -- Hunton & Williams LLP.


EXXON MOBIL: Court Narrows Claims in Ramirez Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PEDRO RAMIREZ, JR., Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION,
REX W. TILLERSON, ANDREW P. SWIGER, JEFFREY J. WOODBURY, and DAVID
S. ROSENTHAL, Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:16-CV-3111-K (N.D.
Tex.), Judge Ed Kinkeade of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern Distirict of Texas, Dallas Division, (1) granted in part
and denied Defendants ExxonMobil Corporation, Rex W. Tillerson,
Andrew P. Swiger, Jeffrey J. Woodbury, and David S. Rosenthal's
Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Complaint; and (2) granted in
part and denied in part Defendants ExxonMobil Corporation, Rex W.
Tillerson, Andrew P. Swiger, Jeffrey J. Woodbury, and David S.
Rosenthal's Motion to Strike the Declaration of Charlotte J.
Wright, Ph.D., the Affirmation of John Oleske, and the Allegations
of the Consolidated Complaint that Rely on Them.

Lead Plaintiff Pension Fund filed the securities fraud case on
behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
ExxonMobil's publicly traded common stock between March 31, 2014
and Jan. 30, 2017, inclusive.  Pension Fund bases their securities
fraud claims on alleged material misrepresentations or omissions
made during the Class Period by Defendants ExxonMobil, Chairman of
the Board and Chief Executive Officer Rex W. Tillerson, Senior Vice
President and Principal Financial Officer Andrew P. Swiger, Vice
President of Investor Relations and Secretary Jeffrey J. Woodbury,
and Vice President, Controller and Principal Accounting Officer
David S. Rosenthal.

On March 31, 2014, the first day of the Class Period, ExxonMobil
released its report "Energy and Carbon—Managing the Risks" ("MTR
Report"), which addressed shareholder concerns regarding global
energy demand and supply, climate change policy, and carbon asset
risk.  The MTR Report explained that ExxonMobil considers possible
government policy changes on climate-related controls, such as
restricting emissions, and the effect of these policy changes on
oil and gas exploration, development, production, transportation,
and use of carbon-based fuels.  The MTR Report stated that
ExxonMobil takes these policies into consideration by factoring in
a proxy cost of carbon when calculating any investment's or
project's projected financial outlook.  On March 31, 2014,
ExxonMobil also released a report entitled "Energy and Climate,"
which stated ExxonMobil applied a proxy cost of approximately $60
per ton in 2030 and $80 per ton in 2040.

In mid-2014 oil and gas prices began to fall worldwide.  ExxonMobil
did not write off or abandon assets but instead repeatedly
reassured investors that ExxonMobil had superior investment
processes and project management that allowed it to continue
operating without writing down any assets.  Pension Fund alleges
these representations were materially misleading because ExxonMobil
knew it could not survive the historic drop in oil and gas prices
without writing down assets.  Pension Fund alleges ExxonMobil made
these misrepresentations so as to maintain its AAA credit rating
and allow it to move forward without negative implications on its
$12 billion public debt offering scheduled for March 2016.

In November 2015, The Guardian, a British newspaper, reported that
the NYAG's Office was investigating whether ExxonMobil misled the
public about the dangers and business risks associated with climate
change.  Pension Fund alleges that by year-end 2015, ExxonMobil's
Rocky Mountain Dry Gas Operations were impaired, its Canadian
Bitumen Operations no longer qualified as proved reserves, and its
Kearl Operation operated at a loss for three months.  ExxonMobil
did not recognize any of these impairments or losses in its 2015
Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
("SEC"), which Pension Fund alleges makes the 2015 Form 10-K
materially misleading to investors.

On Oct. 28, 2016, ExxonMobil announced its financial results for
the third quarter of 2016.  ExxonMobil disclosed that nearly 20% of
its proved oil and gas reserves might no longer satisfy the SEC's
"proved reserves" definition.  It stated that if the prices
persisted as they had in 2016 for the remainder of the year,
certain quantities of oil, such as the Kearl Operations, would not
qualify as proved reserves at year-end 2016.  Pension Fund alleges
ExxonMobil's October 2016 disclosure was materially misleading
because the de-booking of certain proved reserves was allegedly all
but certain at the time of ExxonMobil's news release.

On Jan. 31, 2017, ExxonMobil announced its fourth quarter and
full-year financial results for 2016.  In the announcement,
ExxonMobil stated it would be recording an impairment charge of $2
billion largely related to dry gas operations in the Rocky Mountain
region.  On Feb. 22, 2017, ExxonMobil announced it de-booked the
entire proved reserve base from the Kearl Operations.

On Nov. 11, 2016, Ramirez initially filed the class action against
ExxonMobil, alleging securities fraud claims under the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA"), Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act, Rule 10b-5, and Section 20(a).  On May 3, 2017, the
Court granted Pension Fund's motion for appointment as the lead
Plaintiff.  On July 26, 2017, the Lead Plaintiff Pension Fund filed
its Consolidated Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities
Laws ("Amended Complaint").  The voluminous Amended Complaint
details the alleged material misstatements and alleged fraudulent
actions.

Before the Court are: (1) Defendants ExxonMobil Corporation, Rex W.
Tillerson, Andrew P. Swiger, Jeffrey J. Woodbury, and David S.
Rosenthal's Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Complaint; and (2)
Defendants ExxonMobil Corporation, Rex W. Tillerson, Andrew P.
Swiger, Jeffrey J. Woodbury, and David S. Rosenthal's Motion to
Strike the Declaration of Charlotte J. Wright, Ph.D., the
Affirmation of John Oleske, and the Allegations of the Consolidated
Complaint that Rely on Them.

In support of its allegations, Pension Fund attached the
Declaration of Charlotte J. Wright, Ph.D., and the Affirmation of
John Oleske as exhibits to its Amended Complaint.  ExxonMobil moves
the Court to strike the Wright Declaration and the Oleske
Affirmation.  It argues that it is inappropriate to consider the
Wright Declaration, which contains the opinions and conclusions of
a purported expert, at the motion to dismiss stage because it would
overly complicate this early stage with evidentiary issues.
ExxonMobil moves to strike the Oleske Affirmation because it lacks
relevant personal knowledge, which the Fifth Circuit requires in
PSLRA cases in which a confidential witness's affidavit supports
the complaint.

ExxonMobil moved the Court to dismiss Pension Fund's Amended
Complaint.  ExxonMobil alleges Pension Fund failed to allege
sufficient facts to support a materially false or misleading
statement, failed to meet the heightened standard of scienter, and
failed to adequately plead loss causation.  Because ExxonMobil
contends Pension Fund did not sufficiently plead a securities fraud
claim, ExxonMobil Pension Fund's Section 20(a) claim for control
person's liability necessarily fails.  Pension Fund responds by
detailing its factual allegations demonstrating ExxonMobil's
material misstatements, scienter, loss causation, and control
person liability

Judge Kinkeade concludes that Pension Fund sufficiently pleaded
securities fraud claims under Section 10(b), Rule 10b-5, and
Section 20(a), having pleaded material misstatements, met the
heightened pleading standard for scienter as to Defendants
ExxonMobil, Tillerson, Swiger, and Rosenthal, and sufficiently
pleaded loss causation.  Thus, he denied ExxonMobil's motion to
dismiss as to Defendants ExxonMobil, Tillerson, Swiger, and
Rosenthal.  However, Pension Fund failed to meet the heightened
pleading standard for scienter as to Defendant Woodbury, and,
therefore, he granted ExxonMobil's motion to dismiss regarding
Defendant Woodbury as to the Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5
securities claim, but the Section 20(a) control person liability
claim remains.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 14, 2018 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/KFab8y from Leagle.com.

Pedro Ramirez, Jr., Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Erika Oliver, Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Joe Kendall --
jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com -- Kendall Law Group PLLC, Balon B.
Bradley -- balon@bbradleylaw.com -- Balon B Bradley Law Firm, Jamie
Jean McKey -- jmckey@kendalllawgroup.com -- Kendall Law Group PLLC,
Jeffrey S. Abraham -- jabraham@aftlaw.com -- Abraham Fruchter &
Twersky LLP, John C. Herman, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro
hac vice, Mary K. Blasy -- mblasy@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP, Nathan R. Lindell Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP, pro hac vice, Patrick Coughlin -- patc@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Samuel H. Rudman -- srudman@rgrdlaw.com
-- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice & Sara Bierl
Polychron, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice.

Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters Pension Fund, Plaintiff,
represented by Erika Oliver, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro
hac vice, Joe Kendall , Kendall Law Group PLLC, Balon B. Bradley ,
Balon B Bradley Law Firm, Nathan R. Lindell , Robbins Geller Rudman
& Dowd LLP & Sara Bierl Polychron , Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP, pro hac vice.

Exxon Mobil Corporation, Defendant, represented by Nina Cortell ,
Haynes & Boone LLP, Daniel H. Gold, Haynes & Boone LLP, Daniel
Kramer, Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP, pro hac vice,
Daniel Toal, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, pro hac
vice, Gregory F. Laufer, Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP,
pro hac vice, Jonathan Hurwitz, Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton &
Garrison LLP, pro hac vice, Ralph H. Duggins, Cantey Hanger LLP &
Theodore V. Wells, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP,
pro hac vice.

Rex W Tillerson, Defendant, represented by D. Patrick Long --
patrick.long@squirepb.com -- Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, Brian
Matthew Gillett -- brian.gillett@squirepb.com -- Squire Patton
Boggs (US) LLP & Daniel H. Gold -- daniel.gold@haynesboone.com --
Haynes & Boone LLP.

Andrew P Swiger & Jeffrey J Woodbury, Defendants, represented by
Nina Cortell, Haynes & Boone LLP, Daniel H. Gold, Haynes & Boone
LLP, Daniel Kramer, Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP,
Daniel Toal, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Gregory
F. Laufer, Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP, Jonathan
Hurwitz, Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP, pro hac vice,
Ralph H. Duggins, Cantey Hanger LLP & Theodore V. Wells, Paul,
Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP.

David S Rosenthal, Defendant, represented by Daniel Kramer, Paul
Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP.


FCA US: Can Compel Private Inspection of Vehicles in Rasnic Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LAWRENCE RASNIC, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FCA US LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 17-2064-KHV-GEB (D. Kan.), Magistrate Judge
Gwynne E. Birzer of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Kansas granted in part FCA's Motion to Compel Production of
Plaintiffs' Vehicle for a Private, Non-Destructive Inspection.

Lawrence Rasnic and Rebeca Lopez-Rasnic purchased a new 2013 Dodge
Dart automobile in June 2013, which was manufactured by the
Defendant.  Less than three years later, the Plaintiffs noticed
issues with the car's uConnect touchscreen "infotainment" system,
including the touchscreen freezing and randomly blacking out.  They
sought service at the local dealership, and the touchscreen was
eventually replaced.  However, the replacement touchscreen
developed the same problem.  After the vehicle's touchscreen was
replaced a second time, the Plaintiffs claim the problems magnified
and began impacting other mechanisms in the car, including the
heating and air conditioning and the navigation systems.  After
multiple attempted repairs, at least four replacement touchscreens,
and numerous service visits, the Plaintiffs continue to experience
problems with the uConnect touchscreen in their Dodge Dart.

The Plaintiffs propose to represent statewide and/or national
classes of individuals who purchased or leased cars with an
8.4-inch uConnect infotainment system on or after Jan. 12, 2013.
According to them, by providing vehicles with the defective
infotainment systems, the Defendant violated the Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act ("MMWA") (Claim 1); breached the implied warranty of
merchantability (Claim 2); and violated the Kansas Consumer
Protection Act (Claim 3).

Along with multiple affirmative defenses claimed, the Defendant
denies any uConnect system is defective and contends the alleged
defect does not substantially impair the use, value, or safety of
the vehicles.  it further argues, in the event it is found to owe
Plaintiffs or any putative class member damages for any defect, it
is entitled to a set-off for the Plaintiffs' use of their
vehicles.

The Plaintiffs initially filed their case in the Wyandotte County
District Court of Kansas.  The Defendant timely removed the case to
the federal court, citing diversity jurisdiction, and the
Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint.  The Defendant then
filed a motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' complaint on multiple
grounds.  The district court dismissed the Plaintiffs' KCPA claims
based on the Defendant's nationwide advertising, namely Claims
3(a)-(d) and (f).  It also dismissed their "unconscionable acts"
KCPA Claims 3(g) through 3(i), because the Plaintiffs failed to
allege unconscionability, and struck their nationwide allegations.
The following claims remain: the MMWA claim (Claim 1), breach of
the implied warranty of merchantability (Claim 2), and the KCPA
express warranty claim (Claim 3(e)).

The matter is before the Court on FCA's Motion to Compel Production
of Plaintiffs' Vehicle for a Private, Non-Destructive Inspection.
Arguing the Plaintiffs' vehicle is the most crucial piece of
evidence in the case, the Defendant sent its Request for Production
No. 62 on Feb. 16, 2018, asking the Plaintiffs to produce their
vehicle for a private inspection by FCA US at an FCA US authorized
dealership chosen by the Plaintiffs, within 90 days of their
response to interrogatories seeking information about the nature of
the defect.  In the Plaintiffs' response to the RFP, dated March
19, 2018, they answered without objection, stating that they'll
make their vehicle available for same.

On April 2, 2018, the Defendants sent a letter to the Plaintiffs
which proposed specific arrangements for the inspection,
including:

     (1) The Plaintiffs will select the FCA US authorized
dealership where the inspection will take place.  On a mutually
agreeable date, they Plaintiffs will drop off the vehicle at the
designated dealership by 9:00 a.m. and the vehicle will be
available for pick up by the close of business.

     (2) FCA US will provide Plaintiffs with a rental vehicle for
the day of the inspection.

     (3) FCA US will also take a short test drive of each vehicle.
The test drive will take place under normal driving conditions and
Plaintiffs will be reimbursed for mileage using standard
reimbursement rates or, at their election, have $10 worth of gas
put in the vehicle.

     (4) Since the inspection will be non-destructive, FCA US will
conduct the inspection outside the presence of the Plaintiffs and
their representatives.

In an email exchange dated April 6, 21018, the Plaintiffs responded
they were unwilling to permit a private inspection, and they
intended on having a representative present the entire day and a
second person videotaping the entire inspection.  The parties then
conferred by telephone on April 10, and apparently discussed the
equipment and general process to be used by the Defendant during
the inspection, but were unable to agree upon the terms of the
inspection.  The Defendant filed the instant motion.

The Defendant contends the privacy of its inspection is warranted
under both work product and consulting expert protections.
Additionally, it argues fairness requires that it be given the
opportunity to examine, without intrusion, critical evidence in the
case.  

The Plaintiffs do not agree the inspection of their vehicle invokes
either the work product or consulting expert protections.
Additionally, they contend because Defendant has a proprietary
relationship with the uConnect system, it is conceivable the
Defendant has special access or tools at its disposal to make
changes to the system, unbeknownst to the Plaintiffs.

Magistrate Judge Birzer granted in part the Defendant's Motion to
Compel Production of Plaintiffs' Vehicle for a Private,
Non-Destructive Inspection.  She concludes that the Defendant's
planned inspection implicates the work product and consulting
expert protections, and the Plaintiffs demonstrated no true
prejudice resulting from the Defendant's non-destructive inspection
and testing outside the presence of the Plaintiffs' counsel.  The
Plaintiffs can conduct their own testing to ensure the integrity of
the Defendant's inspection, and they will be compensated for their
inconvenience.  For these reasons, she finds the Defendant is
permitted to inspect the Plaintiffs' vehicle privately, subject to
the following conditions.

The Magistrate directed that one week prior to its planned
inspection, although the Defendant is not required to outline its
entire inspection process to the Plaintiffs, the Defendant's
counsel must identify to the Plaintiffs any outside device(s) it
intends to connect to the Plaintiffs' vehicle which could result in
the download or alteration of data.  This will permit the
Plaintiffs the opportunity to object to the use and allow them to
perform their own testing.

The Plaintiffs will select the location of the dealership at which
the inspection will occur, as outlined by the Defendant's request.
The Defendant must bear all reasonable costs arising from the
inspection.  During its inspection, the Defendant will be fully
responsible for the vehicle while in its temporary custody.  The
Plaintiffs are encouraged to adequately document and/or test the
condition of the vehicle (such as conducting their own wiTECH
testing) before delivering it to the Defendant for inspection.
Should the vehicle be damaged or materially altered while in the
Defendant's custody, the Plaintiffs may request sanctions for the
destruction or spoliation of evidence.  Finally, the Defendant must
provide to the Plaintiffs a printout of any diagnostic codes
revealed during its inspection.

Despite the partial granting of the Defendant's motion, at this
juncture, the Magistrate Judge finds an award of sanctions
inappropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5).  Neither party
requested an award of sanctions, and the circumstances of the
dispute, including the well-reasoned positions of both parties, in
light of a lack of binding case law, make an award of expenses
unjust.  Each party will bear its own expenses related to the
motion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 14, 2018 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/m6Mg1h from Leagle.com.

Lawrence Rasnic & Rebeca Lopez-Rasnic, Plaintiffs, represented by
Ashley Scott Waddell, Waddell Law Firm LLC, Benjamin C. Fields,
Stucky & Fields, LLC, Bryce B. Bell -- Bryce@belllawkc.com -- Bell
Law, LLC & Mark W. Schmitz , Bell Law, LLC.

FCA US LLC, Defendant, represented by Craig S. Laird --
claird@kuminlaw.com -- Robert A. Kumin, PC, Kathy A. Wisniewski,
Thompson Coburn LLP, pro hac vice, Sharon Rosenberg --
srosenberg@thompsoncoburn.com -- Thompson Coburn LLP, pro hac vice
& Stephen A. D'Aunoy -- sdaunoy@thompsoncoburn.com -- Thompson
Coburn LLP, pro hac vice.


FCA US: Court Affirms Summary Judgment in Faltermeier MMPA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, David Faltermeier, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FCA US LLC,
Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 17-2093 (8th Cir.), Judge Ralph R.
Erickson of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (i)
affirmed the district court's denial of Faltermeier's motion to
remand, and (ii) grant of summary judgment to FCA.

In August of 2010, the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration ("NHTSA") began investigating an alleged safety
defect affecting two particular kinds of Jeep Vehicles -- 2002 to
2007 Jeep Liberty vehicles and 1993-1998 Jeep Grand Cherokee
vehicles.  After three years of evaluating the vehicles, the NHTSA
reached the preliminary conclusion that the vehicles were defective
and that they faced an increased likelihood of dangerous fires in
rear crashes.

On June 3, 2013, the NHTSA requested that FCA initiate a safety
recall of the vehicles.  FCA responded by issuing a press release
to the public contesting the NHTSA's findings and stating that the
vehicles were safe and not defective.  After two weeks passed, FCA
issued a second press release, again stating that the vehicles were
not defective.  However, the release announced that FCA had agreed
with the NHTSA to a limited recall to install a trailer hitch
assembly, which it asserted would help improve vehicle performance
in low-speed accidents.

Faltermeier purchased a 2003 Jeep Liberty from an unrelated third
party in August of 2013, two months after the FCA's press releases.
He admits he did not see the press releases until months after
purchasing the Jeep.

On June 2, 2015, Faltermeier filed a Class Action Petition in the
Circuit Court in Jackson County, Missouri, on behalf of all
purchasers of the relevant Jeep vehicles in the State of Missouri
since June 4, 2013 (the date of the first press release).  He
alleged that FCA's statements that the vehicles were safe and not
defective were false and misleading.  Faltermeier further alleged
that FCA's proposed trailer hitch assembly did not remove the
vehicles' safety defects in high-speed collisions and suggested
that an appropriate remedy required the installation of a fuel
shield/skid plate.

FCA removed the case to the U.S District Court for the Western
District of Missouri under CAFA.  Faltermeier sought remand,
arguing in part that CAFA's amount-in-controversy requirement was
not satisfied.  On Feb. 10, 2016, the district court denied the
motion to remand, finding by a preponderance of the evidence that
the benefit of the bargain damages alleged in the case would be
above $5 million, if calculated as either the total value of
overpayment or diminution in value damages.  The court reached this
conclusion by finding that 8,127 unique vehicles were potentially
within the class and that the average sale price of a relevant
vehicle was $6,638.  Based on these facts, the court reasoned that
a reasonable jury could find damages in excess of the CAFA
jurisdictional limit.

On March 11, 2016, Faltermeier filed an amended complaint.  In his
amended complaint, Faltermeier again asserted that the federal
courts lacked subject matter jurisdiction because Missouri law
required benefit-of-the-bargain damages to be calculated as the
lesser of diminution in value or cost of repair.  Faltermeier
argued that since the proposed fuel shield/skid plate repair could
be implemented for as little as $320 a vehicle, the amount in
controversy would be far under CAFA's $5 million jurisdictional
limit.

On May 26, 2016, the district court, recognizing that it had not
fully explained alternative damages under the MMPA, entered an
order clarifying its previous denial of remand.  In the clarifying
order, the district court addressed Faltermeier's cost of repair
argument, finding that compensatory damages under Faltermeier's
proposed measure of damages could total $3,605,010.  The district
court concluded that the $5 million jurisdictional limit was
satisfied after taking into consideration the amount of potential
attorneys' fees, which it found could well exceed $1.4 million.  It
held that a stipulation to limit attorneys' fees to ensure the
amount in controversy remained under $5 million did not alter the
amount in controversy as a matter of law.

On March 24, 2017, the district court granted summary judgment
against Faltermeier, holding that FCA's alleged misrepresentations
were not made in connection with Faltermeier's purchase of his
Jeep.  The court focused in particular on the lack of evidence
supporting a factual nexus between the statements and Faltermeier's
interactions with the third party salesman.  It recognized that
dismissal of the only named Plaintiff's claim was not fatal to the
putative class action.

Given the state of the briefing, the court denied the motion to
certify the class without prejudice, indicating that the motion
could be renewed within thirty days of the order.  On April 10,
2017, the parties filed a joint motion to approve a stipulation
modifying the summary judgment order to remove the open language
related to class certification.  On April 12, 2017, the district
court approved the stipulation and entered final judgment.  

The appeal followed.  Faltermeier challenges both the Court's
jurisdiction under CAFA and the merits resolution of his claims.  

Given the evidence, Judge Erickson holds that the district court's
conclusion that a fact finder might legally conclude that the total
repair cost (including labor and parts) was equal to $3,605,010 was
not clearly erroneous.  The MMPA states that a court may award to
the prevailing party attorney's fees, based on the amount of time
reasonably expended.  The district court concluded that it was more
likely than not that attorneys' fees could exceed $1.4 million,
considering the expected length of the litigation, the risk and
complexity involved in prosecuting class actions, and the hourly
rates charged.  He finds that the district court's ruling that a
finder-of-fact might legally conclude that the sum of damages and
attorneys' fees would exceed $5 million was not clearly erroneous.


After carefully reviewing the record, the Judge agrees with the
district court that Faltermeier's purchase had no relationship with
the alleged misrepresentation.  While actual reliance on the
Defendant's misrepresentation by the buyer is not required, he
agrees with the district court that evidence of some factual
connection between the misrepresentation and the purchase is
required.  No evidence suggests that either the seller or the buyer
was aware of the misrepresentation.  Nor was the intermediary
seller an unwitting conduit for passing on the substance of the
misrepresentation.

For these reasons, Judge Erickson affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 10, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/7uSfzn from Leagle.com.

David Lee Heinemann -- davidh@shankmoore.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellant.

Kathy A. Wisniewski -- kwisniewski@thompsoncoburn.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

Sharon Rosenberg -- srosenberg@thompsoncoburn.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

Stephen A. D'Aunoy -- sdaunoy@thompsoncoburn.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

Mark A. Mattingly -- mmattingly@thompsoncoburn.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

Christopher S. Shank -- chriss@shankmoore.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellant.

Stephen J. Moore -- sjm@shankmoore.com -- for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Scott Harston Morgan -- smorgan@thompsoncoburn.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.


FEDERAL HOME: Court Strikes Feinstein Expert Testimony
------------------------------------------------------
In the case, OHIO PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM, etc.,
Plaintiff, v. FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION, etc., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 4:08CV0160 (N.D. Ohio), Judge Benita Y.
Pearson of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Ohio, Eastern Division, (i) granted Freddie Mac's Motion to Strike
Reports and Exclude the Testimony of Dr. Steven P. Feinstein; (ii)
denied the Lead Plaintiff's Motion to Exclude the Expert Testimony
of Dr. Mukesh Bajaj; (iii) denied the Lead Plaintiff's Motion to
Exclude the Expert Testimony of Dr. Paul Gompers; (iv) denied the
Lead Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for Class Certification; and (v)
denied as moot the Lead Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Class
Representative and Class Counsel.

An oral hearing/argument was held on April 13, 2018, at which the
Court heard the testimony of competing expert witnesses, Drs.
Feinstein and Bajaj.

Freddie Mac moves the Court to enter an order excluding any and all
testimony from the Lead Plaintiff's sole expert witness, Dr.
Feinstein (a financial economist), on the subject of market
efficiency, and strike his reports on the subject as set forth in
his reports filed with the Court.  Dr. Feinstein offers two
opinions in support of OPERS' motion for class certification: (1)
the market for Freddie Mac common stock was efficient during the
period from Aug. 1, 2006, through Nov. 20, 20071; and (2) damages
are measurable on a class-wide basis.  According to Freddie Mac,
Dr. Feinstein's opinions on the subject of market efficiency are
unreliable and, therefore, do not meet the threshold of
admissibility for expert evidence set forth in Fed. R. Evid. 403
and 702.

Judge Pearson finds that Dr. Feinstein's statistically
insignificant diagnostic tests do not salvage his conclusions.  Dr.
Feinstein's selection of Nov. 20, 2007 as the sole date of his
event study was also entirely improper because one is supposed to
hypothesize and then see the results.  One is not supposed to know
the results in advance.

OPERS moves the Court to enter an order excluding the repor,
opinions, and testimony of Mukesh Bajaj, the expert witness of
Freddie Mac, as well as all evidence that is based upon, or
directly or indirectly references, Dr. Bajaj's report, opinions, or
testimony.  According to OPERS, Dr. Bajaj's report, opinions, and
testimony are irrelevant, unhelpful, confusing, and unfairly
prejudicial and do not meet the threshold of admissibility for
expert evidence set forth in Fed. R. Evid. 403 and 702, as
interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court in Daubert.

Among other things, the Judge, after considering the Lead
Plaintiff's critiques, does not share similarly grave concerns
about Dr. Bajaj's opinions.  Expert testimony based on economic
principles in a securities putative class action is routinely
considered and accepted by the courts.  Moreover, such disputes
with Dr. Bajaj's opinions go to the weight of his testimony, not
its relevance.  Finally, OPERS' arguments that the Court should not
be persuaded by Dr. Bajaj's opinions are a reiteration of class
certification arguments, not legitimate grounds to exclude expert
testimony.  She agrees with Freddie Mac that Dr. Bajaj's opinions
grounded in well-established principles of statistics and financial
economics are sound, relevant, and helpful in resolving two issues
of fact central to the reliance element of Lead Plaintiff's Section
10(b) claim, i.e., OPERS' effort to invoke a rebuttable presumption
of reliance and price impact.

OPERS moves the Court to enter an order excluding the report,
opinions, and testimony of Paul A. Gompers, the expert witness of
Freddie Mac, as well as all evidence that is based upon, or
directly or indirectly references, Dr. Gompers' report, opinions,
or testimony.  According to OPERS, Dr. Gompers' report, opinions,
and testimony are irrelevant, unhelpful, confusing, and unfairly
prejudicial and do not meet the threshold of admissibility for
expert evidence set forth in Fed. R. Evid. 403 and 702, as
interpreted by the Supreme Court in Daubert.

The Judge finds that an expert testimony contrary to the applicable
legal standard is inadmissible.  OPERS also does not identify any
erroneous legal standard on which Dr. Gompers' opinions are based,
either by citation to or quotation from Dr. Gompers' report or
deposition testimony.

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(3), OPERS moves the
Court for an order certifying this action as a class action and
designating Lead Plaintiff as the representative of a plaintiff
class defined as all persons who purchased Freddie Mac common stock
between Aug. 1, 2006 and Nov. 20, 2007, inclusive.  Because, she
will deny OPERS' class certification motion, she will deny as moot
its Motion to Appoint Class Representative and Class Counsel.

The Judge finds that OPERS fails to demonstrate that Freddie Mac's
stock traded in an efficient market.  In addition, the Lead
Plaintiff has not adequately demonstrated that common issues of law
and fact will predominate over individual issues with respect to
the reliance element of its Exchange Act claims.  Finally, OPERS
fails to establish that damages can be measured on a class-wide
basis in a manner consistent with its theories of liability.

OPERS further moves the Court for an Order reaffirming the Lead
Plaintiff's selection of counsel by appointing Lead Counsel
Markovits, Stock & DeMarco, LLC and Co-Lead Counsel Strauss Troy
Co., LPA as the Class Counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g).

For the reasons stated, Judge Pearson (i) granted Freddie Mac's
Motion to Strike; (ii) denied the Lead Plaintiff's motion to
exclude the expert testimony of Dr. Bajaj; (iii) denied the Lead
Plaintiff's motion to exclude the expert testimony of Dr. Gompers;
(iv) denied the Lead Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for Class
Certification; and (v) denied as moot the Lead Plaintiff's Motion
to Appoint Class Representative and Class Counsel.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 14, 2018 Memorandum of Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/m8RN80 from Leagle.com.

Ohio Public Employees Retirement System, on behalf of Itself and
All Others Similarly Situtated, Plaintiff, represented by Jean M.
Geoppinger, Waite, Schneider, Bayless & Chesley, William K. Flynn
--  wkflynn@strausstroy.com -- Strauss & Troy, Christopher D. Stock
-- cstock@msdlegal.com -- Markovits, Stock & DeMarco, James R.
Cummins -- james.cummins@hogefenton.com -- Cummins Law, Joseph T.
Deters, Markovits, Stock & DeMarco, Louise M. Roselle --
lroselle@msdlegal.com --Markovits, Stock & DeMarco, Michael J.
Hall, Office of the Attorney General State of Ohio, Richard Michael
DeWine, Office of the Attorney General - East Broad Street State of
Ohio, Richard S. Wayne -- rswayne@strausstroy.com -- Strauss &
Troy, Robert R. Sparks -- rrsparks@strausstroy.com -- Strauss &
Troy, Stephen E. Schilling, Strauss & Troy, Terence R. Coates --
tcoates@msdlegal.com -- Markovits, Stock & DeMarco, Terrence L.
Goodman & W. Benjamin Markovits, Markovits, Stock & DeMarco.

Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, also known as Freddie Mac,
Defendant, represented by Jason D. Frank --
jordan.hershman@morganlewis.com -- Bingham McCutchen, Jordan D.
Hershman -- jordan.hershman@morganlewis.com -- Bingham McCutchen,
Emily E. Renshaw -- emily.renshaw@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis
& Bockius & Hugh E. McKay -- hmckay@porterwright.com -- Porter,
Wright, Morris & Arthur.

Richard F. Syron, Defendant, represented by Frank R. Volpe --
fvolpe@sidley.com -- Sidley Austin, Mark D. Hopson --
mhopson@sidley.com -- Sidley Austin, Thomas C. Green, Sidley
Austin, John C. Fairweather, Brouse McDowell, Julia G. Mirabella,
Sidley Austin, Kerri L. Keller, Brouse McDowell, Lisa S. DelGrosso,
Brouse McDowell & Milton P. Wilkins, Sidley Austin.

Patricia L. Cook, Defendant, represented by Alexandra W. Miller,
Zuckerman Spaeder, Carl S. Kravitz, Zuckerman Spaeder, Caroline E.
Reynolds, Zuckerman Spaeder, John B. Timmer, Zuckerman Spaeder,
Steven M. Salky, Zuckerman Spaeder, Adam L. Fotiades, Zuckerman
Spaeder, Alecia L. Shelton, Zuckerman Spaeder, John C. Fairweather,
Brouse McDowell, Kerri L. Keller, Brouse McDowell & Lisa S.
DelGrosso, Brouse McDowell.

Anthony S. Piszel, Defendant, represented by Michael V. Rella --
mrella@mmlawus.com -- Murphy & McGonigle, William E. Donnelly -
wdonnelly@mmlawus.com -- Murphy & McGonigle, Barry S. Gold, Murphy
& McGonigle, James K. Goldfarb -- jgoldfarb@mmlawus.com -- Murphy &
McGonigle, Joseph C. Weinstein, Squire Patton Boggs & Saber W.
VanDetta, Squire Patton Boggs.

Eugene M. McQuade, Defendant, represented by Andrew J. Levander,
Dechert, pro hac vice, Cheryl A. Krause, Dechert, Catherine V.
Wigglesworth, Dechert, Joseph C. Weinstein, Squire Patton Boggs,
Michael S. Doluisio, Dechert, Peter J. Kreher, Dechert & Saber W.
VanDetta, Squire Patton Boggs.

Federal Housing Finance Agency, Intervenor, represented by Anthony
J. Franze -- anthony.franze@arnoldporter.com -- Arnold & Porter
Kaye Scholer.


FIRST NATIONAL: Eagle Suit Alleges FDCPA Violation
--------------------------------------------------
Esther Eagle, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. First National Collection Bureau, Inc., LVNV Funding
LLC, John Does 1-25, Case No. 1:18-cv-04430 (E.D. N.Y., August 6,
2018), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Fair
Debt Collections Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is a resident of the State of New York, County of
Kings, residing at 5719 18th Avenue, Brooklyn, NY 11204.

The Defendant First National Collection Bureau, Inc. is a debt
collector with an address at 50 W. Liberty Street, Suite 250, Reno,
NV 89501. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel Kohn, Esq.
      STEIN SAKS, PLLC
      285 Passaic Street
      Hackensack, NJ 07601
      Tel: (201) 282-6500
      E-mail: dkohn@steinsakslegal.com



FONTEM US: Court Dismisses Consumer Class Suit
----------------------------------------------
Judge James V. Selna of the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California dismissed without prejudice the case, In re
Fontem US, Inc. Consumer Class Action Litigation. Larry Diek, et
al. Plaintiff, v. Fontem, US, Inc., et al, Defendant(s), SACV
15-01026 JVS (RAOx), Consolidated with SACV 15-2018 JVS(RAOx)(C.D.
Cal.).

The Judge has been advised by the counsel for the parties that the
action has been settled.  He dismissed without prejudice the case
in its entirety to the right, upon good cause being shown within 45
days, to reopen the action if settlement is not consummated. He
vacated the Scheduling Conference set Aug. 20, 2018.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 17, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/4faO8D from Leagle.com.

Larry Diek, Plaintiff, represented by Brian D. Chase, Bisnar Chase
LLP, Christopher M. Burke -- CBURKE@SCOTT-SCOTT.COM -- Scott and
Scott LLP, Isam C. Khoury -- ikhoury@ckslaw.com -- Cohelan Khoury
and Singer, Jerusalem F. Beligan, Bisnar Chase LLP, John T. Jasnoch
-- JJASNOCH@SCOTT-SCOTT.COM -- Scott and Scott LLP, Jose R. Garay
-- jose@garaylaw.com -- Jose Garay APLC, Michael D. Singer --
msinger@ckslaw.com -- Cohelan Khoury and Singer, Michael P. Sousa,
Law Offices of Michael P. Sousa APC, Timothy Douglas Cohelan --
tcohelan@ckslaw.com  -- Cohelan Khoury and Singer, Michael P.
Sousa, Law Offices of Michael P. Sousa APC, Timothy Douglas Cohelan
, Cohelan Khoury and Singer, Demet Basar -- basar@whafh.com -- Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz LLP, pro hac vice, Janine L.
Pollack, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz LLP, pro hac vice,
Jeff Geraci, Cohelan Khoury and Singer, Kate M. McGuire, Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz LLP, pro hac vice, Nancy A.
Kulesa -- nkulesa@zlk.com -- Levi and Korsinsky LLP, pro hac vice,
Shannon L. Hopkins -- shopkins@zlk.com -- Levi and Korsinsky LLP,
pro hac vice & Stephanie A. Bartone -- sbartone@zlk.com -- Levi and
Korsinsky LLP, pro hac vice.

Frank Perez, Paul Pisciotto & Tanya Mullins, individually, on
behalf of themselves and all aggrieved consumers similarly
situated,, Plaintiffs, represented by Brian D. Chase, Bisnar Chase
LLP, Christopher M. Burke, Scott and Scott LLP, Isam C. Khoury,
Cohelan Khoury and Singer, John T. Jasnoch, Scott and Scott LLP,
Jose R. Garay, Jose Garay APLC, Michael D. Singer, Cohelan Khoury
and Singer, Michael P. Sousa, Law Offices of Michael P. Sousa APC,
Demet Basar, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz LLP, pro hac
vice, Janine L. Pollack, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz
LLP, pro hac vice, Jeff Geraci, Cohelan Khoury and Singer, Kate M.
McGuire, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz LLP, pro hac vice,
Nancy A. Kulesa, Levi and Korsinsky LLP, pro hac vice, Shannon L.
Hopkins , Levi and Korsinsky LLP, pro hac vice, Stephanie A.
Bartone, Levi and Korsinsky LLP, pro hac vice & Jerusalem F.
Beligan, Bisnar Chase LLP.

Michael J Whitney, Plaintiff, represented by Brian D. Chase, Bisnar
Chase LLP, Christopher M. Burke, Scott and Scott LLP, Isam C.
Khoury, Cohelan Khoury and Singer, John T. Jasnoch, Scott and Scott
LLP, Jose R. Garay, Jose Garay APLC, Michael D. Singer, Cohelan
Khoury and Singer, Michael P. Sousa, Law Offices of Michael P.
Sousa APC, Demet Basar, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz
LLP, pro hac vice, Janine L. Pollack, Wolf Haldenstein Adler
Freeman and Herz LLP, pro hac vice, Jeff Geraci, Cohelan Khoury and
Singer, Kate M. McGuire, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz
LLP, pro hac vice, Nancy A. Kulesa, Levi and Korsinsky LLP, pro hac
vice, Shannon L. Hopkins , Levi and Korsinsky LLP, pro hac vice,
Stephanie A. Bartone, Levi and Korsinsky LLP, pro hac vice &
Jerusalem F. Beligan, Bisnar Chase LLP.

LOEC Inc., Defendant, represented by J. Kevin Snyder --
ksnyder@dykema.com -- Dykema Gossett LLP, Todd Allen Gale --
tgale@dykema.com -- Dykema Gossett LLP & Allan Gabriel --
agabriel@dykema.com -- Dykema Gossett LLP.

ITG Brands, LLC, Reynolds America, Inc., Fontem US, Inc. & Fontem
Holdings 4 B.V., Defendants, represented by Allan Gabriel, Dykema
Gossett LLP.

Lorillard, Inc., Defendant, represented by Christopher M. Burke,
Scott and Scott LLP, Isam C. Khoury, Cohelan Khoury and Singer,
John T. Jasnoch, Scott and Scott LLP & Allan Gabriel, Dykema
Gossett LLP.


FREEDOMROADS LLC: Court Enters Arbitration Ruling in Piner Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ELGIN PINER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FREEDOMROADS, LLC,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-902 (S.D. Ohio), Judge Edmund
A. Sargus, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Ohio, Eastern Division, held that the Plaintiffs are bound by
the arbitration agreement to arbitrate their claims on an
individual basis.

At this juncture, the parties agree that the Court must determine
whether the Plaintiffs' meet an exception to the parties'
arbitration agreement, allowing them to proceed in arbitration as a
collective action.  The Judge reviews the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Conditional Certification, the Defendants' Memorandum in
Opposition, the Plaintiffs' Reply in Support, as well as
supplemental briefing submitted by both parties.

Piner and Jerry Dingus, allege that they were jointly employed by
the Defendants as RV service technicians.  The Plaintiffs further
assert that they and other similarly situated service technicians
worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek but were not compensated
properly or even for all hours worked.

Both the Plaintiffs executed arbitration agreements containing the
mandatory arbitration provisions.  The arbitration agreement
provides that outside of the employee's limited share of the filing
fee, the company is responsible for its share of the filing fee,
the case management fee, the arbitrator's compensation and
expenses, and the hearing room rental fees.

On Jan. 18, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed their First Amended
Collective and Class Action Complaint.  On Feb. 15, 2018, the
Defendants filed their Answer and a Motion to Stay the proceedings
pending the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Epic Sys. Corp. v.
Lewi, which ultimately found class and collective action waivers
within arbitration agreements enforceable.  Thereafter, the parties
briefed motions regarding conditional class certification and the
Court stayed the proceeding pending Epic Systems.

The parties dispute whether the Plaintiffs have met their burden in
establishing that an explicit exception within the arbitration
agreement, circumventing the requirement that they proceed on an
individualized basis, applies in the case.  The parties focus in on
the language of the agreement which provides that class action
claims and/or claims of multiple associates may be heard together
only by written agreement of both the Company and the complaining
associate(s) unless the party or parties seeking to have class or
multiple claims heard together can demonstrate to a court or
arbitrator that class or multi-party claims are the only effective
way to halt and redress the alleged violations about which the
party or parties complain.

The Plaintiffs assert that proceeding to arbitration as a
collective action is the only way to effectively address the
collective claims of putative class members.  Under the Plaintiff's
argument, individual suits for FLSA claims would never provide
effective redress to the alleged violations.  The Plaintiffs,
however, do not demonstrate how the putative class members will be
prevented from pursuing their own individual arbitration.  The
Plaintiffs have, thus, made no showing that individual actions will
impede enforcement of the FLSA. Thus, Judge Sargus is precluded
from finding that individual arbitration can never provide
effective redress for employees alleging FLSA violations.

Importantly, in the instant action, the Judge finds that the
Plaintiffs do not demonstrate a great financial burden in an
individual pursuit of their claims.  They concede that the
Defendants bear the burden of the arbitration expenses.
Accordingly, Judge Sargus agrees with the Defendants that the
Plaintiffs are bound by the arbitration agreement to arbitrate
their claims on an individual basis.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 15, 2018 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/gYHROv from Leagle.com.

Elgin Piner & Jerry Dingus, Plaintiffs, represented by Matthew
James Porter Coffman -- mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com -- Coffman
Legal, LLC, Daniel I'Anson Bryant -- dbryant@bryantlegalllc.com --
Bryant Legal, LLC, Jason Charles Cox, Barkan Meizlish Handelman
Goodin DeRose Wentz, LLP & Robert E. DeRose, II --
bderose@barkanmeizlish.com -- Barkan Meizlish Handelman Goodin
DeRose Wentz, LLP.

FreedomRoads, LLC, Sirpilla RV Centers, LLC & Camping World, Inc.,
Defendants, represented by Michael T. Short -- mshort@littler.com
-- Littler Mendelson, Andrew J. Voss -- avoss@littler.com --
Littler Mendelson PC, pro hac vice & John H. Lassetter --
jlassetter@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C., pro hac vice.


FXCM INC: 2nd Amended Securities Class Suit Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------
In the case, RETIREMENT BOARD OF THE POLICEMEN'S ANNUITY AND
BENEFIT FUND OF CHICAGO ON BEHALF OF THE POLICEMEN'S ANNUITY AND
BENEFIT FUND OF CHICAGO, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. FXCM INC. and DROR NIV,
Defendants, Case No. 15-CV-3599 (KMW) (S.D. N.Y.), Judge Kimba M.
Wood of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's
Second Amended Complaint.

Plaintiff Retirement Board of the Policemen's Annuity and Benefit
Fund of Chicago on Behalf of the Policemen's Annuity and Benefit
Fund of Chicago brings the putative securities class action against
Defendants.  It alleges that the Defendants made material
misstatements and omissions concerning risks in FXCM's business.

FXCM was one of the first brokerage firms to permit retail
customers to trade currency in the retail foreign exchange ("FX")
market.  Dror Niv is one of the founders of FXCM and was, at all
relevant times, its CEO.

The Plaintiff is an institutional investor that purchased FXCM
common stock from March 17, 2014, up to and including Janu. 20,
2015.  It brings the putative class action on behalf of all those
who purchased or otherwise acquired FXCM stock during the Class
Period and were damaged thereby.

The Defendants have moved to dismiss the Plaintiff's Second Amended
Complaint for failing to adequately allege (i) that the Defendants
made a materially false statement, (ii) that the Defendants acted
with scienter, and (iii) loss causation.

Judge Wood finds that the Plaintiff has not attempted to argue that
the Defendants had a motive to commit fraud.  It instead attempts
to show scienter by alleging that Niv falsely described the risks
inherent in FXCM's business, even though he was fully aware of the
truth.  Specifically, te Plaintiff relies on the following
allegations to prove scienter: (1) Niv knew that FXCM was exposed
to a $2.2 billion long bet on the EUR/CHF pair; (2) because Niv
"pioneered" the agency model, he knew about the risks associated
with it; (3) the extreme price movement of the EUR/CHF pair in 2011
informed Niv of the risks of the EUR/CHF pair being de-pegged; (4)
FXCM experienced a reduction in excess net capital on Dec. 12 and
15, 2014, due to changes in the Japanese Yen and Russian Ruble, as
well as further reductions a week later; (5) Niv knew that two of
FXCM's competitors had increased their margin collateral
requirements to reduce the risk from the EUR/CHF pair; and (6) Niv
tried to "cover up" the extent of the loss by (i) claiming that the
amount of customers' open positions in the EUR/CHF pair was $1
billion (not $2.2 billion); and (ii) stating that the loss resulted
from failure of the banks to provide pricing and because of a lack
of liquidity from banks.  Individually, and when taken together
with all of the other allegations in the Second Amended Complaint,
the Judge finds that these allegations do not create a strong
inference of scienter.

Because the Plaintiff fails to adequately plead material
misstatements and scienter, the Judge does not reach the issue of
loss causation.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Wood granted the Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss.  Her Opinion & Order resolves docket numbers 102
and 110.  The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case.  Any
pending motions are moot.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 10, 2018 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/jjc8IY from Leagle.com.

Retirement Board of the Policemen's Annuity and Benefit Fund of
Chicago on Behalf of the Policemen's Annuity and Benefit Fund of
Chicago, Plaintiff, represented by Beth Ann Kaswan, Esq. --
kswan@scottandscottllp.com -- SCOTT SCOTT, L.L.P.

Teamsters Local 710 Pension Fund & Inter-Local Pension Fund
GCC/IBT, Movants, represented by David Avi Rosenfeld --
DRosenfeld@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Twin City Pipe Trades Pension Trust, Movant, represented by Joel B.
Strauss -- jstrauss@kaplanfox.com -- Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP.

Luzerne County Retirement System, Movant, represented by Ralph M.
Stone, Stone Bonner & Rocco LLP.

Dienger and Weidhorn, Movant, represented by Phillip C. Kim --
pkim@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm P.A.

Orlando Police Pension Fund & Orlando Firefighter's Pension Fund,
Movants, represented by Curtis Victor Trinko -- info@trinko.com --
Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP.

FXCM Inc., Dror Niv & Robert Lande, Defendants, represented by Paul
Richard Bessette, Esq. -- pbessette@kslaw.com -- and -- Israel
Dahan, Esq. -- idahan@kslaw.com -- KING & SPALDING LLP

683 Capital Partners, LP & Shipco Transport Inc., Interested
Partys, represented by Phillip C. Kim, The Rosen Law Firm P.A..


GAINESVILLE CAPITAL: Quarterman Files ADA Suit in N.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gainesville Capital,
LLC, et al. The case is styled as Lanie Quarterman individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Gainesville Capital, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company,
Wyndham Hotels and Resorts, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-00187-MW-GRJ (N.D. Fla., Sept. 18, 2018).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act of 1990.

Gainesville Capital LLC provides business management consulting
services and is located at 7420 West Newberry Road, Gainesville, FL
32605, United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jessica Lynn Kerr, Esq.
     JESSICA L KERR PA - FORT LAUDERDALE FL
     200 SE 6th Street, Suite 504
     Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
     Phone: (954) 282-1858
     Fax: (844) 786-3694
     Email: service@advocacypa.com


GENE BY GENE: 9th Cir. Affirms Denial of Cole Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the
district court's order denying Cole's Motion for Class
Certification in the case, MICHAEL COLE, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GENE BY
GENE, LTD., DBA Family Tree DNA, a Texas limited liability company,
Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 17-35837 (9th Cir.).

Cole alleges that Gene by Gene disclosed customer DNA results and
information without informed, written consent in violation of the
Alaska Genetic Privacy Act.  He appeals the district court's order
denying his Motion for Class Certification in the action/

The Appellate Court affirmed.  It holds that the district court did
not abuse its discretion by denying class certification on
predominance grounds because Cole failed to show that common
questions predominate over any questions affecting only individual
members of his proposed class and subclass.  

It explains that individualized determinations predominate with
respect to disclosure, consent, and damages for Cole's putative
class of approximately 900 Alaskans and Gene by Gene customers, as
well as for his proposed subclass.  Whether a particular customer
had private information disclosed varies depending on the terms of
release signed by the customer, which of the thousands of Gene by
Gene "projects" the customer may have joined, the terms of the
specific project a customer joined, and what privacy settings the
customer chose.

Likewise, whether a particular customer consented to disclosure of
private information varies depending on the particular project the
customer joined, the terms of release they signed when they
received an at-home testing kit, the terms of release they signed
upon joining a project, and any other privacy communications they
may have had with Gene by Gene.

Further, the Court holds that wide variances in individual actual
damages, although insufficient standing alone to justify
decertification, further support the district court's conclusion
that individual questions predominate over common issues.

Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying
class certification on superiority grounds.  Cole failed to carry
his burden to show that a class action is superior to other
available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the
controversy.

The damages available to aggrieved Gene by Gene customers under the
Alaska Genetic Privacy Act, the difficulties inherent in managing a
class action featuring such distinct and individualized issues, the
limited resources to be saved by certifying a class, and the
absence of other pending or duplicative lawsuits in the Alaskan
courts all reflect that individual litigation is a superior
mechanism for resolving the appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 14, 2018 Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/6IOuxF from Leagle.com.


GERBER PRODUCTS: Dismissal of Hobbs Suit Over GSG False Ad Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge John J. Tharp, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, denied Gerber's
motion to dismiss the case, LINDA HOBBS, individually and as a
representative of the class, Plaintiff, v. GERBER PRODUCTS CO., a
corporation, d/b/a NESTLE NUTRITION, NESTLE INFANT NUTRITION, and
NESTLE NUTRITION NORTH AMERICA, Defendant, Case No. 17 CV 3534
(N.D. Ill.).

Gerber is a well-known manufacturer of baby foods.  At issue in the
case is Gerber's "Good Start Gentle" product ("GSG"), an infant
formula made from partially hydrolyzed whey protein.  Hobbs claims
that Gerber fraudulently marketed GSG by falsely representing that
it would reduce the risk that infants would develop allergies to
cow's milk and decrease incidences of the most common manifestation
of such allergies, atopic dermatitis (eczema).  Hobbs also claims
that Gerber falsely implied that the Food and Drug Administration
("FDA") endorsed or certified Gerber's claims about GSG.

Hobbs filed the putative class action in May 2017 after several
other suits had been filed raising similar claims about Gerber's
marketing materials for GSG.  Her complaint presents three counts,
or theories, of liability.  In Count One, Hobbs asserts that
Gerber's marketing of GSG violates the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Business Practices Act ("ICFA").  She alleges breach of
express warranty in Count Two, and in Count Three Hobbs asserts a
common law fraudulent misrepresentation theory.

Gerber moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) for
failure to state a claim.

Judge Tharp finds that the complaint adequately sets forth a claim
premised on allegedly false and misleading statements by Gerber
about the health benefits of GSG.  

He says the complaint identifies the particular materials Hobbs
saw, alleges that Hobbs saw them frequently between 2012 and early
2014 when she was caring for her infant relatives, and purchased
the products based on Gerber's claims about GSG's capacity to
prevent allergies and the FDA's endorsement thereof.  These
allegations satisfy Rule 9(b)'s requirements.

Even if allegations of fact sufficient to establish actual falsity
were required to establish a claim based on false statements, the
Judge finds that the complaint would survive because it is also
based on allegations of statements that are alleged to be not
literally false but simply misleading, such as the claim that GSG
was the "1ST & Only" formula endorsed by the FDA to reduce the risk
of developing allergies.

In addition, the allegations of Hobbs' complaint permit an
inference, which the Judge finds plausible, that Hobbs either would
not have purchased the product, or would have purchased a
lower-priced product, but for the allegedly false and misleading
statements of the the Defendant.

Finally, the Judge finds that the complaint plainly and plausibly
alleges that Gerber did not comply with the limited QHCs and, given
the specificity of the limited QHCs that the FDA approved, it is
difficult to fathom an argument to the contrary.  In any event,
neither of Gerber's briefs even attempts to explain how the
statements identified as false or misleading by Hobbs complied with
the QHCs or were otherwise "specifically authorized" by the FDA, so
its invocation of the "specifically authorized" exemption does not
merit dismissal of the complaint.

Having concluded that Hobbs' complaint states a claim based on a
theory that Gerber's marketing statements regarding GSG violate the
ICFA, the Judge holds it is unnecessary to consider the merits of
Gerber's challenges to the alternative theories of breach of
warranty and fraudulent misrepresentation presented in the
complaint.  The complaint survives; full testing of the legal
theories under which Hobbs alleges Gerber's liability awaits
summary judgment or trial.  Accordingly, Judge Tharp denied
Gerber's motion to dismiss the complaint.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 14, 2018 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/jJFioU from Leagle.com.

Linda Hobbs, individually and as a representative of the class,,
Plaintiff, represented by Stephen John Fearon, Jr. --
stephen@sfclasslaw.com -- Squitieri & Fearon, Llp, pro hac vice,
Adam M. Prom -- ap@wexlerwallace.com -- DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC,
Paul Sweeny -- paul@sfclasslaw.com -- Squitieri & Fearon, LLP, pro
hac vice & Edward A. Wallace -- eaw@wexlerwallace.com -- Wexler
Wallace LLP.

Gerber Products Co., a corporation,, Defendant, represented by John
Carmine Pirra -- jpirra@kelleydrye.com -- Kelley Drye & Warren LLP,
Matthew Charles Luzadder -- mluzadder@kelleydrye.com -- Kelley Drye
& Warren LLP & Sarita Kumari Mutha -- smutha@kelleydrye.com --
Kelley Drye & Warren.


GLA COLLECTION: Toogood Sues Over Misleading Collection Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kennetra Toogood, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. G.L.A. Collection Company, Inc. and John Does
1-25, Case No. 3:18-cv-00612-DJH (W.D. Ky., September 13, 2018),
accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act in connection with their deceptive, misleading and
unfair debt collection practices.

GLA is a "debt collector" with an address in Louisville, Kentucky.
GLA is a company that uses the mail, telephone, and facsimile and
regularly engages in business, the principal purpose of which is to
attempt to collect debts alleged to be due another.  The identities
of the Doe Defendants are unknown.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yaakov Saks, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282-6500
          Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
          E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com


HARRIS COUNTY, TX: 5th Cir. Stays O'Donnell Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jerry E. Smith of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit, stayed the case, MARANDA LYNN ODONNELL,
Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PAULA GOODHART; BILL HARMON; NATALIE C.
FLEMING; JOHN CLINTON; MARGARET HARRIS; LARRY STANDLEY; PAM
DERBYSHIRE; JAY KARAHAN; JUDGE ANALIA WILKERSON; DAN SPJUT; JUDGE
DIANE BULL; JUDGE ROBIN BROWN; DONALD SMYTH; JEAN HUGHES,
Defendants-Appellants. LOETHA SHANTA McGRUDER; ROBERT RYAN FORD,
Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS, ET AL., Defendant.
PAULA GOODHART; BILL HARMON; NATALIE C. FLEMING; JOHN CLINTON;
MARGARET HARRIS; LARRY STANDLEY; PAM DERBYSHIRE; JAY KARAHAN; JUDGE
ANALIA WILKERSON; DAN SPJUT; JUDGE DIANE BULL; JUDGE ROBIN BROWN;
DONALD SMYTH; JEAN HUGHES, Defendants-Appellants, Case No. 18-20466
(5th Cir.), pending plenary resolution of the appeal from
preliminary injunction.

The Plaintiffs brought a class action against Harris County, Texas,
and a number of its officials -- including County Judges, Hearing
Officers, and the Sheriff -- under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, alleging
the County's system of setting bail for indigent misdemeanor
arrestees violates Texas statutory and constitutional law and the
Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth
Amendment.

After a hearing, the district court granted the Plaintiffs' motion
for a preliminary injunction, finding that they were likely to
succeed on their procedural due process and equal protection
claims.  The Court affirmed in part and reversed in part.  The
Appellate Court remanded for a revised injunction consistent with
the opinion.  That revised injunction was to be narrowly tailored
to cure the constitutional deficiencies the district court properly
identified.  It provided a model injunction but left the details to
the district court's discretion.

On remand, the district court adopted the model injunction but
added four provisions of its own -- Sections 7, 8, 9, and 16.
Section 7 applies to all misdemeanor arrestees who (a) are not
subject to a formal hold, (b) have executed an affidavit of
financial condition showing inability to pay, and (c) have not been
granted release on unsecured bond.  The injunction directs the
County to release them if they would have been released had they
posted bond.  These arrestees must be released within the same time
frame of release as an arrestee who posted bond, and verification
of references must not delay release.

Except for formal holds, Section 8 requires the County to release,
on unsecured personal bond, all misdemeanor arrestees who have not
had a hearing and individual assessment within 48 hours.  The
County may require their return for a hearing but cannot hold
arrestees after the 48th hour after their arrest.

Section 9 requires the County to implement procedures to comply
with Section 8.  Upon release, the arrestee will be subject to the
bail amount previously set until his new hearing, but that amount
will be imposed on an unsecured basis.  In absentia hearings do not
satisfy the 48-hour rule.

Section 16 applies the relief to misdemeanor arrestees who are
rearrested on misdemeanor charges only or on warrants for failing
to appear while released before trial on bond (either secured or
unsecured).  The decisionmaker is free to consider these facts at
the individual assessment hearing but must provide repeat offenders
the same protections, in advance of that hearing, as any other
first-time arrestee.

On July 10, 2018, the Fourteen Judges filed the appeal of the
preliminary injunction and moved, in the district court, for a
stay, pending appeal, of Sections 7, 8, 9, and 16.  The district
court denied their motion.  On July 27, 2018, Fourteen County
Judges filed an emergency motion with the Appellate Court,
requesting a stay only of those four sections set to go into effect
at 12:01 a.m. on July 30, 2018.  The Court issued an emergency stay
to allow time for full consideration of the motion, and heard oral
argument on the motion on Aug. 7, 2018.

Judge Smith granted the motion and entered a stay of Sections 7, 8,
9, and 16 pending plenary resolution of the appeal by a merits
panel.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 14, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/rkGYpN from Leagle.com.

Charles Justin Cooper -- ccooper@cooperkirk.com -- for
Defendant-Appellant.

Neal Manne -- nmanne@SusmanGodfrey.com -- for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Sheryl Anne Falk, for Defendant-Appellant.

Joseph Samuel Grinstein, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Alexandra Giselle White -- lwhite@SusmanGodfrey.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellee.

William C. Marra, for Defendant-Appellant.

Michael Kirk, for Defendant-Appellant.

Alec George Karakatsanis , for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Krisina Janaye Zuniga, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Michael Gervais -- mgervais@susmangodfrey.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellee.

Daniel Volchok, for Plaintiff-Appellee.


HOMESTREET BANK: Kuzich Conditional Class Cert Partly OK'd
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Katherine Kuzich, Plaintiff, v. Homestreet Bank, et
al., Defendants, Case No. CV-17-02902-PHX-GMS (D. Ariz.), Judge G.
Murray Snow of the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona
granted in part and denied in part Kuzich's Motion for Conditional
FLSA Collective Action Certification and Notice.

HomeStreet Bank provides various consumer and commercial bank
services, including residential lending.  As part of its operation,
HomeStreet Bank employs four different levels of Loan Processors1
with varying degrees of responsibility to assist with the
processing of loan documents.  HomeStreet Bank classifies Loan
Processors as non-exempt, hourly employees who are eligible for
overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").

Kuzich worked as a Loan Processor III for HomeStreet Bank at their
Scottsdale, Arizona location.  Ms. Kuzich signed a declaration
alleging that HomeStreet management encouraged her to process and
close mortgage loans outside of normal working hours and to not
report these additional hours.  Thus, HomeStreet Bank never paid
Ms. Kuzich overtime for this additional work.

Based on her observations at work, Ms. Kuzich understood that other
HomeStreet Processors had similar obligations after normal working
hours and were not being paid for all of the overtime hours worked.
At least six other employees who worked as a Processor III for
HomeStreet in Arizona and California signed a nearly identical
declaration, where they all declared that they regularly worked
'off the clock' and HomeStreet did not pay them for this work, and
their manager discouraged them from reporting all of their overtime
hours.

On Aug. 29, 2017, Ms. Kuzich filed a putative collective action
complaint claiming relief under FLSA.  She subsequently requested
the Court to certify a conditional collective action under 29
U.S.C. Section 216(b).  Ms. Kuzich seeks to conditionally certify a
class of Processors I, II, and III and Loan Processors I, II, and
III who worked in HomeStreet Bank's Single Family Lending Division
in the last three years.

Judge Snow finds that (i) the supporting declarations in Ms.
Kuzich's motion support a finding under the lenient standard that
the putative class members were together the victims of a single
decision, policy, or plan; (ii) Ms. Kuzich has failed to present a
factual or legal nexus that binds together the conditional class
members on the issue of incentive pay; (iii) Ms. Kuzich has not
shown that the processors in the HomeStreet Bank Commercial
Divisions, Loan Servicing Processors in the Single Family Lending
Division, or processor specialists in any division are similarly
situated to Processors I-III in the Single Family Lending
Division.

To the extent that Ms. Kuzich claims that she seeks conditional
certification of Processors I-III and Loan Processors I-III who
worked in the Defendants' SFL Division in the last three years, she
has adequately shown that these positions are similar.
Accordingly, in agreement with the parties' briefings, the Judge
certifies a more narrowly defined putative class, defined as all
Processors I, II, and III and Loan Processors I, II, and III in the
Single Family Lending Division who were employed by HomeStreet Bank
within the Unites States at any time during the last three years
through entry of judgment in the case.

The Judge instructs the parties to add the following to the end of
the "What Happens If I Join This Lawsuit" section: "However, if
HomeStreet Bank wins the case, you may be required to pay some of
its attorneys' fees and costs."  He approves a 90-day opt-in period
and allows Ms. Kuzich to distribute three mailings and three
emailings.  He allows notification to cover the potential
three-year statute of limitations period.

For these reasons, Judge Snow granted in part and denied in part
Ms. Kusich's Motion for Conditional Certification.  He
conditionally certifies a collective action under 29 U.S.C. Section
216(b) and permitted the named Plaintiff to pursue relief with any
similarly situated individual described all Processors I, II, and
III and Loan Processors I, II, and III in the Single Family Lending
Division who were employed by HomeStreet Bank within the Unites
States at any time during the last three years through entry of
judgment in the case.

The Parties will meet and confer concerning the final content and
method to notify potential class members as described in the Order,
as well as the Defendant's production of the appropriate contact
information for members of the collective action to the Plaintiff,
and within 30 days, the parties will file the proposed Notice with
the Court.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 15, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/QfwAxj from Leagle.com.

Katherine Kuzich, On behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Rowdy B. Meeks --
Rowdy.Meeks@rmlegalgroup.com -- Rowdy Meeks Legal Group LLC.

Homestreet Bank & Homestreet Home Loan Center Company, Defendants,
represented by Amelia Anne Esber -- aesber@swlaw.com -- Snell &
Wilmer LLP & John F. Lomax, Jr. -- jlomax@swlaw.com -- Snell &
Wilmer LLP.


HUTCHISON TREE: Berber Class Conditional Certification Partly OK'd
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ADRIAN BERBER, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HUTCHISON TREE SERVICE, NORTHSTAR
ENERGY SERVICES, INC., PIEDMONT NATURAL GAS, INC., and CRAIG
HUTCHISON, Defendants, Case No. 5:15-CV-143-D (E.D. N.C.), Judge
James C. Denver, III of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, Western Division, granted in part and
denied in part Berber's motion for conditional certification
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and for class
certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.

On April 3, 2015, the Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, filed a complaint against the
Defendants, alleging violations of the FLSA, and the North Carolina
Wage and Hour Act ("NCWHA").

HTS is a Tennessee-based company that performs various tree
services including cutting and clearing trees for pipeline
right-of-ways.  Mr. Hutchison is the owner and manager of HTS.
Piedmont is a North Carolina corporation that provides natural gas
to residential and business customers.  Northstar is a Texas
corporation that provides infrastructure construction and support
services to owners and builders of pipelines.

The Hutchison Defendants hired Berber, and other putative class
members, to cut and clear trees for a pipeline right-of-way that
Piedmont was constructing across North Carolina ("Integrity
Project").  Berber alleges that the Hutchison Defendants, Piedmont,
and Northstar were his joint employers under 29 C.F.R. Section
791.2.

On April 3, 2015, Berber sued the Defendants claiming that the
Defendants violated section 207 of the FLSA by not compensating
class members for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek
at a rate of not less than one and one-half times their hourly
rate.  Berber also brought a claim under the NCWHA claiming that
the Defendants failed to pay class members all accrued wages.

On Jan. 6, 2017, Berber moved for conditional class certification
and court-authorized notice concerning his FLSA claim and for class
certification concerning his NCWHA claim.  The Defendants responded
on Feb. 13, 2017 and on Feb. 27, 2017, Berber replied.

On Sept. 27, 2017, the Court denied without prejudice Berber's
motion for conditional certification pursuant to the FLSA and for
class certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23
and directed the parties to engage in a court-hosted settlement
conference.

On Dec. 7, 2017, the parties participated in a court-hosted
settlement conference with Magistrate Judge Gates.  On April 4,
2018, Magistrate Judge Gates found that the parties reached an
impasse in settlement negotiations.

On April 5, 2018, Berber resubmitted her motion conditional
certification of his FLSA claim and class certification under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 of his NCWHA claim.
Berber's proposed class definition is 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
trirruning, land clearing, and stump grinding for the Defendants
whom named Plaintiff alleges jointly employed him and all of those
similarly situated employees, whom paid the 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 Hutchison defendants do not oppose conditional class
certification under section 216(b), subject to Berber refining the
class definition and notice.  Judge Denver finds that Berber has
made a sufficient factual showing that the Hutchison Defendants
subjected putative class members to a common policy that violated
the FLSA.  Accordingly, Berber has satisfied the requirements for
conditional class certification under the FLSA against HTS and
Hutchison.

Northstar and Piedmont oppose Berber's motion for conditional
certification under section 216(b).  They contend that Berber has
failed to show that they had any involvement in the alleged common
practice or policy that resulted in the underpayment of wages.
Furthermore, they argue that they cannot be, considered joint
employers because the Hutchison Defendants were solely responsible
for all the terms and conditions of class members' employment.
Thus, according to Northstar and Piedmont, Berber has failed to
sustain his burden of showing that class certification is
appropriate and that notice should be issued.

The Judge agrees with Northstar and Piedmont.  First, Berber's
pleadings and affidavits do not plausibly suggest that he will be
able to prove that Northstar and Piedmont were joint employers.
Second, Berber's pleadings and affidavits do not set forth a
minimal factual showing that Northstar and Piedmont employed a
common practice or policy that violated the FLSA.  Accordingly,
Berber's motion for conditional certification as to Northstar and
Piedmont will be denied.

Berber also seeks class certification under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23 for his claim under the NCWHA.  He alleges that the
Defendants willfully refused to pay all earned and accrued wages,
including overtime wages.  The Defendants each oppose the class
certification.

Judge Denver will deny Berber's motion for class certification as
to Northstar and Piedmont.  Berber has failed to show that
Northstar and Piedmont had a common policy that resulted in
putative class members not being paid overtime.  Berber has also
failed to plausibly allege that Northstar and Piedmont were his
joint employers.  Thus, there is no common evidence or means of
proof that could establish Northstar's and Piedmont's liability on
a class-wide basis.

The Judge will grant Berber's motion for class certification
concerning the NCWHA claim.  The superiority requirement is met.

In sum, Judge Denver granted in part and denied in part the
Plaintiff's motion for a conditional class certification and a
court-authorized notice concerning their FLSA claim and for class
certification concerning his NCWHA claim.  The Hutchison Defendants
and the Plaintiff will meet and confer concerning future
proceedings, the contents of the proposed notice, and the class
definition and submit a proposed schedule no later than Aug. 31,
2018.  Defendants Northstar and Piedmont are dismissed as
Defendants.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 14, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/aUgaxF from Leagle.com.

Adrian Berber, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Emma J. Smiley, The Law Office
of Gilda A. Hernandez, PLLC, Jimmy D. Braziel, Lee & Braziel, LLP &
Gilda A. Hernandez -- ghernandez@gildahernandezlaw.com -- The Law
Offices of Gilda A. Hernandez, PLLC.

Hutchison Tree Service & Craig Hutchison, Defendants, represented
by Robert E. Boston -- bob.boston@wallerlaw.com -- Waller Lansden
Dortch & Davis, LLP, Zebulon D. Anderson -- zanderson@smithlaw.com
-- Smith Anderson Blount Dorsett Mitchell & Jernigan, LLP & Andrew
S. Naylor -- andy.naylor@wallerlaw.com -- Waller Lansden Dortch &
Davis, LLP.


IMG WORLDWIDE: Sullivan Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against IMG Worldwide, LLC.
The case is styled as Phillip Sullivan, Jr. on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. IMG Worldwide, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-08507 (S.D. N.Y., Sept. 18 2018).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act of 1990.

IMG Worldwide, Inc. provides sports, fashion, and media operating
services worldwide. It offers consulting, event management,
hospitality, league development, licensing, media distribution,
media production, performance, speaker, sponsorship, strategic
initiative, talent representation, ticketing, venue, and video
archive services, as well as integrated academic, athletic, and
personal development programs.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


INTERNATIONAL TEXTILE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Arakilian Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
ARTOUR GH ARAKILIAN, an individual; FANPING "FRANK" LIU, an
individual; and XUAN WILLETT, an individual, on behalf of
themselves and all other aggrieved employees v. INTERNATIONAL
TEXTILE PARTNERS, INC., a California corporation; SUNNY TEXTILES,
INC., a California corporation; YI LAN SUN (a/k/a YI-LAN SUN, YILAN
SUN, and SUSAN SUN), an individual; NORA PINEDA, an individual;
SEAN HSU, an individual; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
BC721311 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., September 13, 2018),
alleges that the Defendants directed workers to work extremely long
hours in poor conditions, failed to pay the applicable minimum
wage, failed to pay overtime wages, and misclassified most workers
as independent contractors, among other violations of the
California Labor Code.

ITP is a California corporation that had its principal place of
business in Los Angeles, California.  ITP is a "contractor" as
defined in the Labor Code in that it "is primarily engaged in
sewing, cutting, making, processing, repairing, finishing,
assembling, or otherwise preparing any garment or any article of
wearing apparel or accessories designed or intended to be worn by
any individual."

Sunny Textiles, Inc., is a California corporation whose principal
place of business is located in Walnut, California.  STI is an
alter ego arm of ITP.  STI is engaged in the business of garment
manufacturing, importing and exporting.  The Individual Defendants
and the Doe Defendants are owners, officers, agents or employees of
the Corporate Defendants.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Tina Locklear, Esq.
          Kelli M. Farrell, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TINA LOCKLEAR
          18121 Irvine Blvd.
          Tustin, CA 92780
          Telephone: (714) 331-1014
          Facsimile: (657) 348-2213
          E-mail: tina@locklearlaw.com
                  kelli@locklearlaw.com


JESSE CASARES: JT's Frames' Bid to Certify Class Under Advisement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr., has taken under advisement the
Plaintiff's third amended motion for class certification in the
lawsuit entitled JT's Frames, Inc. v. Jesse Casares, et al., Case
No. 1:16-cv-02504 (N.D. Ill.).

The Plaintiff's third amended "Damasco" motion for class
certification is stricken as moot, as it is replaced with
Plaintiff's re-filed third amended "Damasco" motion for class
certification, which is taken under advisement.


JUST ENERGY: Court Issues Protective Order in Evangelista Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Suzanne H. Segal of the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California has entered a protective order
in the case, DANIEL EVANGELISTA, Plaintiff, v. JUST ENERGY
MARKETING CORP., a Delaware corporation, JUST ENERGY SOLUTIONS
INC., a California corporation, JUST ENERGY LIMITED, a Delaware
corporation, JUST ENERGY GROUP INC., a Canadian corporation, and
DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 8:17-cv-02270
CJC (SSx) (C.D. Cal.).

The discovery in the action is likely to involve production of
confidential, proprietary, and private information for which
special protection from public disclosure and from use for any
purpose other than prosecuting the litigation may be warranted.
Accordingly, the parties stipulate to and petitioned the Court, to
enter their Stipulated Protective Order.

The action is a putative wage and hour class action.  While the
Parties, and each of them, reserve the right to object to and/or
challenge whether certain information is confidential, proprietary,
a trade secret, personal, and/or private, they believe that they
will or may be required to produce or disclose in the Action, and
that nonparties may produce or disclose, information that is
confidential and/or proprietary, and/or information that is of a
private or personal nature and that, if disclosed in the Action
without restriction on its use or further disclosure, may cause
disadvantage, harm, damage and/or loss to the disclosing Party, to
the disclosing nonparty, or other nonparties.

For instance, private information regarding Just Energy employees
other than the Plaintiff will likely be produced, such as personnel
records, contact information, and expense reports.  Confidential
business information, including Just Energy's internal policies and
procedures, might also be produced, as will personal information
regarding the Plaintiff, including employment and medical records.

The protections conferred by the Stipulation and Order cover not
only Protected Material, but also (1) any information copied or
extracted from Protected Material; (2) all copies, excerpts,
summaries, or compilations of Protected Material; and (3) any
testimony, conversations, or presentations by Parties or their
Counsel that might reveal Protected Material.

Even after final disposition of the litigation, the confidentiality
obligations imposed by the Order will remain in effect until a
Designating Party agrees otherwise in writing or a court order
otherwise directs.  Final disposition will be deemed to be the
later of (1) dismissal of all claims and defenses in the Action,
with or without prejudice; and (2) final judgment herein after the
completion and exhaustion of all appeals, rehearings, remands,
trials, or reviews of the Action, including the time limits for
filing any motions or applications for extension of time pursuant
to applicable law.

Any Party or Non-Party may challenge a designation of
confidentiality at any time that is consistent with the Court's
Scheduling Order.

After the final disposition of the Action, within 60 days of a
written request by the Designating Party, each Receiving Party must
return all Protected Material to the Producing Party or destroy
such material.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 10, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/91trDY from Leagle.com.

Daniel Evangelista, Plaintiff, represented by Asha Dhillon --
adhillon@jonesbell.com -- Jones Bell Abbott Fleming and Fitzgerald
LLP, Francisco Cabada -- cisco@cabadahameed.com -- Cabada and
Hameed LLP, Sayema Javed Hameed -- sayema@cabadahameed.com --
Cabada and Hameed LLP & William M. Turner -- wmturner@jonesbell.com
-- Jones Bell Abbott Fleming & Fitzgerald.

Just Energy Marketing Corp., a Delaware corporation, Just Energy
Solutions, Inc., a California corporation, Just Energy Limited, a
Delaware corporation & Just Energy Group Inc., a Canadian
corporation, Defendants, represented by Edward H. Chyun --
echyun@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson PC, pro hac vice, Timothy
S. Anderson -- tanderson@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson PC, pro
hac vice & Rachael Sarah Lavi -- rlavi@littler.com -- Littler
Mendelson PC.


KEIHIN CORP: Vitec Sues Over Fuel Injection System Price-Fixing
----------------------------------------------------------------
VITEC, L.L.C., individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Keihin Corporation, Keihin North America, Inc.,
Maruyasu Industries Co., Ltd., Mikuni Corporation, Mikuni American
Corporation, Case No. 2:18-cv-12858-GAD-APP (E.D. Mich., September
13, 2018), is brought on behalf of direct purchasers of Fuel
Injection Systems under federal antitrust laws, including the
Sherman Act and the Clayton Act.

Beginning at least as early as January 2000, the Defendants
violated the antitrust laws by entering into a continuing
conspiracy to rig bids and fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize
prices of Fuel Injection Systems sold in the United States and
elsewhere at supra-competitive levels, asserts the complaint.

A "Fuel Injection System" admits fuel or a fuel/air mixture into
engine cylinders, and may include fuel injectors, high pressure
pumps, rail assemblies, feed lines, electronic throttle bodies,
airflow meters, engine control units, fuel pumps, fuel pump
modules, manifold absolute pressure sensors ("MAP Sensors"),
pressure regulators, pulsation dampers, electronic throttle motors,
purge control valves and other components sold as a unitary system,
as part of a broader system, such as an engine management system,
or as separate components.

Keihin Corporation is a Japanese corporation with its principal
place of business in Tokyo, Japan.  Keihin North America, Inc., is
an Indiana corporation with its principal place of business in
Anderson, Indiana.  Keihin North America is owned and controlled by
Keihin Corporation.

Maruyasu Industries Co., Ltd., is a Japanese corporation with its
principal place of business in Nagoya, Aichi Prefecture, Japan.

Mikuni Corporation is a Japanese corporation with its principal
place of business in Tokyo, Japan.  Mikuni American Corporation is
a California corporation with its principal place of business in
Northridge, California.  Mikuni American is owned and controlled by
Mikuni Corporation.

The Defendants are United States and global manufacturers and
suppliers of fuel injection systems.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David H. Fink, Esq.
          Darryl Bressack, Esq.
          Nathan J. Fink, Esq.
          FINK + ASSOCIATES LAW
          38500 Woodward Ave., Suite 350
          Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
          Telephone: (248) 971-2500
          E-mail: dfink@finkandassociateslaw.com
                  dbressack@finkandassociateslaw.com
                  nfink@finkandassociateslaw.com

               - and -

          Gregory P. Hansel, Esq.
          Randall B. Weill, Esq.
          Michael S. Smith, Esq.
          PRETI, FLAHERTY, BELIVEAU & PACHIOS LLP
          One City Center
          P.O. Box 9546
          Portland, ME 04112-9546
          Telephone: (207) 791-3000
          E-mail: ghansel@preti.com
                  rweill@preti.com
                  msmith@preti.com

               - and -

          Joseph C. Kohn, Esq.
          William E. Hoese, Esq.
          Douglas A. Abrahams, Esq.
          KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
          1600 Market Street, Suite 2500
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 238-1700
          E-mail: jkohn@kohnswift.com
                  whoese@kohnswift.com
                  dabrahams@kohnswift.com

               - and -

          Steven A. Kanner, Esq.
          William H. London, Esq.
          Michael E. Moskovitz, Esq.
          FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
          2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130
          Bannockburn, IL 60015
          Telephone: (224) 632-4500
          E-mail: skanner@fklmlaw.com
                  wlondon@fklmlaw.com
                  mmoskovitz@fklmlaw.com

               - and -

          Eugene A. Spector, Esq.
          William G. Caldes, Esq.
          Jonathan M. Jagher, Esq.
          Jeffrey L. Spector, Esq.
          SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C.
          1818 Market Street, Suite 2500
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 496-0300
          E-mail: espector@srkw-law.com
                  bcaldes@srkw-law.com
                  jjagher@srkw-law.com
                  jspector@srkw-law.com

               - and -

          Carl E. Person, Esq.
          225 E. 36th Street, Suite 3A
          New York, N.Y. 10016-3664
          Telephone: (212) 307-4444
          E-mail: carlpers2@gmail.com

               - and -

          Irwin B. Levin, Esq.
          COHEN & MALAD, LLP
          One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 636-6481
          E-mail: ilevin@cohenandmalad.com

               - and -

          Manuel J. Dominguez, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200
          Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
          Telephone: (877) 515-7955
          E-mail: jdominguez@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          Solomon B. Cera, Esq.
          CERA LLP
          595 Market St., Suite 2300
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 777-5189
          E-mail: scera@cerallp.com


KELLER WILLIAMS: Dressel Seeks Damages for TCPA Breach
------------------------------------------------------
Darrel Dressel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Keller Williams Realty, Inc., and Does 1 through 10,
Case No. 2:18-cv-06718 (C.D. Calif., August 6, 2018), seeks damages
for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff Darrel Dressel is a natural person residing in Agoura
Hills, California.

The Defendant Keller Williams Realty, Inc. is a nationwide real
estate agent franchise company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


KOHL'S CORP: Ankcorn's Bid to Certify Class Entered and Continued
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr., entered and continued the
Plaintiff's renewed preliminary motion for class certification in
the lawsuit captioned Mark Ankcorn v. Kohl's Corporation, Case No.
1:15-cv-01303 (N.D. Ill.).

According to the Court's civil minutes, the Plaintiff's renewed
preliminary motion for class certification is stricken as moot, as
it replaced with Plaintiff's renewed preliminary motion for class
certification which is entered and continued generally.

Notice of motion date of September 27, 2018, is stricken and no
appearances are necessary on that date.


L.L. BEAN: Court Grants Leave to Amend Shirley Suit
---------------------------------------------------
In the case, WILLIAM A. SHIRLEY, Plaintiff, v. L.L. BEAN, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-02641-YGR (N.D. Cal.), Judge Yvonne
Gonzalez Rogers of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California (i) granted with leave to amend the
Defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint and to strike the class
action allegations; and (ii) granted in part its request for
judicial notice in support of its motion to dismiss.

Shirley brings the instant class action complaint for breach of
contract, unjust enrichment, violation of the California Consumer
Legal Remedies Act, violation of the California Unfair Competition
Law, violation of the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act, and for
declaratory relief.  The Defendant has moved to dismiss the
complaint and to strike the class action allegations.

Having carefully considered the briefing and arguments submitted in
the matter, Judge Rogers granted with leave to amend the motions to
Dismiss and to Strike.  She granted in part the request for
judicial notice submitted by the Defendant in support of the motion
to dismiss as to Exhibits C, D, and E only.  The Plaintiff will
file his amended complaint no later than Sept. 13, 2018.  The
Defendant will file its response 21 days thereafter.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 15, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/9mc7Od from Leagle.com.

William A. Shirley, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony Lee Parkhill
-- aparkhill@barnowlaw.com -- Barnow and Associates, P.C., Erich P.
Schork -- e.schork@barnowlaw.com -- Barnow & Associates PC, Marisa
C. Livesay -- livesay@whafh.com -- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman &
Herz LLP, Ben Barnow -- b.barnow@barnowlaw.com -- Barnow and
Associates, P.C., pro hac vice, Brittany Nicole DeJong --
dejong@whafh.com -- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz LLP,
Correy A. Kamin -- Kamin@whafh.com -- Wolf Haldenstein Adler
Freeman & Herz LLP, Janine Lee Pollack, Wolf Haldenstein Adler
Freeman & Herz LLP, Jeffrey D. Blake , Barnow & Associates PC,
Michael M. Liskow, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP,
Rachele R. Byrd -- Byrd@whafh.com -- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman
& Herz LLP.

L.L. Bean, Inc., a Maine corporation, Defendant, represented by
Anthony John Anscombe -- aanscombe@steptoe.com -- Steptoe & Johnson
LLP, Daniel Edward Raymond -- draymond@steptoe.com -- Steptoe, pro
hac vice, Darlene Kay Alt -- dalt@steptoe.com -- Steptoe Johnson,
pro hac vice, Mary Elizabeth Buckley -- mbuckley@steptoe.com -- pro
hac vice, Meegan Bay Brooks -- mbrooks@steptoe.com -- Steptoe &
Johnson LLP & Stephanie Anne Sheridan, Esq. --
ssheridan@steptoe.com -- Steptoe & Johnson LLP.


LAS VEGAS, NV: Fails to Pay OT to Firefighters, Scheumann Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
ERIC SCHEUMANN, an individual, the Plaintiff, vs. CITY OF LAS
VEGAS; DOES I through X, inclusive; ROE CORPORATIONS I through X,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-01772 (D. Nev., Sept.
12, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages, unpaid overtime and
unlawful employment practices and damages suffered by Plaintiff,
and other similarly situated non-exempt employees under the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff has been employed by
Defendant as a Fire Engineer for 16 years. The Plaintiff says he is
a non-exempt employee. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant had
him work both unreported and under-reported overtime since March
2014. The Plaintiff was required to work by the Defendant while on
sick leave until December 13, 2017. The Defendant had other
firefighters work without pay or due overtime pay on various
projects. The Plaintiff worked on certain projects for the benefit
of the Defendant that were distinct from his duties as a Fire
Engineer. Also since 2014, the Plaintiff worked extensive hours and
overtime hours without compensation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Trevor J. Hatfield, Esq.
          HATFIELD & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
          703 S. Eighth Street
          Las Vegas, NV 89101
          Telephone: (702) 388 4469
          Facsimile: (702) 386 9825
          E-mail: thatfield@hatfieldlawassociates.com


LUX COSMETIC: Olivera Moves for Certification of Class Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled JOADYS OLIVERA, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. LUX COSMETIC SURGERY CENTER CORP., a
Florida Profit Corporation; SEDUCTION COSMETIC CENTER CORP., a
Florida Profit Corporation; NEW YOU PLASTIC SURGERY & SPA CORP., a
Florida Profit Corporation; CG BEAUTY PLASTIC SURGERY CORP., a
Florida Profit Corporation; JARDON'S MEDICAL FOR PLASTIC &
BARIATRIC SURGERY CORP., a Florida Profit Corporation; BUTTERFLY
COSMETIC CENTER CORP., a Florida Profit Corporation; LUIS R.
JARDON, individually and GRETEL JARDON, individually, Case No.
1:18-cv-23637-KMW (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff seeks an order
granting conditional certification of a Collective Action under
Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, for the proposed
Putative Class defined as:

     All persons who are currently, or who were, from the date
     this lawsuit was filed going back three years as non-exempt
     workers of the Defendants, regardless of whether they were
     misclassified as independent contractors or classified as
     employees, either directly by Defendants or through any of
     their subsidiaries or affiliated companies.

Ms. Olivera also asks the Court for an order:

   -- appointing her as representative of the Collective Action
      with authority to appear at any mediation/settlement
      conference on behalf of and to bind the Collective;

   -- expediting production by the Defendants, within 10 days
      from the entry of an Order from the Court, of a complete
      list of each person, including his/her last known home
      address, telephone number, fax number, and e-mail address,
      who worked as a sales employee for the Defendants at any
      time between the date this suit was filed and three years
      prior;

   -- requiring the Defendants to format and produce a list of
      each such person listed alphabetically, and with each
      person's last known home address, telephone number, fax
      number, and e-mail addresses to facilitate the preparation
      and sending of notice;

   -- permitting the Plaintiff's counsel to send a Court-Approved
      Notice by e-mail and by U.S. Mail to all such persons about
      their rights to opt into this collective action by filing a
      Consent to Join Lawsuit and to call to ensure that they
      received the forms;

   -- permitting the Plaintiff's counsel to send a Court-Approved
      Reminder Notice by e-mail and by U.S. Mail to all Putative
      Class members and to call to ensure that they received the
      Reminder Notice; and

   -- requiring the Defendants to post notice in their break room
      for the entire notice period and to provide a copy of the
      Court-Approved Notice to all Putative Class members in the
      next paycheck/pay stub provided to the Defendants' current
      employees.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven L. Schwarzberg, Esq.
          SCHWARZBERG & ASSOCIATES
          2751 South Dixie Highway, Suite 400
          West Palm Beach, FL 33405
          Telephone: (561) 659-3300
          Facsimile: (561) 693-4540
          E-mail: steve@schwarzberglaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Carlos Santisteban, Jr., Esq.
          CARLOS SANTISTEBAN, JR., P.A.
          6080 Bird Road, Suite 1
          Miami, FL 33155
          Telephone: (305) 930-8200
          E-mail: carlos@csjrlaw.com


LUX COSMETIC: Rivera Seeks Certification of Class Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled NADIA RIVERA on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. LUX COSMETIC SURGERY
CENTER CORP., a Florida Profit Corporation; SEDUCTION COSMETIC
CENTER CORP., a Florida Profit Corporation; NEW YOU PLASTIC SURGERY
& SPA CORP., a Florida Profit Corporation; CG BEAUTY PLASTIC
SURGERY CORP., a Florida Profit Corporation; JARDON'S MEDICAL FOR
PLASTIC & BARIATRIC SURGERY CORP., a Florida Profit Corporation;
BUTTERFLY COSMETIC CENTER CORP., a Florida Profit Corporation; LUIS
R. JARDON, individually and GRETEL JARDON, individually, Case No.
1:18-cv-23635-UU (S.D. Fla.), seeks conditional certification of a
proposed class pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act:

     All persons who are currently, or who were, from the date
     this lawsuit was filed going back three years as non-exempt
     workers of the Defendants, regardless of whether they were
     misclassified as independent contractors or classified as
     employees, either directly by Defendants or through any of
     their subsidiaries or affiliated companies.

Ms. Rivera also asks the Court to appoint her as representative of
the Collective Action with authority to appear at any
mediation/settlement conference on behalf of and to bind the
Collective.

Ms. Rivera further asks the Court for an order:

   -- expediting production by the Defendants, within 10 days
      from the entry of an Order from the Court, of a complete
      list of each person, including his/her last known home
      address, telephone number, fax number, and e-mail address,
      who worked as a sales employee for the Defendants at any
      time between the date this suit was filed and three years
      prior;

   -- requiring the Defendants to format and produce a list of
      each such person listed alphabetically, and with each
      person's last known home address, telephone number, fax
      number, and e-mail addresses to facilitate the preparation
      and sending of notice;

   -- permitting the Plaintiff's counsel to send a Court-Approved
      Notice by e-mail and by U.S. Mail to all such persons about
      their rights to opt into this collective action by filing a
      Consent to Join Lawsuit and to call to ensure that they
      received the forms;

   -- permitting the Plaintiff's counsel to send a Court-Approved
      Reminder Notice by e-mail and by U.S. Mail to all Putative
      Class members and to call to ensure that they received the
      Reminder Notice; and

   -- requiring the Defendants to post notice in their break room
      for the entire notice period and to provide a copy of the
      Court-Approved Notice to all Putative Class members in the
      next paycheck/pay stub provided to the Defendants' current
      employees.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven L. Schwarzberg, Esq.
          SCHWARZBERG & ASSOCIATES
          2751 South Dixie Highway, Suite 400
          West Palm Beach, FL 33405
          Telephone: (561) 659-3300
          Facsimile: (561) 693-4540
          E-mail: steve@schwarzberglaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Carlos Santisteban, Jr., Esq.
          CARLOS SANTISTEBAN, JR., P.A.
          6080 Bird Road, Suite 1
          Miami, FL 33155
          Telephone: (305) 930-8200
          E-mail: carlos@csjrlaw.com


M&M SEACREST: Honeywell Files ADA Suit in S.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against M&M Seacrest, LLC.
The case is styled as Cheri Honeywell individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. M&M Seacrest, LLC,
doing business as: HOTEL SEACREST, a Nevada limited liability
company, Defendant, Case No. 0:18-cv-62212-KMW (S.D. Fla., Sept. 18
2018).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act of 1990.

HOTEL SEACREST is an eight room boutique hotel located in the
beautiful beach town of Lauderdale-by-the-Sea.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jessica Lynn Kerr, Esq.
     Jessica L. Kerr, P.A. dba The Advocacy Group
     200 S.E. 6th Street, Suite 504
     Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
     Phone: (954) 282-1858
     Fax: (844) 786-3694
     Email: service@advocacypa.com


MAGELLAN HEALTHCARE: Court Denies Certification of Malvern Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MALVERN INSTITUTE FOR PSYCHIATRIC AND ALCOHOLIC
STUDIES, INC., Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated Plaintiff, v. MAGELLAN HEALTHCARE, INC., ET. AL.
Defendants, Civil Action No. 16-CV-4772 (E.D. Pa.), Judge J. Curtis
Joyner of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania denied the Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification.

Malvern Institute is an operator of addiction treatment programs at
various locations throughout Southeastern Pennsylvania, including
several inpatient residential (non-hospital) facilities.  The
Defendants are health benefits managers and administrators
overseeing, inter alia, the behavioral health benefits for those
federal employees, retirees and their families who enroll in the
Federal Blue Cross Blue Shield Service Benefit Plan in certain
areas of the country, including central and southeastern
Pennsylvania pursuant to the Federal Employees Health Benefits
Program.

In its complaint, the Plaintiff avers that both the Federal Blue
Cross Plan and Magellan are required to comply with the Mental
Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 ("MHPAEA") and its
implementing regulations.  In essence, these laws mandate that in
the case of group health plans which provide both medical and
surgical benefits and mental health or substance use disorder
benefits, there be parity between the two categories of benefits.
Stated otherwise, MHPAEA prohibits health plans and their
administrators from imposing restrictions and treatment limitations
on behavioral health/substance abuse benefits that do not exist for
or are more stringent than those imposed upon physical health
benefits.

By the action, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants fail to
comply with MHPAEA in their management and administration of the
substance use disorders and behavioral health benefits for Federal
Blue Cross Plan members and participants, specifically with regard
to the administration of inpatient, non-hospital residential
addiction treatment benefits by imposing a series of utilization
review barriers that are not present for and are not applied to,
physical health benefits.  

The Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that the Defendants'
actions violate both the MHPAEA and its contract with the Plaintiff
and is asking to represent not only itself but also a proposed
class of facilities which it defines as all inpatient non-hospital
(residential) addiction treatment facilities in Pennsylvania that
(a) provided or sought to provide residential addiction treatment
to Federal Blue Cross Plan members whose behavioral health benefits
were or are managed by Magellan and (b) were unable to obtain
preauthorization or reimbursement for such treatment.

Insofar as the period for the taking of class discovery has now
closed, the Plaintiff has filed the motion for class certification
which is presently before the Court.

Judge Joyner concludes that any claimant that might wish to join as
a Plaintiff to the action would suffer no real prejudice or
disadvantage by the decision to enter the suit now.  And, again in
the absence of any showing to the contrary, he is unable to find
any serious administrative burdens or barriers to joinder of all of
the parties in lieu of the matter going forward as a class action,
or that any of the potentially new Plaintiffs would be financially
burdened any more than the present Plaintiff.

Finally, he also cannot find that granting the case class status
would prove any more efficient given the current stage of the
case's proceedings.  If anything, in view of the notice and other
requirements inherent in class action matters, it is entirely
possible that certifying the case as a class action would have the
unwanted effect of further delaying its litigation to conclusion.
For these reasons, he does not find that numerosity has been
satisfied.

In view of his inability to find that the first requirement of Rule
23(a) (numerosity) has been satisfied, the Judge sees no need to
discuss the other three requirements of 23(a) or commence an
analysis under Rule 23(b).  The Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification will therefore be denied pursuant to the attached
Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 10, 2018 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/S6cF19 from Leagle.com.

MALVERN INSTITUTE FOR PSYCHIATRIC AND ALCOHOLIC STUDIES, INC.,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
Plaintiff, represented by DAVID S. SENOFF --
dsenoff@anapolweiss.com -- Anapol Weiss, GREGORY B. HELLER --
gheller@yrchlaw.com -- YOUNG RICCHIUTI CALDWELL & HELLER LLC,
CLAYTON PATRICK FLAHERTY -- cflaherty@anapolweiss.com -- ANAPOL
WEISS & HILLARY B. WEINSTEIN -- hweinstein@anapolweiss.com --
ANAPOL WEISS.

MAGELLAN HEALTHCARE, INC., MAGELLAN BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, INC., N/K/A
MAGELLAN HEALTHCARE, INC., MAGELLAN BEHAVIORAL HEALTH OF
PENNSYLVANIA, INC., MAGELLAN BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SYSTEMS, LLC,
MAGELLAN HEALTH, INC. & MAGELLAN HEALTH SERVICES, INC., N/K/A
MAGELLAN HEALTH, INC., Defendants, represented by JEANNINE C.
JACOBSON -- jjacobson@rc.com -- Robinson & Cole LLP & MICHAEL H.
BERNSTEIN -- michael.bernstein@sdma.com -- Robinson & Cole LLP.


MARKETSOURCE INC: Sept. 28 Deadline to Comply w/ Discovery Order
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JENNIFER BRUM and MICHAEL CAMERO, individually, and on
behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. MARKETSOURCE, INC. WHICH WILL DO BUSINESS IN
CALIFORNIA AS MARYLAND MARKETSOURCE, INC., a, Maryland corporation;
ALLEGIS GROUP; INC., a Maryland corporation; and DOES,1 through 10,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00241-JAM-EFB (E.D. Cal.),
Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of California granted the parties' stipulation
to request an extension of time for them to comply with the Court's
Aug. 14, 2018 discovery order.  The Defendants will have until
Sept. 28, 2018 to comply with the discovery order requiring them to
provide a 10% sampling of wage statements for the putative class.
The Defendants will comply with the Aug. 14, 2018 discovery order
as written with respect to the Plaintiffs' Interrogatory Number 1,
and the 30% sampling of time and payroll records.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 17, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/FIpRJu from Leagle.com.

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

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


MARRIOTT EMPLOYEES: Payne Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Marriott Employees
Federal Credit Union over Truth in Lending. The case is styled as
Katherine N. Payne, Arthur Coates individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Marriott Employees Federal
Credit Union, Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-04009-WB (E.D. Pa., Sept.
18 2018).

The nature of suit is stated as Consumer Credit.

Marriott Employees Federal Credit Union serves the financial
service needs for Marriott Employees and their families.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Robert P. Cocco, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT P. COCCO PC
     1500 Walnut St., STE 900
     Philadelphia, PA 19102
     Phone: (215) 351-0200
     Fax: (215) 922-3874
     Email: rcocco@rcn.com


MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP: Settlement in Finerman Has Final Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DANIEL FINERMAN, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated and DONNA DEVINO, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MARRIOTT
OWNERSHIP RESORTS, INC., a foreign corporation and INTERNATIONAL
CRUISE & EXCURSION GALLERY, INC., a foreign corporation,
Defendants, Case No. 3:14-cv-1154-J-32MCR (M.D. Fla.), Judge
Timothy J. Corrigan of the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida, Jacksonville Division, granted the Plaintiffs'
Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and
Certification of Settlement Class.

On Feb. 23, 2018, the Court entered an order granting preliminary
approval of the settlement between the parties as memorialized in
the Settlement Agreement attached to the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement and Certification
of Settlement Class.

On Aug. 3, 2018, the Court held the Fairness Hearing, for which
members of the Settlement Class had been given appropriate notice.
An opportunity to be heard was given to all persons requesting to
be heard in accordance with the Preliminary Approval Order.  Having
considered the Settlement Agreement, the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Final Approval of the Class Action Settlement, and Motion for
Service Award and Attorney's Fees, Costs, and Expenses, and all
other evidence submitted, Judge Corrigan granted the Plaintiffs'
Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and
Certification of Settlement Class, including but not limited to,
the Releases in the Settlement Agreement.

He now finally certified, solely for purposes of this Settlement,
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3), the
previously certified class defined as all persons throughout the
United States who from Jan. 1, 2010 to the date of Preliminary
Approval were Program Members of the Exchange Program and who
booked a cruise through the Defendants.

Daniel Finerman and Donna Devino are designated as the
representatives of the Settlement Class; and John A. Yanchunis, Sr.
and Joel R. Rhine are appointed as the Settlement Class Counsel.

Within 60 days of the Effective Date, the Defendants will
distribute to the Settlement Class Members who submitted timely and
valid claim forms remuneration in accordance with the Settlement
Agreement.

Judge Corrigan granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Approval of
Attorneys' Fees, Costs and Expenses, and For Approval of Service
Awards to Class Representatives.  He awarded the Settlement Class
Counsel the sum of $3,524,500 for attorneys' fees, and $300,000 for
costs and expenses to be paid within 30 days of the Effective Date,
in accordance with the Settlement Agreement.  He also granted the
Settlement Class Counsel's request for Service Awards to the Class
Representatives and awards $10,000 each to Daniel Finerman and
Donna Devino.  The payment will be made within 30 days of the
Effective Date.

The Settlement Class Counsel and the Settlement Administrator will
file a final accounting detailing the distribution of the
Settlement Amount by Dec. 18, 2018.  

In the Preliminary Approval Order, the Court approved JND Legal
Administration as the Settlement Administrator.  The Settlement
Administrator will make all distributions to the Settlement Class
Members pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement and this
Court's Orders.

The Judge dismissed with prejudice the action pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 41.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 15, 2018 Final Judgment and
Order is available at https://is.gd/Yiuj1d from Leagle.com.

Daniel Finerman, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated & Donna Devino, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Fred
Catfish Abbott, Abbott Law Group, PA, Joel R. Rhine , Rhine Law
Firm, P.C., pro hac vice, John Allen Yanchunis, Sr., Morgan &
Morgan, PA, Marcio William Valladares, Morgan & Morgan, PA, Patrick
A. Barthle, Morgan & Morgan, PA, Steven William Teppler, Abbott Law
Group, PA & Brittany R. Ford, Abbott Law Group, PA.

Marriott Ownership Resorts, Inc., a foreign corporation, Defendant,
represented by David E. Sellinger -- sellingerd@gtlaw.com --
Greenberg Traurig, LLP, pro hac vice, Dawn Ivy Giebler-Millner ,
Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Gregory W. Kehoe -- kehoeg@gtlaw.com --
Greenberg Traurig, P.A. & Philip R. Sellinger --
sellingerp@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig LLP, pro hac vice.

International Cruise & Excursion Gallery, Inc., a foreign
corporation, Defendant, represented by Brandon R. Keel, King &
Spalding, LLP, pro hac vice, David L. Balser, King & Spalding, LLP,
pro hac vice, John Andrew DeVault, III, Bedell, Dittmar, DeVault,
Pillans & Coxe, PA, Jonathan R. Chally, King & Spalding, LLP, pro
hac vice & Michael E. Lockamy, Bedell, Dittmar, DeVault, Pillans &
Coxe, PA.

NCL (Bahamas) Ltd. & Oceania Cruises, Inc., Movants, represented by
Alex M. Gonzalez -- alex.gonzalez@hklaw.com -- Holland & Knight LLP
& Eleni S. Kastrenakes, Holland & Knight, LLP.


MARTHA STEWART LIVING: Sullivan Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Martha Stewart Living
Omnimedia, Inc. The case is styled as Phillip Sullivan, Jr. on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-08506 (S.D. N.Y., Sept. 18 2018).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act of 1990.

Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia Inc. is a diversified media and
merchandising company founded by Martha Stewart owned by Sequential
Brands Group since December 4, 2015. It is organized into four
business segments: Publishing, Internet, Broadcasting media
platforms, and Merchandising product lines. MSLO's business
holdings include a variety of print publications, television and
radio programming, and e-commerce websites.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MCCORMICK & CO: Court Narrows Claims in Holve Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MEGAN HOLVE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, Case # v. McCORMICK & COMPANY, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 16-CV-6702-FPG (W.D. N.Y.), Judge Frank P.
Geraci, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
New York (i) granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss; and (ii) granted the Defendant's Motion to
Stay.

The Plaintiff brings the putative class action alleging that the
Defendant deceptively marketed certain products as "natural."  The
Complaint asserts claims for unjust enrichment under New York
Common Law and Maryland Common Law, violations of Maryland
Commercial Code Seciton 13-301 ("MCC"), and New York General
Business Law Sections 349, 350 ("GBL").

The Defendant is a Maryland-based corporation that manufactures,
markets, advertises, and sells various spice and seasoning products
with the word "natural" on their front packaging.  The Plaintiff's
Complaint lists 29 specific spice and seasoning products, which she
alleges were deceptively labeled as "natural."  The Products'
labels are attached to the Plaintiff's Complaint as "Exhibit A" and
show that 19 of the 29 Products are labeled "with natural spices,"
5 are labeled as "natural," and 5 are labeled as "all natural."
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant's use of the "natural"
descriptor is an effort to increase sales and "take advantage of"
the rapidly growing natural foods market.

The Plaintiff seeks to represent a nationwide class of all United
States residents or, alternatively, a statewide class of all New
York residents who purchased certain McCormick products, for
personal use and not resale, since Oct. 27, 2012.

The Defendant moves to dismiss the Plaintiff's claims or, in the
alternative, to stay the action pending the Food and Drug
Administration's ("FDA") rulemaking concerning the use of the term
"natural" on food labeling and the United States Department of
Agriculture's ("USDA") rulemaking concerning labeling of
bioengineered foods.  It challenges the Plaintiff's standing to
bring the suit.

Among other things, Judge Geraci finds that (i) the Plaintiff has
adequately alleged a concrete and particularized injury-in-fact
related to her purchase of the Chicken Seasoning Mix; (ii) the
Plaintiff has standing to pursue claims related to the Other
Products under New York law on behalf of the putative class
members; (iii) the Plaintiff's remaining state law claims are not
preempted by the NBFDS; and (iv) the Plaintiff's allegations state
a claim upon which relief can be granted because they plausibly
allege that the Defendant engaged in deceptive conduct.

Judge Geraci granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss.  The only claims remaining are (1) the
Plaintiff's individual claims under GBL Sections 349-50 arising
from her purchase of the Chicken Seasoning Mix; and (2) the
"natural" and "all natural" claims brought on behalf of the absent
class members under GBL Sections 349-50, MCC Section 13-301, and
Maryland common law.  All claims for injunctive relief are
dismissed.

The Judge granted the Defendant's Motion to Stay, and the remaining
claims are stayed until Feb. 1, 2018, at which time the parties
must file a joint status report with any material updates on the
FDA and USDA rulemaking processes and their respective positions on
lifting the stay.

Finally, the Plaintiff requests leave to amend her Complaint if the
Court grants any part of the Defendant's motion to dismiss.  The
Judge finds that the Plaintiff has not, however, properly moved to
amend her Complaint, which requires her to attach an unsigned copy
of the proposed amended pleading as an exhibit to the motion.
Therefore, he denied without prejudice the Plaintiff's request for
leave to amend.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 14, 2018 Decision and Order is
available at https://is.gd/bFCrZY from Leagle.com.

MEGAN HOLVE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by George V. Granade, II --
ggranade@reesellp.com -- Reese LLP & David M. Kaplan --
dmkaplan@rochester.rr.com -- David M. Kaplan, Attorney-at-Law.

MCCORMICK & COMPANY, INC., a Maryland Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Pieter H.B. Van Tol, III --
pieter.vantol@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US LLP & Benjamin
A. Fleming -- benjamin.fleming@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US
LLP.


MCKESSON CORP: OT Class Action Obtains Conditional Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Santoni, writing for Law360, reports that a class of
McKesson Corp. workers who were allegedly misclassified as exempt
from overtime received conditional certification on Aug. 28 in
Pennsylvania federal court, but the judge trimmed the proposed
class from 233 to 37 employees.

U.S. District Judge Mark R. Hornak's opinion on Aug. 28 reduced the
proposed class from all McKesson employees who were classified as
"grade 103" to just those workers within the grade whose job
descriptions included identical language about their levels of
discretion and judgment.

The case is styled HUNT v. MCKESSON CORPORATION, Case No.
2:16-cv-01834 (W.D. Pa.).  The case is assigned to Judge Mark R.
Hornak.  The case was filed December 8, 2016. [GN]


MDL 2262: $43MM Attorneys' Fees Awarded in Antitrust Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In re: LIBOR-Based Financial Instruments Antitrust
Litigation. This Document Applies to: OTC Plaintiff Action, Case
Nos. 11 MD 2262 (NRB), 11 Civ. 5450 (S.D. N.Y.), Judge Naomi Reice
Buchwald of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted in part and denied in part OTC plaintiffs' motions
for attorneys' fees, reimbursement of litigation expenses, and
incentive awards for the named Plaintiffs.

On Aug. 1, 2018, the Court granted final approval to OTC
Plaintiffs' $120 million settlement with Barclays and their $130
million settlement with Citi, but reserved decision on OTC
Plaintiffs' motions for attorneys' fees, reimbursement of
litigation expenses, and incentive awards for the named Plaintiffs.


The OTC Plaintiffs request a total of $14,855,689.55 in
reimbursement for litigation expenses, comprised of (1) $656,337.64
in reimbursements for costs and expenses incurred through November
11, 2015 (the date on which the Barclays settlement was reached)
from the Barclays settlement fund; and (2) a further
$14,199,351.911 in reimbursements for costs and expenses incurred
between Nov. 11, 2015 and July 27, 2017 (the date on which the Citi
settlement was reached) from the Citi settlement fund.  The sum of
these figures represents 5.94% of the $250 million aggregate
settlement amount.

Given the complexities of the case and the necessity for extensive
expert involvement (which account for the vast majority of expenses
that OTC plaintiffs have incurred), Judge Buchwald is persuaded
that 5.94% is not so high as to be unreasonable.  Further,
attribution of these expenses to Barclays and Citi is appropriate
given the joint and several nature of liability in the action.
Accordingly, she will award $14,855,689.55 in costs and expenses,
$656,337.64 payable from the Barclays settlement fund and
$14,199,351.91 payable from the Citi settlement fund.

The OTC plaintiffs have sought incentive awards of $25,000 each for
five of the named Plaintiffs: the Mayor and City Council of
Baltimore, Maryland; the City of New Britain, Connecticut; Yale
University; Vistra Energy Corp.; and Jennie Stuart Medical Center,
Inc., to be paid solely from the Barclays settlement.   

Given the complexity of the case, the length of the litigation, and
the amount of recovery that these Plaintiffs have obtained for the
class, we find that incentive awards of $25,000 each are
reasonable.  However, the Judge will make one modification: rather
than the incentive awards being paid entirely from the Barclays
settlement fund, they will be paid pro rata from the Barclays and
Citi settlement funds: $12,000 each from the Barclays settlement
fund, and $13,000 each from the Citi settlement fund.

The OTC Plaintiffs have requested $50 million in fees across the
two settlements, which corresponds to exactly 20% of the gross
aggregate settlement amounts prior to the reimbursement of expenses
and granting of incentive awards.  However, they had previously
based their request on the net settlement fund after reimbursement
of expenses.  The Judge agrees that awarding fees as a percentage
of net recovery is more consistent with notions of public policy in
that doing so encourages the class counsel's prudence and
discretion in incurring expenses -- expenses that may not be as
closely scrutinized given that there is no single client footing
the bill.

The settlement amount is $235,019,310.45 after expenses
reimbursements and incentive awards are deducted, and the Judge is
persuaded that 18.5% of this amount, or $43,478,572.43, is an
appropriate amount of fees to award.  Given these amounts of
expense reimbursements, incentive awards, and attorneys' fees, the
class writ large will receive 76.62% of the aggregate settlement
amounts (prior to other expenses, such as those incurred in
providing notice to the classes).  It is simply inconceivable that
attorneys' fees of more than $43 million -- $930 per hour for each
of the 46,744.3 hours Class Counsel reports to have spent -- would
somehow be insufficiently incentivizing for the class counsel to
vigorously pursue actions of this nature.

For these reasons, Judge Buchwald granted in part and denied in
part the OTC Plaintiffs' motions for attorneys' fees, litigation
expenses, and incentive awards as to the Barclays settlement and as
to the Citi settlement.  The OTC Plaintiffs are awarded
$14,855,689.55 in reimbursement for litigation expenses incurred
through July 27, 2017.  The Mayor and City Council of Baltimore,
Maryland; the City of New Britain, Connecticut; Yale University;
Vistra Energy Corp.; and Jennie Stuart Medical Center, Inc. are
each awarded $25,000 as an incentive award for a total of $125,000
across those five Plaintiffs.  The OTC Plaintiffs' counsel are
awarded $43,478.572.43 in attorneys' fees,6 representing 18.5% of
the aggregate settlement fund across the two settlements net of
expenses and incentive awards.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 14, 2018 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/WP73ZT from Leagle.com.

FTC Capital GMBH, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher Lovell, Esq. --
LOVELL STEWART HALEBIAN JACOBSON LLP, Daniel Hume, Esq. --
dhume@kmllp.com -- David E. Kovel, Esq. -- dkovel@kmllp.com --
Lauren Wagner Pederson, Esq. -- lpederson@kmllp.com -- and Surya
Palaniappan, Esq. -- spalaniappan@kmllp.com -- KIRBY MCINERNEY LLP

FTC Futures Fund PCC Ltd, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Martin McNeela
-- amcneela@kmllp.com -- Kirby McInerney LLP, Christopher Lovell,
Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP, Daniel Hume, Kirby McInerney
LLP, David E Kovel, Kirby McInerney LLP, Lauren Wagner Pederson,
Kirby McInerney LLP, Merrill G Davidoff -- mdavidoff@bm.net --
Berger & Montague, P.C, Roger W Kirby, Kirby McInerney LLP, Samuel
Howard Rudman, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Surya Palaniappan,
Kirby McInerney LLP & Thomas W. Elrod -- telrod@kmllp.com -- Kirby
McInerney, LLP.

FTC Futures Fund SICAV, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Martin
McNeela, Kirby McInerney LLP, Christopher Lovell, Lovell Stewart
Halebian Jacobson LLP, Daniel Hume, Kirby McInerney LLP, David E
Kovel, Kirby McInerney LLP, Lauren Wagner Pederson, Kirby McInerney
LLP, Roger W Kirby, Kirby McInerney LLP, Samuel Howard Rudman,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Surya Palaniappan, Kirby
McInerney LLP & Thomas W. Elrod, Kirby McInerney, LLP.

Carpenters Pension Fund of West Virginia, Plaintiff, represented by
Daniel Hume, Kirby McInerney LLP, Darren J. Robbins --
darrenr@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac
vice, David E Kovel, Kirby McInerney LLP, David W. Mitchell --
davidm@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac
vice, Lucas F. Olts -- lolts@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP, Roger W Kirby, Kirby McInerney LLP, Samuel Howard Rudman,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & Surya Palaniappan, Kirby
McInerney LLP.

City of Dania Beach Police & Firefighters' Retirement System,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Hume, Kirby McInerney LLP, David E
Kovel, Kirby McInerney LLP, George E. Barrett, Barrette, Johnsn &
Parsley, Roger W Kirby, Kirby McInerney LLP, Samuel Howard Rudman,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Surya Palaniappan, Kirby
McInerney LLP & Timothy L. Miles, Barrett, Johnston & Parsley.

Ravan Investments, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Hume,
Kirby McInerney LLP, David E Kovel, Kirby McInerney LLP, Jay W.
Eisenhofer, Grant & Eisenhofer P.A., John D. Radice, Radice Law
Firm, P.C., Kevin Bruce Love, Hanzman and Criden, Michael E.
Criden, Hanzman, Criden, Korge, Chaykin, Ponce & Heise, P.A., Peter
Anthony Barile, III, Grant & Eisenhofer P.A., Roger W Kirby, Kirby
McInerney LLP, Samuel Howard Rudman, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP & Surya Palaniappan, Kirby McInerney LLP.

Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, Plaintiff, represented by Arun
Srinivas Subramanian, Susman Godfrey LLP, Christopher Lovell,
Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP, Daniel Hume, Kirby McInerney
LLP, David E Kovel, Kirby McInerney LLP, Drew D Hansen, Susman
Godfrey LLP, pro hac vice, Gary Ivan Smith, Hausfeld LLP, pro hac
vice, Glenn Charles Bridgman, Susman Godfrey LLP, Hilary K
Scherrer, Hausfeld LLP, pro hac vice, Hilary Kathleen Scherrer,
Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC,Joel Davidow, Kile Goekjian
Reed & McManus Pllc, Jonathan Watson Cuneo, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca,
LLP, Karen Oshman, Susman Godfrey LLP, Marc M. Seltzer, Susman
Godfrey, L.L.P., pro hac vice, Mary Kathryn Sammons, Susman Godfrey
LLP, Matthew Berry, Susman Godfrey LLP, pro hac vice, Michael C.
Kelso, Susman Godfrey LLP, pro hac vice,Nathaniel C. Giddings,
Hausfeld LLP, pro hac vice, Ralph Johnson Bunche, III, Hausfeld,
LLP, Roger W Kirby, Kirby McInerney LLP, Samuel Howard Rudman,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Seth D. Ard, Susman Godfrey LLP,
Surya Palaniappan, Kirby McInerney LLP, William P. Butterfield,
Hausfeld LLP, pro hac vice & William Christopher Carmody, Susman
Godfrey LLP.

Richard Hershey & Jeffrey Laydon, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Christopher
Lovell, Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP, Daniel Hume, Kirby
McInerney LLP, David E Kovel, Kirby McInerney LLP, Douglas Mason
Chalmers, Douglas M. Chalmers P.C., Geoffrey Milbank Horn, Lowey
Dannenberg Cohen & Hart, P.C., Robert F. Coleman, Coleman Law Firm,
pro hac vice, Roger W Kirby, Kirby McInerney LLP, Samuel Howard
Rudman, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Steve R. Jakubowski,
Coleman Law Firm, Surya Palaniappan, Kirby McInerney LLP & Vincent
Briganti, Lowey Dannenberg Cohen & Hart, P.C..

Bank of America Corporation is represented by Paul Steel Mishkin,
Esq. -- paul.mishkin@davispolk.com -- Arthur J. Burke, Esq. --
arthur.burke@davispolk.com -- Julie Saranow Epley, Esq. --
julie.epley@davispolk.com -- Neal Alan Potischman, Esq. --
neal.potischman@davispolk.com -- and Robert Frank Wise, Jr., Esq.
-- robert.wise@davispolk.com -- DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP.

Barclays Bank PLC, Defendant, represented by David R. Boyd, Esq. --
dboyd@bsfllp.com -- and Jonathan David Schiller, Esq. -- BOIES
SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP, David Harold Braff, Esq. --
braffd@sullcrom.com -- Jeffrey T. Scott, Esq. --
scottj@sullcrom.com -- and Yvonne Susan Quinn, Esq. --
quinny@sullcrom.com -- SULLIVAN & CROMWELL, LLP.

Citibank NA, Defendant, represented by Alan M. Wiseman , Covington
& Burling, LLP, pro hac vice, Andrew Arthur Ruffino, Covington &
Burling LLP, David Marx, McDermott, Will & Emery LLP, Jonathan
James Gimblett, Covington & Burling, LLP, pro hac vice, Mark Jacob
Altschul, McDermott Will & Emery LLP, pro hac vice, Robert Frank
Wise, Jr., Davis Polk & Wardwell L.L.P., Tammy Albarran, Covington
and Burling LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas A. Isaacson, Covington &
Burling, LLP, pro hac vice.

Deutsche Bank AG, Defendant, represented by Aidan John Synnott,
Paul Weiss, Elizabeth M. Sacksteder, Paul Weiss, Moses Silverman,
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Abram Jeremy Ellis,
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, Arthur J. Burke, Davis Polk &
Wardwell, Hallie Suzanne Goldblatt, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton &
Garrison LLP & Robert Frank Wise, Jr., Davis Polk & Wardwell
L.L.P.

J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., Defendant, represented by Abram Jeremy
Ellis, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, Alan Craig Turner, Simpson
Thacher & Bartlett LLP, Alexander Nuo Li, Simpson Thacher &
Bartlett LLP, Arthur J. Burke, Davis Polk & Wardwell, Eamonn Wesley
Campbell , Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, Francis John Acott ,
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, Jonathan Thomas Menitove, Simpson
Thacher & Bartlett LLP, Lawrence H. Heftman, Schiff Hardin LLP,
Matthew Charles Crowl, Schiff Hardin LLP, Patrick E. King, Simpson
Thacher & Bartlett LLP, Paul Christopher Gluckow, Simpson Thacher &
Bartlett LLP, Robert Frank Wise, Jr., Davis Polk & Wardwell L.L.P.
& Sarah Emily Phillips, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP.

Lloyds Banking Group PLC, Defendant, represented by Benjamin Andrew
Fleming, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Kevin Timothy Baumann, Hogan  ovells
US LLP, Lisa Jean Fried, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Marc Joel Gottridge,
Hogan Lovells US LLP, Megan Polly Davis, Flemming Zulack Williamson
Zauderer, LLP, Robert Frank Wise, Jr., Davis Polk & Wardwell
L.L.P., Arthur J. Burke, Davis Polk & Wardwell & Megan Dixon, Hogan
Lovells US LLP.

Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc, Defendant, represented by Robert
G. Houck Clifford Chance US, LLP, Andrea J. Robinson  Wilmer Cutler
Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP, David Sapir Lesser  Wilmer Cutler
Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP, Harriet Hoder  Wilmer Cutler Pickering
Hale and Dorr LLP, Michael A. Mugmon  Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale
and Dorr LLP, Robert Frank Wise, Jr.  Davis Polk & Wardwell L.L.P.,
Fraser Lee Hunter, Jr., Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP &
Arthur J. Burke  Davis Polk & Wardwell.

The Norinchukin Bank, Defendant, represented by Alan M. Unger,
Sidley Austin LLP, Andrew W. Stern, Sidley Austin LLP, Arthur J.
Burke, Davis Polk & Wardwell, Kenneth Benjamin Meyer, Sidley Austin
LLP, Robert Frank Wise, Jr., Davis Polk & Wardwell L.L.P., Thomas
Andrew Paskowitz, Sidley Austin LLP & William J. Nissen, Sidley
Austin, LLP.

UBS AG, Defendant, represented by Arthur J. Burke , Davis Polk &
Wardwell, David Jarrett Arp, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, pro hac
vice, Gary Richard Spratling, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, pro hac
vice, Jefferson Eliot Bell, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, Lawrence
Jay Zweifach, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, Mark Adam Kirsch,
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, Matthew Roffman Greenfield , Gibson,
Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, Robert Frank Wise, Jr. , Davis Polk &
Wardwell L.L.P., Abram Jeremy Ellis, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP
& Eric Jonathan Stock, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP.

WestLB AG & WestDeutsche Immobilienbank AG, Defendants, represented
by Arthur J. Burke, Davis Polk & Wardwell, Christopher Martin
Paparella, Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP, Marc Alan Weinstein, Hughes
Hubbard & Reed LLP & Robert Frank Wise, Jr., Davis Polk & Wardwell
L.L.P.


MDL 2617: $115MM Settlement in Data Breach Suit Has Final Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE ANTHEM, INC. DATA BREACH LITIGATION, Case No.
15-MD-02617-LHK (N.D. Cal.), Judge Lucy H. Koh of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division,
granted the Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the proposed
class action settlement.

The Court held a Final Approval Hearing on Feb. 1, 2018.  After
that hearing, the parties negotiated an amendment to the Settlement
Agreement in April 2018.  The Court held another hearing on June
14, 2018.  At that hearing, the parties agreed to reopen the claims
process until July 19, 2018 to allow additional Settlement Class
Members to submit claims and to allow opt outs to revoke their
exclusion requests.  The Court now addresses the motion for final
approval.

Having considered the motion for final approval, the parties'
Settlement Agreement, the April 2018 amendment to the Settlement
Agreement, the record in the case, and the arguments and evidence
presented at the Final Approval Hearing and June 14, 2018 hearing,
Judge Koh granted the Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the
proposed class action settlement.

On Aug. 25, 2017, the Court preliminarily certified, for settlement
purposes only, the class of all Individuals whose Personal
Information was maintained on Anthem's Enterprise Data Warehouse
and are included in Anthem's Member Impact Database and/or received
a notice relating to the Data Breach.  As all requirements of class
certification under Rule 23 are met, the Judge certified the
Settlement Class for the purposes of settlement.

The Judge finds that the Settlement provides for meaningful
consideration -- a total of $115 million where the class size is
approximately 79.15 million.  Moreover, the Settlement offers
relief beyond monetary compensation.  As part of the Settlement
Agreement, Anthem is required to make changes to its data security
systems and policies that are the subject of the instant suit.  In
particular, Anthem must nearly triple its annual spending on data
security for the next three years and implement cybersecurity
controls and reforms recommended by the Plaintiffs' cybersecurity
experts.

In addition, the views of the Class Counsel weigh in favor of final
approval.  The Court appointed competent and experienced counsel
who have done extensive work in all types of complex class actions.
The Class Counsel are thus able to make educated assessments about
the risks and possible recoveries in the current dispute.  The
Plaintiffs' counsel endorses the Settlement as fair, adequate, and
reasonable.

The Judge approved the Notice Plan.  She finds that the Notice Plan
was fully implemented and complies with both due process and Rule
23.

Finally, the Judge finds that the distribution plan reimburses
class members based on the type and extent of their injuries.
There are no valid objections to the distribution plan, in large
part because the parties' April 2018 amendment adopted the
objectors' recommendations.  Examining the distribution plan in its
entirety, she concludes that the distribution plan is reasonable.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 15, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/DuUX01 from Leagle.com.

In Re Anthem, Inc., Customer Data Security Breach Litigation,
represented by Craig Alan Hoover, Hogan Lovells US LLP, E. Desmond
Hogan, Hogan Lovells, Eve Hedy Cervantez, Altshuler Berzon LLP,
Michael McDonald Maddigan, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Peter R. Bisio ,
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP & Michael Ben Pasternak, Michael Pasternak.

Laura Fowles, Plaintiff, represented by Eric H. Gibbs --
ehg@classlawgroup.com -- Gibbs Law Group LLP, Anthony J. LoPresti
-- tlopresti@altshulerberzon.com -- Altshuler Berzon LLP, Danielle
Evelyn Leonard -- dleonard@altshulerberzon.com -- Altshuler Berzon
LLP, Eve Hedy Cervantez -- ecervantez@altshulerberzon.com --
Altshuler Berzon LLP, Michael W. Sobol -- msobol@lchb.com -- Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Nicole Diane Sugnet --
nsugnet@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP &
RoseMarie Maliekel -- rmaliekel@clarencedyer.com -- Clarence Dyer &
Cohen LLP.

Danny Juliano, Plaintiff, represented by Eric H. Gibbs, Gibbs Law
Group LLP, Anthony J. LoPresti, Altshuler Berzon LLP, Danielle
Evelyn Leonard, Altshuler Berzon LLP, Donald W. Stewart, Eve Hedy
Cervantez , Altshuler Berzon LLP, Greg William Foster, STEWART AND
STEWART PC, Nicole Diane Sugnet, Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein, LLP & T. Dylan Reeves, STEWART & STEWART PC.

Susanne Powell, Casey Silva & Brent J Gearhart, Plaintiffs,
represented by Eric H. Gibbs, Gibbs Law Group LLP, Anthony J.
LoPresti, Altshuler Berzon LLP, Clayeo C. Arnold , Clayeo C.
Arnold, A Professional Law Corporation, Danielle Evelyn Leonard,
Altshuler Berzon LLP, Eve Hedy Cervantez, Altshuler Berzon LLP,
Joshua Haakon Watson, Clayeo C. Arnold, A Professional Law
Corporation & Nicole Diane Sugnet, Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein, LLP.

Samantha Kirby, Plaintiff, represented by Eric H. Gibbs, Gibbs Law
Group LLP, Anthony J. LoPresti, Altshuler Berzon LLP, Clayeo C.
Arnold , Clayeo C. Arnold, A Professional Law Corporation, Danielle
Evelyn Leonard, Altshuler Berzon LLP, Eve Hedy Cervantez, Altshuler
Berzon LLP, Joshua Haakon Watson, Clayeo C. Arnold, A Professional
Law Corporation & Nicole Diane Sugnet, Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein, LLP, Robert Ahdoot, Ahdoot & Wolfson, P.C. & Tina
Wolfson, Ahdoot & Wolfson, P.C.

Aswad Hood, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony J. LoPresti,
Altshuler Berzon LLP, Daniel C. Girard -- dcg@girardgibbs.com --
Girard Gibbs LLP, Danielle Evelyn Leonard, Altshuler Berzon LLP,
David Michael Berger -- dmb@classlawgroup.com -- Girard Gibbs LLP,
Eric H. Gibbs -- ehg@classlawgroup.com -- Gibbs Law Group LLP, Eve
Hedy Cervantez, Altshuler Berzon LLP, Nicole Diane Sugnet, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Scott M. Grzenczyk --
smg@girardgibbs.com -- Girard Gibbs LLP & Steven Augustine Lopez --
sal@girardgibbs.com -- Girard Gibbs LLP.

Lauren Roberts, Plaintiff, represented by Eric H. Gibbs, Gibbs Law
Group LLP, Anthony J. LoPresti, Altshuler Berzon LLP, Clayeo C.
Arnold , Clayeo C. Arnold, A Professional Law Corporation, Danielle
Evelyn Leonard, Altshuler Berzon LLP, Eve Hedy Cervantez, Altshuler
Berzon LLP, Joshua Haakon Watson, Clayeo C. Arnold, A Professional
Law Corporation & Nicole Diane Sugnet, Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein, LLP.

Rosalynn C. Krissman, Plaintiff, represented by Bonny E. Sweeney --
bsweeney@hausfeld.com -- Hausfeld LLP, Christopher L. Lebsock --
clebsock@hausfeld.com -- Hausfeld LLP, Anthony J. LoPresti,
Altshuler Berzon LLP, Danielle Evelyn Leonard, Altshuler Berzon LLP
& Eve Hedy Cervantez, Altshuler Berzon LLP.

Anthem, Inc., formerly known as WellPoint Inc doing business as
Anthem Health Inc., Defendant, represented by Craig Alan Hoover,
Hogan Lovells US LLP, Michael McDonald Maddigan, Hogan Lovells US
LLP, Adam Cooke, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Alexandria J. Reyes,
Troutman Sanders, LLP, Allison Marie Holt , HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP,
Cassandra Lauren Crawford -- cassie.crawford@nelsonmullins.com --
Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP, Cavender C. Kimble --
ckimble@balch.com -- BALCH & BINGHAM LLP, Chad R. Fuller , Troutman
Sanders LLP, Christopher W. Brooker -- cbrooker@wyattfirm.com --
Wyatt, Tarrant & Combs LLP, Craig H. Smith, Hogan Lovells US LLP,
David R. Boyd, Comey & Boyd, E. Desmond Hogan, Hogan Lovells,
Elizabeth C. Lockwood, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Geraldine G. Sanchez
-- sanchez@rhrsb.com -- Roach Hewitt Ruprecht Sanchez & Bischoff,
P.C., Glenn Virgil Whitaker -- gvwhitaker@vorys.com -- Vorys Sater
Seymour & Pease, Gregory Haynes -- ghaynes@wyattfirm.com -- Wyatt,
Tarrant & Combs LLP, Jaime L. Theriot, Troutman Sanders, LLP,
Jasmeet Kaur Ahuja, Hogan Lovells LLP, John Derrick Martin --
john.martin@nelsonmullins.com -- Nelson Mullins Riley Scarborough
LLP, Julia Bright Hartley, Lisa Fried, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Lucile
Hartley Cohen -- lucie.cohen@nelsonmullins.com -- Nelson Mullins
Riley Scarborough LLP, Mark A. Stafford --
mark.stafford@nelsonmullins.com -- Nelson Mullins Riley &
Scarborough, LLP, Mary Sameera Van Houten, Hogan Lovells US LLP,
Matthew H. Geelan -- Mgeelan@ddnctlaw.com -- Donahue, Durham &
Noonan, P.C., Melissa McCoy Gormly , Vorys, Sater Seymour and Pease
LLP, Michael G. Durham, Donahue Durham & Noonan PC, Michael C.
Theis, Hogan Lovells US LLP-Denver, Michael J. Tuteur, Foley &
Lardner LLP, Michelle A. Kisloff, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Nathan
Garrett Foell, Hogan Lovells, Neal F. Perryman, LEWIS RICE, LLC,
Patrick Joseph Dempsey, Hogan Lovels US LLP, Peter R. Bisio, HOGAN
LOVELLS US LLP, Robert Armand Perez, Sr., Perez Law Firm Co. LPA,
Robert Neal Webner, Vorys Sater Seymour and Pease LLP, Robin J.
Samuel, Hogan Lovells USA LLP, Ronald A. Norwood, LEWIS RICE, LLC,
Sally F. Zweig, KATZ & KORIN P.C., Stephen A. Loney, Jr., Hogan &
Hartson, Travis A. Bustamante, Nelson Mullins, Vassiliki Iliadis &
William David Maxwell -- david.maxwell@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan
Lovells US LLP.

Blue Cross of California, doing business as Anthem Blue Cross,
Defendant, represented by Craig Alan Hoover, Hogan Lovells US LLP,
E. Desmond Hogan, Hogan Lovells, Michael McDonald Maddigan, Hogan
Lovells US LLP, Peter R. Bisio, HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, Adam Cooke,
Hogan Lovells US LLP, Chad R. Fuller, Troutman Sanders LLP,
Elizabeth C. Lockwood, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Jasmeet Kaur Ahuja,
Hogan Lovells LLP, John Derrick Martin, Nelson Mullins Riley
Scarborough LLP, Julia Bright Hartley, Lucile Hartley Cohen, Nelson
Mullins Riley Scarborough LLP, Mary Sameera Van Houten, Hogan
Lovells US LLP, Michelle A. Kisloff, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Nathan
Garrett Foell, Hogan Lovells, Robin J. Samuel, Hogan Lovells USA
LLP, Travis A. Bustamante, Nelson Mullins, Vassiliki Iliadis &
William David Maxwell, Hogan Lovells US LLP.

The Anthem Companies, Inc., Defendant, represented by Craig Alan
Hoover, Hogan Lovells US LLP, E. Desmond Hogan, Hogan Lovells,
Michael McDonald Maddigan, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Peter R. Bisio,
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, Adam Cooke, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Chad R.
Fuller, Troutman Sanders LLP, Elizabeth C. Lockwood, Hogan Lovells
US LLP, Jasmeet Kaur Ahuja, Hogan Lovells LLP, John Derrick Martin,
Nelson Mullins Riley Scarborough LLP, Julia Bright Hartley, Lucile
Hartley Cohen, Nelson Mullins Riley Scarborough LLP, Mary Sameera
Van Houten, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Michelle A. Kisloff, Hogan
Lovells US LLP, Nathan Garrett Foell, Hogan Lovells, Robin J.
Samuel, Hogan Lovells USA LLP, Travis A. Bustamante, Nelson
Mullins, Vassiliki Iliadis & William David Maxwell, Hogan Lovells
US LLP.

Anthem Blue Cross Life and Health Insurance Company, Defendant,
represented by Craig Alan Hoover, Hogan Lovells US LLP, E. Desmond
Hogan, Hogan Lovells, Michael McDonald Maddigan, Hogan Lovells US
LLP, Peter R. Bisio, HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, Adam Cooke, Hogan
Lovells US LLP, Chad R. Fuller, Troutman Sanders LLP, Elizabeth C.
Lockwood, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Jasmeet Kaur Ahuja, Hogan Lovells
LLP, John Derrick Martin, Nelson Mullins Riley Scarborough LLP,
Julia Bright Hartley, Lucile Hartley Cohen, Nelson Mullins Riley
Scarborough LLP, Mary Sameera Van Houten, Hogan Lovells US LLP,
Michelle A. Kisloff, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Nathan Garrett Foell,
Hogan Lovells, Robin J. Samuel, Hogan Lovells USA LLP, Travis A.
Bustamante, Nelson Mullins, Vassiliki Iliadis & William David
Maxwell, Hogan Lovells US LLP.

The Anthem Companies of California, Inc., a California corporation,
Defendant, represented by Craig Alan Hoover , Hogan Lovells US LLP,
E. Desmond Hogan , Hogan Lovells, Michael McDonald Maddigan , Hogan
Lovells US LLP, Peter R. Bisio , HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, Adam Cooke ,
Hogan Lovells US LLP, Chad R. Fuller , Troutman Sanders LLP,
Jasmeet Kaur Ahuja , Hogan Lovells LLP, John Derrick Martin ,
Nelson Mullins Riley Scarborough LLP, Julia Bright Hartley , Lucile
Hartley Cohen , Nelson Mullins Riley Scarborough LLP, Mary Sameera
Van Houten , Hogan Lovells US LLP, Robin J. Samuel , Hogan Lovells
USA LLP, Travis A. Bustamante , Nelson Mullins & Vassiliki
Iliadis.

Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Georgia Inc, Defendant, represented
by Craig Alan Hoover, Hogan Lovells US LLP, E. Desmond Hogan, Hogan
Lovells, Michael McDonald Maddigan, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Peter R.
Bisio, HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, Adam Cooke, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Chad
R. Fuller, Troutman Sanders LLP, Elizabeth C. Lockwood, Hogan
Lovells US LLP, Jasmeet Kaur Ahuja, Hogan Lovells LLP, John Derrick
Martin, Nelson Mullins Riley Scarborough LLP, Julia Bright Hartley,
Lucile Hartley Cohen, Nelson Mullins Riley Scarborough LLP, Mary
Sameera Van Houten, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Michelle A. Kisloff,
Hogan Lovells US LLP, Nathan Garrett Foell, Hogan Lovells, Robin J.
Samuel, Hogan Lovells USA LLP, Travis A. Bustamante, Nelson
Mullins, Vassiliki Iliadis & William David Maxwell, Hogan Lovells
US LLP.

Community Insurance Company, doing business as Anthem Blue Cross
and Blue Shield, Defendant, represented by Craig Alan Hoover, Hogan
Lovells US LLP, E. Desmond Hogan, Hogan Lovells, Michael McDonald
Maddigan, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Peter R. Bisio, HOGAN LOVELLS US
LLP, Adam Cooke, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Chad R. Fuller, Troutman
Sanders LLP, Elizabeth C. Lockwood, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Jasmeet
Kaur Ahuja, Hogan Lovells LLP, John Derrick Martin, Nelson Mullins
Riley Scarborough LLP, Julia Bright Hartley, Lucile Hartley Cohen,
Nelson Mullins Riley Scarborough LLP, Mary Sameera Van Houten,
Hogan Lovells US LLP, Michelle A. Kisloff, Hogan Lovells US LLP,
Nathan Garrett Foell, Hogan Lov ells, Robin J. Samuel, Hogan
Lovells USA LLP, Travis A. Bustamante, Nelson Mullins, Vassiliki
Iliadis & William David Maxwell, Hogan Lovells US LLP.

Rocky Mountain Hospital and Medical Service, Inc., Blue Cross Blue
Shield of Michigan, Inc., Anthem Health Plans of New Hampshire,
Inc., RightChoice Managed Care, Inc., Blue Cross Blue Shield of
Wisconsin & Horizon Healthcare Services, Inc., Defendants,
represented by Craig Alan Hoover, Hogan Lovells US LLP, E. Desmond
Hogan, Hogan Lovells, Michael McDonald Maddigan, Hogan Lovells US
LLP, Peter R. Bisio, HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, Adam Cooke, Hogan
Lovells US LLP, Chad R. Fuller, Troutman Sanders LLP, Elizabeth C.
Lockwood, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Jasmeet Kaur Ahuja, Hogan Lovells
LLP, John Derrick Martin, Nelson Mullins Riley Scarborough LLP,
Julia Bright Hartley, Lucile Hartley Cohen, Nelson Mullins Riley
Scarborough LLP, Mary Sameera Van Houten, Hogan Lovells US LLP,
Michelle A. Kisloff, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Nathan Garrett Foell,
Hogan Lovells, Robin J. Samuel, Hogan Lovells USA LLP, Travis A.
Bustamante, Nelson Mullins, Vassiliki Iliadis & William David
Maxwell, Hogan Lovells US LLP.

Anthem Insurance Companies, Inc., doing business as Anthem Blue
Cross and Blue Shield, Defendant, represented by Craig Alan Hoover,
Hogan Lovells US LLP, E. Desmond Hogan, Hogan Lovells, Michael
McDonald Maddigan, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Peter R. Bisio, HOGAN
LOVELLS US LLP, Adam Cooke, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Chad R. Fuller,
Troutman Sanders LLP, Elizabeth C. Lockwood, Hogan Lovells US LLP,
Jasmeet Kaur Ahuja, Hogan Lovells LLP, John Derrick Martin, Nelson
Mullins Riley Scarborough LLP, Julia Bright Hartley, Lucile Hartley
Cohen, Nelson Mullins Riley Scarborough LLP, Mary Sameera Van
Houten, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Michelle A. Kisloff, Hogan Lovells US
LLP, Nathan Garrett Foell, Hogan Lovells, Robin J. Samuel, Hogan
Lovells USA LLP, Travis A. Bustamante, Nelson Mullins, Vassiliki
Iliadis & William David Maxwell, Hogan Lovells US LLP.

Anthem Health Plans of Virginia, Defendant, represented by Craig
Alan Hoover, Hogan Lovells US LLP, E. Desmond Hogan, Hogan Lovells,
Michael McDonald Maddigan, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Peter R. Bisio,
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, Adam Cooke, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Chad R.
Fuller, Troutman Sanders LLP, Elizabeth C. Lockwood, Hogan Lovells
US LLP, Jasmeet Kaur Ahuja, Hogan Lovells LLP, John Derrick Martin,
Nelson Mullins Riley Scarborough LLP, Julia Bright Hartley, Lucile
Hartley Cohen, Nelson Mullins Riley Scarborough LLP, Mary Sameera
Van Houten, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Michelle A. Kisloff, Hogan
Lovells US LLP, Nathan Garrett Foell, Hogan Lovells, Robin J.
Samuel, Hogan Lovells USA LLP, Travis A. Bustamante, Nelson
Mullins, Vassiliki Iliadis & William David Maxwell, Hogan Lovells
US LLP.

Anthem Companies, Inc., doing business as Blue Cross Blue Shield of
Wisconsin doing business as Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield of
Kentucky, Defendant, represented by Craig Alan Hoover, Hogan
Lovells US LLP, E. Desmond Hogan, Hogan Lovells, Michael McDonald
Maddigan, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Peter R. Bisio, HOGAN LOVELLS US
LLP, Adam Cooke, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Chad R. Fuller, Troutman
Sanders LLP, Elizabeth C. Lockwood, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Jasmeet
Kaur Ahuja, Hogan Lovells LLP, John Derrick Martin, Nelson Mullins
Riley Scarborough LLP, Julia Bright Hartley, Lucile Hartley Cohen,
Nelson Mullins Riley Scarborough LLP, Mary Sameera Van Houten,
Hogan Lovells US LLP, Michelle A. Kisloff, Hogan Lovells US LLP,
Nathan Garrett Foell, Hogan Lovells, Robin J. Samuel, Hogan Lovells
USA LLP, Travis A. Bustamante, Nelson Mullins, Vassiliki Iliadis &
William David Maxwell, Hogan Lovells US LLP.

Anthem Health Plans, Inc, a Connecticut Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Craig Alan Hoover, Hogan Lovells US LLP, E. Desmond
Hogan, Hogan Lovells, Michael McDonald Maddigan, Hogan Lovells US
LLP, Peter R. Bisio, HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, Adam Cooke, Hogan
Lovells US LLP, Chad R. Fuller, Troutman Sanders LLP, Elizabeth C.
Lockwood, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Jasmeet Kaur Ahuja, Hogan Lovells
LLP, John Derrick Martin, Nelson Mullins Riley Scarborough LLP,
Julia Bright Hartley, Lucile Hartley Cohen, Nelson Mullins Riley
Scarborough LLP, Mary Sameera Van Houten, Hogan Lovells US LLP,
Michelle A. Kisloff, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Nathan Garrett Foell,
Hogan Lovells, Robin J. Samuel, Hogan Lovells USA LLP, Travis A.
Bustamante, Nelson Mullins, Vassiliki Iliadis & William David
Maxwell, Hogan Lovells US LLP.

Amerigroup Corporation & Amerigroup Kansas, Inc., Defendants,
represented by represented by Craig Alan Hoover, Hogan Lovells US
LLP, E. Desmond Hogan, Hogan Lovells, Michael McDonald Maddigan,
Hogan Lovells US LLP, Peter R. Bisio, HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, Adam
Cooke, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Chad R. Fuller, Troutman Sanders LLP,
Elizabeth C. Lockwood, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Jasmeet Kaur Ahuja,
Hogan Lovells LLP, John Derrick Martin, Nelson Mullins Riley
Scarborough LLP, Julia Bright Hartley, Lucile Hartley Cohen, Nelson
Mullins Riley Scarborough LLP, Mary Sameera Van Houten, Hogan
Lovells US LLP, Michelle A. Kisloff, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Nathan
Garrett Foell, Hogan Lovells, Robin J. Samuel, Hogan Lovells USA
LLP, Travis A. Bustamante, Nelson Mullins, Vassiliki Iliadis &
William David Maxwell, Hogan Lovells US LLP.

Anthem Health Plans of Kentucky, Inc., doing business as Anthem
Blue Cross Blue Shield, Defendant, represented by Craig Alan
Hoover, Hogan Lovells US LLP, E. Desmond Hogan, Hogan Lovells,
Michael McDonald Maddigan, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Peter R. Bisio,
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, Adam Cooke, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Chad R.
Fuller, Troutman Sanders LLP, Elizabeth C. Lockwood, Hogan Lovells
US LLP, Jasmeet Kaur Ahuja, Hogan Lovells LLP, John Derrick Martin,
Nelson Mullins Riley Scarborough LLP, Julia Bright Hartley, Lucile
Hartley Cohen, Nelson Mullins Riley Scarborough LLP, Mary Sameera
Van Houten, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Michelle A. Kisloff, Hogan
Lovells US LLP, Nathan Garrett Foell, Hogan Lovells, Robin J.
Samuel, Hogan Lovells USA LLP, Travis A. Bustamante, Nelson
Mullins, Vassiliki Iliadis & William David Maxwell, Hogan Lovells
US LLP.


MERCK & CO: Albisano et al. Suit Moved to E.D. Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled MARGARET ALBISANO; ROSA PAGAN;
LINDA MUNGER; MARY JAYNE CLARK; JOYCE HELMAN; JOHN ANDREA; JOSEPH
ANAMONE; MICHAEL YASSO; STEPHEN HOPKINS; IRWIN BINDER; JEROME
KAUFMAN; PHYLLIS KIDNEY; DELILAH LLOYD; NANCY ORTH; AND RICHARD
CONROY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. MERCK & CO., INC.; MERCK SHARP & DOHME
CORP.; and McKESSON CORP., Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-00365, was
removed from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania on August 14, 2018. The Eastern District of
Pennsylvania Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-20046-HB to the
proceeding. The Case is assigned to the Hon. Harvey Bartle, III.

Merck & Co., Inc. provides healthcare solutions worldwide. Merck &
Co., Inc. has collaborations with Pfizer Inc., AstraZeneca PLC,
Bayer AG, Eisai Co., Ltd., IO Biotech, Premier Inc., Cue Biopharma,
Inc., and Foundation Medicine, Inc. It serves drug wholesalers and
retailers, hospitals, government agencies and entities, physicians,
physician distributors, veterinarians, distributors, animal
producers, and managed health care providers. The company was
founded in 1891 and is headquartered in Kenilworth, New Jersey.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Debra J. Humphrey, Esq.
          MARC J. BERN & PARTNERS LLP
          One Grand Central Place
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 950
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 702-5000
          E-mail: dhumphrey@bernllp.com


MERCK & CO: Bravo et al. Suit Moved to E.D. Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled CONNIE BRAVO, Administrator for the
Estate of THOMAS BRAVO; JUDITH SNYDER; JOYCE SCOTT; MIKE JONES; and
PATRICIA CUTILLO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MERCK & CO., INC.; MERCK SHARP &
DOHME CORP.; and McKESSON CORP., Defendants, Case No. 1:18-00687,
was removed from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania on August 14, 2018. The Eastern District of
Pennsylvania Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-20043-HB to the
proceeding. The Case is assigned to the Hon. Harvey Bartle, III.

Merck & Co., Inc. provides healthcare solutions worldwide. Merck &
Co., Inc. has collaborations with Pfizer Inc., AstraZeneca PLC,
Bayer AG, Eisai Co., Ltd., IO Biotech, Premier Inc., Cue Biopharma,
Inc., and Foundation Medicine, Inc. It serves drug wholesalers and
retailers, hospitals, government agencies and entities, physicians,
physician distributors, veterinarians, distributors, animal
producers, and managed health care providers. The company was
founded in 1891 and is headquartered in Kenilworth, New Jersey.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Debra J. Humphrey, Esq.
          MARC J. BERN & PARTNERS LLP
          One Grand Central Place
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 950
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 702-5000
          E-mail: dhumphrey@bernllp.com


MILWAUKEE, WI: Ct. Refuses to Certify Inmates Class in Wilke Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Lynn Adelman denied the Plaintiff's motion to certify
class in the lawsuit captioned JONATHAN DAVID WILKE v. CRYSTALINA
MONTANO, Case No. 2:17-cv-01640-LA (E.D. Wisc.).

The Defendant's motion to stay this case is granted.  The case is
stayed until the completion of the Plaintiff's criminal case.
Either party may petition the Court to lift the stay, according to
the Court's order.

Crystalina Montano is a hearing officer in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

The Plaintiff has filed a motion for class certification and for
appointment of class counsel pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.  He states that he has enough evidence to
show that Milwaukee County Jail employees have a common practice of
violating pretrial detainees' rights when placing them in
segregation for punishment.  The Plaintiff estimates that the jail
has violated thousands of pretrial detainees' rights, which he
contends qualifies this case for class action status.  The
Defendant opposes Plaintiff's motion and contends that the
Plaintiff has not met the requirements for class certification.

Judge Adelman opines that the Plaintiff has not met the numerosity
requirement because he does not support his allegations that
thousands of inmates' rights may have been violated by a Milwaukee
County Jail procedure.  In addition, the Plaintiff has not met the
commonality requirement.

The Plaintiff has not shown that all potential class members share
a common claim, Judge Adelman states.  He notes that Plaintiff has
not articulated one common question central to the resolution of
the case.

"Because the plaintiff has not satisfied the requirement of Rule
23(a), I will deny his motion to certify class," Judge Adelman
wrote in her ruling.

The Defendant has filed a motion to stay this case until the
resolution of the Plaintiff's criminal matter, State of Wisconsin
v. Jonathan David Wilke, Milwaukee County Case Number 2017CM003281.
The Defendant states that, due to the invocation of his Fifth
Amendment rights in the criminal case, the Plaintiff is unavailable
for a deposition in this case until the criminal case is resolved.
According to the Defendant, it is unlikely that the Plaintiff will
be available for a deposition for at least two months.  The
Defendant contends that without the benefit of having deposed the
Plaintiff, his ability to defend this case will be diminished.

"Defendant has provided sufficient justification for temporarily
staying this case.  I will therefore grant defendant's motion and
stay this case until plaintiff's criminal case has resolved," Judge
Adelman rules.


MODESTO AREA: Berry Appeals E.D. Calif. Ruling to Ninth Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Debra Berry filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit entitled Debra Berry v. Modesto Area Express Regional, et
al., Case No. 1:18-cv-00022-DAD-BAM, in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of California, Fresno.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
seeks a declaration that the Defendants violated her rights to
nondiscriminatory treatment under the Fourteenth Amendment and 42
U.S.C. Sections 1981, 1983 and 2000d et seq.  She also pursues a
claim for intentional physical harm against Defendant Shelly Reid.

The appellate case is captioned as Debra Berry v. Modesto Area
Express Regional, et al., Case No. 18-16747, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Plaintiff-Appellant DEBRA BERRY, on behalf of its members and all
other similarly situated citizens, of Turlock, California, appears
pro se.

The Defendants-Appellees are MODESTO AREA EXPRESS REGIONAL TRANSIT,
a Public Transportation Entity; SHELLY REID, individually and in
her official capacity as Modesto Area Express Regional Transit Bus
Driver; and MICHAEL KEITH, individually and in his official
capacity as Manager for Modesto Area Express Regional Transit.[BN]


MV PUBLIC TRANS: Faces Arnold Wage-and-Hour Suit
------------------------------------------------
PRINCESS TEONNA DESTINY ARNOLD, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MV PUBLIC
TRANSPORTATION, INC., a California Corporation; and DOES 1 -20
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC721307 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Sept. 12, 2018), alleges that the Defendants failed to provide meal
and rest periods, furnish accurate wage statements, pay all wages
earned, and maintain required records.

According to the complaint, during Plaintiff and Class Members'
employment with Defendant, they were not exempt from the Employment
Laws and Regulations, in that they routinely spent a majority of
their working hours performing duties delegated to non-exempt
employees including, but not limited to, driving and operating
buses. They spent few to none of their working hours performing
work which was primarily intellectual, managerial, or creative, or
which required the regular and customary exercise of discretion and
independent judgment with respect to matters of significance on
more than an occasional basis. Their duties and activities during
their respective working hours and shifts were known to and
directed by Defendant, and were set and controlled by Defendant as
a matter of corporate policy.

MV Public Transportation is a privately owned passenger
transportation contracting services firm in the United States. The
company provides paratransit, fixed-route, campus and corporate
shuttles, and student transportation services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ronald W, Makarem, Esq.
          Gene Williams, Esq.
          Nareen Melkonian, Esq.
          MAKAREM & ASSOCIATES APLC
          11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2440
          Los Angeles, CA 90025-1760
          Telephone: (310) 312 0299
          Facsimile: (310) 312 0296


NATIONAL RECOVERY: Wins Final OK of $14K Deal in Zirogiannis Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Denis R. Hurley entered a final approval order in the case
captioned JEANETTE ZIROGIANNIS, an individual, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. NATIONAL RECOVERY AGENCY,
INC., Case No. 2:14-cv-03954-DRH-AYS (E.D.N.Y.) approving the Class
Settlement Agreement between the Plaintiff and Defendant NRA Group
LLC.

The Court approved a form of notice for mailing to the Class.  The
Court is informed that actual notice was sent by first class mail
to 333 Class Members by Heffler Claims Group, the Court-appointed
Third-Party Class Action Administrator per the Court's prior
Orders. None of the Class Members have objected to the Settlement.

Judge Hurley grants final approval to the Agreement as follows:

   (1) The Court approves the $4,000 payment to the Plaintiff,
       which includes damages and incentive award, and which
       shall be paid in accordance with the Agreement; and

   (2) The Court approves the $10,000 payment to the Settlement
       Class, which shall also be paid in accordance with the
       Agreement.

At the fairness hearing, the Defendant orally requested leave to
file an opposition to Class Counsels' request for an award of
attorneys' fees and costs.  The Court grants the Defendant's oral
request and directs these:

   (a) Defendant shall meet and confer with Class Counsel
       regarding the amount of Class Counsels' attorneys' fees
       and costs by September 21, 2018;

   (b) Defendant shall, by September 28, 2018, file either:
       (i) the Parties' stipulation and proposed order regarding
       Class Counsels' attorneys' fees and costs; or, if no
       stipulation is reached, then (ii) its opposition to such
       an award; and

   (c) Class Counsel shall have until October 15, 2018, to file a
       reply brief to Defendant's opposition (if any).

The Court reserves its decision regarding the award of Class
Counsels' attorneys' fees and costs.  The Court will determine by
way of a separate order whether the amount of Class Counsels'
request for fees and costs based on their hourly rates is fair and
reasonable once the issue has either been resolved by the Parties'
stipulation or, if no stipulation is reached, after the issues are
fully briefed.

The Order, Judge Hurley notes, with the exception of the Court's
resolution of Class Counsel's award of attorneys' fees and costs,
is a final judgment resolving all issues as to all parties and
shall operate as a final decision for purposes of 28 U.S.C. Section
1291.


NEW YORK: Court Narrows Claims in Paige Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------
Judge William H. Pauley, III, of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York granted in part and denied in part
the Defendants' motion to dismiss the case, SHERRON PAIGE, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY, et al., Defendants,
Case No. 17cv7481 (S.D. N.Y.).

The putative class action arises out of the failure to inspect and
remediate lead paint in NYCHA housing.  The Plaintiffs bring
federal claims under: (1) the Fair Housing Act ("FHA"); (2) the
Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act ("RLPHRA"); and
(3) 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.  They also bring a negligence claim
against NYCHA and a professional negligence claim against ATC
Associates, Inc. and ATC Group Services, LLC, the independent
contractors responsible for lead paint inspections and abatement.


The Plaintiffs are four NYCHA tenants with young children: Paige,
Evelyn Gray, Taneequa Carrington, and A.P., as well as Paige's
child, K.D.  They seek to represent a putative class of tenants
with young children who resided in NYCHA housing from Jan. 1, 2010
through the present.  The Plaintiffs all have at least one child
who tested positive for lead exposure.

The Plaintiffs allege that since 2012, NYCHA failed to comply with
federal and New York City laws requiring annual lead paint
inspections for all dwellings constructed prior to 1960 where young
children reside.  In August 2012, NYCHA stopped conducting lead
paint inspections.  NYCHA then falsely certified to the United
States Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD") that it
was in compliance with federal law.  It subsequently admitted
employing unqualified lead paint inspectors and failing to inspect
common areas of NYCHA buildings.

By 2015 or 2016 at the latest, senior NYCHA officials knew that
NYCHA was out of compliance with federal and city lead paint laws.
The Plaintiffs assert that NYCHA's false certifications exacerbated
the crisis by concealing it and delaying remedial measures.

The Plaintiffs also allege that NYCHA failed to disclose lead paint
to tenants as required by federal law.  Further, they allege that
NYCHA's actions exposed families with young children to
disproportionately-higher risk of lead-paint poisoning and
permanent neurological harm because young children are much more
likely to touch and ingest lead paint dust and peeling, chipping
paint.  Finally, they claim that the Defendants' false statements
to HUD and the public deprived them of the ability to speak out
against NYCHA's actions.

The Plaintiffs filed the action in September 2017.  In the ensuing
months, NYCHA's systemic failures erupted in near-daily
revelations.  In February 2018, the Plaintiffs moved for a
preliminary injunction, contending that they had established
irreparable harm and a likelihood of success on two of their
claims: the FHA claim and the procedural due process claim.  In
March 2018, the Court denied the Plaintiffs' motion for a
preliminary injunction, holding that they did not demonstrate a
clear likelihood of success on those claims.

The Defendants move to dismiss, contending that the Plaintiffs'
claims sound in tort and breach of contract, meaning that the
Plaintiffs fail to state a viable federal claim.  The City
Defendants also contend that they are not proper parties.  The
Plaintiffs' negligence claims are not implicated by the motion.  

In opposing the motion to dismiss, the Plaintiffs argue that a 2013
HUD regulation altered the FHA, and that FHA disparate impact
liability now protects against any disparate harms, regardless of
whether they affect housing.  They rely on 24 C.F.R. Section
100.500, which states in part that an FHA violation occurs through
a housing practice's disparate impact on a group of persons.  The
Plaintiffs argue this broad language expanded the FHA's reach.

But, Judge Pauley finds that Plaintiffs cite no decision that has
construed this regulation to extend that far.  Their interpretation
also does not accord with the purpose of the FHA: to eradicate
discrimination in housing.  Ultimately, the Judge needs not plumb
that regulatory quagmire because the Plaintiffs' second amended
complaint sufficiently alleges an effect on housing.

The Judge also finds that the Plaintiffs' allegations sufficiently
support the inference that New York City families may have moved
out of or been dissuaded from renting from NYCHA because of
expected harm to their children.  And the Plaintiffs adequately
plead that such an impact is disparate because NYCHA residents
without children have less concern about lead paint.

The Plaintiffs bring a RLPHRA claim against the NYCHA Defendants.
They allege that NYCHA failed to provide information concerning
lead paint in NYCHA units, such as testing, repairs, and abatement.
NYCHA concedes that A.P. moved into NYCHA housing in 2016 and that
her RLPHRA claim is not time-barred.  However, the Judge finds that
NYCHA offers the lead paint disclosure form that A.P. signed at the
start of her lease and argues this renders her claim futile.
Again, it is unclear how consideration of that document is proper
on a motion to dismiss.  But even so, it does not preclude this
claim because questions of fact remain concerning the accuracy of
NYCHA's lead paint disclosures to A.P.

As to the Plaintiffs' claim for deprivation of procedural due
process, the Judge finds that the claim amounts to a breach of
lease agreement claim.  While the right to safe and decent housing
is undoubtedly substantial, the claim is an ordinary contract
dispute which does not implicate due process rights or involve
constitutionally protected rights.

To the extent the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants had an
obligation to protect them based on their status as public housing
tenants, they are mistaken, the Judge holds.  NYCHA provided the
Plaintiffs with housing, but they were not forced to accept it.
The Defendants' failure to prevent lead paint poisoning is not
tantamount to a violation of substantive due process.

Finally, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants'
misrepresentations regarding compliance with lead paint inspections
and remediation deprived them of their right to free speech.  The
Judge holds that the Plaintiffs do not cite a single decision
holding that misrepresentations by government officials deprive
citizens of their First Amendment rights.  They do not allege that
the Defendants restricted anyone's speech.  Rather, the thrust of
the pleading is that the Defendants concealed NYCHA's inaction.

Based on the Plaintiffs' allegations and the action's current
procedural posture, without a factual record of who knew and did
what in relation to the Plaintiffs' claims, the Judge declines to
dismiss the City Defendants.  Discovery will reveal who belongs in
the case.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Pauley granted in part and denied
in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss.  The Plaintiffs'
procedural due process, substantive due process, and First
Amendment claims are dismissed.  Their claims under the FHA and
RLPHRA remain, but the RLPHRA claims brought by Evelyn Gray and
K.D. are dismissed.  The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate
the motion pending at ECF No. 199.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 14, 2018 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/FrdDwx from Leagle.com.

Sherron Paige, Individually; on their own behalf and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Brendan E.
Little, Levy Konigsberg LLP, Renner Kincaid Walker, Levy
Konigsberg, LLP & Corey Matthew Stern, Levy Konigsberg, LLP.

Jahlisa Greene, individually; on their own behalf and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Jahlisa Greene, on behalf of her
minor child J.W. & Sherron Paige, on behalf of her minor child
K.D., Plaintiffs, represented by Brendan E. Little, Levy Konigsberg
LLP & Corey Matthew Stern, Levy Konigsberg, LLP.

Evelyn Gray, Individually; on their own behalf and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Taneequa Carrington, Individually; on
their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Taneequa Carrington, on behalf of her minor child N.C., Evelyn
Gray, on behalf of her minor child P.G. & A.P., Plaintiffs,
represented by Corey Matthew Stern, Levy Konigsberg, LLP.

New York City Housing Authority, Shola Olatoye, Michael Kelly,
Brian Clarke, Jay Krantz & Luis Ponce, Defendants, represented by
Peter Jay Kurshan -- PKurshan@chaselawnj.com -- Herzfeld & Rubin,
P.C., Miriam Skolnik -- MSkolnik@herzfeld-rubin.com -- Herzfeld &
Rubin, P.C. & Wendy L. Prince -- WPrince@herzfeld-rubin.com --
Herzfeld & Rubin, P.C.

City Of New York, Bill De Blasio, Mary Travis Bassett, M.D., Maria
Torres-Springer, Alicia Glenn & Hermina Polacio, Defendants,
represented by Mark W. Muschenheim, NYC Law Department, Office of
the Corporation Counsel, Darren Michael Trotter, New York City Law
Department & Max R. Sarinsky, NYC Law Department, Office of the
Corporation Counsel.

ATC Associates, Inc. & ATC Group Services, LLC, Defendants,
represented by Lee Henig-Elona -- lhenig-elona@grsm.com -- Gordon &
Rees, LLP.

ATC Group Services, LLC, Cross Claimant, represented by Lee
Henig-Elona, Gordon & Rees, LLP.

ATC Group Services, LLC & ATC Associates, Inc., Cross Defendants,
represented by Lee Henig-Elona, Gordon & Rees, LLP.

A.P., Taneequa Carrington, on behalf of her minor child N.C.,
Taneequa Carrington, Individually; on their own behalf and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Evelyn Gray, Individually;
on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated
& Evelyn Gray, on behalf of her minor child P.G., Cross Defendants,
represented by Corey Matthew Stern, Levy Konigsberg, LLP.

Mary Travis Bassett, M.D., City Of New York, Bill De Blasio, Alicia
Glenn, Hermina Polacio & Maria Torres-Springer, Cross Defendants,
represented by Mark W. Muschenheim , NYC Law Department, Office of
the Corporation Counsel, Darren Michael Trotter, New York City Law
Department & Max R. Sarinsky, NYC Law Department, Office of the
Corporation Counsel.

Brian Clarke, Michael Kelly, Jay Krantz, New York City Housing
Authority, Shola Olatoye & Luis Ponce, Cross Defendants,
represented by Peter Jay Kurshan, Herzfeld & Rubin, P.C., Miriam
Skolnik, Herzfeld & Rubin, P.C. & Wendy L. Prince, Herzfeld &
Rubin, P.C.

Jahlisa Greene, on behalf of her minor child J.W. & Jahlisa Greene,
individually; on their own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Cross Defendants, represented by Brendan E.
Little, Levy Konigsberg LLP & Corey Matthew Stern, Levy Konigsberg,
LLP.

Sherron Paige, Individually; on their own behalf and on behalf of
all others similarly situated & Sherron Paige, on behalf of her
minor child K.D., Cross Defendants, represented by Brendan E.
Little, Levy Konigsberg LLP, Renner Kincaid Walker, Levy
Konigsberg, LLP & Corey Matthew Stern, Levy Konigsberg, LLP.


NORTH BAY: Patients' Hospital Data Breach Class Action Certified
----------------------------------------------------------------
PJ Wilson, writing for North Bay Nugget, reports that a breach of
privacy class action for North Bay Regional Health Centre patients
whose records were accessed without their consent by a nurse has
been certified.

More than 5,800 patients and former patients' records were accessed
between November 2004 and March 2011 by registered nurse Melissa
McLellan.

Ms. McLellan was charged under the Personal Health Information
Protection Act for the breach. Her case was dismissed in January
2015 due to late disclosure of evidence by Crown attorneys.

That late disclosure, Justice of the Peace Lauren Scully said,
breached Ms. McLellan's Charter rights by causing prejudice and
ongoing stress.

Ms. McLellan was suspended by the College of Nurses of Ontario for
four months after she appeared before a disciplinary panel, which
determined she contravened the standards of practice of the
profession and engaged in unprofessional conduct by accessing
personal health information of 5,804 patients without consent or
other authorization.

The hospital sent letters to all of the patients notifying them of
the breach in September 2011, although some were unable to be
delivered, according to Jeffrey Larmer, the lawyer handling the
suit.

Mr. Larmer said on Aug. 28 "a number of letters had been returned,"
although no exact figure is available.

"I would think it would be a very small percentage," he said,
blaming that on patients or families who might have moved or are
deceased.

Mr. Larmer said the class action is not yet in the discovery stage,
but "as with any case, it can be resolved at any time."

Any resolution, he said, would have to be approved by the courts.

Superior Court Justice Greg Ellies certified the action as a class
proceeding Nov. 29, appointing Sherry-Lynn Daniells and Andrea
Kendall as representatives for all claimants.

Those who were affected by the privacy breach and who wish to
participate in the suit are automatically included in the class
action.

Those who do not wish to participate must opt out by Oct. 1. To opt
out, members must sign a written election form saying he or she is
opting out.

The North Bay law firm of Larmer Stickland PC is serving as lawyers
for the class action.

Mr. McLellan was fired by the health centre in May 2011 after an
audit discovered she had been breaching patient privacy.

Mr. McLellan maintained the information was never shared. She filed
a grievance against the health centre over her dismissal, which was
dismissed by an arbitrator.

"Based on all of the facts and circumstances of this case, I
conclude that the health centre had just cause to terminate the
griever. This is actually a very sad and unfortunate case," Randi
H. Abramsky stated in his 27-page decision.

At that hearing, Mark Bouchard, the hospital's chief information
and privacy officer, testified the health centre spent more than
$100,000 on the matter.

Bouchard said the hospital was concerned about potential
class-action lawsuits and the loss of patient confidence.

Mr. Abramsky heard that from November 2006 Mr. McLellan accessed
patient information almost daily and often did so multiple times in
a single day.

Wanda Doupe, privacy officer and health records manager at the
hospital, testified she answered the telephone 12 hours a day,
day-after-day, taking hundreds of calls from concerned patients.

Ms. Doupe said some mothers whose children's health information had
been accessed were concerned their children could be victims of
abduction.

The elderly, meanwhile, were concerned they could be targeted for
theft due to access to their OHIP and social insurance numbers.

Mr. Bouchard testified that many patients stated they would not
return to the hospital and that their trust was broken -- they felt
violated. [GN]


NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Taubenfliegel Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Northstar Location
Services, LLC. The case is styled as Menachem Taubenfliegel on
behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers,
Plaintiff v. Northstar Location Services, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-05238 (E.D. N.Y., Sept. 18 2018).

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

Northstar Location Services, LLC, doing business as The Northstar
Companies, provides receivables debt collection services to
customers in the United States, Canada, and internationally. Its
services include first and third-party debt collections, customer
care programs, and location services. The company was founded in
2000 and is based in Cheektowaga, New York with an additional
office in Canada.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
     Adam J. Fishbein, P.C.
     735 Central Avenue
     Woodmere, NY 11598
     Phone: (516) 668-6945
     Email: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


NRJM INC: Joint Bid to Stay Proceedings, Notice Approval Filed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the lawsuit styled Paul Rodino, On behalf of himself
and others similarly situated v. NRJM, Inc. and Ray Montez, Case
No. 1:18-cv-05167 (N.D. Ill.), file with the Court their joint
motion to approve form of notice of collective action and to stay
proceedings.

The Parties ask, as a means of facilitating potential settlement of
the claims in this lawsuit, that the Court approves the Notice of
Collective Action Lawsuit and Consent to Join forms to be sent to
current and former delivery drivers employed by NRJM and Ray
Montez.

Paul Rodino filed his Class and Collective Action Complaint under
the Fair Labor Standards Act and requested that the case proceed as
a collective action under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) on behalf of all
delivery drivers employed at the Domino's Pizza stores owned by the
Defendants, who consent to join this action.  The Plaintiff also
asserted an Illinois state law claim and purported Rule 23 class
action on behalf of all delivery drivers of the Defendants.

Following discussions after Plaintiff filed this lawsuit, as a
means of facilitating potential settlement, the Parties have agreed
and stipulated certain terms, including that the Defendants consent
to an Order conditionally certifying this case as a collective
action under the FLSA and authorizing that the notice be sent to
all current and former delivery drivers employed by the Defendants
within three years preceding the Court's Order approving notice.

The Parties will mediate or engage in other good-faith negotiations
within 30 days of the Plaintiff's counsel's receipt of employee
information from the Defendants.  In the event that settlement is
not reached, the Plaintiff's counsel agrees to return the class
list and all information produced pursuant to the Court's Order
approving notice and will not use that information for any purpose
other than mediation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew Biller, Esq.
          Andrew Kimble, Esq.
          MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC
          3825 Edwards Road, Suite 650
          Cincinnati, OH 45209
          Telephone: (513) 651-3700
          Facsimile: (513) 665-0219
          E-mail: abiller@msdlegal.com
                  akimble@msdlegal.com

               - and -

          Michael Fradin, Esq.
          MICHAEL L. FRADIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          8401 Crawford Ave., Suite 104
          Skokie, IL 60076
          Telephone: (847) 644-3425
          Facsimile: (8470 673-1228
          E-mail: mike@fradinlaw.com

               - and -

          Aaron Maduff, Esq.
          MADUFF & MADUFF, LLC
          205 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 2050
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 276-9000
          E-mail: abmaduff@madufflaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Joel W. Rice, Esq.
          FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
          10 South Wacker Drive, Suite 3450
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 580-7810
          E-mail: jrice@fisherphillips.com

               - and -

          Kathleen McLeod Caminiti, Esq.
          FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
          430 Mountain Ave., Suite 303
          Murray Hill, NJ 07974
          Telephone: (908) 516-1062
          E-mail: kcaminiti@fisherphillips.com

               - and -

          J. Hagood Tighe, Esq.
          FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
          1320 Main Street, Suite 750
          Columbia, SC 29201
          Telephone: (803) 255-0000
          E-mail: htighe@fisherphillips.com


NUDGE LLC: Time to File Class Certification Bid Extended
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JUST US REALTORS, LLC, on Behalf of Itself and All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. NUDGE, LLC, BUYPD, LLC,
INCOME PROPRTY USA, LLC et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-128 T
(D. Utah), Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells of the U.S. District
Court for the District of Utah, Central Division, extended the
Plaintiff's time to file a motion for class certification.

The case is a proposed class action brought on behalf of
individuals and entities that were offered to purchase real estate
presented by Defendants at "Buying Summit" events.  The Plaintiff
alleges the Defendants did not own certain "turnkey assets" that
were offered for sale at these events and the Defendants engaged in
a conspiracy to fraudulently sell the properties.  

The Plaintiff seeks an order extending the 90-day time-period
following service of the Complaint to file a motion seeking class
certification.  It argues the extension is necessary because there
are efficiencies that will be gained to defer class certification
until after the Defendants' Rule 12(b) motions to dismiss are
decided.

The Defendants oppose the Plaintiff's motion arguing the Plaintiff
is basically seeking to rescind Local Rule 23-1(d), and the Federal
Rule equivalent found in Rule 23, making them nonexistent.  The
Plaintiff cannot seek class certification at their own leisure and
when it is most convenient for them.  Further, there are important
reasons for deciding the class question earlier including the need
to define the scope of discovery and prevent a large-scale fishing
expedition.  As such, the Defendants propose any extension be
limited to 60 additional days.

Magistrate Judge Wellls finds that the case is not analogous to
Timothy v. Aqua Finance, Inc., which the Defendants cite in support
of their arguments against an extension.  In Timothy, the
Plaintiffs provided no explanation for their failure to attempt to
conduct the necessary discovery at the earliest possible time.
Rather, they served class-related discovery requests near the end
of discovery.  Here, there is not the same delay by the Plaintiff.
The Magistrate therefore finds the reasoning in Timothy
unpersuasive.

The case is in its relative infancy and there are four motions to
dismiss currently pending.  Efficiencies will be gained by
postponing the class certification decision until after the motions
to dismiss are decided.  There is no need for an open-ended date
that the Defendants argue eviscerates the Rules.  Rather, a 90-day
extension in accordance with the Plaintiff's motion is warranted
and will provide some definiteness to deciding the class
certification issue.

For these reasons, Magistrate Judge Wells granted the Plaintiff's
Motion for Extension of Time to File Motion for Certification.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 15, 2018 MemoOrder is
available at https://is.gd/Hq3jfK from Leagle.com.

Just Us Realtors, on Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew W. Hutton, HUTTON LAW
GROUP, Jon V. Harper -- jharper@jonharperlaw.com -- HARPER LAW PLC
& M. Denise Dalton, HARPER LAW PLC.

Nudge LLC, BuyPD, Income Property USA & Ryan Poelman, Defendants,
represented by Graden P. Jackson -- gjackson@strongandhanni.com --
STRONG & HANNI & H. Scott Jacobson, Jr. --
sjacobson@strongandhanni.com -- STRONG & HANNI.

Insiders Cash, Defendant, represented by Matthew C. Barneck --
matthew-barneck@rbmn.com -- RICHARDS BRANDT MILLER NELSON & John
Edward Keiter, Jr. , RICHARDS BRANDT MILLER NELSON.

Guardian Law, Defendant, represented by G. James Christiansen --
jchristiansen@goodwin.com -- GUARDIAN LAW.

American Legal & Escrow, Invictus Law & Blair R. Jackson,
Defendants, represented by Adam M. Pace -- amp@scmlaw.com -- SNOW
CHRISTENSEN & MARTINEAU & Keith A. Call -- kcall@scmlaw.com -- SNOW
CHRISTENSEN & MARTINEAU.


OCWEN LOAN: Settlement in Grant FDCA Suit Has Prelim Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GLENDA GRANT, f/k/a GLENDA RANDOLPH, individually and
on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
3:15-cv-01376-J-34PDB (M.D. Fla.), Judge Marcia Morales Howard of
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida,
Jacksonville Division, granted (i) the Defendant's Unopposed Motion
for Finding that the Notice Requirements of the Class Action
Fairness Act Have Been Met, and Supporting Memorandum of Law; and
(ii) the Parties' Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class
Action Settlement.

The Parties and their respective counsel have entered into a
Stipulation of Settlement and Release to settle and dismiss the
litigation on a class-action basis, subject to the Court's
approval.  On May 7, 2018, the Parties filed a Joint Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement.  On May 10, 2018,
Ocwen filed an unopposed motion for an order finding that it had
complied with the notice requirements of the CAFA, with respect to
the Settlement.

On July 30, 2018, the Court entered an Order informing the Parties
that it was not inclined to approve Sections 5.2.4 and 10.2.8 of
the Settlement, and providing the Parties with an opportunity to
submit a memorandum in support of those provisions.  It also
revised the parties' Proposed Notice and attached a Revised
Proposed Notice for the Parties to review.

On Aug. 3, 2018, the Parties filed the Joint Response of Plaintiff
and Defendant to Court's Order of July 30, 2018.  In the Joint
Response, the Parties indicate that they have no objection to the
Court's Revised Proposed Notice.  In addition, thee explaint that
§Sections 5.2.4 and 10.2.8 of the Settlement were intended only to
allow the Settlement Administrator to adjust the layout of the
Notice for double-sided printing in the manner most efficient and
economical for mailing without changing the wording or the
substance.

In light of the representations in the Joint Response, the Judge
will authorize the Parties to change the layout of the Class Notice
to facilitate printing and mailing of the Notice, but will prohibit
the Parties and Settlement Administrator from making any changes to
the terms or content of the Notice.

On Aug. 6, 2018, the Parties filed a Notice of Filing of Amended
Notice to Conform with the Court's Order of July 30, 2018.  They
attached to the filing a proposed Amended Class Notice which
incorporates the revisions set forth in the Court's Revised
Proposed Notice.  Upon review of the Amended Class Notice, the
Judge  finds it necessary to make a few additional revisions and
has attached the Court's Revised Amended Notice to the Order.

Having fully considered the Parties' motions, and the arguments
offered by the counsel, Judge Howard granted Ocwen's Unopposed
Motion for Finding that the Notice Requirements of the Class Action
Fairness Act Have Been Met, and Supporting Memorandum of Law; and
the Parties' Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action
Settlement.  The Court's prior Order staying all
non-settlement-related proceedings remains in full force and
effect.

The Judge preliminarily certified, for settlement purposes only,
the class of all borrowers on home mortgage loans who were sent a
Monthly Statement and/or Delinquency Notice by Ocwen Loan
Servicing, LLC between Nov. 17, 2014, and April 19, 2018, while
their loan was flagged in Ocwen's loan servicing system as having
received a Chapter 7 bankruptcy discharge.

He appointed Plaintiff Glenda Grant as the representative of the
conditionally certified Settlement Class; and Janet R. Varnell and
Brian W. Warwick of the law firm of Varnell & Warwick, P.A., as the
legal counsel for the Settlement Class.

A Fairness Hearing will be held before the Court on Jan. 17, 2019,
beginning at 10:30 a.m.

Any application by the Class Counsel for Attorneys' Fees and
Expenses and for a Service Award will be filed with the Court no
later than Nov. 29, 2018.  The Settlement Administrator will
promptly post the motion to the Settlement Website after its filing
with the Court.  All other submissions of the Parties in support of
the proposed Settlement, or in response to any objections submitted
by Settlement Class Members, will be filed no later than Jan. 7,
2019.  The Settlement Administrator is directed to file a list
reflecting all requests for exclusion it has received from the
Settlement Class Members with the Court no later than Jan. 7,
2019.

The Judge directed the parties to create a Final Class Notice by:
(1) making the revisions set forth on the attached Court's Revised
Amended Notice, (2) inserting the relevant dates and deadlines, and
(3) adding each Settlement Class Members' Class Loan number to the
end of the Notice. The Court approves, as to both form and content,
the Final Class Notice, as well as the proposed methodology for
distributing that notice to the Settlement Class Members as set
forth in Section 5 of the Settlement. Accordingly,

     a. The Court orders the Settlement Administrator, within 21
days following entry of the Order and subject to the requirements
of the Order and the Settlement, to cause the Class Notice to the
Settlement Class Members identified as borrowers on each Class
Loan, addressed to the mailing address of record for that Class
Loan as reflected in Ocwen's records.  The Court further orders the
Settlement Administrator to: (i) prior to mailing, attempt to
update the last known mailing addresses for each Class Loan as
reflected in Ocwen's records through the National Change of Address
system or similar databases, supplemented by skip-tracing for all
Class Loans that are no longer being serviced by Ocwen as of the
Class Roster Date; (ii) promptly re-mail any Class Notices that are
returned by the United States Postal Service with a forwarding
address and continue to do so with respect to any such returned
mail that is received seven days or more prior to the
Objection/Exclusion Deadline; and (iii) determine, as soon as
practicable, whether a valid address can be located through use of
the United States Postal Service's National Change of Address
database and/or use of other reasonable means and without undue
cost or delay, for those Class Notices that are returned without a
new or forwarding address, and promptly re-mail copies of the Class
Notice to any Settlement Class Members for whom the Settlement
Administrator is reasonably able to locate valid addresses in
accordance therewith, so long as the valid addresses are obtained
seven days or more prior to the Objection/Exclusion Deadline.

     b. Following the entry of the Order and prior to the mailing
of notice to the Settlement Class Members, the Parties are
permitted by mutual agreement to make changes in the font and
format of the Class Notice as is necessary for efficient and
economical mailing, provided that the changes do not materially
alter the substance or readability of the Notice.  The parties are
prohibited from changing the terms and content of the Final Class
Notice.  Any material substantive changes to the Class Notice must
be approved by the Court.

     c. The Settlement Administrator will establish an internet
website to inform Settlement Class Members of the terms of the
Settlement, their rights, dates and deadlines, and related
information.  

      d. No later than Jan. 7, 2019, the Settlement Administrator,
and to the extent applicable, the Parties, will file with the Court
a declaration or declarations, verifying compliance with the
aforementioned class-wide notice procedures.  The counsel for the
parties are jointly responsible for assuring strict and timely
compliance with the Settlement Administrator's obligations.

All Costs of Administration, including those associated with
providing notice to the Settlement Class as well as in
administering the terms of the Settlement, will be paid by Ocwen as
set forth in the Settlement.

Any Settlement Class Member who has not filed a timely and proper
written request for exclusion and who wishes to object, must file a
written statement of objection with the Court no later than Dec.
13, 2018.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 10, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/BS8Azk from Leagle.com.

Glenda Grant, individually and on behalf of a class of persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Brian W. Warwick --
bwarwick@varnellandwarwick.com -- Varnell & Warwick, PA, David K.
Lietz -- dlietz@varnellandwarwick.com -- Varnell & Warwick, PA, pro
hac vice, Janet R. Varnell -- jvarnell@varnellandwarwick.com --
Varnell & Warwick, PA & Steven Thomas Simmons, Jr., Steven Simmons,
P.A.

Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, Defendant, represented by Michael R.
Pennington -- mpennington@bradley.com -- Bradley, Arant, Boult &
Cummings, LLP, pro hac vice & Timothy Allen Andreu --
tandreu@bradley.com -- Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP.


PARAGON CONTRACTING: Edson Suit Alleges FDCPA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------
Wayne Francis Edson, on behalf of himself and similarly situated
persons v. Paragon Contracting Services, LLC, Southwest Florida
Emergency Management, LLC, Team Health, LLC, Team Health Billing
Services, L.P., and Team Finance, LLC, Case No. 18-cv-61807 (S.D.
Fla., August 3, 2018), seeks damages under the Florida Workers'
Compensation Act, the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act,
and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The complaint says the Defendants jointly sent debt collection
letters to patients/consumers in an unlawful manner, specifically,
by sending them for collection to workers' compensation claimants
who are Florida residents, by failing to properly identify
themselves, by failing to advise consumers of their rights whenever
Defendants sent out their initial debt collection letters, and by
failing to adhere to the other FDCPA requirements.

The Plaintiff Wayne Francis Edson, is domiciled and is residing in
Palm Beach County, Florida, specifically at 1201 West Broward
Street, Lantana, Florida 33462-3013.

The Defendants provide outsourced physician staffing and
administrative services, including patient billing and debt
collection services, to health care providers throughout the United
States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Steven F. Grover, Esq.
      STEVEN F. GROVER, P.A.
      507 S.E. 11th Ct.
      Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
      Tel: (954) 290-8826
      E-mail: stevenfgrover@gmail.com

          - and -

      Joel A. Brown, Esq.
      FRIEDMAN & BROWN LLC
      5371 N.W. 33 Ave., Suite 205
      Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309
      Tel: (954) 334-9100
      E-mail: joelb@fblegal.com


PEOPLE'S UNITED: Parshall Suit Underway in Connecticut State Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned PAUL PARSHALL, Individually and On Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. JOHN J.
PATRICK, JR., RONALD A. BUCCHI, JOHN A. GREEN, JAMES T. HEALEY JR.,
PATIENCE P. MCDOWELL, KEVIN S. RAY, MICHAEL A. ZIEBKA, and PEOPLE'S
UNITED FINANCIAL, INC., the Defendants, and FIRST CONNECTICUT
BANCORP, INC., Nominal Defendant, Case No._____ (Hartford Superior
Court, Sept. 12, 2018), Atty. Craig S. Waldman of Simpson Thacher &
Bartlett LLP waived service and acknowledged receipt of the
Stockholder's Derivative and Class Action Complaint, on behalf of
defendant People's United Financial, Inc.

People's United is a bank holding company that owns People's United
Bank. The bank operates 403 branches in Connecticut, southeastern
New York State, Massachusetts, Vermont, Maine, and New
Hampshire.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Brian S. Cohen, Esq.
          LACHTMAN COHEN P.C.
          500 West Putnam Avenue, Suite 400
          Greenwich, CT 06830
          Telephone: (203) 404 4960
          E-mail: bcohen@lcpclaw.com


PERMANENTE MEDICAL: Wins Final Approval of $37,500 Wolf Suit Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Vince Chhabria grants final approval to the parties' class
settlement in the lawsuit styled DEBRA WOLF, individually and on
behalf of all other similarly situated individuals v. THE
PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP, INC., a California corporation, Case No.
3:17-cv-05345-VC (N.D. Cal.).

The Court finds and determines that the payment to the California
Labor and Workforce Development Agency under the Settlement, in the
amount of $37,500, is fair and reasonable.  The Court gives final
approval to and orders that amount be paid out of the Total
Settlement Amount in accordance with the Settlement.

The Court gives final approval to and orders that $35,000 be paid
as fees and expenses in administrating the Settlement out of the
Total Settlement Amount in accordance with the Settlement.

The Parties will bear their own costs and attorneys' fees except as
otherwise provided by the Court's order granting the Class Counsel
Fees and Expenses Payment.

The Plaintiffs and Proposed Class and Collective Members are
represented by:

          Jahan C. Sagafi, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
          One Embarcadero Center, 38th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 638-8800
          Facsimile: (415) 638-8810
          E-mail: jsagafi@outtengolden.com

               - and -

          Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
          Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
          Charles R. Ash, IV, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          One Towne Square, Suite 1700
          Southfield, MI 48076
          Telephone: (248) 355-0300
          Facsimile: (248) 436-8453
          E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com
                  jthompson@sommerspc.com
                  crash@sommerspc.com

Defendant The Permanente Medical Group, Inc., is represented by:

          Jeffrey D. Wohl, Esq.
          Caitlin M. Wang, Esq.
          PAUL HASTINGS LLP
          101 California Street, 48th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 856-7000
          Facsimile: (415) 856-7100
          E-mail: jeffwohl@paulhastings.com
                  caitlinmarianwang@paulhastings.com


PETROBRAS: Court Awards $12K Attorneys' Fees in Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In re: PETROBRAS SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No.
14-cv-9662 (JSR) (S.D. N.Y.), Judge Jed S. Rakoff of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York awarded
objector William Thomas Haynes attorneys' fees in the amount of
$11,731.65, to be taken out of Class Counsel's fee award.

By Opinion and Order dated June 22, 2018, the Court granted final
approval of the Settlement Agreement in the instant action and
awarded attorneys' fees to the Class Counsel.  Before the Court is
the motion of the Objector for an award of attorneys' fees for his
counsel, the Center for Class Action Fairness ("CCAF"), in the
amount of $199,400.

The Objector challenged both the certification of the settlement
class and the Class Counsel's fee request.  On June 22, 2018, the
Court approved the Settlement Agreement, rejecting Objector's
arguments in opposition, and awarded attorneys' fees to the Class
Counsel, although in a significantly lower amount than requested.
One of the bases for one aspect of the reduction in fees was
directly influenced by one of the Objector's arguments.  Objector
subsequently filed the instant motion for his attorneys' fees.

Judge Rakoff finds a fee award of $11,731.65 warranted, which
represents 10% of Objector's lodestar.  A substantial reduction is
appropriate as the vast majority of Objector's briefing concerned
unsuccessful arguments.  However, because the argument was novel,
well-researched, and directly effectuated a substantial costs
savings to the class, he finds the award of a full 10% of the
lodestar appropriate.  This percentage is consistent with what the
Court finds to be a reasonable lodestar, allowing for 25 hours of
research, drafting and editing at a junior level, billed at $375,
and 6.7 hours of review at a more senior level billed at $465.

As Objector was only involved in the case for a short period of
time and faced no risks in his involvement, the Judge finds no
justification for granting Objector a multiplier.  Accordingly,
this request is denied.  The fact that the Court approved a
multiplier for the class counsel does not entitle Objector to a
multiplier.

Objector's fee award should be funded from Class Counsel's fee
award as the Class Counsel's inappropriate, and potentially costly,
classification of its expenditure on Brazilian attorneys as
attorneys' fees created the need for the objection.  As Objector
illustrated, the law clearly barred the Class Counsel's
categorization of these expenses, and the Class Counsel never
should have sought recovery of these costs as attorneys' fees.  It
would be inequitable to reduce the class members' award for the
Class Counsel's failure.

In sum, Judge Rakoff awarded the Objector attorneys' fees in the
amount of $11,731.65, to be taken out of the Class Counsel's fee
award.  The Clerk is instructed to close docket number 839.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 14, 2018 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/lsjE6A from Leagle.com.

Universities Superannuation Scheme Limited, Lead Plaintiff,
represented by Emma Gilmore -- egilmore@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz
LLP, Jeremy Alan Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz
LLP, Marc Ian Gross -- migross@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, Adam G.
Kurtz -- agkurtz@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, Brenda F. Szydlo --
bszydlo@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, Jennifer Pafiti -- Pafiti,
Esq. -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Jennifer Banner Sobers --
jbsobers@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, John Anthony Kehoe --
jkehoe@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, Justin Solomon Nematzadeh --
jnematzadeh@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, Marc Christian Gorrie --
mgorrie@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, Patrick Vincent Dahlstrom --
pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP & Susan Jessica Weiswasser
-- sjweiswasser@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP.

Peter Kaltman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Chet Barry Waldman, Wolf Popper
LLP, Fei-Lu Qian, Wolf Popper LLP, Lester L. Levy, Sr., Wolf Popper
LLP & Robert Craig Finkel, Wolf Popper LLP.

Union Asset Management Holding AG, Plaintiff, represented by
Christopher F. Moriarty, Motley Rice LLC, pro hac vice, William H.
Narwold, Motley Rice LLC & Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Pomerantz LLP.

Employees' Retirement System of the State of Hawaii, Plaintiff,
represented by David J. Goldsmith -- agoldsmith@kellogghansen.com
-- Labaton Sucharow, LLP, John Julian Esmay , Labaton & Sucharow
LLP, Michael Howard Rogers , Labaton & Sucharow LLP & Jeremy Alan
Lieberman , Pomerantz LLP.

North Carolina Department of State Treasurer, Plaintiff,
represented by Brenda F. Szydlo, Pomerantz LLP, Justin Solomon
Nematzadeh, Pomerantz LLP, Susan Jessica Weiswasser, Pomerantz LLP
& Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Pomerantz LLP.

Aura Capital Ltd., Plaintiff, represented by Bruce Whitney Dona,
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC, Kim Elaine Miller --
kmiller@kellogghansen.com -- Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC & Lewis Stephen
Kahn, Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC.

Dimensional Emerging Markets Value Fund, Plaintiff, pro se.

DFA Investment Dimensions Group Inc. on behalf of its series
Emerging Markets Core Equity Portfolio, Plaintiff, pro se.

Emerging Markets Social Core Equity Portfolio and T.A. World ex
U.S. Core Equity Portfolio, Plaintiff, pro se.

DFA Investment Trust Company on behalf of its series The Emerging
Markets Series, Plaintiff, pro se.

Jose Sergio Gabrielli, Defendant, represented by Roger Allen Cooper
- -racooper@cgsh.com -- Cleary Gottlieb, Edward M. Spiro --
espiro@magislaw.com -- Morvillo, Abramowitz, Grand, Iason, & Anello
P.C., Elizabeth Vicens, Cleary Gottlieb, Elkan Abramowitz --
eabramowitz@maglaw.com -- Morvillo, Abramowitz, Grand, Iason, &
Anello P.C. & Jasmine Marie Juteau -- jjuteau@maglaw.com --
Morvillo, Abramowitz, Grand, Iason, & Anello P.C.

BB Securities Ltd., Defendant, represented by Albert L. Hogan, III
, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, LLP, Jeremy A. Berman,
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP & Michael Scott Bailey,
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP.

Theodore Marshall Helms, Defendant, represented by Andrew Edward
Goldsmith, Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick PLLC, Elizabeth
Vicens, Cleary Gottlieb, Erica Klipper -- eklipper@cgsh.com --
Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, Jared Mitchell Gerber --
jgerber@cgsh.com -- Cleary Gottlieb, Lewis J. Liman, Cleary
Gottlieb & Luke Ashe Barefoot -- lbarefoot@cgsh.com -- Cleary
Gottlieb.

Petrobras Global Finance, B.V., Defendant, represented by Alexis L.
Collins , Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, Andrew Edward
Goldsmith , Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick PLLC, Andrew
Chun-Yang Shen , Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick PLLC,
David L. Schwarz , Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick PLLC,
pro hac vice, Elizabeth Vicens , Cleary Gottlieb, Erica Klipper ,
Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, Jared Mitchell Gerber ,
Cleary Gottlieb, Joseph Solomon Hall , Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel
& Frederick PLLC, Joshua D. Branson , Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd,
Evans & Figel, P.L.L.C., pro hac vice, Kevin J. Miller , Kellogg,
Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick PLLC, pro hac vice, Lewis J. Liman
, Cleary Gottlieb, Luke Ashe Barefoot , Cleary Gottlieb, Rebecca A.
Beynon , Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel, P.L.L.C., pro
hac vice, Reid Mason Figel , Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans &
Figel, P.L.L.C., pro hac vice, William Evans , Cleary Gottlieb
Steen & Hamilton LLP & William Thomas , Cleary Gottlieb Steen &
Hamilton LLP.

Petrobras America Inc., Defendant, represented by Lewis J. Liman --
lliman@cgsh.com -- Cleary Gottlieb, Alexis L. Collins , Cleary
Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, Andrew Edward Goldsmith --
agoldsmith@kellogghansen.com -- Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel &
Frederick PLLC, Andrew Chun-Yang Shen -- ashen@kellogghansen.com --
Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick PLLC, David L. Schwarz --
dschwarz@kellogghansen.com -- Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel &
Frederick PLLC, pro hac vice, Elizabeth Vicens, Cleary Gottlieb,
Jared Mitchell Gerber, Cleary Gottlieb, Joseph Solomon Hall --
jhall@kellogghansen.com -- Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick
PLLC, Joshua D. Branson -- jbranson@kellogghansen.com -- Kellogg,
Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel, P.L.L.C., pro hac vice, Kevin
J. Miller -- kmiller@kellogghansen.com -- Kellogg, Hansen, Todd,
Figel & Frederick PLLC, pro hac vice, Luke Ashe Barefoot, Cleary
Gottlieb, Rebecca A. Beynon -- rbeynon@kellogghansen.com --
Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel, P.L.L.C., pro hac
vice, Reid Mason Figel -- rfigel@kellogghansen.com -- Kellogg,
Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel, P.L.L.C., pro hac vice, Roger
Allen Cooper -- racooper@cgsh.com -- Cleary Gottlieb, William Evans
-- wevans@cgsh.com -- Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP &
William Thomas -- wthomas@cgsh.com -- Cleary Gottlieb Steen &
Hamilton LLP.

Jose Carlos Cosenza, Guillherme de Oliveira Estrella & Jose Miranda
Formigli Filho, Defendants, represented by Lewis J. Liman, Cleary
Gottlieb, Roger Allen Cooper, Cleary Gottlieb & Elizabeth Vicens --
evicens@cgsh.com -- Cleary Gottlieb.

Petrobras Global Finance B.V. & Theodore Marshall Helms,
Consolidated Defendants, represented by Roger Allen Cooper , Cleary
Gottlieb.

Maria Das Gracas Silva Foster, Consolidated Defendant, represented
by Richard Mark Strassberg , Goodwin Procter, LLP, Roger Allen
Cooper, Cleary Gottlieb, Daniel Prugh Roeser, Goodwin Procter, LLP,
Elizabeth Vicens, Cleary Gottlieb, John Owen Farley, Goodwin
Procter, LLP & William Breslin Brady, Goodwin Procter, LLP.

Almir Guilherme Barbassa, Consolidated Defendant, represented by
Lewis J. Liman, Cleary Gottlieb, Roger Allen Cooper, Cleary
Gottlieb & Elizabeth Vicens, Cleary Gottlieb.

Daniel Lima De Oliveira, Jose Raimundo Branda Pereira, Servio Tulio
Da Rosa Tinoco, Paulo Jose Alves, Gustavo Tardin Barbosa & Marcos
Antonio Zacarias, Consolidated Defendants, represented by Elizabeth
Vicens, Cleary Gottlieb & Roger Allen Cooper, Cleary Gottlieb.


PTZ INSURANCE: Summary Judgment Bid in Legg Suit Partly Granted
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Robert W. Gettleman of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted in part
Legg's motion for summary judgment the case, CHRISTOPHER LEGG and
PAGE LOZANO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. PTZ INSURANCE AGENCY, LTD., an Illinois
corporation, and PETHEALTH, INC., a Delaware corporation,
Defendants, Case No. 14 C 10043 (N.D. Ill.).

Legg and Lozano brought a three count second amended putative class
action complaint against the Defendants, alleging thatthe
Defendants violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA")
by: (1) placing unsolicited advertising robocalls to the
Plaintiffs' cellular phones; (2) placing unsolicited telemarketing
calls to their cellular phones; and (3) placing robocalls to the
Plaintiffs' cellular phones.

After the Court granted the Defendants' motion to strike the class
allegations and denied the Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class,
the Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on their unsolicited
advertising robocall claims.  During the course of briefing, Lozano
accepted the Defendants' offer of judgment, leaving only Legg's
claim.

The Plaintiff has moved for summary judgment, arguing that the
Defendants made four unsolicited "advertising" calls to his
cellular phone without his express written consent.  The Defendants
argue that neither of the two calls includes or introduces the
commercial availability of any product.  Instead, according to
them, both calls are simply reminders of a free gift.

Judge Gettleman finds that the Defendants are only partially
correct.  The Day Two Call does more than simply remind the
recipient of the free gift.  It points the recipient to an email
sent from 24Pethealth (PTZ).  The email obviously touts the
commercial availability of a product, and constitutes an
advertisement as defined by the regulations.  Because the Day Two
Call introduces this email, the Judge concludes that the Day Two
Call is an advertisement that requires prior express written
consent. He rejects the Defendant's argument that it cannot look
beyond the content of the call to demonstrate that they are
advertisements.  The regulation prohibits calls that include or
introduces an advertisement.

Consequently, because he concludes that the Day Two Call is an
advertisement and requires express written consent, which the
Plaintiff undisputedly did not give, the Plaintiff would be
entitled to statutory damages for each Day Two Call he received.
However, it is unclear how many, if any, such calls the Plaintiff
received.

Unlike the Day Two Call, the Day Six Call makes no reference to any
email or other material.  Thus, whether it constitutes an
advertisement depends entirely on the content of the call.  The
Judge finds that because the Day Six Call is not an advertisement,
the Defendants did not need the express written consent to place
it.

To show that the Plaintiff consented, the Defendants point to their
nationwide policies and procedures, under which the adoption
agencies are trained to obtain the adopter's consent to be
contacted about the 30-day Gift of Insurance.  All this
establishes, however, is that the Plaintiff gave the adoption
agency his phone number (which is undisputed) and that he agreed to
receive communications from Pethealth (again undisputed).

Consequently, the Defendants are unable to demonstrate a genuine
issue for trial and the Plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment
against PTZ (24PetWatch) for having admittedly placed the four
calls that the Plaintiff undisputedly received.  Therefore, the
Plaintiff is entitled to statutory damages from PTZ in the amount
of $2,000.

Additionally, the Plaintiff has argued that the Defendant PTZ's
violations were willfully and knowingly made, because it knew it
was calling cellular numbers or at least had no protections in
place to avoid doing so, entitling him to treble damages.  Because
the Defendants have not responded to this request, they have waived
any argument to the contrary.  Judgment will be entered for the
Plaintiff against PTZ in the amount of $6,000.

Finally, the Plaintiff seeks judgment against Pethealth, arguing
that it is either directly liable or vicariously liable under the
theories of actual authority, apparent authority, or ratification.
The extent of Pethealth's involvement in the robocalling program
is, however, hotly disputed. And, there is conflicting evidence as
to the amount of control, if any, Pethealth exerts over PTZ.
Consequently, the Judge concludes that the Plaintiff has failed to
carry its burden for summary judgment against Pethealth.

For the reasons described, Judge Gettleman granted in part and
denied part Plaintiff Legg's motion for summary judgment.  The
motion is granted as to PTZ Insurance and denied as to Pethealth.
Plaintiff Legg is awarded statutory damages against PTZ in the
amount of $6,000.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 15, 2018 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/8T6KIb from Leagle.com.

Christopher Legg, Plaintiff, represented by Keith James Keogh --
Keith@KeoghLaw.com -- Keogh Law, Ltd., Amy L. Wells , Keogh Law,
Ltd, Michael S. Hilicki -- MHilicki@KeoghLaw.com -- Keogh Law, LTD,
Michael R. Karnuth, Keogh Law, LTD, Scott D. Owens --
scott@scottdowens.com -- Scott D. Owens, P.A., pro hac vice &
Timothy J. Sostrin -- tsostrin@keoghlaw.com -- Keogh Law, LTD.

Page Lozano, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Keith James Keogh, Keogh Law,
Ltd., Amy L. Wells, Keogh Law, Ltd & Michael R. Karnuth, Keogh Law,
LTD.

PTZ Insurance Agency, LTD, an Illinois Corporation & PetHealth,
Inc., a Canadian Corporation, Defendants, represented by Eric L.
Samore -- esamore@salawus.com -- SmithAmundsen LLC, John C. Ochoa
-- jochoa@salawus.com -- SmithAmundsen LLC, Molly Anne Arranz --
marranz@salawus.com -- Smith Amundsen, LLC, Ronald David Balfour --
rbalfour@salawus.com -- Smithamundsen Llc & Yesha Sutaria Hoeppner,
Smithamundsen LLC.


RETRIEVAL MASTERS: Seventh Circuit Appeal Filed in Cooper Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Jack W. Cooper filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in his lawsuit styled Jack Cooper v. Retrieval Masters
Creditors Bureau Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-00773, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

The nature of suit is stated as consumer credit.

The appellate case is captioned as Jack Cooper v. Retrieval Masters
Creditors Bureau Inc., Case No. 18-2983, in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript information sheet is due by September 28, 2018;

   -- Appellant's brief is due on or before October 24, 2018, for
      Jack W. Cooper;

   -- Appellant Jack W. Cooper shall file a brief memorandum
      stating why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of
      jurisdiction;

   -- Briefing is suspended pending further court order; and

   -- Jurisdictional memorandum is due for Appellant Jack W.
      Cooper by September 28, 2018.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant JACK W. COOPER, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Celetha Chatman, Esq.
          COMMUNITY LAWYERS GROUP, LTD.
          73 W. Monroe Street
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 757-1880
          E-mail: cchatman@communitylawyersgroup.com

Defendant-Appellee RETRIEVAL MASTERS CREDITORS BUREAU, INCORPORATED
is represented by:

          Carlos Alfredo Ortiz, Esq.
          HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP
          151 N. Franklin Street
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 704-3000
          E-mail: cortiz@hinshawlaw.com


REVLON INC: Flint Files False Labeling Suit in New York
-------------------------------------------------------
Kathryn Flint, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Revlon, Inc., Revlon Consumer Products Corp., and
Almay, Inc., Case No. 1:18-cv-06992 (S.D. N.Y., August 3, 2018), is
brought against the Defendants for breach of express warranty,
unjust enrichment and for violation of New York's General Business
Law.

Kathryn Flint is an individual consumer and a citizen of the State
of California. During the class period, the Plaintiff occasionally
purchased several of the Defendant's products at retail prices. For
example, Ms. Flint occasionally purchased Almay's Truly Lasting
Color Liquid Makeup, Almay's Clear Complexion Concealer, and
Almay's Color + Care Liquid Lip Balm at the Walgreens located at
1189 Potrero Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94110. In deciding to make
these purchases, the Plaintiff saw, relied upon, and reasonably
believed the label representation that the products were
"hypoallergenic."

The Plaintiff alleges that Almay's misleading marketing,
advertising, packaging, and labeling of these Products is false
advertising likely to deceive a reasonable consumer.

The Defendant Revlon, Inc. is a corporation with its principal
place of business located at One New York Plaza, New York, New
York. Doing business under its brand "Almay," Revlon, Inc.
manufactures and causes the manufacture of cosmetics and personal
care products. Revlon, Inc. labels these products under its "Almay"
brand name and markets and distributes the products in retail and
online stores located throughout the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Yvette Golan, Esq.
      THE GOLAN FIRM
      1712 N Street, NW, Suite 302
      Washington, DC 20036
      Tel: (866) 298-4150
      Fax: (928) 441-8250


ROCK ISLAND COUNTY, IL: Court Dismisses Macon Prisoners Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Harold A. Baker of the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of Illinois dismissed the case, GRIEG MACON, Plaintiff, v.
GERALD BUSTOS, et al., Defendants, Case No. 18-4137 (C.D. Ill.) for
failure to state a claim.

The Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and presently detained in the Rock
Island County Jail, brings the present lawsuit pursuant to 42
U.S.C. Section 1983 alleging inhumane conditions of confinement.
The matter comes before the Court for merit review under 28 U.S.C.
Section 1915A.

The Defendants are employed at the jail in the following
capacities: Defendant Bustos is the Sheriff; Defendant Erickson is
a captain; Defendants Young and Nessler are lieutenants; Defendant
Brown is a sergeant; and, Defendant Stulir is an Inmate Services
Officer.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants, collectively, have
deprived him and other inmates of opportunities for exercise.
Specifically, he alleges that when inmates participate in working
out, they are stopped by correctional staff and are threatened with
segregation and commissary denial.  He also alleges that jail
officials have denied access to an official recreational room, a
gymnasium, and an outside area where inmates could receive fresh
air.  Instead, the Plaintiff alleges, he and other inmates are
confined to a dorm for 24 hours a day.  He also alleges that jail
officials have denied educational opportunities to obtain a G.E.D.

Judge Baker explains that the Court must consider both the severity
and the duration of the alleged lack of exercise to determine
whether the Plaintiff states a viable claim.  He finds that the
Plaintiff has not alleged for how long he has been forced to endure
the deprivations he alleges.  Further, the extent to which the
Plaintiff is able to exercise is also unclear as his allegations
suggest that he has had some opportunity to exercise.  Therefore,
he finds that the Plaintiff has not yet stated a constitutional
claim based upon the alleged denial of exercise.

Moreover, Section 1983 creates a cause of action based on personal
liability and predicated upon fault; thus, liability does not
attach unless the individual defendant caused or participated in a
constitutional deprivation.  The Plaintiff must, therefore,
describe how each of the Defendants in the case personally
participated in the constitutional violations he alleges.  He finds
that the Plaintiff has not yet done so.

With respect to the alleged denial of access to a GED program, the
Plaintiff does not state a claim. Hence, the Judge will dismiss the
claim.  Accordingly, he will grant the Plaintiff an opportunity to
file an amended complaint within 30 days to provide additional
information regarding his claim that he has been denied
opportunities for exercise.

The Plaintiff, along with five other inmates at the Rock Island
County Jail, contemporaneously filed the same complaint in their
respective cases.  With their complaints, the Plaintiff and the
other inmates included a letter requesting that their cases be
handled as a class action.  The Judge interprets the letter as a
motion.  He says though not specified, the Plaintiff's letter
suggests that one or all of the inmates proceeding pro se will act
as class representatives in the matter.  Inmates proceeding pro se
are not allowed to act as class representatives.  Therefore, their
motion will be denied.

For these reasons, Judge Baker dismissed the Plaintiff's complaint
for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)
and 28 U.S.C. Section 1915A.  The Plaintiff will have 30 days from
the entry of the order to file an amended complaint on his claim
related to the alleged denial of exercise.  Failure to file an
amended complaint will result in the dismissal of the case, without
prejudice, for failure to state a claim.  The Plaintiff's amended
complaint will replace his original complaint in its entirety.
Accordingly, the amended complaint must contain all allegations
against all the Defendants.

The Judge also denied the Plaintiff's motion for counsel with leave
to renew upon demonstrating that he made attempts to hire his own
counsel.  This typically requires writing to several lawyers and
attaching the responses.  If the Plaintiff renews his motion, he
should set forth how far he has gone in school, any jobs he has
held inside and outside of prison, any classes he has taken in
prison, and any prior litigation experience he has.

Finally, the Judge denied the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Action.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 17, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/496kpo from Leagle.com.

Grieg Macon, Plaintiff, pro se.


ROCKY MOUNTAIN: Thrasher Class Suit Alleges EFTA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------
Mickey Thrasher and Kimberly Cyr, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Rocky Mountain Auto Brokers, Inc.,
Case No. 1:18-cv-02342 (D. Colo., September 13, 2018), alleges
violations of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act.

The Plaintiffs contend that RMAB has engaged in the practice of
conditioning credit upon its customers' repayment via preauthorized
electronic fund transfers, with respect to over 40 individuals in
the state of Colorado in the year prior to the filing of this
matter.

RMAB is a company that is duly licensed to conduct business within
the state of Colorado, and with a principal office located in
Colorado Springs, Colorado.  RMAB is a pre-owned auto dealer.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Russell S. Thompson, IV, Esq.
          Jose F. Gill, Esq.
          THOMPSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, PLLC
          5235 E. Southern Ave., D106-618
          Mesa, AZ 85206
          Telephone: (602) 388-8898
          Facsimile: (866) 317-2674
          E-mail: rthompson@ThompsonConsumerLaw.com
                  jgill@ThompsonConsumerLaw.com


SAFEGUARD PROPERTIES: Bid to Set Status Conference in Bund Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOHN R. BUND II, Plaintiff, v. SAFEGUARD PROPERTIES
LLC, Defendant, Case No. C16-920 MJP (W.D. Wash.), Judge Marsha J.
Pechman of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington, Seattle, denied the Defendant's Motion to Set Status
Conference and to Address Apparent Fraud on the Court and Possible
Perjury by Plaintiff John R. Bund, II.

The Judge notes that the issues raised by the Defendant in the
motion are addressed in a substantive fashion in the pending Motion
to Decertify the Class which comes ripe on Aug. 24, 2018.  She sees
no need to confer with the parties in the interim and will address
the substantive issues concerning Plaintiff Bund's status and its
effect on the class action when those issues have been fully
briefed.  She ordered the clerk to provide copies of the Order to
all counsel.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 15, 2018 Order is available at
https://bit.ly/2xATeYo from Leagle.com.

John R. Bund, II, personally,as Executor of the Estate of Richard
C. Bund, deceased, and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, represented by Clay M. Gatens -- clayg@jdsalaw.com --
JEFFERS DANIELSON SONN & AYLWARD, Honea Lee Lewis, IV --
leel@jdsalaw.com -- JEFFERS DANIELSON SONN & AYLWARD, Sally F.
White -- sallyw@jdsalaw.com -- JEFFERS DANIELSON SONN & AYLWARD,
Beth E. Terrell -- bterrell@terrellmarshall.com -- TERRELL MARSHALL
LAW GROUP PLLC, Blythe H. Chandler -- bchandler@terrellmarshall.com
-- TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC, Devon Amy Gray --
devong@jdsalaw.com -- JEFFERS DANIELSON SONN & AYLWARD & Michael
dDuane Daudt -- mike@daudtlaw.com -- DAUDT LAW PLLC.

S. Scott James & Noel L. James, a married couple, and on behalf of
others similarly situated., Plaintiffs, represented by Beth E.
Terrell, TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC, Blythe H. Chandler,
TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC, Devon Amy Gray  JEFFERS DANIELSON
SONN & AYLWARD, Michael Duane Daudt, DAUDT LAW PLLC & Clay M.
Gatens, JEFFERS DANIELSON SONN & AYLWARD.

Safeguard Properties LLC, a Delaware corporation, Defendant,
represented by Benjamin O'Connor -- benjamin.oconnor@kirkland.com
-- KIRKLAND & ELLIS, pro hac vice, Howard M. Kaplan --
howard.kaplan@kirkland.com -- KIRKLAND & ELLIS, pro hac vice, Jaime
Drozd Allen -- jaimeallen@dwt.com -- DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE, Kelli
M. Mulder -- kelli.mulder@kirkland.com -- KIRKLAND & ELLIS, pro hac
vice, Leonid Feller -- leonid.feller@kirkland.com -- KIRKLAND &
ELLIS, pro hac vice, R. Allan Pixton -- allan.pixton@kirkland.com
-- KIRKLAND & ELLIS, pro hac vice, Amanda M. McDowell --
amandamcdowell@dwt.com -- DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE & Mark N. Bartlett
-- markbartlett@dwt.com -- DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE.


SAFEGUARD PROPERTY: Summary Judgment in Schlaf FDCPA Suit Upheld
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANDREW SCHLAF, on behalf of plaintiffs and a class, et
al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SAFEGUARD PROPERTY, LLC,
Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 17-2811 (7th Cir.), Judge Kenneth
Francis Ripple of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
affirmed the district court's grant of granted summary judgment to
Safeguard.

Andrew and Wendy Schlaf brought the action against Safeguard,
alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
("FDCPA").  Specifically, they claim that Safeguard is a debt
collector under the statute and failed to comply with various
obligations imposed on debt collectors under the statute.

The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.  The district
court ruled that Safeguard is not a "debt collector" under the
FDCPA and therefore granted summary judgment to Safeguard and
denied that of the Schlafs.

The Schlafs now appeal the district court's grant of summary
judgment to Safeguard.  They contend that the district court erred
in interpreting the FDCPA to exclude entities like Safeguard from
its definition of "debt collector."

Judge Ripple explains that the FDCPA defines "debt collector" as
any person who uses any instrumentality of interstate commerce or
the mails in any business the principal purpose of which is the
collection of any debts, or who regularly collects or attempts to
collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to
be owed or due another.  Limiting his analysis to the language of
the statute, he cannot say that Safeguard engages in indirect debt
collection simply by leaving a door hanger that asks the homeowner
to call Green Tree.  The FDCPA treats creditors and debt collectors
differently precisely because creditors have an ongoing
relationship with the debtor and thus have incentive to engender
good will by treating the debtor with honesty and respect.

Here, the outward appearance of the inspection gives every
indication that it is coming from Green Tree.  The door hanger does
not identify Safeguard in any way, and the phone number connects
the homeowner directly to Green Tree.  Safeguard does not discuss
the debt with the homeowners and has no other contact with the
homeowners other than to leave the door hanger.  The door hanger
itself does not give any details about the homeowners' debt or
demand payment.  The district court's characterization of
Safeguard's role as more akin to that of a messenger than as an
indirect facilitator of debt collection was therefore apt.

His conclusion that Safeguard is not an indirect debt collector is
consistent with the Court's interpretation of a separate, threshold
requirement repeated throughout the FDCPA: that the communication
being challenged was made in connection with debt collection.
Here, the door hangers contain no demand for payment and, indeed,
make no reference to the Schlafs' debt whatsoever, other than to
give Green Tree's name and phone number.  The relationship between
Safeguard and the Schlafs arose out of the Plaintiffs' defaulted
debt, only in the sense that Safeguard performs contact attempt
inspections only at properties where mortgagors have defaulted on
their payments.

The Judge readily acknowledges that the extant case law is not
dispositive of his decision, which rests, as it should, on his
analysis of the plain wording of the statute.  To be sure, what
constitutes "indirect" debt collection will have to be determined
on a case-by-case basis until the case law produces a more robust
understanding of that concept.  Congress certainly must have
foreseen that such a term would require such fact-specific
adjudication.  His holding today is limited to the situation before
the Court, a situation that implicates none of the concerns
articulated by Congress in enacting the statute.

For the reasons stated , Judge Ripple holds that the district court
did not err in concluding that Safeguard is not an indirect debt
collector.  He therefore affirmed the judgment of the district
court.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 10, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/EeKFhX from Leagle.com.

Daniel A. Edelman, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Cathleen M. Combs, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Panos T. Topalis, for Defendant-Appellee.

Emiliya Farbstein, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Amy M. Kunzer -- amkunzer@tribler.com -- for Defendant-Appellee.


SODASTREAM INT'L: Zucker Class Suit Challenges Sale to PepsiCo
--------------------------------------------------------------
LAWRENCE ZUCKER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. SODASTREAM INTERNATIONAL LTD., STANLEY STERN, DANIEL
BIRNBAUM, LAURI HANOVER, DAVID MORRIS, JONATHAN KOLODNY, RICHARD
HUNTER, YEHEZKEL OFIR, and TORSTEN KOSTER, Case No. 1:18-cv-05180
(E.D.N.Y., September 13, 2018), stems from a proposed transaction,
pursuant to which SodaStream will be acquired by PepsiCo, Inc.
("Parent") and its wholly-owned subsidiary, PepsiCo Ventures B.V.
("Buyer") and Saturn Merger Sub Ltd., a direct wholly-owned
subsidiary of Buyer.

On August 20, 2018, SodaStream's Board of Directors caused the
Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with PepsiCo.
Pursuant to the Proposed Transaction, Merger Sub will merge with
and into SodaStream, so that SodaStream will be the surviving
company and will become a direct wholly-owned subsidiary of Buyer.

Mr. Zucker contends that the proxy statement filed in connection
with the Proposed Transaction omits material information, which
renders it materially false and misleading.  Accordingly, he
alleges that the Defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the Proxy
Statement.

SodaStream is an Israeli corporation and maintains its principal
executive offices in Ben Gurion Airport, Israel.  The Individual
Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.

The Company, together with its subsidiaries, manufactures,
distributes, and sells home beverage carbonation systems.  The
Company's home beverage carbonation systems enable consumers to
transform ordinary tap water into sparkling water and flavored
sparkling water.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aaron L. Brody, Esq.
          Michael J. Klein, Esq.
          STULL, STULL & BRODY
          6 East 45th Street
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 687-7230
          Facsimile: (212) 490-2022
          E-mail: abrody@ssbny.com
                  mklein@ssbny.com


SONY CORP: Averts Class Action Over Fake Michael Jackson Vocal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jem Aswad, writing for Variety, reports that a 2014 lawsuit brought
by a Michael Jackson fan against Sony Music and the singer's estate
-- which alleges that three songs on the posthumously released
"Michael" album do not actually feature Jackson's vocals -- rose
into public view when an onlooker misunderstood a comment by an
attorney to mean that Sony had admitted that Jackson did not
perform on the song. After online articles reported the inaccurate
conclusion arising from the comment, reps for the estate and Sony
quickly moved to clarify the matter and deny any such statement.

On Aug. 28, three appeals court judges ruled in the estate and
Sony's favor, essentially removing the two parties from the
class-action suit, which was brought by fan Vera Serova in 2014.
The Aug. 28 ruling -- on an appeal brought by the estate and Sony
-- ruled that because the estate and Sony did not know for certain
whether Jackson sang on the three songs, the album's cover and
promotional materials were not strictly commercial speech, and thus
were not applicable for Ms. Serova's charges.

We had a total victory in the appellate court in the Vera Serova
Class Action matter," said Howard Weitzman, an attorney for the
estate, in a statement.

However, it does not clear up the long-disputed issue of whether or
not Jackson actually sang the songs -- "Breaking News," "Monster"
and "Keep Your Head Up" -- which were reportedly recorded in 2007
with songwriter/producers Edward Cascio and James Porte. Fans have
long claimed that an American singer named Jason Malachi actually
sang the three songs in question, and he purportedly admitted as
much in a 2011 Facebook post, according to TMZ, although his
manager later denied it, claiming the post was faked.

"Because [Sony Music, MJJ Productions and the Jackson estate]
lacked actual knowledge of the identity of the lead singer on
["Breaking News," "Monster" and "Keep Your Head Up"], they could
only draw a conclusion about that issue from their own research and
the available evidence," court documents read, according to NPR.
"Under these circumstances, [Sony Music, MJJ Productions and the
Jackson estate's] representations about the identity of the singer
amounted to a statement of opinion rather than fact."

According to the lawsuit, in November 2010 Sony stated "We have
complete confidence in the results of our extensive research as
well as the accounts of those who were in the studio with Michael
that the vocals on the new album are his own." Howard Weitzman, an
attorney for Jackson's estate, released a statement citing multiple
engineers, musicians, vocal directors, executives and musicologists
as concluding that the vocals were Jackson's.

Ms. Serova's case against Mr. Cascio and Mr. Porte and the
production company Angelikson Productions is ongoing. [GN]


SOOTHE INC: Tolbert et al. Seek Payment of OT & Expenses
--------------------------------------------------------
AUDWIN TOLBERT, an individual; DEIANA VALENTINE, an individual, on
behalf of themselves, and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. SOOTHE, INC., a Delaware corporation:
and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC721310
(Cal. Super. Ct., Sept. 12, 2018), alleges that the Plaintiffs and
other similarly situated employees work in excess of eight hours in
a workday and/or 40 hours in a workweek but are not paid overtime
wages for the hours they spend working overtime. In addition, the
Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees incur expenses
related to their work for SOOTHE, which includes without
limitation, vehicle fuel and usage, cellular phone usage, and
insurance, for which they are not reimbursed.

Soothe is a multi-national massage service provider based out of
Los Angeles, California. The company allows users to request the
services of a massage therapist.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Frank J. Johnson, Esq.
          Chase M. Stem, Esq.
          JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1400
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 230 0063
          Facsimile: (619) 255 1856
          E-mail: FrankJ@johnsonfistel.com
                  ChaseS@johnsonfistel.com


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Judge Rejects Class Action Over Fingerprints
----------------------------------------------------------------
Associated Press reports that a Chicago federal judge has tossed a
proposed class-action lawsuit alleging Southwest Airlines violated
the law by requiring that certain employees use fingerprints to
sign into and out of work.

The Chicago Daily Law Bulletin reports that Judge Marvin Aspen
concluded a courtroom wasn't the proper venue to resolve what he
deemed a relatively minor dispute between unionized workers and a
company with a collective bargaining agreement. He said in a
decision that the right place was arbitration.

Several Southwest agents filed the lawsuit in federal court this
year. They argued that the use of fingerprints violated the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. It sought both an
injunction halting the practice and an order forcing the airline to
destroy any biometric data it gathered. [GN]


SPLC: Class Action Over Public Defender System Certified
--------------------------------------------------------
Southern Poverty Law Center reports that a Louisiana court has
certified a class action lawsuit from the SPLC that challenges the
constitutionality and funding structure of the state's overburdened
public defender system.

The lawsuit argues that the state's public defender system fails to
protect the rights of people who cannot afford to hire a lawyer.

The decision represents a significant step forward in the battle
against mass incarceration. It is also an unequivocal statement by
the Louisiana judiciary that it will not turn a blind eye to the
inadequacies of a funding scheme that relies primarily on fines and
fees generated through traffic tickets and sentences that are
imposed on poor people.

The case is set to go to trial in January.

"For decades, the state has allowed the public defense system to be
underfunded and unmonitored," said Lisa Graybill, deputy legal
director for the SPLC.  "This statewide problem demands a statewide
solution."

The court rejected arguments by Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards,
the state public defender, and the Louisiana Public Defender Board,
that sought to lay blame for the public defender system's failure
solely on the state Legislature.

Instead, the ruling recognizes that Edwards is ultimately
responsible for ensuring that the state meets its constitutional
obligation. It further recognizes that the state's alleged failure
to maintain an adequate public defender system affects all poor
defendants in the state.

Earlier this year, the Louisiana Public Defender Board issued an
annual report in which Chief Public Defender Jay Dixon acknowledged
the breakdown of the system.

"The workload of our attorneys is almost five times what it should
be," the report said. "Public defenders in Louisiana cannot
possibly provide constitutionally adequate representation with
workloads of this magnitude, and it is the poor of this state who
suffer for it."

The SPLC filed the lawsuit in February 2017 with the Lawyers'
Committee for Civil Rights Under Law and two prominent law firms:
Davis, Polk & Wardwell LLP; and Jones Walker LLP. [GN]


SURNAIK HOLDINGS: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Amended Barker Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOHN BARKER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SAURABH NAIK, et
al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 2:17-cv-04387 (S.D. W.V.), Judge
Thomas E. Johnston of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, Charleston Division, granted the
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint.

The case arises out of a warehouse fire in Parkersburg, West
Virginia.  The Plaintiffs are West Virginia citizens who bring the
action individually and seek certification of two classes of
persons defined as the Property Damage Class, which includes all
owneroccupants and renters of residential property within 1.5 miles
of the property boundary of the Defendant's #1 warehouse as of Oct.
21, 2017; and the Exposure Class, which includes all owners,
occupants and renters of residential property within 1.5 miles of
the property boundary of the Defendant's #1 warehouse as of Oct.
21, 2017.

The Defendants include Naik, an individual citizen of Maryland and
principal, owner, and/or executive owner of each of the Defendant
entities, Surnaik Holdings of WV, LLC, a West Virginia limited
liability company, Sirnaik, LLC, a West Virginia limited liability
company, Polymer Alliance Services, LLC, a West Virginia limited
liability company, Green Sustainable Solutions, LLC, a West
Virginia limited liability company, and Intercontinental Export
Import, Inc., a business corporation incorporated and with
headquarters in Maryland doing business in West Virginia.

The Amended Complaint alleges that on Oct. 21, 2017, a facility
owned by the Defendants caught fire and released smoke, soot,
pollutants, air contaminants, and noxious odors, causing material
injury to the Plaintiffs' property through negligence, gross
negligence and nuisance.  The Plaintiffs assert (1) public
nuisance; (2) private nuisance; (3) negligence; (4) gross
negligence; (5) trespass; (6) negligent infliction of emotional
distress; (7) medical monitoring; and (8) unjust enrichment.

The Plaintiffs request relief in the forms of compensatory,
special, and punitive damages, all appropriate medical monitoring
costs, and attorneys' fees and costs, including prejudgment and
post-judgment interest thereupon (all in amounts to be determined
at trial), equitable and injunctive relief for providing notice and
medical monitoring to the Plaintiffs and the Exposure Class and to
abate the damage to the Plaintiffs' properties, and such further
relief as the Court deems just and proper.

The Plaintiffs filed their original Complaint in the Circuit Court
of Wood County, West Virginia, on Oct. 30, 2017.  The Defendants
removed the case to the Court on Nov. 20, 2017.  In the Notice of
Removal, the Defendants assert that the Court has jurisdiction over
the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1332, as amended by the
Class Action Fairness Act of 2005.  The Defendants filed their
original Motion to Dismiss on Dec. 27, 2017.  The Plaintiffs
subsequently filed an Amended Complaint on Jan. 17, 2018.  The
Defendants then filed their current Motion to Dismiss on Jan. 31,
2018.  They ask the Court to dismiss all of the Plaintiffs' counts
except for Count VI.

Among other things, Judge Johnston finds that (i) the Plaintiffs
have not made any showing of a private nuisance; (ii) the
Plaintiffs fail to meet the requirements as articulated by the West
Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals regarding appropriate plaintiffs
for public nuisance claims; (iii) the Plaintiffs have failed to
sufficiently state a claim for negligence; (iv) the Plaintiffs have
not alleged sufficient facts to state a claim under the higher
standard of gross negligence; and (v) the Plaintiffs fail to
sufficiently allege facts to meet any of the elements necessary to
maintain a claim of unjust enrichment.

For these reasons, Judge Johnston granted the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss and dismissed Counts I, II, III, IV, V, VII, and VIII from
the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint.  He directed the Clerk to send a
copy of the Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented
party.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 10, 2018 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/C0FiTI from Leagle.com.

John Barker, Brenda Barker & Samantha Wilkinson, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
represented by James R. Leach, JIM LEACH, Nicholas A. Coulson --
info@LDclassaction.com -- LIDDLE & DUBIN, pro hac vice, Steven D.
Liddle, LIDDLE & DUBIN, pro hac vice & Victoria J. Sopranik, JIM
LEACH.

Saurabh Naik, Surnaik Holdings of WV, LLC, a West Virginia limited
liability company, Sirnaik LLC, a West Virginia limited liability
company, Polymer Alliance Services, LLC, a West Virginia limited
liability company, Green Sustainable Solutions, LLC, a West
Virginia limited liability company & Intercontinental Export
Import, Inc., Defendants, represented by Bradley K. Shafer --
bshafer@defensecounsel.com -- MINTZER SAROWITZ ZERIS LEDVA &
MEYERS, Isaac Ralston Forman -- iforman@hfdrlaw.com -- HISSAM
FORMAN DONOVAN RITCHIE, Jason G. Wehrle --
jwehrle@defensecounsel.com -- MINTZER SAROWITZ ZERIS LEDVA &
MEYERS, Jennings L. Hart, III -- jhart@defensecounsel.com --
MINTZER SAROWITZ ZERIS LEDVA & MEYERS, Jonathan Zak Ritchie, BAILEY
& GLASSER, Michael B. Hissam, BAILEY & GLASSER & Ryan McCune
Donovan, BAILEY & GLASSER.


T&B MANAGEMENT: Class of Servers, Bartenders Certified in "Chavez"
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Thomas D. Schroeder entered a memorandum opinion and order
in the lawsuit titled VANESSA CHAVEZ, AMY BERLAK, BROOKE GRAHAM,
and MELISSA VARNER, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. T&B MANAGEMENT, LLC, and T&B CONCEPTS OF
HICKORY, LLC, each d/b/a HICKORY TAVERN, Case No.
1:16-cv-01019-TDS-JEP (M.D.N.C.), ruling that the Plaintiffs'
motion for conditional certification is granted in part as to the
Fair Labor Standards Act collective, defined as:

     All former and current tipped server and bartender employees
     at all Hickory Tavern restaurants from June 23, 2014, to
     May 2016.

The Plaintiffs' proposed notice is approved, except that the FLSA
collective definition shall be changed to "All former and current
tipped server and bartender employees at all Hickory Tavern
restaurants from June 23, 2014, to May 2016," and the opt-in period
will extend to 90 days from the date the notice is mailed to
putative class members.

The Court authorized the Plaintiffs' counsel to send the approved
notice by first-class U.S. mail to the last known address of each
putative plaintiff, who was employed by Hickory Tavern before the
policy change in May of 2016, within 14 days of the entry of this
order.  The Plaintiffs' counsel is also authorized to send an
electronic copy of the approved notice to the personal e-mail
address (for former employees) or work e-mail address (for current
employees) of each putative plaintiff, who was employed by Hickory
Tavern before the policy change in May of 2016, within 14 days of
the entry of this order.

Judge Schroeder authorized the Plaintiffs' counsel to re-mail
notices/postcards that are returned as undeliverable for those
individuals for whom counsel can find better addresses.  The
Plaintiffs' counsel is permitted to send by first-class U.S. mail a
reminder postcard to potential opt-in plaintiffs who have not
returned their Consent Form, 45 days before the expiration of the
opt-in period.

The Defendants will post the approved notice in a conspicuous place
in each of its Hickory Tavern restaurants within 14 days of the
entry of this order.  The Defendant will provide the Plaintiffs'
counsel the names, addresses, and e-mail addresses of all
collective members, who were employed by Hickory Tavern before the
policy change in May of 2016, within seven days of the entry of
this order.


TATA CONSULTANCY: Bid for Judgment on Pleadings in Slaight Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHRISTOPHER SLAIGHT, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. TATA
CONSULTANCY SERVICES, LTD., Defendant, Case No. 15-cv-01696-YGR
(N.D. Cal.), Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California denied the
Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings.

Slaight, Seyed Amir Masoudi, and Nobel Mandili1 bring the class
action against TCS for discrimination in employment practices.  The
Plaintiffs bring causes of action for disparate treatment under
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,  and the Civil Rights
Act of 1866.

The Plaintiffs allege that TCS discriminated against them in their
employment and/or termination practices based on race and national
origin.  Specifically, they claim that TCS maintains a pattern and
practice of intentional discrimination in its United States
workforce whereby TCS treats persons who are South Asian or of
Indian national origin more favorably than those who are not South
Asian or of Indian national origin.

The Class Representatives represent the class of all individuals
who are not of South Asian race or Indian national origin who were
employed by TCS in the United States, were subject to a policy or
practice of benching and allocation, were place in an unallocated
status and were terminated between April 14, 2011 and Dec. 27, 2017
and who are not bound by an arbitration agreement with TCS."

By way of the fourth amended complaint, the Class seeks declaratory
and injunctive relief.  Specifically, the class seeks (i) a
declaratory judgment that the practices of which the Plaintiffs
complain are unlawful and violate Title VIII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 as well as the Civil Rights Act of 1866; (ii) an
injunction against TCS and its officers, agents, employees, and
others acting in concert with them from engaging in unlawful
policies, practices, customs, and usages as described in the
complaint; (iii) an order directing TCS to adopt valid
non-discriminatory method for hiring, placement, termination, and
other employment decisions; and (iv) an order directing TCS to post
notices concerning its duty to refrain from discriminating against
employees on the basis of race or national origin.

Now before the Court is TCS' motion for partial judgment on the
pleadings regarding the declaratory and injunctive relief sought by
the Class Representatives and the class.  It, on the eve of trial,
raises the argument that because the operative complaint does not
include any allegation that either the Class Representatives or
other members of the class actually requested reinstatement or
sought or are actively seeking reemployment with TCS, TCS is
entitled to judgment as to the Plaintiffs' claims for injunctive
relief.

It also contends that the Class Representatives failed to describe
or otherwise identify any plans to resume employment with TCS in
their declarations in support of the class certification, in their
responses to TCS' interrogatories and document requests, or during
their depositions.

Judge Rogers
finds that the complaint, both in its operative form as the Fourth
Amended Complaint and in its original form, filed April 15, 2015,
put TCS on notice of the Plaintiffs' claim for injunctive relief,
and apparently, the issue was litigated.  Had this motion been
brought at the outset of the litigation, the pleading issue could
have been resolved.

As shown by the Plaintiffs' declarations, the Judge holds that she
cannot, at this late juncture, consider the omissions in the
pleadings as having established some fact.  Instead, the motion
reveals a hail-Mary effort at limiting the scope of relief.  The
instant motion is not only untimely, but also constitutes a
back-door attempt by TCS to re-litigate the issue of certification.


The Court ordered a deadline of May 29, 2018 for TCS's motion for
decertification, and TCS so filed.  TCS raised the issue of
standing for injunctive relief in passing in its motion for
decertification, but failed to succeed.  TCS filed the instant
motion, nearly a month and a half after the Court's deadline for
the decertification motion, which essentially reiterates TCS's
argument in its decertification motion that the Class
Representatives are not adequate representatives as to the
declaratory and injunctive relief sought by the class.  The Court
denied TCS's motion for decertification on July 23, 2018.  TCS
could have also raised the issue at the summary judgment stage and
failed to do so.

Accordingly, for the reasons she discussed, Judge Rogers denied
TCS' motion for partial judgment on the pleadings.  The Order
terminates Docket Numbers 398 and 436.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 10, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/uW6XSF from Leagle.com.

Brian Buchanan & Christopher Slaight, Plaintiffs, represented by
Daniel A. Kotchen -- dkotchen@kotchen.com -- Kotchen & Low LLP,
Daniel Lee Low -- dlow@kotchen.com -- Kotchen and Low LLP, Michael
J. von Klemperer -- mvonklemperer@kotchen.com -- Kotchen and Low
LLP, Lindsey Grunert -- ltremaine@kotchen.com -- Kotchen and Low
LLP, Michael F. Brown -- mbrown@dvglawpartner.com -- DVG Law
Partner LLC & Steven Gregory Tidrick -- sgt@tidricklaw.com -- The
Tidrick Law Firm.

Seyed Amir Masoudi & Nobel Mandili, Plaintiffs, represented by
Lindsey Grunert, Kotchen and Low LLP, Michael J. von Klemperer,
Kotchen and Low LLP & Daniel A. Kotchen , Kotchn & Low LLP.

Tata Consultancy Services, Ltd, Defendant, represented by Michelle
M. LaMar -- mlamar@loeb.com -- Loeb & Loeb LLP, Bernard Robert
Given, II -- bgiven@loeb.com -- Loeb & Loeb, Erin Michelle Smith --
esmith@loeb.com -- Loeb and Loeb LLP, Laura Ann Wytsma --
lwytsma@loeb.com -- Loeb & Loeb LLP, Patrick Norton Downes --
pdownes@loeb.com -- Loeb And Loeb LLP, Terry D. Garnett --
tgarnett@loeb.com -- Loeb & Loeb LLP & William Michael Brody --
wbrody@loeb.com -- Loeb & Loeb.

Apple Inc., Movant, represented by Danielle Conley --
DANIELLE.CONLEY@WILMERHALE.COM -- Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale &
Dorr LLP, Kathryn Diane Zalewski -- KATHRYN.ZALEWSKI@WILMERHALE.COM
-- Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP & Kimberly A. Parker --
KIMBERLY.PARKER@WILMERHALE.COM -- Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale &
Dorr LLP.


TD AMERITRADE: Court Certifies Class of Clients in Klein Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Joseph F. Bataillon entered a memorandum and order in the
lawsuit captioned GERALD J. KLEIN, on behalf of himself and all
similarly situated v. TD AMERITRADE HOLDING CORPORATION, TD
AMERITRADE, INC., and FREDRIC TOMCZYK, Case No.
8:14-cv-00396-JFB-SMB (D. Neb.), certifying a class consisting of:

     All clients of TD Ameritrade between September 15, 2011 and
     September 15, 2014 who placed orders that did not receive
     best execution, in connection with which TD Ameritrade
     received either liquidity rebates or payment for order flow,
     and who were thereby damaged (the "Class").

Judge Bataillon rules that Plaintiff Roderick Ford's objection to
the Findings and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate
Judge is sustained.  The Findings and Recommendation of the United
States Magistrate Judge are adopted in part and rejected in part as
set forth in the Order.

The Plaintiff's motion for class certification, appointment of
class representative, and appointment of class counsel is granted.
Lead plaintiff Roderick Ford is appointed class representative and
the Clerk of Court is directed to modify the case caption
accordingly.  The law firm of Levi & Korsinsky LLP is appointed
class counsel.

The parties are directed to contact the chambers of Magistrate
Judge Susan M. Bazis within seven days of the date of this order to
arrange further progression of this action.


TERRA INDUSTRIES: Sued by Priebe for Not Paying Minimum, OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DALE JOHN PRIEBE as an individual and on behalf of all employees
similarly situated v. TERRA INDUSTRIES, LLC, a California Limited
Liability Corporation; TIM CONNER, an individual; and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
BC721312 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., September 13, 2018),
alleges that the Defendants violated California labor codes
relating to their failure to pay minimum wages and to pay overtime
and double overtime wages, among other violations.

TERRA is a privately held California limited liability company
headquartered in Redondo Beach, California.  TERRA provides general
contracting throughout California.  Tim Conner is and was the agent
of TERRA.  The Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and
capacities of the Doe Defendants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
          Alexander Perez, Esq.
          MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC
          249 E. Ocean Boulevard, Suite 814
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: (562) 590-5550
          Facsimile: (562) 590-8400
          E-mail: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net
                  aperez@mahoney-law.net


TERRACE DINER: Underpays Busboys, Clemente Santos Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
CLEMENTE SANTOS, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. TERRACE DINER HOLDINGS, LLC (D/B/A
TERRACE DINER), PETER KAORIS, and JIMMY PAPGEORGE, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:18-cv-05138 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 12, 2018), seeks to recover
unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law, including
applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys’ fees and
costs.

According to the complaint, Mr. Santos was employed as a busboy at
the diner located at 212-97 26th Avenue, Bayside, New York 11360.
While the Plaintiff was ostensibly employed as a busboy, he was
required to spend a considerable part of his work day performing
non-tipped duties, including but not limited to sweeping and
mopping, accommodating and preparing deliveries, preparing salads,
throwing out the garbage, deconstructing and tying boxes, cleaning
the refrigerators, stocking the fridges, bringing up milk, cups,
soup, and coffee from the basement to the kitchen, and cutting
lemons and pickles (non-tipped duties).

The Plaintiff worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week,
without appropriate minimum wage and overtime compensation for the
hours that he worked. Rather, Defendants failed to maintain
accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked, and to pay Plaintiff
appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of
pay or for any additional overtime premium. Furthermore, the
Defendants repeatedly failed to pay Plaintiff wages on a timely
basis.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          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: faillace@employementcompliance.com


TESLA INC: Robbins Geller Files Securities Fraud Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Aug. 28 disclosed that a class
action has been commenced on behalf of purchasers of Tesla, Inc.
(NASDAQ: TSLA) securities during the period between August 7, 2018
and August 17, 2018 (the "Class Period"). This action was filed in
the Northern District of California and is captioned Horwitz v.
Tesla, Inc., et al., No. 18-cv-5258.

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any
investor who purchased Tesla 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 10, 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/teslainc/.

The complaint charges Tesla and its Chief Executive Officer and
Chairman of the Board, Elon Musk, with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. Tesla designs, develops, manufactures and
sells electric vehicles and energy generation and storage systems
in the United States and internationally.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued false and misleading statements about the prospects of
taking the Company private in a series of statements by Musk issued
on Twitter.com. Specifically, the complaint alleges these
statements were false and misleading because they misrepresented
and/or failed to disclose adverse facts regarding the potential
going-private transaction, including that funding for the
transaction was not secured at the time of Musk's tweets, the Board
was not aware of the plan to take Tesla private, and advisors for
such a transaction had not been retained. As a result of these
false statements and/or omissions, Tesla securities traded at
artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.

On August 7, 2018, Musk issued a tweet that stated: "Am considering
taking Tesla private at $420. Funding secured." Later that day,
Musk issued another tweet stating: "Investor support is confirmed.
Only reason why this is not certain is that it's contingent on a
shareholder vote." After these tweets were issued, Tesla's stock
price rapidly increased, reaching an intra-day high of $387.46 per
share, $45.47 per share higher than the previous day's closing
price, before closing at $379.57 per share on August 7, 2018, a
one-day increase of $37.58 per share.

On August 8, 2018, there were reports in the media that the SEC was
making inquiries regarding the veracity of the tweets sent by Musk
and the reason the disclosures were made via a social media posting
rather than a filing with the SEC. On this news, Tesla's stock
price declined $9.23 per share to close at $370.34 per share on
August 8, 2018.

On August 13, 2018, Musk tweeted: "I'm excited to work with Silver
Lake and Goldman Sachs as financial advisors, plus Wachtell,
Lipton, Rosen & Katz and Munger, Tolles & Olson as legal advisors,
on the proposal to take Tesla private." On August 14, 2018,
Bloomberg reported that Goldman Sachs and Silver Lake had not
officially signed on when Musk issued his tweet on August 13,
2018.

Then on August 17, 2018, The New York Times published an interview
with Musk in which he described the circumstances leading up to his
tweets, including his high stress level and his use of Ambien to
cope with the stress. On this news, the price of Tesla stock
declined $29.95 per share to close at $305.50 per share on August
17, 2018.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Tesla 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.  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]


TRADER JOE'S: Brumfield Appeals Order and Judgment to 2nd Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Tyoka Brumfield and Cynthia Torocsik filed an appeal
from a District Court order dated August 30, 2018, and judgment
dated August 31, 2018, in their lawsuit titled Brumfield, et al. v.
Trader Joe's Company, et al., Case No. 17-cv-3239, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York
City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
accuses the Defendant of false, misleading, and deceptive
misbranding of its Trader Joe's Black Truffle Flavored Extra Virgin
Olive Oil sold to consumers.

Trader Joe's markets its truffle oil as being flavored by actual
"Black Truffle[s]."  But Trader Joe's Truffle Oil is nothing of the
sort; instead of flavoring its oil with actual "Black Truffle[s],"
the Defendant's Product is flavored by an industrially produced,
chemically-derived perfume known as "2,4-dithiapentane," says the
complaint.

The appellate case is captioned as Brumfield, et al. v. Trader
Joe's Company, et al., Case No. 18-2721, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants Tyoka Brumfield, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, and Cynthia Torocsik,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are
represented by:

          Joshua David Arisohn, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 7th Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (646) 837-7150
          E-mail: jarisohn@bursor.com

Defendant-Appellee Trader Joe's Company is represented by:

          Dawn Sestito, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          400 South Hope Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 430-6352
          E-mail: dsestito@omm.com

Defendant-Appellee Dotta Foods LP is represented by:

          Leonard Frederick Lesser, Esq.
          SIMON LESSER PC
          420 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10170
          Telephone: (212) 599-5455
          E-mail: llesser@simonlesser.com

Defendant-Appellee F.J. Sanchez Sucesores, S.A.U., is represented
by:

          Jeffrey Warshafsky, Esq.
          PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
          11 Times Square
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 969-3241
          E-mail: jwarshafsky@proskauer.com


TRES AMIGOS: Flynn Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
----------------------------------------------
Kiley Flynn and Gloria Toroveci, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Tres Amigos, Inc. et al., Case No.
2:18-cv-12426 (E.D. Mich., August 6, 2018), is brought against the
Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Michigan Workforce Opportunity Wage Act.

The Plaintiff, Kiley Flynn, is a resident of the County of Wayne,
State of Michigan. She worked for Defendants as a server from
January 1, 2016 until July 20, 2018.

The Plaintiff, Gloria Toroveci, is a resident of the County of
Wayne, State of Michigan. She worked for Defendants as a hostess
and a server from August 2015 until March 2017.

The Defendants own and operate a large chain of restaurants
throughout Michigan, commonly known as Los Tres Amigos. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
      Charles R. Ash, IV, Esq.
      SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
      One Towne Square, Suite 1700
      Southfield, MI 48076
      Tel: (248) 355-0300
      Fax: (248) 436-8453
      E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com
              crash@sommerspc.com

          - and -

      Heidi T. Sharp, Esq.
      Syeda F. Davidson, Esq.
      BURGESS, SHARP & GOLDEN PLLC.
      43260 Garfield Road, Suite 280
      Clinton Township, MI 48038
      Tel: (586) 226-2627
      E-mail: syeda@bsglawfirm.com


TRI-COUNTY ELECTRIC: Court Dismisses Smith Suit
-----------------------------------------------
Judge J. Michelle Childs of the U.S. District Court for the
District of South Carolina, Columbia Division, dismissed the case,
Roy C. Smith, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Tri-County Electric Cooperative, Inc.,
Defendant, Civil Action No. 3:18-cv-01395-JMC (D. S.C.).

Smith, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
filed the putative class action against the Defendant, seeking
declaratory relief and injunctive relief for an alleged breach of
contract.

The matter is before the court by way of the Plaintiff's Motion for
Temporary Restraining Order ("TRO"), pursuant to Rule 65(b) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, seeking to impede the special
meeting of the Defendant's board members presently scheduled to
begin on Aug. 18, 2018 at 8:00 a.m.

Judge Childs finds that the Court does not have jurisdiction to
rule on the Plaintiff's Motion for TRO and will dismiss the case.


On May 22, 2018, Plaintiff filed the action against the Defendant
alleging that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the
action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1331 -- federal question
jurisdiction.  However, the only substantive allegation in the
Complaint is a state law claim for breach of contract.  Because it
possesses limited jurisdiction, the Court is required to be mindful
that the validity of an order of a federal court depends upon that
the Court's having jurisdiction over both the subject matter and
the parties.

Upon review of the Plaintiff's filings, the Judge only found
reference to two federal statutes, 26 U.S.C. Section 501(c)(12) and
28 U.S.C. Section 2201.2 Section 501(c)(12) does not confer federal
subject matter jurisdiction based on the allegations presented by
the Plaintiff.  Moreover, Section 2201 is ineffectual in the
context of the Plaintiff's breach of contract claim because claims
under Section 2201 require the Court to have an independent basis
of federal jurisdiction, for that statute is unable to create
jurisdiction where none otherwise exists.

In the regard, teh Judge holds that even though the Plaintiff cites
to 26 U.S.C. Section 501(c)(12) and 28 U.S.C. Section 2201 to
support subject matter jurisdiction, these specific statutes do not
confer such jurisdiction.  As a result of the foregoing, Judge
Childs concludes that the Court does not have jurisdiction over the
matter to adjudicate the Plaintiff's Motion for TRO.  Accordingly,
she dismissed the action.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 17, 2018 Order and Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/ddYt6L from Leagle.com.

Roy C Smith, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Graham Lee Newman --
gnewman@csa-law.com -- Chappell Smith and Arden, Mark Dale Chappell
-- mchappell@csa-law.com -- Chappell and Smith, Mark Dale Chappell,
Jr. --  mchappelljr@csa-law.com -- Chappell Smith and Arden &
William Hugh McAngus, Jr. -- hmcangus@csa-law.com -- Chappell Smith
and Arden.

Tri-County Electric Cooperative Inc, Defendant, represented by
Alexandra Harrington Austin -- AAustin@nexsenpruet.com -- Nexsen
Pruet & J. David Black -- dblack@nexsenpruet.com -- Nexsen Pruet
Jacobs and Pollard.


TRISTAR PRODUCTS: Arizona Appeals Ruling in Chapman Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Movants Arizona Attorney General's Office and the state of Arizona
filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Kenneth
Chapman, et al. v. Tristar Products, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-01114,
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio at
Cleveland.

The appellate case is captioned as Kenneth Chapman, et al. v.
Tristar Products, Inc., Case No. 18-3866, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Sept. 19, 2018, Judge
James S. Gwin (i) approved the class settlement, (ii) granted in
part the attorney fee request, and (iii) denied the Ohio class
counsel's request for expenses.

The parties' proposed settlement applies nationwide to
approximately 3.2 million Tristar pressure cooker purchasers.  The
settlement offers several types of relief to the class members.
Importantly, to obtain any other relief, the class members must
verify that they have watched or read a transcript of a safety
video created to teach users the safe operation of their pressure
cookers.  Assuming they complete that step, the class members can
submit a claim to receive a $72.50 credit off of one of three
Tristar products.

These products are an updated version of the pressure cooker at
issue in the case (arguably with a better latching lid mechanism),
a power air fryer, or an induction cooktop set.  Each of these
products cost about $159, and the class members must pay the
difference between the product's retail cost and the value of the
credit, plus any shipping and handling fees.  Further, the class
members must buy the product directly from Defendant Tristar and
cannot combine the $72.50 credit with any other promotions
Defendant Tristar may offer.  The credit expires after 90 days.

In addition to the $72.50 credit, the settlement gives the class
members a one-year warranty extension on their Tristar pressure
cookers.  Defendant Tristar offers a similar six-year warranty to
all consumers for $30, and so the approximate value of the one-year
warranty extension is $5.  Under the settlement, Tristar also
agrees to pay up to $890,000 in notice and claims administration
costs.

Judge Gwin granted the parties' motion to approve the proposed
settlement.  He certified the nationwide class as defined in the
proposed settlement.  He also approved $7,500 incentive awards for
Plaintiffs Chapman, Vennel, and Jackson, and a $6,000 incentive
award for Plaintiff Pinon.  Finally, the Court granted in part and
denied in part the class counsel's motion for attorney's fees and
costs.  He approved $1,980,382 for the class counsel's fees, and
denied the Ohio class counsel's request for expenses.

The Movants have also previously filed an appeal in the lawsuit.
That appellate case is styled Kenneth Chapman, et al. v. Tristar
Products, Inc., Case No. 18-3847.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees KENNETH CHAPMAN, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated; JESSICA VENNEL, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated; JASON JACKSON, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; and EDWINA
PINON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
are represented by:

          Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
          Arthur Stock, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE P.C.
          1818 Market Streets, Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          E-mail: scarson@bm.net
                  astock@bm.net

               - and -

          Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
          Adam A. Edwards, Esq.
          Mark E. Silvey, Esq.
          Lisa A. White, Esq.
          GREG COLEMAN LAW
          800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
          Knoxville, TN 37929
          Telephone: (865) 247-0080
          E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com
                  adam@gregcolemanlaw.com
                  mark@gregcolemanlaw.com
                  lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com

               - and -

          Jack Landskroner, Esq.
          Drew T. Legando, Esq.
          LANDSKRONER GRIECO MERRIMAN LLC
          1360 W. Ninth Street, Suite 200
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 522-9000
          E-mail: jack@lgmlegal.com
                  drew@lgmlegal.com

               - and -

          Tyler J. Story, Esq.
          Edward A. Wallace, Esq.
          WEXLER WALLACE LLP Wexler Wallace
          55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 3300
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 346-2222
          E-mail: tjs@wexlerwallace.com
                  eaw@wexlerwallace.com

Defendant-Appellee TRISTAR PRODUCTS, INC., is represented by:

          Zachary J. Adams, Esq.
          Madeline Dennis, Esq.
          John Q. Lewis, Esq.
          TUCKER ELLIS LLP
          950 Main Avenue, Suite 1100
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 592-5000
          E-mail: zachary.adams@tuckerellis.com
                  madeline.dennis@tuckerellis.com
                  john.lewis@tuckerellis.com

               - and -

          Hugh J. Bode, Esq.
          Brian D. Sullivan, Esq.
          REMINGER CO. LPA
          101 W. Prospect Avenue, Suite 1400
          Cleveland, OH 44115
          Telephone: (216) 687-1311
          E-mail: hbode@reminger.com
                  bsullivan@reminger.com

               - and -

          Roger A. Colaizzi, Esq.
          VENABLE LLP
          600 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 344-4000
          E-mail: racolaizzi@venable.com

               - and -

          Matthew Charles O'Connell, Esq.
          Nathan F. Studeny, Esq.
          SUTTER O'CONNELL
          1301 E. Ninth Street, Suite 3600
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Telephone: (216) 928-2200
          E-mail: moconnell@sutter-law.com
                  nstudeny@sutter-law.com

Movants-Appellants ARIZONA ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE and STATE OF
ARIZONA are represented by:

          Drew Curtis Ensign, Esq.
          Oramel H. Skinner, Esq.
          Barry H. Uhrman, Esq.
          Dana R. Vogel, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          2005 N. Central Avenue
          Phoenix, AZ 85004
          Telephone: (602) 542-5252
          E-mail: drew.ensign@azag.gov
                  o.h.skinner@azag.gov
                  Barry.Uhrman@azag.gov
                  dana.vogel@azag.gov


TUOLUMNE COUNTY, CA: Ct. Won't Approve Kerzich FLSA Suit Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARK KERZICH and TIMOTHY WERTZ, on behalf of
themselves and all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v.
COUNTY OF TUOLUMNE, Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-01116-DAD-SAB (E.D.
Cal.), Judge Dale A. Drozd of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California denied the Plaintiffs' unopposed
motion for approval of a settlement under the Fair Labor Standards
Act ("FLSA") filed on March 6, 2018.

The complaint in the action was filed on July 28, 2016, alleging
that the Defendants had violated the FLSA by under-paying municipal
employees' overtime when the employees accepted cash in lieu of
health care benefits, following the holding in Flores v. City of
San Gabriel.  A scheduling order was entered on Nov. 1, 2016,
setting a deadline for non-expert discovery to be completed by June
9, 2017 and expert discovery to be completed by Sept. 20, 2017.  

Prior to the passing of the discovery deadline, the parties
stipulated to conditional certification of the action on Feb. 23,
2017.  No substantive motion practice took place.  A magistrate
judge of the Court held two separate settlement conferences in the
action, one on Oct. 2, 2017 and one on Oct. 23, 2017.  A settlement
was reached following the second such conference.

The proposed settlement essentially encompasses three theories of
liability the Plaintiffs have alleged against the Defendant.  The
first follows Flores directly, and alleges that any cash payments
made to the Plaintiffs in lieu of healthcare benefits must be
included in the calculation of overtime wages.  The second theory
is an expansion of the holding in Flores, and seeks to have the
total payments for healthcare benefits made by defendant on behalf
of the Plaintiffs included in the calculation of overtime,
regardless of whether they were paid as cash directly to the
Plaintiffs or were in the form of healthcare benefits secured for
the Plaintiffs.  Finally, the Plaintiffs seek to settle what they
denote as their "canine claim," which concerns alleged underpayment
of the Defendant's canine police officers.

The settlement agreement proposes a total payment of $375,000.
This total amount is designated to the following categories:
$195,000 in damages to the Plaintiffs for both Flores theories of
liability; $25,000 in damages for the canine claim; $5,000 total as
incentive payments, awarding $2,500 each to Plaintiffs Kerzich and
Wertz; and $150,000 in attorneys' fees and costs to the Plaintiffs'
counsel.

The Plaintiffs also request that a further 20% of the damages
amounts and incentive payments be paid to their counsel as
additional attorneys' fees.  Thus, the counsel seeks an ultimate
award of $195,000 in attorneys' fees and costs.  The total award to
be paid to the members of the collective on behalf of whom this
case was brought is therefore $180,000.

Taking the full value of the Flores claims in the case as
calculated by the Plaintiffs' counsel and adding to it the
liquidated damages, Judge Drozd finds that the total potential
recovery appears to be $664,433.26.  According to the discounting
Plaintiffs' counsel represents was appropriate -- a 25% discount of
the cash-in-lieu claim and a 75% discount of the total benefits
theory claim -- the value of the Flores claims in the case would
therefore appear to be $320,769.07.  However, the proposed
settlement provides only for the payment of $195,000 in damages for
these claims, which is approximately 60% of their
already-discounted value.

In the Judge's view, the counsel has not yet provided a
satisfactory explanation why these claims were discounted by an
additional 40% beyond what the counsel considered to be a
reasonable approximation of the value of the claims.  While he must
reject the settlement as proposed due to the structuring of
attorneys' fees as discussed above, the parties should bear in mind
the Court's comments if they attempt to seek court approval of any
future proposed settlement.

For the reasons given, Judge Drozd denied without prejudice the
Plaintiffs' motion for approval of the FLSA settlement to the
parties attempting to settle the action in a manner that remedies
the deficiencies identified.  The case is referred back to the
assigned magistrate judge for further scheduling.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 14, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/lsjE6A from Leagle.com.

Mark Kerzich, on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated
individuals & Timothy Wertz, on behalf of themselves and all
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, represented by Gary
Marc Messing -- gary@majlabor.com -- Messing Adam & Jasmine LLP,
Jason H. Jasmine -- jason@majlabor.com -- Messing Adam & Jasmine
LLP & Donald Paul Bird, II -- Paul@MAJLabor.com -- Messing Adam &
Jasmine LLP.

County of Tuolumne, Defendant, represented by Arthur A. Hartinger
-- ahartinger@publiclawgroup.com -- Renne Sloan Holtzman Sakai, LLC
& Kevin P. McLaughlin, Renne Sloan Holtzman Sakai LLP.


UBS: Settles Class Action Over Disabilities Act Violations
----------------------------------------------------------
Miriam Rozen, writing for Financial Advisor IQ, reports that
wirehouse UBS and regional powerhouse brokerage Edward Jones each
recently settled with Luc Burbon, a blind resident of Queens, N.Y.,
who has filed dozens of proposed class-action lawsuits based on
allegations that visually-impaired and blind individuals cannot
access the firms' websites.

On Aug. 14, U.S. District Judge Edgardo Ramos, the federal judge
presiding in Mr. Burbon's case against UBS, issued an order stating
it had been advised of the settlement. Previously, on July 27, U.S.
District Judge Katherine Polk Failla issued an order of
discountenance in the case against Edward Jones, with the
expectation the two sides would be filing a stipulation of
settlement.

In each case, both filed in New York federal court, Mr. Burbon
alleged the defendants violated the Americans with Disabilities Act
by failing to design, construct, maintain, and operate websites
that are fully accessible to and independently usable by millions
of visually-impaired persons protected under that federal law.

"People settle lawsuits for all kinds of reasons," says Lewis
Wiener, a law partner in the Washington, D.C. office of Eversheds
Sutherland, who represents Edward Jones. Wiener declined to comment
about the specifics of his client's confidential settlement. But if
allegations in the complaint are true "any responsible party would
want to address them so they didn't give rise to future lawsuits,"
he says.

Lawyers at Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, UBS's defense counsel, did not
return a request for comment for this story. Prior to the
settlement, UBS spokeswoman Erica Chase said, "We don't think this
action has merit. We're fully committed to and continue to spend
significant resources on making our website fully accessible to all
our customers."

"We are pleased to have resolved this case on mutually agreeable
terms. UBS is fully committed to and continues to spend significant
resources on making our website fully accessible to all our
customers," a UBS spokesman tells FA-IQ for this article.

In the complaint against UBS, Mr. Burbon argued: "In today's
tech-savvy world, blind and visually-impaired people have the
ability to access websites using keyboards in conjunction with
screen access software that vocalizes the visual information found
on a computer screen or displays the content on a refreshable
Braille display. This technology is known as screen-reading
software. Screen-reading software is currently the only method a
blind or visually-impaired person may independently access the
internet. Unless websites are designed to be read by screen-reading
software, blind and visually-impaired persons are unable to fully
access websites, and the information, products, and services
contained thereon."

Plaintiff lawyers began filing these lawsuits by the dozens in 2018
"to fill a vacuum" created after December 2017, when the Trump
administration withdrew a previously-announced advance notice of
rulemaking setting guidelines for website accessibility, according
to Mr. Wiener. The plaintiff lawyers pursuing these claims have
seized on a legally strategic moment – when the federal
government offers no guidance about website accessibility
requirements and a split persists among the federal circuit courts
about exactly what constitutes an ADA violation for websites,
Wiener says.

Typically plaintiff lawyers pursuing the claims use off-the-shelf
software that identifies alleged deficiencies in the accessibility
of websites, Mr. Wiener says. That software, however, fails to
distinguish nuances, such as differences between a website's
drop-down box and its functionally insignificant images -- a
decorative photograph of a daffodil, for example, Wiener says. So
the software analysis provides only a rough -- and often inaccurate
-- measure of a website's accessibility for the visually impaired,
Wiener says.

Yet the evidentiary record that plaintiff lawyers create with the
software is enough to prevent their cases from being dismissed as
frivolous in the early stages of litigation, Mr. Wiener says.
Therefore, most defendant wealth managers, if they don't settle,
should expect to have to endure the expense of answering discovery
requests (usually the most costly aspect of most lawsuits) before
they secure any favorable opportunity to persuade a court to
dismiss the claims, Wiener says.

Facing such odds, the corporate defendants that have settled with
plaintiffs typically sign agreements with confidentially clauses,
Wiener says.

Although he declines to detail the legal strategy he provided
Edward Jones, Wiener offers advise to other brokerage houses and
financial advisory firms facing potential ADA lawsuits because of
their websites' inaccessibility: "An ostrich can only protect one
end at a time. If you have reasons to believe there may be issues
with your website, be proactive. Hoping that you are not going to
be sued is a lousy strategy," he says. [GN]


UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Court Denies Trujillo's Bid to Certify Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. John F. Walter denied without prejudice the Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification in the lawsuit captioned David
Trujillo, etc., et al. v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc., et al., Case
No. 5:17-cv-02547-JFW-KK (C.D. Cal.).

Judge Walter denies the Plaintiffs' Motion without prejudice to
filing a First Amended Complaint and Renewed Motion for Class
Certification.

In this putative class action, Plaintiffs David Trujillo and Deanna
Harden challenge United's alleged practices in denying coverage for
prosthetic devices for persons suffering from upper and lower limb
loss.  Specifically, the Plaintiffs claim that United has failed to
ensure that benefit claim determinations are made in accordance
with governing plan documents, failed to establish reasonable
claims procedures, and failed to provide adequate notice of adverse
benefit determinations in violation of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act.

In their Motion, the Plaintiffs broaden their class definition, and
now seek certification of this class:

     All persons covered under health plans insured or
     administered by United Health Group, Inc., through its
     wholly-owned and controlled subsidiaries, including United
     Healthcare Insurance Company and United Healthcare Services,
     Inc., issued to private employers, whose requests for
     prosthetic arm and leg devices have been denied during the
     applicable statute of limitations.

According to the Court's civil minutes, the Court finds it
unnecessary to expressly rule on this issue because the class
definition in both the Motion and Complaint is overbroad, and
without appropriate subclasses, presents commonality and typicality
obstacles to certification.  Accordingly, given the early stage of
this litigation and in an effort to avoid future class
certification issues, the Court concludes that the Plaintiffs
should be afforded an opportunity to amend their Complaint to
allege a new class (and, if necessary, subclasses) that will
eliminate the existing conflict in the class definitions.

The Plaintiffs shall file their First Amended Complaint on or
before September 24, 2018, and, thereafter, shall promptly file
their Renewed Motion for Class Certification, rules the Court.  In
their First Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs shall include
specific factual allegations regarding each of the "wrongful"
practices that the Plaintiffs contend support their claims.


UNIVERSAL HANDICRAFT: Settlement in Mollicone Has Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Lisa Mollicone, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Universal Handicraft
d/b/a Deep Sea Cosmetics d/b/a Adore Organic Innovations, and
others, Defendants, Civil Action No. 17-21468-Civ-Scola (S.D.
Fla.), Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr. of the U.S District Court for the
Southern District of Florida granted (i) the parties' Joint Motion
for Final of the Settlement in the Action, and (ii) the Plaintiffs'
Unopposed Application for Service Awards and for Class Counsel's
Attorneys' Fees and Expenses.

The matter came before the Court on Aug. 10, 2018 for a Final
Approval Hearing pursuant to the Court's Preliminary Approval
Order.  Judge Scoal carefully reviewed all of the filings related
to the Settlement and heard argument on the Joint Motion for Final
Approval and the Plaintiffs' Application for Service Awards and for
Class Counsel's Attorneys' Fees and Expenses.

After full consideration of the Motion for Final Approval and the
presentations of the Parties, he concludes that the Settlement
provides substantial recovery for the Settlement Class Members and
is a good result under the circumstances and challenges presented
by the Action, and is not a product of collusion.  Therefore, he
granted the joint motion, granted the Final Approval of the
Settlement.

The Judge certified, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23, the Settlement Class consists of all persons in the United
States who purchased, at any time between Sept. 29, 2012 and April
13, 2018, one or more of the subject Adore Products marketed as
containing a plant stem cell formula.

The Judge appointed Mollicone and Millie Land as the Class
Representatives; the Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron, APLC and
Cullin O'Brien Law, PA as the Class Counsel.  He overruled the
objection by Pamela Sweeney.

The Class Counsel is awarded $281,223.18 in attorneys' fees from
the gross Settlement Fund, consisting of 31.9% of the total
Settlement Fund plus reimbursement of litigation costs and expenses
in the amount of $18,776.72.  Plaintiff Millie will be paid a
service award of $1,500 from the Settlement Fund and Plaintiff
Mollicone will be paid a service award of $3,500, consistent with
the terms of the Settlement Agreement.

Except for the individual claims of those who duly opted-out of the
Settlement Class, the Judge dismissed the Action with prejudice.

Except as expressly provided in the Final Approval Order, each
Party is to bear its own costs.  Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 58(a), the Court will enter Final Judgment in a separate
document.  The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 10, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/3ppUMG from Leagle.com.

Lisa Mollicone, on behalf of herself, all others similarly
situated, and the general public, Plaintiff, represented by Michael
Houchin -- mike@consumersadvocates.com -- Law Offices of Ronald A.
Marron, pro hac vice, Ronald Marron -- ron@consumersadvocates.com
-- Law Office of Ronald A. Marron, APLC, pro hac vice & Cullin
Avram O'Brien -- cullin@cullinobrienlaw.com -- Cullin O'Brien Law,
P.A..

Universal Handicraft, Inc., doing business as & Shay Sabag Segev,
Defendants, represented by Anna L. Heller, Cozen O'Connor, Brett
Nicole Taylor, Cozen O'Connor, Jeffrey David Feldman --
jfeldman@cozen.com -- Feldman & Latham, LLP, Nathan Dooley, Cozen
O'Connor & Susan Joy Latham -- slatham@cozen.com -- Feldman &
Latham, LLP.


US ALLIANCE: Velazquez Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LUIS VELAZQUEZ, and all others similarly situated v. U.S. ALLIANCE
MANAGEMENT CORP., a Florida Corporation, Case No. 1:18-cv-23776-RNS
(S.D. Fla., September 13, 2018), seeks to recover monetary damages,
liquidated damages, interests, costs and attorney's fees arising
from alleged violations of the overtime wage provision of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

US Alliance is a Florida corporation, which regularly conducted
business within the Southern District of Florida as a security
guard company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel T. Feld, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL T. FELD, P.A.
          2847 Hollywood Blvd.
          Hollywood, FL 33020
          Telephone: (954) 361-8383
          E-mail: DanielFeld.Esq@gmail.com

               - and -

          Isaac Mamane, Esq.
          MAMANE LAW LLC
          10800 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 350A
          Miami, FL 33161
          Telephone (305) 773-6661
          E-mail: mamane@gmail.com


US EXPRESS: Faces Class Action in Va. Over Recruitment Robocalls
----------------------------------------------------------------
John Kingston, writing for Freighwaves, reports that getting a
"frustrating, obnoxious (and) annoying" robocall, from a recruiter
trying to spur the listener's interest in taking a job as a truck
driver, is now a federal case.

(And the lawsuit at the heart of the litigation uses those three
adjectives).

A decision handed down in U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Virginia in July will allow a case brought by a
Charlottesville resident against truckload carrier U.S. Xpress,
which directed recruitment robocalls to plaintiff Christopher
Morgan, to continue. Not only that, but the decision by U.S.
District Court Judge Norman Moon opens the door for the suit to
become a class action -- though actual certification of it as a
class action still has not occurred -- so it can bring in many more
truck drivers or potential truck drivers aggrieved by what most
people just view as the minutiae of life, not necessarily an event
that ends up in court. But this one has.

The original lawsuit was filed December 11. Although the lawsuit
gives no indication who plaintiff Morgan is, Ryan Donovan, an
attorney with plaintiff's attorney HFDR, said he is an independent
owner/operator living in Charlottesville.

The plaintiffs are also listed as "on behalf of a class of all
persons and entities similarly situated." The law firm that filed
the original suit, Bailey & Glasser of Charleston, West Virginia,
is involved in several "mass tort" lawsuits for a variety of
grievances: customers of the Dish Network, Volkswagen owners, a
pistol manufacturer. However, the attorney at the law firm whose
name is on the original suit, Michael Hissam, is now part of a firm
established just in August, HFDR, and he brought the case with
him.

In the original suit, Morgan and the other unidentified class
action plaintiffs say U.S. Xpress "sent" them prerecorded calls
without consent. The calls directed the recipient of the call to
"press 1" and be connected to a U.S. Xpress recruiter.

"Because the call to Mr. Morgan was transmitted using technology
capable of generating at least hundreds of similar calls per day,
Mr. Morgan sues on behalf of a proposed nationwide class of persons
who received illegal telephone calls from U.S. Xpress," the lawsuit
said.

The lawsuit cites the 1991 Telephone Consumer Protection Act as the
basis for the suit. The lawsuit says the TCPA prohibits calls by
"autodialers" to cell phone numbers unless the person receiving the
call has given permission and prohibits the use of "an artificial
or prerecorded voice" to call a residential telephone line, again,
unless permission is granted.

Morgan received his first call from U.S. Xpress on August 18, 2017.
He didn't press 1. But he then recieved calls on September 6,
September 22 and October 3, according to the lawsuit.

Given that virtually all Americans have received these calls at one
time or another, the list of negative consequences the suit says
resulted from the call might be viewed as excessively draconian.
"Plaintiff and the other call recipients were harmed by these
calls," the lawsuit says. "They were temporarily deprived of
legitimate use of their phones because the phone line was tied up
during the calls and their privacy was improperly invaded.
Moreover, these calls injured Plaintiff and the other call
recipients because they were frustrating, obnoxious, annoying, were
a nuisance and disturbed the solitude of Plaintiff and the class."

Beyond the suit, what's notable is that such telemarketing or
robocalls -- whatever you want to call them -- are being utilized
by carriers in the battle to recruit drivers.

Gordon Klemp, the president of the National Transportation
Institute which conducts research on driver recruitment and
retention, said he was aware that robocalls have been used by
recruiters. "I am not aware of any that use them as a first contact
with a driver," Mr. Klemp said in an email to FreightWaves. "I have
seen them used as a follow up tool with drivers who they have
already had personal contact with a couple of times but have not
taken the next step and have dropped into the longshot category.
The recruiters I have discussed it with indicate it is a way to
generate 'net positive' results from a list of low probability
candidates."

U.S. Xpress filed a motion to have the case dismissed on two
separate grounds. In his decision, Judge Moon ruled in favor of
U.S. Xpress on its motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claim that
U.S. Xpress' calls to Morgan's cell phone violated not only the
prohibitions against such calls, but concurrently constituted an
illegal call to a residential phone line.

(If at this point you're wondering why you continue to get
automated robocalls about anything without having granted explicit
permission despite the possibility the calls may be breaking the
law, you're not alone).

The logic laid out by Judge Moon is a complicated mix discussing
the definitions of residential telephone lines versus cell phones,
and whether a cell phone used in the home becomes in essence a
residential line; that's just one strand of the tangled weave.

Mr. Donovan said that what the judge's action means for now is that
the legal question still alive in the suit is whether the call to a
cell phone violated TCPA. But the question of whether it
concurrently violated the ban on residential lines, which would
have required the court to find that Morgan's cell phone was also a
residential line, will not be part of the case, though Donovan
suggested lawyers may try to have that reinstated.  

U.S. Xpress also sought dismissal of efforts to make the case a
class action. It's significant because damages from the "injuries"
suffered by one plaintiff -- in this case, Morgan --have little
value for a lawyer to pursue. Put a bunch of truck driver
recruitment targets together, and it could be a substantial class
action.

After a lengthy discussion of legal precedents that included the
Bristol Myers Squibb decision handed down by the Supreme Court last
year -- considered an important ruling in the question of
jurisdiction in a class action case -- Judge Moon ultimately
rejected U.S. Xpress' argument that the case should not be allowed
to proceed as a class action. That opens the doors to a wider group
of plaintiffs. But the Moon decision does not yet certify the case
as a class action.  

Mr. Donovan noted that additional individual plaintiffs are not
necessary for a class action to proceed, that one individual as
plaintiff -- Mr. Morgan -- is enough as a "named" plaintiff.

An attorney for U.S. Xpress said the company does not comment on
pending litigation. [GN]


WAL-MART STORES: Holzum Suit Remanded to Missouri State Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Ronnie L. White of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri, Eastern Division, remanded the case, NICHOLE
HOLZUM, et al., Plaintiffs, v. WAL-MART STORES, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 4:17-CV-2275 RLW (E.D. Mo.), to the
Twenty-First Circuit of Missouri in County of St. Louis, Missouri.

The case is a putative class action by the Plaintiffs against the
Defendants.  The Plaintiffs brought theaction on behalf of
themselves and all persons who purchased retail food items with a
"Nutrition Facts" label at any Wal-Mart store located in Missouri,
or online from Wal-Mart for Missouri delivery, that were charged
sales tax monies at the 4.225% state sales tax rate rather than the
reduced 1.225% state sales tax rate for qualifying food.  They seek
damages for the overcollection of state sales tax.  They seek
injunctive relief, damages and costs for violations of the Missouri
Merchandising Practices Act, and damages for unjust enrichment,
negligence, and money had and received.

Wal-Mart removed the case from the Circuit Court of St. Louis
County to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri on Aug. 18, 2017.  Wal-Mart asserts original jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(a)(1) and the Class Action
Fairness Act ("CAFA").

The Plaintiffs move for the Court to remand the action based upon
principles of comity and federalism, lack of jurisdiction under the
Tax Injunction Act ("TIA"), and because the amount in controversy
does not exceed $5 million in the aggregate.  The Court decides
this Motion based upon the amount in controversy and, therefore,
decides the action without addressing the principles of comity,
federalism, and the TIA.

Judge White holds that Wal-Mart has not met its burden that removal
was proper.  Wal-Mart has not established that a fact-finder might
legally conclude that the amount in controversy in the case would
exceed $5 Million.  The actual damages at issue are at most around
two hundred thousand dollars, in aggregate.  Wal-Mart has not shown
any special or extraordinary circumstances that warrant an
attorneys' fee or punitive damages award in the millions of
dollars.  Therefore, he holds that the Court lacks jurisdiction
under CAFA because Wal-Mart has not shown to a legal certainty that
the amount in controversy threshold can be met.

Given that the case involves a straightforward legal issue
regarding the amount of tax charged, the Judge finds no reason (and
Wal-Mart has not provided any basis) for why such a large number of
attorney hours would be necessary.  Accordingly, he holds that
Wal-Mart has failed to demonstrate by competent evidence that the
cause of action meets the $75,000 threshold for diversity removal.
The Judge will remand the action to the Circuit Court of the County
of St. Louis, State of Missouri.

Accordingly, Judge White granted the Plaintiff's Plaintiffs' Motion
to Remand.  The matter will be remanded to the Twenty-First Circuit
of Missouri in County of St. Louis, Missouri for further
proceedings.  An order of remand accompanies the Order.  An
appropriate Order of Remand is filed with the Memorandum and
Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 10, 2018 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/drgBWO from Leagle.com.

Nichole Holzum, Kathryn Schott & Marilyn Rogers, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
represented by Adam M. Goffstein -- adam@goffsteinlaw.com -- LAW
OFFICE OF A. M. GOFFSTEIN & Daniel John Orlowsky , ORLOWSKY LAW,
LLC.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Wal-mart.com USA, LLC & Wal-Mart Stores East
I, L.P., Defendants, represented by Matthew D. Turner --
mturner@armstrongteasdale.com -- ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP.


WAL-MART: Responds to Pregnant Workers' Discrimination Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Desmit, writing for Daily News Online, reports that Wal-Mart
officials have responded to a class-action lawsuit accusing the
company of discriminating against pregnant workers.

Two former employees of the Albion Wal-Mart are at the center of
the suit, claiming they were fired after missing work because of
pregnancy complications.

Randy Hargrove, senior direction of national media relations for
Wal-Mart, said the company has yet been served with the complaint
and "once we are served with the complaint, we will respond
appropriately with the court."

"We take these issues seriously and do not tolerate
discrimination," Wal-Mart's statement reads. "Like any company, we
have an attendance policy that helps ensure we are taking care of
our customers. We understand associates may have to miss work on
occasion and we have processes in place to assist them. This
includes legally protected and authorized absences, such as
medical-related accommodation, FMLA leave, pregnancy and
bereavement that are not counted against our attendance policy."

A Better Balance, a New York City-based group that fights for
workers' rights, filed the lawsuit in July on behalf of two Albion
women.

The women both claim they were fired after missing work or leaving
early because of complications from pregnancy, including being
hospitalized.

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

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

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


WESTCHESTER, CA: Lamont Wants to Change Venue to S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled P. STEPHEN LAMONT v. NOREEN
T. ROTHMAN, WAYNE HUMPHREY, RAMONITA REYES, LESLIE FARUCCI, COUNTY
OF WESTCHESTER, Case No. 4:18-cv-02997-SBA (N.D. Cal.), moves for
change of venue to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

In an August 29, 2018 Order dismissing the action, the District
Court determined that it lacked personal jurisdiction over the
Federal Defendants.

The District Court determined that the Plaintiff misread Worldwide
Volkswagen v. Woodson 44 U.S. 286 and 18 U.S.C. 1865.  The District
Court certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith.

Mr. Lamont asserts that nowhere in the Court's Order does it state
that he is precluded from making the application to change venue,
but if it does, he expects the District Court to advise of such.

Stephen Lamont, of Santa Clara, California, appears pro se.


WILLIAMS-SONOMA INC: Case Mngt Statement in Kutza Due Oct. 18
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Richard Seeborg of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Francisco Division, has issued an order
extending briefing deadlines and continuing case management
conference in the case, BRIAN KUTZA on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. WILLIAMS-SONOMA, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-03534-KAW RS (N.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiff filed the Class Action Complaint against the
Defendant on June 13, 2018.  The Court issued the Summons in a
Civil Action to the Defendant on June 14, 2018.  It also issued the
Order Setting Initial Case Management Conference and ADR Deadlines
on June 14, 2018, setting the Initial Case Management Conference
for Sept. 11, 2018, the deadline to meet and confer re: initial
disclosures, early settlement, ADR process selection, and discovery
plan and to file an ADR certification as Aug. 21, 2018, and the
deadline to submit a case management statement as Sept. 4, 2018.

The Plaintiff served the Complaint, Summons, and Case Management
Order on the Defendant on June 15, 2018.  The Defendant requested
additional time to respond to the Complaint and, following a meet
and confer, on July 2, 2018, the parties stipulated, pursuant to
Local Rule 6-1(a), to extend its deadline to respond to the
Complaint by 30 days from July 6, 2018 to Aug. 6, 2018.

The Court issued the Clerk's Note Re Reassigned Case on July 3,
2018, resetting the deadline for the Case Management Statement as
Sept. 13, 2018, and resetting the Initial Case Management
Conference for Sept. 20, 2018.  The Defendant filed its Notice of
Motion and Motion to Dismiss Class Action Complaint ("Motion") on
Aug. 6, 2018 setting the hearing for Sept. 20, 2018 at 1:30 p.m.
The current deadline for the Plaintiff to file an opposition to the
Motion is Aug. 20, 2018, and the current deadline for the Defendant
to file a reply in support of the Motion is Aug. 27, 2018.

The Plaintiff requested additional time to file his opposition to
the Motion to fully brief the issues raised therein and, following
a meet and confer, the parties have agreed to extend his opposition
deadline and the Defendant's reply deadline, and to continue the
hearing on the Motion and the Case Management Conference (and
correspondingly extend the deadline to file the Case Management
Statement) to accommodate the new briefing schedule and the Court's
schedule, as follows: (a) Opposition Deadline - Sept. 4, 2018; (b)
Reply Deadline - Sept. 24, 2018; (c) Case Management Statement
Deadline - Oct. 18, 2018; (d) Hearing - Oct. 25, 2018 at 1:30 p.m.;
(d) Case Management Conference - Oct. 25, 2018 at 1:30 p.m.  The
parties seek no other modifications to the schedule.

Therefore, pursuant to Local Rule 6-2, the parties stipulated and
requested, and Judge Seeborg granted that (1) the hearing on the
motion to dismiss and the case management conference is continued
from Sept. 20, 2018 to Oct. 25, 2018 at 1:30 p.m.; and (2) the
Plaintiff's opposition to the motion to dismiss is due by Sept. 4,
2018 and the Defendant's reply is due by Sept. 24, 2018; and, (3)
the case management statement is due by Oct. 18, 2018.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 17, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/HlICMJ from Leagle.com.

BRIAN KUTZA, Plaintiff, represented by James Arthur Morris, Jr. --
jmorris@jamlawyers.com -- Sheppard Mullin, Morris Law Firm.

WILLIAMS-SONOMA INC, Defendant, represented by Benjamin Okhaifo
Aigboboh -- baigboboh@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richter
Hampton LLP.


[*] William Fry Attorneys Discuss Class Action Implications of GDPR
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Convery, Esq. -- paul.convery@williamfry.com -- John Magee,
Esq. -- john.magee@williamfry.com -- Sarah Twohig, Esq. --
sarah.twohig@williamfry.com -- and Kellie O'Flynn, Esq., of William
Fry, in an article for Lexology, wrote that with the EU General
Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) now in effect, one of the
emerging considerations is whether its provisions -- specifically
Article 80 -- open the door to 'class action' style privacy cases.
Several European countries have already legislated for varying
degrees of collective actions, particularly in the area of consumer
protection, and post the coming into effect of the GDPR on 25th
May, GDPR privacy class-action suits were commenced in several
jurisdictions. Class action in any similar form would be a dramatic
departure in this jurisdiction. Coupled with the extension of
damages to non-material (as well as material) losses, many
businesses are concerned that the financial ramifications of GDPR
from data subject claims may be even more severe than the threat
from GDPR's well-publicised administrative fines.

Implications of Article 80

Article 80 of the GDPR introduces a collective action mechanism
whereby not-for-profit bodies dedicated to personal data protection
can initiate claims on behalf of data subjects whom allege their
rights have been infringed. In theory, this provision should
enhance the protections GDPR affords to data subjects by giving
authorised associations in each Member State the power to
consolidate claims and represent them on a larger scale.

Article 80 has been welcomed by privacy campaigners, most notably
Max Schrems, whose recent effort to build a collective action
against Facebook was thwarted by the ECJ.

Whilst the GDPR provides that data subjects "shall have the right
to" initiate actions, it does not actually provide them with any
actionable tool or procedural framework to kick-start the process.
It has left that particular task up to the individual Member
States.

Implementation of Article 80 in Ireland – The Data Protection Act
2018

As an EU Regulation, the GDPR has direct effect, and does not
generally require transposition into Irish law. Certain provisions
give Member States flexibility however, and in Ireland, the Data
Protection Act 2018 legislates for the Irish position in those
areas.

Article 80 is one such provision, the result being that the
implementation of the class action mechanism is almost entirely at
the discretion of the national legislature. The provision has the
following mandatory and discretionary parts:

   -- Member States must give effect to the data subject's right to
mandate a non-profit to lodge complaints with a data protection
authority and seek a judicial remedy against a controller or
processor;

   -- Member States may provide that a non-profit can seek damages
on behalf of a data subject; and

   -- Member States may provide that a non-profit can, of its own
accord, lodge a complaint with a data protection authority and seek
a judicial remedy against a controller or processor.

The 2018 Act has given effect to (1) and (2) above, the latter of
the two being discretionary. It has not given effect to (3). In
practice, this means that certain practices will go unchallenged
unless the data subject in question is identified and willing to
step forward, which is unlikely if, for example, the infringement
at issue relates to special categories personal data.

In practical terms, the Data Protection Commission (DPC) has
facilitated the implementation of Article 80 into Irish law by
publishing an updated "Raise a Concern" form which provides a
mechanism for data subjects to authorise third parties to make a
complaint on their behalf.

Has the GDPR introduced class actions in this jurisdiction?

Not exactly, but it does move us closer by enhancing a citizen's
opportunity to enforce their data privacy rights. Although the
claims consolidation mechanism under GDPR falls short of a US-style
'class action' right, the possible introduction of class action
lawsuits has also been put back on the political agenda in recent
times in light of the tracker mortgage scandal. 2017 saw the
publication of a "Multi-Party Actions Bill" which proposed that
proceedings involving multiple parties and which involve common or
related issues of fact or law be certified by the Court as
"multi-party actions" (see our previous article on this here).

The full impact of Article 80 remains to be seen, but permitting
qualified not-for-profit bodies to initiate claims on behalf of
data subjects with their mandate should now give ordinary litigants
recourse to seek redress in circumstances where they would
otherwise not have had the resources to do so. [GN]



                            *********

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 ***