CAR_Public/181001.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, October 1, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 196

                            Headlines

24 SEVEN: Harris Sues over Inaccurate Pay Slip
44 W 29 LLC: Faces Juscinska Suit in Southern Dist. of New York
AFLAC INC: Removes Tabiei Suit to Central District of California
ALLIANCE GROUND: Underpays Manual Workers, Lall Suit Claims
APPLE INC: iPhone 4 or 4S Owners Class Certified in Grace Suit

BAITING HOLLOW: Bunting Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
BALTIMORE COUNTY, MD: Still Misclassifies Rape Reports, Suit Says
BARKING DOG: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Castillo Says
BD HOTELS: Breeze Files Suit in S.D. New York
BIRD RIDES: Fails to Pay OT to Mechanics, Al Zawahi Suit Claims

BLUE BARN: Goldboss Sues over Customer Billing Surcharge
BLUE BOTTLE: Goldboss Sues over Customer Billing Surcharge
BROTHERS MOTHERS: Wait Staff Class Certified in Buckler Suit
CADO INC: Underpays Exotic Dancers, Unger and Donahue Allege
CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS: Wrongfully Cancelled Insurance, Suit Says

CARL R. PURSELL: Underpays Construction Workers, Suit Claims
CENTERLINE SOLUTIONS: Dirocco Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA
CHEMICAL FINANCIAL: City of Livonia Suit in E.D.Mich. to Proceed
CINEMARK HOLDINGS: "Amey" Class Lawsuit vs. Subsidiary Underway
CIOX HEALTH: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in Rave Suit

CIVISTA BANCSHARES: Suit over United Community Merger Underway
COMPLYRIGHT INC: Roberts Files Suit Over Data Breach
CORECIVIC INC: Still Defends "Grae" Securities Class Action
COSTA DEL MAR: Charges Illegal Fees, Troy Smith Suit Alleges
COVENANT TRANSPORTATION: SRT Unit Still Faces Bass Class Lawsuit

CRIMSON WINE: Oct. 5 Final Approval Hearing for Class Action Pact
CUMULUS MEDIA: Doyle and McCabe Sue over Deceptive Sweepstakes
CVS HEALTH: MSP Recovery Class Lawsuit Still Pending in N.J.
CVS HEALTH: Remains a Defendant in EpiPen ERISA Litigation
CVS HEALTH: Still Defends "Corcoran" and "Podgorny" Complaints

CVS HEALTH: Still Faces "Bewley" and "Prescott" Class Action Suits
CVS HEALTH: Still Faces Indiana Fund Securities Class Lawsuit
CYRUS J. GUIDRY: Hawk Suit Moved to Eastern District of Louisiana
DEL TACO: Can Compel Arbitration in Jaffey FCRA Suit
DELTA AIR: Donoff Files Suit in S.D. Florida

DEPOMED INC: Bid to Dismiss "Huang" Securities Suit Still Pending
DISCOVER ENTERTAINMENT: Dancers Seek Minimum Wages & Overtime Pay
DXC TECHNOLOGY: Mediation in ADEA Suit vs. HP Units This Week
ENDO INTERNATIONAL: 1,254 Testosterone Cases Pending at June 30
ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Accrues $930M Liability at June 30 in Mesh Suit

ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Amended Complaint Filed in Pelletier Lawsuit
ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Appeal from Friedman Case Dismissal Underway
ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Bid to Drop Bier Class Lawsuit Still Pending
ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Class Status Bid Pending in Miss. PERS Suit
ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Defends Antitrust Class Suits over Exforge(R)

ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Still Defends Makris Class Suit in Canada
ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Still Defends Multiple Lawsuits over Opioid
ENERGY TRANSFER: Warner Securities Suit Challenges Sale to ETE
ENTERPRISE HOLDINGS: Wins Bid to Dismiss Bah Complaint
FAMILY DOLLAR: Fails to Pay OT to Store Manager, Gheradini Claims

FIDELIS RECOVERY: Willis Files Suit Over FDCPA Breach
FIFTH THIRD BANCORP: Accord Pending in Interchange Fee Litigation
FIFTH THIRD BANCORP: Appeal Still Pending in Cash Advance Lawsuit
FLOTEK INDUSTRIES: Plaintiff's Appeal from Case Dismissal Pending
FLOWERS FOODS: 25 Class Lawsuits Filed by Distributors Underway

FLOWERS FOODS: Continues to Defend Carr Lawsuit in Pennsylvania
FLOWERS FOODS: Continues to Face Rodriguez Lawsuit in Texas
FLOWERS FOODS: Continues to Face Rosinbaum Case in North Carolina
FLOWERS FOODS: McCurley Settlement Wins Final Court Approval
FLOWERS FOODS: Remains Defendant in Noll Lawsuit in Maine

FLOWERS FOODS: Richard Lawsuit Still Pending in Louisiana
FLOWERS FOODS: Schucker Settlement Wins Final Court Approval
FLOWERS FOODS: Still Defends Neff Class Action in Vermont
FLOWERS FOODS: Zapata Litigation Still Ongoing in Texas
FOUR SEASONS: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Feinstein Suit

FRANKLIN COLLECTION: Winans Appeals M.D.N.C. Ruling to 4th Cir.
FREEPORT-MCMORAN: Garcia Class Action in California Remains Stayed
FTS INTERNATIONAL: Fails to Pay OT, Gutierrez-Ponce et al. Claim
GEO GROUP: Underpays Recruitment Coordinators, Pashko Alleges
GF MANAGEMENT: Faces Breeze Class Suit in S.D. New York

GOGREEN LANDSCAPING: Underpays Laborers, Gaborko Suit Alleges
GOLDEN GATE: Goldboss Sues over Customer Billing Surcharge
GOOD SAMARITAN: Certification of Class Sought in Frank Suit
GREY DOG: Fails to Pay OT to Cooks, Escobar Reyes Suit Alleges
IBM CORP: Rusis Sues Over Discrimination Against Older Workers

IMPERIAL PROJECT: Dancers Seek Minimum Wages & Overtime Pay
INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Wang Claims
JOB STORE: Faces Ortega et al. Suit in Colorado Federal Court
KEYME INC: Accused of Violating Illinois Biometric Privacy Act
KFF ARBITRATION: Anderson Seeks to Certify Accountholders Class

KOHN LAW FIRM: Ct. Orders Kitchner to Amend or Withdraw FCRA Suit
LANDRY'S INC: Seeks 11th Cir. Review of Ruling in Blocher Suit
LOGMEIN INC: Faces Wasson Suit over 25% Drop in Share Price
LUNA SAAVEDRA: Mrs. Blooms Direct's Suit Moved to S.D. New York
LUPIN PHARMACEUTICALS: Turley Suit Asserts Fraud, Discrimination

MDL 2179: 24 Motions in Dismissed Cases Denied as Moot
MDL 2445: Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs Seek Class Certification
MDL 2445: End-Payor Plaintiffs Move for Certification of Classes
MDL 2580: Discovery Ongoing in OPANA(R) Cases v. Endo Unit
MDL 2724: Endo Still Faces Generic Drugs Pricing Antitrust Suit

MDL 2836: Endo Subsidiary Still Defends Zetia(R) Lawsuit
MERCED, CA: Underpays Police Officers, McKinnon et al. Allege
MERCHANTS & MEDICAL: Hess Sues over Debt Collection Practices
MERIT RECOVERY: Faces Muldowney Suit in N.D. New York
MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Tech House Sues Over DRAM Price-fixing

MJ NORTHPOINT: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Scholberg Alleges
MONTROSE TRAVEL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Richard Suit Alleges
MOVE INC: Silverman Suit Asserts Invasion of Privacy Under
TCPA
N.W. MARTIN: Fails to Pay OT to Roofers, Curry Suit Alleges
NEW C.A.P.S.: Underpays Crew Leads, Fiebelkorn Suit Alleges

NOR COOPER: Faces Grinblat Suit in Eastern District of New York
OPKO HEALTH: Barrack Rodos Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
OPKO HEALTH: Kessler Topaz Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
PC SHIELD: Stone & Company Files TCPA Class Action in Pittsburgh
PINNACLE FOODS: Rasmussen Files Securities Class Suit

POWERCOR AUSTRALIA: Maddens Lawyers Responds to Criticism of Costs
PRETIUM RESOURCES: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Class Action
REVENUE ENTERPRISES: Young Sues over Debt Collection Practices
SALVATION ARMY: Female Staff Paid Less, Smith Suit Alleges
SCHENKER INC: Removes Juarez Suit to C.D. California

SERCO INC: Sandoval Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA
STATES RECOVERY: Woods Sues over Debt Collection Practices
STEELER INC: Balderama Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
TARGET CORP: Lawsuit Alleges Debit Card Can Result in Multiple Fees
TENAGLIA & HUNT: Cohnen Files FDCPA Suit in New Jersey

TESLA INC: Oct. 9 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
TIGER EYE: Delivery Drivers Sue Domino's Pizza Franchise Owner
TRAVEL CADDY: Bunting Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
TRUSTED MEDIA: Watterson Sues for Disclosure of Personal Info
UNITED STATES: Salvadoran Mom Takes Legal Action

UNIVISTA HOLDINGS: Rubio Seeks to Recover OT Wages Under FLSA
USA TECHNOLOGIES: Kahn Swick Files Class Action Lawsuit
USA TECHNOLOGIES: Kirby McInerney Files Class Action Lawsuit
VALLEY BROOK, OK: PD Accused of Making Arrests in OKC
VON ENERGY: Underpays Drilling Operators, Saltzman Suit Claims

WESTLAKE CHEMICAL: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Cox Suit Alleges
WINE THIRTY: Rubio Suit Alleges FLSA Violation

                            *********

24 SEVEN: Harris Sues over Inaccurate Pay Slip
----------------------------------------------
ALICIA HARRIS, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated the Plaintiff, v. 24 SEVEN, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company; 24 SEVEN RECRUITING, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company; 24 SEVEN STAFFING, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the
Defendant, Case No. BC720144 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sept. 4, 2018),
alleges that the Defendants engaged in systemic illegal employment
practices resulting in violations of the California Labor Code.
Specifically, the Defendants failed to provide accurate itemized
wage statements.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Larry W. Lee, Esq.
          Kristen M. Agnew, Esq.
          Nicholas Rosenthal, Esq.
          DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C.
          515 S. Figueroa St. Suite 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 488 6555
          Facsimile: (213) 488 6554


44 W 29 LLC: Faces Juscinska Suit in Southern Dist. of New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 44 W 29, LLC.  The
case is captioned Natalia Juscinska, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. 44 W 29, LLC, a New
York limited liability company, the Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-08034-VSB (S.D.N.Y., Sep. 4, 2018), and assigned to the
Hon. Judge Vernon S. Broderick.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nolan Keith Klein, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF NOLAN KLEIN, P.A.
          39 Broadway, Ste. 2250
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (646) 560 3230
          Facsimile: (877) 253 2691
          E-mail: klein@nklegal.com


AFLAC INC: Removes Tabiei Suit to Central District of California
----------------------------------------------------------------
Aflac, Inc. removed the case captioned as OMEED TABIEI,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. AFLAC, INCORPORATED, and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, and each of them, the Defendants, Case No. BC715164 on
Sept. 4, 2018, from the Superior Court of California for the County
of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California.  The California Central District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-07677.

The lawsuit arose from a dispute regarding AFLAC's contact of the
Plaintiff via his cellular telephone in 2018.  The Plaintiff
alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, and
related regulations, including the National Do-Not-Call
provisions.

Aflac Inc. is an American insurance company and is the largest
provider of supplemental insurance in the United States. The
company was founded in 1955 and is based in Columbus, Georgia.[BN]

Attorneys for Defendant AFLAC, Inc.:

          Lewis S. Weiner, Esq.
          Wilson Barmeyer, Esq.
          EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND (US) LLP
          700 Sixth Street, NW, Suite 700
          Washington, DC 20001-3980
          Telephone: 202.383.0184
          Facsimile: 202.637.3593
          E-mail: lewisweiner@eversheds-sutherland.com
                  wilsonbarmeyer@eversheds-sutherland.com

               - and -

          Scott J. Hyman, Esq.
          Loren W. Coe, Esq.
          SEVERSON & WERSON
          19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 700
          Irvine, CA 92612
          Telephone: (949) 442 7110
          Facsimile: (949) 442 7118
          E-mail: sjh@severson.com
                  lwc@severson.com


ALLIANCE GROUND: Underpays Manual Workers, Lall Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
MELISSA LALL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ALLIANCE GROUND INTERNATIONAL, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 712814/2018 (N.Y. Sup., Queens Cty., Aug. 20,
2018) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid overtime
compensation, prejudgment interest, maximum liquidated damages,
reasonable attorneys' fees, and costs.

The Plaintiff Lall was employed by the Defendant as manual worker
from April 2017 to May 26, 2018.

Alliance Ground International, LLC provides cargo, mail, and ramp
handling services to international airlines in Chicago, New York,
Atlanta, Miami, Orlando, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Fort
Lauderdale. The company was incorporated in 2009 and is based in
Coral Gables, Florida. It has facilities in Atlanta, Chicago, Los
Angeles, Miami, New York, Orlando, San Francisco, and Shanghai.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abdul K. Hassan, Esq.
          ABDUL HASSAN LAW GROUP, PLLC
          215-28 Hillside Avenue
          Queens Village, NY 11427
          Telephone: (718) 740-1000
          Facsimile: (718) 355-9668
          E-mail: abdul@abdulhassan.com


APPLE INC: iPhone 4 or 4S Owners Class Certified in Grace Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Lucy H. Koh grants in part and denies in part the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the lawsuit styled as
CHRISTINA GRACE, et al. v. APPLE, INC., Case No. 5:17-cv-00551-LHK
(N.D. Cal.).

The Court certifies a class seeking restitution and damages for
violation of California's Unfair Competition Law and trespass to
chattels pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure:

     All owners of non-jailbroken Apple iPhone 4 or Apple iPhone
     4S devices in California who on April 16, 2014, had iOS 6 or
     earlier operating systems on their iPhone 4 or iPhone 4S
     devices.

Judge Koh appoints Ken Potter, only as to his 16 GB iPhone 4, and
Christina Grace as representatives of the class.  As Apple does not
challenge the adequacy of proposed class counsel, the Court also
appoints as class counsel Jill M. Manning, Esq., of Steyer
Lowenthal Boodrookas Alvarez & Smith LLP, Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq.,
of Pearson, Simon & Warshaw LLP, John Austin Curry, Esq., of
Caldwell Cassady & Curry LLP, and David F.E. Tejtel, Esq., of
Friedman Oster & Tejtel PLLC.

The Court rejects Apple's Rule 23(a)(3) typicality argument.  The
Court also rejects most of Apple's Rule 23(b)(3) arguments.  In
particular, the Court finds that individual inquiries are not
necessary for the Plaintiffs' trespass to chattels claim and the
Plaintiffs' UCL claim, and the Court rejects Apple's Comcast
challenge to the Plaintiffs' damages model.

However, the Court agrees with Apple that California's choice of
law test precludes certification of a nationwide class, and agrees
further that no Rule 23(b)(2) class is warranted.  Finally, the
Court closes by denying the Plaintiffs' motion to strike the report
of Apple's expert and rejecting Apple's evidentiary objections.


BAITING HOLLOW: Bunting Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Baiting Hollow Farm
Vineyard, LLC. The case is styled as Rasheta Bunting individually
and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons,
Plaintiff v. Baiting Hollow Farm Vineyard, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-05218 (E.D. N.Y., Sept. 17, 2018).

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

Baiting Hollow Farm Vineyard, LLC is one of the most talked about
destinations on Long Island's East End. It is open all year,
featuring great food and Long Island's top entertainers on weekends
with up to five bars 'In Season'. During the weekdays, they always
have a great sound system providing a cool vibe in what is always a
warm and friendly place to shop, hang out, enjoy wine and eat. It
is located at 2114 Sound Avenue, Baiting Hollow, New York 11933.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Dan Shaked, Esq.
     Shaked Law Group, P.C.
     44 Court Street, Suite 1217
     Brooklyn, NY 11217
     Phone: (917) 373-9128
     Fax: (718) 504-7555
     Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


BALTIMORE COUNTY, MD: Still Misclassifies Rape Reports, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Edward Ericson Jr., writing for Baltimore Brew, reports that
federal class action against the state's attorney, police and UMBC
charges that Baltimore County is obstructing justice -- and still
misclassifying rape reports.

In his zeal to cover up a gang rape by college athletes, Baltimore
County State's Attorney Scott Shellenberger, Esq., sent police to
the victim's house to threaten her with arrest if she continued to
try to press charges, a federal lawsuit says.

"These are shocking allegations," says plaintiff's attorney Rignal
Baldwin V, Esq. -- RBaldwinV@baldwinlawllc.com "The reason I did so
much work on it factually was because I couldn't believe it."

Two rape victims filed suit in Maryland against Shellenberger, the
Board of Regents for the Maryland State University System, Lisa
Dever, the prosecutor in charge of sex crimes, and several police
officers, seeking class action status for the county's systemic
refusal to investigate and charge sexual assault cases.

News of the suit, filed on September 10 in U.S. District Court in
Baltimore, was first published by Courthouse News Service.

Bolstered by internal emails and other communication the plaintiffs
obtained under the Maryland Public Information Act, the complaint
outlines the suburban department's long-term pattern of filing rape
allegations as "unfounded," destroying rape kits as little as 30
days after the examinations, and mis-classifying rape allegations
as "suspicious circumstances."

The intent of these practices is to avoid reporting rape
allegations under the FBI's Uniform Crime Report (UCR) and the
university's crime reports required by the Clery Act, according to
the complaint, filed by Anna Borkowski and Katelyn Frank.

"The purpose of this lawsuit," Baldwin said, "is accountability."

Reached at his office, Shellenberger said that he has not yet seen
the complaint. "And I would not comment on it even if I had," he
added.

Still Hiding Rapes

The issue in Baltimore County has been raised before, including in
a 2016 article in Buzzfeed. Its reporting highlighted the county
police department's use of the "unfounded" classification to make
its rape statistics look more rosy.

County officials pledged reform and produced a confidential report
on the matter. But according to the lawsuit, the official inquiry
was too narrow, and police and prosecutors merely shifted the way
they misclassified rape allegations.

According to the complaint: between 2015 and 2017 the department
classified at least 42 reports of rape as "suspicious
circumstances."

"Defendants' pattern and practice of coding reports of sexual
assaults as merely 'suspicious circumstances' or 'suspicious
conditions' is an attempt to avoid accountability for their
unjustified refusal to investigate credible reports of sexual
assault against women," the complaint says.

"Suspicious circumstances" and "suspicious conditions" are not UCR
(Uniform Crime Reports) categories, "so these reports of sexual
assault are not reported to the FBI or disclosed in Clery reporting
as required by federal law," the complaint says.

Thus, it concludes, alleged rapes are "deliberately hidden,
depriving the victim of an investigation and equal protection."

Allegation "Disappeared"

A week into her freshman year, plaintiff Katelyn Frank, was lured
into a dorm room, drugged and raped, the lawsuit says. She woke up
bleeding in the bathroom.

Frank reported the incident to a university official, who summoned
Paul Dillon, Chief of the University of Maryland Baltimore County
(UMBC) Police Department.

Dillon persuaded her to allow the university to handle the
allegation administratively and not to report the rape to police.
"This is functionally impossible," the complaint notes, "as
Defendant Dillon was a sworn police officer with various reporting
duties."

RAPE KIT EVIDENCE DESTROYED BECAUSE ALLEGATION WAS CLASSIFIED AS A
"SUSPICIOUS CONDITION."

Four days later, Frank submitted to a rape kit examination, which
found evidence she had been raped. But unbeknownst to her, because
of the way her report was classified, it was destroyed after 30
days.

"No one told Ms. Frank that the evidence she had endured a painful
and intrusive examination to collect would be destroyed before the
administrative process could finish," the lawsuit says.

Months later, university officials cleared the suspect of
wrongdoing. When Frank re-reported to rape to county police, they
found no record of the rape allegation in the university's records.
It had been reported as a "suspicious condition."

The defendants "acted together to make a thrice reported rape 'go
away'," the lawsuit says.

Dillon, who received the 2015-2016 University System of Maryland
Board of Regents' Staff Award for Exceptional Contributions to the
Mission of UMBC, did not respond to several messages left with his
office.

3 UMBC Baseball Team Members

In the fall of 2017, Towson University junior Anna Borkowski and a
female friend were drugged and raped by three members of the UMBC
baseball team, the complaint says.

The pair left a Towson bar with the three men who, at a nearby
apartment, encouraged the women to drink from bottles of vodka and
wine while themselves "pretending to drink," according to the
complaint. After the women passed out, the men sexually assaulted
them, the lawsuit says.

Both victims reported the incident to police and Borkowski
submitted the rape kit examination. The examination found "vaginal
tearing" consistent with sexual assault, but county police were
slow to gather evidence.

"Other than visiting the building where the rapes occurred, BCPD
performed no investigation," the lawsuit says. "BCPD did not
subpoena the surveillance tapes from the bar or the apartment
building."

Then: "less than 24 hours after the assault, Ms. Borkowski's case
was inexplicably closed," the lawsuit says. "Her report was
'cleared' by 'exceptional circumstances.' No notation reflecting
the clearance is in the investigative file."

Later, the lawsuit says, police did interview the suspects, who
admitted to having sex with both women while they were
incapacitated, but said they "did not understand what the issue
was."

The prosecutor declined to prosecute even though she acknowledged
there was probable cause to arrest the suspects, the lawsuit says.

Detectives Warn Victim

When Borkowski eventually tried to file charges against her
assailants in district court, the defendants thwarted her. The
first court commissioner she contacted called the sex crimes unit
and was told to deny the application for a statement of charges.

When Borkowski then submitted her sworn statement to another court
commissioner, the defendants went a step further, the complaint
alleges. They acted in concert to keep the summonses from being
served and dismiss the case Borkowski filed and opened an
investigation into Borkowski.

"In an unethical and illegal act that defies any logical
explanation, and on orders from Defendants Dever and Shellenberger,
Defendant [Kristen] Burrows contacted the Baltimore County police
officer in charge of serving the summonses on the three men and
instructed him not to serve them," the lawsuit says.

Shortly after, Shellenberger dispatched two detectives and a patrol
officer to Borkowski's home in Baltimore City to warn Borkowski
that if she persists "they will file criminal abuse of process
charges against her."

She persisted.

When the three men's cases were called in District Court,
prosecutor Dever dismissed them and, according to the complaint,
"purporting to act on behalf of the State, then moved to expunge
the Criminal Defendants' records, something she lacks standing to
do."

Retaliation Allegation

The prosecutor's office had one more arrow in its quiver.

Borkowski's sister, Emily, had recently been accepted to an
internship with the State's Attorney's office.

In April of 2018 she was working in the Domestic Violence Section.
She immediately came under scrutiny by an investigator for the sex
crimes unit.

The investigator admitted in an email to Dever to having "stalked"
Anna Borkowski to ferret out any connection between Anna and Emily
Borkowski, according to emails that Baldwin, the plaintiff's
lawyer, obtained.

Emily Borkowski was fired on May 11.

The defendants said the firing was in response to a purported
accusation of "misconduct" made by Borkowski's attorney. The suit
calls it a "retaliatory, unjustified" act, undertaken to punish
Anna Borkowski.[GN]


BARKING DOG: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Castillo Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PABLO RAMIREZ CASTILLO, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. BARKING DOG NYC LLC (D/B/A BARKING DOG) and
SOKOL KACL, Case No. 1:18-cv-08458 (S.D.N.Y., September 17, 2018),
alleges that the Plaintiff worked for the Defendants in excess of
40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage and overtime
compensation for the hours that he worked, in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

Barking Dog NYC LLC (d/b/a Barking Dog) is a domestic corporation
organized and existing under the laws of the state of New York.
Sokol Kacl serves or served as owner, manager, principal, or agent
of the Defendant Corporation.

The Defendants own, operate, or control a restaurant, located at
1678 Third Avenue, in New York City, under the name "Barking
Dog."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BD HOTELS: Breeze Files Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against BD Hotels LLC. The
case is styled as Byron Breeze, Jr. on behalf of himself, and all
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. BD Hotels LLC, a New
York Limited Liability Company, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-08452
(S.D. N.Y., Sept. 17, 2018).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights.

BD Hotels LLC operates as a real estate developer. It mainly
undertakes development of hotels. The company is based in New York,
New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Nolan Keith Klein, Esq.
     Law Offices of Nolan Klein, P.A.
     39 Broadway, Ste. 2250
     New York, NY 10006
     Phone: (646) 560-3230
     Fax: (877) 253-2691
     Email: klein@nklegal.com


BIRD RIDES: Fails to Pay OT to Mechanics, Al Zawahi Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
PARY AL ZAWAHI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BIRD RIDES, INC.; TRAVIS VANDERZANDEN; and
DOES 1-100, Defendants, Case No. BC718837 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles
Cty., Aug. 17, 2018) is an action against the Defendants for
failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and
permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and
reimburse necessary business expenses.

The Plaintiff Al Zawahi was employed by the Defendants as
mechanic.

Bird Rides, Inc. operates as an electric vehicle sharing company.
The company provides a fleet of electric, shared scooters that can
be accessed through smartphones. The company was incorporated in
2017 and is based in Santa Monica, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William Turley, esq.
          David Mara, esq.,
          Jamie Serb, esq.,
          Tony Roberts, esq.,
          Alexandra Shipman, esq.
          THE TURLEY & MARA LAW FIRM, APLC
          7428 Trade Street
          San Diego, CA 92121
          Telephone: (619) 234-2833
          Facsimile: (619) 234-4048


BLUE BARN: Goldboss Sues over Customer Billing Surcharge
--------------------------------------------------------
LAUREN GOLDBOSS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. ATS EATS, LLC, a Limited Liability
Company dba BLUE BARN GOURMET; and DOES 1 to 25, the Defendant,
Case No. CGC-18-569416 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sept. 4, 2018), alleges
that the Defendant conducts deceptive and misleading billing
practices, including but not limited to adding a surcharge of 4.5%
to its customers' bills after customers order at their
restaurants.

The Defendant's restaurants represent to the general public certain
prices for food and drinks in their in-restaurant and advertised
menus, but then, after the food and/or drink is ordered, the
Defendant adds a surcharge, including, but not limited to, a
surcharge which it calls "SF Employee [sic] Mandates," which is
actually an undisclosed, unauthorized, and unlawful charge, to the
balance of the final bill total which consumers thereafter pay.  By
not raising their menu prices, and instead adding an undisclosed,
unauthorized, and unlawful surcharge onto a customer's bill, the
Defendant is misleading the public as to the actual prices of their
food and drinks.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua Bordin-Wosk, Esq.
          Shannon Guevara, Esq.
          Talissa Mulholland, Esq.
          B|B LAW GROUP LLP
          6100 Center Drive Suite 1100
          Howard Hughes Center
          Los Angeles, CA 90045
          Telephone: (323) 925 7800
          Facsimile: (323) 925 7801
          E-mail: jbordinWosk@BBLawGroupLLP.com
                  SGuevara@BBLawGroupLLP.com
                  TMulholland@BBLawGroupLLP.com


BLUE BOTTLE: Goldboss Sues over Customer Billing Surcharge
----------------------------------------------------------
LAUREN GOLDBOSS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. BLUE BOTTLE COFFEE, LLC, a Limited
Liability Corporation; and Does 1 to 25, inclusive, the Defendant,
Case No. CGC-18-569420 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sept. 4, 2018), alleges
that the Defendant adds a 4% surcharge to customer's bills without
disclosure to consumers prior to ordering at their restaurants.

The Defendant's restaurants represent to the general public certain
prices for food and drinks in their in-restaurant and advertised
menus, but then, after the food and/or drink is ordered, the
Defendant adds a surcharge, including, but not limited to, a
surcharge it calls "Healthy SF Surcharge," which is actually an
undisclosed, unauthorized, and unlawful charge, to the balance of
the final bill total which consumers thereafter pay.  By not
raising their menu prices, and instead adding an undisclosed,
unauthorized, and unlawful surcharge onto a customer's bill, the
Defendant is misleading the public as to the actual prices of their
food and drinks.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua Bordin-Wosk, Esq.
          Shannon Guevara, Esq.
          Talissa Mulholland, Esq.
          B|B LAW GROUP LLP
          6100 Center Drive Suite 1100
          Howard Hughes Center
          Los Angeles, CA 90045
          Telephone: (323) 925 7800
          Facsimile: (323) 925 7801
          E-mail: jbordinWosk@BBLawGroupLLP.com
                  SGuevara@BBLawGroupLLP.com
                  TMulholland@BBLawGroupLLP.com


BROTHERS MOTHERS: Wait Staff Class Certified in Buckler Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Richard B. Farrer entered a memorandum and order in the
lawsuit captioned JUSTIN A. BUCKLER AND LONDON MORTON, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHER EMPLOYEES SIMILARLY SITUATED v. BROTHERS,
MOTHERS, & OTHERS CORPORATION, D/B/A CYPRESS GRILLE; AND PAUL G.
THOMPSON, Case No. 5:17-cv-00603-OLG-RBF (W.D. Tex.), granting in
part the Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Certification.

The Court conditionally certifies a collective action under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.  The class will be comprised of all
current and former employees of Brothers, Mothers & Others
Corporation, d/b/a Cypress Grille, who worked as wait staff at any
time during the period of June 25, 2015 to the present.

Within seven days from the date of this Order, the parties are
required to meet and confer regarding the issue of notice.  If the
parties reach an agreement, they should notify the Court and
jointly submit to the Court for approval their proposed notice,
Judge Farrer states.  If there are portions of the notice or other
related issues on which the parties do not agree, which require
Court resolution, they should submit their respective positions to
the Court via motion.

Judge Farrer also ruled that any relief requested not expressly
granted in the Order is denied.


CADO INC: Underpays Exotic Dancers, Unger and Donahue Allege
------------------------------------------------------------
RHIANON UNGER; and CYNTHIA DONAHUE, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CADO, INC. D/B/A MAC'S
TWO LOUNGE; and SANDRA L. BRENNAN, Defendants, Case No. 18-2375
(Mass. Cmmw., Middlesex Cty., Aug. 17, 2018) alleges that the
Defendants fail to pay minimum wage and overtime compensation,
mandate their dancers to pay house fees, and share their tips with
DJs.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as exotic dancers.

Cado, Inc. is a corporation incorporated under the laws of
Massachusetts. The Company owns and operates a strip club known as
Mac's Two Lounge in Middlesex, Massacusetts. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David D. Dishman, Esq.
          DISHMAN LAW, PC
          224 Lewis Wharf
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (671) 523-5252
          E-mail: david@dishmanlaw.com


CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS: Wrongfully Cancelled Insurance, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
ASHLEY SUMMERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS' SERVICES D/B/A BLUE
SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA; and DOES 1 THROUGH 100, INCLUSIVE,
Defendants, Case No. BC717338 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Aug.
17, 2018) seeks to stop the Defendants from improperly cancelling
their members' health plans in violation of the contract and law.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that despite making timely
payments to cover her monthly health plan premiums, the Defendants
cancelled her coverage outside of open enrollment leaving her
without insurance and without treatment and medication for four
months.

California Physicians' Service, Inc., doing business as Blue Shield
of California Inc., offers health plans to individuals and families
in California. The company provides health, dental, vision,
Medicaid, and Medicare healthcare service plans in California. It
also helps members to find dentists, vision care, pharmacies,
medical facilities, and medical equipment and supplies. Its
products are offered through local agents and brokers. California
Physicians' Service, Inc. was founded in 1938 and is based in San
Francisco, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott C. Glovsky, Esq.
          Ari Dybnis, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SCOTT GLOVSKY, APC
          1100 E. Green Street, Suite 200
          Pasadena, CA 91106
          Telephone: (626) 243-5598
          Facsimile: (866) 243-2243
          E-mail: Sglovsky@scottglovskylaw.com
                  Adybnis@scottglovskylaw.com


CARL R. PURSELL: Underpays Construction Workers, Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH EMANUELE and RUDY ARENAS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CARL R. PURSELL
CONSTRUCTION, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 6:18-cv-01356-RBD-GJK (M.D.
Fla., Aug. 17, 2018) is brought against the Defendant to recover
unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, declaratory
relief, attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as construction
workers.

Carl R. Pursell Construction, LLC is a Florida Limited Liability
Company engaged in the construction business. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kimberly De Arcangelis, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          20 N. Orange Ave., 14th Floor
          Orlando, FL 32802-4979
          Telephone: (407) 420-1414
          Facsimile: (407) 245-3383
          E-mail: kimd@forthepeople.com


CENTERLINE SOLUTIONS: Dirocco Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH DIROCCO, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. CENTERLINE SOLUTIONS LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 6:18-cv-01056-DNH-TWD (N.D.N.Y., Sept. 4,
2018), seeks to recover overtime wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, throughout Plaintiff's employment,
Plaintiff has regularly worked in excess of 40, and often in excess
of 50, hours per week. However, until approximately March of 2018,
Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff overtime compensation at the
statutorily mandated overtime rate of pay for all hours that
Plaintiff worked per week that was in excess of 40 total hours, as
the FLSA and the NYLL required. Specifically, Defendant failed to
count time Plaintiff spent driving from Defendant's office in
Rochester, NY to his job site as hours worked for the purposes of
calculating overtime due to Plaintiff.

Defendant is a wireless network connectivity services provider
which operates in various states throughout the United States,
including in New York, Colorado, Virginia and Utah.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sergei Lemberg, Esq.
          Tamra Givens, Esq.
          LEMBERG LAW, L.L.C.
          43 Danbury Road, 3rd Floor
          Wilton, CT 06897
          Telephone: (203) 653 2250
          Facsimile: (203) 653 3424
          E-mail: slemberg@lemberglaw.com
                  tgivens@lemberglaw.com


CHEMICAL FINANCIAL: City of Livonia Suit in E.D.Mich. to Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chemical Financial Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2018, that the stay has been lifted for the
case entitled City of Livonia Employees' Retirement System v.
Chemical Financial Corporation, et al.

On June 16, 2016, the same putative class plaintiff that filed the
City of Livonia state court action filed a complaint in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, styled
City of Livonia Employees' Retirement System v. Chemical Financial
Corporation, et al., Docket No. 1:16-cv-12229.  The plaintiff
purports to bring this action "individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated," and requests certification as a class
action.

The Complaint alleges violations of Section 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and alleges, among other things,
that the Defendants issued materially incomplete and misleading
disclosures in the Form S-4 Registration Statement relating to the
proposed merger.  The Complaint contains requests for relief that
include, among other things, that the Court enjoin the proposed
transaction unless and until additional information is provided to
Talmer's shareholders, declare that the Defendants violated the
securities laws in connection with the proposed merger, award
compensatory damages, interest, attorneys' and experts' fees, and
that the Court grant such other relief as it deems just and
proper.

Talmer, the Corporation, and the individual defendants all believe
that the claims asserted against each of them in this lawsuit are
without merit and intend to vigorously defend against this
lawsuit.

On October 18, 2016, the Federal Court entered a stipulated order
staying this action until the Oakland County Circuit Court issues
rulings on motions for summary disposition In re Talmer Bancorp
Shareholder Litigation, case number 2016-151641-CB.  Following the
Oakland County Circuit Court's denial of the Motions by KBW and the
individual defendants and their ensuing application for leave to
appeal that ruling, the Federal Court issued an order extending the
stay of this action.

On November 13, 2017, the Federal Court issued an Order Directing
Plaintiff To Show Cause Why The Stay Should Not Be Lifted.  On June
29, 2018, the Court issued an Order Lifting Stay.  The order
provides that the plaintiff will be allowed to file an amended
complaint, and that the Defendants may then file a response to the
amended complaint.  The order also provides that pursuant to the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, the plaintiff will not be
allowed to use discovery from the state court cases in formulating
their amended complaint.

Chemical Financial Corporation is a financial holding company
headquartered in Midland, Michigan, that was incorporated in the
State of Michigan in August 1973. The company's common stock is
listed on the NASDAQ under the symbol "CHFC." The company is based
in Midland, Michigan.


CINEMARK HOLDINGS: "Amey" Class Lawsuit vs. Subsidiary Underway
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cinemark Holdings, Inc. still faces the class action suit styled
Joseph Amey, et al. v. Cinemark USA, Inc., Case No. 3:13cv05669, in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Francisco Division, 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.

The case presents putative class action claims for penalties and
attorney's fees arising from alleged violations of the California
wage statement law.  The claim is also asserted as a representative
action under the California Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) for
penalties.

The Company denies the claims, denies that class certification is
appropriate, denies that the plaintiff has standing to assert the
claims alleged and is vigorously defending against the claims.  The
Company denies any violation of law and plans to vigorously defend
against all claims.

The parties are awaiting the Court's ruling on Plaintiff's motion
for class certification.  The Company is unable to predict the
outcome of this litigation or the range of potential loss.

The Company previously disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2018, that the Court had determined that
class certification is not appropriate and determined that a PAGA
representative action is not appropriate.  The plaintiff has
appealed these rulings.

Cinemark Holdings is a leader in the motion picture exhibition
industry, with theatres in the U.S., Brazil, Argentina, Chile,
Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa
Rica, Panama, Guatemala, Bolivia, Curacao and Paraguay. The company
is based in Plano, Texas.


CIOX HEALTH: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in Rave Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Lynn Adelman denied, without prejudice to its renewal
following the completion of discovery, the Plaintiff's previously
filed motion for class certification in the lawsuit styled TIMOTHY
RAVE v. CIOX HEALTH, LLC., et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-00305-LA (E.D.
Wisc.).

According to the Court's minutes of conference, the Court sets
deadlines for discovery, dispositive motions, class-certification
motion, and initial disclosures.  Order to follow.  The Parties
agree to postpone expert discovery until after dispositive
motions.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott Borison, Esq.
          LEGG LAW FIRM LLP
          38 S. Paca St., #116 Suite B
          Baltimore, MD 21201
          Telephone: (301) 620-1016
          Facsimile: (301) 620-1018
          E-mail: borison@legglaw.com

               - and -

          Robert Welcenbach, Esq.
          WELCENBACH LAW OFFICES SC
          933 North Mayfair Road, Suite 311
          Milwaukee, WI 53226
          Telephone: (414) 774-7330
          E-mail: robert@welcenbachlaw.com

               - and -

          J. Craig Jones, Esq.
          JONES & HILL, LLC
          131 U.S. 165 South
          Oakdale, LA 71463
          Toll Free: (888) 481-1333
          Telephone: (318) 335-1333

Defendant Columbia St. Mary's Hospital Milwaukee Inc. is
represented by:

          Bradley Foley, Esq.
          GUTGLASS ERICKSON BONVILLE & LARSON SC
          735 North Water Street, Suite 1400
          Milwaukee, WI 53202
          Telephone: (414) 273-1144
          Facsimile: (414) 273-3821          
          E-mail: bradley.foley@gebsc.com

Defendant Ciox Health LLC is represented by:

          Daniel Manna, Esq.
          GASS WEBER MULLINS LLC
          241 North Broadway, Suite 300
          Milwaukee, WI 53202
          Telephone: (414) 223-3300
          Facsimile: (414) 224-6116
          E-mail: manna@gwmlaw.com


CIVISTA BANCSHARES: Suit over United Community Merger Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
Civista Bancshares, Inc. is facing a putative class action lawsuit
related to its merger plan with United Community Bancorp and United
Community Bank, according to CBI's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2018.

On March 11, 2018, CBI and United Community Bancorp ("UCB") and
United Community Bank ("United Community") entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with UCB and
United Community, pursuant to which CBI will acquire UCB and its
wholly-owned subsidiary, United Community.

On June 21, 2018, a purported stockholder of United Community,
filed a putative class action lawsuit in the Superior Court for the
State of Indiana, Dearborn County, against United Community, the
members of United Community's Board of Directors, United Community
Bank, Civista and Civista Bank on behalf of all of United
Community's public stockholders.  The lawsuit alleges that United
Community's proxy statement for the special meeting of United
Community stockholders to be held on July 24, 2018 to vote on the
Merger omitted certain material information, which rendered the
proxy statement false and misleading, and that United Community's
directors breached their fiduciary duties in the sale process.  The
lawsuit also alleges that the other corporate defendants, including
Civista and Civista Bank, aided and abetted in the alleged breaches
of fiduciary duties.  The relief sought in the lawsuit includes
preliminary and permanent injunction against the consummation of
the Merger, rescission or rescissory damages if the Merger is
completed, costs and attorney's fees.  The defendants believe that
the claims are without merit and intend to defend against the suit
vigorously.  However, at this time, it is not possible to predict
the outcome of the lawsuit or the impact on United Community,
Civista or the contemplated Merger.

Civista Bancshares, Inc. operates as the financial holding company
for Civista Bank that engages in the community banking business in
Ohio.  The Company was founded in 1884 and is based in Sandusky,
Ohio.


COMPLYRIGHT INC: Roberts Files Suit Over Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------
Jeffery Roberts, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ComplyRight, Inc., Case No. 18-cv-61836 (S.D. Fla.,
August 7, 2018), is brought against the Defendant for negligence
and for violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act.

This is a class action brought by the Plaintiff individually and on
behalf of all other individuals similarly situated whose personal
information, including names, addresses, phone numbers, email
addresses, and social security numbers was stolen from the
Defendant's computer servers beginning on or around April 20, 2018,
and lasting until May 22, 2018 (the "Data Breach").

The Defendant is a cloud-based human resources and tax preparation
company whose services are used by thousands of organizations and
businesses.

The Plaintiff Jeffery Roberts is an adult over the age of eighteen.
He is a resident of New Port Richey, Florida. On or about July 17,
2018, the Plaintiff received a letter from Defendant informing him
that Defendant was subject to a "recent security incident involving
some of his Personal Information that was maintained on the
Defendant's website." The letter further stated that his Personal
Information "was accessed and/or viewed, and may have been
downloaded or otherwise acquired, by an unauthorized user"
including his "name, address, telephone number, email address, and
Social Security number." As a result of the Defendant's failure to
adequate safeguard Plaintiff's Personal Information, Plaintiff has
been injured, says the complaint.

The Defendant ComplyRight is a Minnesota corporation with a
principal executive office at 1725 Roe Crest Drive, North Mankato,
Minnesota 56003. The Defendant lists its "main office" in Florida
at 3300 Gateway Drive, Pompano Beach, Florida 33069. The Defendant
offers a variety of legal compliance and human resources services
for businesses to ensure that they comply with federal, state, and
local employment laws. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Marc A. Wites, Esq.
      WITES LAW FIRM
      4400 North Federal Highway
      Lighthouse Point, FL 33064
      Tel: (954) 933-4400
      E-mail: mwites@witeslaw.com


CORECIVIC INC: Still Defends "Grae" Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
CoreCivic, Inc. is still defending itself against the purported
class action suit styled Grae v. Corrections Corporation of America
et al., 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.

The Company said, "Following the release of the August 18, 2016 DOJ
memorandum, a purported securities class action lawsuit was filed
against us and certain of our current and former officers in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee,
or the District Court, captioned Grae v. Corrections Corporation of
America et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-02267.  The lawsuit is brought on
behalf of a putative class of shareholders who purchased or
acquired our securities between February 27, 2012 and August 17,
2016.  In general, the lawsuit alleges that, during this timeframe,
our public statements were false and/or misleading regarding the
purported operational, programming, and cost efficiency factors
cited in the DOJ memorandum and, as a result, our stock price was
artificially inflated.  The lawsuit alleges that the publication of
the DOJ memorandum on August 18, 2016 revealed the alleged fraud,
causing the per share price of our stock to decline, thereby
causing harm to the putative class of shareholders.

"On May 12, 2017, we submitted a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's
complaint in its entirety with prejudice.  On December 18, 2017,
the District Court entered an order denying our motion to dismiss.
We believe the lawsuit is entirely without merit and intend to
vigorously defend against it.  In addition, we maintain insurance,
with certain self-insured retention amounts, to cover the alleged
claims which mitigates the risk such litigation would have a
material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of
operations, or cash flows."

CoreCivic, Inc. is a diversified government solutions company with
the scale and experience needed to solve tough government
challenges in flexible, cost-effective ways. Through three
segments, CoreCivic Safety, CoreCivic Properties, and CoreCivic
Community, the company provides a broad range of solutions to
government partners that serve the public good through corrections
and detention management, government real estate solutions, and a
growing network of residential reentry centers to help address
America's recidivism crisis. The company is based in Nashville,
Tennessee.


COSTA DEL MAR: Charges Illegal Fees, Troy Smith Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
TROY SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. COSTA DEL MAR, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:18-cv-01011-J-32-TJC-JRK (M.D. Fla., Aug. 20, 2018) seeks damages
as a result of the Defendant's practice of charging its customers
an illegal fee to process its Lifetime Warranty against
manufacturer's defects in connection with the sale of sunglasses.

Costa Del Mar Sunglasses, Inc. manufactures and repairs sunglasses.
It also sells sunglasses; accessories, such as retainers, grippers,
keepers, straps, cords, lens sets, side shields, hermit cloths, and
DVDs; prescription products; and apparel, including T-shirts,
visors, caps, and hats through its online store. Costa Del Mar
Sunglasses also offers its products through dealers worldwide. The
company was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in Daytona Beach,
Florida. Costa Del Mar Sunglasses, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of
A.T. Cross Company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter P. Hargitai, Esq.
          Joshua H. Roberts, Esq.
          Laura B. Renstrom, Esq.
          Michael M. Gropper, Esq.
          Holland & Knight LLP
          50 North Laura Street, Suite 3900
          Jacksonville, FL 32202
          Telephone: (904) 353-2000
          Facsimile: (904) 358-1872
          E-mail: peter.hargitai@hklaw.com
                  joshua.roberts@hklaw.com
                  laura.renstrom@hklaw.com
                  Michael.gropper@hklaw.com


COVENANT TRANSPORTATION: SRT Unit Still Faces Bass Class Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Covenant Transportation Group, Inc.'s SRT subsidiary still defends
itself against a class action lawsuit by David Bass, 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.

The Company said, "Our SRT subsidiary is a defendant in a lawsuit
filed on December 16, 2016 in the Superior Court of San Bernardino
County, California.  The lawsuit was filed on behalf of David Bass
(a California resident and former driver), who is seeking to have
the lawsuit certified as a class action case wherein he alleges
violation of multiple California wage and hour statutes over a four
year period of time, including failure to pay wages for all hours
worked, failure to provide meal periods and paid rest breaks,
failure to pay for rest and recovery periods, failure to reimburse
certain business expenses, failure to pay vested vacation, unlawful
deduction of wages, failure to timely pay final wages, failure to
provide accurate itemized wage statements, and unfair and unlawful
competition as well as various state claims.

"The case was removed from state court in February, 2017 to the
U.S. District Court in the Central District of California, and
subsequently, SRT moved the District Court to transfer venue of the
case to the U.S. District Court sitting in the Western District of
Arkansas.  The motion to transfer was approved by the California
District Court in July, 2017, and the case will now be heard in the
U.S. District court in the Western District of Arkansas."

Covenant is a major carrier for transportation companies such as
freight forwarders, less-than-truckload carriers, and third-party
logistics providers that require a high level of service to support
their businesses, as well as for traditional truckload customers
such as manufacturers, retailers, and food and beverage shippers.


CRIMSON WINE: Oct. 5 Final Approval Hearing for Class Action Pact
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Crimson Wine Group, Ltd. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2018, that the hearing to consider final approval of
the settlement of a class action complaint in the Superior Court of
California, County of Napa, is scheduled for October 5, 2018.

On May 17, 2017, a former employee filed a class action complaint
in the Superior Court of California, County of Napa against one of
the Company's subsidiaries, Pine Ridge Vineyards, alleging various
wage and labor violations.  On February 5, 2018, the Company
settled this class action complaint at mediation for US$0.4
million, which was recorded in the consolidated financial
statements for the year ended December 31, 2017.

The settlement does not contain any admission of liability,
wrongdoing, or responsibility by any of the parties.  The court
granted preliminary approval of the settlement on May 23, 2018.
Class notice has been sent to the class members, and the final
approval hearing is scheduled for October 5, 2018.

Crimson Wine Group, Ltd., through its subsidiaries, engages in the
production and sale of ultra-premium and wines. It operates through
two segments, Wholesale and Direct to Consumer. The company is
based in Napa, California.


CUMULUS MEDIA: Doyle and McCabe Sue over Deceptive Sweepstakes
--------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT DOYLE; and KEVIN McCABE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CUMULUS MEDIA INC.;
CUMULUS MEDIA NEW HOLDINGS INC., formerly CUMULUS MEDIA HOLDINGS
INC.; and RADIO LICENSE HOLDINGS LLC, Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-04667-JBW-SMG (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 17, 2018) alleges violation
of the New York General Business Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have sought to induce
people to believe that the Defendants' radio-station sweepstakes
involves only the station to which a given person is listening,
whereas the sweepstakes instead involves hundreds of radio
stations, the result of which is that the odds of winning have been
a fraction of what the odds have appeared to be.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants unjustly enrich the
Plaintiffs and the Class by retaining, against equity and good
conscience, the benefits that the Plaintiffs and Class have
conferred upon the Defendants by entering into a Sweepstakes
Segment. As a result of the Defendants' unjust enrichment, the
Defendants should be required to make restitution to Plaintiffs and
the Class.

Cumulus Media Inc. owns and operates radio stations in the United
States. The company operates through Radio Station Group and
Westwood One segments. Cumulus Media Inc. was founded in 1997 and
is based in Atlanta, Georgia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd C. Bank, Esq.
          ATTORNEY AT LAW, P.C.
          119-40 Union Turnpike, Fourth Floor
          Kew Gardens, NY 11415
          Telephone: (718) 520-7125


CVS HEALTH: MSP Recovery Class Lawsuit Still Pending in N.J.
------------------------------------------------------------
CVS Health Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2018, that the class action suit initially styled as
MSP Recovery Claims Series, LLC, et al. v. CVS Health Corporation,
et al. (U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas) is
still pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey.

In September 2017, a putative class action complaint was filed
against the Company, Express Scripts, Inc., and the manufacturers
of insulin on behalf of assignees of claims of Medicare Advantage
Organizations.  Plaintiffs assert that the PBMs and manufacturers
have engaged in a conspiracy whereby the PBMs sell access to their
formularies by demanding the highest rebates, which in turn causes
increased list prices for insulin.

The plaintiffs initially asserted claims against the Company on
behalf of two putative classes: (1) all Medicare C payors and (2)
all Medicare D payors.  The complaint asserts claims under RICO,
and for common law fraud and unjust enrichment.

This case was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey, and the plaintiff filed an amended
complaint against only the drug manufacturers, and not against the
PBMs.

CVS Health Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, is a
pharmacy innovation company helping people on their path to better
health. At the forefront of a changing health care landscape, the
Company has an unmatched suite of capabilities and the expertise
needed to drive innovations that will help shape the future of
health care. The company is based in Woonsocket, Rhode Island


CVS HEALTH: Remains a Defendant in EpiPen ERISA Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------
CVS Health Corporation continues to defend itself in the
consolidated case styled In re EpiPen ERISA Litigation, 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.

In June 2017, a putative class action complaint was filed against
the Company and other pharmacy benefit managers on behalf of ERISA
plan members who purchased and paid for EpiPen or EpiPen Jr.

Plaintiffs allege that the pharmacy benefit managers are ERISA
fiduciaries to plan members and have violated ERISA by allegedly
causing higher inflated prices for EpiPen through the process of
negotiating increased rebates from EpiPen manufacturer, Mylan.

This case was recently consolidated with a similar matter and is
now proceeding as In re EpiPen ERISA Litigation.  The Company is
defending the lawsuit.

CVS Health Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, is a
pharmacy innovation company helping people on their path to better
health. At the forefront of a changing health care landscape, the
Company has an unmatched suite of capabilities and the expertise
needed to drive innovations that will help shape the future of
health care. The company is based in Woonsocket, Rhode Island.


CVS HEALTH: Still Defends "Corcoran" and "Podgorny" Complaints
--------------------------------------------------------------
CVS Health Corporation said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2018, that it continues to defend itself in the
consolidated case of Corcoran et al. v. CVS Health Corporation
(U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California) and
Podgorny et al. v. CVS Health Corporation (U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois).

These putative class actions were filed against the Company in July
and September 2015.  The cases were consolidated in United States
District Court in the Northern District of California.  Plaintiffs
seek damages and injunctive relief on behalf of a class of
consumers who purchased certain prescription drugs under the
consumer protection statutes and common laws of certain states.

Several third-party payors filed similar putative class actions on
behalf of payors captioned Sheet Metal Workers Local No. 20 Welfare
and Benefit Fund v. CVS Health Corp. and Plumbers Welfare Fund,
Local 130 v. CVS Health Corporation (both pending in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Rhode Island) in February and
August 2016.

In all of these cases the plaintiffs allege the Company overcharged
for certain prescription drugs by not submitting the price
available to members of the CVS Health Savings Pass program as the
pharmacy's usual and customary price.

In the consumer case (Corcoran), the Court granted summary judgment
to CVS on plaintiffs' claims in their entirety and certified
certain subclasses in September 2017.  The plaintiffs have filed a
notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit.

CVS Health said, "The Company continues to defend these actions."

CVS Health Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, is a
pharmacy innovation company helping people on their path to better
health. At the forefront of a changing health care landscape, the
Company has an unmatched suite of capabilities and the expertise
needed to drive innovations that will help shape the future of
health care. The company is based in Woonsocket, Rhode Island.


CVS HEALTH: Still Faces "Bewley" and "Prescott" Class Action Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
CVS Health Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2018, that the Company is still defending the
putative class actions styled Bewley, et al. v. CVS Health
Corporation, et al. and Prescott, et al. v. CVS Health Corporation,
et al. (both pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington).

These putative class actions were filed in May 2017 against the
Company and other pharmacy benefit managers and manufacturers of
glucagon kits (Bewley) and diabetes test strips (Prescott).  Both
cases allege that, by contracting for rebates with the
manufacturers of these diabetes products, the Company and other
PBMs caused list prices for these products to increase, thereby
harming certain consumers.  The primary claims are made under
federal antitrust laws, the federal Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), state unfair competition and
consumer protection laws, and the federal Employee Retirement
Income Security Act ("ERISA").

These cases have both been transferred to the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey on defendants'
motions.  The Company is defending these lawsuits.

CVS Health Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, is a
pharmacy innovation company helping people on their path to better
health. At the forefront of a changing health care landscape, the
Company has an unmatched suite of capabilities and the expertise
needed to drive innovations that will help shape the future of
health care. The company is based in Woonsocket, Rhode Island.


CVS HEALTH: Still Faces Indiana Fund Securities Class Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
CVS Health Corporation still defends itself against a class action
lawsuit styled Indiana State District Council of Laborers and HOD
Carriers Pension and Welfare Fund v. Omnicare, Inc., et al. (U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky), 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.

In February 2006, two substantially similar putative class action
lawsuits were filed and subsequently consolidated.  The
consolidated complaint was filed against Omnicare, three of its
officers and two of its directors and purported to be brought on
behalf of all open-market purchasers of Omnicare common stock from
August 3, 2005 through July 27, 2006, as well as all purchasers who
bought shares of Omnicare common stock in Omnicare's public
offering in December 2005.

The complaint alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 and sought, among
other things, compensatory damages and injunctive relief.

After dismissals and appeals to the United States Court of Appeals
for the Sixth Circuit, the United States Supreme Court remanded the
case to the district court.  In October 2016, Omnicare filed an
answer to plaintiffs' third amended complaint, and discovery
commenced.  In August 2017, the plaintiffs moved for class
certification, which Omnicare has opposed.  

CVS Health Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, is a
pharmacy innovation company helping people on their path to better
health. At the forefront of a changing health care landscape, the
Company has an unmatched suite of capabilities and the expertise
needed to drive innovations that will help shape the future of
health care. The company is based in Woonsocket, Rhode Island.


CYRUS J. GUIDRY: Hawk Suit Moved to Eastern District of Louisiana
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Wade Hawk, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Cyrus J.
Guidry & Associates, L.L.C., Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-00138, was
removed from the U.S. District Court for the District of Texas to
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana on
August 17, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:18-cv-07964-NJB-JVM (E.D. La., Aug. 17, 2018) to the proceeding.
The case is assigned to Chief Judge Nannette Jolivette Brown and
referred to Magistrate Judge Janis van Meerveld.

Cyrus J. Guidry & Associates, established in 2004, is a project
management and inspection company located in Houma, Louisiana.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bridget Dale Davidson, Esq.
          Curt Christopher Hesse, Esq.
          Melissa Moore, Esq.
          MOORE AND ASSOCIATES
          440 Louisiana St, Suite 675
          Houston, TX 77377
          Telephone: (713) 222-6775
          Facsimile: (713) 222-6739
          E-mail: bridget@mooreandassociates.net
                  curt@mooreandassociates.net
                  melissa@mooreandassociates.net

The Defendant is represented by:

          H. Michael Bush, Esq.
          Nicole Celia Katz, Esq.
          CHAFFE MCCALL LLP (NEW ORLEANS)
          1100 Poydras St., Suite 2300
          New Orleans, LA 70163-2300
          Telephone: (504) 585-7000
          E-mail: bush@chaffe.com
                  katz@chaffe.com


DEL TACO: Can Compel Arbitration in Jaffey FCRA Suit
----------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHAEL JAFFEY, Plaintiff(s), v. DEL TACO RESTAURANTS,
INC., Defendant(s), Case No. 2:17-CV-2600 JCM (PAL) (D. Nev.),
Judge James C. Mahan of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Nevada granted Del Tacos' motion to stay proceedings, or in the
alternative, compel arbitration.

The awsuit is a putative class action against Del Taco.  The
Plaintiff alleges that Del Taco has made multiple violations of the
Fair Credit Reporting Act by failing to provide adequate
disclosures and failing to provide copies or summaries of consumer
reports before taking adverse action against employees.  

On Nov. 21, 2017, Del Taco filed a motion to stay or, in the
alternative, motion to compel arbitration.  Del Taco argues that
the Court should stay proceedings because the action relies on
unsettled law that the Supreme Court plans to resolve.  It points
out that Jaffey and other members of the putative class signed
arbitration agreements that waive class actions and class
arbitration.

In Morris v. Ernst & Young, the Ninth Circuit controversially held
that arbitration provisions that bar collective claims against an
employer violate the collective-bargaining provisions of the
National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA").  On Jan. 13, 2017, the
Supreme Court granted certiorari.  Del Taco is requesting to stay
proceedings until the Supreme Court issues its decision.

On May 21, 2018, the Supreme Court reversed Morris and held that
the NLRA does not outlaw class and collective action waivers.
Pursuant to the Supreme Court's decision in Epic Sys. Corp., Judge
Mahan holds that Del Taco's request to stay is moot.  Accordingly,
he will not stay proceedings.

Del Taco asserts that Jaffey signed a binding arbitration
agreement, which requires arbitration of all claims or causes of
action that the Company may have against Jaffey or that Jaffey may
have against the Company.  Jaffey argues that he never signed the
arbitration agreement and that even if he had, the arbitration
agreement is unenforceable because it is unconscionable.

The Judge finds that Jaffey's declaration is insufficient to refute
the existence of a signed arbitration agreement.  Further, he is
not persuaded by Jaffey's claim that he does not remember signing
the arbitration agreement because he alone had access to the
contract through his PeopleMatter profile.

Finally, he is not persuaded by Jaffey's argument that the
arbitration agreement was unconscionable.  First, the arbitration
agreement is not procedurally unconscionable.  Jaffey admits that
under Nevada law the adhesion doctrine alone does not invalidate
employment contracts.  Second, the arbitration agreement is not
substantively unconscionable.  A review of the arbitration terms,
show that the contract included ordinary provisions for attorney's
fees, waivers, and employment as consideration.

Judge Mahan concludes that the parties entered into an arbitration
agreement where Jaffey waived his right to bring a class action
against Del Taco.  The contract is enforceable because it is
neither procedurally nor substantively unconscionable.
Accordingly, he granted Del Taco's motion to stay proceedings, or
in the alternative, compel arbitration and dismiss the action.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 21, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/dg6dPC from Leagle.com.

Michael Jaffey, Plaintiff, represented by Steven Lezell Woodrow --
swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com -- Woodrow & Peluso, LLC, pro hac vice,
Patrick Harry Peluso -- ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com -- Woodrow &
Peluso, LLC, pro hac vice & Marc P. Cook, Cook and Kelesis, LTD.

Del Taco Restaurants, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendant,
represented by Andrew L. Satenberg -- asatenberg@manatt.com --
Manatt,  Phelps & Phillips, pro hac vice, LeAnn Sanders --
lsanders@alversontaylor.com -- Alverson, Taylor, Mortensen &
Sanders, Liam O'Gorman-Hoyt -- lhoyt@alversontaylor.com -- Alverson
Taylor Mortensen & Sanders & Matthew B. Golper --
mgolper@manatt.com -- Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP, pro hac
vice.


DELTA AIR: Donoff Files Suit in S.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Delta Air Lines, Inc.
The case is styled as Judith Marilyn Donoff on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Delta Air Lines,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 9:18-cv-81258-DMM (S.D. Fla., Sept. 17,
2018).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

Delta Air Lines, Inc. often referred to simply as Delta, is a major
United States airline, with its headquarters and largest hub at
Hartsfield–Jackson Atlanta International Airport in Atlanta,
Georgia. The airline, along with its subsidiaries and regional
affiliates, operates over 5,400 flights daily and serves an
extensive domestic and international network that includes 319
destinations in 54 countries on six continents, as of October
2016.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeremy L. Kahn, Esq.
     Leon Cosgrove, LLP
     255 Alhambra Circle, Suit 800
     Coral Gables, FL 33134
     Phone: (305) 740-1975
     Email: jkahn@leoncosgrove.com

         - and -

     John Richard Byrne, Esq.
     Leon Cosgrove
     255 Alhambra Circle, Suite 800
     Coral Gables, FL 33134
     Phone: (305) 740-1975
     Fax: (305) 437-8158
     Email: jbyrne@leoncosgrove.com

         - and -

     Scott Brian Cosgrove, Esq.
     LEON COSGROVE, LLP
     255 Alhambra Circle, Suite 800
     Coral Gables, FL 33134
     Phone: (305) 740-1975
     Fax: (305) 437-8158
     Email: scosgrove@leoncosgrove.com

         - and -

     Alec Huff Schultz, Esq.
     Leon Cosgrove LLC
     255 Alhambra Circle, Suite 800
     Coral Gables, FL 33134
     Phone: (305) 740-1986
     Fax: (305) 437-8158
     Email: aschultz@leoncosgrove.com


DEPOMED INC: Bid to Dismiss "Huang" Securities Suit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to dismiss the "Huang" federal securities law class action
in California against Depomed, Inc., is still 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 23, 2017, the Company, its current chief executive
officer and president, its former chief executive officer and
president, and its former chief financial officer were named as
defendants in a purported federal securities law class action filed
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California (Huang v. Depomed et al., No. 3:17-cv- 04830-JST, N.D.
Cal.).  The action alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
relating to certain prior disclosures of the Company about its
business, compliance, and operational policies; and practices
concerning the sales and marketing of its opioid products.  The
plaintiff, who seeks to represent a class consisting of all
purchasers of Company common stock between February 26, 2015 and
August 7, 2017, contends that the conduct supporting the alleged
violations affected the value of Company common stock and is
seeking damages and other relief.  On December 8, 2017, the
"Depomed Investor Group" was appointed lead plaintiff.

On February 6, 2018, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint
that asserted the same claims arising out of the same and similar
disclosures against the Company and the same individuals as were
involved in the original complaint.  The Company and the
individuals filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
April 9, 2018.  The lead plaintiff filed an opposition to the
motion on June 8, 2018.  The Company and the individuals filed a
reply in support of their motion to dismiss on July 23, 2018.  The
Company believes that the action is without merit and intends to
contest it vigorously.

Depomed, Inc., is a pharmaceutical company.


DISCOVER ENTERTAINMENT: Dancers Seek Minimum Wages & Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JANE ROE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. DISCOVER ENTERTAINMENT, INC., d/b/a
SYNN'S GENTLEMEN'S CLUB, SEVENTH VEIL, SAHARA THEATER, KNOCKOUTS,
SATIN TOPLESS, RIO GENTLEMEN'S CLUB, PARADISE GENTLEMEN'S CLUB,
LONG K. HUOT, TAWNY T. HUOT and DOES 1-200, jointly and severally,
the Defendant, Case No. BC720148 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sept. 4, 2018),
seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime in Violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants misclassified the
Plaintiffs and all other members of the Class as independent
contractors, as opposed to employees, at all times in which they
worked as dancers at the Defendants' adult nightclubs located in
California. The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants failed to
pay the Plaintiffs and all other members of the Class the minimum
and overtime wages and other benefits to which they were entitled
under applicable federal and California state laws. Additionally,
the Defendants engaged in unlawful tip-sharing by requiring dancers
in the Class to share gratuities given to them by patrons with the
Defendants and their employees, such as bouncers.

Discover Entertainment is in the entertainment service
business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey R. Krinsk, Esq.
          Trenton R. Kashima, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN & KRINSK LLP
          550 West C St., Suite 1760
          San Diego, CA92101
          Telephone: (619) 238 1333
          Facsimile: (619) 238 5425
          E-mail: jrk@classactionlaw.com
                  trk@classactionlaw.com


DXC TECHNOLOGY: Mediation in ADEA Suit vs. HP Units This Week
-------------------------------------------------------------
A mediation is scheduled for October 4-5, 2018, in the class action
related to the alleged violation of the Federal Age Discrimination
in Employment Act by HP Inc. and Hewlett Packard Enterprise,
according to DXC Technology Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2018.

The purported class and collective action, Forsyth, et al. v. HP
Inc. and Hewlett Packard Enterprise, was filed on August 18, 2016
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
against HP and HPE alleging violations of the Federal Age
Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"), the California Fair
Employment and Housing Act, California public policy and the
California Business and Professions Code.  Former business units of
HPE now owned by the Company will be proportionately liable for any
recovery by plaintiffs in this matter.  Plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint on December 19, 2016.

Plaintiffs seek to certify a nationwide class action under the ADEA
comprised of all U.S. residents employed by defendants who had
their employment terminated pursuant to a work force reduction
("WFR") plan on or after December 9, 2014 (deferral states) and
April 8, 2015 (non-deferral states), and who were 40 years of age
or older at the time of termination.  Plaintiffs also seek to
represent a Rule 23 class under California law comprised of all
persons 40 years or older employed by defendants in the state of
California and terminated pursuant to a WFR plan on or after August
18, 2012.

On January 30, 2017, defendants filed a partial motion to dismiss
and a motion to compel arbitration of claims by certain named and
opt-in plaintiffs who had signed releases as part of their WFR
packages.  On September 20, 2017, the Court denied the partial
motion to dismiss without prejudice, but granted defendants'
motions to compel arbitration for those named and opt-in
plaintiffs.  Accordingly, the Court has stayed the entire action
pending arbitration for these individuals, and administratively
closed the case.

Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration as well as a notice
of appeal to the Ninth Circuit (which has been denied as
premature).  The reconsideration motion was denied without oral
argument.  In that same decision, the Court held that a joint
arbitration was permissible.  The Company subsequently sought and
obtained leave of Court to file a motion for reconsideration
arguing that joint arbitration is not permitted under the relevant
employee agreements.  The Court denied the motion on April 17,
2018, ruling that interpretation of the employee agreements is an
issue delegated to the arbitrator.

The American Arbitration Association, which was designated to
manage the arbitration process, has selected a single arbitrator to
conduct the proceedings.  An initial case management conference
before the arbitrator was held on June 29, 2018.  Pursuant to the
release agreements, however, mediation is a precondition to
arbitration.  A mediation is therefore scheduled for October 4-5,
2018.  Former business units of the Company now owned by Perspecta
will be proportionately liable for any recovery by plaintiffs in
this matter.

DXC Technology Company, together with its subsidiaries, provides
information technology services and solutions primarily in North
America, Europe, Asia, and Australia.  It operates through three
segments: Global Business Services (GBS), Global Infrastructure
Services (GIS), and United States Public Sector (USPS).  The
Company was formerly known as Computer Sciences Corporation and
changed its name to DXC Technology Company in April 2017 as a
result of its merger with the Enterprise Services business of
Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company.  DXC Technology Company was
founded in 1959 and is headquartered in Tysons, Virginia.


ENDO INTERNATIONAL: 1,254 Testosterone Cases Pending at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Approximately 1,254 testosterone cases are currently pending
against subsidiaries of Endo International plc as of July 31, 2018,
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.

The Company said, "Various manufacturers of prescription
medications containing testosterone, including our subsidiaries
Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. (EPI) and Auxilium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
(subsequently converted to Auxilium Pharmaceuticals, LLC and
hereinafter referred to as Auxilium), have been named as defendants
in multiple lawsuits alleging personal injury resulting from the
use of such medications, including FORTESTA(R) Gel, DELATESTRYL(R),
TESTIM(R), TESTOPEL(R), AVEED(R) and STRIANT(R).  Plaintiffs in
these suits generally allege various personal injuries, including
pulmonary embolism, stroke or other vascular and/or cardiac
injuries, and seek compensatory and/or punitive damages, where
available.

"As of July 31, 2018, we were aware of approximately 1,254
testosterone cases (some of which may have been filed on behalf of
multiple plaintiffs) pending against one or more of our
subsidiaries in federal or state court.  Many of these cases have
been coordinated in a federal MDL pending in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois (MDL No. 2545).  In
November 2015, the MDL court entered an order granting defendants'
motion to dismiss claims involving certain testosterone products
that were approved pursuant to ANDAs, including TESTOPEL(R).
Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration and clarification of
this order.  In March 2016, the MDL court granted plaintiffs'
motion in part and entered an order permitting certain claims to go
forward to the extent they are based on allegations of fraudulent
off-label marketing.  An MDL trial against Auxilium involving
TESTIM(R) took place in November 2017 and resulted in a defense
verdict.  A trial against Auxilium involving TESTIM(R) was
scheduled for January 2018 in the Philadelphia Court of Common
Pleas (PCCP) but resolved prior to trial.

"In June 2018, counsel for plaintiffs, on the one hand, and
Auxilium and EPI, on the other, executed an MSA allowing for the
resolution of all known testosterone replacement therapy product
liability claims against our subsidiaries.  The MSA was solely by
way of compromise and settlement and was not in any way an
admission of fault by us or any of our subsidiaries.

"The MSA is subject to a process that includes guidelines and
procedures for administering the settlement and the release of
funds.  Among other things, the MSA provides for the creation of a
QSF into which the settlement funds will be deposited, establishes
participation requirements, and allows for a reduction of the total
settlement payment in the event the participation threshold is not
met.  Distribution of funds to any individual claimant is
conditioned upon the receipt of documentation substantiating
product use and injury as determined by a third-party special
master, the dismissal of any lawsuit and the release of the claim
as to us and all affiliates.  Prior to receiving funds, an
individual claimant must represent and warrant that liens,
assignment rights or other claims identified in the claims
administration process have been or will be satisfied by the
individual claimant.  Confidentiality provisions apply to the
settlement funds, amounts allocated to individual claimants and
other terms of the agreement.

"Although the Company believes it has appropriately estimated the
probable total amount of loss associated with testosterone-related
product liability matters as of the date of this report, it is
reasonably possible that further claims may be filed or asserted
and adjustments to our liability accrual may be required.  This
could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows.

"The MDL also includes a lawsuit filed in November 2014 in the U.S.
District for the Northern District of Illinois against EPI,
Auxilium and various other manufacturers of testosterone products
on behalf of a proposed class of health insurance companies and
other third party payers that claim to have paid for certain
testosterone products.  After a series of motions to dismiss,
plaintiff filed a third amended complaint in April 2016, asserting
civil claims for alleged violations of the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and negligent misrepresentation
based on defendants' marketing of certain testosterone products.
The court denied a motion to dismiss this complaint in August 2016.
In July 2018, the court denied plaintiff's motion for class
certification.  This lawsuit is not part of the settlement.

"We will continue to vigorously defend any unresolved claims and to
explore other options as appropriate in our best interests.
Similar matters may be brought by others or the foregoing matters
may be expanded.  We are unable to predict the outcome of these
matters or to estimate the possible range of any additional losses
that could be incurred."

Endo International plc, a specialty pharmaceutical company,
manufactures and sells generic and branded pharmaceuticals in the
United States, Canada, and internationally. The company operates
through three segments: U.S. Generic Pharmaceuticals, U.S. Branded
Pharmaceuticals, and International Pharmaceuticals.


ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Accrues $930M Liability at June 30 in Mesh Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Endo International plc disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2018, that its balance for Mesh Liability Accrual is
US$929,975,000 at June 30, 2018.

The Company said, "Since 2008, we and certain of our subsidiaries,
including American Medical Systems Holdings, Inc.  (subsequently
converted to Astora Women's Health Holding LLC and merged into
Astora Women's Health LLC and referred to herein as AMS) and/or
Astora, have been named as defendants in multiple lawsuits in
various state and federal courts in the U.S. (including a federal
MDL pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
West Virginia (MDL No. 2325)), and in Canada and other countries,
alleging personal injury resulting from the use of transvaginal
surgical mesh products designed to treat pelvic organ prolapse
(POP) and stress urinary incontinence (SUI).

"In January 2018, a representative proceeding (class action) was
filed in the Federal Court of Australia against American Medical
Systems, LLC.  In the various class action and individual
complaints, plaintiffs claim a variety of personal injuries,
including chronic pain, incontinence, inability to control bowel
function and permanent deformities, and seek compensatory and
punitive damages, where available.

"We and certain plaintiffs' counsel representing mesh-related
product liability claimants have entered into various Master
Settlement Agreements (MSAs) and other agreements to resolve up to
approximately 71,000 filed and unfiled mesh claims handled or
controlled by the participating counsel.  These MSAs and other
agreements were entered into at various times between June 2013 and
the present, were solely by way of compromise and settlement and
were not in any way an admission of liability or fault by us or any
of our subsidiaries.

"All MSAs are subject to a process that includes guidelines and
procedures for administering the settlements and the release of
funds.  In certain cases, the MSAs provide for the creation of QSFs
into which funds may be deposited pursuant to certain schedules set
forth in those agreements.  All MSAs have participation
requirements regarding the claims represented by each law firm
party to the MSA.  In addition, one agreement gives us a unilateral
right of approval regarding which claims may be eligible to
participate under that settlement.  To the extent fewer claims than
are authorized under an agreement participate, the total settlement
payment under that agreement will be reduced by an agreed-upon
amount for each such non-participating claim.  Funds deposited in
QSFs are included in restricted cash and cash equivalents in the
Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

"Distribution of funds to any individual claimant is conditioned
upon the receipt of documentation substantiating the validity of
the claim, a full release and dismissal of the entire action or
claim as to all AMS parties and affiliates.  Prior to receiving
funds, an individual claimant is required to represent and warrant
that liens, assignment rights or other claims identified in the
claims administration process have been or will be satisfied by the
individual claimant.  Confidentiality provisions apply to the
amount of settlement awards to participating claimants, the claims
evaluation process and procedures used in conjunction with award
distributions, and the negotiations leading to the settlements.

"In June 2017, the MDL court entered a case management order which,
among other things, requires plaintiffs in newly-filed MDL cases to
provide expert disclosures on specific causation within one hundred
twenty (120) days of filing a claim (the Order).  Under the Order,
a plaintiff's failure to meet the foregoing deadline may be grounds
for the entry of judgment against such plaintiff.  In July 2017, a
similar order was entered in Minnesota state court.

"Although the Company believes it has appropriately estimated the
probable total amount of loss associated with all matters as of the
date of this report, it is reasonably possible that further claims
may be filed or asserted and adjustments to our liability accrual
may be required.  This could have a material adverse effect on our
business, financial condition, results of operations and cash
flows.

"As of June 30, 2018, US$869.2 million of the mesh liability
accrual amount is classified in the Current portion of the legal
settlement accrual in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets,
with the remainder classified as Long-term legal settlement
accrual, less current portion.  Charges related to vaginal mesh
liability and associated legal fees and other expenses for all
periods presented are reported in Discontinued operations, net of
tax in our Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations.
"To date, the Company has made total mesh liability payments of
approximately US$3.0 billion, US$292.5 million of which remains in
the QSFs as of June 30, 2018.  We expect to fund into the QSFs the
remaining payments under all settlement agreements during the
remainder of 2018 and 2019.  As the funds are disbursed out of the
QSFs from time to time, the liability accrual will be reduced
accordingly with a corresponding reduction to restricted cash and
cash equivalents.  In addition, we may pay cash distributions to
settle disputes separate from the QSFs, which will also decrease
the liability accrual and decrease cash and cash equivalents.

"We were contacted in October 2012 regarding a civil investigation
initiated by a number of state attorneys general into mesh
products, including transvaginal surgical mesh products designed to
treat POP and SUI.  In November 2013, we received a subpoena
relating to this investigation from the state of California, and we
have subsequently received additional subpoenas from California and
other states.  We are cooperating with these investigations.

"We will continue to vigorously defend any unresolved claims and to
explore other options as appropriate in our best interests.
Similar matters may be brought by others or the foregoing matters
may be expanded.  We are unable to predict the outcome of these
matters or to estimate the possible range of any additional losses
that could be incurred."

Endo International plc, a specialty pharmaceutical company,
manufactures and sells generic and branded pharmaceuticals in the
United States, Canada, and internationally. The company operates
through three segments: U.S. Generic Pharmaceuticals, U.S. Branded
Pharmaceuticals, and International Pharmaceuticals.


ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Amended Complaint Filed in Pelletier Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In August 2018, the lead plaintiff in the putative class action
entitled Pelletier v. Endo International plc, Rajiv Kanishka
Liyanaarchchie De Silva, Suketu P. Upadhyay, and Paul V. Campanelli
filed an amended complaint, according to Endo International plc's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018.

In November 2017, a putative class action entitled Pelletier v.
Endo International plc, Rajiv Kanishka Liyanaarchchie De Silva,
Suketu P. Upadhyay, and Paul V. Campanelli was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania by an
individual shareholder on behalf of himself and all similarly
situated shareholders.  The lawsuit alleges violations of Section
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act relating to the pricing of
various generic pharmaceutical products.

In January 2018, the Chief Judge of the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania designated Pelletier as related to Bier and reassigned
Pelletier to the judge overseeing Bier.

In June 2018, the Park Employees' Annuity and Benefit Fund of
Chicago was appointed lead plaintiff in the action.  In August
2018, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint.

Endo International plc, a specialty pharmaceutical company,
manufactures and sells generic and branded pharmaceuticals in the
United States, Canada, and internationally. The company operates
through three segments: U.S. Generic Pharmaceuticals, U.S. Branded
Pharmaceuticals, and International Pharmaceuticals.


ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Appeal from Friedman Case Dismissal Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lead plaintiffs' appeal from the dismissed "Friedman" securities
lawsuit is still pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit, according to Endo International plc's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018.

In May 2016, a putative class action entitled Craig Friedman v.
Endo International plc, Rajiv Kanishka Liyanaarchchie de Silva and
Suketu P. Upadhyay was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York by an individual shareholder on
behalf of himself and all similarly situated shareholders.

In August 2016, the court appointed Steamfitters' Industry Pension
Fund and Steamfitters' Industry Security Benefit Fund as lead
plaintiffs in the action.  In October 2016, plaintiffs filed a
second amended complaint that, among other things, added Paul
Campanelli as a defendant, and the Company filed a motion to
dismiss.  In response, and without resolving the motion, the court
permitted lead plaintiffs to file a third amended complaint.  The
amended complaint alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act based on the Company's revision of its 2016
earnings guidance and certain disclosures about its generics
business, the integration of Par Pharmaceutical Holdings, Inc.  and
its subsidiaries, certain other alleged business issues and the
receipt of a CID from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern
District of New York regarding contracts with pharmacy benefit
managers concerning FROVA(R).  Lead plaintiffs sought class
certification, damages in an unspecified amount and attorneys' fees
and costs.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the third amended complaint
in December 2016.  In January 2018, the court granted the Company's
motion and dismissed the case with prejudice.  In February 2018,
lead plaintiffs filed a motion for relief from the judgment and
leave to file a fourth amended complaint; the court denied this
motion in April 2018.

Lead plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit; that appeal is still pending.

Endo International plc, a specialty pharmaceutical company,
manufactures and sells generic and branded pharmaceuticals in the
United States, Canada, and internationally. The company operates
through three segments: U.S. Generic Pharmaceuticals, U.S. Branded
Pharmaceuticals, and International Pharmaceuticals.


ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Bid to Drop Bier Class Lawsuit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the
putative class action entitled Bier v. Endo International plc, et
al. is still pending, according to Endo International plc's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018.

In August 2017, a putative class action entitled Bier v. Endo
International plc, et al. was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania by an individual shareholder
on behalf of himself and all similarly situated shareholders.  The
original complaint alleged violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act against Endo and four current and former directors
and officers, based on the Company's decision to remove
reformulated OPANA(R) ER from the market.

In December 2017, SEB Investment Management AB was appointed lead
plaintiff in the action.  In February 2018, the lead plaintiff
filed an amended complaint, which added claims alleging violations
of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act in connection with the
June 2015 offering.  The amended complaint named the Company, EHSI
and twenty current and former directors, officers and employees of
Endo as defendants.

In April 2018, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint; that motion remains pending.

Endo International plc, a specialty pharmaceutical company,
manufactures and sells generic and branded pharmaceuticals in the
United States, Canada, and internationally. The company operates
through three segments: U.S. Generic Pharmaceuticals, U.S. Branded
Pharmaceuticals, and International Pharmaceuticals.


ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Class Status Bid Pending in Miss. PERS Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff's motion for class certification in the putative
class action entitled Public Employees' Retirement System of
Mississippi v. Endo International plc is still pending, according
to Endo International plc's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2018.

In February 2017, the class action was filed in the Court of Common
Pleas of Chester County, Pennsylvania by an institutional purchaser
of shares in the Company's June 2, 2015 public offering, on behalf
of itself and all similarly situated purchasers.  The lawsuit
alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 against Endo, certain of its current and
former directors and officers, and the underwriters who
participated in the offering, based on certain disclosures about
Endo's generics business.  In March 2017, defendants removed the
case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.

In August 2017, the court remanded the case back to the Chester
County Court of Common Pleas.  In October 2017, plaintiff filed an
amended complaint.  In December 2017, defendants filed preliminary
objections to the amended complaint.  The court denied those
preliminary objections in April 2018.

The case is currently in discovery.  Plaintiff filed its motion for
class certification in July 2018.

Endo International plc, a specialty pharmaceutical company,
manufactures and sells generic and branded pharmaceuticals in the
United States, Canada, and internationally. The company operates
through three segments: U.S. Generic Pharmaceuticals, U.S. Branded
Pharmaceuticals, and International Pharmaceuticals.


ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Defends Antitrust Class Suits over Exforge(R)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Endo International plc is defending itself against proposed class
actions in New York related to Exforge(R) (amlodipine/valsartan)
and its generic equivalents, 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.

The Company said, "Beginning in May 2018, multiple alleged direct
and indirect purchasers filed proposed class actions in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York against PPI,
EPI and/or us, as well as others, alleging a conspiracy to delay
generic competition and monopolize the market for Exforge(R)
(amlodipine/valsartan) and its generic equivalents.  The complaints
generally assert claims under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act,
various state antitrust and consumer protection statutes and state
common law and seek damages, treble damages, equitable relief and
attorneys' fees and costs.  We intend to vigorously defend these
matters and to explore other options as appropriate in our best
interests."

Endo International plc, a specialty pharmaceutical company,
manufactures and sells generic and branded pharmaceuticals in the
United States, Canada, and internationally. The company operates
through three segments: U.S. Generic Pharmaceuticals, U.S. Branded
Pharmaceuticals, and International Pharmaceuticals.


ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Still Defends Makris Class Suit in Canada
-------------------------------------------------------------
Endo International plc continues to face a putative class action
entitled Phaedra A. Makris v. Endo International plc, Rajiv
Kanishka Liyanaarchchie de Silva and Suketu P. Upadhyay in Canada,
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.

In April 2017, the putative class action was filed in the Superior
Court of Justice in Ontario, Canada by an individual shareholder on
behalf of herself and similarly-situated Canadian-based investors
who purchased Endo's securities between January 11 and May 5, 2016.
The statement of claim generally seeks class certification,
declaratory relief, damages, interest and costs based on alleged
violations of the Ontario Securities Act.  The statement of claim
alleges negligent misrepresentations concerning the Company's
revenues, profit margins and earnings per share; its receipt of a
subpoena from the State of Connecticut regarding doxycycline
hyclate, amitriptyline hydrochloride, doxazosin mesylate,
methotrexate sodium and oxybutynin chloride; and the erosion of the
Company's U.S. generic pharmaceuticals business.

Endo International plc, a specialty pharmaceutical company,
manufactures and sells generic and branded pharmaceuticals in the
United States, Canada, and internationally. The company operates
through three segments: U.S. Generic Pharmaceuticals, U.S. Branded
Pharmaceuticals, and International Pharmaceuticals.


ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Still Defends Multiple Lawsuits over Opioid
---------------------------------------------------------------
Endo International plc disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2018, that as of July 31, 2018, the opioid-related
cases of which the Company was aware include, but are not limited
to, approximately:

     -- 11 cases filed by states;

     -- 1,221 cases filed by counties, cities, Native American
tribes and/or other government-related persons or entities;

     -- 78 cases filed by hospitals, health systems, unions, health
and welfare funds or other third-party payers; and

     -- 26 cases filed by individuals.

Certain of the cases have been filed as putative class actions.

The Company said, "Since 2014, multiple U.S. states, counties,
other governmental persons or entities and private plaintiffs have
filed suit against certain of our subsidiaries, including Endo
Health Solutions Inc.  (EHSI), EPI, Par Pharmaceutical, Inc.
(PPI), Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc.  (Par), Vintage
Pharmaceuticals, LLC and/or Generics Bidco I, LLC and, in some
instances, the Company, as well as various other manufacturers,
distributors and/or others, asserting claims relating to
defendants' alleged sales, marketing and/or distribution practices
with respect to prescription opioid medications, including certain
of our products.

"Many of these cases have been coordinated in a federal MDL pending
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (MDL
No. 2804).  In March 2018, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)
filed a statement of interest in the case, and in April 2018 it
filed a motion to participate in settlement discussions and as a
friend of the court, which the MDL court has granted.  The MDL
court has issued a series of case management orders permitting
motions to dismiss addressing threshold legal issues in certain
cases, setting a trial date in 2019 for three cases originally
filed in the Northern District of Ohio, allowing certain discovery
and establishing certain other deadlines and procedures, among
other things.

"Other cases remain pending in various state courts.  In some
jurisdictions, such as Connecticut, Illinois, New York,
Pennsylvania and Texas, certain state court cases have been
transferred to a single court within their respective state court
systems for coordinated pretrial proceedings.  The state cases are
generally at the pleading and/or discovery stage.

"The complaints in the cases assert a variety of claims including,
but not limited to, claims for alleged violations of public
nuisance, consumer protection, unfair trade practices,
racketeering, Medicaid fraud and/or drug dealer liability statutes
and/or common law claims for public nuisance,
fraud/misrepresentation, strict liability, negligence and/or unjust
enrichment.  The claims are generally based on alleged
misrepresentations and/or omissions in connection with the sale and
marketing of prescription opioid medications and/or an alleged
failure to take adequate steps to prevent abuse and diversion.
Plaintiffs generally seek declaratory and/or injunctive relief;
compensatory, punitive and/or treble damages; restitution,
disgorgement, civil penalties, abatement, attorneys' fees, costs
and/or other relief.

"We will continue to vigorously defend the foregoing matters and to
explore other options as appropriate in our best interests.
Similar matters may be brought by others or the foregoing matters
may be expanded.  We are unable to predict the outcome of these
matters or to estimate the possible range of any losses that could
be incurred.

"In addition to the lawsuits, the Company and/or its subsidiaries
have received certain subpoenas, civil investigative demands (CIDs)
and informal requests for information concerning the sale,
marketing and/or distribution of prescription opioid medications,
including the following:

"In September 2017, the Department of Justice for the State of
Oregon and the Office of the Attorney General for the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts issued CIDs to EHSI and EPI on behalf of a
multistate group which we understand currently includes the
District of Columbia and the following additional states: Arizona,
California, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho,
Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota,
Nebraska, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont,
Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming.  Our subsidiaries
are cooperating with this investigation.  We understand that these
CIDs superseded prior subpoenas and/or CIDs issued by certain of
the foregoing states.

"Other states are conducting their own investigations outside of
the multistate group.  These states include New Hampshire
(subpoenas received by EPI in August 2015 and December 2017); New
Jersey (subpoena received by EPI in March 2017); Washington (CID
received by the Company, EHSI and EPI in August 2017); Indiana (CID
received by EHSI and EPI in November 2017); Montana (CID received
by EHSI and EPI in January 2018); Alaska (CID received by EPI in
February 2018); and South Carolina (CID received by EHSI and EPI in
February 2018).  We are cooperating with these investigations.

"In January 2018, our subsidiary EPI received a federal grand jury
subpoena from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida in connection with an investigation being conducted by the
U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida in
conjunction with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.  The
subpoena seeks information related to OPANA(R) ER and other
oxymorphone products.  EPI is cooperating with the investigation.

"Similar investigations may be brought by others or the foregoing
matters may be expanded or result in litigation.  We are unable to
predict the outcome of these matters or to estimate the possible
range of any losses that could be incurred."

Endo International plc, a specialty pharmaceutical company,
manufactures and sells generic and branded pharmaceuticals in the
United States, Canada, and internationally. The company operates
through three segments: U.S. Generic Pharmaceuticals, U.S. Branded
Pharmaceuticals, and International Pharmaceuticals.


ENERGY TRANSFER: Warner Securities Suit Challenges Sale to ETE
--------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM D. WARNER, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. ENERGY TRANSFER PARTNERS, L.P., KELCY L. WARREN,
MICHAEL K. GRIMM, MARSHALL S. McCREA, MATTHEW S. RAMSEY, DAVID K.
SKIDMORE, and W. BRETT SMITH, Case No. 3:18-cv-02478-D (N.D. Tex.,
September 17, 2018), seeks to enjoin the vote on a proposed
transaction, pursuant to which ETP will be acquired by Energy
Transfer Equity, L.P., through ETE's wholly-owned subsidiary
Streamline Merger Sub, LLC.

On August 1, 2018, ETP and ETE issued a joint press release
announcing they had entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger.
Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, ETP unitholders will be
entitled to receive 1.28 common units of ETE for each ETP common
unit they own.  The Proposed Transaction is valued at approximately
$27 billion.  On September 12, 2018, ETP filed a definitive proxy
statement on Schedule 14A with the SEC.

Mr. Warner contends that the Proxy Statement omits or misrepresents
material information concerning, among other things: (i) the
valuation analyses performed by ETP's financial advisor, Barclays
Capital Inc., in support of its fairness opinion; and (ii)
potential conflicts of interest faced by Barclays.  He asserts that
the failure to adequately disclose such material information
constitutes a violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

ETP is a Delaware limited partnership and maintains its principal
executive offices in Dallas, Texas.  ETP is engaged in the
midstream transportation and storage of natural gas, natural gas
liquids ("NGLs"), refined products and crude oil, and terminalling
services and acquisition and marketing activities, as well as NGL
storage and fractionation services.  The Individual Defendants are
directors and officers of the ETP.

ETP is managed by its general partner, Energy Transfer Partners GP,
L.P. ("ETP GP"), and ETP GP is managed by its general partner,
Energy Transfer Partners, L.L.C. ("ETP Managing GP").  ETP Managing
GP is a wholly owned subsidiary of ETE.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William B. Federman, Esq.
          FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
          2926 Maple Ave., Suite 200
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 696-1100
          Facsimile: (214) 740-0112
          E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com

               - and -

          Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
          WEISSLAW LLP
          1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 682-3025
          Facsimile: (212) 682-3010
          E-mail: racocelli@weisslawllp.com


ENTERPRISE HOLDINGS: Wins Bid to Dismiss Bah Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Mark L. Wolf allowed Enterprise Holdings, Inc.'s Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint in the lawsuit captioned MAMADOU
ALPHA BAH v. ENTERPRISE HOLDINGS, INC., and ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR
CO. OF BOSTON, LLC, Case No. 1:17-cv-12542-MLW (D. Mass.).

The Plaintiff's claims against Enterprise Holdings are dismissed
without prejudice.  The Plaintiff's Motion for the Issuance of
Notice Pursuant to Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act
is, therefore, moot.

Enterprise Holdings' Motion to File Document Under Seal and Motion
for Leave to File Reply in Support of Motion to Seal are allowed.

Judge Wolf ruled that the parties will, by October 1, 2018, confer
and report, jointly if possible but separately if necessary, on
whether they have reached an agreement to resolve the case.  If
they have not resolved this case, the Plaintiff shall, by October
15, 2018, file an amended complaint or report that he does not
intend to do so.

If the Plaintiff files an amended complaint, the parties shall, by
October 26, 2018, confer and report, jointly if possible but
separately if necessary, concerning whether Enterprise Holdings
intends to answer the amended complaint or move to dismiss it,
and/or if the parties agree to conduct limited discovery on the
issue of Enterprise Holdings' joint employer status with a view to
developing a record for a possible motion for summary judgment on
the issue of whether Enterprise Holdings was an employer of the
Plaintiff under the standard provided in Baystate Alternative
Staffing, Inc. v. Herman, 163 F.3d 668, 675 (1st Cir. 1998).

A scheduling conference will be held on November 27, 2018, at 4:00
p.m., to address how this case should proceed.  The Plaintiff and a
representative of each Defendant with full settlement authority
will attend the conference, Judge Wolf stated.


FAMILY DOLLAR: Fails to Pay OT to Store Manager, Gheradini Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PHILIP GHERADINI, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FAMILY DOLLAR, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 2:18-cv-364 (E.D. Tex., Aug. 17, 2018) is an action
against the Defendant to recover unpaid overtime compensation under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff Gheradini was employed by the Defendant as store
manager.

Family Dollar, Inc. operates retail discount stores primarily for
low and middle income consumers. The company was incorporated in
1997 and is based in Matthews, North Carolina. Family Dollar, Inc.
operates as a subsidiary of Family Dollar Stores Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William S. Hommel, Jr., Esq.
          HOMMEL LAW FIRM
          1404 Rice Road, Suite 200
          Tyler, TX 75703
          Telephone: (903) 596-7100
          Facsimile: (469) 533-1618
          E-mail: bhommel@hommelfirm.com


FIDELIS RECOVERY: Willis Files Suit Over FDCPA Breach
-----------------------------------------------------
Latoria Willis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Fidelis Recovery Management, LLC, First Financial
Investment Fund IV, LLC and John Does 1-25, Case No. 1:18-cv-00791
(W.D. Tex., September 17, 2018), alleges that the Defendants'
collection letter does not meet the required guidelines of the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act because it falsely and misleadingly
fails to advise the consumer that she has the right to request in
writing a copy of any judgment against her.

Fidelis is a "debt collector" as the phrase is defined in the FDCPA
with an address at 3300 Highlands Parkway SE, in Smyrna, Georgia.
First Financial is a "debt collector" as the phrase is defined in
the FDCPA with an address at 230 Peachtree St. NW, in Atlanta,
Georgia.  The identities of the Doe Defendants are unknown.

The Defendant Corporations are companies that use the mail,
telephone, and facsimile and regularly engage in business the
principal purpose of which is to attempt to collect debts alleged
to be due another.[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


FIFTH THIRD BANCORP: Accord Pending in Interchange Fee Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Fifth Third Bancorp disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2018, that the defendants in the consolidated class action
styled In re: Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount
Antitrust Litigation have reached an agreement to settle in
principle with the proposed plaintiffs' class seeking monetary
damages, with the Bancorp's portion of the settlement amount (above
the existing escrow) within reserves.  The settlement in principle
is subject to finalization and District Court approval.  This
settlement does not resolve the claims of the separate proposed
plaintiffs' class seeking injunctive relief or the claims of
merchants who are pursuing separate lawsuits.

In April 2006, the Bancorp was added as a defendant in a
consolidated antitrust class action lawsuit originally filed
against Visa(R), MasterCard(R) and several other major financial
institutions in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York (In re: Payment Card Interchange Fee and
Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation).  The plaintiffs, merchants
operating commercial businesses throughout the U.S. and trade
associations, claimed that the interchange fees charged by
card-issuing banks were unreasonable and sought injunctive relief
and unspecified damages.  In addition to being a named defendant,
the Bancorp is also subject to a possible indemnification
obligation of Visa and has also entered into judgment and loss
sharing agreements with Visa, MasterCard and certain other named
defendants.  In October 2012, the parties to the litigation entered
into a settlement agreement.

On January 14, 2014, the trial court entered a final order
approving the class settlement.  A number of merchants filed
appeals from that approval.  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit held a hearing on those appeals and on June 30,
2016, reversed the district court's approval of the class
settlement, remanding the case to the district court for further
proceedings.

On March 27, 2017, the Supreme Court of the United States denied a
petition for writ of certiorari seeking to review the Second
Circuit's decision.  Pursuant to the terms of the overturned
settlement agreement, the Bancorp previously paid US$46 million
into a class settlement escrow account.  Because the appellate
court ruling remands the case to the district court for further
proceedings, the ultimate outcome in this matter is uncertain.

Approximately 8,000 merchants requested exclusion from the class
settlement, and therefore, pursuant to the terms of the overturned
settlement agreement, approximately 25% of the funds paid into the
class settlement escrow account were already returned to the
control of the defendants.  The remaining approximately 75% of the
settlement funds paid by the Bancorp are maintained in the escrow
account.  More than 500 of the merchants who requested exclusion
from the class filed separate federal lawsuits against Visa,
MasterCard and certain other defendants alleging similar antitrust
violations.  These individual federal lawsuits were transferred to
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York.  While the Bancorp is only named as a defendant in one of the
individual federal lawsuits, it may have obligations pursuant to
indemnification arrangements and/or the judgment or loss sharing
agreements.

On June 5, 2018, the defendants in the consolidated class action
reached an agreement to settle in principle with the proposed
plaintiffs' class seeking monetary damages, with the Bancorp's
portion of the settlement amount (above the existing escrow) within
reserves.  The settlement in principle is subject to finalization
and District Court approval.  This settlement does not resolve the
claims of the separate proposed plaintiffs' class seeking
injunctive relief or the claims of merchants who are pursuing
separate lawsuits.

Fifth Third Bancorp is a diversified financial services company
headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio.


FIFTH THIRD BANCORP: Appeal Still Pending in Cash Advance Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs' appeal from the dismissal of their breach of
contract claim against Fifth Third Bank remains pending with the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, according to Fifth
Third Bancorp's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018.

On August 3, 2012, William Klopfenstein and Adam McKinney filed a
lawsuit against Fifth Third Bank in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio (Klopfenstein et al. v.
Fifth Third Bank), alleging that the 120% APR that Fifth Third
disclosed on its Early Access program was misleading.  Early Access
is a deposit-advance program offered to eligible customers with
checking accounts.  The plaintiffs sought to represent a nationwide
class of customers who used the Early Access program and repaid
their cash advances within 30 days.  On October 31, 2012, the case
was transferred to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio.

In 2013, four similar putative class actions were filed against
Fifth Third Bank in federal courts throughout the country (Lori and
Danielle Laskaris v. Fifth Third Bank, Janet Fyock v. Fifth Third
Bank, Jesse McQuillen v. Fifth Third Bank, and Brian Harrison v.
Fifth Third Bank).  Those four lawsuits were transferred to the
Southern District of Ohio and consolidated with the original
lawsuit as In re: Fifth Third Early Access Cash Advance
Litigation.

On behalf of a putative class, the plaintiffs seek unspecified
monetary and statutory damages, injunctive relief, punitive
damages, attorney's fees, and pre- and post-judgment interest.  On
March 30, 2015, the court dismissed all claims alleged in the
consolidated lawsuit except a claim under the TILA.

On January 10, 2018, plaintiffs filed a motion to hear the
immediate appeal of the dismissal of their breach of contract
claim.  On March 28, 2018, the court granted plaintiffs' motion and
stayed the TILA claim pending that appeal.

On April 26, 2018, plaintiffs filed their notice of appeal for the
breach of contract claim with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Sixth Circuit.

Fifth Third Bancorp is a diversified financial services company
headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio.


FLOTEK INDUSTRIES: Plaintiff's Appeal from Case Dismissal Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The lead plaintiff's appeal from the District Court's decision
dismissing a consolidated putative securities class action lawsuit
against Flotek Industries, Inc. 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 March 30, 2017, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas granted the Company's motion to dismiss the four
consolidated putative securities class action lawsuits that were
filed in November 2015, against the Company and certain of its
officers.  The lawsuits were previously consolidated into a single
case, and a consolidated amended complaint had been filed.

The consolidated amended complaint asserted that the Company made
false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects.  The complaint sought an award of damages in an
unspecified amount on behalf of a putative class consisting of
persons who purchased the Company's common stock between October
23, 2014 and November 9, 2015, inclusive.  The lead plaintiff has
appealed the District Court's decision granting the motion to
dismiss.

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

Flotek is a global, diversified, technology-driven company that
develops and supplies chemistries and services to the oil and gas
industries, and high value compounds to companies that make food
and beverages, cleaning products, cosmetics, and other products
that are sold in consumer and industrial markets. The company is
based in Houston, Texas.


FLOWERS FOODS: 25 Class Lawsuits Filed by Distributors Underway
---------------------------------------------------------------
Flowers Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
July 14, 2018, that it continues to defend 25 lawsuits seeking
class and/or collective action treatment.

The Company said, "At this time, the company is defending 33
complaints filed by distributors alleging that such distributors
were misclassified as independent contractors.  Twenty-five of
these lawsuits seek class and/or collective action treatment.  The
remaining eight cases either allege individual claims or do not
seek class or collective action treatment or, in cases in which
class treatment was sought, the court denied class certification.
The respective courts have ruled on plaintiffs' motions for class
certification in 18 of the pending cases.

"The company and/or its respective subsidiaries contests the
allegations and are vigorously defending all of these lawsuits.
Given the stage of the complaints and the claims and issues
presented, except for lawsuits disclosed herein that have reached a
settlement or agreement in principle, the company cannot reasonably
estimate at this time the possible loss or range of loss that may
arise from the unresolved lawsuits."

Flowers Foods, Inc. produces and markets bakery products in the
United States.  It operates through two segments,
Direct-Store-Delivery (DSD) and Warehouse Delivery.  The Company
was formerly known as Flowers Industries and changed its name to
Flowers Foods, Inc. in 2001.  Flowers Foods, Inc. was founded in
1919 and is headquartered in Thomasville, Georgia.


FLOWERS FOODS: Continues to Defend Carr Lawsuit in Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------------
Flowers Foods, Inc. continues to defend the "Carr" lawsuit pending
in the U.S. District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
July 14, 2018.

The case is captioned Carr et al. v. Flowers Foods, Inc. and
Flowers Baking Co. of Oxford, Inc., with case number 2:15-cv-06391,
and was originally filed on December 1, 2015.

A class was conditionally certified under the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA) in the case.

The case captioned Boulange v. Flowers Foods, Inc. and Flowers
Baking Co. of Oxford, Inc., with case number 2:16-cv-02581, and was
originally filed on March 25, 2016 with the U.S. District Court
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, has been consolidated with the
Carr lawsuit.

Flowers Foods, Inc. produces and markets bakery products in the
United States.  It operates through two segments,
Direct-Store-Delivery (DSD) and Warehouse Delivery.  The Company
was formerly known as Flowers Industries and changed its name to
Flowers Foods, Inc. in 2001.  Flowers Foods, Inc. was founded in
1919 and is headquartered in Thomasville, Georgia.


FLOWERS FOODS: Continues to Face Rodriguez Lawsuit in Texas
-----------------------------------------------------------
Flowers Foods, Inc. continues to defend itself in the "Rodriguez"
lawsuit pending in the U.S. District Court Southern District of
Texas, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
July 14, 2018.

The case is captioned Rodriguez et al. v. Flowers Foods, Inc. and
Flowers Baking Co. of Houston, LLC, with case number 4:16-cv-00245,
and was originally filed on January 28, 2016.

A class was conditionally certified under the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA) in the case.

Flowers Foods, Inc. produces and markets bakery products in the
United States.  It operates through two segments,
Direct-Store-Delivery (DSD) and Warehouse Delivery.  The Company
was formerly known as Flowers Industries and changed its name to
Flowers Foods, Inc. in 2001.  Flowers Foods, Inc. was founded in
1919 and is headquartered in Thomasville, Georgia.


FLOWERS FOODS: Continues to Face Rosinbaum Case in North Carolina
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Flowers Foods, Inc. continues to defend itself in the "Rosinbaum"
lawsuit pending in the U.S. District Court Eastern District of
North Carolina, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended July 14, 2018.

The case is captioned Rosinbaum et al. v. Flowers Foods, Inc. and
Franklin Baking Co., LLC, with case number 7:16-cv-00233, and was
originally filed on December 1, 2015.

A class was conditionally certified under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) in the case.

Flowers Foods, Inc. produces and markets bakery products in the
United States.  It operates through two segments,
Direct-Store-Delivery (DSD) and Warehouse Delivery.  The Company
was formerly known as Flowers Industries and changed its name to
Flowers Foods, Inc. in 2001.  Flowers Foods, Inc. was founded in
1919 and is headquartered in Thomasville, Georgia.


FLOWERS FOODS: McCurley Settlement Wins Final Court Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge J. Michelle Childs granted final approval to the parties'
settlement of the case, McCurley v. Flowers Foods Inc et al., Case
No. 5:16-cv-00194 (S.D.N.Y.).  Judge Childs entered the Final
Approval Order on September 10, 2018.  She also approved the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorney Fees and Award of Costs and Service
Award.

The case captioned McCurley v. Flowers Foods, Inc. and Derst Baking
Co., LLC, with case number 5:16-cv-00194, was originally filed on
January 20, 2016.  Flowers Foods, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended July 14, 2018, that on December 7, 2017, the
parties reached an agreement in principal to settle this matter for
a payment of US$1.5 million, comprised of US$0.8 million in
settlement funds, US$0.6 million in attorneys' fees, and a
collective US$0.1 million for a service award and as an incentive
for class members who are active distributors not to opt out of
certain portions of the new distributor agreement.  This settlement
charge has been recorded as a selling, distribution and
administrative expense in the Company's Condensed Consolidated
Statements of Operations during the fourth quarter of fiscal 2017.

On May 4, 2018, the court preliminarily approved the settlement.

Flowers Foods, Inc. produces and markets bakery products in the
United States.  It operates through two segments,
Direct-Store-Delivery (DSD) and Warehouse Delivery.  The Company
was formerly known as Flowers Industries and changed its name to
Flowers Foods, Inc. in 2001.  Flowers Foods, Inc. was founded in
1919 and is headquartered in Thomasville, Georgia.


FLOWERS FOODS: Remains Defendant in Noll Lawsuit in Maine
---------------------------------------------------------
Flowers Foods, Inc. still faces the "Noll" lawsuit pending in the
U.S. District Court District of Maine, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended July 14, 2018.

The case is captioned Noll v. Flowers Foods, Inc., Lepage Bakeries
Park Street, LLC, and CK Sales Co., LLC, with case number
1:15-cv-00493, and was originally filed on December 3, 2015.

A class was conditionally certified under the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA) in the case.

Flowers Foods, Inc. produces and markets bakery products in the
United States.  It operates through two segments,
Direct-Store-Delivery (DSD) and Warehouse Delivery.  The Company
was formerly known as Flowers Industries and changed its name to
Flowers Foods, Inc. in 2001.  Flowers Foods, Inc. was founded in
1919 and is headquartered in Thomasville, Georgia.


FLOWERS FOODS: Richard Lawsuit Still Pending in Louisiana
---------------------------------------------------------
Flowers Foods, Inc. still faces the "Richard" lawsuit pending in
the U.S. District Court Western District of Louisiana, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended July 14, 2018.

The case is captioned Richard et al. v. Flowers Foods, Inc.,
Flowers Baking Co. of Lafayette, LLC, Flowers Baking Co. of Baton
Rouge, LLC, Flowers Baking Co. of Tyler, LLC and Flowers Baking Co.
of New Orleans, LLC, with case number 6:15-cv-02557, and was
originally filed on October 21, 2015.

A class was conditionally certified under the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA) in the case.

Flowers Foods, Inc. produces and markets bakery products in the
United States.  It operates through two segments,
Direct-Store-Delivery (DSD) and Warehouse Delivery.  The Company
was formerly known as Flowers Industries and changed its name to
Flowers Foods, Inc. in 2001.  Flowers Foods, Inc. was founded in
1919 and is headquartered in Thomasville, Georgia.


FLOWERS FOODS: Schucker Settlement Wins Final Court Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Katherine B. Forrest granted final court approval to the
parties' settlement of the case, Schucker et al v. Flowers Foods,
Inc. et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-03439 (S.D.N.Y.).

The case captioned Schucker et al. v. Flowers Foods, Inc., Lepage
Bakeries Park St., LLC, and C.K. Sales Co., LLC, with case number
1:16-cv-03439, was originally filed on May 9, 2016, with the U.S.
District Court Southern District of New York.  Flowers Foods, Inc.
said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended July 14, 2018, that the
court denied Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification of a
class under the FLSA.  On February 14, 2018, the parties reached an
agreement in principal to settle this matter for a payment of
approximately US$1.3 million, comprised of US$0.4 million in
settlement funds, US$0.9 million in attorneys' fees, and a
collective US$0.1 million for service awards and incentives for
class members who are active distributors not to opt out of certain
portions of the new distributor agreement.  This settlement charge
has been recorded as a selling, distribution and administrative
expense in the Company's Condensed Consolidated Statements of
Operations during the first quarter of fiscal 2018.  On April 20,
2018, the court preliminarily approved the settlement.

Judge Forrest entered a final approval order on September 5.  Judge
Forrest granted Plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs, and approved
the payment of service awards.  The Court awarded Class Counsel
attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses in the amount of
$860,000. The Court awarded each of Plaintiffs' Class
Representatives and amount of $15,000 in Named Plaintiffs Service
Awards.

Flowers Foods, Inc. produces and markets bakery products in the
United States.  It operates through two segments,
Direct-Store-Delivery (DSD) and Warehouse Delivery.  The Company
was formerly known as Flowers Industries and changed its name to
Flowers Foods, Inc. in 2001.  Flowers Foods, Inc. was founded in
1919 and is headquartered in Thomasville, Georgia.


FLOWERS FOODS: Still Defends Neff Class Action in Vermont
---------------------------------------------------------
Flowers Foods, Inc. continues to defend itself in the "Neff"
lawsuit pending in the U.S. District Court District of Vermont,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
July 14, 2018.

The case is captioned Neff et al. v. Flowers Foods, Inc., Lepage
Bakeries Park Street, LLC, and CK Sales Co., LLC, with case number
5:15-cv-00254, and was originally filed on December 2, 2015.

A class was conditionally certified under the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA) in the case.

Flowers Foods, Inc. produces and markets bakery products in the
United States.  It operates through two segments,
Direct-Store-Delivery (DSD) and Warehouse Delivery.  The Company
was formerly known as Flowers Industries and changed its name to
Flowers Foods, Inc. in 2001.  Flowers Foods, Inc. was founded in
1919 and is headquartered in Thomasville, Georgia.


FLOWERS FOODS: Zapata Litigation Still Ongoing in Texas
-------------------------------------------------------
Flowers Foods, Inc. is still defend itself in the "Zapata" lawsuit
pending in the U.S. District Court Southern District of Texas,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
July 14, 2018.

The case is captioned Zapata et al. v. Flowers Foods, Inc. and
Flowers Baking Co. of Houston, LLC, with case number 4:16-cv-00676,
and was originally filed on March 14, 2016.

A class was conditionally certified under the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA) in the case.

Flowers Foods, Inc. produces and markets bakery products in the
United States.  It operates through two segments,
Direct-Store-Delivery (DSD) and Warehouse Delivery.  The Company
was formerly known as Flowers Industries and changed its name to
Flowers Foods, Inc. in 2001.  Flowers Foods, Inc. was founded in
1919 and is headquartered in Thomasville, Georgia.


FOUR SEASONS: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Feinstein Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Edward Feinstein filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit entitled Edward Feinstein v. Four Seasons Hotels
Limited, et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-03351-JFW-FFM, in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, Los
Angeles.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
alleges that the Defendants violated his privacy rights.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and Class Members are
customers, who booked hotel reservations with the Defendant, during
the period of August 10, 2016, to March 9, 2017.  The data of
customers, including the Plaintiff that stayed at the Defendant's
hotels was accessed due to a data breach.  The security breach
compromised hotel customers' full name, credit and debit card
account numbers, card expiration dates, card verification codes,
e-mails, phone numbers, addresses, and other private identifiable
information.

The appellate case is captioned as Edward Feinstein v. Four Seasons
Hotels Limited, et al., Case No. 18-56225, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript must be ordered by October 15, 2018;

   -- Transcript is due on November 13, 2018;

   -- Appellant Edward Feinstein's opening brief is due on
      December 24, 2018;

   -- Appellees Does and Four Seasons Hotels Limited's answering
      brief is due on January 22, 2019; and

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

Plaintiff-Appellant EDWARD FEINSTEIN, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          J. Paul Gignac, Esq.
          FOLEY BEZEK BEHLE & CURTIS, LLP
          15 West Carrillo Street
          Santa Barbara, CA 93101
          Telephone: (805) 962-9495
          E-mail: jpg@foleybezek.com

Defendant-Appellee FOUR SEASONS HOTELS LIMITED, a Canadian
corporation, is represented by:

          Kristine McAlister Brown, Esq.
          ALSTON & BIRD LLP
          1201 West Peachtree Street
          Atlanta, GA 30309-3424
          Telephone: (404) 881-7000
          E-mail: kristy.brown@alston.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey Alan Rosenfeld, Esq.
          ALSTON & BIRD LLP
          333 S. Hope Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-2901
          Telephone: (213) 576-1000
          E-mail: jeffrey.rosenfeld@alston.com


FRANKLIN COLLECTION: Winans Appeals M.D.N.C. Ruling to 4th Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Richard L. Winans filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit styled Richard Winans v. Franklin Collection Service,
Inc., et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-00659-TDS-LPA, in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of North Carolina at Greensboro.

The nature of suit is stated as consumer credit.

The appellate case is captioned as Richard Winans v. Franklin
Collection Service, Inc., et al., Case No. 18-2072, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

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

   -- Opening Brief and Appendix are due on October 29, 2018; and
   -- Response Brief is due on November 26, 2018.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant RICHARD L. WINANS, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Brian Lewis Bromberg, Esq.
          BROMBERG LAW OFFICE, PC
          26 Broadway
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 248-7906
          E-mail: brian@bromberglawoffice.com

               - and -

          Jonathan Robert Miller, Esq.
          SALEM COMMUNITY LAW OFFICE
          301 North Main Street
          Winston-Salem, NC
          Telephone: (336) 837-4437

Defendants-Appellees FRANKLIN COLLECTION SERVICE, INC., and DAN
FRANKLIN are represented by:

          Caren D. Enloe, Esq.
          SMITH DEBNAM NARRON DRAKE SAINTSING & MYERS, LLP
          P. O. Box 26268
          Raleigh, NC 27611-0000
          Telephone: (919) 250-2000
          E-mail: cenloe@smithdebnamlaw.com


FREEPORT-MCMORAN: Garcia Class Action in California Remains Stayed
------------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action titled David Garcia v. Freeport-McMoRan
Oil & Gas LLC remains stayed, according to Freeport-McMoRan Inc.'s
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018.

On April 1, 2016, a purported class action titled David Garcia v.
Freeport-McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC was filed in the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Santa Barbara (Case No.
16CV01305) against FM O&G LLC, an indirect wholly owned subsidiary
of FCX.  A former FM O&G LLC employee filed the case, which alleges
violations of various California employment laws and seeks relief
for past wages, overtime, penalties, interest and attorney's fees.
The primary issue underlying the claims is whether compensation
must be paid to non-exempt shift workers on platforms located
offshore California on the outer-continental shelf for sleep time
and other non-working time.

In June 2016, FM O&G LLC removed the case to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, Santa Barbara (the
District Court).  In September 2016, the court dismissed the
complaint on the grounds that all four FM O&G LLC platforms
potentially involved are located in federal waters, that federal
law, not state law, applies, and that federal law does not require
an employer to compensate for non-work time.

In October 2016, the plaintiff appealed the dismissal to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  In June 2017, the Ninth
Circuit stayed the Garcia case pending its decision in another case
involving essentially the same legal issues, titled Newton v.
Parker Drilling Management Services, Ltd.

In February 2018, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit ruled in
favor of the plaintiffs in the Newton case.  Because that decision
conflicts with longstanding precedent in the Fifth Circuit and
could set a precedent that will result in a reversal of the
dismissal in the Garcia case, FM O&G LLC and others filed amicus
briefs in April 2018 in support of Parker Drilling's petition for
an en banc rehearing in the Newton case.

The Ninth Circuit denied that request on April 27, 2018, but
modified its original opinion noting that the question of whether
the Ninth Circuit's holding should be applied retrospectively is
reserved for the District Court's consideration on remand.

On May 16, 2018, the Ninth Circuit granted Parker Drilling's motion
to stay further proceedings in the District Court pending the
possible filing of a petition for review by the U.S. Supreme Court,
which would be required to be filed by late August 2018.  On May
29, 2018, the Ninth Circuit also stayed further proceedings in
Garcia pending the U.S. Supreme Court's consideration of the
petition for review in Newton v. Parker Drilling.

Freeport-McMoRan Inc. engages in the mining of mineral properties
in the United States, Indonesia, Peru, and Chile.  The Company
primarily explores for copper, gold, molybdenum, silver, and other
metals, as well as oil and gas.  The Company was formerly known as
Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc. and changed its name to
Freeport-McMoRan Inc. in July 2014.  Freeport-McMoRan Inc. was
founded in 1987 and is headquartered in Phoenix, Arizona.


FTS INTERNATIONAL: Fails to Pay OT, Gutierrez-Ponce et al. Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
FERNANDO GUTIERREZ-PONCE, and JARAD WILLIAMS-MILLER, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FTS
INTERNATIONAL SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:18-cv-00786-CG-SMV (D.N.M., Aug. 17, 2018) is an action against
the Defendant for unpaid backwages, overtime pay, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as frac operators.

FTS International Services, LLC, together with its subsidiaries,
provides oil and natural gas well stimulation services to the oil
and gas industry in the United States. The company, formerly known
as Frac Tech Services, LLC, is based in Fort Worth, Texas. FTS
International Services, LLC operates as a subsidiary of FTS
International, Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Verrett, Esq.
          MORELAND LAW FIRM, P.C.
          2901 Bee Cave Road, Box L
          Austin, TX 78746
          Telephone: (512) 782-0567
          Facsimile: (512) 782-0605
          E-mail: daniel@morelandlaw.com

               - and -

          Edmond S. Moreland, Jr., Esq.
          MORELAND LAW FIRM, P.C.
          700 West Summit Drive
          Wimberley, TX 78676
          Telephone: (512) 782-0567
          Facsimile: (512) 782-0605
          E-mail: edmond@morelandlaw.com


GEO GROUP: Underpays Recruitment Coordinators, Pashko Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
SARI PASHKO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE GEO GROUP, INC. D/B/A GEO CALIFORNIA,
INC.; GEO CORRECTIONS HOLDINGS, INC.; and DOES 1-100, Defendants,
Case No. BC718538 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Aug. 20, 2018) is
an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages,
overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods,
provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business
expenses.

The Plaintiff Pashko was employed by the Defendants as recruitment
coordinator.

The GEO Group, Inc. (NYSE: GEO) is the first fully integrated
equity real estate investment trust ("REIT") specializing in the
design, financing, development, and operation of correctional,
detention, and community reentry facilities around the globe. GEO
is the world's leading provider of diversified correctional,
detention, community reentry, and electronic monitoring services to
government agencies worldwide with operations in the United States,
Australia, South Africa, and the United Kingdom. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William Turley, Esq.
          David Mara, Esq.
          Jamie Serb, Esq.
          Tony Roberts, Esq.
          Alexandra Shipman, Esq.
          THE TURLEY & MARA LAW FIRM, APLC
          7428 Trade Street
          San Diego, CA 92121
          Telephone: (619) 234-2833
          Facsimile: (619) 234-4048


GF MANAGEMENT: Faces Breeze Class Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against GF Management Realty,
LLC. The case is styled as Byron Breeze, Jr. on behalf of himself,
and all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. GF Management
Realty, LLC a New York limited liability company, Defendant, Case
No. 1:18-cv-08451 (S.D. N.Y., Sept. 17, 2018).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights.

GF Management is a full-service ownership and management company
that specializes in hotels, resorts, golf courses, and other
related hospitality assets. Since its founding in 1988, GF
Management has operated over 500 properties in 45 states. GF's
expertise includes but is not limited to Sales & Marketing, Food &
Beverage, Revenue Management, Information Technology, Human
Resources and a complete Accounting System. Currently, GF partners
with Hilton, Marriott, IHG, Choice, Wyndham, Carlson, among others,
as well as individual properties. With its approach to maximizing
guest satisfaction, GF Management has been recognized as one of the
top management companies in the industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Nolan Keith Klein, Esq.
     Law Offices of Nolan Klein, P.A.
     39 Broadway, Ste. 2250
     New York, NY 10006
     Phone: (646) 560-3230
     Fax: (877) 253-2691
     Email: klein@nklegal.com


GOGREEN LANDSCAPING: Underpays Laborers, Gaborko Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
SCOTT GABORKO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GOGREEN LANDSCAPING LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-01911 (N.D. Ohio., Aug. 17, 2018) is an action brought by
the Plaintiff as a result of the Defendant's practice and policy of
not paying the Plaintiff and the Class, overtime compensation at
the rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for
the hours they worked over 40 each workweek, in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mr. Gaborko was employed by the Defendant as an hourly, non-exempt
laborer from the year 2013 to October 2017.

Go Green Global, LLC provides janitorial and landscaping services.
The Company offers carpet and window cleaning, floor care,
upholstery, power washing, and construction cleanups services. Go
Green Global serves customers in the State of Arizona. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David J. Steiner, Esq.
          Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
          THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
          920 Rockefeller Building
          614 W. Superior Avenue
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 696-5000
          Facsimile: (216) 696-7005
          E-mail: anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
                  david@lazzarolawfirm.com
                  chastity@lazzarolawfirm.com


GOLDEN GATE: Goldboss Sues over Customer Billing Surcharge
----------------------------------------------------------
LAUREN GOLDBOSS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. GOLDEN GATE RESTAURANT GROUP, INC., a
California Corporation dba BURGER KING RESTAURANT; and DOES 1 to
25, inclusive, Case No. CGC-18-569415 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sept. 4,
2018), alleges that the Defendant adds a surcharge of approximately
4.5% to customer's bills without disclosure to consumers prior to
ordering, at their restaurants.

According to the complaint, the Defendant's restaurants represent
to the general public certain prices for food and drinks in their
in-restaurant and advertised menus, but then, after the food and/or
drink is ordered, the Defendant adds a surcharge, including, but
not limited to, a surcharge which it calls "SF Mandates," which is
actually an undisclosed, unauthorized, and unlawful charge, to the
balance of the final bill total which consumers thereafter pay.  By
not raising their menu prices, and instead adding an undisclosed,
unauthorized, and unlawful surcharge onto a customer's bill, the
Defendant is misleading the public as to the actual prices of their
food and drinks.

The Defendant owns and operates a chain of restaurants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua Bordin-Wosk, Esq.
          Shannon Guevara, Esq.
          Talissa Mulholland, Esq.
          B|B LAW GROUP LLP
          6100 Center Drive Suite 1100
          Howard Hughes Center
          Los Angeles, CA 90045
          Telephone: (323) 925 7800
          Facsimile: (323) 925 7801
          E-mail: jbordinWosk@BBLawGroupLLP.com
                  SGuevara@BBLawGroupLLP.com
                  TMulholland@BBLawGroupLLP.com


GOOD SAMARITAN: Certification of Class Sought in Frank Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled JAHMIR CHRISTOPHER FRANK v.
GOOD SAMARITAN HOSPITAL FOUNDATION OF CINCINNATI, INC., et al.,
Case No. 1:18-cv-00618-MRB (S.D. Ohio), moves for an order
certifying that this action may be maintained and proceed as a
class action on behalf of all persons, who delivered or were
delivered at Good Samaritan Hospital between the period Jan. 1,
1999, through December 31, 1999.

Mr. Frank also asks the Court to appoint him as class
representative and to appoint Percy Squire, Esq., as Counsel for
the Class and as Liaison Counsel for the Class.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Percy Squire, Esq.
          PERCY SQUIRE CO., LLC
          341 S. Third Street, Suite 10
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 224-6528
          E-mail: psquire@sp-lawfirm.com


GREY DOG: Fails to Pay OT to Cooks, Escobar Reyes Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
HUGO ESCOBAR REYES, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE GREY DOG, INC. D/B/A THE GREY DOG'S
COFFEE; DAVID ETHAN; PETER STEIN; and SAIKUBA DOE, Defendants, Case
No. 1:18-cv-07520 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 17, 2018) is an action against
the Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum
wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods.

The Plaintiff Escobar Reyes was employed by the Defendants as cook
from June 2008 to July 26, 2018.

The Grey Dog, Inc own, operates, or controls a restaurant/coffee
shop, located at 90 University Place, New York, NY 10003 under the
name "The Grey Dog's Coffee".

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


IBM CORP: Rusis Sues Over Discrimination Against Older Workers
--------------------------------------------------------------
EDVIN RUSIS, HENRY GERRITS, and PHIL MCGONEGAL, individually and on
behalf of all other similarly situated individuals v. INTERNATIONAL
BUSINESS MACHINES CORP., Case No. 1:18-cv-08434 (S.D.N.Y.,
September 17, 2018), alleges that IBM, through its layoff and
hiring practices, violated the Age Discrimination in Employment
Act, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, and the North
Carolina Equal Employment Practices Act.

IBM has discriminated, and continues to discriminate, against its
older workers, both by laying them off disproportionately to
younger workers and by not hiring them for open positions, the
Plaintiffs allege.  They contend that over the last several years,
IBM has been in the process of systematically laying off older
employees in order to build a younger workforce.

International Business Machines Corp. is a New York corporation
with its principal place of business in Armonk, New York.  IBM is
an American multinational technology business that offers services
and goods ranging from computing, cloud platforms, advanced
analytics tools and others.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
          Thomas Fowler, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 994-5800
          E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com
                  tfowler@llrlaw.com


IMPERIAL PROJECT: Dancers Seek Minimum Wages & Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------
JANE ROE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff, v. IMPERIAL PROJECT, INC.,
d/b/a BARE ELEGANCE, MIKE GALAM, VICTOR GALAM, JACQUELINE BARNES
and DOES 1-200, jointly and severally, the Defendants, Case No.
BC720147 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sept. 4, 2018), alleges that Defendants
failed to pay minimum wages and overtime in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the California Labor Code.

According to complaint, the Plaintiff contends that all class
members were denied their fundamental rights under applicable
federal and state wage and hour laws, causing financial loss and
injury. Specifically, the Plaintiff complains that the Defendants
misclassified the Plaintiffs and all other members of the Class as
independent contractors, as opposed to employees, at all times in
which they worked as dancers at the Defendants' adult nightclub
located in Inglewood, California. The Plaintiffs contend that the
Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs and all other members of the
Class the minimum and overtime wages and other benefits to which
they were entitled under applicable federal and California state
laws. Additionally, the Defendants engaged in unlawful tip-sharing
by requiring dancers in the Class to share gratuities given to them
by patrons with Defendants and their employees, such as
bouncers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey R. Krinsk, Esq.
          Trenton R. Kashima, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN & KRINSK LLP
          550 West C St., Suite 1760
          San Diego, CA92101
          Telephone: (619) 238 1333
          Facsimile: (619) 238 5425
          E-mail: jrk@classactionlaw.com
                  trk@classactionlaw.com


INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Wang Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
QIN WANG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL BANK OF CHINA
FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC; and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants, Case
No. BC717319 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Aug. 17, 2018) is an
action against the Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime
hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods.

The Plaintiff Wang was employed by the Defendant as a non-exempt
employee.

Industrial and Commercial Bank of China Financial Services LLC
offers securities clearing, settlement and financing, and
accounting and transaction services. The company was founded in
2010 and is based in. Industrial and Commercial Bank of China
Financial Services LLC operates as a subsidiary of Industrial and
Commercial Bank of China Limited. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul K. Haines, Esq.
          Fletcher W. Schmidt, Esq.
          Matthew K. Moen, Esq.
          Brittaney D. de la Torre, Esq.
          HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
          222 N. Pacific Coast Hwy., Suite 1550
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (424) 292-2350
          Facsimile: (424) 292-2355
          E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com
                  fschmidt@haineslawgroup.com
                  mmoen@haineslawgroup.com
                  bdelatorre@haineslawgroup.com


JOB STORE: Faces Ortega et al. Suit in Colorado Federal Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been lodged against Job Store Staffing,
Inc., and The Deckers Customer Direct Corporation.  The case is
captioned, Vanessa Ortega and Desiree Reynoso, and all others
similarly situated Colorado Residents, the Plaintiff, v. Job Store
Staffing, Inc., and The Deckers Customer Direct Corporation Foreign
Corporations, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-02281-MEH (D. Colo.,
Sep. 4, 2018), and assigned to the Hon. Judge Michael E. Hegarty.

Job Store is a staffing company servicing Colorado since,
1974.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul J. Maxon, Esq.
          PAUL MAXON, P.C.
          4450 Arapahoe Avenue
          Boulder, CO 80303
          Telephone: (303) 473 9999
          Facsimile: (303) 415 2500
          E-mail: paulmaxon@maxonlaw.com


KEYME INC: Accused of Violating Illinois Biometric Privacy Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Biometric Update.Com reports that a class action lawsuit has been
filed against KeyMe Inc. for allegedly violating the Illinois
Biometric Information Privacy Act, Cook County Record reports. The
complaint was filed individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated individuals in Cook County Circuit Court earlier
this month by Henry Rafidia.

The plaintiffs allege that Henry Rafidia and those whose biometrics
were collected and stored by the defendant to fabricate scanned
keys for their homes, have suffered and will suffer increased risks
for identity theft, and misappropriation of one's identity as a
result of defendant's conduct. It is also alleged that KeyMe failed
to obtain written consent to retain plaintiffs biometrics, failed
to provide policies for the destruction schedule and guidelines for
permanently destroying the biometrics, and failed to obtain consent
to disseminate plaintiffs' biometrics to third parties.

The plaintiffs asked for a trial by jury and seek judgment against
defendant, certify class action, declaratory relief, injunctive and
equitable relief, statutory and monetary damages, attorneys' fees,
costs, litigation expenses, interest, and other relief.

Proposed class action BIPA suits were also filed in August against
Southwest Airlines and Loews Chicago Hotel, with allegations in
both cases of improper handling of fingerprint data for time and
attendance systems.[GN]


KFF ARBITRATION: Anderson Seeks to Certify Accountholders Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled SUNSHINE ANDERSON,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KFF
ARBITRATION LLC, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No.
2:18-cv-04825-ODW-JEM (C.D. Cal.), moves the Court to certify a
class under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act consisting of:

     All persons in the United States whose bank accounts were
     debited on a reoccurring basis by Defendant without
     Defendant obtaining a written authorization signed or
     similarly authenticated for preauthorized electronic fund
     transfers within the one year prior to the filing of this
     Complaint.

The Motion also seeks for appointment of the Plaintiff as Class
Representative, and for appointment of the Law Offices of Todd M.
Friedman, P.C., as Class Counsel.

The Court will commence a hearing on November 19, 2018, at 1:30
p.m., to consider the Motion.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (877) 206-4741
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com
                  abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com


KOHN LAW FIRM: Ct. Orders Kitchner to Amend or Withdraw FCRA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. J. P. Stadtmueller denied the Defendants' motion to
dismiss the lawsuit entitled MEGAN G. KITCHNER v. CHARLES FIERGOLA,
JOSEPH R. JOHNSON, LUCAS P. BENNEWITZ, TYLER M. HELSEL, and JOHN
DOES, Case No. 2:18-cv-00133-JPS (E.D. Wisc.).

Judge Stadtmueller denied without prejudice the Plaintiff's motion
for class certification and her motion to stay briefing on the
class certification motion.

Defendant Lucas Bennewitz' motion to withdraw his motion to dismiss
is granted.  The Clerk of the Court is directed to mark the docket
to reflect that Defendant Lucas Bennewitz' motion to dismiss is
withdrawn.

The Order also states that the Plaintiff will, no later than 30
days from the date of this Order, either file an amended complaint
substituting the trustee as the sole party plaintiff or file a
notice with evidence demonstrating the trustee's abandonment of the
present causes of action.

Ms. Kitchner filed her complaint on January 25, 2018, alleging
violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act against attorneys, who work or formerly
worked for the Kohn Law Firm in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

Those statutory violations purportedly occurred in connection with
a small-claims collection action filed against her in Wisconsin
state court in March 2017.  See Discover Bank v. Kitchner, Dunn
County Case No. 17-SC-134.  Specifically, she alleges that the
complaint in the state action unlawfully disclosed her credit score
and history.  That complaint was filed on March 9, 2017.

On March 29, 2017, Ms. Kitchner filed for bankruptcy protection
under Chapter 7 of the bankruptcy code in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Wisconsin, In re Kitchner, Case No.
1-17-11031-cjf (Bankr. W.D. Wis. 2017).

In her bankruptcy petition, Ms. Kitchner was required to disclose
all of her existing assets, including causes of action she might
have against third parties.  She did not disclose the existence of
her FCRA and FDCPA claims against the Defendants, despite their
having arisen prior to the filing of the petition.  Nevertheless,
all causes of action become property of the bankruptcy estate
whether or not they are disclosed in a debtor's schedule of assets.
Because Ms. Kitchner does not have standing to pursue her claims,
the Defendants suggest the case should be dismissed.

The Defendants having put Ms. Kitchner on notice of the standing
issue, the Court is obliged to give her a reasonable period of time
in which to ratify her commencement of the action by convincing the
trustee to abandon these claims, or to substitute the trustee as
the sole party plaintiff, Judge Stadtmueller notes.  Judge
Stadtmueller adds that Ms. Kitchner is presently in pursuit of
reopening her bankruptcy case to disclose these claims, appoint a
trustee, and ask the trustee to abandon them.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua Christianson, Esq.
          CHRISTIANSON & FREUND, LLC
          920 So. Farwell Street
          P.O. Box 222
          Eau Claire, WI 54702
          Telephone: (715) 832-1800
          E-mail: josh@cf.legal


LANDRY'S INC: Seeks 11th Cir. Review of Ruling in Blocher Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants CHLN, Inc. and Landry's Inc. filed an appeal from a
court ruling in the lawsuit titled Jonathan Blocher, et al. v.
Landry's Inc., et al., Case No. 8:14-cv-03213-MSS-JSS, in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff,
on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, challenges the
legality of the Landry's Employee Discount Program -- a program
that the Defendants administer in a uniform way across all of their
restaurants.  Specifically, Mr. Blocher contends that the
Defendants' deduction of money from his and class members' tipped
sub-minimum hourly wages or from their tips for participation in
the EDP violates the Florida Minimum Wage Act.

The appellate case is captioned as Jonathan Blocher, et al. v.
Landry's Inc., et al., Case No. 18-13741, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

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

   -- The appellant's brief is due on or before October 16, 2018;

   -- The appendix is due no later than 7 days from the filing of
      the appellant's brief; and

   -- Appellee's Certificate of Interested Persons is due on or
      before October 2, 2018, as to Appellee Jonathan
      Blocher.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees JONATHAN BLOCHER, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, and JOSEPH LEVI, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Loren Donnell, Esq.
          Tamra Givens, Esq.
          Sam Jones Smith, Esq.
          BURR & SMITH, LLP
          111 2nd Ave NE, Suite 1100
          St. Petersburg, FL 33701
          Telephone: (813) 253-2010
          E-mail: ldonnell@burrandsmithlaw.com
                  tgivens@burrandsmithlaw.com
                  ssmith@burrandsmithlaw.com

               - and -

          Hillary Schwab, Esq.
          FAIR WORK, PC
          192 S Street, Suite 450
          Boston, MA 02111
          Telephone: (617) 994-5800
          E-mail: hillary@fairworklaw.com

Defendants-Appellants LANDRY'S INC. and CHLN, INC., d.b.a. Chart
House f.k.a. Landry's Seafood House, are represented by:

          Alex S. Drummond, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW, LLP
          1075 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 2500
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 885-1500
          E-mail: adrummond@seyfarth.com

               - and -

          Sumaya Shawqi Ellard, Esq.
          David Wayne Long-Daniels, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
          3333 Piedmont Rd. NE, Suite 2500
          Atlanta, GA 30303
          Telephone: (678) 553-4744
          E-mail: ellards@gtlaw.com
                  long-danielsd@gtlaw.com

               - and -

          Richard Courtney McCrea, Jr., Esq.
          Barry Richard, Esq.
          Peter W. Zinober, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG, PA
          101 E Kennedy Blvd., Suite 1900
          Tampa, FL 33602-3925
          Telephone: (813) 318-5700
          E-mail: mccrear@gtlaw.com
                  richardb@gtlaw.com
                  zinoberp@gtlaw.com


LOGMEIN INC: Faces Wasson Suit over 25% Drop in Share Price
-----------------------------------------------------------
BENJAMIN WASSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LOGMEIN, INC.; WILLIAM R. WAGNER; and EDWARD
K. HERDIECH,  Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-07285 (C.D. Cal., Aug.
20, 2018) alleges violation of the Securities Act of 1934.

On February 1, 2017, LogMeIn issued a press release which
"announced the completion of its previously disclosed merger with
Citrix Systems, Inc.'s (NASDAQ:CTXS) GetGo, Inc. subsidiary, a
wholly owned subsidiary consisting of Citrix's GoTo family of
service offerings."

On March 1, 2017, the Company filed its annual report for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016 on Form 10-K (the "2016 10-K")
with the SEC, which provided the Company's annual financial results
and position Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) LogMeIn's business practices
had negatively impacted renewal rates for certain of its services;
and (2) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.

On July 26, 2018, after market close, the Company held an earnings
call to report its second quarter 2018 earnings results. During the
call, Defendants Wagner and Herdiech stated that the Company
implemented strategies which negatively impacted renewal rates of
certain of its services, including amongst its GoTo clients. On
this news, shares of LogMeIn fell $26.60 per share or over 25% to
close at $77.85 per share on July 27, 2018.

LogMeIn, Inc. provides a portfolio of cloud-based communication and
collaboration, identity and access, and customer engagement and
support solutions. The company was formerly known as 3am Labs, Inc.
and changed its name to LogMeIn, Inc. in March 2006. LogMeIn, Inc.
was founded in 2003 and is headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts
with additional locations in North America, Europe, Asia, and
Australia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          355 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 785-2610
          Facsimile: (213) 226-4684
          E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com


LUNA SAAVEDRA: Mrs. Blooms Direct's Suit Moved to S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Mrs. Blooms Direct Inc., Mrs.
Blooms Mobile LLC, Oren Shapiro, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Monica Luna Saavedra,
the Defendant, Case No. 60614-2018, was removed from the New York
State Supreme Court to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York (Foley Square) on Sept. 4, 2018. The New York
Southern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-08041-OTW
to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Ona T.
Wang.

The Defendant is represented by:

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


LUPIN PHARMACEUTICALS: Turley Suit Asserts Fraud, Discrimination
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dana Turley and Lila Wolff, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case No.
1:18-cv-03775 (N.D. Ga., August 7, 2018), is brought against the
Defendant for violations of the Age Discrimination and Employment
Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The complaint asserts that Lupin has a history of poaching
experienced pharmaceutical representatives --"instant rainmakers"
-- from other pharmaceutical companies who maintained contacts and
who carried with them a significant book of business in the
pharmaceutical sales industry.  Lupin would make huge promises and
offer big money to these instant rainmakers, lure them away from
their (former) good jobs, take over their contacts and their book
of business once they're employed, and ultimately oust them to be
replaced with younger personnel who are paid less to take over
these relatively new, previously established accounts.

According to the complaint, Lupin, in its hiring scheme, preyed
upon salespersons who were 40 years and older. Plaintiffs Dana
Turley and Lila Wolff were over the age of 40 at the time of her
employment at Lupin.

This action is to redress age discrimination, fraud in the
inducement, and punitive damages against defendant Lupin.

The Defendant Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a pharmaceutical
manufacturing company. It is wholly owned by Lupin Limited, a
Mumbai, India based generic pill manufacturer. The Defendant
transacts business in Georgia. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Jeffrey G. Casurella, Esq.
      R. Randy Edwards, Esq.
      COCHRAN & EDWARDS, LLC
      2950 Atlanta Road SE
      Smyrna, GA 30080-3655
      Tel: (770) 435-2131
      Fax: (770) 436-6877
      E-mail: jeff@cochranedwardslaw.com
              randy@cochranedwardslaw.com


MDL 2179: 24 Motions in Dismissed Cases Denied as Moot
------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Carl J. Barbier entered an order in the multidistrict
litigation titled In Re: Oil Spill by the Oil Rig "Deepwater
Horizon" in the Gulf of Mexico, MDL No. 2:10-md-02179-CJB-JCW (E.D.
La.), denying as moot these motions:

    1. Knotty Girl Fishing, L.L.C., et al.'s Motion for Remand
       (Rec. Doc. 2093) (re: 11-00649);

    2. Guy Adams's Motion to Remand (Rec. Doc. 2627)
       (re: 11-01051);

    3. State of Louisiana's Motion to Remand (Rec. Doc. 2629)
       (re: 11-01051);

    4. Chad Rogers, et al.'s Motion to Remand (Rec. Doc. 2764)
       (re: 11-01295);

    5. Chad Rogers, et al.'s Motion to Remand (Rec. Doc. 2765)
       (re: 11-01185);

    6. Norman Bouisse, et al.'s Motion to Remand (Rec. Doc. 2766)
       (re: 11-01159);

    7. Tim Terrell's Motion to Remand (Rec. Doc. 3811)
       (re: 11-01806);

    8. Frank Bigunac, et al.'s Motion to Remand (Rec. Doc. 4975)
       (re: 11-02909);

    9. Lester Ansardi's Motion to Remand (Rec. Doc. 5036)
       (re: 11-02908);

   10. Lester Ansardi's Motion to Sever (Rec. Doc. 5194)
       (re: 11-02908);

   11. Rory Degeyter, et al.'s Motion to Remand (Rec. Doc. 5637)
       (re: 12-00067);

   12. Hong Van Truong, et al.'s Motion for Leave to File Second
       Supplemental and Amended Complaint (Rec. Doc. 5668)
       (re: 11-02766);

   13. D. Montgomery's Motion for Class Action Certification
       Order (Rec. Doc. 5920) (re: 11-02298);

   14. D. Montgomery's Motion for Summary Judgment
       (Rec. Doc. 5921) (re: 11-02298);

   15. Top Water Charters, LLC, et al.'s Motion to Remand
       (Rec. Doc. 6057) (re: 12-00381);

   16. Kuzuma Petrovich, Jr.'s Motion to Release Held Funds
       (Rec. Doc. 6168) (re: 11-01129);

   17. David Hogan, et al.'s Motion to Remand (Rec. Doc. 6728)
       (re: 12-01486);

   18. Harley D. Allen, et al.'s Motion to Remand
       (Rec. Doc. 8147) (re: 12-02953);

   19. Coastal Catering, LLC's Motion to Dismiss and Alternative
       Motion for More Definite Statement (Rec. Doc. 8670)
       (re: 12-02338);

   20. Jorey Danos, et al.'s Motion to Remand (Rec. Doc. 10431)
       (re: 13-03747);

   21. Tim Terrell's Supplemental and Amending Motion to Remand
       (Rec. Doc. 12841) (re: 11-01806);

   22. Patrick A. Juneau's Motion to Dismiss (Rec. Doc. 15725)
       (re: 15-05762);

   23. Jimmie Vickers' Motion to Vacate Stay Order
       (Rec. Doc. 18515) (re: 16-02924); and

   24. Wayne Ricky Elson Rudder's Motion's Motion for Court
       Determination of Validity of Claim (Rec. Doc. 23083)
       (re: 10-02975).

According to the Order, the Motions concern cases that were
previously dismissed by the PTO 60 Compliance Order (Rec. Doc.
20996), the PTO 60 Reconciliation Order (Rec. Doc. 22003), or the
PTO 63 Compliance Order (Rec. Doc. 23047), as noted in the Order
[Directing the Clerk to Close Certain Cases Previously Dismissed
for Noncompliance with PTO 60 and PTO 63].


MDL 2445: Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs Seek Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs in the multidistrict
litigation titled IN RE SUBOXONE (BUPRENORPHINE HYDROCHLORIDE AND
NALOXONE) ANTITRUST LITIGATION, MDL No. 2:13-md-02445-MSG (E.D.
Pa.), move for an order certifying this class pursuant to Rule
23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

     All persons or entities in the United States and its
     territories who purchased branded Suboxone tablets directly
     from Reckitt at any time during the period January 1, 2012
     through March 14, 2013 (the "Class"). Excluded from the
     Class are Reckitt, its officers, directors, management,
     employees, subsidiaries, and affiliates, and all federal
     governmental entities.

The Motion relates to the Direct Purchaser Actions.  The Direct
Purchaser Class Plaintiffs are Burlington Drug Company, Inc.,
Meijer, Inc., Meijer Distribution, Inc., and Rochester Drug
Co-Operative, Inc.

The Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs also move for the Court to
appoint them as representatives of the Class, and to confirm Faruqi
& Faruqi LLP, Garwin Gerstein & Fisher LLP, and Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP as Lead Counsel for the Class.

The Interim Co-Lead Counsel for the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs and
Counsel for Burlington Drug Company, Inc., are:

          Bruce E. Gerstein, Esq.
          Joseph Opper, Esq.
          Noah Silverman, Esq.
          GARWIN GERSTEIN & FISHER LLP
          88 Pine Street, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 398-0055
          E-mail: bgerstein@garwingerstein.com
                  jopper@garwingerstein.com
                  nsilverman@garwingerstein.com

The Interim Co-Lead Counsel for the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs and
Counsel for Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc., are:

          Peter Kohn, Esq.
          Joseph T. Lukens, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI LLP
          One Penn Center, Suite 1550
          1617 John F. Kennedy Blvd.
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 277-5770
          E-mail: pkohn@faruqilaw.com
                  jlukens@faruqilaw.com

The Interim Co-Lead Counsel for the Direct Purchaser Class
Plaintiffs and Counsel for Meijer, Inc. and Meijer Distribution,
Inc., are:

          Thomas M. Sobol, Esq.
          Jessica R. MacAuley, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          55 Cambridge Parkway, Suite 301
          Cambridge, MA 02142
          Telephone: (617) 482-3700
          E-mail: tom@hbsslaw.com
                  jessicam@hbsslaw.com

Plaintiff Burlington Drug Company, Inc., is represented by:

          Stuart E. Des Roches, Esq.
          Andrew W. Kelly, Esq.
          Chris Letter, Esq.
          ODOM & DES ROCHES, LLC
          650 Poydras Street, Suite 2020
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 522-0077
          E-mail: stuart@odrlaw.com
                  akelly@odrlaw.com
                  cletter@odrlaw.com

               - and -

          David P. Smith, Esq.
          Susan Segura, Esq.
          David C. Raphael, Jr., Esq.
          Erin R. Leger, Esq.
          SMITH SEGURA & RAPHAEL, LLP
          3600 Jackson St., Suite 111
          Alexandria, LA 71303
          Telephone: (318) 445-4480
          E-mail: dsmith@ssrllp.com
                  ssegura@ssrllp.com
                  eleger@ssrllp.com
                  draphael@ssrllp.com

               - and -

          Russell Chorush, Esq.
          HEIM, PAYNE & CHORUSH LLP
          1111 Bagby Street, #2100
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 221-2000
          E-mail: rchorush@hpcllp.com

Plaintiff Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc., is represented by:

          David F. Sorensen, Esq.
          Caitlin G. Coslett, Esq.
          Richard Schwartz, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          E-mail: dsorensen@bm.net
                  ccoslett@bm.net
                  rschwartz@bm.net

               - and -

          Barry S. Taus, Esq.
          Archana Tamoshunas, Esq.
          TAUS, CEBULASH & LANDAU LLP
          80 Maiden Lane, Suite 1204
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (212) 931-0704
          E-mail: btaus@tcllaw.com
                  atamoshunas@tcllaw.com

Plaintiffs Meijer, Inc. and Meijer Distribution, Inc., are
represented by:

          Joseph Vanek, Esq.
          David E. Germaine, Esq.
          John P. Bjork, Esq.
          VANEK, VICKERS & MASINI, P.C.
          111 South Wacker Drive, Suite 4050
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 224-1500
          E-mail: jvanek@vaneklaw.com
                  dgermaine@vaneklaw.com
                  jbjork@vaneklaw.com


MDL 2445: End-Payor Plaintiffs Move for Certification of Classes
----------------------------------------------------------------
The End-Payor Plaintiffs in the multidistrict litigation styled IN
RE: SUBOXONE (BUPRENORPHINE HYDROCHLORIDE AND NALOXONE) ANTITRUST
LITIGATION, MDL No. 2:13-md-02445-MSG (E.D. Pa.), move the Court
for an order granting class certification in the matter.

The Motion relates to All End-Payor Actions.  The End-Payor
Plaintiffs are A.F. of L. - A.G.C. Building Trades Welfare Plan,
Construction & General Laborers' Local 190 Welfare Fund, I.B.E.W.
292 Health Care Plan, Michigan Regional Council of Carpenters
Employee Benefits Fund, Painters District Council No. 30 Health and
Welfare Fund, Teamsters Health Services and Insurance Plan Local
404, and United Food & Commercial Workers Health and Welfare Fund
of Northeastern Pennsylvania.

The End-Payor Plaintiffs move for certification of two classes:

   (1) Nationwide Injunctive Class:

       All persons or entities in the United States who purchased
       and/or paid for some of all of the purchase price for
       Co-Formulated Buprenorphine/Naloxone ("Suboxone") in any
       form for consumption by themselves, their families, or
       their members, employees, insureds, participants, or
       beneficiaries at any time during the period January 1,
       2012 through the date of class certification; and

   (2) State Antitrust/Consumer Protection Class:

       All persons or entities who purchased and/or paid for some
       of all of the purchase price for Co-Formulated
       Buprenorphine/Naloxone ("Suboxone") in California,
       Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nevada,
       New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin in any
       form for consumption by themselves, their families, or
       their members, employees, insureds, participants, or
       beneficiaries at any time during the period January 1,
       2012 through the date of class certification.

The certification issues presented are:

   (a) Whether Defendant engaged in anticompetitive and deceptive
       conduct;

   (b) Whether Defendant willfully maintained monopoly power
       through such conduct;

   (c) Whether Defendant had a specific intent to monopolize;

   (d) Whether Defendant had a dangerous probability of achieving
       monopoly power;

   (e) Whether Defendant has offered a non-pretextual
       procompetitive justification that could not have been
       obtained through less restrictive means, and if so; and

   (f) Whether the anticompetitive effects of Defendant's conduct
       outweigh their proffered procompetitive benefits, if any.

These groups are excluded from the Class:

   a. Pharmacy Benefit Managers;

   b. Defendant and their officers, directors, management,
      employees, subsidiaries, or affiliates;

   c. All governmental entities, except for government funded
      employee benefit plans;

   d. All persons or entities who purchased Suboxone for purposes
      of resale or directly from Defendant or its affiliates; and

   e. The judges in this case and any members of their immediate
      families.

The End-Payor Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as
representatives of the Class, and to appoint Kenneth A. Wexler,
Esq., of Wexler Wallace LLP; Steve Shadowen, Esq., of Hilliard
Shadowen LLC; Michael Buchman, Esq., of Motley Rice LLC; and Marvin
Miller, Esq., of Miller Law LLC as Co-Lead Counsel, and Jeffrey
Kodroff, Esq., of Spector Roseman & Kodroff P.C. as Liaison
Counsel.

The End-Payor Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jeffrey L. Kodroff, Esq.
          John A. Macoretta, Esq.
          Diana J. Zinser, Esq.
          SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF P.C.
          1818 Market Street, Suite 2500
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 496-0300
          E-mail: jkodroff@srkattorneys.com
                  jmacoretta@srkattorneys.com
                  dzinser@srkattorneys.com

               - and -

          Steve Shadowen, Esq.
          D. Sean Nation, Esq.
          HILLIARD & SHADOWEN LLC
          2407 S. Congress Avenue, Suite E122
          Austin, TX 78704
          Telephone: (855) 344-3298
          E-mail: steve@hilliardshadowen.com
                  sean@hilliardshadowen.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Michael M. Buchman, Esq.
          Michelle Zolnoski, Esq.
          MOTLEY RICE LLC
          275 Seventh Avenue, 2nd Floor
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 577-0040
          E-mail: mbuchman@motleyrice.com
                  mzolnoski@motleyrice.com

               - and -

          Marvin Miller, Esq.
          Lori Fanning, Esq.
          MILLER LAW LLC
          115 South LaSalle Street
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 332-3400
          E-mail: mmiller@millerlawllc.com
                  lfanning@millerlawllc.com


MDL 2580: Discovery Ongoing in OPANA(R) Cases v. Endo Unit
----------------------------------------------------------
The antitrust cases related to the OPANA(R) patent infringement
litigation settlement of Endo International plc's subsidiary with
Impax Laboratories Inc. are currently in discovery, according to
Endo International's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018.

The Company said, "Beginning in June 2014, multiple direct and
indirect purchasers of OPANA(R) ER filed cases against our
subsidiaries EHSI and EPI and other pharmaceutical companies,
including Impax Laboratories Inc. (Impax) and Penwest
Pharmaceuticals Co., which our subsidiary EPI had acquired.  Some
cases were filed on behalf of putative classes of direct and
indirect purchasers, while others were filed on behalf of
individual retailers or health care benefit plans.  All cases have
been consolidated and/or coordinated for pretrial proceedings in a
federal MDL pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois (MDL No. 2580).

"Plaintiffs generally allege that an agreement reached by EPI and
Impax to settle patent infringement litigation concerning multiple
patents pertaining to OPANA(R) ER and EPI's introduction of
reformulated OPANA(R) ER violated antitrust laws.  The complaints
assert claims under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, various
state antitrust and consumer protection statutes and/or state
common law.  Plaintiffs generally seek damages, treble damages,
disgorgement of profits, restitution, injunctive relief and
attorneys' fees.

"In February 2016, the MDL court issued orders (i) denying
defendants' motion to dismiss the claims of the direct purchasers,
(ii) denying in part and granting in part defendants' motion to
dismiss the claims of the indirect purchasers, but giving them
permission to file amended complaints and (iii) granting
defendants' motion to dismiss the complaints filed by certain
retailers, but giving them permission to file amended complaints.
In response to the MDL court's orders, the indirect purchasers
filed an amended complaint to which the defendants filed a renewed
motion to dismiss certain claims, and certain retailers also filed
amended complaints.  The court has dismissed the indirect purchaser
unjust enrichment claims arising under the laws of the states of
California, Rhode Island and Illinois.  The cases are currently in
discovery.

"We will continue to vigorously defend these matters and to explore
other options as appropriate in our best interests."

Endo International plc, a specialty pharmaceutical company,
manufactures and sells generic and branded pharmaceuticals in the
United States, Canada, and internationally. The company operates
through three segments: U.S. Generic Pharmaceuticals, U.S. Branded
Pharmaceuticals, and International Pharmaceuticals.


MDL 2724: Endo Still Faces Generic Drugs Pricing Antitrust Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Endo International plc continues to defend itself in a federal MDL
related to alleged price-fixing and other anticompetitive conduct
with respect to various generic pharmaceutical products, 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.

Certain cases alleging price-fixing and other anticompetitive
conduct with respect to various generic pharmaceutical products
have been consolidated and/or coordinated for pretrial proceedings
in a federal MDL pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania under the caption In re Generic
Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation (MDL No. 2724).  Among
the lawsuits consolidated and/or coordinated in the MDL, the
earliest lawsuits naming the Company and/or its subsidiaries were
filed in November 2016 and related to digoxin and doxycycline.

The private plaintiffs in the MDL include alleged direct
purchasers, end-payers, and indirect purchaser resellers, and they
purport to represent not only themselves but also all others
similarly situated.  At the MDL court's direction, in August 2017,
each group of private plaintiffs (direct purchasers, end-payers and
indirect purchaser resellers) filed separate consolidated amended
class action complaints as to each of 18 products, except with
respect to one product (propranolol) direct purchaser plaintiffs
stated their intention to proceed on a consolidated amended
complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York prior to MDL transfer (the Southern District
of New York had denied a motion to dismiss this complaint).  Each
of these consolidated amended complaints relates to one product,
and the Company's subsidiary PPI was named as a defendant in
complaints relating to six products: digoxin, doxycycline hyclate,
divalproex ER, propranolol, baclofen and amitriptyline
hydrochloride.  The MDL court divided the various cases into three
separate product-based tranches for certain administrative and
scheduling purposes, including briefing on motions to dismiss.  As
to the six products in the first tranche (including digoxin,
doxycycline hyclate and divalproex ER), defendants filed motions to
dismiss in October 2017, and these motions remain pending.
Defendants also asserted that they are entitled to move the MDL
court to dismiss the propranolol direct purchaser consolidated
amended complaint.  The MDL court has allowed certain targeted
discovery.

In December 2016, the Attorney General for the State of
Connecticut, leading a coalition of 20 state attorneys general,
filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut alleging price-fixing and other anticompetitive conduct
with respect to doxycycline hyclate delayed release and glyburide
against certain manufacturers of those products.  The Company and
its subsidiaries were not named in that complaint, or in an amended
complaint filed on behalf of 40 states in March 2017, or in a
separate lawsuit filed by four more states and the District of
Columbia in the same court in July 2017.  In August 2017, the state
cases were transferred to MDL No. 2724.  In October 2017, the state
plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to (1) consolidate their two
cases, (2) add Alaska and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico as
plaintiffs and (3) assert additional claims against existing and
new defendants.  In June 2018, the MDL court granted this motion,
and the state plaintiffs filed their amended complaint.  The
amended complaint adds new allegations and claims against 14 new
defendants, including the Company's subsidiary Par, relating to 13
additional products.  The amended complaint alleges anticompetitive
conduct by the Company's subsidiary with respect to doxycycline
monohydrate.  It also alleges that all defendants engaged in an
overarching conspiracy to restrain trade across the generic
pharmaceutical industry and seeks to hold all defendants, including
the Company's subsidiary, jointly and severally liable for harm
caused by alleged anticompetitive activity concerning each of the
15 drugs at issue.  The amended complaint seeks declaratory and
injunctive relief, disgorgement and other equitable relief,
compensatory and treble damages, civil penalties, costs and
attorneys' fees.

In January 2018, The Kroger Co., Albertsons Companies, LLC, and
H.E. Butt Grocery Company LP filed a complaint in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against PPI, as well
as numerous other manufacturers of generic pharmaceuticals,
alleging anticompetitive conduct relating to 30 separate generic
pharmaceutical products, including seven products allegedly
manufactured by PPI: digoxin, doxycycline hyclate, doxycycline
monohydrate, divalproex ER, propranolol, baclofen and amitriptyline
hydrochloride.  This lawsuit has been assigned to the MDL court.
The complaint alleges an overarching conspiracy among all named
defendants to engage in price-fixing for all 30 products, as well
as product-specific conspiracies relating to each individual
product, in violation of federal antitrust law.  The complaint
seeks monetary damages, including treble damages, attorneys' fees
and injunctive relief.

In June 2018, direct purchaser, end-payer and indirect purchaser
reseller plaintiffs filed additional class action complaints in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania,
alleging anticompetitive conduct relating to approximately 15
generic pharmaceuticals (generally those that were the subject of
the state plaintiffs' amended complaint).  These lawsuits have also
been assigned to the MDL court.  The end payer and indirect
purchaser reseller complaints name the Company's subsidiaries PPI,
Generics Bidco I, LLC and DAVA Pharmaceuticals, LLC, and other
companies, as defendants.  The direct purchaser complaint names the
Company's subsidiary Par and other companies as defendants.  As to
the Company's subsidiaries, the complaints allege anticompetitive
conduct with respect to doxycycline hyclate, doxycycline
monohydrate, nystatin cream and/or zoledronic acid.  These
complaints also seek to hold all defendants jointly and severally
liable for alleged anticompetitive conduct relating to all products
identified in the complaints on the basis of an "overarching
conspiracy" theory similar to that asserted by the state
plaintiffs.

In August 2018, Humana Inc. filed a complaint in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against the Company,
PPI and Par, as well as numerous other manufacturers of generic
pharmaceuticals, alleging anticompetitive conduct relating to
approximately 16 generic pharmaceutical products, including
amitriptyline, baclofen, digoxin, divalproex, doxycycline (both
doxycycline hyclate and doxycycline monohydrate) and propranolol.
The complaint alleges an overarching conspiracy among all named
defendants to engage in price-fixing for all 16 products, as well
as product-specific conspiracies relating to each individual
product.  The complaint asserts claims under state and federal law
and seeks monetary damages, including treble damages, attorneys'
fees and equitable relief.  The lawsuit has been assigned to the
MDL court.

The Company said, "We will continue to vigorously defend the
foregoing matters and to explore other options as appropriate in
our best interests.  Similar matters may be brought by others or
the foregoing matters may be expanded.  We are unable to predict
the outcome of these matters or to estimate the possible range of
any losses that could be incurred."

Endo International plc, a specialty pharmaceutical company,
manufactures and sells generic and branded pharmaceuticals in the
United States, Canada, and internationally. The company operates
through three segments: U.S. Generic Pharmaceuticals, U.S. Branded
Pharmaceuticals, and International Pharmaceuticals.


MDL 2836: Endo Subsidiary Still Defends Zetia(R) Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
Endo International plc's subsidiary continues to defend itself in a
federal MDL related to Zetia(R) (ezetimibe) and its generic
equivalents, 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.

The Company said, "Beginning in February 2018, several alleged
indirect purchasers filed proposed class actions against our
subsidiary PPI and others alleging a conspiracy to delay generic
competition and monopolize the market for Zetia(R) (ezetimibe) and
its generic equivalents.  The complaints generally assert claims
under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, various state antitrust
and consumer protection statutes and state common law and seek
injunctive relief, damages, treble damages, attorneys' fees and
costs.  In June 2018, the cases were consolidated and/or
coordinated for pretrial proceedings in a federal MDL pending in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (MDL
No. 2836).  We intend to vigorously defend these matters and to
explore other options as appropriate in our best interests."

Endo International plc, a specialty pharmaceutical company,
manufactures and sells generic and branded pharmaceuticals in the
United States, Canada, and internationally. The company operates
through three segments: U.S. Generic Pharmaceuticals, U.S. Branded
Pharmaceuticals, and International Pharmaceuticals.


MERCED, CA: Underpays Police Officers, McKinnon et al. Allege
-------------------------------------------------------------
NATHANIEL MCKINNON; COURTNEY BOHANAN; EDWARD DRUM; TIMOTHY GACHES;
JOSEPH PEREZ; LUIS R. SOLIS; individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CITY OF MERCED, Defendant,
Case No. 1:18-cv-01124-LJO-SAB (E.D. Cal., Aug. 17, 2018) is an
action brought against the Defendant for unpaid overtime, interest,
liquidated damages, costs of suit, and attorneys' fees and costs
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff McKinnon was employed by the Defendant as a police
officer.

Merced is a city in, and the county seat of, Merced County,
California, United States, in the San Joaquin Valley. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary M. Messing, Esq.
          Jason H Jasmine, Esq.
          D. Paul Bird II, Esq.
          MESSING ADAM & JASMINE LLP
          235 Montgomery St., Suite 828
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 266-1800
          Facsimile: (415) 266-1128
          E-mail: gary@majlabor.com
                  jason@majlabor.com
                  paul@majlabor.com


MERCHANTS & MEDICAL: Hess Sues over Debt Collection Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHANIE HESS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MERCHANTS & MEDICAL CREDIT CORPORATION,
INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-12902 (D.N.J., Aug. 17, 2018)
seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to
collect a debt.

Merchants & Medical Credit Corporation, Inc. was founded in 1960.
The company's line of business includes collection and adjustment
services on claims and other insurance related issues. [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


MERIT RECOVERY: Faces Muldowney Suit in N.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Merit Recovery
Systems, Inc.  The case is captioned, Karen Muldowney, individually
and on behalf of all those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Merit Recovery Systems, Inc., the Defendant, Case No.
5:18-cv-01061-MAD-ATB (N.D.N.Y., Sept. 4, 2018), and assigned to
the Hon. Judge Mae A. D'Agostino. The suit alleges Fair Debt
Collection Act violation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Tech House Sues Over DRAM Price-fixing
---------------------------------------------------------
Technology House Call, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated v. Micron Technology, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-04742
(N.D. Calif., August 7, 2018), seeks treble damages and injunctive
relief under the Clayton Act and the Sherman Antitrust Act.

This is a class action on behalf of all persons and entities in the
United States who purchased Dynamic Random Access Memory directly
from the named defendants from June 1, 2016 through February 1,
2018 (the "Class Period").

The Plaintiff, Technology House Call, alleges that during the Class
Period, Defendants conspired, combined and contracted to fix,
raise, maintain, and stabilize the prices at which DRAM was sold in
the United States. As a result of Defendants' conduct, Plaintiff
and the Class paid artificially inflated prices for DRAM during the
Class Period. Such prices exceeded the amount they would have paid
if the price for DRAM had been determined by a competitive market,
says the Plaintiff. As a result of the conspiracy, DRAM prices rose
on average more than 300% during the Class Period.

The Plaintiff, Technology House Call, is a California business with
its principal place of business in San Francisco, California.

The Defendants manufactured, sold and distributed DRAM throughout
the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Terry Gross, Esq.
      Adam C. Belsky, Esq.
      GROSS & BELSKY P.C.
      201 Spear Street, Suite 1100
      San Francisco, CA 94105
      Tel: (415) 544-0200
      Fax: (415) 544-0201
      E-mail: terry@grossbelsky.com
              adam@grossbelsky.com

          - and -

      Randy Renick, Esq.
      HADSELL STORMER & RENICK, LLP
      128 North Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 204
      Pasadena, CA 91103-3645
      Tel: (626) 585-9600
      Fax: (626) 577-7079
      E-mail: rrr@hadsellstormer.com

          - and -

      Robert J. Bonsignore, Esq.
      BONSIGNORE TRIAL LAWYERS, PLLC
      3771 Meadowcrest Drive
      Las Vegas, NV 89121
      Tel: (781) 856-7650
      E-mail: rbonsignore@classactions.us


MJ NORTHPOINT: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Scholberg Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
CODY SCHOLBERG; VIANEY MORENO; TEVIN LANIER; NATHANIEL WHIGMAM; and
TERRI BURGNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. MJ NORTHPOINT LLC; MI YI; and JONG YI,
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-03935-AT (N.D. Ga., Aug. 17, 2018)
seeks to recover damages for the Defendant's failure to pay minimum
wages and overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Plaintiff Scholberg was employed by the Defendants as manager
from November 3, 2017 to November 17, 2017. The Plaintiff Moreno as
server from November 2017 to May 2018. The Plaintiff Lanier as
server from November 2016 to May 2018. Mr Whigmam as manager from
October 2017 to May 2018. Burgner as server from April 2017 to May
2018.

MJ Northpoint LLC is a domestic limited liability corporation,
doing business in Georgia. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Larry A. Pankey, Esq.
          Erin J. Krinsky, Esq.
          PANKEY & HORLOCK, LLC
          1441 Dunwoody Village Parkway, Suite 200
          Atlanta, GA 30338-4122
          Telephone: 770-670-6250
          Facsimile: 770-670-6249
          E-mail: LPankey@PankeyHorlock.com
                  EKrinsky@PankeyHorlock.com


MONTROSE TRAVEL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Richard Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
CATHERINE RICHARD, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONTROSE TRAVEL; CORPORATE TRAVEL
MANAGEMENT NORTH AMERICA, INC.; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Case No. BC717339 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Aug. 17, 2018) is
an action against the Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime
hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as hourly-paid,
non-exempt employee from June 2017 to January 2018.

Corporate Travel Management (CTM) was founded in Brisbane in 1994
by Jamie Pherous.The Company offers corporate travel management
services. The Company operates on a fee for service model and
provides business travel advice and services, bookings, ticketing,
and ancillary services, and offers travel data diagnostics and
recommendations. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
          LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC
          410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 265-1020
          Facsimile: (818) 265-1021


MOVE INC: Silverman Suit Asserts Invasion of Privacy Under
TCPA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COURTNEY SILVERMAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. MOVE, INC. a California corporation, and
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS, an Illinois association, Case No.
0:18-cv-62189-RNS (S.D. Fla., September 17, 2018), stems from the
Defendants' alleged ruthless invasion of privacy, which violated
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

MI is a California corporation, which transacts substantial
business in Florida.  MI operates the Web site Realtor.com.

NAR is an Illinois association, which transacts substantial
business in Florida.  NAR owns the Web site Realtor.com.

In their persistent efforts to advertise and solicit business, the
Defendants, acting in concert or on each-other's behalf, engaged in
systematic text-message-advertising campaigns, without regard for
the law or the privacy rights of others, according to the
complaint.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jordan A. Shaw, Esq.
          Kimberly A. Slaven, Esq.
          ZEBERSKY PAYNE, LLP
          110 S.E. 6th Street, Suite 2150
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 989-6333
          Facsimile: (954) 989-7781
          E-mail: jshaw@zpllp.com
                  mperez@zpllp.com


N.W. MARTIN: Fails to Pay OT to Roofers, Curry Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
Luke Curry, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated Plaintiff v. N.W. Martin & Bros., Incorporated; and John
Martin, Jr., Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-00568-JAG (E.D. Va., Aug.
17, 2018) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Mr. Curry was employed by the Defendants as roofer from June 2010
to March 2018.

N.W. Martin is a Virginia corporation doing business in Richmond,
Virginia. The company is a roofing contractor. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Philip Justus Dean, Esq.
          Craig Juraj Curwood, Esq.
          CURWOOD LAW FIRM
          530 E. Main Street, Suite 710
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 788-0808
          Facsimile: (804) 767-6777
          E-mail: pdean@curwoodlaw.com
                  ccurwood@curwoodlaw.com


NEW C.A.P.S.: Underpays Crew Leads, Fiebelkorn Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
JONATHAN FIEBELKORN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEW C.A.P.S., LLC; AEG PRESENTS
LLC; GOLDENVOICE, LLC; ANSCHUTZ ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, INC.; and DOES
1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC717337 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., Aug. 17, 2018) is an action against the
Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation,
authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage
statements, and reimburse necessary business expenses.

Mr. Fiebelkorn was employed by the Defendants as crew lead in Los
Angeles, California.

New C.A.P.S., LLC is a Delaware limited liability doing business in
California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Amab Banerjee, Esq.
          Brandon K. Brouillette, Esq.
          Ruhandy Glezakos, Esq.
          CAPSTONE LAW APC
          1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 556-4811
          Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
          E-mail: Amab.Baneijee@capstonelawyers.com
                  Brandon.Brouillette@capstonelawyers.com
                  Ruhandy.Glezakos@capstonelawyers.com


NOR COOPER: Faces Grinblat Suit in Eastern District of New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nor Cooper Service
Center Inc. and BP Products North America Inc.  The case is
captioned, Semyon Grinblat, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Nor Cooper Service
Center Inc. and BP Products North America Inc., the Defendants,
Case No. 1:18-cv-05000-ARR-RML (E.D.N.Y., Sep. 4, 2018). The suit
alleges Americans with Disabilities Act, and is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Allyne R. Ross.

Nor-Cooper is an auto repair shop and tire shop located in
Glendale, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Grinblat, Esq.
          5215 65th Place, Apt 5d
          Maspeth, NY 11378
          Telephone: (718) 316 7635
          Facsimile: (877) 631 8040
          E-mail: michael.grinblatesq@gmail.com


OPKO HEALTH: Barrack Rodos Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Barrack, Rodos & Bacine has filed a securities class action lawsuit
on behalf of purchasers of the securities of OPKO Health, Inc.
(NASDAQ: OPK) ("OPKO") from September 26, 2013 through September 7,
2018, inclusive (the "Class Period").  The complaint was filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida against OPKO, its Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive
Officer, Phillip Frost, its current Chief Financial Officer, and a
former Chief Financial Officer.  A copy of the complaint, docketed
as Civil Action No. 1:18-cv-23786, is available at:
www.barrack.com/newsroom/recent-news.

The Complaint alleges that the defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose that: (1) OPKO
and its Chairman and CEO, Frost, were engaged in a pump-and-dump
scheme with several other individuals and companies in their
investments in several penny stocks; (2) the illicit scheme allowed
the Company to report revenues from this illegal conduct and would
result in governmental scrutiny including a complaint filed by the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission; and (3) consequently,
defendants' statements about OPKO's business, operations and
prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times.

If you suffered a loss arising from your investment in OPKO common
stock during the Class Period, you have until November 13, 2018, to
file a motion with the Court seeking appointment as lead
plaintiff.

To discuss your rights regarding the appointment of lead plaintiff
and for additional information about your interest in this class
action.

         Mark Rosen, Esq.
         Lisa Port, Esq.
         Barrack, Rodos & Bacine
         Telephone: (215) 963-0600
         Email: MRosen@barrack.com
                LPort@barrack.com [GN]


OPKO HEALTH: Kessler Topaz Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP disclosed that a
securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey against OPKO
Health, Inc. (Nasdaq:  OPK) ("OPKO") on behalf of purchasers of
OPKO securities between September 26, 2013 and September 7, 2018,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

Important Deadline Reminder:  Investors who purchased OPKO
securities during the Class Period may, no later than November 13,
2018, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of
the class. For additional information or to learn how to
participate in this action please visit
www.ktmc.com/opko-health-securities-class-action

According to the complaint, OPKO is a healthcare company that
engages in the diagnostics and pharmaceuticals business in the
United States and internationally, including in Ireland, Chile,
Spain, Israel, and Mexico.

The Class Period commences on September 26, 2013, when the article
"Opko and Its Billionaire CEO Invested in Biozone" appeared on
Seaking Alpha. The complaint alleges that the article, as part of a
scheme to inflate the price of Biozone Pharmaceuticals ("Biozone"),
touted Biozone by using OPKO and OPKO's Chief Executive Officer and
Chairman Phillip Frost's ("Frost") ownership in Biozone, as Frost
had a reputation as a succussful biotech investor.

The complaint alleges that on September 7, 2018, the SEC issued a
press release entitled "SEC Charges Microcap Fraudsters for Roles
in Lucrative Market Manipulation Schemes," which included Frost and
OPKO as defendants. The press release stated, in relevant part,
"[a]ccording to the SEC's complaint, from 2013 to 2018, a group of
profilic South Florida-based microcap fraudsters . . . manipulated
the share price of the stock of three companies in classic
pump-and-dump schemes. Miami biotech billionaire Phillip Frost
allegedly participated in two of these three schemes." Following
this news, shares of OPKO fell $1.01 or over 18%, before NASDAQ
halted the trading of OPKO on September 7, 2018 at 2:34 p.m. EDT at
$4.58. To date, trading in OPKO remains halted, making OPKO's stock
illiquid and virtually worthless.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that:  (1) defendant Frost and OPKO were engaged in a
pump-and-dump scheme with several other individuals and companies
in their investments in several penny stocks; (2) this illicit
scheme would result in governmental scrutiny including from the
SEC; and (3) as a result, the defendants' statements about OPKO's
business, operations and prospects were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

If you wish to discuss this securities fraud class action or have
any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, please contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer
& Check (James Maro, Jr., Esq. or Adrienne Bell, Esq.) at (888)
299-7706 or (610) 667-7706, or via e-mail at info@ktmc.com.

OPKO investors may, no later than November 13, 2018, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, or other counsel, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.  A lead plaintiff is
a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members in
directing the litigation.  In order to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class
member will adequately represent the class.  Your ability to share
in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.

         James Maro, Jr., Esq.
         Adrienne Bell, Esq.
         Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
         280 King of Prussia Road
         Radnor, PA 19087
         Telephone: (888) 299-7706
                    (610) 667-7706
         Email: info@ktmc.com
                abell@ktmc.com
                jmaro@ktmc.com[GN]


PC SHIELD: Stone & Company Files TCPA Class Action in Pittsburgh
----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Gonzales, writing for Penn Record, reports that a
construction supply company has filed a lawsuit against PC Shield
Inc., an Oklahoma corporation, citing alleged violation of
telephone harassment statutes.

Wendell H. Stone Co. Inc., doing business as Stone & Company,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed
a complaint on Aug. 27, in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania against PC Shield Inc. alleging that the
Oklahoma corporation violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
and the Junk Fax Protection Act.

The plaintiff seeks an order certifying this case as a class action
and appointing plaintiff and its attorney as class representatives,
according to court documents.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that due to
defendant's unauthorized faxes, the plaintiff's privacy has been
invaded and has wasted plaintiff's and its employees time
receiving, reviewing and routing such faxes. The plaintiff holds PC
Shield Inc. responsible because the defendant allegedly repeatedly
sent fax advertisements to plaintiff's and the class members'
telephone facsimile machines without their prior express
permission.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks an order
certifying this case as a class action and appointing plaintiff and
its attorney as class representatives. It seeks an award of actual
monetary loss, with interest, attorneys' fees and costs and such
other reasonable and just relief. It is represented by Stuart C.
Gaul, Jr., Esq. -- stuart.gaul@gaul-legal.com -- of Gaul Legal LLC
in Pittsburgh and Steven L. Woodrow, Esq.--
swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com -- Patrick H. Peluso, Esq.--
ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com --
and Taylor T. Smith, Esq. -- tsmith@woodrowpeluso.com -- of
Woodrow & Peluso, LLC in Denver. [GN]


PINNACLE FOODS: Rasmussen Files Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Alexander Rasmussen, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Pinnacle Foods, Inc., Roger Deromedi, Mark
Clouse, Ann Fandozzi, Mark Jung, Jane Nielsen, Muktesh Pant,
Raymond P. Silcock, and Ioannis Skoufalos, Case No. 2:18-cv-12501
(D. N.J., August 7, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for
violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The action stems from a proposed transaction announced on June 27,
2018, pursuant to which Pinnacle Foods Inc. will be acquired by
Conagra Brands, Inc. through its wholly owned subsidiary, Patriot
Merger Sub Inc.

On July 25, 2018, the Defendants filed a preliminary proxy
statement on Form S-4 with the United States Securities and
Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed Transaction.
The Proxy omits certain material information with respect to the
Proposed Transaction, which renders it false and misleading, says
the complaint.

The Plaintiff is an individual who resides at 102 S. Tunstall Ave.,
Apex, NC 27502, and has been at all times relevant hereto, an owner
of Pinnacle common stock.

The Defendant Pinnacle is a Delaware corporation, with its
principal executive offices located at 399 Jefferson Road,
Parsippany, New Jersey 07054. Pinnacle common stock is listed on
the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol "PF."

The Individual Defendants are Pinnacle's board of directors. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeffrey W. Herrmann, Esq.
      COHN LIFLAND PEARLMAN
      HERRMANN & KNOPF LLP
      Park 80 West-Plaza One
      250 Pehle Ave., Suite 401
      Saddle Brook, NJ 07663
      Tel: (201) 845-9600
      E-mail: jwh@njlawfirm.com


POWERCOR AUSTRALIA: Maddens Lawyers Responds to Criticism of Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Thomson, writing for The Standard, reports that Australia's
leading bushfire lawyer has labelled widespread public criticism of
St Patrick's Day fires class actions as "scandalous".

Warrnambool's Maddens Lawyers partner Brendan Pendergast, Esq.--
bfp@maddenslawyers.com.au -- has launched class actions in relation
to the  Terang, Garvoc, Gazette and Gnotuk fires which devastated
the region earlier this year.

The defendant to each of the actions is Powercor Australia Ltd.

Maddens, considered the leading bushfire class action firm in the
nation, has signed up about 135 victims of the Terang fire and 55
for the Garvoc blaze and is also running a number of New South
Wales bushfire class actions.

"Frankly, I think the people of south-west Victoria impacted by the
Garvoc and Terang fires are being fed so much misinformation and in
my view it's scandalous," he said.

"It's a massive problem.

"We have a long established system of civil justice. People have
the right to recover civil wrongs properly pursued in courts."

Mr Pendergast said fire victims under extreme stress were being
ill-informed by politicians and civic leaders.

"They are being urged to directly approach the wrongdoer to seek
proper compensation for millions of dollars in damages, while
leaving the court out and not seeking proper legal advice," he
said.

"It's a bit like a motor vehicle accident where a driver ploughs
through a red light, your car is written off and then trying to
sort out damages with the driver responsible who denies liability
and says 'trust me'."

Mr Pendergast said dealing with Powercor directly would involve the
company's self-appointed loss assessor whose speciality was
assessing losses at their minimum, without a right of appeal.

It's understood that for the Terang fire, up to 50 per cent of
those losses would then be paid by the company.

"That's outrageous, but that is what fire victims are being urged
to do," Mr Pendergast said.

"The criticism of lawyers has gained momentum, there's been
criticism of class actions and people have hysterically referred to
costs."

The lawyer said class actions, including legal costs, were closely
supervised by courts, managed by a judge and victims had their
rights reserved.

He said the defendant would pay the vast majority of legal costs
and that there was no prospect of any fire victim being out of
pocket for legal costs arising out of these cases.

"We do not get any percentage of payouts, categorically none," he
said.

He said Maddens was advancing the litigation on a "no-win, no-fee"
basis, which was highly advantageous to clients.

Mr Pendergast conceded a "no-win, no-fee" costs agreement was a
complex document and there was a potential for people to
misunderstand sections.

"Costs don't relate to the sum recovered, they relate to a scale of
costs approved by the Supreme Court," he said
The lawyer said discretionary, loadings and uplifted costs were not
accumulative and were part of any complex litigation.

Mr Pendergast said Maddens did not appoint litigation funders where
typically 30 to 40 per cent of sums recovered went to those
investors.

Mr Pendergast said Maddens issued 400 writs after the Ash Wednesday
fires in February, 1983, recovering $40 million.

"We are currently running several class actions in NSW.

"We are expert and highly experienced in this field and without
doubt Australia's most experienced bushfire litigation firm.

"We know what we are doing, we're effective, efficient and very
good at it."

Mr Pendergast said delays in Black Saturday cases related to the
assessment of loss and damage, with the defendant demanding victims
provide the smallest details of all losses.

He said providing such proof by victims who had lost everything was
onerous in the extreme and unrealistic and would not happen in the
St Patrick's Day fire cases.

Mr Pendergast said victims could also claim aid that had been
donated, such as fencing and fodder.

"That's all recoverable from the wrongdoer. It was not intended to
benefit Powercor," he said. "That can be claimed absolutely. What
the client does with that is between the victim and the donor. We
have no part of that claim but it would be subject to costs."

Mr Pendergast said his firm had been criticised in state parliament
for signing up people the day after the St Patrick's Day fires.

"That is errant nonsense. We were at the scene of the fires
gathering evidence, taking photographs and talking to witnesses,"
he said. "Any competent lawyer had to be on the scene. We
specialise in that area of litigation and it happened on our back
door step," he said.

Dixie fire victim Daniel Gilmour -- who had 400 hectares burnt,
including 25km fencing and 800 tonnes of hay -- said no one thought
Maddens were going to be taking legal action for free.

"But Powercor is not a benevolent organisation and will be doing
what if can to minimise its losses," he said.

"Victims of the fires need to ensure they are fully aware of all
the facts."

Mr Gilmour suggested victims speak directly to Maddens if they had
questions about the class actions as he believed litigation was the
avenue to obtain the best level of compensation.[GN]


PRETIUM RESOURCES: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed Pretium Resources Inc. ("Pretium" or
the "Company) (NYSE:PVG) and certain of its officers, on behalf of
shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired Pretium securities
between July 21, 2016 and September 6, 2018, both dates inclusive
(the "Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged to join this
case by visiting the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/pvg.

This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Complaint alleges that Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the
Brucejack Project is not a high-grade, high-output mine; and (2)
consequently, defendants' statements about Pretium's business,
operations, and prospects were materially false and/or misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/pvg or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his
Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz &
Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in Pretium
you have until November 6, 2018 to request that the Court appoint
you as lead plaintiff.  Your ability to share in any recovery
doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

         Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
         Yael Hurwitz, Esq.
         Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
         Telephone: 212-697-6484
         Email:  peretz@bgandg.com [GN]


REVENUE ENTERPRISES: Young Sues over Debt Collection Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
ADRIANA YOUNG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. REVENUE ENTERPRISES, LLC, and JOHN DOES
1-25, Defendant, Case No. 218-cv-02430 (D. Kan., Aug. 20, 2018)
seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to
collect a debt.

Revenue Enterprises LLC provides outsourced receivables management
solutions for clients in the United States. The company was founded
in 1987 and is based in Aurora, Colorado. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Keith N. Williston, Esq.
          201 SE Williamsburg Drive
          Blue Springs, MO 64014
          Telephone: (913) 207-5450
          E-mail: willistonkeith@yahoo.com


SALVATION ARMY: Female Staff Paid Less, Smith Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
KIM SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE SALVATION ARMY; THE SALVATION ARMY ARC;
and ADULT REHABILITATION CENTER, Defendants, Case No.
2:18-cv-01342-SGC (N.D. Ala., Aug. 20, 2018) is brought against the
Defendants for maintaining a policy or practice of discriminating
against the Plaintiff on account of her race and sex or gender.

Mr. Smith was employed by the Defendants as store manager.

Salvation Army is a Virginia-based non-for-profit organization that
raises contributions over $1 billion annually. The Salvation Army
serves over 27 million people in the United States and abroad with
problems such as drug addiction, alcohol abuse, elderly and other
problematic situations. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Blake C. Edwards, Esq.
          Nicole D. Edwards, Esq.
          EDWARDS & EDWARDS
          ATTORNEYS AND MEDIATORS, PLLC
          3603 Pine Lane, SE, Suite C
          Bessemer, AL 35022
          Telephone (205) 549-1379
          E-mail: blake@edwardsattys.com
                  nicole@edwardsattys.com


SCHENKER INC: Removes Juarez Suit to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of ENRIQUE JUAREZ, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SCHENKER,
INC., Defendant, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Riverside,
(Case No. RIC1814004) to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on August 17, 2018, and assigned Case No.
5:18-cv-01728-CAS-S (C.D. Cal., Aug. 17, 2018). The case is
assigned to Judge Christina A. Snyder and referred to Magistrate
Judge Sheri Pym.

Schenker, Inc. provides transportation and logistics services by
air, sea, and land in North America and internationally. Schenker,
Inc. was founded in 1947 and is based in Freeport, New York. It has
branches, logistics locations, and hubs in the United States,
Canada, and Puerto Rico.  Schenker, Inc. operates as a subsidiary
of Schenker AG. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dayana Pelayo, Esq.
          Mehrdad Bokhour, Esq.
          BOKHOUR LAW GROUP
          1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 450
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 975-1493
          Facsimile: (310) 300-1705
          E-mail: mehrdad@bokhourlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Everett Clifton Martin IV, Esq.
          Hovannes G Nalbandyan, Esq.
          Michelle Rapoport, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON PC
          633 West 5th Street 63rd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 443-4300
          Facsimile: (213) 443-4299
          E-mail: cmartin@littler.com
                  hnalbandyan@littler.com
                  mrapoport@littler.com


SERCO INC: Sandoval Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MAR'BELLA SANDOVAL, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. SERCO, INC., Case No. 4:18-cv-01562 (E.D.
Mo., September 17, 2018), seeks to recover overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the Missouri
Act.

Serco, Inc., is a foreign for-profit entity, licensed to and doing
business in Missouri.

Serco is a multinational services company that is headquartered in
Reston, Virginia with locations in 45 states, four Canadian
provinces and 14 countries around the world.  Serco's call centers
operate throughout the United States and primarily serve federal,
state, and local governments.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Clif Alexander, Esq.
          Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
          ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
          819 N. Upper Broadway
          Corpus Christi, TX 78401
          Telephone: (361) 452-1279
          Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
          E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
                  austin@a2xlaw.com

               - and -

          Sarah Jane Hunt, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS E. KENNEDY, III, L.C.
          906 Olive St., Suite 200
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 872-9041
          Facsimile: (314) 872-9043
          E-mail: sarahjane@tkennedylaw.com


STATES RECOVERY: Woods Sues over Debt Collection Practices
----------------------------------------------------------
RODERICK WOODS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. STATES RECOVERY SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 8:18-cv-00996-FJS-CFH (N.D.N.Y., Aug. 20, 2018) seeks to
stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a
debt.

States Recovery Systems, Inc. provides accounts receivable
management services. It offers first party outsourcing, third party
collection, skip-tracing, litigation, credit bureau reporting,
asset search, and consulting services. The company was founded in
1988 and is based in Rancho Cordova, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James L. Davidson, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
          5550 Glades Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 826-5477
          Facsimile: (561) 961-5684
          E-mail: jdavidson@gdrlawfirm.com


STEELER INC: Balderama Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Steeler, Inc. The
case is styled as Israel Balderama individually and on behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. Steeler, Inc., a Washington Corporation, Defendant, Case No.
BCV-18-102314 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., Sept. 17, 2018).

The case type is stated as "Other Employment – Civil Unlimited".

Steeler, Inc. manufactures and distributes steel framing products
for construction. The Company produces steel studs, hangar wire,
and fasteners for walls and ceilings. Steeler operates in the
United States. It is located at 10023 MLK Jr Way South, Seattle, WA
98178.

The plaintiff is represented by:

     Han, Douglas, Esq.
     Justice Law Corporation
     411 N Central Ave, Ste 500
     Glendale, CA 91203-2095
     Phone: (818) 230-7502
     Fax: (818) 230-7259
     E-mail: dhan@justicelawcorp.com
     

TARGET CORP: Lawsuit Alleges Debit Card Can Result in Multiple Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ABC 5 Eyewitness News reports that a Florida woman and North
Carolina man have filed a proposed class action lawsuit against
Target, alleging the company's debit card exposes customers to
double, triple or even quadruple fee penalties for insufficient
funds transactions -- a fact the suit says the company fails to
warn consumers about.

The lawsuit was filed in federal court in Minnesota on September 13
by Michelle Dixon of Spring Hill, Florida and Charles Powell of
Durham, North Carolina.

"A consumer could be hit, for example, with a $15 purchase with
four fees. One returned payment fee from Target between $20 and
$40, and up to three additional fees from your bank for
insufficient funds," Melissa Weiner, Esq., a partner at Pearson,
Simon and Warshaw, LLP, based in Minneapolis, said.

The lawsuit claims the debit card does not even attempt to deduct
funds from a customer's account, or notify their bank of the
transaction, until two to seven days after the purchase has been
made. So consumers expecting the transaction to be accepted or
declined immediately can be hit with multiple fees for insufficient
funds as the transaction is submitted multiple times.

The lawsuit alleges the card uses a slower processing network than
other debit cards, and does not cross reference account balances to
determine whether sufficient funds are available to make a purchase
prior to it being approved.

"So this could mean that by that time there may not be sufficient
funds in your account, or there may not have been sufficient funds
in the first place, which with a typical debit card, you would know
immediately because it would be rejected by your bank," Weiner
said.

The lawsuit also takes issue with the way Target markets the card,
specifically the fact it is called a "debit card" when the lawsuit
alleges it does not function as such, as well as the highlighting
of the 5 percent discount the card offers customers.

Dixon, according to the lawsuit, attempted to use her Target debit
card for a purchase of $43.18 on June 6, 2015. Target attempted to
debit the amount on June 8. Dixon had insufficient funds at that
time, so her bank charged her an NSF fee of $35 on June 9. Target
also assessed a fee at that time.

"Plaintiff Dixon would not have made the transaction using her
Target Debit Card if she had known the Target Debit Card did not
function like a normal debit card, and if she had known that using
the Target Debit Card would place her in jeopardy of several
distinct fees," the lawsuit states.

"If she had known either of these things, she would have chosen
another payment method for her transaction."

Powell allegedly used his Target debit card for a purchase of
$15.97 in April 2016. He had insufficient funds, so Target
attempted to debit his account $15.49.

His bank charged him a $25 NSF fee on April 25, and Target assessed
a similar fee at that time.

Target allegedly attempted to re-debit the account on May 2, and
Powell still had insufficient funds, so his bank again assessed a
$25 NSF fee. This happened a third time when Target attempted to
re-debit Powell's account on May 9, the suit claims.

"Accordingly, Plaintiff Powell incurred four fees for one purported
insufficient funds event," the lawsuit states.

It continues to say Powell would not have used his Target debit
card if he had known about the possibility of being charged several
distinct fees.

A spokesperson said the company had no comment on the lawsuit
September 14 night.

If you believe you may have been injured by similar conduct, you
can contact Pearson, Simon and Warshaw, LLP at 612-389-0600 or
contact@pswlaw.com.[GN]


TENAGLIA & HUNT: Cohnen Files FDCPA Suit in New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tenaglia & Hunt, P.A.
et al. The case is styled as Kevin Cohnen other individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Tenaglia &
Hunt, P.A., John Does 1 - 25, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-13961
(D. N.J., Sept. 17, 2018).

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

Tenaglia & Hunt, P.A. is a full service regional law firm handling
matters in the Courts of New York, New Jersey and across the US. It
is located at 395 West Passaic Street, Suite 205, Rochelle Park, NJ
07662 and can be contacted at: phone: (201) 820-6001; TTY: (201)
820-6011; fax: (201) 226-0795.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


TESLA INC: Oct. 9 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
---------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors that they have until October 9, 2018 to file lead
plaintiff applications in a securities class action lawsuit against
Tesla, Inc. (NasdaqGS: TSLA), if they purchased the Company's
securities between August 7, 2018 and August 17, 2018, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). This action is pending in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California.

Get Help

Tesla investors should visit us at
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-tesla-inc-securities-litigation-1
or call toll-free (844) 367-9658. Lawyers at Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
are available to discuss your legal options.

                           About the Lawsuit

Tesla and certain of its executives are charged with making
materially false and misleading statements and/or failing to
disclose material facts during the Class Period, violating federal
securities laws.

On August 7, 2018, Tesla CEO Elon Musk stated via Twitter that
"[a]m considering taking Tesla private at $420. Funding secured,"
among other things, which sent Tesla shares soaring to $379.57.
From August 9-14, 2018, news agencies reported a SEC probe into the
tweets and that another comment by Musk regarding financial
advisors being retained for the transaction, was not true. Then, on
August 17, 2018, Musk conducted an interview lamenting his stress,
demands and mindset. [GN]


TIGER EYE: Delivery Drivers Sue Domino's Pizza Franchise Owner
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lynn LaRowe, writing for Texarkana Gazette, reports that a lawsuit
filed in a Texarkana, Ark., federal court this month accuses the
owner of multiple Domino's Pizza franchises of paying delivery
drivers less than minimum wage in violation of state and federal
laws.

The complaint was filed Sept. 7 in the Texarkana Division of the
Western District of Arkansas on behalf of David Wright by Little
Rock lawyer John Coulter, Esq. Wright is a Texarkana, Ark.,
resident who works as a delivery driver for a Domino's store in
Texarkana, Ark. The suit seeks to include other Domino's delivery
drivers as a collective class who have worked for stores operated
by Tiger Eye Pizza, a corporation owned by Ken Schroepfer, in the
three years before the filing of the lawsuit.

The suit accuses Tiger Eye and Schroepfer of violating the federal
Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.
According to the complaint, delivery drivers are paid according to
a formula that essentially amounts to less than Arkansas' minimum
wage of $8.50.

The suit alleges drivers are paid "minimum wage minus a tip credit"
for their time while dropping pizzas at the doors of customers.

"Defendants require delivery drivers to incur and/or pay
job-related expenses, including but not limited to automobile costs
and depreciation, gasoline expenses, automobile maintenance and
parts, insurance, financing, cellphone costs, GPS charges, and
other equipment necessary for delivery drivers to complete their
job duties," the complaint states.

Drivers are not reimbursed for their actual expenses or paid
mileage at the standard business rate defined by the Internal
Revenue Service.

"Delivery drivers at the Tiger Eye Domino's Pizza stores are
reimbursed a flat rate per delivery, no matter how many miles the
deliveries take to complete," the complaint states.

The complaint notes the per-mile standard business rates defined by
the IRS as 57.5 cents in 2015; 54 cents in 2016; 53.5 cents in
2017; and 54.5 cents in 2018.

"Regardless of the precise amount of the per-delivery reimbursement
at any given point in time, defendant's reimbursement formula has
resulted in an unreasonable underestimation of delivery drivers'
automobile expenses throughout the recovery period, causing
systematic violations of the minimum wage laws," the complaint
alleges. "Because defendants paid their drivers a gross hourly wage
at precisely, or at least very close to, the applicable minimum
wage, and because the delivery drivers incurred unreimbursed
automobile expenses and other job expenses, the delivery drivers
'kicked back' to defendants in an amount to cause minimum wage
violations."

The suit also alleges drivers working for Tiger Eye have money
deducted from their paychecks to pay for uniforms with the Domino's
logo, which they are required to wear.

The suit complains that the "tipped" minimum wage rate drivers are
paid for making deliveries plus the per-delivery reimbusement
amount to less than minimum wage when a driver's actual expenses
are considered. According to the complaint, Wright is paid $4.25
per hour while making deliveries. Regardless of the length of the
trip, Wright receives $1.10 per delivery as compensation for
expenses such as fuel, auto maintenance, insurance, cellphone and
other costs. Before summer 2018, Wright alleges he was reimbursed
at $1.05 per delivery.

The complaint alleges Wright and other drivers routinely "kicked
back" about $4.38 an hour to the defendants.

"As a result of unreimbursed automobile expenses and other
job-related expenses, defendants have failed to pay David Wright
minimum wage as required by law," the complaint alleges. The suit
argues that certification of the litigation as a class action is
the best way to handle the drivers' claims.

"Current employees are often afraid to assert their rights out of
fear of direct and indirect retaliation. Former employees are
fearful of bringing claims because doing so can harm their
employment, future employment, and future efforts to secure
employment," the complaint states. "Class actions provide class
members who are not named in the complaint a degree of anonymity,
which allows for vindication of their rights while eliminating or
reducing these risks."

The complaint is similar to a lawsuit filed in February in the
Texarkana Division of the Eastern District of Texas against EPSI, a
Domino's Pizza franchise operation which owns stores in a number
Texas cities including Texarkana, Mount Pleasant and New Boston.
U.S. District Judge Robert Schroeder granted class certification of
the EPSI suit in April, and the case remains pending.

The suit against Tiger Eye is pending before U.S. District Judge
Susan Hickey. Tiger Eye has not yet filed a response to the
complaint.[GN]


TRAVEL CADDY: Bunting Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Travel Caddy, Inc.
The case is styled as Rasheta Bunting individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff
v. Travel Caddy, Inc. doing business as: Travelon, Defendant, Case
No. 1:18-cv-05217 (E.D. N.Y., Sept. 17, 2018).

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

Travel Caddy, Inc., doing business as Travelon, manufactures and
distributes travel products and accessories. The company offers
anti-theft bags, RFID wallets, rolling and carry-on products,
packing products, and toiletry kits and accessories. Travel Caddy,
Inc. was founded in 1978 and is based in Elk Grove Village,
Illinois.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.



TRUSTED MEDIA: Watterson Sues for Disclosure of Personal Info
-------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT WATTERSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. TRUSTED MEDIA BRANDS, INC., Case No.
1:18-cv-00520 (D.R.I., September 17, 2018), is brought against TMBI
for its alleged intentional and unlawful disclosure of its
customers' Personal Reading Information in violation of the Rhode
Island's Video, Audio and Publication Rentals Privacy Act, and for
unjust enrichment.

Mr. Watterson alleges that TMBI rented, exchanged, and/or otherwise
disclosed personal information about his Reader's Digest magazine
subscription to data aggregators, data appenders, data
cooperatives, and list brokers, among others, which in turn
disclosed his information to aggressive advertisers, political
organizations, and non-profit companies.  As a result, he asserts,
he has received a barrage of unwanted junk mail.

Trusted Media Brands, Inc., formerly known as Reader's Digest
Association, Inc., is a Delaware corporation with its principal
place of business in White Plains, New York.  As a magazine
publisher that sells subscriptions to consumers, TMBI 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


UNITED STATES: Salvadoran Mom Takes Legal Action
------------------------------------------------
National Immigrant Justice Center, reports that an asylum seeker
who remains separated from her four-year-old son and detained in a
federal immigration prison nearly six months after immigration
officers separated them at the southern border will bring legal
action today to demand they be allowed to reunite.

The Salvadoran mother, referred to as "Ms. Q" in the case, was
erroneously denied reunification in July, the deadline set by a
federal judge in the Ms. L v. ICE class action lawsuit for families
to be reunited in the wake of the Trump administration's disastrous
"zero-tolerance" policy of prosecuting asylum seekers and taking
their children.

"The Department of Homeland Security's unilateral decision to
continue to keep Ms. Q separated from her young son, with no
opportunity to challenge the decision, shocks the conscience and
violates her most basic civil and human rights," said National
Immigrant Justice Center Attorney Kate Melloy Goettel, Esq.,
co-counsel for Ms. Q.

Ms. Q and her son were apprehended by U.S. Customs and Border
Patrol officers soon after they entered the United States in March
2018 to seek asylum from gang-related threats and severe gender
violence. They were first held for a night at a processing station
(commonly referred to as a hielera, or "ice box") and then put in
wire cages for two days until they were separated. Since then, DHS
has held Ms. Q at a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement prison
in Laredo, Texas, while her son has been held in a Department of
Health and Human Services shelter for unaccompanied immigrant
children 1,400 miles away in Chicago. The New Yorker's Jonathan
Blitzer told the family's story this week in advance of today's
hearing before federal Judge Dana Sabraw in San Diego.

The U.S. government has deemed Ms. Q "ineligible" to reunify based
on an El Salvador arrest warrant. But Ms. Q.'s attorneys are
challenging the validity of that warrant.

"DHS simply has no legitimate reason to keep Ms. Q apart from her
four-year-old son," said attorney Michael Galas, Esq. --
mgalas@gibsondunn.com -- of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, pro bono
co-counsel for Ms. Q. "The vague and unsubstantiated allegations of
‘affiliation' in a foreign warrant are wholly insufficient to
force this mother and child to suffer additional irreparable harm
with each day they remain separated."

Violating Ms. Q's most basic due process rights, DHS refused for
weeks to even produce the warrant, and has since failed to provide
any evidence in support of the warrant. Ms. Q has refuted the
allegations with an affidavit from an attorney in El Salvador who
reviewed the case against her and found absolutely no evidence of
criminal activity or gang affiliation.  A judge who reviewed
evidence submitted by NIJC in July found she was not a danger to
the community but nonetheless declined to give her a bond.

Over the course of the family's separation, Ms. Q has missed her
son's birthday and has had few phone calls with him, some of which
were at her own expense and arranged by NIJC. The most recent call
arranged by DHS lasted only two minutes. Prolonged detention and
separation has taken a toll on both Ms. Q. and her son, who has
resumed wearing diapers after having arrived fully potty trained
and also is experiencing speech delays. At today's hearing, Ms. Q
will ask the court to examine DHS's decision to exclude her from
the Ms. L class and allow her to reunite with her son.

The National Immigrant Justice Center (NIJC) is a nongovernmental
organization dedicated to ensuring human rights protections and
access to justice for all immigrants, refugees, and asylum seekers
through a unique combination of direct services, policy reform,
impact litigation and public education. Visit immigrantjustice.org
and follow @NIJC.[GN]


UNIVISTA HOLDINGS: Rubio Seeks to Recover OT Wages Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
YANIRA DIAZ RUBIO v. UNIVISTA HOLDINGS INC, and IVAN HERRERA,
individually, Case No. 1:18-cv-23830-FAM (S.D. Fla., September 17,
2018), is brought as a collective action to recover money damages
for alleged unpaid overtime wages and retaliation under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Univista Holdings Inc. is a for profit Florida Corporation.  Ivan
Herrera is the owner/director/manager of Univista.

Univista is an insurance broker with multiple insurance agencies
located throughout Miami Dade-County.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alberto Naranjo, Esq.
          AN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          7900 Oak Lane #400
          Miami Lakes, FL 33016
          Telephone: (305) 942-8070
          E-mail: AN@ANLawFirm.com


USA TECHNOLOGIES: Kahn Swick Files Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors that
they have until November 13, 2018 to file lead plaintiff
applications in a securities class action lawsuit against USA
Technologies, Inc. (NasdaqGM: USAT), if they purchased the
Company's securities between November 9, 2017 and September 11,
2018, inclusive (the "Class Period").  This action is pending in
the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.

What You May Do

If you purchased securities of USAT and would like to discuss your
legal rights and how this case might affect you and your right to
recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost
to you, contact KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn toll-free at
1-877-515-1850 or via email (lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com), or visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgm-usat/ to learn more. If
you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you
must petition the Court by November 13, 2018.

                          About the Lawsuit

USA Technologies and certain of its executives are charged with
failing to disclose material information during the Class Period,
violating federal securities laws.

On September 11, 2018, pre-market, the Company disclosed that it
would be unable to timely file its Form 10-K annual report for the
fiscal year ended June 30, 2018 because it was "conducting an
internal investigation of current and prior period matters relating
to certain of the Company's contractual arrangements, including the
accounting treatment, financial reporting and internal controls
related to such arrangements."

On this news, the price of USA Technologies' shares plummeted.

         Lewis Kahn, Esq.
         Managing Partner
         Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
         New Orleans, LA 70163
         1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200
         Telephone: 1-877-515-1850
         Website: www.ksfcounsel.com.
         Email: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com [GN]


USA TECHNOLOGIES: Kirby McInerney Files Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court of New Jersey on
behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired USA Technologies, Inc. ("USAT" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:
USAT) securities between November 9, 2017 and September 11, 2018
(the "Class Period"). Investors have until November 13, 2018 to
apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the
lawsuit.

The lawsuit alleges that on September 11, 2018, USAT announced that
it would not file its Annual Report for the fiscal year ended June
30, 2018 by the September 13, 2018 deadline. The Company further
stated that its Audit Committee is conducting an internal
investigation related to certain of USAT's contractual
arrangements, including the accounting treatment, financial
reporting, and internal controls related to the arrangements. On
this news, USAT stock fell $6.10 per share, or over 39%, from its
previous closing price to close at $9.20 per share on September 11,
2018.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired USAT securities between
November 9, 2017 and September 11, 2018, have information, or would
like to learn more about this lawsuit or about claims that you may
have, please contact Thomas W. Elrod of Kirby McInerney LLP at
212-371-6600, by email at investigations@kmllp.com or by filling
out this contact form, to discuss your rights or interests with
respect to these matters without any cost to you.

          Thomas W. Elrod, Esq.
          Kirby McInerney LLP
          Telephone: 212-371-6600
          Website: www.kmllp.com
          Email: telrod@kmllp.com [GN]


VALLEY BROOK, OK: PD Accused of Making Arrests in OKC
-----------------------------------------------------
Steve Shaw, writing for News On 6, reports that a former stripper
who was pulled over by Valley Brook Police for transporting an
illegal gun and pot, has filed a class-action lawsuit against
Valley Brook, which is a town of 700 people.

Her attorneys claim the spot on Southeast 59th Street where Valley
Brook officers nabbed Marquenisha Mckinnley in June 2017, is
actually in Oklahoma City.

They say Oklahoma City annexed that strip of property 61 years ago,
and they have the maps to prove it.  Valley Brook's Attorney Ray
Vincent, Esq., told News 9 on September 11 that an "inter-local
agreement" allows Oklahoma City and Valley Brook Police to make
arrests in on that same stretch of Southeast 59th Street. However,
on September 12 the Archivist for the Oklahoma City Clerk's Office
told News 9, they don't have any record of such an agreement.

Jeff Box, Esq. and Marvel Lewis, Esq. -- marvel@marvellewislaw.com
--
represent Mckinnley.  They say there could be thousands of
motorists who have been arrested illegally by Valley Brook Police.

"You got 15 police officers out there 24/7 just stopping people for
a break light or anything, not that that's the way it's not
supposed to be," Lewis said. "But Oklahoma City Police are supposed
to be enforcing that, not Valley Brook, and I think Valley Brook, I
have no explanation why they are doing it again, but we'll find
out," he said.

News 9 reached out to Ray Vincent again on September 13 about what
the Oklahoma City Clerk's Office said.  He has not returned our
call."[GN]


VON ENERGY: Underpays Drilling Operators, Saltzman Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
TYLER SALTZMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. VON ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 4:18-cv-02883 (S.D. Tex., Aug. 20, 2018) is an action against
the Defendants to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mr. Saltzman was employed by the Defendant as drilling operator
from February 2016 to May 2017.

Von Energy Services, LLC is a limited liability company organized
under the laws of the State of Texas. The Company is engaged in
providing its services in the oil and gas exploration industry.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
         Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq.
         JOSEPHSON DUNLAP
         11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
         Houston, TX 77046
         Telephone: (713) 352-1100
         Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
         E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                 litkin@mybackwages.com


WESTLAKE CHEMICAL: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Cox Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
LLOYD COX, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WESTLAKE CHEMICAL CORPORATION; and STRATEGIC
CONTRACT RESOURCES, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-02860 (S.D.
Tex., Aug. 17, 2018) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff Cox was employed by the Defendants as an hourly
employee from August 2015 to November 2015.

Westlake Chemical Corporation manufactures and markets basic
chemicals, vinyls, polymers, and fabricated products. The Company
serves a range of consumer and industrial markets, including
flexible and rigid packaging, automotive products, coatings, and
residential and commercial construction. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew Dunlap, Esq.
          Richard M. Schreiber, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 352-1100
          Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
          E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                  adunlap@mybackwages.com
                  rschreiber@mybackwages.com

               - and -

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 877-8788
          Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
          E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com


WINE THIRTY: Rubio Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
----------------------------------------------
Ricardo Rubio, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Wine Thirty LLC, dba Vinos on Las Olas, Clayton
Chelley, Case No. 1:18-cv-23202 (S.D. Fla., August 7, 2018), is
brought against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was a resident of Miami-Dade County, Florida. The
Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a chef from on or about
October 10, 2015 through on or about March 30, 3018.

The Defendants own and operate a wine bar and restaurant in
Miami-Dade County called Vinos on Las Olas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J.H. Zidell, Esq.
      J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
      300 71st Street, Suite 605
      Miami Beach, FL 33141
      Tel: (305) 865-6766
      Fax: (305) 865-7167
      E-mail: zabogado@aol.com



                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2018. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***