CAR_Public/181002.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, October 2, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 197

                            Headlines

A. TEICHERT & SON: Faces Davalos' Labor Suit in Sacramento
AFL: Concussion Class Action Would Fail, Western Bulldogs Pres Says
ALLEGIANT TRAVEL: Court Extends Time to Respond in Checkman Suit
AMERICAN HONDA: Hamilton Files Product Liability Suit in Georgia
AMERICREDIT FINANCIAL: Hartwell Suit Moved to D. Massachusetts

AMIR RAM BAGELS: Agapito Seeks OT Compensation under FLSA
APPLE INC: Judge Certifies Class Action Claims
AVINGER INC: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for Oct. 23
BANK OF AMERICA: Removes Tirado Suit to N.D. Illinois
BASF CORP: Notice & Consent Forms in Parker FLSA Suit Approved

BETTS COMPANY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Joseph Mar Alleges
BRONX PAWNBROKER: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Diaz Suit Alleges
CA INC: Vladimir Gusinsky Suit Alleges Exchange Act Violation
CDK GLOBAL: Matos Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
CELLADON CORP: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Securities Fraud Suit

CHEVRON PRODUCTS: Court Narrows Claims in Potter Suit
COAST PROFESSIONAL: Graham Files FDCPA Suit in C.D. California
COMMUNITY CATALYSTS: Faces Singh Labor Suit in Tulare, California
CONCENTRA INC: Kilburn Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
CONFI-CHEK INC: Court Extends Deadline to Respond in Garza Suit

CREDIT CONTROL: Gozy Suit Asserts TCPA & FDCPA Violation
CUSTARD INSURANCE: Abgaryan Suit Transferred to N.D. California
DREAM STREET: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Nixon Suit Says
DYANSYS INC: Case/Pretrial Order Issued in Fromer Chiropractic Suit
ELDERS VENTURES: Underpays Massage Therapists, Lore Suit Claims

ESA MANAGEMENT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Arizmendi Suit Says
FANHUA INC: Brower Piven Files Class Action Lawsuit
FEDEX OFFICE: Fails to Provide Suitable Seats to Staff, Liang Says
FLAGSTAR BANK: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Smith Suit
FLOWERS FOODS: "Green" Class Action Still Ongoing in Alabama

FLOWERS FOODS: Continues to Defend Medrano Lawsuit in New Mexico
FLOWERS FOODS: Court Decertifies Class in "Wiatrek" Litigation
FLOWERS FOODS: Martins Class Lawsuit Still Pending in Florida
FLOWERS FOODS: Soares Lawsuit Still Pending in California
FLOWERS FOODS: Still Defends Bryant Class Action in Texas

FLOWERS FOODS: Still Faces Long Class Lawsuit in Tennessee
FLOWERS FOODS: Still Faces Securities Class Suit in Georgia
GC SERVICES: Summary Judgment Bid in Alderman FDCPA Suit Granted
GENE BY GENE: 9th Cir. Affirms Denial of Cole Class Certification
GENERAL NUTRITION: Shakib Withdrawn as Karkoris Class Counsel

GROSS POLOWY: Reches Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
HARVEY WEINSTEIN: Judge Dismisses RICO Class Action Case
HEARST TELEVISION: Faces Northtown Antitrust Suit in S.D.N.Y.
I3 VERTICALS: Final Fairness & Settlement Hearing Set for Dec. 14
ICPC: Groups Set to File Class Action Suit

JAGUAR HEALTH: Court Dismisses Plant Class Suit
JTH TAX: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Broward Psychology TCPA Suit
KAPSTONE PAPER: Harrison Files Suit Over WestRock Merger
KREATIVE THERAPY: Ikpe Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
KS WORLD: Medina Sues over Unpaid OT and Minimum Wages

KUENG CHAN: Liu Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
LENDING CLUB: Court Extends Time to File Reply Brief in Moses Suit
LIBRE BY NEXUS: Appeals Ruling in Vasquez Suit to 9th Circuit
LONGFIN CORP: Continues to Defend NY Consolidated Securities Suit
LORENZO ENTERPRISE: Gonzalez Suit Alleges TCPA Violation

LYONS DOUGHTY: Peace Files FDCPA Suit in Delaware
MACY'S WEST: Tessitore et al. Seek Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
MAPLEBEAR INC: Cal. App. Affirms Arbitration Award in Busick Suit
MDL 2741: Dennis Ransom Suit vs Monsanto over Roundup Consolidated
MDL 2741: Hayden et al. v. Monsanto over Roundup Consolidated

MDL 2741: Landry et al. Suit v. Monsanto over Roundup Consolidated
MDL 2741: Ray Suit v. Monsanto over Roundup Consolidated
MDL 2741: Sparkman Suit vs Monsanto over Roundup Consolidated
MDL 2741: Sumner et al. vs Monsanto over Roundup Consolidated
MDL 2741: Wiseman Suit vs Monsanto over Roundup Consolidated

MDL 2804: Brand Suit v. Purdue Pharma Filed in W.D. Missouri
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Julian & McKinney Suit Conditionally Certified
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Still Defends Miller Class Action in California
MICHIGAN: Summary Judgment Bid in Lady Inmates' Suit Denied
MISSOULA, MT: Faces Lawsuit Over Illegal Court Fees

MODERNE F&B: Faces Mercer Suit in Southern District of New York
NATIONAL RIGHT: Removes Pitlyk Case to Missouri Eastern District
NATIONWIDE BANK: Hughes Files Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
NIELSEN HOLDINGS: Investors Blame Stock Drop on Data-Privacy Shift
OCH-ZIFF CAPITAL: Judge Certifies Class Actions

OMNICARE INC: $1.3MM Deal in Esomonu FCRA Suit Has Prelim Approval
ONE GROUP: Faces Hymans Suit in New York State Court
OREGON: Mendoza et al. Sue over Suspension of Driver's Licenses
P & R HOSPITALITY: Quarterman Files ADA Suit in N.D. Florida
PAJEOLY CORP: Fails to Pay Wages to Cooks, Garcia Suit Alleges

PNC FINANCIAL: Violates Privacy Rights of Consumers
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Filgueiras Sues over Debt Collection Practices
PURDUE PHARMA: A.M.H. Suit Moved to Western Dist. of New York
PURDUE PHARMA: Faces Fox Suit in Eastern District of Tennessee
PURDUE PHARMA: Faces Lawrence Suit over Sale of Opioid Drugs

PURDUE PHARMA: Konig Sues over Sale of Prescription Opioid Drugs
QBE HOLDINGS: Fails to Reimburse Medicare Payments, MSP Claims
QURATE RETAIL: Brower Piven Files Class Action Lawsuit
QWEST CORP: Sales Practices Suit v. CenturyLink Underway
REGIONS BANK: Underpays Bank Employees, Hodapp Suit Claims

RGS FINANCIAL: Faces Tataru FDCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois
ROSE ASSOCIATES: Fischler Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SASKATCHEWAN: Sued Over Abuse in Moose Jaw Home
SEDGWICK CLAIMS: Faces Hoover's Labor Suit in Sacramento
SERVICELINK FIELD: Joseph Collins Suit Moved to S.D. California

SETERUS INC: Denial of Bid to Dismiss Koepplinger Suit Endorsed
SHERRY-NETHERLAND: Faces Breeze Suit in S.D. New York
SHERWIN-WILLIAMS CO: Court Dismisses Amended Lafferty Suit
SINCLAIR BROADCAST: Komito Files Securities Class Suit in Maryland
SIYARAM INVESTMENTS: Quarterman Files ADA Suit in N.D. Florida

SOUTH AFRICA: ANC to Launch Class Suit Over Water Tariffs
SSA BONDS: Court Dismisses Consolidated Antitrust Suit
ST. NICKS ALLIANCE: Underpays Home Attendants, Caldwell Suit Says
STATEWIDE TRAFFIC: Garcia Suit Moved to C.D. California
SUPERVALU INC: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Class Action Lawsuit

SYNERGETIC COMMUNICATION: Jones Suit Alleges FDCPA Violation
TECHPRECISION CORP: Discovery Phase in Ranor Suit to End Oct. 23
THOMSON REUTERS: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA, Makanas Says
TL THOMPSON: Gurfein Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
TRIBOR MANAGEMENT: Lu Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages, Damages

TRIBUNE MEDIA: Faces Class Action on Merging Failure
UNITED BUILDER: Hernandez Suit Alleges Wage Act Violation
UNITED STATES: Court Limits Protective Order in Asylum Seekers Suit
UNITED STATES: Ottawa Proposes $100MM Settlement for Disabled Vets
UNITED STATES: Renewed Bid for Summary Judgment in Gatore Denied

UNITED STATES: Weston County to Join PILT Class-Action Suit
USA TECHNOLOGIES: Bernstein Liebhard Files Class Action Lawsuit
VENQUEST BG: Vicki Ross Sues over Customer Billing Surcharge
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Dieselgate Victims Set to Pioneer Class Action
YAHOO INC: Judge Grants Final OK to $80MM Settlement

YOGI KRUPA: Madrigal Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
YUMMY ORIENTAL: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Kiang Suit Says

                            *********

A. TEICHERT & SON: Faces Davalos' Labor Suit in Sacramento
----------------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action lawsuit has been filed against A
Teichert & Son Inc. The case is captioned as Martin Davalos,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. A. Teichert & Son Inc.; and Does 1-50, Defendants,
Case No. 34-2018-00239228-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty.,
Aug. 21, 2018).

A. Teichert & Son, Inc. provides construction services. The Company
builds roads, sidewalks, freeways, curbs, utility trenches, and
gutters, as well as produces building materials such as aggregate,
readymix, and asphaltic concrete.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by Sahag Majarian, II, Esq. and Nazo
Koulloukian, Esq.


AFL: Concussion Class Action Would Fail, Western Bulldogs Pres Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Herald Sun reports that Western Bulldogs president Peter Gordon,
Esq. believes a class action against the AFL relating to concussion
would fail.

Player manager and concussion campaigner Peter Jess has led a
charge for a class action, with more than 70 retired AFL players
battling neurological impairments linked to head knocks being
screened as part of looming Federal Court damages action.

Leading lawyer and Adelaide United chairman Greg Griffin, Esq. --
ggriffin@griffins.com.au -- is also part of the movement, having
recently travelled to Boston to meet US concussion specialists that
had been involved in the litigation against the NFL and NHL.

But Gordon, one of Australia's most prominent class action lawyers
via his firm Gordon Legal, said he would not take the case on due
to what he perceived to be significant differences between the US
and Australian cases.

"One can understand the issue being topical for them, because in
the United States, the NFL has seen a massive billion-dollar plus
settlement for its players in recent years," Gordon said on the new
Beyond Reasonable Clout podcast.

"I would argue that there are a lot of differences between the two,
and speaking as a lawyer myself, I wouldn't take on the case in
Australia against the AFL.

"People look at me when I say that and say ‘you must have some
sort of conflict of interest', but I'd have no hesitation taking it
on if I thought that there was a good liability theory."

The podcast, which also featured award-winning political journalist
Lyndal Curtis and Labor MP Jane Garrett with Herald Sun sports
journalist Jon Ralph as a special guest, takes in the law, politics
and sport.[GN]


ALLEGIANT TRAVEL: Court Extends Time to Respond in Checkman Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Nevada issued
an Order setting Schedule for Filing Amended Class Complaint and
Briefing on Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned DANIEL
CHECKMAN, Individually And Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff, v. ALLEGIANT TRAVEL COMPANY, MAURICE J. GALLAGHER, JR.,
and SCOTT SHELDON, Defendants. Case No. 2:18-cv-01758-APG-PAL. (D.
Nev.).

The Defendants need not respond to the Initial Complaint. The
September 17, 2018 deadline to respond to the Initial Complaint is
vacated.

The Lead Counsel shall file and serve an Amended Complaint by
October 22, 2018.

The time for the Defendants to answer, move, or otherwise plead in
response to the Amended Complaint is extended to sixty (60) days
following service of the Amended Complaint by the Lead Plaintiff
(Friday, December 21, 2018).

Should any Defendant move to dismiss or strike the Amended
Complaint, the Lead Plaintiff shall have forty-five (45) days to
file an opposition to any such motion (Monday, February 4, 2019),
and Defendants shall have thirty (30) days to file any reply
(Wednesday, March 6, 2019).

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 20, 2018 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y8gya8ck from Leagle.com.

Daniel Checkman, Individdually And On Behalf Of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Laurence M. Rosen --
lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.

Charles Brendon, Movant, represented by Laurence M. Rosen, The
Rosen Law Firm, P.A.

Allegiant Travel Company, Maurice J. Gallagher, Jr. & Scott
Sheldon, Defendants, represented by Mark E. Ferrario --
ferrariom@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig & Daniel J. Tyukody, Jr.
-- tyukodyd@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig LLP.


AMERICAN HONDA: Hamilton Files Product Liability Suit in Georgia
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Honda Motor
Company, Inc. The case is styled as Christopher Hamilton on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. American
Honda Motor Company, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-04367-TWT
(N.D. Ga., Sept. 17, 2018).

The nature of suit is stated as Motor Vehicle Product Liability.

American Honda Motor Co., Inc. manufactures and sells Honda
automobiles. It offers cars, sedans, and SUVs; power sports
products, including motorcycles, ATVs, and scooters; auto and
motorcycle racing products; power equipment, such as generators,
lawn mowers, pumps, snow blowers, tillers, and trimmers; engines,
manuals; personal watercraft; marine outboard motors, parts, and
accessories; aircraft; and humanoid robots. The company also
provides personalized services, such as maintenance schedules,
recall information, and online payment to its members; and finance
options.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Eric Scott Fredrickson, Esq.
     Harman Law Firm, LLC
     3414 Peachtree Rd., N.E., Suite 1250
     Atlanta, GA 30326
     Phone: (404) 554-0777
     Fax: (404) 424-9370
     Email: efredrickson@harmanlaw.com

         - and -

     Matthew Scott Harman, Esq.
     Harman Law Firm, LLC
     3414 Peachtree Rd., N.E., Suite 1250
     Atlanta, GA 30326
     Phone: (404) 554-0777
     Fax: (404) 424-9370
     Email: mharman@harmanlaw.com


AMERICREDIT FINANCIAL: Hartwell Suit Moved to D. Massachusetts
--------------------------------------------------------------
Danika Hartwell, Individually and on behalf of a class of persons
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Americredit Financial
Services, Inc. doing business as: GM Financial, the Defendant, Case
No. 1873CV00660, was removed from the Bristol Superior Court, to
the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
(Boston). The District of Massachusetts Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 1:18-cv-11895-DJC to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
the Hon. Judge Denise J. Casper.

AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc. provides auto finance
services. The Company offers loans to automobile industries.
AmeriCredit Financial Services serves clients in the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Raven Moeslinger, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF NICHOLAS F. ORTIZ, P.C.
          99 High Street, Suite 304
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 338 9400
          E-mail: rm@mass-legal.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Michael T. Grant, Esq.
          LECLAIR RYAN, P.C.
          60 State Street, 23rd Flr.
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: (617) 502 5728
          Facsimile: (617) 502 5738
          E-mail: michael.grant@leclairryan.com


AMIR RAM BAGELS: Agapito Seeks OT Compensation under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------
JOSE LUIS AGAPITO, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated Plaintiff, v. AMIR RAM BAGELS INC. d/b/a "JAL BAGELS TALON
1ST INC. d/b/a TAL BAGELS, LX AVENUE BAGELS INC. d/b/a AL BAGELS,
MOHAMMED KAMAL, AMIR RAM IMANUEL HALON, and HOSSAM ZEBIB, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-08079-ALC (S.D.N.Y., Sep. 5, 2018),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and
costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law.

According to the complaint, Defendants employed Plaintiff from
January 2013 until May 27, 2018, to work as a non-exempt grill
cook, food preparer, cashier and counter-person/server for each of
Defendants' Restaurants doing business as "Tai Bagels."  The work
performed by Plaintiff was directly essential to the businesses
operated by Defendants. The Defendants knowingly and willfully
failed to pay Plaintiff his lawfully earned overtime compensation
in direct contravention of the FLSA and New York Labor Law.  The
Defendants knowingly and willfully failed to pay Plaintiff his
lawfully earned "spread of hours" premiums in direct contravention
of the New York Labor Law.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin Cilenti, Esq.
          Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
          CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
          708 Third Avenue - 6th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 209 3933
          Facsimile: (212) 209 7102
          E-mail: info@jcpclaw.com


APPLE INC: Judge Certifies Class Action Claims
----------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that a
federal judge certified a class that claims Apple disabled FaceTime
on its iPhone 4 and iPhone 4S to save money, then blamed the
problem on a nonexistent bug.


AVINGER INC: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for Oct. 23
--------------------------------------------------------------
Avinger, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 13, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that a court hearing to
consider final approval of the settlement of a consolidated
securities class action lawsuit is set for October 23, 2018.

Between May 22, 2017 and May 25, 2017, three purported class action
lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of San Mateo ("State Court"), against the
Company, certain of its officers and directors and the underwriters
of the Company's January 2015 Initial Public Offering (IPO).  The
actions were captioned Grotewiel v. Avinger, Inc., et al., No.
17-CIV-02240, Gonzalez v. Avinger, Inc., et al., No. 17-CIV-02284,
and Olberding v. Avinger, Inc., et al., No. 17-CIV-02307.  These
lawsuits allege that the registration statement for the Company's
IPO made false and misleading statements and omissions in violation
of the Securities Act of 1933.

Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of purchasers of the company's
common stock in and/or traceable to the company's IPO. Plaintiffs
seek, among other things, unspecified compensatory damages,
interest, costs, recission, and attorneys' fees.

On June 12, 2017, defendants removed these actions to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California
("Federal Court").

On June 22, 2017, and June 23, 2017, plaintiffs Olberding and
Gonzalez moved to remand their cases to the State Court. Defendants
opposed these motions. On July 21, 2017, the Federal Court granted
the motions to remand the Olberding and Gonzalez actions to the
State Court.  On August 9, 2017, the State Court consolidated the
Olberding and Grotewiel actions under the caption Gonzalez v.
Avinger, Inc., et al., No. 17-CIV-02284 ("State Action").

On September 22, 2017, an amended complaint was filed in the State
Action. On October 31, 2017, the parties in the State Action
stipulated to a stay of proceedings until judgment is entered in
the Federal Action.

On October 11, 2017, the Federal Court appointed a lead plaintiff
and approved the selection of a lead counsel in the Grotewiel
action ("Federal Action"). On November 2, 2017, pursuant to
stipulation of the parties, the State Court entered an order
staying proceedings in the State Action until judgment is entered
in the Federal Action.

On June 20, 2018, the State Court dismissed the State Action
pursuant to the proposed settlement described below. On November
21, 2017, an amended complaint was filed in the Federal Action.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss that complaint on January 26,
2018. On March 19, 2018, plaintiff in the Federal Action filed a
further amended complaint, on behalf of a class of purchasers of
the company's common stock in and/or traceable to the company's
IPO, as well as purchasers of the company's common stock during the
period January 30, 2015, to April 10, 2017.

Avinger said, "The Company and its directors believe that the
foregoing lawsuits were entirely without merit; however, in the
interest of avoiding the cost and disruption of continuing to
defend against these lawsuits, the Company entered into a
settlement of the securities class actions pending against the
Company and several of its officers and directors. The settlement
is for a total of $5 million and, if approved by the court, will
result in a full release of claims against all defendants. The
settlement is subject to approval by the court. A court hearing
regarding final settlement approval is set for October 23, 2018.
The Company's total contribution to the settlement fund is $1.76
million, which amount was included within accrued expenses and
other current liabilities as of December 31, 2017. In March 2018,
the Company paid out the $1.76 million."

Avinger, Inc., a commercial-stage medical device company, designs,
manufactures, and sells image-guided and catheter-based systems
used by physicians to treat patients with peripheral arterial
disease (PAD) in the United States and Europe. Avinger, Inc. was
founded in 2007 and is headquartered in Redwood City, California.


BANK OF AMERICA: Removes Tirado Suit to N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of GLORIA A. TIRADO, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BANK OF
AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Defendant, filed a notice to remove
the lawsuit from the Circuit Court of the State of Illinois, County
of Cook (Case No. 2018-CH-08116) to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on August 20, 2018, and assigned Case
No. 1:18-cv-05677 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 20, 2018). The case is assigned
to Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr.

Bank of America, National Association operates as a bank. The Bank
offers saving and current account, investment and financial
services, online banking, mortgage and non-mortgage loan
facilities, as well as issues credit card and business loans. Bank
of America serves client worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patrick J. Solberg, Esq.
          ANDERSON + WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Rd., Suite 500
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368-1500
          E-mail: psolberg@andersonwanca.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey Alan Berman, Esq.
          Anderson Wanca, Esq.
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 760
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368-1500
          E-mail: jberman@andersonwanca.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Joseph Laurence Motto, Esq.
          WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
          35 W. Wacker Dr.
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 558-3728
          E-mail: jmotto@winston.com

               - and -

          Adrianne K Rosenbluth, Esq.
          WINSTON & STRAWN LLC
          35 W. Wacker Dr.
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 558-3228
          E-mail: ARosenbluth@winston.com

               - and -

          Elizabeth P Papez, Esq.
          WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
          1700 K Street N.W.
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 282-5678
          E-mail: epapez@winston.com

               - and -

          Ryan Marc Dunigan, Esq.
          WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
          35 West Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 558-3213
          E-mail: RDunigan@winston.com


BASF CORP: Notice & Consent Forms in Parker FLSA Suit Approved
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LATOYA PARKER, Individually, and on behalf of herself
and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BASF CORPORATION, a
Delaware Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00250-JM (E.D.
Ark.), Judge James M. Moody, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Arkansas, Jonesboro Division, has entered the
parties' stipulated Order on Expedited Approval of 29 U.S.C.
Section 216(b) Notice and Consent Forms and to Order Disclosure of
Current and Former Employees.

The Judge authorized the Plaintiff's counsel to serve the Notice
attached as Exhibit A and the Consent to Join attached as Exhibit B
to the Order to all current and former employees who worked as
hourly-paid chemical production workers, including hourly-paid
chemical operators ("Production Workers") in the Defendant's West
Memphis Arkansas chemical plants.

The Notice will be mailed to all current and former Production
Workers at their last known address as provided on a list to be
provided by the Defendant to the Plaintiff's counsel within 30 days
of the entry of the Order.  The list will contain the first and
last names of each employee along with their last known address and
dates of employment.  The Defendants will ensure that all home
addresses for its current employees are up to date.

If any mailing to any current employee is returned as
undeliverable, the Plaintiff's counsel will so notify counsel for
the Defendant and provide a copy of the returned envelope.  Upon
receiving such notification, the Defendant will hand deliver a copy
of the notice to those current employees whose mail was returned to
the Plaintiff's counsel, and the Defense counsel will notify the
Plaintiff's counsel of the date when such notice was
hand-delivered.

For former employees whose mailing is returned as undeliverable at
the address provided, the Defendant will also provide to the
Plaintiff's counsel, if possible, any last known telephone numbers
and email addresses of such former employee, and if the Plaintiff's
counsel is still unsuccessful in reaching such former employee, the
Defendant's counsel may provide a social security number of that
former employee so that the Plaintiff's counsel may try to find a
current address for such former employee.

All Consents to Join will be filed on the date they are received by
the Plaintiff's counsel.  The opt-in period will run for 60 days
from the time the Notice is mailed.  The Plaintiff's counsel will
file a Notice with the Court indicating the date that the Notice
was mailed.  The Defendant retains all defenses, including all
objections to a three-year statute of limitations period and the
right to seek decertification at the close of discovery.

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

Latoya Parker, Individually and on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Gordon E. Jackson --
gjackson@jsyc.com -- Jackson, Shields, Yeiser & Holt, Joseph Russ
Bryant -- rbryant@jsyc.com -- Jackson, Shields, Yeiser & Holt &
Paula R. Jackson -- pjackson@jsyc.com -- Jackson, Shields, Yeiser &
Holt.

BASF Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Michael A. Correll -- michael.correll@morganlewis.com -- Morgan,
Lewis & Bockius LLP, pro hac vice, Paulo B. McKeeby --
paulo.mckeeby@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, pro
hac vice & Audrey Calkins -- audrey.calkins@ogletree.com --
Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C..


BETTS COMPANY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Joseph Mar Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH MAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BETTS COMPANY; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 18CECG03067 (Cal. Super., Fresno
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.

Mr. Mar was employed by the Defendants as hourly-paid, non-exempt
employee from April 2015 to September 2016.

Betts Company is a sixth generation family-owned manufacturer and
supplier of springs and heavy-duty truck parts in Fresno,
California. [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

               - and -

          Amir Nayebdadash, Esq.
          Heather Davis, Esq.
          PROTECTION LAW GROUP LLP
          136 Main Street, Suite A
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (844) 294-3095


BRONX PAWNBROKER: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Diaz Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
BRANDON DIAZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BRONX PAWNBROKER INC.; CONCOURSE
PAWNBROKERS, INC.; CONCOURSE NY REALTY INC.; FANG HUNG WU; and
MICHELLE WU, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-07590-ER (S.D.N.Y., Aug.
20, 2018) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid minimum
wages, unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment
interest, attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Plaintiff Diaz was employed by the Defendants as non-exempt
employee from February 2015 to August 2018.

Bronx Pawnbroker Inc. is a New York corporation that operates a
pawn shop at Bronx, NY.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mohammed Gangat, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MOHAMMED GANGAT
          675 3rd Avenue, Suite 1810
          New York, NY
          Telephone: (718) 669-0714
          E-mail: mgangat@gangatllc.com


CA INC: Vladimir Gusinsky Suit Alleges Exchange Act Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Vladimir Gusinsky Rev. Trust, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. CA, Inc., Michael P. Gregoire, Jens
Alder, Raymond J. Bromark, Jean M. Hobby, Rohit Kapoor, Jeffrey G.
Katz, Kay Koplovitz, Christopher B. Lofgren, Richard Sulpizio,
Laura S. Unger, and Arthur F. Weinbach, Case No. 1:18-cv-01221 (D.
Del., August 9, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for
violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

This action stems from a proposed transaction announced on July 11,
2018, pursuant to which CA, Inc. will be acquired by Broadcom Inc.
and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Collie Acquisition Corp.

On July 24, 2018, the Defendants filed a preliminary proxy
statement with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission
in connection with the Proposed Transaction. The Plaintiff alleges
that the Proxy Statement omits material information with respect to
the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Proxy Statement false
and misleading.

The Plaintiff is, and has been continuously throughout all times
relevant hereto, the owner of CA common stock.

The Defendant CA is a provider of information technology management
software and solutions.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian D. Long, Esq.
      Gina M. Serra, Esq.
      RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
      300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220
      Wilmington, DE 19801
      Tel: (302) 295-5310
      Fax: (302) 654-7530
      E-mail: bdl@rl-legal.com
              gms@rl-legal.com

          - and -

      Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
      RM LAW, P.C.
      1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
      Berwyn, PA 19312
      Tel: (484) 324-6800
      Fax: (484) 631-1305
      E-mail: rm@maniskas.com


CDK GLOBAL: Matos Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
---------------------------------------------
Samuel Matos, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CDK Global, LLC dba Autoavenue, Case No. 18-cv-61837
(S.D. Fla., August 8, 2018), is brought against the Defendant for
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff is a resident of Broward County, Florida.

The Defendant is a company that provides technology solutions to
automotive dealers around the country. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

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


CELLADON CORP: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Securities Fraud Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, issued a
Memorandum affirming the District Court's judgment granting
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the case captioned WAHID TADROS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CELLADON CORPORATION; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees. No. 16-56904. (9th Cir.)

Wahid Tadros appeals the district court's order dismissing his
class action securities fraud complaint for failure to adequately
plead material misrepresentation or omission and scienter.

Material Misrepresentation or Omission

The Plaintiff alleges that the defendants' statements touting the
success of Mydicar were misleading because of flaws underlying both
the study and sensitivity analysis.   

In this case, the alleged flaws underlying the study and the
sensitivity analysis were disclosed by the defendants in a publicly
accessible journal article published years before Celladon went
public. As this information was already part of the total mix of
information available to investors, defendants' statements were not
misleading.

The Plaintiff alleges that because of Zsebo's education and
experience and Celladon's small size and reliance on Mydicar as its
sole product candidate defendants knew about the alleged flaws
underlying the clinical trial and had motive to misrepresent the
results. To state a claim for securities fraud, the plaintiff must
state with particularity facts giving rise to a strong inference
that the defendant acted with the required state of mind.

As the district court found, the plaintiff has failed to allege
specific facts demonstrating that defendants acted with the intent
to manipulate the clinical trial or deceive the public.

A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's September 17, 2018
Memorandum is available at https://tinyurl.com/y8dcp584 from
Leagle.com.


CHEVRON PRODUCTS: Court Narrows Claims in Potter Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California granted in part and denied in part
Chevron's motion to dismiss the case, DONALD POTTER, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. CHEVRON PRODUCTS CO., Defendant, Case No.
17-cv-06689-PJH (N.D. Cal.).

Potter and Phillip Novak are individual citizens and residents of
Illinois.  Chevron Products Co., a division of Chevron U.S.A.,
Inc., is a corporation existing under the laws of the State of
Pennsylvania with its headquarters and principal place of business
located at 6001 Bollinger Canyon Road, San Ramon, California.
Chevron enters into agreements with oil-change stations branded as
"Havoline Xpress Lube" stations that grant them licenses to use and
display Chevron and Havoline trademarks in connection with the
retail sale of products manufactured by Chevron.  Havoline is a
brand owned by Chevron.

Potter and Novak had their vehicles' oil and filters changed in
Illinois at two Havoline Xpress Lube oil-change stations operated
by Lyons Express Lube, LLC and Grease Monkey Midwest, LLC,
respectively.  Those stations had entered into agreements with
Chevron such that they were effectively branded as Havoline Xpress
Lube stations.  Potter alleges that he was presented with an
invoice that included a $4.14 charge for hazardous-waste disposal.
Novak alleges that he was presented with an invoice that included a
$2.99 charge for "shop supplies."  The Plaintiffs allege that those
$2.99 and $4.14 charges were inappropriate overcharges for their
motor-oil changes.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant failed to disclosed to
consumers that the used oil was destined for recycling, not
disposal, and that each HXL Havoline facility often profits by
selling the used oil to its recyclers. They allege that the
recycling or disposal fee was presented to customers on an invoice
bearing Chevron's name and logo and gave the impression that the
fee is a pass through fee paid to governmental bodies when, in
fact, no such fee exists.

The Plaintiffs assert eight causes of action: (1) breach of
contract; (2) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair
dealing; (3) unconscionability; (4) unjust enrichment; (5)
negligence; (6) violation of California's Unfair Competition Law
("UCL"); (7) violation of California's False Advertising Law
("FAL"); and (8) violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies
Act ("CLRA"), as actionable through the UCL.  

They seek to represent a class of all adult persons who were
charged and paid a fee purportedly associated with recycling or
disposing of used oil and/or for shop supplies, in connection with
an oil change performed by Havoline Xpress Lube at any time within
the United States.  The Plaintiffs estimate there are 500 Havoline
Xpress Lube oil-change stations located across "most states."

The Plaintiffs seek to hold Chevron -- rather than the individual
Operators -- liable for the recycling and shop fees in the action
because Chevron allegedly retained daily control over virtually
every nuance of the oil change enterprise through its contractual
relationships with Operators such as Lyons and Grease Monkey.  They
attach a draft Sales Program Agreement that Chevron enters into
with oil-change stations.  They also attach a copy of the Standards
of Appearance and Operations Guide which describes certain
standards intended to enhance overall brand value.  The Plaintiffs
allege that, through those agreements, Chevron controlled the
advertising promoting the fees at issue.

The Plaintiffs filed their first complaint on Nov. 20, 2017,
asserting six causes of action.  On Jan. 26, 2018, Chevron moved to
dismiss the original complaint.  The Plaintiffs did not oppose the
motion, but instead filed the FAC on Feb. 16, 2018.  That amended
complaint asserted the same six claims and added claims under the
FAL and CLRA.

On March 2, 2018, the Defendant filed the instant motion to dismiss
the FAC on the grounds that it fails to join necessary and
indispensable parties under Rule 12(b)(7) and fails to state facts
sufficient to constitute a cause of action against Chevron under
Rule 12(b)(6).  The Defendant also argues that the Plaintiffs lack
standing to maintain a nationwide class action under Rule
12(b)(1).

Judge Hamilton dismissed with prejudice the Plaintiffs' claims for
unconscionability, negligence, and violations of the UCL, FAL, and
CLRA.  He denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs'
claims for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith
and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment.

Among other things, the Judge finds that (i) Chevron did not have a
special relationship with the Plaintiffs such that it had a
heightened duty to protect their interests, and as such, the
economic loss rule precludes the Plaintiffs' negligence claim; (ii)
California law is clear that unconscionability is not a cause of
action, but rather a defense to the enforcement of a contract; and
(iii) the named Plaintiffs' consumer protection claims -- UCL,
CLRA, and FAL claim -- are governed by the consumer protection laws
of the jurisdiction in which the transactions took place,
Illinois.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 24, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/KqyyA1 from Leagle.com.

Donald Potter, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated & Phillip Novak, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Donald Kent Birner,
pro hac vice & Kaiser Uzzaman Khan -- kaiserkhan@lawyer.com --
KAISER U.KHAN Law Offices.

Chevron Products Co., a division of Chevron of U.S.A. Inc.,
Defendant, represented by Kapri Saunders -- ksaunders@jonesday.com
-- Jones Day, Robert Allan Mittelstaedt --
ramittelstaedt@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, Christopher J. Lovrien --
cjlovrien@jonesday.com --Jones Day & Nathaniel Peardon Garrett --
ngarrett@jonesday.com -- Jones Day.


COAST PROFESSIONAL: Graham Files FDCPA Suit in C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Coast Professional,
Inc. The case is styled as Randolph Graham, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated,, Plaintiff v. Coast
Professional, Inc. and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No.
5:18-cv-01980 (C.D. Cal., Sept. 17, 2018).

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

Coast Professional, Inc. offers educational receivable collection
services. The company provides loan consolidation, default account
rehabilitation, contingency collection, borrower tracing, password
assistance, and online account management services. Additionally,
it offers FACSWeb, a web-based tool for uploading accounts. Coast
Professional, Inc. was founded in 1976 and is based in West Monroe,
Louisiana.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


COMMUNITY CATALYSTS: Faces Singh Labor Suit in Tulare, California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action lawsuit has been filed against
Community Catalysts of California. The case is captioned as Rose
Singh, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Community Catalysts of California, Defendant, Case No.
VCU275160 (Cal. Super., Tulare Cty., Aug. 20, 2018).[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by Roman Otkupman, Esq.


CONCENTRA INC: Kilburn Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
--------------------------------------------------
Chelsea Kilburn, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Concentra, Inc., Case No. 5:18-cv-00757 (W.D. Okla.,
August 8, 2018), is brought against the Defendant for violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is a resident of Edmond, Oklahoma. The Plaintiff was
employed by the Defendant as an Assistant Center Director from May
1, 2011 until September 6, 2016, at a Concentra medical center
located in Oklahoma City.

The Defendant provides medical care and services to employees of
participating employers in hundreds of locations in 38 states
across the country. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark A. Waller, Esq.
      J. David Jorgenson, Esq.
      WALLER JORGENSON WARZYNSKI, PLLC
      401 South Boston Avenue, Ste. 500
      Tulsa, OK 74103
      Tel: (918) 629-3350
      E-mail: mwaller@wjwattorneys.com
              djorgenson@wjwattorneys.com

          - and -

      Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
      Alan L. Quiles, Esq.
      SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
      951 Yamato Road, Suite 285
      Boca Raton, FL 33431
      Tel: (561) 447-8888
      Fax: (561) 447-8831
      E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
              aquiles@shavitzlaw.com


CONFI-CHEK INC: Court Extends Deadline to Respond in Garza Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California issued an Order extending Deadline to File Responsive
Pleading in the case captioned DAVID GARZA, NASER ALZER, MARGARITA
HERNANDEZ, KIMBERLY KENNEDY, AMANDEEP SINGH, SAMAH HAIDER, on
behalf of themselves and of other similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v. CONFI-CHEK, INC., A HOLDING OCMPANY FOR CONFI-CHEK
INVESTIGATIONS; PEOPLEFINDERS.COM; ENFORMION, INC.;
PUBLICRECORDSNOW.COM; PRIVATEEYE.COM; VEROMI.NET; AND ADVANCED
BACKGROUND CHECKS, Defendants. Case No. 2:18-cv-01968-KJM-EFB.
(E.D. Cal.).

The parties' counsel have been in contact regarding the identity of
the proper defendants in this action. Based on those discussions,
the Plaintiffs' counsel has represented that the Plaintiffs intend
to amend the complaint. The Defendants' counsel will provide the
Plaintiffs' counsel with additional information so that the
Plaintiffs may amend the Complaint to identify the proper
Defendants. Given the anticipated filing of an amended complaint,
the parties request a 21 day extension for the Defendants to file
their responsive pleading.

In addition, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, was just retained to represent the
Defendants identified in this matter. The Defendants' counsel
requires additional time to investigate the allegations in the
Complaint, provide information to the Plaintiffs' counsel regarding
the correct corporate entities to be named in the amended
complaint, and review and respond to the allegations in the
anticipated amended complaint.

For these reasons, the parties request a 21 day extension of time
for the Defendants to answer or otherwise respond to the
Plaintiffs' Complaint. The extension of time will not affect any
hearing or scheduling deadline in this case.

The Parties agree that the Defendants' deadline to file a
responsive pleading to the Plaintiff's Complaint is extended to
October 9, 2018.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 20, 2018 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/yc4edcb9 from Leagle.com.

David Garza, on behalf of themselves and of others similarly
situated, Naser Alzer, on behalf of themselves and of others
similarly situated, Margarita Hernandez, on behalf of themselves
and of others similarly situated, Kimberly Kennedy, on behalf of
themselves and of others similarly situated, Amandeep Singh, on
behalf of themselves and of others similarly situated & Samah
Haider, on behalf of themselves and of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, represented by Thomas J. Lyons , Consumer Justice
Center P.A., pro hac vice, William David George --
dgeorge@bakerwotring.com -- Baker Wotring Llp, pro hac vice &
Stephanie R. Tatar -- stephanie@thetatarlawfirm.com -- Tatar Law
Firm, APC.

Confi-Chek, Inc., Defendant, represented by Joshua Heath Escovedo
-- jescovedo@weintraub.com -- Weintraub Tobin Chediak Coleman
Grodin Law Corporation & Selyn Hong -- shong@seyfarth.com --
Seyfarth Shaw, LLP.

Peoplefinders.com, Enformion, Inc. & Advanced Background Checks,
Defendants, represented by Selyn Hong , Seyfarth Shaw, LLP.


CREDIT CONTROL: Gozy Suit Asserts TCPA & FDCPA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------
ELIZABETH GOZY and JOHN W. SMITH, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated v. CREDIT CONTROL SERVICES, INC., Case
No. 1:18-cv-02384 (D. Colo., September 18, 2018), alleges
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Defendant routinely violates the TCPA by using an automatic
telephone dialing system and an artificial or prerecorded voice to
place non-emergency calls to telephone numbers assigned to a
cellular telephone service, without prior express consent, the
Plaintiffs allege.  They add that the Defendant routinely violates
the FDCPA by engaging in conduct the natural consequence of which
is to harass, oppress, or abuse consumers in connection with the
collection of debts, in that it continues to call consumers for the
purpose of debt collection even after being informed that it is
calling the wrong person.

Credit Control Services, Inc. is a debt collection company based in
Norwood, Massachusetts.  The Defendant operates by the trade name
"Credit Collection Services."[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

          Aaron D. Radbil, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
          106 East Sixth Street, Suite 913
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 322-3912
          Facsimile: (561) 961-5684
          E-mail: aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com


CUSTARD INSURANCE: Abgaryan Suit Transferred to N.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled ARMEN ABGARYAN, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. CUSTARD
INSURANCE ADJUSTERS, INC., an Indiana corporation, the Defendant,
Case No. 8:17-cv-01849, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Central District California, to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California (Oakland) on Sep. 7,
2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:18-cv-05487-HSG
to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Haywood S
Gilliam, Jr.

The case is a class action involving wage and hour claims arising
under the Federal Labor Standards Act. The Defendant allegedly
misclassified Plaintiff and the other similarly situated insurance
adjusters as exempt employees, and thus failed to properly
compensate Plaintiff, and other similarly situated insurance
adjusters, for overtime hours worked on Defendant's behalf. On his
own behalf, Plaintiff also alleges violations of state wage and
hour statutes for overtime hours worked on Defendant's behalf and
for failure to pay Plaintiff wages at termination and waiting time
penalties; failure to provide
Plaintiff with accurate wage statements; and, unlawful deductions
from Plaintiff's wages resulting in wage forfeiture. Plaintiff also
alleges that Defendant engaged in unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent
business practices for the wage and hour violations.  Lastly,
Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant breached its contract with
Plaintiff and breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing.[BN]

Attorneys for Armen Abgaryan, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated:

          Greg K. Hafif, Esq.
          Michael G. Dawson, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF HERBERT HAFIF, P.C.
          269 West Bonita Avenue
          Claremont, CA 91711-4784
          Telephone: (909) 624 1671
          Facsimile: (909) 625 7772
          E-mail: ghafif@hafif.com
                  mgdawson@hafif.com

               - and -

          Larry A. Sackey, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF LARRY A. SACKEY
          11500 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 550
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (310) 575 4444
          Facsimile: (310) 575 4520
          E-mail: lsackey@sackeylaw.com

               - and -

          William Litvak, Esq.
          Eric P. Markus, Esq.
          DAPEER, ROSENBLIT & LITVAK, LLP
          11500 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 550
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (310) 477 5575
          Facsimile: (310) 477 7090
          E-mail: wlitvak@drllaw.com
                  emarkus@drllaw.com

Attorneys for Custard Insurance Adjusters, Inc.:

          Mark A Saxon, Esq.
          GORDON AND REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI
          101 West Broadway Suite 2000
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 230 7793
          Facsimile: (619) 696 7124
          E-mail: msaxon@grsm.com


DREAM STREET: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Nixon Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------
Ariel Nixon and Selena Coll, Individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Dream Street, Inc. d/b/a Curves
Cabaret, an Arizona Limited Liability Company, William V. Zanzucchi
and Jane Doe Zanzucchi, a married couple, Timothy E. Zanzucchi and
Jane Doe Zanzucchi II, a married couple, and Michael Pavon and Jane
Doe Pavon, a married couple, Case No. 4:18-cv-00466-JAS (D. Ariz.,
September 18, 2018), alleges that the Defendants required and
permitted the Plaintiffs to work in excess of 40 hours per week,
but refused to compensate them at the applicable minimum wage and
overtime rates pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs work as Exotic Dancers, Cocktail Waitresses or Drink
Serving Dancers at the Defendants' adult entertainment club.

Dream Street Inc. is an Arizona Limited Liability Company,
authorized to do business in the state of Arizona.  The Individual
Defendants are owners of Dream Street.

The Defendants owned and operated as Curves Cabaret, an adult
entertainment and exotic dancer venue in Tucson, Pima County,
Arizona.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael Zoldan, Esq.
          Jason Barrat, Esq.
          ZOLDAN LAW GROUP, PLLC
          14500 N. Northsight Blvd., Suite 133
          Scottsdale, AZ 85260
          Telephone: (480) 442-3410
          E-mail: mzoldan@zoldangroup.com
                  jbarrat@zoldangroup.com

               - and -

          Clifford P. Bendau, II, Esq.
          Christopher J. Bendau, Esq.
          BENDAU & BENDAU PLLC
          P.O. Box 97066
          Phoenix, AZ 85060
          Telephone: (480) 382-5176
          Facsimile: (480) 304-3805
          E-mail: cliffordbendau@bendaulaw.com
                  chris@bendaulaw.com


DYANSYS INC: Case/Pretrial Order Issued in Fromer Chiropractic Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California has issued a case and pretrial
order in the case, ERIC B. FROMER CHIROPRACTIC, INC., Plaintiff, v.
DYANSYS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-2703-YGR (N.D. Cal.).

The Judge has read and reviewed the Joint Case Management
Statement.  She finds that the amount of time the parties jointly
suggest is significantly more than warranted.  She sets the
following schedule but will entertain a request to expand the
deadlines if early discovery warrants the expanded time suggested.
She will not set a trial date until the class certification process
has concluded.

     i. Pretrial Schedule Case Management Conference: Feb. 11, 2019
at 2:00 p.m.

     ii. Referred to Magistrate Judge Ryu for Settlement Conference
to be Completed by: Dec. 21, 2018

     iii. Last Day to join Parties or Amend Pleadings: Nov. 15,
2018

     iv. Plaintiff to File Class Certification Motion and Submit
Any Expert Reports Relating to Class Certification: Aug. 2, 2019

     v. Defendant to File Opposition to Class Certification Motion
and Submit Any Expert Reports Relating to Class Certification: Aug.
30, 2019

     vi. Plaintiff to File a Reply in Support of Class
Certification Motion: Sept. 30, 2019

     vii. Hearing on Motion: Oct. 15, 2019 at 2:00 p.m.

The parties must comply with both the Court's Standing Order in
Civil Cases and Standing Order for Pretrial Instructions in Civil
Cases for additional deadlines and procedures. A ll Standing Orders
are available on the Court's website at
http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/ygrorders. Further, the parties
should review the District's Procedural Guidance for Class Action
Settlements.

Judge Rogers advised the counsel that in order to ensure that
settlements being brought before the Court are fair and reasonable,
and to ensure transparency, accountability, and class
participation, she will require, as part of any application for
approval, the counsel to provide the following information for each
of their five most recent approved and fully distributed class
settlements:

The total settlement fund, the total number of class members, the
total number of class members to whom notice was sent and not
returned as undeliverable, the number and percentage of claim forms
submitted, the number and percentage of opt-outs, the number and
percentage of objections, the average and median recovery per
claimant, the largest and smallest amounts paid to class members,
the method of notice and the method of payment to class members,
the number and value of checks not cashed, the amounts distributed
to each cy pres recipient, the administrative costs, the attorneys'
costs, the experts' fees, and the attorneys' fees in terms of total
amount, percentage of the settlement fund, and multiplier.

The counsel should be prepared to summarize this information in
easy-to-read charts that allow for quick comparisons with other
cases and include a column with the anticipated results of the
action at issue.  The parties can also expect to provide the same
information after final distribution and payment of any attorneys'
fees.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 21, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/ait8MK from Leagle.com.

Eric B. Fromer Chiropractic, Inc., a California corporation,
individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly-situated persons, Plaintiff, represented by Willem F.
Jonckheer -- wjonckheer@schubertlawfirm.com -- Schubert Jonckheer &
Kolbe LLP, Brian John Wanca -- bwanca@andersonwanca.com -- Anderson
& Wanca, Robert C. Schubert -- rschubert@schubertlawfirm.com --
Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe LLP & Ryan Michael Kelly --
rkelly@andersonwanca.com -- Anderson & Wanca.

Dyansys, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, represented by
William James Taylor, Tsao-Wu, Chow & Yee LLP.


ELDERS VENTURES: Underpays Massage Therapists, Lore Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN LORE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ELDERS VENTURES LLC D/B/A MASSAGE ENVY;
MASSAGE ENVY FRANCHISING LLC; CHRISTOPHER ELDERS; and JAQUELINE
ELDERS, Defendants, Case No. CV18-4692 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 20, 2018) is
an action against the Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime
hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods.

Mr. Lore was employed by the Defendants as massage therapist from
September 2016 to January 2018.

Elders Ventures LLC d/b/a Massage Envy is a corporation organized
under the laws of the State of New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
          HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          69-12 Austin Street
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Telephone: (718) 263-9591


ESA MANAGEMENT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Arizmendi Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
SANDRA ARIZMENDI, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated Plaintiff v. ESA MANAGEMENT, LLC, and DOES 1 to
50, Defendants, Case No. 18CV333342 (Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty.,
Aug. 21, 2018) is an action against the Defendants for unpaid
regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal
and rest periods.

Ms. Arizmendi was employed by the Defendants as an hourly,
non-exempt employee.

ESA Management, LLC operates and manages hotels under the Extended
Stay America brand name. It also offers administrative services in
the areas of executive management, accounting, financial analysis,
training, and technology. The company was incorporated in 2013 and
is based in Charlotte, North Carolina. ESA Management, LLC operates
as a subsidiary of Extended Stay America, Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

                - and -

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


FANHUA INC: Brower Piven Files Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of Brower Piven, A Professional
Corporation, disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been
commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Fanhua, Inc.
(Nasdaq: FANH) ("Fanhua" or the "Company") securities during the
period between April 20, 2018 through August 27, 2018, inclusive
(the "Class Period").  Investors who wish to become proactively
involved in the litigation have until November 6, 2018 to seek
appointment as lead plaintiff.

If you wish to choose counsel to represent you and the class, you
must apply to be appointed lead plaintiff and be selected by the
Court.  The lead plaintiff will direct the litigation and
participate in important decisions including whether to accept a
settlement for the class in the action.  The lead plaintiff will be
selected from among applicants claiming the largest loss from
investment in Fanhua securities during the Class Period.  Members
of the class will be represented by the lead plaintiff and counsel
chosen by the lead plaintiff.  No class has yet been certified in
the above action.

The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by virtue of the defendants'
failure to disclose during the Class Period that Fanhua engaged in
improper business practices, including irregular accounting, that
were intended to benefit Company insiders and overstated Fanhua's
financial assets and performance metrics.

According to the complaint, following an August 27, 2018 article
that detailed a history of alleged fraud within the Company, the
value of Fanhua shares declined significantly

If you have suffered a loss in excess of $100,000 from investment
in Fanhua securities purchased on or after April 20, 2018 and held
through the revelation of negative information during and/or at the
end of the Class Period and would like to learn more about this
lawsuit and your ability to participate as a lead plaintiff,
without cost or obligation to you, please contact Brower Piven
either by email at hoffman@browerpiven.com or by telephone at (410)
415-6616.

         Charles J. Piven, Esq.
         Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation
         1925 Old Valley Road
         Stevenson, Maryland 21153
         Telephone: 410-415-6616
         Email: hoffman@browerpiven.com [GN]


FEDEX OFFICE: Fails to Provide Suitable Seats to Staff, Liang Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
BING LIANG, and LESTER CHONG, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FEDEX OFFICE AND PRINT
SERVICES, INC. D/B/A FEDEX; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 18CV333303 (Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty.,
Aug. 20, 2018) alleges that the Defendants fail to provide suitable
seats to the Plaintiffs and the class in violation of the
California Labor Code.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as customer service
associates.

FedEx Office and Print Services, Inc. provides documents design,
printing, and shipping services. FedEx Office and Print Services,
Inc. was formerly known as FedEx Kinko's Office and Print Services,
Inc. and changed its name to FedEx Office and Print Services, Inc.
in June 2008. The company was founded in 1970 and is headquartered
in Dallas, Texas with additional offices in Canada and the United
States. As of February 12, 2004, FedEx Office and Print Services,
Inc. operates as a subsidiary of FedEx Corporation. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robin G. Workman, Esq.
          Rachel E. Davey, Esq.
          WORKMAN LAW FIRM, PC
          177 Post Street, Suite 800
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 782-3660
          Facsimile: (415) 788-1028

               - and –

          Matthew Righetti, Esq.
          RIGHETTI GLUGOSKI, P.C.
          456 Montgomery Street, Suite 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 983-0900
          Facsimile: (415) 397-9005
          E-mail: matt@righettilaw.com


FLAGSTAR BANK: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Smith Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss
the case, LOWELL and GINA SMITH, individually, and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. FLAGSTAR BANK, FSB, a
federal savings bank, and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. C 18-02350 WHA (N.D. Cal.).

In October 2004, Plaintiffs Lowell and Smith obtained a mortgage
loan to finance their purchase of real property located in
California from an unrelated third party.  To provide security for
the loan, the Plaintiffs executed a deed of trust on a standard
Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac form.  The Plaintiffs allege that prior to
2012, the Defendant took over the servicing of their mortgage
account and remained the loan servicer until a subsequent servicing
transfer to an unrelated servicer in August 2015.  They also allege
that the Defendant, while servicing their mortgage, maintained an
escrow account pursuant to the deed of trust and held their money
in that escrow account.  During the period that the Defendant
serviced their mortgage and held their money in escrow, it accrued
no interest on the funds despite a California statute requiring
interest on such accounts.

The Plaintiffs' complaint alleges a violation of unfair competition
law, California Business & Professions Code Sections 17200 et seq.,
California Civil Code Section 2954.8(a), and breach of contract by
by the Defendant.  All claims arise out of the Defendant's failure
to pay interest on an escrow account when defendant serviced the
Plaintiffs' loan under a deed of trust between 2011 and 2015.
The Defendant now moves to dismiss the complaint on the grounds
that the Plaintiffs' claim is preempted and that the Plaintiffs
have failed to comply with the notice-and-cure provision pursuant
to the deed of trust.

Judge Alsup finds that the Plaintiffs allege that during the entire
time defendant serviced their loan from 2011 to 2015, no interest
was ever paid on the escrow account.  He says this would mean that
the Defendant's alleged failure to pay interest violated Section
2954.8(a) after the effective date of the Dodd-Frank Act.
Therefore, even if missed interest accruals before the effective
date enjoyed the same field preemption standard under the old
regime, all payments due after the effective date should have been
paid.  That the deed of trust originated in the earlier time frame
cannot change the fact that interest payments fell due after the
new regime took hold.  Therefore, the Defendant's motion to dismiss
on the grounds that the HOLA preempts Section 2954.8(a) is denied.

The Judge also finds that the Plaintiffs failed to comply with the
notice-and-cure provision of the deed of trust before commencing
the instant lawsuit.  Instead, they argue that because the
Defendant is not the original lender and merely a loan servicer,
Section 20 does not apply to the Defendant's conduct.  He explains
that the provision is written to apply against both borrower and
lender such that both must give notice and an opportunity to cure
before commencing litigation.

The notice-and-cure provision comes from standard language used in
Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac forms and was construed by our Judge Beth
Freeman to bar a borrower's claim against the bank lender.  That
decision involved different claims, namely claims by a borrower in
default for a violation of the federal Fair Debt Collections
Practices Act and California's Unfair Competition Law.  By
contrast, in the instant case, there is a borrower who is not in
default and has been cheated out of the escrow interest required by
California law.  Nevertheless, it is hard to see why this
distinction should make a difference.  In a non-precedential
decision, the Court of appeals affirmed Judge Freeman.  As a
result, the order sees no alternative but to grant the motion to
dismiss.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Alsup granted the Defendant's
motion to dismiss.

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

Lowell Smith, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated & Gina Smith, individually, and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Peter B. Fredman --
peter@peterfredmanlaw.com -- Law Office of Peter Fredman & Thomas
Eric Loeser -- toml@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP.

Flagstar Bank, FSB, a federal savings bank, Defendant, represented
by Alexander Jacob Gershen -- agershen@mcguirewoods.com --
McGuireWoods LLP & David Carlyle Powell -- dpowell@mcguirewoods.com
-- McGuireWoods LLP.


FLOWERS FOODS: "Green" Class Action Still Ongoing in Alabama
------------------------------------------------------------
Flowers Foods, Inc. continues to defend itself in the "Green"
lawsuit pending in the U.S. District Court Northern District of
Alabama, 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 Green v. Flowers Foods, Inc. and Flowers
Baking Co. of Birmingham, LLC, with case number 5:17-cv-00784, and
was originally filed on May 11, 2017.

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

The case styled Hall et al. v. Flowers Foods, Inc., Flowers Baking
Co. of Gadsden, LLC, and Flowers Baking Co. of Birmingham, LLC
(Case No. 1:17-cv-00932) has been consolidated with the Green
litigation.  This case was initially filed on June 5, 2017, with
the U.S. District Court Northern District of Alabama.

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 Medrano Lawsuit in New Mexico
----------------------------------------------------------------
Flowers Foods, Inc. continues to defend itself in the "Medrano"
lawsuit pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Mexico, 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 Medrano v. Flowers Foods, Inc. and Flowers
Baking Co. of El Paso, LLC, with case number 1:16-cv-00350, and was
originally filed on April 27, 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: Court Decertifies Class in "Wiatrek" Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
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 U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Texas has decertified the class in the "Wiatrek"
lawsuit.

The case is captioned Wiatrek v. Flowers Foods, Inc. and Flowers
Baking Co. of San Antonio, LLC, with case number 5:17-cv-00772, and
was originally filed on August 15, 2017.

On February 5, 2018, the court granted an order conditionally
certifying a class under the FLSA.  On June 16, 2018, the court
decertified the class.

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: Martins Class Lawsuit Still Pending in Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
Flowers Foods, Inc. continues to defend itself in the "Martins"
lawsuit pending in the U.S. District Court Middle District of
Florida, 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 Martins v. Flowers Foods, Inc., Flowers
Baking Co. of Bradenton, LLC and Flowers Baking Co. of Villa Rica,
LLC, with case number 8:16-cv-03145, and was originally filed on
November 8, 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: Soares Lawsuit Still Pending in California
---------------------------------------------------------
Flowers Foods, Inc. is still facing the "Soares" lawsuit pending in
the U.S. District Court Northern District of California, 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 Soares et al. v. Flowers Foods, Inc., Flowers
Bakeries Brands, Inc., Flowers Baking Co. of California, LLC, and
Flowers Baking Co. of Modesto, LLC, with case number 3:15-cv-04918,
and was originally filed on October 26, 2015.

On June 28, 2017, the court denied Plaintiffs' motion to certify
California state law claims against Defendants as a class action.

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 Bryant Class Action in Texas
---------------------------------------------------------
Flowers Foods, Inc. continues to defend itself in the "Bryant"
lawsuit pending in the U.S. District Court Eastern 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 Bryant v. Flowers Foods, Inc. and Flowers
Baking Co. of Denton, LLC, with case number 4:17-cv-00725, and was
originally filed on October 9, 2017.

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: Still Faces Long Class Lawsuit in Tennessee
----------------------------------------------------------
Flowers Foods, Inc. continues to defend itself in the "Long"
lawsuit pending in the U.S. District Court Middle District of
Tennessee, 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 Long v. Flowers Foods, Inc., Flowers Baking
Co. of Morristown, LLC, and Flowers Baking Co. of Knoxville, LLC,
with case number 3:17-cv-00724, and was originally filed on April
20, 2017.

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: Still Faces Securities Class Suit in Georgia
-----------------------------------------------------------
Flowers Foods, Inc. continues to defend itself against a
consolidated securities class action currently pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, 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.

On August 12, 2016, a class action complaint was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York by Chris B.
Hendley (the "Hendley complaint") against the company and certain
senior members of management (collectively, the "defendants").

On August 17, 2016, another class action complaint was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by Scott
Dovell, II (the "Dovell complaint" and together with the Hendley
complaint, the "complaints") against the defendants.

Plaintiffs in the complaints are securities holders that acquired
company securities between February 7, 2013 and August 10, 2016.
The complaints generally allege that the defendants made materially
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that
(1) the company's labor practices were not in compliance with
applicable federal laws and regulations; (2) such non-compliance
exposed the company to legal liability and/or negative regulatory
action; and (3) as a result, the defendants' statements about the
company's business, operations, and prospects were false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.  The counts of the
complaints are asserted against the defendants pursuant to Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 under the
Exchange Act.

The complaints seek (1) class certification under the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, (2) compensatory damages in favor of the
plaintiffs and all other class members against the defendants,
jointly and severally, for all damages sustained as a result of
wrongdoing, in an amount to be proven at trial, including interest,
and (3) awarding plaintiffs and the class their reasonable costs
and expenses incurred in the actions, including counsel and expert
fees.

On October 21, 2016, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York consolidated the complaints into one action
captioned "In re Flowers Foods, Inc. Securities Litigation" (the
"consolidated securities action"), appointed Walter Matthews as
lead plaintiff ("lead plaintiff"), and appointed Glancy Prongay &
Murray LLP and Johnson & Weaver, LLP as co-lead counsel for the
putative class.

On November 21, 2016, the court granted defendants' and lead
plaintiff's joint motion to transfer the consolidated securities
action to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Georgia.  Lead plaintiff filed his Consolidated Class Action
Complaint on January 12, 2017, raising the same counts and general
allegations and seeking the same relief as the Dovell and Hendley
complaints.

On March 13, 2017, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
lawsuit which was granted in part and denied in part on March 23,
2018.  The court dismissed certain allegedly false or misleading
statements as nonactionable under federal securities laws, and will
allow others to proceed to fact discovery.  

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.


GC SERVICES: Summary Judgment Bid in Alderman FDCPA Suit Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JAMES ALDERMAN, Plaintiff, v. GC SERVICES LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP, Defendant Case No. 2:16-CV-14508-ROSENBERG/MATTHEWMAN
(S.D. Fla.), Judge Robin L. Rosenberg of the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Florida (i) denied the Defendant's
Renewed Motion to Dismiss, and (ii) granted the Plaintiff's Motion
for Summary Judgment.

The case is an action for violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act ("FDCPA").  The Defendant is a "debt collector" as
defined in 15 U.S.C. Secttion 1692a(6).  On March 30, 2016, the
Defendant sent a demand letter to the Plaintiff seeking to collect
a debt due to Synchrony Bank.  Acting on behalf of Synchrony Bank,
the Defendant also caused materially similar demand letters to be
mailed to an additional 19,793 individuals.  

The Plaintiff's First Amended Class Action Complaint contains three
counts, all of which stem from the Defendant's inclusion of the
phrase "in writing" in its demand letters.  Counts I and II allege
that the Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. Section 1692g(a)(3), which
requires that a debt collector sends the consumer a written notice
containing a statement that unless the consumer, within 30 days
after receipt of the notice, disputes the validity of the debt, or
any portion thereof, the debt will be assumed to be valid by the
debt collector.  The Plaintiff alleges that the language in the
Defendant's demand letters therefore misled him and the other
individuals to whom it mailed these letters into believing that the
demand letters contained the statutorily required notice (Count I)
and deprived them of their statutory right to receive the required
notice (Count II).

Count III alleges that the Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. Section
1692e, which prohibits the use of any false, deceptive, or
misleading representation or means by a debt collector in
connection with the collection of any debt.  The Plaintiff alleges
that, because 15 U.S.C. Section 1692g(a)(3) does not require a
consumer to dispute the validity of the debt in writing before the
debt collector may assume the debt is valid, the Defendant's
inclusion of a writing requirement in its demand letters was false
and misleading.

The Court has already determined as a matter of law that 15 U.S.C.
Section 1692g(a)(3) does not require a consumer to dispute the
validity of a debt in writing.  In its Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff's First Amended Class Action Complaint, the Defendant
urged the Court to conclude, as some courts have done, that 15
U.S.C. Section 1692g(a)(3) includes an implicit writing
requirement.  After considering both parties' positions, the Court
entered an Order Denying Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.  Upon
review of the relevant authorities, however, the Court concluded
that Section 1692g(a)(3) does not require a consumer to dispute the
validity of a debt in writing before the debt collector may assume
the debt is valid and that the Plaintiff had therefore stated a
plausible claim to relief.

The Court has also determined that the Plaintiff has standing to
bring the action.  In its Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First
Amended Class Action Complaint or, in the Alternative, Dismiss and
Compel Arbitration, the Defendant moved either to dismiss the
Complaint for lack of standing because the Plaintiff had not
alleged a concrete injury resulting from its purported violations
of the FDCPA or, in the alternative, to dismiss the Complaint and
compel arbitration pursuant to an arbitration provision contained
in a credit agreement to which Defendant was not a signatory.  In
its Order Denying Defendant's Motion, the Court concluded that the
Defendant could not invoke the doctrine of equitable estoppel to
compel arbitration pursuant to an agreement to which it was not a
signatory.  It also concluded that the Plaintiff's alleged injury
was sufficient to establish standing.

The Court again rejected the Defendant's argument that Plaintiff
lacks standing to bring th action when it granted the Plaintiff's
Motion for Class Certification.

The Defendant has now filed a Renewed Motion to Dismiss Under Fed.
R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and Memorandum of Law in Support, in which it
again argues that the Plaintiff has not suffered a concrete injury
and therefore lacks standing to sue.  Judge Rosenberg disagrees and
therefore will deny the Defendant's Renewed Motion.

Turning to the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, the Judge
will grant the motion to the extent that he concludes that the
Defendant has violated the FDCPA as alleged in the Plaintiff's
First Amended Class Action Complaint.  However, he does not reach
the amount of damages to which the Plaintiff is entitled.  The
Plaintiff states that she is entitled to the maximum amount of
statutory damages permitted under the FDCPA, but her argument is
limited to a single conclusory paragraph at the end of her Motion
for Summary Judgment.  The Plaintiff does not address the factors
this Court must consider pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Section 1692k(b).

The Judge also notes that, while the Defendant has argued that
summary judgment should not be entered in the Plaintiff's favor, it
has failed to present any argument as to the appropriate amount of
damages in the event that summary judgment is entered.
Accordingly, the Judge requires additional briefing on this issue.
The Plaintiff will file a motion on the issue of damages within
seven days of the date of rendition of the Order.  Briefing on the
Plaintiff's motion will proceed in accordance with Local Rule
7.1(c).

Similarly, while the Plaintiff states that she is entitled to an
award of attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs incurred
in this case, the Judge will not reach the issue until an
appropriate motion requesting the same has been filed within the
time permitted by applicable law.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Rosenberg (i) denied the
Defendant's Renewed Motion to Dismiss Under Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(1) and Memorandum of Law in Support, and (ii) granted the
Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment.  The Plaintiff will file a
motion on the issue of damages within seven days of the date of
rendition of the Order.  In light of the fact that the only issue
remaining in the case is the amount of damages to which the
Plaintiff is entitled, the Clerk of Court is directed to close the
case for administrative purposes.  The Judge denied as moot all
pending motions, terminated all deadlines, and cancelled all
hearings.  The case is removed from the Court's trial calendar.

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

James Alderman, on behalf of himself and all others simarily
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Sovathary K. Jacobson --
jacobson@desmondlawfirm.com -- Desmond Law Firm, P.C., Scott David
Owens -- scott@scottdowens.com -- SCOTT D. OWENS, P.A., Sean Martin
Holas -- sean@scottdowens.com -- Scott D. Owens, P.A. & Leo Wassner
Desmond -- lwd@verobeachlegal.com -- Suite D.

GC Services Limited Partnership, a Delaware Limited Parternship,
Defendant, represented by Andrew Bryan Zelmanowitz, Lewis Brisbois
Bisgaard & Smith, LLP, Earl H. Walker, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard &
Smith LLP, pro hac vice, Jeff Kominsky --
Jeff.Kominsky@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith
& William S. Helfand -- Bill.helfand@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis
Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP, pro hac vice.


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

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

The Court reviews the district court's decision to deny class
certification for abuse of discretion, and the findings of fact
upon which the court relied for clear error.  It finds that the
district court did not abuse its discretion by denying class
certification on predominance grounds because Cole failed to show
that common questions predominate over any questions affecting only
individual members of his proposed class and subclass.

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

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

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

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

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

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 21, 2018 Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/6IOuxF from Leagle.com.


GENERAL NUTRITION: Shakib Withdrawn as Karkoris Class Counsel
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JENNA KASKORKIS and KIM CARTER, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. GENERAL
NUTRITION CENTERS, INC., a Delaware Corporation; GENERAL HOLDINGS,
INC., a Delaware Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 16cv990-WQH-AGS
(S.D. Cal.), Judge William Q. Hayes of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California granted the Plaintiffs' motion
to withdraw Vanessa Shakib as their counsel.

On Aug. 16, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed a motion requesting the
Court grants Vanessa Shakib, their counsel, leave to withdraw her
appearance as one of the attorneys of record in the matter.  They
assert that Shakib has left the firm of Ahdoot & Wolfson, PC.  The
Plaintiffs assert that they will continue to be represented by
other attorneys at Ahdoot & Wolfson, PC.

After reviewing the record and the reason for withdrawal, Judge
Hayes concludes that there is good cause to grant the motion to
withdraw as the counsel.  Accordingly, he granted the Plaitiffs'
motion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 21, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/F1tShk from Leagle.com.

Jenna Kaskorkis, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Nick Suciu, III --
nicksuciu@bmslawyers.com -- Barbat Mansour & Suciu PLLC, pro hac
vice, Robert R. Ahdoot -- RAhdoot@ahdootwolfson.com -- Ahdoot and
Wolfson APC, Theodore Walter Maya -- tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com --
Ahdoot and Wolfson PC, Tina Wolfson, Ahdoot and Wolfson PC, Trenton
R. Kashima, Finkelstein & Krinsk, LLP, Jeffrey R. Krinsk,
Finkelstein and Krinsk & William Richard Restis, Finkelstein and
Krinsk.

Kim Carter, Plaintiff, represented by Robert R. Ahdoot, Ahdoot and
Wolfson APC, Theodore Walter Maya, Ahdoot and Wolfson PC, Tina
Wolfson, Ahdoot and Wolfson PC, Jeffrey R. Krinsk, Finkelstein and
Krinsk, William Richard Restis, Finkelstein and Krinsk & Trenton R.
Kashima, Finkelstein & Krinsk, LLP.

General Nutrition Centers, Inc., a Delaware Corporation & General
Holdings, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Defendants, represented by
James D. Nguyen , Davis Wright Tremaine, Sean M. Sullivan --
seansullivan@dwt.com -- Davis Wright Tremaine LLP & Zana Zahra
Bugaighis -- zanabugaighis@dwt.com -- Davis Wright Tremaine LLP.


GROSS POLOWY: Reches Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gross Polowy, LLC et
al. The case is styled as Benjamin Reches other, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Gross
Polowy, LLC, ProVest, LLC, John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-05233 (E.D. N.Y., Sept. 17, 2018).

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

Gross Polowy, LLC is a law firm dedicated to representing the
financial servicing industry. The attorneys at the firm have
extensive experience in providing default servicing to both
commercial and residential lenders, including home retention, legal
compliance, foreclosure, settlement services, title curative,
bankruptcy, appellate and related real estate matters. The law firm
is operational in suburban Buffalo, New York with an additional
office on Long Island.

ProVest, LLC provides legal support services for law firms,
financial institutions, and insurance companies in the United
States. It offers foreclosure, collection/insurance, court service
work, civil/criminal complaint, and other services through its
managed network of process servers. The company also provides skip
tracing services, including military skip, avoider’s affidavits,
death certificate search, occupancy verification, heir and probate
searches, social security number locate, and tenant
verification.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Daniel Harris Kohn, Esq.
     Stein Saks PLLC
     285 Passaic Street
     Hackensack, NJ 07601
     Phone: (201) 282-6500
     Fax: (201) 282-6501
     Email: dkohn@steinsakslegal.com


HARVEY WEINSTEIN: Judge Dismisses RICO Class Action Case
--------------------------------------------------------
Gene Maddaus, writing for Variety, reports that Harvey Weinstein
won a victory in civil court on September 13 as a federal judge
dismissed a racketeering lawsuit brought by six alleged harassment
victims.

In a brief order, U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein
dismissed the complaint, but allowed the plaintiffs to file an
amended version by Oct. 31.

The plaintiffs allege that Weinstein; his brother, Bob; and board
members of the Weinstein Co. acted in concert to enable and then
conceal Weinstein's sexual misconduct. They allege that the
Weinstein Co. functioned akin to a mafia enterprise, in violation
of federal RICO law, and are seeking to represent hundreds of
victims in a class action.

In court on September 12, Hellerstein expressed some skepticism
about the claims, and pushed the plaintiffs to include more details
of the alleged cover-up in the amended filing. But he also pushed
back on Weinstein's attorneys' argument that he did not engage in
commercial sex trafficking, according to a Bloomberg report.

"We all know what was going on," Hellerstein said, according to
Bloomberg. "He was not attractive in such a way that Paul Newman
was attractive. He wanted sex."

Phyllis Kupferstein, Esq. -- pk@kupfersteinmanuel.com --
Weinstein's civil lawyer, hailed the judge's decision.

"We are very pleased that this claim was dismissed," she said. "It
was the correct result. In the current environment, it is
reassuring to know that the rule of law prevails."

Elizabeth Fegan, Esq. -- beth@hbsslaw.com -- the lead plaintiffs'
attorney, had a more optimistic take on the ruling.

"We heard the Court's request that we provide additional details
regarding the career damage suffered by victims and other technical
areas," she said in a statement. "We look forward to amending the
Complaint and are confident the victims' claims will continue to
move forward."

Weinstein is also facing numerous other lawsuits and six criminal
charges, which could result in a sentence of life in prison.[GN]


HEARST TELEVISION: Faces Northtown Antitrust Suit in S.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
NORTHTOWN AUTOMOTIVE COMPANIES INC., on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated v. HEARST TELEVISION INC.; GRAY
TELEVISION, INC.; NEXSTAR MEDIA GROUP, INC.; TEGNA INC.; TRIBUNE
MEDIA COMPANY; and SINCLAIR BROADCAST GROUP, INC., Case No.
1:18-cv-08485 (S.D.N.Y., September 18, 2018), is an antitrust
action concerning the alleged illegal and anticompetitive practices
of the Defendants, who engaged in unlawful collusion and conspired
to artificially inflate the price of local television
advertisements in violation of the Sherman Act.

Hearst is headquartered in New York City, and is a diversified
media and information company.  Hearst operates television stations
and cable networks throughout the U.S.  Gray is a television
broadcast company headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.  Gray owns and
operates television stations and digital assets in the U.S.

Headquartered in Irving, Texas, Nexstar operates as a television
broadcasting and digital media company in the U.S.  Tegna is a
broadcasting, digital media, and marketing services company and is
headquartered in McLean, Virginia.

Tribune is headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, and operates,
through its subsidiaries, as a media and entertainment company in
the U.S.  Tribune offers news, entertainment, and sports
programming through Tribune Broadcasting local television stations.
Sinclair is headquartered in Hunt Valley, Maryland, and operates
as a television broadcast company in the U.S.

The Defendants sell television advertising to local advertisers in
multiple Designated Market Areas ("DMAs") throughout the U.S.  New
York City is the largest DMA, reaching more than 7.3 million
households.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey A. Klafter, Esq.
          Seth R. Lesser, Esq.
          KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER LLP
          Two International Drive, Suite 350
          Rye Brook, NY 10573
          Telephone: (914) 934-9200
          Facsimile: (914) 934-9220
          E-mail: jak@klafterolsen.com
                  slesser@klafterolsen.com


I3 VERTICALS: Final Fairness & Settlement Hearing Set for Dec. 14
-----------------------------------------------------------------
i3 Verticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 13, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the court in Expert Auto
Repair suit has scheduled the final fairness hearing and final
approval of the settlement for December 14, 2018.

On June 14, 2016, Expert Auto Repair, Inc., for itself and on
behalf of a class of additional plaintiffs, and Jeff Straight
initiated a class action lawsuit against the company, as alleged
successor to Merchant Processing Solutions, LLC, in the Los Angeles
County Superior Court of California, seeking damages, restitution
and declaratory and injunctive relief (the "Expert Auto
Litigation").

The plaintiffs alleged that Merchant Processing Solutions, LLC, the
company's alleged predecessor, engaged in unfair business practices
in the merchant services sector including unfairly inducing
merchants to obtain credit and debit card processing services and
thereafter assessing them with improper fees.

i3 Verticals said, "Subject to final court approval, we have
entered into a settlement agreement to settle the plaintiffs'
claims for $995. On April 10, 2018, the Court granted conditional
class certification and preliminary approval of the agreed
settlement and scheduled the final fairness hearing and final
approval of the settlement for December 14, 2018. The reserved
amount is reflected in accrued expenses and other current
liabilities as of June 30, 2018. The amount was included in general
and administrative expenses in our consolidated statement of
operations for the year ended September 30, 2017."

i3 Verticals, Inc. provides integrated payment and software
solutions to small- and medium-sized businesses (SMBs) and
organizations in education, non-profit, public sector, property
management, and healthcare markets in the United States. The
company was founded in 2012 and is headquartered in Nashville,
Tennessee.


ICPC: Groups Set to File Class Action Suit
------------------------------------------
Ben Ezeamalu, writing for The Premium Times, Nigeria, reports that
The Citizens Advocacy for Social and Economic Rights has finalised
plans to institute a class action against the Independent Corrupt
Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) for its
failure to investigate the certificate forgery allegations against
the finance minister, Kemi Adeosun.

Frank Tietie, the executive director of the group, told PREMIUM
TIMES on September 13 that the class action was aimed at securing a
court order to compel the ICPC to begin investigations into the
allegations against Ms Adeosun.

"We've put our papers together, we're ready, we are making an
application for an order of mandamus upon ICPC to prosecute, we are
also joining the Attorney General of the Federation and NYSC," Mr
Tietie, a human rights lawyer, said.

"We needed to make it a class action, let it not be that only me
because in this era where people think that anything you do to
challenge government is because you want to be settled."

In August, the group issued a seven-day notice to the ICPC
demanding an investigation into the allegations that Ms Adeosun
falsified her National Youth Service Corps exemption certificate.

It also demanded an investigation into what it described as the
collusion of silence by NYSC officials.

The notice came more than a month after PREMIUM TIMES exposed how
Ms Adeosun skipped the mandatory one year National Youth Service
Corps scheme and forged a certificate that showed she had been
exempted from participation.

"A period of more than 4 weeks has passed and the Honourable
Minister has neither given a plausible response nor has she
resigned her position in preparation for possible prosecution,"
read the group's notice to the ICPC dated August 13.

"Also, following the report of forgery by the Honourable Minister,
in the last 4 weeks, the officials of the NYSC have maintained an
unpatriotic silence that is of a highly worrisome and criminal
dimension.

"This is utterly embarrassing to many Nigerians, including my
humble self who hold with sacrosanctity the NYSC programme that has
caused many Nigerians, including me, to hazard our lives through
many dangers, sufferings, pains and death."

The revelation about how Ms Adeosun allegedly forged her NYSC
exemption certificate elicited a public outrage from Nigerians,
with the Human and Environmental Development Agenda, a
nongovernmental organisation, .petitioning the police inspector
general demanding an investigation into the claims against the
minister

Last month, another nongovernmental organisation, the Social
Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) sued the NYSC
over its failure to disclose details of the certificate paraded by
the minister. The group had earlier made a freedom of information
request to the NYSC which the agency refused to honour.

So far, the only response from the government on the scandal is a
short statement by the NYSC on July 9 saying it would investigate
the claims.

On August 6, Lai Mohammed, the information minister, said the
appropriate agency is still investigating the allegations against
Ms Adeosun and the president will only act at the end of that.

                        A Call For Action

Mr Tietie said the class action suit against the ICPC is an action
to save the NYSC certificate from "uselessness."

"There has been no response, so the presumption is that PREMIUM
TIMES is correct and if PREMIUM TIMES is correct, what it means is
that the NYSC certificate is now useless," Mr Tietie said.

"It's just a journey. Whether they prosecute her or they don't
prosecute her, we will ultimately get an order to say that it (NYSC
certificate) is no longer useful, they should either set aside the
provision that makes it compulsory or ensure that Kemi Adeosun is
investigated.

"And if she is indicted, she should return all her salaries and all
the things she received as the honourable minister of finance."

In July, the ICPC successfully prosecuted a staff in the Office of
the Auditor General of the Federation for forging his Institute of
Chartered Accountants of Nigeria (ICAN) certificate. James
Lebi-Ayodele was convicted by an FCT High Court and sentenced to
two years in prison without an option of fine.

Mr Tietie said the law setting up the ICPC and other investigative
agencies does not require them to receive a petition before they
can act.

"If you look at the law setting up the police, ICPC and the EFCC,
they are supposed to be proactive they are supposed to, on their
own, go and take up cases that are notorious or public knowledge
and prosecute them, they don't need to wait for anybody to write a
petition to them," he said.

"In the case of ICPC, I told them that they should have done it
because based on the provisions of the ICPC Act, I cited the law,
that they should have on their own gone to prosecute the woman."

"The ICPC is not even responding because it believes there is no
petition to it yet. We are saying that you don't need a petition,
there are certain facts that are called ‘notorious facts' which
the court takes judicial notice of, which every public institution
takes judicial notice of.

"This is a notorious fact, it is in the public domain, they ought
to have investigated and concluded their investigation in not less
than 48 hours, maximum seven days."

Despite the public outrage that greeted the certificate forgery
scandal, Mr Tietie said the response to his group's call for action
"has been unimpressive."

On September 19, the advocacy group, Enough Is Enough Nigeria
joined the call for more citizens to join the class action.

"So many people expressed support but without wanting their names
to be put on the paper," said Mr Tietie.

"Those who joined were mainly lawyers from across the country, the
northern and the southern part of the country and then south-south
and then few individuals, maybe they don't really understand the
concept of class action."[GN]


JAGUAR HEALTH: Court Dismisses Plant Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------
Judge Richard Seeborg entered an order on September 20, 2018,
granting the Motion to Dismiss the case, Plant v. Jaguar Animal
Health, Inc et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-04102 (N.D. Cal., July 20,
2017).

Jaguar Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 13, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that on July 20, 2017, a
putative class action complaint was filed in the United States
District Court, Northern District of California, Civil Action No.
3:17-cv-04102, by Tony Plant (the "Plaintiff") on behalf of
shareholders of the Company who held shares on June 30, 2017 and
were entitled to vote at the 2017 Special Shareholders Meeting,
against the Company and certain individuals who were directors as
of the date of the vote (collectively, the "Defendants"), in a
matter captioned Tony Plant v. Jaguar Animal Health, Inc., et al.,
making claims arising under Section 14(a) and Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.14a-9,
promulgated thereunder by the Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC).

The claims allege false and misleading information provided to
investors in the Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus on Form S-4 (File
No. 333-217364) declared effective by the Commission on July 6,
2017 related to the solicitation of votes from shareholders to
approve the merger and certain transactions related thereto. The
Company accepted service of the complaint and summons on behalf of
itself and the United States-based director Defendants on November
1, 2017. The Company has not accepted service on behalf of, and
Plaintiff has not yet served, the non-U.S.-based director
Defendants.

On October 3, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking appointment as
lead plaintiff and appointment of Monteverde & Associates PC as
lead counsel. That motion has been granted. Plaintiff filed an
amended complaint against the Company and the United States-based
director Defendants on January 10, 2018.

Jaguar Health said, "If the Plaintiff were able to prove its
allegations in this matter and to establish the damages it asserts,
then an adverse ruling could have a material impact on the Company.
However, the Company disputes the claims asserted in this putative
class action case and is vigorously contesting the matter."

The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on March 12, 2018, for
which oral arguments were held on June 14, 2018. The court has not
yet ruled on the motion.

The Company believes that it is not probable that an asset has been
impaired or a liability has been incurred as of the date of the
financial statements and the amount of any potential loss is not
reasonably estimable.

Jaguar Health, Inc., a commercial stage natural-products
pharmaceuticals company, focuses on developing gastrointestinal
products for human prescription use and animals worldwide. Jaguar
Health, Inc. is headquartered in San Francisco, California.


JTH TAX: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Broward Psychology TCPA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BROWARD PSYCHOLOGY, P.A., Individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. JTH TAX, INC.,
d/b/a LIBERTY TAX SERVICE, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant, Case
No. 18-cv-60412-GAYLES (S.D. Fla.), Judge Darrin P. Gayles of the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida denied the
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Class Action Complaint.

The Plaintiff brings the putative class action complaint against
the Defendant pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA").  On March 10, 2014, the Defendant sent an unsolicited fax
to the Plaintiff's place of business.  The Plaintiff claims that
the fax constitutes an 'unsolicited advertisement' under the TCPA
because it advertises the commercial availability of tge
Defendant's tax preparation services.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant caused the Plaintiff
actual harm, including the monetary costs associated with receiving
faxes, invasion of privacy, aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on
seclusion, trespass, and conversion.  It brings the case on behalf
of itself and a putative class defined as aAll persons and
businesses within the United States who, within the four years
prior to the filing of this Complaint, were sent an unsolicited
advertisement to their fax machine by Liberty Tax, or anyone on
Liberty Tax's behalf.

In support of its class claims, the Plaintiff alleges that the
Defendant's franchisees have disseminated identical fax
advertisements to business and individuals throughout the United
States.  The Defendant has moved to dismiss the complaint arguing
that the Plaintiff has no standing to bring a TCPA claim and that
the Plaintiff fails to adequately allege a class claim.

Judge Gayles finds that that the Plaintiff clearly alleges that it
and the putative class members have suffered loss of money, loss of
time, invasion of privacy, aggravation, intrusion on seclusion,
loss of toner, loss of paper, and the loss of use of their fax
machines as a result of receiving the unsolicited faxes.  Similar
allegations referencing the monetary costs and business disruption
associated with receiving an unsolicited fax have been deemed
sufficient to establish a concrete injury post-Spokeo.  Therefore,
he finds that the Plaintiff has alleged a concrete injury that is
sufficient to establish standing.

Upon review of the Complaint, the Judge finds the Plaintiff's class
allegations to be sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss.  The
arguments raised by the Defendant regarding the viability of the
Plaintiff's class allegations are more properly raised at the class
certification stage.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Gayles denied the Defendant's Motion
to Dismiss Class Action Complaint.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 21, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/6zyr7V from Leagle.com.

Broward Psychology P.A., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Avi Robert Kaufman --
kaufman@kaufmanpa.com -- Kaufman P.A.

JTH Tax, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, represented by
Joseph Alan Sacher -- jsacher@grsm.com -- Gordon & Rees LLP.


KAPSTONE PAPER: Harrison Files Suit Over WestRock Merger
--------------------------------------------------------
Todd Harrison, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. KapStone Paper and Packaging Corporation, et al., Case
No. 1:18-cv-01210 (D. Del., August 8, 2018), is brought against the
Defendants for violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On January28, 2018, KapStone Paper and Packaging Corporation,
WestRock Company, Whiskey Holdco, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary
of WestRock, Kola Merger Sub,Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Holdco, and Whiskey Merger Sub,Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Holdco, entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger.

The Plaintiff alleges that on August 1, 2018, in order to convince
KapStone shareholders to vote in favor of the Proposed Merger, the
Board authorized the filing of a materially incomplete and
misleading Proxy Statement on Schedule 14A with the Securities and
Exchange Commission, in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act. The date of the shareholder meeting was scheduled
for September 6, 2018.

The Plaintiff is, and at all relevant times has been, a KapStone
shareholder.

The Defendant KapStone is a Delaware corporation and maintains its
principal executive offices at 1101 Skokie Boulevard, Suite 300,
Northbrook, Illinois 60062. KapStone's common stock is traded on
the NYSE under the ticker symbol "KS."

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Van Gorder, Esq.
      FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
      20 Montchanin Road, Suite 145
      Wilmington, DE 19807
      Tel: (302) 482-3182
      E-mail: mvangorder@faruqilaw.com


KREATIVE THERAPY: Ikpe Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
--------------------------------------------------
Eunice Ikpe, other similarly-situated individuals v. Kreative
Therapy & Rehab Center, Inc. and Miguel A. Mendez, Case No.
1:18-cv-23217 (S.D. Fla., August 8, 2018), seeks to recover money
damages for unpaid wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff, Eunice Ikpe, is a Rehabilitation Clinical Supervisor
and Head Speech and Language Pathologist employee for the
Defendant. The Plaintiff is a resident of Miami-Dade County,
Florida

The Defendants, Kreative Therapy & Rehab Center Inc. and Miguel A.
Mendez, is a Florida Profit incorporation and a Florida resident,
respectively, having their main place of business in Miami-Dade
County, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Franklin Antonio Jara, Esq.
      JARA & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
      10271 Sunset Drive, Suite 103
      Miami, FL 33173
      Tel: (305) 372-0290
      Fax: (305) 675-0383


KS WORLD: Medina Sues over Unpaid OT and Minimum Wages
------------------------------------------------------
JUNO MEDINA, an individual, and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. KS WORLD, INC., dba SHIN-SEN-GUMI,
SHIGETA AMERICA, INC., dba SHIN-SENGUMI, MITSUYA SHIGETA, and DOES
1 through 100, the Defendants, Case No. BC720143 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Sept. 4, 2018), alleges that the Defendants failed to pay unpaid
wages under overtime wages and minimum wages.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and Class Members were
employed by Defendants under employment agreements that were partly
written, partly oral, and partly implied.  Each of the Defendants
acted pursuant to, and in furtherance of, their policies and
practices of not paying Plaintiff and Class Members all wages
earned and due, through methods and schemes which include, but are
not limited to, failing to pay overtime premiums; failing to
provide rest and meal periods; failing to properly maintain
records; failing to provide accurate itemized statements for each
pay period; failing to properly compensate Plaintiff and Class
Members for necessary expenditures; and requiring, permitting or
suffering the employees to work off the clock, in violation of the
California Labor Code and the applicable Welfare Commission Orders.
As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' unlawful
actions, Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered, and continue to
suffer, from loss of earnings in amounts as yet unascertained, but
subject to proof at trial, and within the jurisdiction of this
Court.

Shin-Sen-Gumi restaurant group serve traditional Japanese
cuisine.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
          Tagore O. Subramaniam, Esq.
          Daniel J. Bass, Esq.
          MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
          1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
          Telephone: (310) 531 1900
          Facsimile: (310) 531 1901
          E-mail: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com
                  tagore@maternlawgroup.com
                  dbass@maternlawgroup.com


KUENG CHAN: Liu Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
---------------------------------------------
JIAN CHENG LIU and FUQIANG GAO, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. KUENG CHAN, MAY TONG,
SIMON CHAN, WING KEUNG ENTERPRISES, INC. d/b/a WK FOODS, and WK
TRUCKING LLC. d/b/a WK FOODS, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-05044
(E.D.N.Y., Sep. 6, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages under the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Laws.

According to the complaint, during his employment, the Plaintiff
generally worked over 85 hours a week when he worked 7 days a week,
and over 75 hours a week when he worked 6 days a week. The
Plaintiff has been employed as a driver by Wing Keung since about
March 7, 2017. When he was hired, he was told that among other
things, his salary was $800/week. He was paid sometimes a flat rate
of $800/week, regardless of the number of hours worked. For the
weeks for which he received less than $800/week, the management
promised to make it up "next month." He worked 6 days a week, over
75 hours a week. During the plaintiffs' employment, although the
defendants' records would show 30 minutes of meal time, the
plaintiffs were generally not given any such meal time. During the
plaintiffs' employment, they generally would make deliveries only
in the State of New York.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          HENG WANG & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          305 Broadway, Suite 1000
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (646) 543 5848
          Facsimile: (646) 572 8998


LENDING CLUB: Court Extends Time to File Reply Brief in Moses Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Nevada issued
an Order extending the time to file reply brief in the case
captioned MARITZA MOSES, and others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v. LENDING CLUB, Defendant. Case No. 2:17-cv-3071-JAD-PAL. (D.
Nev.).

Defendant LendingClub Corporation filed a Renewed Motion to Compel
Arbitration. The Plaintiff filed an opposition. Lending Club's
reply in support of its Motion to Compel Arbitration currently is
due. The parties have agreed, and hereby request, that LendingClub
may have up to file its reply. The requested extension will allow
LendingClub to thoroughly analyze the new argument and authorities
raised in the Plaintiff's opposition brief and provide the Court
with clear, concise briefing as to whether this case should be
arbitrated a threshold issue with significant ramifications in this
putative class action.  

This is the parties' first request for an extension for
LendingClub's reply. This request for an extension is made in good
faith and not for purposes of delay.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 20, 2018 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/ydb9h9vh from Leagle.com.

Maritza Moses, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew I. Knepper --
matthew.knepper@knepperclark.com -- Knepper & Clark, LLC, Miles N.
Clark -- miles.clark@knepperclark.com -- Knepper & Clark LLC &
David H. Krieger -- dkrieger@hainesandkrieger.com -- Haines &
Krieger, LLC.

Lending Club, Defendant, represented by Joel Edward Tasca -- TASCA
BALLARDSPAHR.COM -- Ballard Spahr LLP & Lindsay C. Demaree --
DEMAREEL BALLARDSPAHR.COM -- Ballard Spahr LLP.


LIBRE BY NEXUS: Appeals Ruling in Vasquez Suit to 9th Circuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Libre by Nexus, Inc., filed an appeal from a court ruling
in the lawsuit styled Juan Quintanilla Vasquez, et al. v. Libre by
Nexus, Inc., Case No. 4:17-cv-00755-CW, in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, Oakland.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the District
Court ruled that the Defendant -- a company that bails undocumented
immigrants out of detention -- must face class action claims it
intimidates vulnerable people into making exorbitant monthly lease
payments on ankle trackers by falsely implying they can be arrested
if they fall behind on payments.

Ruling from the bench in downtown Oakland, Judge Claudia Wilken
denied a motion by Libre by Nexus Inc. to dismiss the claim brought
by three immigrants, finding they had adequately alleged the
company is a "debt collector" under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

Judge Wilken, however, dismissed as time-barred a California
English Translation Act claim that the Virginia-based company
exploits the immigrants' limited English skills and lures them into
expensive post-release bond loans.   But she granted them leave to
amend to explain why the claim isn't subject to a one-year statute
of limitations.

The appellate case is captioned as Juan Quintanilla Vasquez, et al.
v. Libre by Nexus, Inc., Case No. 18-16775, 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 18, 2018;

   -- Transcript is due on November 19, 2018;

   -- Appellant Libre by Nexus, Inc.'s opening brief is due on
      December 27, 2018;

   -- Appellees Victor Hugo Catalan Molina, Gabriela Jamileth
      Perdomo Ortiz and Juan Quintanilla Vasquez's answering
      brief is due on January 28, 2019; and

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

Plaintiffs-Appellees JUAN QUINTANILLA VASQUEZ, GABRIELA JAMILETH
PERDOMO ORTIZ and VICTOR HUGO CATALAN MOLINA, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Jesse Newmark, Esq.
          CENTRO LEGAL DE LA RAZA
          3022 International Boulevard, Suite 410
          Oakland, CA 94601
          Telephone: (510) 437-1863
          E-mail: jessenewmark@centrolegal.org

               - and -

          Alison Edith Pennington, Esq.
          CENTRO LEGAL DE LA RAZA
          3400 East 12th Street
          Oakland, CA 94601
          Telephone: (510) 679-1608
          E-mail: apennington@centrolegal.org

Defendant-Appellant LIBRE BY NEXUS, INC., is represented by:

          Michael John Hassen, Esq.
          REALLAW, APC
          1981 N. Broadway, Suite 280
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 359-7500
          E-mail: mjhassen@reallaw.us


LONGFIN CORP: Continues to Defend NY Consolidated Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Longfin Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 13, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the company continues to
defend itself in a consolidated class action suit in New York.

In April 2018, five putative securities class action lawsuits were
filed in the Federal District Courts for the Southern and Eastern
Districts of New York against Longfin Corp and its CEO, Mr. Venkat
Meenavalli, and (in two cases) its CFO, Mr. Vivek Kumar Ratakonda.

The actions are: Reddy v. LongFin Corp. et al., 18 Civ. 2933
(SDNY); Long Chee Min v. Longfin Corp. et al., 18 Civ. 2973 (SDNY);
Chauhan v. Longfin et al., 18 Civ. 2010 (MKB) (EDNY); and Miller v.
Longfin et al., 18 Civ. 3121 (SDNY).

According to the complaints, defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts
about Longfin's business, operations, prospects and performance.
Plaintiffs allege, inter alia, that defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Longfin
had material weaknesses in its operations and internal controls
that hindered the Company's profitability; and (ii) Longfin did not
meet the requirements for inclusion in Russell indices.

Based on the foregoing, plaintiffs assert causes of action for
violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Plaintiffs seek
unspecified compensatory damages, fees and costs. By order dated
April 26, 2018, the four actions filed in Southern District of New
York (bearing docket numbers 18 Civ. 2933, 18 Civ. 2973, 18 Civ.
3121 and 18 Civ. 3462) were consolidated under the docket number of
the lead case, 18 Civ. 2933, pending before the Honorable Denise
Cote, United States District Judge.

On June 4, 2018, an additional putative class action lawsuit was
filed in the federal court for the Southern District of New York
against the Company and Messrs. Meenavalli and Ratakonda entitled
Malik v. Longfin Corp., et al. 18 Civ. 4953 (SDNY). By order dated
June 7, 2018, the putative class action filed in Southern District
of New York (docket number 18 Civ. 4953) was consolidated under the
docket number of the lead case, 18 Civ. 2933, pending before the
Honorable Denise Cote, United States District Judge.

On June 14, 2018, Plaintiff Dinesh Chauhan filed a notice of
voluntary dismissal of the putative class action filed in the
Eastern District of New York (18 Civ. 2010 (EDNY).

On July 27, 2018, appointed Lead Plaintiffs in the consolidated
class actions filed an Amended Complaint to which the Company or
its officers have not yet responded.

Longfin said, "The Company is unable at this time to express any
opinion as to the outcome of this matter or any potential remedies
that may be sought against the Company or Mr. Meenavalli at this
early stage of the proceedings."

Longfin Corp. operates as an independent finance and technology
company. The Company offers commodity trading, alternate risk
transfer, and carry trade financing services. Longfin also provides
hedging and risk management solutions to importers, exporters, and
small medium business enterprises. The company is based in New
York, New York.


LORENZO ENTERPRISE: Gonzalez Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------
Manuel Gonzalez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Lorenzo Enterprise, Corp. dba Lorenzo Ford, Case No.
1:18-cv-23246 (S.D. Fla., August 9, 2018), is brought against the
Defendants for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff is a natural person who, at all times relevant to
this action, was a resident of Broward County, Florida.

The Defendant is a Florida corporation whose principal office is
located at 30725 S. Federal HWY, Homestead, FL 33030. Defendant
directs, markets, and provides its business activities throughout
the State of Florida.

The Defendant is an automotive dealership that sells vehicles for
individuals and businesses. To promote its services, Defendant
engages in unsolicited marketing, harming thousands of consumers in
the process, says the complaint. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

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


LYONS DOUGHTY: Peace Files FDCPA Suit in Delaware
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lyons, Doughty &
Veldhuis, P.A. et al. The case is styled as Anjna Peace
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Lyons, Doughty & Veldhuis, P.A, Midland Funding LLC,
John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-1443-UNA (D. Del.,
Sept. 17, 2018).

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

Lyons, Doughty & Veldhuis is a creditors' rights law firm dedicated
to consumer collections in the states of New Jersey, Delaware,
Maryland, Ohio and Kentucky.

Midland Funding LLC provides debt collection services. The company
was incorporated in 2005 and is based in San Diego, California.
Midland Funding LLC operates as a subsidiary of Midland Portfolio
Services, Inc.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Antranig N. Garibian, Esq.
     Garibian Law Offices, P.C.
     1010 Bancroft Parkway, Suite 22
     Wilmington, DE 19805
     Phone: (215) 326-9179
     Email: ag@garibianlaw.com


MACY'S WEST: Tessitore et al. Seek Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
----------------------------------------------------------------
CRAIG TESSITORE and SARAH MALLON, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MACY'S WEST STORES,
INC., and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No.
37-2018-00044691-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Super. Ct., Sept. 4, 2018), seeks
monetary and injunctive relief against Defendants and each of them,
on behalf of themselves, the State of California, the Aggrieved
Employees, and the Class Members, to recover, among other things,
civil penalties, unpaid wages, interest, attorneys' fees, statutory
penalties, and costs and expenses pursuant to California Labor
Code.

Macy's West Stores, Inc. operates department stores. The company
offers clothing, footwear, bedding, furniture, jewelry, beauty
products, and house wares. It operates stores in New York, New
York; San Francisco, California; Miami, Florida; and Chicago,
Illinois. Macy's West Stores, Inc. was formerly known as Macy's
Department Stores, Inc. and changed its name to Macy's West Stores,
Inc. in August 2009.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kirk D. Hanson, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF KIRK D. HANSON
          2790 Traxtun Rd., Ste. 140
          San Diego, CA 92106
          Telephone: (619) 523 1992
          Facsimile: (619) 523 9002
          E-mail: hansonlaw@cox.net


MAPLEBEAR INC: Cal. App. Affirms Arbitration Award in Busick Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Marla J. Miller of the Court of Appeals of California for the
First District, Division Two, affirmed the trial court's order
dismissing the Appellant's petition to vacate an arbitration award
in the case, MAPLEBEAR, INC., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. DONNA
BUSICK, Defendant and Respondent, Case No. A151677 (Cal. App.).

The California Arbitration Act ("CAA") allows a party to an
arbitration to petition the superior court to confirm, correct or
vacate an arbitrator's award, an award that must be set out in
writing and include a determination of all the questions submitted
to the arbitrators the decision of which is necessary in order to
determine the controversy.  In the case, the arbitrator issued a
partial final award determining only that the parties' arbitration
agreement permits the claimant to move for class certification.
The primary issue before the Court is whether this constituted an
award that was immediately reviewable by the superior court.  

Maplebear, Inc. (Instacart) is a same-day grocery delivery service.
Its customers order groceries through its website or mobile phone
application, and Instacart engages shoppers and drivers across the
country to select, purchase and deliver the groceries.  Busick, who
worked in Massachusetts as an Instacart shopper and driver, filed a
class action arbitration demand on behalf of herself and similarly
situated Massachusetts shoppers and drivers claiming that Instacart
violated California law by classifying them as independent
contractors rather than employees.

Before the dispute arose, Instacart and Busick had signed an
Independent Contractor Agreement stating that disputes between them
would be submitted to binding arbitration.  After Busick filed her
class arbitration demand, and as required by Rule 2 of the JAMS
Class Action Procedures, the parties submitted to the arbitrator
the threshold issue whether the Agreement allowed Busick to seek
certification of a claimant class within the arbitration.

In a document entitled, "Partial Final Award on Clause Construction
Regarding Putative Class Arbitration" (partial final award), the
arbitrator answered the question in the affirmative, and stated
that her ruling determines only that Busick may move for class
certification as part of the mandated arbitration.  It does not
address the appropriateness of such certification, nor the
underlying claim that Instacart misclassified claimant and others
similarly situated.

Instacart filed a petition in superior court to vacate the partial
final award, invoking sections 1285 and 1286.2.  Instacart argued
that the arbitrator made legal errors in concluding that the
Agreement authorizes class arbitration, and therefore exceeded her
authority, and that vacating the partial final award was necessary
to remedy the arbitrator's errors.  Busick, on the other hand,
argued that the petition should be dismissed, claiming the partial
final award was not subject to immediate judicial review because it
was not an "award" within the meaning of section 1283.4.

The superior court agreed with Busick, concluded it lacked
jurisdiction to rule on Instacart's petition, and issued an order
entitled, "Order Denying Petitioner [Instacart's] Petition to
Vacate Partial Final Arbitration Award."  Instacart appeals,
arguing that the trial court should have ruled on the merits of its
petition, and asking the Court to remand to the trial court with
instructions to do so.

Judge Miller concludes that the trial court order is appealable
under section 1294, subdivision (b), as an order dismissing a
petition to vacate an arbitration award.

Considering whether the trial court correctly ruled that it had no
jurisdiction to review the arbitrator's partial final award, the
Judge concludes that the arbitrator's ruling in the case is not an
award under section 1283.4 and that the trial court correctly
dismissed Instacart's petition to vacate.  She finds that the
controversy that Busick placed before the arbitrator raises a host
of issues beyond the question whether the Agreement permits
classwide arbitrations; none of them is addressed in the
arbitrator's partial final award.  The ruling says nothing about
the essential dispute, which is whether the people who work for
Instacart are properly classified as independent contractors, and
it does not even determine whether class certification is
appropriate.  Because it leaves unanswered almost every question
raised in Busick's arbitration demand, the ruling is not an award
under section 1283.4.

In addition, leaving aside that the CAA does not support
Instacart's position, Instacart does not offer a workable
distinction between interim awards where immediate review is
reasonably necessary and interim awards where it is not.  In the
face of section 1283.4, which defines "award" as a determination of
all the questions submitted to the arbitrators the decision of
which is necessary in order to determine the controversy, parties
to an arbitration agreement cannot confer jurisdiction on courts to
review arbitrator's rulings by agreeing to proceed under a private
organization's rules that purport to allow immediate review of some
interim awards.

For these reasons, Judge Miller affirmed the order appealed from.
Busick will recover her costs on appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 21, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/vu466q from Leagle.com.

Keker Van Nest & Peters LLP, Steven A. Hirsch -- shirsch@keker.com
-- Rachael E. Meny -- rmeny@keker.com -- Attorneys for Appellant.

Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C., Shannon Liss-Riordan --
sliss@llrlaw.com -- Attorneys for Respondent.


MDL 2741: Dennis Ransom Suit vs Monsanto over Roundup Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled DENNIS RANSOM, the Plaintiffs, v.
MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-01261, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California (San Francisco) on Sept. 7, 2018.  The Northern
District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:18-cv-05491-VC to the proceeding.

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

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

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

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

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


MDL 2741: Hayden et al. v. Monsanto over Roundup Consolidated
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled FRANCIS EUGENE HAYDEN, and RUTH
HAYDEN, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case
No. 5:18-cv-00128, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Kentucky, to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California (San Francisco) on Sept. 7,
2018. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 3:18-cv-05640-VC to the proceeding.

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

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

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

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Ashton Rose Smith, Esq.
          Jennifer A. Moore, Esq.
          GROSSMAN & MOORE, PLLC
          One Riverfront Plaza
          401 West Main Street, Suite 1810
          Louisville, KY 40202
          Telephone: (502) 657 7100
          Facsimile: (502) 657 7111
          E-mail: jmoore@gminjurylaw.com
                  asmith@gminjurylaw.com


MDL 2741: Landry et al. Suit v. Monsanto over Roundup Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled EDDIE LANDRY, JR. and MAXINE
LANDRY, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case
No. 4:18-cv-01270, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California (San Francisco) on Sept. 7,
2018. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 3:18-cv-05497-VC to the proceeding.

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

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

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

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

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



MDL 2741: Ray Suit v. Monsanto over Roundup Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled RICHARD IRA RAY, Individually and
as ADMINISTRATOR of the Estate of DANIEL EDWARD RAY, the
Plaintiffs, vs MONSANTO COMPANY and JOHN DOES 1-50, the Defendants,
Case No. , 4:18-cv-01242, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco) on
Sept. 7, 2018. The Northern District of California Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-05639-VC to the proceeding.

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

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

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

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Eric Davis Holland, Esq.
          HOLLAND, GROVES, SCHNELLER AND STOLZE
          300 North Tucker Blvd., Suite 801
          St. Louis, MO 63104
          Telephone: (314) 241 8111
          Facsimile: (314) 241 5554
          E-mail: eholland@allfela.com


MDL 2741: Sparkman Suit vs Monsanto over Roundup Consolidated
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled, GEORGE and HYO SPARKMAN,
Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No.
4:18-cv-01269, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California (San Francisco) on Sept. 7, 2018.
The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:18-cv-05496-VC to the proceeding.

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

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

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

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

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


MDL 2741: Sumner et al. vs Monsanto over Roundup Consolidated
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled, GEORGE R. SUMNER AND MONICA
SUMNER, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case
No. 4:18-cv-01263, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California (San Francisco) on Sept 7,
2018. The Northern District Court of California Clerk assigned Case
No. 3:18-cv-05490-VC to the proceeding.

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

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

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

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

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


MDL 2741: Wiseman Suit vs Monsanto over Roundup Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled, PATRICIA WISEMAN, the Plaintiff,
v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-01265, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California (San Francisco) on Sept. 7, 2018.  The Northern
District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:18-cv-05495-VC to the proceeding.

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

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

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

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

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


MDL 2804: Brand Suit v. Purdue Pharma Filed in W.D. Missouri
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Purdue Pharma, L.P.
The case is captioned as KIMBERLY BRAND, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PURDUE PHARMA, L.P.,
PURDUE PHARMA, INC.; THE PURDUE FREDERICK COMPANY, INC.; INSYS
THERAPEUTICS, INC.; TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD.; TEVA
PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.; CEPHALON, INC.; JOHNSON&JOHNSON; JANSSEN
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ENDO HEALTH SOLUTIONS, INC.; ENDO
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ACTAVIS PLC; WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.;
WATSON LABORATORIES, INC.; MCKESSON CORPORATION; CARDINAL HEALTH,
INC.; and AMERISOURCEBERGEN CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No.
4:18-cv-00653-DGK (W.D. Mo., Aug. 21, 2018). The lawsuit alleges
violation of the RICO Act. The case is assigned to Chief District
Judge Greg Kays.

The Brand suit is a member case in the multi-district litigation
proceeding, MDL No. 2804.

Purdue Pharma L.P. is engaged in the research, development,
production, and distribution of prescription and over-the-counter
(prescription and non-prescription) medicines and healthcare
products. The company offers a portfolio of medical products in
various categories, including prescription opioids, sleep,
laxatives, antiseptics, and dietary supplement. It serves
healthcare professionals, patients, and caregivers in the United
States and internationally. The company has a strategic research
collaboration agreement with Exicure Inc. Purdue Pharma L.P. was
formerly known as The Purdue Frederick Company and changed its name
to Purdue Pharma L.P. in January 1991. The company was founded in
1892 and is based in Stamford, Connecticut. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


METROPOLITAN LIFE: Julian & McKinney Suit Conditionally Certified
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9,
2018, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the Court
has conditionally certified the Julian & McKinney v. Metropolitan
Life Insurance Company case as a collective action.

Plaintiffs filed this putative class and collective action on
behalf of themselves and all current and former long-term
disability ("LTD") claims specialists between February 2011 and the
present for alleged wage and hour violations under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the Connecticut Minimum
Wage Act.

The suit alleges that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
improperly reclassified the plaintiffs and similarly situated LTD
claims specialists from non-exempt to exempt from overtime pay in
November 2013. As a result, they and members of the putative class
were no longer eligible for overtime pay even though they allege
they continued to work more than 40 hours per week.

On March 22, 2018, the Court conditionally certified the case as a
collective action, requiring that notice be mailed to LTD claims
specialists who worked for the Company from February 8, 2014 to the
present.

The Company intends to defend this action vigorously.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, together with its
subsidiaries, provides insurance, annuities, employee benefits, and
asset management services in the United States. It offers life,
dental, group short-and long-term disability, individual
disability, accidental death and dismemberment, critical illness,
vision, and accident and health coverages, as well as prepaid legal
plans; and administrative services-only arrangements to some
employers. The company was incorporated in 1868 and is based in New
York, New York. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is a subsidiary
of MetLife, Inc.


METROPOLITAN LIFE: Still Defends Miller Class Action in California
------------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9,
2018, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the
company continues to defend itself in a class action lawsuit
entitled, Miller, et al. v. MetLife, Inc., et al.

Plaintiff filed this putative class action against MetLife, Inc.
and Metropolitan Life Insurance Company in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California, purporting to assert claims
on behalf of all persons who replaced their MetLife Optional Term
Life or Group Universal Life policy with a Group Variable Universal
Life policy wherein MetLife allegedly charged smoker rates for
certain non-smokers.

Plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, as
well as other relief. On September 25, 2017, plaintiff dismissed
the action and refiled the complaint in U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York. On November 9, 2017, plaintiff
dismissed MetLife, Inc. without prejudice from the action.

The Company intends to defend this action vigorously.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, together with its
subsidiaries, provides insurance, annuities, employee benefits, and
asset management services in the United States. It offers life,
dental, group short-and long-term disability, individual
disability, accidental death and dismemberment, critical illness,
vision, and accident and health coverages, as well as prepaid legal
plans; and administrative services-only arrangements to some
employers. The company was incorporated in 1868 and is based in New
York, New York. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is a subsidiary
of MetLife, Inc.


MICHIGAN: Summary Judgment Bid in Lady Inmates' Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, AMIRA SALEM and KESHUNA ABCUMBY, Plaintiffs, v.
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants, Case No.
13-14567 (E.D. Mich.), Judge Paul D. Borman of the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division,
denied the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and Qualified
Immunity, as well as the Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment.

The case is a putative class action concerning certain strip search
practices that were employed at the Women's Huron Valley
Correctional Facility, operated by the Michigan Department of
Corrections ("MDOC").  Named Plaintiffs Salem and Abcumby, both
former inmates there, filed suit against the MDOC, Warden Millicent
Warren, and four other state officials, alleging that the inmate
strip search procedures used by officers at the facility violated
their rights under the Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments.

In May 2015, the Court dismissed the Plaintiffs' Eighth and
Fourteenth Amendment claims against all the Defendants, and the
Plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment claims against all the Defendants
except Defendant Warren, concluding that Defendant Warren was not
entitled to qualified immunity on that claim.  The issue of
prospective injunctive relief against MDOC was not raised in the
count.

The Defendants appealed the Court's ruling denying qualified
immunity to Defendant Warren to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Sixth Circuit, which affirmed that ruling.  The Sixth Circuit noted
that the Defendant Warren had not raised at the District Court the
issue that there were no facts supporting her personal involvement
in any searches done in public view and that MDOC policy forbade
guards from searching in such a manner.  In December 2016, the
Court denied the Plaintiffs' class certification motion without
prejudice.

The remaining issues are whether the Defendant Warren is entitled
to summary judgment on the claim that strip searches were performed
in view of others, and whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to
future injunctive relief against MDOC.

Presently before the Court are Defendants' Motion for Summary
Judgment and Qualified Immunity, and the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment.

In the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and Qualified
Immunity, remaining Defendants Warren and MDOC seek summary
judgment in two respects: for Warren in her individual capacity
based on qualified immunity, and for MDOC itself (as well as for
Warren in her official capacity, which amounts to the same thing)
with regard to the Plaintiffs' request for prospective injunctive
relief.

In their Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, the Plaintiffs
request that the Court grants judgment in favor of all the
Plaintiffs that were strip searched in front of others.  In that
Motion, they first summarize the Sixth Circuit's March 2016
decision affirming the Court's denial of qualified immunity to
Defendant Warren as well as the precedents on which that decision
relied.  They then represent that they currently have 135 women who
have alleged that they were strip while incarcerated at WHV in view
of others, and argue that summary judgment should be granted as to
those individuals.

Because the Plaintiffs have demonstrated the existence of a genuine
issue of material fact regarding Warren's implicit authorization
of, or knowing acquiescence to, a pattern or custom of non-private
strip searches that violated the Fourth Amendment rights of the
inmates that were subjected to them, Judge Borman will deny the
Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment or Qualified Immunity as to
the Plaintiffs' individual-capacity claim against Warren.

He will also deny at this time deny the Defendants' Motion for
Summary Judgment or Qualified Immunity as to the Plaintiffs' claim
for injunctive relief.  He finds that the Plaintiffs' claim for
injunctive relief comes before the Court on the Defendants' summary
judgment motion; the question presented is whether, drawing all
reasonable factual inferences in the Plaintiffs' favor, there
remains any genuine factual issue over the existence of a real and
immediate threat of injury based on constitutionally violative
non-private strip search procedures.  And given the evidence before
the Court, he will reserve judgment on this issue pending trial.

Finally, as Defendants correctly point out, the Judge finds that
thw Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment does little
more than summarize the law of the case.  While the Sixth Circuit
did conclude that the type of search described by the Plaintiffs
violates the Fourth Amendment -- and that this principle was
clearly established prior to Warren's assumption of supervisory
responsibility over inmate search procedures at WHV -- this does
not resolve any issues in their favor that were not already
resolved by the Sixth Circuit.  Questions of fact remain as to
whether Defendant Warren implicitly authorized or knowingly
acquiesced in Fourth Amendment violations at WHV -- an issue which
the Sixth Circuit expressly did not reach on procedural grounds,
and also as to whether such violations are ongoing.  Accordingly,
he will deny Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.

For all of the reasons stated, Judge Borman denied both the
Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and Qualified Immunity, and
the Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 24, 2018 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/FjPs5l from Leagle.com.

Amira Salem & Keshuna Abcumby, Plaintiffs, represented by Racine M.
Miller, We Fight The Law, PLLC, Teresa J. Gorman --
terigorman@aol.com -- Teresa J. Gorman PLLC & Kenneth J. Hardin, II
-- kenhardin@hardinlawpc.net -- Hardin Thompson, P.C.

Michigan Department of Corrections & Millicent Warren, Warden,
Defendants, represented by Cori E. Barkman, MI Dept of Atty Gen
Corrections Division & Michael R. Dean, Michigan Department of
Attorney General.


MISSOULA, MT: Faces Lawsuit Over Illegal Court Fees
---------------------------------------------------
Martin Kidston, writing for Missoula Current, reports that a
Ravalli County woman filed a class-action lawsuit against the city
of Missoula, arguing it has illegally assessed a $25 surcharge as
part of sentencing in Missoula Municipal Court for the past five
years.

If the suit is successful, it would seek to recover more than
$500,000 in court-imposed surcharges and pass that back to
thousands of violators sentenced in Missoula Municipal Court over
the last five years.

In documents filed on September 12 by Worden Thane P.C. in Missoula
District Court, Christina Johnson cited this week's Montana Supreme
Court ruling, which found that Missoula Municipal Court exceeded
its authority by imposing the surcharge during sentencing in a
separate case.

Johnson also was assessed that surcharge as part of her own plea
for careless driving. That $25 fee was based on a Missoula City
Council resolution adopted in 2013, which increased municipal court
administrative fees and charges for processing citations and
complaints.

"Therefore, since sometime in 2013, the City of Missoula has been
illegally collecting the $25 surcharge from every person who was
convicted or has pleaded guilty of any misdemeanor criminal charge
or traffic violation," Johnson's lawsuit contends.

The city of Missoula was reviewing the case and wasn't immediately
prepared to comment.

Jesse Kodadek, Esq., an attorney with Worden Thane who's
representing Johnson, said on September 13 the class-action suit
looks to represent all violators who have paid the $25 municipal
court surcharge in Missoula over the past five years.

Those offenses range from misdemeanor charges to traffic
violations.

"It means our client is seeking to represent every person who has
paid the same illegal surcharges to Missoula Municipal Court since
the resolution was enacted in 2013," Kodadek told the Missoula
Current on September  13. "It costs $120 to file a lawsuit, so it's
just not economical for one person to try and recover $25 the city
collected illegally, which is why we're seeking to do it on behalf
of everyone who paid it."

Johnson's case stems from September 11 decision by the state's high
court in a case involving Corinne Marie Louise Franklin. Franklin
paid the court's $25 surcharge after pleading no contest to
disorderly conduct.

But Franklin moved to strike that surcharge, arguing that the city
had no statutory authority to include it in her sentence. Municipal
Court denied her motion and Missoula District Court affirmed the
Municipal Court's order.

The Montana Supreme Court, however, reversed that District Court
decision this week. In doing so, it found the $25 surcharge illegal
and ordered Missoula Municipal Court to stop collecting it.

"The state has allowed these municipal courts to collect a
surcharge of a certain amount and keep that to fund the city
attorney's office," Kodadek said. "The city decided in 2013 that
what the Legislature had set for a surcharge was insufficient, so
it imposed its own surcharge. They went beyond the powers delegated
to a local government."

Kodadek was uncertain how many people have paid the surcharge
imposed by Missoula Municipal Court over the past five years. He
said more than 10,000 criminal cases go before the court every
year, though it's not yet known how many of those included the
surcharge.

"I did hear an estimate from somebody who might know that it might
it be in excess of $100,000 a year," Kodadek said.[GN]


MODERNE F&B: Faces Mercer Suit in Southern District of New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Moderne F&B LLC.  The
case is captioned as STACEY MERCER, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MODERNE F&B LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-07601-AKH (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 21, 2018).
The case is assigned to Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein.

Moderne F&B LLC a New York limited liability company. [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


NATIONAL RIGHT: Removes Pitlyk Case to Missouri Eastern District
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant removed the case captioned SAMUEL R. PITLYK,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. THE NATIONAL RIGHT TO WORK COMMITTEE, a Virginia
nonprofit Corporation, the Defendant, from the Circuit Court of St.
Louis County, Missouri to the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri on Sep. 7, 2018.  The Missouri Eastern
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:18-cv-01507-JMB to the
proceeding.

On August 3, 2018, the Plaintiff filed the Class Action Petition
individually and on behalf of a putative class of similarly
situated individuals. The Plaintiff alleges that NRTWC made
"hundreds or thousands" of pre-recorded phone calls to the cellular
phones of putative Class members, in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff seeks to represent "All persons in the United States
who, from August 1, 2014, to the present, received at least one
prerecorded phone call on his or her cell phone from [NRTWC] and
did not provide [NRTWC] his or her prior express written consent to
receive such messages. The pre-recorded calls purportedly promoted
the passage of Senate Bill 19 with a ballot title of "Proposition
A," which is more commonly known as the Missouri "Right to Work
Law." The passage of Proposition A would prohibit, as a condition
of employment, forced membership in a labor organization or forced
payment of dues or fees, in full or pro-rata to a union.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff:

          Dennis Neil Smith Jr., Esq.
          Smith Law Firm LLC
          231 South Bemiston Avenue, Suite 800
          Clayton, MO 63105
          E-mail: neil@smithlawfirm.com

Attorneys for The National Right to Work Committee:

          Gregory E. Ostfeld, Esq.
          Brett M. Doran, Esq.
          Monica S. Harris, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
          77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 3100
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 456 8400
          Facsimile: (312) 456 8435
          E-mail: ostfeldg@gtlaw.com
                  doranb@gtlaw.com
                  harrisms@gtlaw.com


NATIONWIDE BANK: Hughes Files Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nationwide Bank. The
case is styled as Joshua Hughes individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Nationwide Bank, Defendant,
Case No. 2:18-cv-01235-MRH (W.D. Pa., Sept. 17, 2018).

The nature of suit is stated as Motor Vehicle.

Nationwide Bank is one of the largest insurance and financial
services companies in the world.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Richard Shenkan, Esq.
     Shenkan Injury Lawyers, LLC
     6550 Lakeshoure Street
     West Bloomfield, MI 48323
     Phone: (248) 562-1320


NIELSEN HOLDINGS: Investors Blame Stock Drop on Data-Privacy Shift
------------------------------------------------------------------
Emily Zantow, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
Nielsen Holdings investors brought a federal class action in
response to a stock plunge that shows no sign of reversing course,
saying the data-analytics giant misled them about multiple threats
to its business model.

Filed in Chicago, the complaint came on eptember 21 Nielsen's stock
dropped that afternoon to $27.25, nearly half of its worth two
years ago when the stock was trading at $53.33 a share.

Represented by the New York firm Labaton Sucharow and Chicago
attorney Michael Smith, Esq. investors from the Plumbers and
Steamfitters Local 60 Pension Trust say the writing for Nielsen was
on the wall since Feb. 11, 2016.

That was the month, according to the complaint, that Nielsen filed
form with the Securities and Exchange Commission that "failed to
disclose the effects of known trends and uncertainties that were
then having, and were reasonably likely to continue to have, a
material effect on [Nielsen's] operating results."

Among other things, Nielsen's investors say the company knew at the
time that its sales were hurting because of budget cuts wracking
the consumer packaged goods industry. Rather than reveal that this
change had actually materialized, however, Nielsen described the
condition as a potential risk.

Sales of analytics products to the so-called CPG industry accounted
for nearly half of Nielsen's products in 2017, but the complaint
says the budget cuts resulted in a permanent decline.

The investors say another miscalculation about EU's 2016 General
Data Protection Regulation compounded Nielsen's loss of customers
to "real-time analytical solutions."

According to the complaint, Nielsen kept close to its vest how much
its work relied on third-party data from providers like Facebook,
and that access became increasingly difficult in the wake of the
regulation known as the GDPR.

The lead plaintiff wants to represent a class of any person or
company who purchased Nielsen stock between Feb. 11, 2016, and July
25, 2018. A press release from the attorneys say this class period
is more expansive than the one asserted in a lawsuit filed earlier
this year.

While Nielsen is based in the United Kingdom, the Plumbers and
Steamfitters Local 60 Pension Trust is based in Louisiana.

Nielsen did not immediately respond to an email request for
comment.


OCH-ZIFF CAPITAL: Judge Certifies Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that a
federal judge certified a class of Och-Ziff Capital Management
Group shareholders who claim the company "misrepresented the impact
of a federal investigation into its bribery of African officials."


OMNICARE INC: $1.3MM Deal in Esomonu FCRA Suit Has Prelim Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IJEOMA ESOMONU, Plaintiff, v. OMNICARE, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 15-cv-02003-HSG (N.D. Cal.), Judge Haywood S.
Gilliam, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California granted the Plaintiff's motion for preliminary
approval of class action settlement.

On May 4, 2015, the Plaintiff filed the action against the
Defendant, alleging that its hiring practices violated the Fair
Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"). The Plaintiff then amended the
complaint on July 21, 2016, adding additional state law claims,
including violations of California's Consumer Credit Reporting
Agencies Act ("CCRAA"), and California's Investigative Consumer
Reporting Agencies Act ("ICRAA").

The Plaintiff alleges that she was employed by the Defendant in the
State of California.  According to her, when she applied for
employment with the Defendant, she was required to fill out and
sign a background check authorization form and a waiver of
liability.  She alleges that the disclosures required under the
FCRA, however, were embedded with extraneous information in these
forms rather than contained in a stand-alone document.  The
Plaintiff further alleges that the Defendant failed to inform her
that she had a right to request a summary of her rights under the
FCRA.  She accordingly alleges that the Defendant obtained credit
and background reports on her -- as well as on other prospective,
current, and former employees -- in violation of federal and state
law.  The Defendant answered the complaint on Aug. 12, 2016,
denying all claims and asserting several affirmative defenses.

On June 13, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a first motion for
preliminary approval of a class action settlement.  The Court
raised several concerns about the settlement agreement in the two
hearings on the motion for preliminary approval.  Although the
parties' supplemental briefing allayed many of the Court's
concerns, the parties did not adequately address whether the
$10,000 general release payment to the named Plaintiff was subject
to Court approval. As originally drafted, the named Plaintiff award
was a condition of the settlement itself, and was disproportionate
to class members' pro rata share, and the proposed class notice did
not alert class members that the Plaintiff would seek this payment.
Consequently, the Court denied the Plaintiffs' first motion for
preliminary approval on March 31, 2017.

Following the first preliminary settlement and with the assistance
of a private mediator, the parties entered into the settlement
agreement at issue in the pending motion.

The key terms are:

     i. Class Definition: The Settlement Class consists of all
persons who (1) received Omnicare's background disclosure forms
from May 4, 2010 through May 25, 2018 and (2) had a consumer report
or investigative consumer report prepared on them, procured by
Omnicare.

     ii. Settlement Benefits: All Settlement Class Members who do
not opt out will receive a settlement cash payment of a pro rata
share of the net settlement fund, which totals $1.3 million minus
attorneys' fees and costs, settlement administration costs, and the
Named Plaintiff's enhancement payment.

     iii. Release: Settlement Class Members who do not choose to
opt out will release any claim for an alleged violation of any
provision of the FCRA, the CCCRAA, the ICRAA, California Business
and Professions Code section 17200, et seq., or any comparable
provision of federal, state or local law in any way relating to or
arising out of the procurement of, use of, disclosure of intent to
procure, or authorization to procure or use a consumer report,
investigative consumer report, credit check, background check,
criminal history report, reference check, or similar report that
could have been asserted based on the facts alleged in the
pleadings.

     iv. Class Notice: A third-party settlement administrator will
send class notices via U.S. mail to each member of the class, using
a class list provided by the Defendant.  The notice will include:
the nature of the action, a summary of the settlement terms,
instructions on how to object to and opt out of the settlement,
including relevant deadlines, and the released claims.

     v. Opt-Out Procedure: The parties propose that any putative
class member who does not wish to participate in the settlement
must sign and postmark a written request for exclusion within 30
days of the mailing of the class notice.

     vi. Incentive Award: The named Plaintiff will apply for an
incentive award of $20,000.

     vii. Attorneys' Fees and Costs: The Plaintiff will file an
application for attorneys' fees not to exceed $433,333.33, and
costs and expenses not to exceed $40,000.

Judge Gilliam granted the Plaintiff's motion for preliminary
approval of class action settlement.  He directed the parties to
meet and confer and stipulate to a schedule of dates for each of
the following events, which will be submitted to the Court within
seven days of the date of the Order: (i) Deadline for Settlement
Administrator to mail notice to all putative class members; (ii)
Filing Deadline for attorneys' fees and costs motion; (iii) Filing
deadline for incentive payment motion; (iv) Deadline for class
members to opt-out or object to settlement and/or application for
attorneys' fees and costs and incentive payment; and (v) Filing
deadline for final approval motion Final fairness hearing and
hearing on motions.  The parties are further directed to implement
the proposed class notice plan.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 21, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/5CvoKs from Leagle.com.

Ijeoma Esomonu, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Chaim Shaun Setareh --
shaun@setarehlaw.com -- Setareh Law Group.

Omnicare, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, represented by
Chad Daniel Bernard -- BernardC@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis
P.C. & Scott Philip Jang -- scott.jang@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson
Lewis P.C.


ONE GROUP: Faces Hymans Suit in New York State Court
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The ONE Group
Hospitality, Inc.  The lawsuit is captioned IRA HYMAN AND MIKE
HYMAN, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the
Plaintiffs, v. THE ONE GROUP HOSPITALITY, INC., the Defendant, Case
No. 654406/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Sep. 5, 2018).

The ONE Group Hospitality, Inc., a hospitality company, develops,
owns, and operates restaurants and lounges worldwide. It operates
in three segments: owned restaurants; owned food, beverage and
other; and managed and licensed operations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          HACH & ROSE LLP
          112 Madison Av., 10th FL
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 779 0057


OREGON: Mendoza et al. Sue over Suspension of Driver's Licenses
---------------------------------------------------------------
CINDY MENDOZA; GLORIA BERMUDEZ; CEKAIS TONI GANUELAS; REBECCA
HEATH; and KARL WADE ROBERTS, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. MATTHEW GARRETT, in
his official capacity as Director of the Oregon Department of
Transportation; TAMMY BANEY, in her official capacity as Chair of
the Oregon Transportation Commission; SEAN O'HOLLAREN, in his
official capacity as Member of the Oregon Transportation
Commission; BOB VAN BROCKLIN, in his official capacity as Member of
the Oregon Transportation Commission; MARTIN CALLERY, in his
official capacity as Member of the Oregon Transportation
Commission; and TOM MCCLELLAN, in his official capacity as
Administrator of Driver and Motor Vehicles Division, Oregon
Department of Transportation,, the Defendants, Case No.
3:18-cv-01634-HZ (D. Ore., Sep. 7, 2018), alleges that., during the
past 10 years, the Oregon DMV suspended Oregonians' driver's
licenses 334,338 times for failure to pay fines, costs, and fees
arising from minor traffic citations. Of the approximately 3.1
million Oregonians who hold driver's licenses, as many as 10% have
had their licenses suspended for failure to pay traffic debt.
Approximately 536,146 Oregonians live below the federal poverty
line, about 13% of the state's population. Oregonians living in
poverty struggle to pay for basic necessities like food and shelter
and cannot afford to pay traffic debt.

The DMV suspends driver's licenses for failure to pay traffic debt
without considering an individual's ability to pay her traffic debt
and exempting from suspension those low-income individuals who
cannot pay. License suspension may be an appropriate way to secure
payment from individuals who can afford to pay traffic debt but
willfully refuse to do so. For low-income individuals, this
statutory regime punishes them for being poor.

For the vast majority of Oregonians, driving is the only reliable
means of transportation to find and maintain employment, to get to
medical appointments, to take their children to school, and to shop
for necessities, including food. Without paying down their traffic
debt, low-income Oregonians cannot regain their licenses for 20
years. License suspensions lead to further financial and legal
burdens, including charges for driving with a suspended license,
and additional fees and fines. A minor traffic infraction -- such
as failing to buckle a seatbelt or driving with a defective
taillight -- can plunge low-income people into a legal and
financial rut from which any reasonable person would struggle to
escape.

The Plaintiffs and class members in this case are among tens of
thousands of Oregonians who have lost their driver’s licenses,
and cannot get them back, simply because of their poverty.  The
lawsuit contends that punishing people for being unable to pay
traffic debt violates the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses
of the United States Constitution.

Oregon is a coastal U.S. state in the Pacific Northwest known for
its diverse landscape of forests, mountains, farms and
beaches.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Emily Teplin Fox, Esq.
          Marisa Samuelson, Esq.
          Beth Englander, Esq.
          Kelsey Heilman, Esq.
          Jonathan M. Dennis, Esq.
          OREGON LAW CENTER
          522 SW Fifth Ave, Suite 812
          Portland, OR 97204
          Telephone: (503) 473 8325
          E-mail: efox@oregonlawcenter.org
                  msamuelson@oregonlawcenter.org
                  benglander@oregonlawcenter.org
                  kheilman@oregonlawcenter.org
                  jdennis@oregonlawcenter.org


P & R HOSPITALITY: Quarterman Files ADA Suit in N.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against P & R Hospitality,
LLC. The case is styled as Lanie Quarterman individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. P & R
Hospitality, LLC, doing business as: Sleep Inn & Suites, a Florida
limited liability company, Choice Hotels International, Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00184-MW-GRJ (N.D. Fla., Sept. 17,
2018).

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

P & R Hospitality, LLC is a privately held company in Gainesville,
FL and is a Single Location business. It is located at 3845 SW 91st
Drive, Gainesville, FL 32608.

Choice Hotels International, Inc. is an American hospitality
holding corporation based in Rockville, Maryland, in the United
States. The company owns the hotel and motel brands Comfort Inn,
Comfort Suites, Quality Inn, Sleep Inn, Clarion, Cambria Hotel &
Suites, Mainstay Suites, Suburban Extended Stay, Econo Lodge,
Rodeway Inn, and Ascend Hotel Collection.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PAJEOLY CORP: Fails to Pay Wages to Cooks, Garcia Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
CELSO ACOSTA GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. PAJEOLY CORP., PAOLO MAIETTA,
JENNIFER MAIETTA, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-23399-RNS (S.D.
Fla., Aug. 21, 2018) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid
overtime and minimum wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Th Plaintiff Garcia was employed by the Defendants as a cook from
June 10, 2015 to August 8, 2018.

Pajeoly Corp. is a corporation organized under the laws of the
State of Florida. The Company is engaged in the restaurant
business. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J.H. Zidell, Esq.
          J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
          300 71 St Street, Suite 605
          Miami Beach, FL 33141
          Telephone: (305) 865-6766
          Facsimile: (305) 865-7167
          E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM


PNC FINANCIAL: Violates Privacy Rights of Consumers
---------------------------------------------------
STEPHEN ROSSINI and MATTHEW KANE, on behalf of themselves and all
other similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiffs, vs. PNC
FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC. and PNC BANK, N.A., the Defendants,
Case No. ____ (Pa. Court of Common Pleas, Allegheny Cty., Sept. 6,
2018), seeks to enforce the Fair Credit Reporting Act's "dual
purpose" to protect consumers' rights to privacy and to foster the
accuracy of consumer reports.

In particular, the action addresses the obligations of employers
using "consumer reports" set forth in 15 U.S.C. section 1681b(b)(2)
(the Stand-Alone Disclosure requirement) and 15 U.S.C. section
1681b(b)(3) (the Pre-Adverse Action Disclosure requirement). PNC
Financial Services Group, Inc. has routinely and systematically
failed to make the required "clear and conspicuous" disclosures to
consumers before procuring their consumer reports for employment
purposes, and has used those unlawfully obtained consumer reports
to preclude consumers from employment without first providing
consumers the Pre-Adverse Action Disclosures required by the FCRA.
Accordingly, it has routinely and systematically been violating the
privacy rights of consumers under the FCRA.

PNC Financial is a bank holding company and financial services
corporation based in Pittsburgh. Its bank operates in 19 states and
the District of Columbia with 2,459 branches and 9,051 ATMs.[BN]

Counsel for the Representative and Class Plaintiffs:

          James M. Pietz, Esq.
          Ruairi McDonnell, Esq.
          FEINSTEIN DOYLE PAYNE & KRAVEC, LLC
          Law & Finance Building, Suite 1300
          429 Fourth Avenue
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 281 8400

               - and -

          Martell Harris, Esq.
          THE TRIAL LAW FIRM, LLC
          BNY Mellon Center
          500 Grant Street, Suite 2900
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 588 0030


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Filgueiras Sues over Debt Collection Practices
------------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEFA FILGUEIRAS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY
ASSOCIATES LLC, the Defendant, Case No. ESX-L-006277-18 (N.J. Sup.
Ct., Sep. 5, 2018), seeks to recover damages as a result of
Defendant's conduct when attempting to collect consumer debts in
violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff's Capital One Account was
past-due and in default when they were purchased by PRA for pennies
on the dollar. The last payment on the Capital One Account was made
on September 22, 2009.  Due to unforeseen financial circumstances,
the Plaintiff defaulted sometime in December 2009.  PRA purchased a
pool of defaulted consumer accounts, which included the Plaintiff's
Capital One Account.  In an attempt to collect the Capital One
Debt, PRA mailed collection letters to the Plaintiff on or about
May 21, 2015 and November 12, 2015. The Plaintiff received and
reviewed the Capital One Letters. The written terms governing the
Capital One Account chooses the laws of the Commonwealth of
Virginia as the applicable law applying to the Capital One Account.
When PRA sent the Capital One Letters, the statute of limitations
had run on the Capital One Account.  The May 21, 2015 letter states
in bold, "SINGLE PAYMENT SETTLEMENT OPTION" and "We are offering to
settle this account FOR GOOD." The November 12, 2015 letter states
"your account will be considered 'settled in full' after your
payment is successfully posted."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Philip D. Stern, Esq.
          Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq.
          STERN THOMASSON LLP
          150 Morris Avenue, 2nd Floor
          Springfield, NJ 07081-1315
          Telephone: (973) 379 7500

               - and -

          Yongmoon Kim, Esq.
          KIM LAW FIRM LLC
          411 Hackensack Avenue, Suite 701
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 273 7117


PURDUE PHARMA: A.M.H. Suit Moved to Western Dist. of New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled A. M. H., and C. E., ON BEHALF OF
THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiffs, v.
PURDUE PHARMA L.P.; PURDUE PHARMA, INC.; The Purdue Frederick
Company, Inc.; McKesson Corporation; Cardinal Health, Inc.;
AMERISOURCEBERGEN CORPORATION; TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES,
LTD.; Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.; Cephalon, Inc.; Johnson &
Johnson; Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; ORTHO-MCNEIL-JANSSEN
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. n/k/a JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; JANSSEN
PHARMACEUTICA INC. n/k/a JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; Endo Health
Solutions Inc.; Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc.; ALLERGAN PLC f/k/a
ACTAVIS PLC; WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. n/k/a ACTAVIS, INC.;
WATSON LABORATORIES, INC.; Actavis LLC; and Actavis Pharma, Inc.
f/k/a Watson Pharma, Inc., and Defendants, Case No. E165792/2018,
was removed from the New York Sup. Ct., Niagara County, to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of New York (Buffalo) on
Sept. 14, 2018.  The Clerk of Court of the Western District of New
York assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-01018 to the proceeding.

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

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.

Attorneys for Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc.:

          Alan Edward Rothman, Esq.
          ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
          250 W. 55th St.
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 836 8000
          Facsimile: (212) 836 8689
          E-mail: alan.rothman@arnoldporter.com


PURDUE PHARMA: Faces Fox Suit in Eastern District of Tennessee
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Purdue Pharma, L.P.
The case is captioned as W. ANDRES FOX, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PURDUE PHARMA, L.P.,
PURDUE PHARMA, INC., JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ENDO HEALTH
SOLUTIONS, INC., ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ACTAVIS PLC, THE
PURDUE FREDERICK COMPANY, INC., INSYS THERAPEUTICS, INC., TEVA
PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD., TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.,
CEPHALON, INC., JOHNSON&JOHNSON, ACTAVIS INC., WATSON
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., WATSON LABORATORIES, INC., MCKESSON
CORPORATION, CARDINAL HEALTH, INC., and AMERISOURCEBERGEN
CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-000194-TAV-CHS (E.D.
Tenn, Aug. 21, 2018). The case is assigned to Chief District Judge
Thomas A. Varlan and referred to Magistrate Judge Christopher H.
Steger.

Purdue Pharma L.P. is engaged in the research, development,
production, and distribution of prescription and over-the-counter
(prescription and non-prescription) medicines and healthcare
products. The company offers a portfolio of medical products in
various categories, including prescription opioids, sleep,
laxatives, antiseptics, and dietary supplement. It serves
healthcare professionals, patients, and caregivers in the United
States and internationally. The company has a strategic research
collaboration agreement with Exicure Inc. Purdue Pharma L.P. was
formerly known as The Purdue Frederick Company and changed its name
to Purdue Pharma L.P. in January 1991. The company was founded in
1892 and is based in Stamford, Connecticut. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ashley Keller, Esq.
          Seth Meyer, Esq.
          Travis Lenkner, Esq.
          KELLER LENKNER LLC
          150 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2570
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312)741-5220

               - and -

          Michael H Park, Esq.
          Thomas R McCarthy, Esq.
          William S Consovoy, Esq.
          CONSOVOY MCCARTHY PARK PLLC
          3303 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 700
          Arlington, VA 22201
          Telephone: (703)243-9423

               - and -

          Andrew M Mutter, Esq.
          CHAMBLISS, BAHNER & STOPHEL, PC
          605 Chestnut Street, Suite 1700
          Chattanooga, TN 37450
          Telephone:(423) 757-0270
          Facsimile: (423) 580-1270
          E-mail: amutter@chamblisslaw.com


PURDUE PHARMA: Faces Lawrence Suit over Sale of Opioid Drugs
------------------------------------------------------------
DORA LAWRENCE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PURDUE PHARMA L.P.; PURDUE PHARMA INC.; THE
PURDUE FREDERICK COMPANY, INC.; INSYS THERAPEUTICS, INC.; TEVA
PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES, LTD.; TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.;
CEPHALON, INC.; JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.;
ENDO HEALTH SOLUTIONS INC.; ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ACTAVIS
PLC; ACTAVIS, INC.; WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; WATSON
LABORATORIES, INC.; MCKESSON CORPORATION; CARDINAL HEALTH, INC.;
and AMERISOURCEBERGEN CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No.
4:18-cv-02889 (S.D. Tex., Aug. 21, 2018) alleges that the
Defendants engaged in unlawful, fraudulent, deceptive, and
unconscionable business acts and practices in manufacturing,
marketing, selling, and distributing prescription opioids, which
are powerful, highly addictive narcotic painkillers.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have engaged in a
cunning and deceptive marketing scheme to encourage doctors and
patients to use opioids to treat chronic pain. In doing so, the
Defendants falsely minimized the risks of opioids, overstated their
benefits, and generated far more opioid prescriptions than there
should have been.

Purdue Pharma L.P. is engaged in the research, development,
production, and distribution of prescription and over-the-counter
(prescription and non-prescription) medicines and healthcare
products. The company has a strategic research collaboration
agreement with Exicure Inc. Purdue Pharma L.P. was formerly known
as The Purdue Frederick Company and changed its name to Purdue
Pharma L.P. in January 1991. The company was founded in 1892 and is
based in Stamford, Connecticut. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Jason S. McManis, Esq.
           AHMAD ZAVITSANOS ANAIPAKOS
           ALAVI & MENSING PC
           1221 McKinney, Suite 2500
           Houston, TX 77010
           Telephone: (713) 655-1101
           Facsimile: (713) 655-0062
           E-mail: jmcmanis@azalaw.com

               - and –

          Michael H. Park, Esq.
          William S. Consovoy, Esq.
          Thomas R. McCarthy, Esq.
          CONSOVOY MCCARTHY PARK, PLLC
          745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
          New York, NY 10151
          Telephone: (212) 247-8006
          E-mail: park@consovoymccarthy.com
                  will@consovoymccarthy.com
                  tom@consovoymccarthy.com


PURDUE PHARMA: Konig Sues over Sale of Prescription Opioid Drugs
----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL KONIG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PURDUE PHARMA L.P.; PURDUE PHARMA INC.; THE
PURDUE FREDERICK COMPANY, INC.; INSYS THERAPEUTICS, INC.; TEVA
PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES, LTD.; TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.;
CEPHALON, INC.; JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.;
ENDO HEALTH SOLUTION INC.; ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.;ACTAVIS PLC
d/b/a ALLERGIN, PLC; ACTAVISPHARMACEUTICALS, INC. f/k/a WATSON
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; WATSON LABORATORIES, INC.; MCKESSON
CORPORATION; CARDINAL HEALTH, INC.; and AMERISOURCEBERGEN
CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 0:18-cv-61960-FAM (S.D. Fla.,
Aug. 21, 2018) alleges that the Defendants engaged in unlawful,
fraudulent, deceptive, and unconscionable business acts and
practices in manufacturing, marketing, selling, and distributing
prescription opioids, which are powerful, highly addictive narcotic
painkillers.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have engaged in a
cunning and deceptive marketing scheme to encourage doctors and
patients to use opioids to treat chronic pain. In doing so, the
Defendants falsely minimized the risks of opioids, overstated their
benefits, and generated far more opioid prescriptions than there
should have been.

Purdue Pharma L.P. is engaged in the research, development,
production, and distribution of prescription and over-the-counter
(prescription and non-prescription) medicines and healthcare
products. The company has a strategic research collaboration
agreement with Exicure Inc. Purdue Pharma L.P. was formerly known
as The Purdue Frederick Company and changed its name to Purdue
Pharma L.P. in January 1991. The company was founded in 1892 and is
based in Stamford, Connecticut. [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
                  kslaven@zpllp.com

               - and –

          Michael H. Park, Esq.
          William S. Consovoy, Esq.
          Thomas R. McCarthy, Esq.
          CONSOVOY MCCARTHY PARK, PLLC
          745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
          New York, NY 10151
          Telephone: (212) 247-8006
          E-mail: park@consovoymccarthy.com
                  will@consovoymccarthy.com
                  tom@consovoymccarthy.com

               - and –

          Ashley Keller, Esq.
          Travis Lenkner, Esq.
          Seth Meyer, Esq.
          KELLER LENKNER, LLC
          150 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 5100
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 506-5641
          E-mail: ack@kellerlenkner.com
                  tdl@kellerlenkner.com
                  sam@kellerlenkner.com


QBE HOLDINGS: Fails to Reimburse Medicare Payments, MSP Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS, SERIES LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company, SERIES 16-05-456, a designated series of MSP RECOVERY
CLAIMS, SERIES LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, brings this action, the Plaintiffs. v. QBE HOLDINGS,
INC., a foreign profit corporation, QBE INSURANCE CORP., a foreign
profit corporation, and QBE REINSURANCE CORP., a foreign profit
corporation, the Defendants, Case No. 6:18-cv-01458-GAP-GJK (M.D.
Fla., Sep. 6, 2018), seeks to recover damages arising from
Defendants' systematic and uniform failure to reimburse conditional
Medicare payments under the Medicare Secondary Payer Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to fulfill
their statutory duties under the MSP Law as a "nofault" insurer.
Specifically, the Defendants have repeatedly failed to provide
primary payment, or reimburse secondary payments made by
Plaintiff's assignors and Class Members, on behalf of Medicare
beneficiaries enrolled in Part C of the Medicare Act for medical
expenses resulting from injuries sustained in automobile accidents.
The Enrollees were enrolled in Medicare Advantage health plans
offered by Plaintiff's assignors and Class Members, i.e., Medicare
Advantage Organizations, which suffered an injury-in-fact from
Defendants' failure to reimburse, and accordingly, have standing to
sue under 42 U.S.C. section 1395y(b)(3)(A).

QBE Holdings provides property and casualty, specialty, crop,
financial institutions, and reinsurance products and services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Frank Quesada, Esq.
          MSP Recovery Law Firm
          500 S.W. 75th Avenue, Suite 300
          Miami, FL 33155
          Telephone: (305) 614 2239
          E-mail: serve@msprecovery.com
                  fquesada@msprecovery.com


QURATE RETAIL: Brower Piven Files Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of Brower Piven, A Professional
Corporation, disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been
commenced in the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado on behalf of purchasers of Qurate Retail, Inc. (Nasdaq:
QRTEA) ("Qurate" or the "Company") securities during the period
between August 5, 2015 and September 7, 2016, inclusive (the "Class
Period").  Investors who wish to become proactively involved in the
litigation have until November 5, 2018 to seek appointment as lead
plaintiff.

If you wish to choose counsel to represent you and the class, you
must apply to be appointed lead plaintiff and be selected by the
Court.  The lead plaintiff will direct the litigation and
participate in important decisions including whether to accept a
settlement for the class in the action.  The lead plaintiff will be
selected from among applicants claiming the largest loss from
investment in Qurate securities during the Class Period.  Members
of the class will be represented by the lead plaintiff and counsel
chosen by the lead plaintiff.  No class has yet been certified in
the above action.

The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by virtue of the defendants'
failure to disclose during the Class Period that Qurate was
aggressively loosening the credit standards of its Easy-Pay program
to attract a large group of new customers, its strong sales growth
was due to this loose credit policy, and the accounts receivable
associated with this new group of customers posed a high risk of a
write-off.

According to the complaint, following an August 5, 2016 press
release announcing significant headwinds and sales declines, and a
September 8, 2016 announcement that the Company expects higher
default rates, the value of Qurate shares declined significantly.

If you have suffered a loss in excess of $100,000 from investment
in Qurate securities purchased on or after August 5, 2015 and held
through the revelation of negative information during and/or at the
end of the Class Period and would like to learn more about this
lawsuit and your ability to participate as a lead plaintiff,
without cost or obligation to you, please;

         Charles J. Piven, Esq.
         Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation
         1925 Old Valley Road
         Stevenson, Maryland 21153
         Telephone: 410-415-6616
         Email: hoffman@browerpiven.com [GN]


QWEST CORP: Sales Practices Suit v. CenturyLink Underway
--------------------------------------------------------
Qwest Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 13, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that CenturyLink, Inc.
continues to defend against the Sales Practices and Securities
Litigation.

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

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

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

Qwest Corporation, an integrated communications company, provides
communications services to business and residential customers in
Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Iowa, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New
Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and
Wyoming. The company was incorporated in 1911 and is based in
Monroe, Louisiana. Qwest Corporation operates as a subsidiary of
CenturyLink, Inc.


REGIONS BANK: Underpays Bank Employees, Hodapp Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
JILL HODAPP, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. REGIONS BANK, Defendant, Case No.
4:18-cv-01389 (E.D. Mo., Aug. 21, 2018) seeks to recover from the
Defendant unpaid overtime compensation, prejudgment interest,
maximum liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees, and costs.

The Plaintiff Hodapp was employed by the Defendant as bank
employee.

Regions Bank provides commercial banking services. Regions Bank was
formerly known as First Alabama Bank and changed its name to
Regions Bank in November 1996. The company was founded in 1928 and
is based in Birmingham, Alabama. Regions Bank operates as a
subsidiary of Regions Financial Corporation. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

            Matthew D. Miller, Esq.
            Justin L. Swidler, Esq.
            SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC
            1101 Kings Highway North, Ste. 402
            Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
            Telephone: (856) 685-7420
            Facsimile: (856) 685-7417
            E-mail: jswidler@swartz-legal.com
                    mmiller@swartz-legal.com


RGS FINANCIAL: Faces Tataru FDCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against RGS Financial, Inc.
The lawsuit is captioned as Gabriel Tataru, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. RGS Financial,
Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06106 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 6,
2018). The case is assigned to the Hon. John J. Tharp, Jr. The suit
alleges Fair Debt Collection Practices Act violation.

RGS Financial provides financial services. The Company offers
business process outsourcing.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bryan Paul Thompson, Esq.
          Robert W. Harrer, Esq.
          CHICAGO CONSUMER LAW CENTER, P.C.
          111 W. Washington St., Suite 1360
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 858 3239
          E-mail: bryan.thompson@cclc-law.com
                  rob.harrer@cclc-law.com


ROSE ASSOCIATES: Fischler Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rose Associates, Inc.
The case is styled as Brian Fischler individually and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Rose Associates,
Inc. doing business as: The Maximilian, Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-08420 (S.D. N.Y., Sept. 17, 2018).

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

Rose Associates, Inc. develops and manages office towers,
commercial retail centers, mixed-use complexes, and high-rise
residential buildings. The Company offers advisory services,
pre-development consulting, development, construction supervision
and project management among others. It is located at 200 Madison
Ave, New York, NY 10016-3998.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
     Lipsky Lowe LLP
     630 Third Avenue
     Fifth Floor
     New York, NY 10017
     Phone: (212) 392-4772
     Fax: (212) 444-1030
     Email: doug@lipskylowe.com


SASKATCHEWAN: Sued Over Abuse in Moose Jaw Home
-----------------------------------------------
Arthur White-Crummey, writing for Regina Leader-Post, reports that
almost 50 former residents of the institution now known as Valley
View Centre have joined a proposed class action lawsuit, suing the
Saskatchewan government, for alleged physical, psychological and
sexual abuse at the Moose Jaw home for people with intellectual
disabilities.

The case first hit the courts in 2010. It then dragged on for
years, and looked likely to fall apart after a judge refused to
certify it as a class action. But, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal
overturned that ruling, giving Regina lawyer Tony Merchant, Esq.
and his 48 claimants another chance.

"It's unfortunate that the disadvantaged are subjected
disproportionately to wrongs," Merchant said in an interview.
"Predators, even from within the institutions, tend to prey on the
weakest."

Two of the first named plaintiffs in the case alleged they were
sexually assaulted and suffered from mistreatment while living at
the centre in the late 1960s and early 70s, when it was known as
the Saskatchewan Training School.

In a statement of claim, one man alleged he was sexually assaulted
once by an older resident, and that he witnessed other sexual
assaults at the institution. He also claimed staff members
physically assaulted him, and he was "always afraid" while living
there.

Another claimant alleged she too was sexually assaulted, alleging
her assailant was a male staff member. She swore in an affidavit
that she was punished by being placed naked in a small concrete
room, where she was provided only small amounts of food. She
claimed she was verbally abused every day, and felt lonely and hurt
at the centre.

The government responded by filing affidavits from three employees,
who variously described the centre as having a pleasant and caring
atmosphere and "strict policy which required employees to report
cases of abuse."

The Saskatchewan Training School once accommodated about 1,500
people with intellectual disabilities. In 1974, it was renamed the
Valley View Centre to reflect a programming shift. In 2012, the
government announced it would close -- with the date later pushed
to December 2019.

Merchant said the class action will cover anyone who allegedly
suffered from mistreatment at the centre over the entire time of
its existence, under both names.

"They were easy victims," he alleged, "and obtaining compensation
for them is important."

In his most recent amended statement of claim, Merchant outlined a
long list of grounds for seeking damages from the government. He
argued officials failed to put reasonable hiring guidelines in
place, hired "unqualified" and "incompetent" employees and created
"circumstances which resulted in physical and sexual abuse."

The claim also contends the government failed to create a system
for reporting, investigating or guarding against the abuse that
allegedly occurred.

"You have good institutions with well-motivated people," he said.
"But then some bad people tend to accumulate in those kinds of
institutions and they take advantage of others."

In a statement of defence, the government countered that it isn't
responsible for acts committed by patients and that some of the
alleged offences would have occurred so long ago that they were
"statute barred." It also objected to the proposed class action,
saying it covered so long a time period and potentially so many
plaintiffs that it would be unworkable.

In 2016, a Regina's Court of Queen's Bench judge agreed. He ruled
"it would be more fair, efficient and manageable to have individual
claimants come forward to prosecute their individual cases."

But in a decision last month, the appeal court ruled the judge did
not consider the impact of his decision on "access to justice." It
also found he failed to apply the proper test to determine whether
or not a class action was the best means of proceeding.

That means that the case will come back to the Court of Queen's
Bench for a new certification ruling, but Merchant is convinced the
class action will go forward.

"They're not sending it back for the same result," he said. "We're
not certified yet, but I'd be shocked if certification were not
granted."[GN]


SEDGWICK CLAIMS: Faces Hoover's Labor Suit in Sacramento
--------------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action lawsuit has been filed against
Sedgwick Claims Management Services Inc. The case is captioned as
NICHOLAS HOOVER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES INC.;
and DOES 1 through 25, Defendants, Case No.
34-2018-00239159-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., Aug. 21,
2018).

Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc. develops and operates a
cloud based platform that provides technology-enabled claims and
productivity management solutions to businesses in North America.
The company was formerly known as Claims Management Services, Inc.
and changed its name to Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc.
in 1985. The company was founded in 1969 and is based in Memphis,
Tennessee. The company has additional offices in the United States,
Canada, Puerto Rico, and the United Kingdom. Sedgwick Claims
Management Services, Inc. is a former subsidiary of Marsh &
McLennan Companies, Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by David Markham, Esq.


SERVICELINK FIELD: Joseph Collins Suit Moved to S.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Joseph Collins, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff v. ServiceLink
Field Services, LLC, and Does 1-50, the Defendants, Case No.
37-02018-00040352-CU-OE-CTL, was removed from the Superior Court,
State of California, County of San Diego, to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California (San Diego) on Sept.
14, 2018.  The Southern District of California Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 3:18-cv-02142-BEN-MDD to the proceeding.  The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Roger T. Benitez.

ServiceLink is a national field service company that offers
property inspection, preservation and asset registration
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dennis F. Moss, Esq.
          MOSS BOLLINGER LLP
          15300 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 207
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: (310) 773 0323
          Facsimile: (818) 963 5954
          E-mail: dennisfmoss@yahoo.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Curtis Alan Graham, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          633 West 5th Street, 63rd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 443 4215
          Facsimile: (213) 402 6854
          E-mail: cagraham@littler.com


SETERUS INC: Denial of Bid to Dismiss Koepplinger Suit Endorsed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KENNETH KOEPPLINGER, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SETERUS, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:17cv995 (M.D. N.C.), Magistrate Judge L. Patrick Auld of the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina,
recommended the denieal of Seterus' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's
Amended Complaint.

The putative class action arises from a series of debt collection
letters that the Defendant the Plaintiff.  According to the Amended
Complaint,, the Defendant is a servicer of mortgages for
residential housing loans owned, backed, or controlled by Fannie
Mae, including the mortgage on the Plaintiff's home.  The Defendant
obtained servicing rights to the Plaintiff's mortgage while it was
in a state of default, rendering it a debt collector as that term
is defined by 15 U.S.C. Section 1692a(6)" of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA").  In addition, the Defendant is
a collection agency as defined by the North Carolina Collection
Agency Act ("NCCAA"), or, alternatively, it is a debt collector, as
defined by the North Carolina Debt Collection Act ("NCDCA").

The Defendant earns money based upon a percentage of the funds that
it collects from consumers' mortgage payments as well as through
the assessment of late fees and other penalties.  It services
hundreds of thousands of loans throughout the United States, but
because it does not originate consumer mortgages, the Defendant
only becomes involved with a customer if it acquires the servicing
rights to a portfolio of loans from Fannie Mae or if Fannie Mae
agrees to allow it to purchase the servicing rights to a portfolio
of loans from another servicer.  Many of the loans contained in a
particular loan portfolio are delinquent when the Defendant
acquires the rights to the portfolio and other loans become
delinquent during its servicing of the loans.

Upon information and belief, when loans for North Carolina
customers become more than 45 days delinquent, the Defendant sends
a letter that it refers to as a 'NC Final Letter' to coerce and
intimidate the borrower into paying the entire default amount of
the loan.

Moreover, upon information and belief, the Defendant will not
accelerate borrowers' loans and proceed to foreclosure even if the
borrower fails to make a payment equal to the default amount listed
in the NC Final Letter and fails to make any payments that come due
during the notice period.  The NC Final Letters misrepresent the
conditions under which the Defendant intends to accelerate loans
and materially deceive consumers into believing their loans will be
accelerated if they fail to fully cure their default prior to the
Expiration Date.

The Plaintiff therefore pursues claims under the FDCPA, NCCAA, and
North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act ("UDTPA"),
or, alternatively, NCDCA.  

In response, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, the Defendant moves the Court to dismiss all
claims against it in the Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint for
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.  The
Plaintiff has opposed the Defendant's Dismissal Motion, and the
Defendant has replied.

Judge Auld finds that the Amended Complaint sufficiently alleges
violations of the FDCPA, NCCAA, NCDCA, and UDTPA to survive Rule
12(b)(6) dismissal. None of the Defendant's arguments warrant
dismissal of the Plaintiff's FDCPA claim.  The Defendant's NCCAA
and NCDC arguments repackage their basic Section 1692e challenge,
and fall short for the same reasons.  Finally, the Amended
Complaint alleges that the NC Final Letter directly and proximately
caused the Plaintiff anxiety, stress, anger, frustration, and
mental anguish.  Particularly when construed in the light most
favorable to the Plaintiff and drawing all reasonable inferences in
his favor, that allegation implicitly reflects the Plaintiff's
detrimental reliance on the NC Final Letter's allegedly deceptive
representations.

For these reasons, Judge Auld recommended the denial of the
Defendant's Dismissal Motion.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 24, 2018 Memorandum Opinion
and Recommendation is available at https://is.gd/48Ljv6 from
Leagle.com.

KENNETH KOEPPLINGER, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, Plaintiff, represented by EDWARD H. MAGINNIS, MAGINNIS
LAW, PLLC, KARL S. GWALTNEY -- kgwaltney@maginnislaw.com --
MAGINNIS LAW, PLLC, PATRICK M. WALLACE -- pat@wbmllp.com --
WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON, LLP, SCOTT C. HARRIS -- scott@wbmllp.com
-- LEWIS & ROBERTS, PLLC & ASA C. EDWARDS, IV --
aedwards@maginnislaw.com -- MAGINNIS LAW, PLLC.

SETERUS, INC., Defendant, represented by BRIAN A. KAHN --
bkahn@mcguirewoods.com -- MCGUIREWOODS LLP & ROBERT LOCKE BEATTY --
lbeatty@mcguirewoods.com -- MCGUIREWOODS LLP.


SHERRY-NETHERLAND: Faces Breeze Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The
Sherry-Netherland, Inc. The lawsuit is captioned as Byron Breeze,
Jr., on behalf of himself, and all similarly situated individuals,
the Plaintiff, v. The Sherry-Netherland, Inc., a New York
corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-08141-JMF (S.D.N.Y.,
Sep. 6, 2018). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Jesse M.
Furman.

The Sherry-Netherland is a 38-story apartment hotel located at 781
Fifth Avenue on the corner of East 59th Street in the Upper East
Side neighborhood of Manhattan, New York City.[BN]

Attorneys for Byron Breeze, Jr.:

          Erik Mathew Bashian, Esq.
          Bashian & Papantoniou, P.C
          500 Old Country Road, Suite 302
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 279 1555
          Facsimile: (516) 213 0339
          E-mail: eb@bashpaplaw.com

               - and -

          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


SHERWIN-WILLIAMS CO: Court Dismisses Amended Lafferty Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BRAD LAFFERTY, et al., Plaintiff(s), v. THE
SHERWIN-WILLIAMS COMPANY, et al.,: Defendant(s), Civil No.
1:17-06321-RBK/AMD (D. N.J.), Judge Robert B. Kugler of the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey granted the
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint.

The case stems from the Defendant's development, manufacturing, and
distribution of paint, varnish, coatings, and related products and
the hazardous substances that those activities produced and
subsequently released into the surrounding area.  The Defendant
conducted its operations on three distinct areas of land in
Gibbsboro.  All three have been designated as Superfund Sites by
the United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA").  The EPA
is now overseeing the Defendant's remediation efforts of the Site.

As part of its operations at the Site, the Defendant used hazardous
substances.  Its use, storage, and disposal of these products
released toxic chemicals and hazardous substances into the
surrounding environment, and these substances have since migrated
into surrounding areas.  Since at least 1910, the Defendant has
known or should have known about the danger presented by these
substances, especially the dangers presented by lead.

The Plaintiffs are a group of New Jersey residents from Gibbsboro,
Voorhees, Somerdale, Atco, and Blackwood, some of whom suffer from
terrible cancers and other illnesses that they attribute to the
Defendant's actions.  The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant knew
that the areas surrounding the Site were contaminated and extremely
dangerous.  It is alleged that hazardous substances migrated into
surrounding neighborhoods and residential areas, where they were
then inhaled, ingested, or otherwise came into contact with people
in the community.  This contamination is an ongoing threat.  Their
alleged damages include elevated levels of toxic chemicals and
carcinogens in the environment, which have resulted in physical
damage and an increased risk of disease as well as the diminution
in value of their properties.  

The Plaintiffs bring their claims in their own names and on behalf
of a proposed class of all persons similarly situated, pursuant to
Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  The Class
consists of all persons who have owned or rented property, resided,
or worked within the Class Area at any time since Jan. 1, 1930.
The Class Area refers to the geographical area containing all homes
and other structures connected to or within the fate and transport
of one or more of the Defendant's Contaminants.

The Plaintiffs also propose three Subclasses:

     a. Subclass 1: All persons within the Class who have no known
medical diagnosis of a contaminant-related bodily injury, including
cancer.

     b. Subclass 2: All persons within the Class who have been
diagnosed with a contaminant-related bodily injury, including
cancer.

     c. Subclass 3: All persons within the Class who own or have
owned property.

The Plaintiffs bring 10 counts against the Defendant: Negligence
(Count I); Private Nuisance (Count II); Trespass (Count III);
Strict Liability (Count IV); Absolute Liability (Count V); Battery
(Count VI); Fraud and Fraudulent Concealment (Count VII); Equitable
Fraud (Count VIII); Medical Monitoring (Count IX); and Willful and
Wanton Misconduct (Count X).

The matter is before the Court for the Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint.

To the extent that the Plaintiffs' claims (Counts I-X) rely on
allegations that (1) the Defendant failed to diligently and
adequately investigate and remediate any hazardous substances, and
(2) the Defendant's public information related to the EPA-directed
investigation and remediation was false or deficient, they cannot
proceed.  Judge Kugler holds that potential damages the Plaintiffs
sought would place the Defendant in the unenviable position of
being held liable for monetary damages because they are complying
with an EPA-ordered remedy which it has no power to alter without
prior EPA approval.

The Judge next finds that the Plaintiffs' medical monitoring claims
fail to state a plausible claim upon which relief can be granted.
The Plaintiffs vaguely allege increased health risks from potential
lead, arsenic, benzene, and benzo(a)pyrene exposures.  They have
simply not properly alleged that on a class-wide basis they have
suffered an increased risk of disease.

The Plaintiffs also fail Rule 23(b) predominance requirements.  The
only way to determine whether they have been exposed is an
individual inquiry.  The Court cannot do this for thousands of
people and call it a class-action.  Similarly, the Plaintiffs
cannot demonstrate a class-wide method of proving damages.  They
have not even attempted to do so in the case.  Individual issues of
exposure, causation, and damages preclude the class certification.

Finally, the Judge finds that the definition of the class area is
unascertainable.  This amounts to a class that is wholly
unascertainable without individualized investigation and creates an
impermissible fail-safe class where the question of whether a
person qualifies as a member depends on whether the person has a
valid claim.  The only way to make such a determination would be
individual fact-finding or trials that measure the level of
contamination that someone was exposed to or that someone's
property contained.  The Plaintiffs are essentially asking the
Court to greenlight a Class Area defined as anywhere there is
contamination.  The Judge declines to do so.

For the reasons he discussed, Judge Kugler dismissed the
Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint.  An Order follows.

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

BRAD LAFFERTY, in their capacity of Guardians Ad Litem of their
minor daughter, EL, a minor, CHRISTEN LAFFERTY, in their capacity
of Guardians Ad Litem of their minor daughter, EL, a minor, CORRINE
PROCAJLO, LAUREN PROCAJLO, SANDRA KEATING, MICHAEL DIGIOVANNI,
SPENCER POPE, LISA DIGIOVANNI, GINA TARTAGLIA, ANTHONY TARTAGLIA,
SCOTT LITTLEFIELD, in their capacity of Guardians Ad Litem of their
minor daughter, LL, a minor, KRISTEN LITTLEFIELD, in their capacity
of Guardians Ad Litem of their minor daughter, LL, a minor, DAWN
D'ORAZIO, GINA HYNDMAN, in their individual capacity and on behalf
of others similarly situated, SUSAN CUNNINGHAM, Dawnne Casey,
THOMAS HARTLEY WOOD, III, SUZANNE EGAN HILL, Raymond Holwell &
Patrick Egan, Plaintiffs, represented by CRAIG R. MITNICK --
contact@mitnicklawoffice.com.

SHERWIN WILLIAMS COMPANY INC., Defendant, represented by GINA MARIE
ROSWELL -- groswell@brownconnery.com -- BROWN & CONNERY LLP,
STEPHEN J. DEFEO -- sdefeo@brownconnery.com -- BROWN & CONNERY, LLP
& GREGORY SCOTT CHERNACK -- sdefeo@brownconnery.com --
HOLLINGSWORTH LLP.


SINCLAIR BROADCAST: Komito Files Securities Class Suit in Maryland
------------------------------------------------------------------
Edward Komito, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc., Christopher S. Ripley,
and Lucy A. Rutishauser, Case No. 1:18-cv-02445 (D. Md., August 9,
2018), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Plaintiff brings this federal securities class action on behalf
of all persons or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired
Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. common stock between February 22,
2017 and July 19, 2018, inclusive.

The Plaintiff alleges that during the Class Period, the Defendants
materially misled the investing public, thereby inflating the price
of Sinclair common stock, by publicly issuing false and misleading
statements and omitting to disclose material facts necessary to
make Defendants' statements, not false and misleading.

The Plaintiff Edward Komito, purchased Sinclair common stock during
the Class Period, and suffered damages as a result of the federal
securities law violations and the false and misleading statements
and material omissions. Plaintiff resides in Allentown, Lehigh
County, Pennsylvania.

The Defendant Sinclair, headquartered in Hunt Valley, Maryland, is
the largest television station operator in the United States by
both number of stations and total coverage. The Company owns more
than 193 stations across the country, covering nearly 40% of
American households. The Defendant Sinclair's common stock is
traded on the NASDAQ under the symbol "SBGI."

The Defendant Christopher S. Ripley has served as the Chief
Executive Officer and President of Sinclair since January 2017. The
Defendant Ripley's address is 10706 Beaver Dam Road, Hunt Valley,
Maryland 21030.

The Defendant Lucy A. Rutishauser has served as the Senior Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer of Sinclair since January
2017. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas J. Minton, Esq.
      GOLDMAN & MINTON, P.C.
      3600 Clipper Mill Rd., Suite 201
      Baltimore, MD 21211
      Tel: (410) 783-7575
      E-mail: tminton@charmcitylegal.com

          - and -

      Maya Saxena, Esq.
      Joseph E. White, III, Esq.
      Lester R. Hooker, Esq.
      SAXENA WHITE P.A.
      150 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 600
      Boca Raton, FL 33432
      Tel: (561) 394-3399
      E-mail: msaxena@saxenawhite.com
              jwhite@saxenawhite.com
              lhooker@saxenawhite.com


SIYARAM INVESTMENTS: Quarterman Files ADA Suit in N.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Siyaram Investments,
LLC, et al. The case is styled as Lanie Quarterman individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Siyaram
Investments, LLC, doing business as: Quality Inn, a Florida limited
liability company, Choice Hotels International, Inc., Defendants,
Case No. 1:18-cv-00185 (N.D. Fla., Sept. 17, 2018).

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

Siyaram Investments, LLC is a privately held company in Marietta,
GA and is a Single Location business. It is located at 3669
Hadfield Drive, Marietta, GA 30062.

Choice Hotels International, Inc. is an American hospitality
holding corporation based in Rockville, Maryland, in the United
States. The company owns the hotel and motel brands Comfort Inn,
Comfort Suites, Quality Inn, Sleep Inn, Clarion, Cambria Hotel &
Suites, Mainstay Suites, Suburban Extended Stay, Econo Lodge,
Rodeway Inn, and Ascend Hotel Collection.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


SOUTH AFRICA: ANC to Launch Class Suit Over Water Tariffs
---------------------------------------------------------
eNews Channel Africa reports that the ANC in the Western Cape is
launching a class action to challenge water tariffs in the
province.

The party says it's received complaints from some residents who say
they've been sent extremely high water bills.

The ANC's Ebrahim Rasool stated, "what we were able to do is to
launch a bid for a class action against the DA.

"I think that people are saying were we being taken for a ride?
Have day zero being a hoax?"[GN]



SSA BONDS: Court Dismisses Consolidated Antitrust Suit
------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE SSA BONDS ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Case No. 16 Civ.
3711 (ER) (S.D. N.Y.), Judge Edgardo Ramos of the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York granted the Defendants'
motions to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint
for failure to state a claim.

The litigation arises from 14 related complaints filed against a
number of banks and certain of their employees who allegedly
conspired to fix the price of supranational, sovereign, and agency
("SSA") bonds sold to and purchased from investors in the secondary
market.  

The first complaint in the case was filed on May 18, 2016, and was
followed by several related actions.  On Aug. 22, 2016, the Court
consolidated these and subsequent related actions under the above
caption.  Ultimately, 14 actions were consolidated, although some
Plaintiffs withdrew from the consolidated action or dismissed their
action.  On Dec. 22, 2016, the Court appointed Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as
the interim co-lead counsel in the consolidated action.

On April 7, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Complaint.
Following their settlement with Deutsche Bank, the Plaintiffs
requested leave to file a Consolidated Amended Complaint ("CAC") on
Oct. 6, 2017, which the Court granted on Nov. 3, 2017.

The CAC asserts a single cause of action for conspiracy to restrain
trade in violation of section 1 of the Sherman Act.  On Dec. 12,
2017, the Defendants moved to dismiss the CAC for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction, failure to state a claim, lack of
personal jurisdiction, and improper venue.

In March 2018, the Court preliminarily approved the settlement
agreements staying proceedings between the Plaintiffs and Bank of
America, Deutsche Bank, and Gudka, and the Plaintiffs voluntarily
dismissed TD Securities Limited, a TD Bank subsidiary.

Judge Ramos finds that the Plaintiffs claim they are injured
because at some point during the Class Period, they transacted with
certain Dealer Defendants for USD SSA bonds.  They essentially ask
the Court to infer, based on approximately 150 chats allegedly
showing manipulated transactions with unknown counterparties over
the course of eleven years, that their individually negotiated
transactions with the Dealer Defendants during that period must
have likewise been tainted and injured them. This, by itself, is
insufficient for the Court to reasonably draw such an inference.
Accordingly, because the Plaintiffs have not plausibly alleged that
they themselves were injured by the alleged conspiracy, their
antitrust claim must be dismissed.

And although the Plaintiffs have already had the opportunity to
amend their original complaint, because the is the Court's first
opportunity to highlight the precise defects of the Plaintiffs'
pleading and it is not yet apparent that another opportunity to
amend would be futile, the Judge will permit them to replead their
dismissed claims.

For these reasons, Judge Ramos granted the Defendants' motions to
dismiss for failure to state a claim because the Plaintiffs have
failed to plausibly allege an injury-in-fact sufficient to
establish antitrust standing.  The Clerk of the Court is
respectfully directed to terminate the motions.  The Plaintiffs may
file a second consolidated amended complaint, if at all, on Oct.
23, 2018.  If they elect to not file a second consolidated amended
complaint, they may apply to the Court for entry of judgment any
time before then.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 24, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/9hclKD from Leagle.com.

Irving Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund, Plaintiff, pro se.

City of Atlanta Firefighters Pension Fund, on behalf of itself and
all others similarly situated & Louisiana Sheriffs' Pension Relief
Fund, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated,
Consolidated Plaintiffs, represented by Benjamin Galdston --
beng@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, pro
hac vice, Blair Allen Nicholas, Bernstein Litowitz Berger &
Grossman, LLP, pro hac vice, Brandon Marsh --
brandon.marsh@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman
LLP, pro hac vice, David R. Kaplan -- DavidK@blbglaw.com --
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, pro hac vice, Lucas E.
Gilmore -- Lucas.Gilmore@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein Litowitz Berger &
Grossmann LLP, pro hac vice & Scott Allan Martin --
smartin@hausfeld.com -- Hausfeld LLP.

Sheet Metal Workers Pension Plan of Northern California & Iron
Workers Pension Plan of Western Pennsylvania, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Consolidated
Plaintiffs, represented by Adam Bryan Wolfson --
adamwolfson@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn Emanuel, Brian O. O'Mara --
bomara@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Carmen A.
Medici -- cmedici@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP,
Daniel Lawrence Brockett -- danbrockett@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn
Emanuel, David W. Mitchell -- davidm@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP, Sascha Nicholas Rand --
sascharand@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn Emanuel, Steig Olson --
steigolson@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn Emanuel, Steven M. Jodlowski,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Thomas Lepri --
thomaslepri@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn Emanuel, Christopher Mun-Yin
Seck, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, Jeremy Daniel Andersen --
jeremyandersen@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn, Emanuel, Urquhart, Oliver
& Hedges, LLP & Patrick Joseph Coughlin, Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP.

Inter-Local Pension Fund Graphic Communications Conference of the
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by
Heidi M. Silton , Lockridge, Grindal, Nauen P.L.L.P., pro hac vice,
Karen Hanson Riebel , Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., pro hac
vice, Robert Mark Roseman -- rroseman@srkw-law.com -- Spector,
Roseman & Kodroff Willis, P.C. & W. Joseph Bruckner , Lockridge,
Grindal, Nauen & Holstein, P.L.L.P., pro hac vice.

City of Bristol Pension Fund, on behalf of itself and in a
representative capacity, on behalf of all similarly situated,
Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by Amanda F. Lawrence, Scott &
Scott, LLC, Christopher M. Burke , Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law
LLP, Peter Anthony Barile, III, Scott+Scott, Attorneys At Law, LLP,
Louis Fox Burke, Louis F. Burke PC & Walter W. Noss, ScottScott
LLP.

Asbestos Workers Philadelphia Welfare and Pension Fund, on behalf
of itself and all others similarly situated, Consolidated
Plaintiff, represented by Merrill G. Davidoff -- mdavidoff@bm.net
-- Berger & Montague PC & Michael C. Dell'Angelo --
mdellangelo@bm.net -- Berger & Montague, P.C., pro hac vice.

Painters and Allied Trades District Council No. 35 Pension Fund, on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Consolidated
Plaintiff, represented by Scott Allan Martin, Hausfeld LLP.

Oklahoma Police Pension and Retirement System, on behalf of itself,
in a representative capacity, on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by Amanda F.
Lawrence, Scott & Scott, LLC, Christopher M. Burke, Scott+Scott
Attorneys at Law LLP, Peter Anthony Barile, III, Scott+Scott,
Attorneys At Law, LLP, Louis Fox Burk , Louis F. Burke PC, Thomas
J. Undlin, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi & Walter W. Nos,
ScottScott LLP.

Louisiana Municipal Police Employees Retirement System,
Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by Stephen M. Tillery, Korein
Tillery, LLC, Amanda F. Lawrence, Scott & Scott, LLC, Chad Emerson
Bell, Korein Tillery, George A. Zelcs, Korein Tillery, LLC, Randall
P. Ewing, Jr., Korein Tillery, LLC & Thomas J. Undlin, Robins
Kaplan Miller & Ciresi.

KBC Asset Management NV, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by
Michael Morris Buchman -- mbuchman@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice
LLC, William H. Narwold, Motley Rice LLC & Christopher F. Moriarty
-- cmoriarty@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC.

Bank of America, N.A. & Bank of America Merrill Lynch International
Limited, Defendants, represented by Adam Selim Hakki --
ahakki@shearman.com -- Shearman & Sterling LLP, Jeffrey Jason
Resetarits -- jeffrey.resetarits@shearman.com -- Shearman &
Sterling LLP & Richard Franklin Schwed -- rschwed@shearman.com --
Shearman & Sterling LLP.

Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank, Defendant,
represented by Lisa Jean Fried , Hogan Lovells US LLP, Benjamin
Andrew Fleming , Hogan Lovells US LLP, Benjamin Frederick Holt ,
Hogan Lovells Us LLP, Garima Malhotra , Hogan Lovells US LLP &
Kevin Timothy Baumann , Hogan Lovells US LLP.

Credit Suisse AG, Credit Suisse Securities (Europe) Ltd., Credit
Suisse International & Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC,
Defendants, represented by Adam Shawn Mintz, Cahill Gordon &
Reindel LLP, David George Januszewski, Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP,
Elai E. Katz, Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, Herbert Scott Washer ,
Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, Jason Michael, Cahill Gordon & Reindel
LLP & Sheila Chithran Ramesh, Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP.

Deutsche Bank AG, Defendant, represented by John Terzaken , Simpson
Thacher & Bartlett LLP, pro hac vice, Brian Thomas Fitzpatrick,
Allen & Overy, LLP, Jana Steenholdt, Allen & Overy, LLP, pro hac
vice & John Roberti, Allen & Overy LLP.

Nomura International plc, Defendant, represented by John D.
Buretta, Cravath, Swaine et ano. & Julie A. North, Cravath, Swaine
& Moore LLP.

Hiren Gudka, Defendant, represented by Wesley Railey Powell,
Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP.

Amandeep Singh Manku, Defendant, represented by David Harrison
McGill, Kobre & Kim LLP, Clinton Joseph Dockery, Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP & Roger Anson Burlingame, Dechert LLP.

Shailen Pau, Defendant, represented by Judith Leonore Mogul ,
Morvillo, Abramowitz, Grand, Iason, & Anello P.C., Ashley Christine
Burns, Morvillo, Abramowitz, Grand, Iason, & Anello P.C., Nicole L.
Buseman, Morvillo Abramowitz Grand Iason & Anello P.C. & Richard
Franklin Albert, Morvillo, Abramowitz, Grand, Iason, & Anello P.C.

Bhardeep Singh Heer, Defendant, represented by Derek A. Cohen ,
Goodwin Procter, LLP, Lauren A. Bowman , Goodwin Procter, LLP &
William Joseph Harrington , Goodwin Procter, LLP.

Citigroup Inc., Citibank, N.A., Citigroup Global Markets Inc. &
Citigroup Global Markets Limited, Defendants, represented by Jay B.
Kasner , Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP & Paul Madison
Eckles , Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP.


ST. NICKS ALLIANCE: Underpays Home Attendants, Caldwell Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BEVERLY CALDWELL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ST. NICKS ALLIANCE, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-04691-MKB-RLM (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 20, 2018)
seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid minimum wages,
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest, liquidated damages, and other compensatory
and equitable reliefs.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as home attendant from
the year 2010 to November 2015.

St. Nicks Alliance, Inc. is a domestic not for profit corporation
doing business within the City of and State of New York that
maintains its principal place of business at Brooklyn, NY. The
Company provides home care services to elderly and frail
individuals throughout metropolitan New York City and surrounding
areas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David C. Wims, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DAVID WIMS
          1430 Pitkin Ave., 2nd Floor
          Brooklyn, NY 11233
          Telephone: (646) 393-9550


STATEWIDE TRAFFIC: Garcia Suit Moved to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Dominik Garcia, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Movant, v. Statewide
Traffic Safety and Signs, Inc., a Delaware corporation, the
Defendant, Case No. 30-2018-01011814-CU-OE-CXC, was
removed/transferred from the Cal. Super. Ct., Orange Cty., to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
(Southern Division - Santa Ana)on Sep. 14, 2018. The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 8:18-cv-01668 to the proceeding.

Statewide Traffic Safety & Signs, Inc. provides traffic work zone
products and equipment.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Lee Benjamin Szor, Esq.
          FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP
          345 California Street, Suite 2200
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Telephone: (415) 364 5540
          Facsimile: (415) 391 4436
          E-mail: lszor@foxrothschild.com


SUPERVALU INC: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
Notice is hereby given that Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP has filed a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District
of Delaware, No. 1:18-cv-01311, on behalf of shareholders of
SUPERVALU, INC. ("SUPERVALU" or the "Company") (NYSE:SVU) who have
been harmed by SUPERVALU's and its board of directors' (the
"Board") alleged violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") in connection
with  the proposed merger of the Company with Jedi Merger Sub, Inc.
("Merger Sub").

On July 25, 2018, the Board caused the Company to enter into an
agreement and plan of merger ("Proposed Transaction") under which
SUPERVALU's stockholders will receive $32.50 in cash for each share
of SUPERVALU common stock they hold (the "Merger Consideration").

The complaint alleges that the Preliminary Schedule 14A Proxy
Statement (the "Proxy") filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission ("SEC") on August 21, 2018, violates Sections 14(a) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act because it provides materially incomplete
and misleading information about the Company and the Proposed
Transaction, including information concerning the Company's
financial projections and analysis, on which the Board relied to
recommend the Proposed Transaction as fair to SUPERVALU
shareholders.

If you wish to obtain information concerning this action, you can
do so by clicking here: www.faruqilaw.com/SVUnotice.

                           Take Action

Plaintiff is represented by Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a law firm with
extensive experience in prosecuting class actions, and significant
expertise in actions involving corporate fraud.  Faruqi & Faruqi,
LLP, was founded in 1995 and the firm maintains its principal
office in New York City, with offices in Delaware, California,
Georgia, and Pennsylvania.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from the date of this notice.  Any member of the
putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member.  If you wish to discuss this action,
or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or
interests, please;

         Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
         James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
         FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
         685 3rd Avenue, 26th Floor
         New York, NY 10017
         Telephone: (877) 247-4292
                    (212) 983-9330
         Email: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com  
                jwilson@faruqilaw.com[GN]


SYNERGETIC COMMUNICATION: Jones Suit Alleges FDCPA Violation
------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Jones, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Synergetic Communication, Inc., Franklin Community
Health Network dba EOS CCA and John Does 1-25, Case No.
3:18-cv-01860 (S.D. Calif., August 9, 2018), is brought against the
Defendants for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

The Plaintiff is a resident of the State of California, County of
San Diego, residing at 424 15th Street, Apt. 1304, San Diego, CA
92101.

The Defendants are debt collectors. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jonathan A. Stieglitz, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF
      JONATHAN A. STIEGLITZ
      11845 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 800
      Los Angeles, CA 90064
      Tel: (323) 979-2063
      Fax: (323) 488-6748
      E-mail: jonathan.a.stieglitz@gmail.com


TECHPRECISION CORP: Discovery Phase in Ranor Suit to End Oct. 23
----------------------------------------------------------------
TechPrecision Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 13, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the pre-trial discovery
phase in the class action complaint against Ranor, Inc. will end on
October 23, 2018.

On or about February 26, 2016, nine former employees, or plantiffs,
of Ranor filed a complaint in the Massachusetts Superior Court,
Worcester County, against Ranor and former and current executive
officers of Ranor, alleging violations of the Massachusetts Wage
Act, breach of contract and conversion based on a modification made
to Ranor's personal time off policy. Plaintiffs claim that Ranor's
modification to its personal time off, or PTO, policy in April 2014
caused these employees to forfeit earned PTO.

Plaintiffs purport to assert their claims on behalf of a class of
all current and former employees of Ranor who were affected by the
modification to Ranor's PTO policy.

Discovery is on-going. The Company received a notice from the court
that it intends to hold a hearing on the plantiff's motion for
class certification on August 30, 2018. The pre-trial discovery
phase will end on October 23, 2018. No trial date has been set.

TechPrecision Corporation, through its subsidiaries, manufactures
and sells precision, large-scale fabricated, and machined metal
components and systems in the United States and the People's
Republic of China. The Company was founded in 1956 and is
headquartered in Wayne, Pennsylvania.


THOMSON REUTERS: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA, Makanas Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
TERESITA MAKANAS, INDIVIDUALLY & ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED PLAINTIFF v. THOMSON REUTERS (TAX & ACCOUNTING) INC., Case
No. 4:18-cv-00659 (E.D. Tex., September 18, 2018), alleges that the
Plaintiff was not paid overtime wages, in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Thomson Reuters (Tax & Accounting) Inc. is a domestic corporation
and is registered to do business in Texas.  Thomson Reuters
provides legal research and other services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dorotha M. Ocker, Esq.
          OCKER LAW FIRM, PLLC
          111 W. Spring Valley Road, Suite 250
          Richardson, TX 75081
          Telephone: (214) 390-5715
          Facsimile: (469) 277-3365
          E-mail: dmo@ockerlawfirm.com


TL THOMPSON: Gurfein Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against T.L. Thompson &
Associates, Inc. The case is styled as Jonathan Gurfein
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. T.L. Thompson & Associates, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
2:18-cv-13949 (D. N.J., Sept. 17, 2018).

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

T.L. Thompson & Associates, Inc. is an independently owned, full
service recovery agency serving the diverse needs of clients
nationwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
     Barshay Sanders PLLC
     100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
     Garden City, NY 11530
     Phone: (516) 203-7600
     Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com


TRIBOR MANAGEMENT: Lu Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages, Damages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
YINGJIE LU a.k.a Jeffrey Lu, individually and on behalf all other
employees similarly situated v. TRIBOR MANAGEMENT, INC., BIRCHWOOD
APARTMENTS OWNERS CORP., CLS PROPERTIES MANAGEMENT INC., SULAY
ROJAS, MARYANN CARRO-CAPUTO, FERNANDO "DOE" (last name unknown),
CLEMENT CHUN TUNG SO, LINDSEY KUNG, DAVID WEI, and LUCIA LIN, Case
No. 1:18-cv-05241 (E.D.N.Y., September 18, 2018), alleges that
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Plaintiff is entitled
to recover from the Defendants:

   (1) unpaid overtime wages;
   (2) liquidated damages;
   (3) prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and
   (4) attorney's fees and costs.

Tribor is a New York corporation with its principal place of
business located in Flushing, New York.  Tribor offers management
services to multiple residential cooperative apartment buildings in
Queens, either directly, through or together with one or more of
the corporate entities, including Birchwood and CLS.  Maryann
Carro-Caputo, Fernando "Doe" and Lindsey Kung are the owners,
officers, directors and/or managing agents of Tribor.

CLS is a New York corporation with its principal place of business
located in Flushing.  David Wei and Lucia Lin are the owners,
officers, directors and/or managing agents of CLS.

Birchwood is a New York corporation with its principal place of
business located in Flushing.  CLS is a subsidiary of Birchwood.
Sulay Rojas and Clement Chun Tung So are the owners, officers,
directors and/or managing agents of Birchwood.

The Corporate Defendants own, manage and/or operate a residential
96-unit apartment building located at 144-44 41st Avenue, in
Flushing, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ken H. Maeng, Esq.
          HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC.
          136-20 38th Ave., Suite 10G
          Flushing, NY 11354
          Telephone: (718) 353-8588
          E-mail: kmaeng@hanglaw.com


TRIBUNE MEDIA: Faces Class Action on Merging Failure
----------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a class of Tribune Media
shareholders filed a lawsuit over the company's failed effort to
merge with Sinclair Broadcasting, claiming stock prices fell $6.44
per share when it was revealed that Tribune knew Sinclair was
refusing to sell TV stations as part of the regulatory approval
process.


UNITED BUILDER: Hernandez Suit Alleges Wage Act Violation
---------------------------------------------------------
Carmen Hernandez, on behalf of herself and all those similarly
situated v. United Builder Services, Inc. and Edgar Samuel Montoya
Martinez, dba Masters Drywall Installers, Inc., Case No.
1:18-cv-02019 (D. Colo., August 9, 2018), is brought against the
Defendants for violation of the Colorado Wage Claim Act and the
Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act.

The Plaintiff, Carmen Hernandez was employed by Defendants from
approximately August 15, 2017 through October 13, 2017. She is a
current resident of Texas who was formerly domiciled in Denver,
Colorado, during her employment with Defendants.

The Defendant United Builders Service, Inc. is a for-profit
corporation incorporated in the state of Colorado and registered to
do business in Colorado. In 2017, Defendant UBS worked on the
Colorado Mills Mall construction site in Lakewood, Colorado. The
Defendant UBS has continuously been and is now doing business in
the State of Colorado as a drywall installation contractor.

The Defendant Masters Drywall Installers (MDI) is a trade name
registered to individual Defendant Edgar Samuel Montoya Martinez.
MDI operated in Colorado in 2017 providing laborers for the
Colorado Mills Mall construction site in Lakewood, Colorado. Edgar
Samuel Montoya Martinez dba MDI lists his principal business
address with the Colorado Secretary of State as 2516 Northview Dr.,
Mesquite, TX 75150. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew H. Turner, Esq.
      M. Jeanette Fedele, Esq.
      THE KELMAN BUESCHER FIRM
      600 Grant Street, Ste. 450
      Denver, CO 80203
      Tel: (303) 333-7751
      Fax: (303) 333-7758
      E-mail: aturner@laborlawdenver.com
              jfedele@laborlawdenver.com


UNITED STATES: Court Limits Protective Order in Asylum Seekers Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
California issued an Order granting in part and denying in part
Defendant's Motion for Protective Order in the case captioned AL
OTRO LADO, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. KIRSTJEN NIELSEN,
Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, in her official
capacity, et al., Defendants. Case No. 3:7-cv-02366-BAS-KSC. (S.D.
Cal.).

Presently before the Court is a Motion for a Protective Order
sought by the defendants regarding their preservation obligations
of video and audio data collected at multiple Ports of Entry (POE)
along the Southwest border by the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol
(CBP).

The individual plaintiffs in this case are non-U.S. citizens who
allege they were denied access to the asylum process in the United
States because of defendants' policies, practices, and procedures
for handling individuals that present themselves at POEs along the
U.S.-Mexico border. The individual plaintiffs seek asylum in the
United States due to fears of death or physical injury in their
home countries, Mexico and Honduras, which they attribute to gang
violence, drug cartels, and, in some cases, severe domestic
violence. Plaintiff, Al Otro Lado, Inc., is an organization
alleging that defendants' unlawful policies, practices, and
procedures have forced it to divert substantial resources from
other efforts to counteract defendants' alleged wrongful actions.

LEGAL STANDARD

Factors To Consider for Granting a Protective Order

Rule 26(c) permits the Court to alter the method of discovery
requested by a party, allocate costs, and/or forbid inquiry into
some matters entirely. The party seeking a protective order under
Rule 26 bears the burden of demonstrating good cause and the
particular need for protection.

This Court will consider the following general factors when
evaluating whether a protective order is appropriate: (1) the level
of concern the court has for the continuing existence and
maintenance of the integrity of the evidence in question in the
absence of an order directing preservation of the evidence; (2) any
irreparable harm likely to result to the party seeking the
preservation of evidence absent an order directing preservation;
and (3) the capability of an individual, entity, or party to
maintain the evidence sought to be preserved, not only as to the
evidence's original form, condition or contents, but also the
physical, spatial and financial burdens created by ordering
evidence preservation.

Scope of Duty to Preserve

The scope of a party's duty to preserve is the same as the scope of
discovery articulated in Rule 26(b)(1); namely that a party may
obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is
relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the
needs of the case.

The recent amendments to Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, although addressing requests for production, are
instructive. Rule 34(b)(2)(C) obligates a responding party, when
faced with a request for production, to state whether any
responsive materials are being withheld on the basis of its
objection.

Defendants Have Failed To Adequately Fulfill Their Affirmative
Preservation Obligations

Before addressing the issues for which defendant seeks a Protective
Order, the Court finds it necessary to address some of defendants'
underlying arguments and factual assertions. After careful review
of the briefing and discovery hearing transcript, this Court
concludes that defendants have consistently failed to consider
their affirmative duty to preserve documents and information.

There are 207 cameras and 55 microphones recording to 20 NVRs at
the San Ysidro Ped West and AEU facilities. As previously
addressed, some cameras are affiliated with microphones while
others are not. Given the allegations in the Complaint, cameras
paired with microphones would likely be the most valuable as they
would record conversations between asylum seekers and CBP
personnel. Perhaps the preservation of recorded video from a
limited number cameras would provide a bird's eye view of the
interior region where interactions at issue occur. Those recordings
conceivably could be coupled with audio recordings to preserve the
relevant incidents.

Further, while the surveillance system functions 24/7, one might
inquire whether a greater number of persons flow through the
facilities during the daytime hours than at night. These are the
kinds of line-drawing efforts the Court expected defendants to
address in order to find a reasonable preservation solution.
Defendants failed, without any satisfactory explanation, to provide
this information, or otherwise engage in meaningful meet and confer
efforts on this issue as required by this Court.  

The Defendants also miss the mark when characterizing all CBP
surveillance data they would prefer not to produce as inaccessible.
For example, defendants' state that video of any identifiable
individuals within 45 days of all southern land border POEs, as
well as video capturing lines in Mexico at the San Ysidro POE is an
inaccessible source of ESI that defendants should not have to
preserve or produce. They assert the data is inaccessible because:
(1) to meet plaintiffs' requests would exceed the capacity of its
existing storage infrastructure and so compliance would require
that more storage be created; and (2) the large scale video
preservation that plaintiffs propose is not accessible because the
data needs to be restored or otherwise manipulated to be usable.'


The Defendants have not persuaded this Court that targeted and
narrowly drawn archiving is unachievable.

That the production of such data might be costly or inconvenient
does not, by definition, render it inaccessible.

Defendant CBP's Obligation to Preserve Surveillance Data of
Individuals Withdrawing Their Applications for Admission

The Defendants assert CBP cannot preserve incidents that occurred
seven months before the date on which it searches its surveillance
storage systems because data will almost always be overwritten
after the passage of so much time. CBP further clarifies that the
seven months of surveillance data from the San Ysidro POE is the
only available data of withdrawals it has retained. CBP does not
normally archive surveillance data of individuals who withdraw
their applications for admission and is aware of no other
recordings having been made at other POEs at which named
plaintiffs' claims occurred.

Balancing the needs of both parties, and mindful of the
proportionality requirement under Rule 26, the Court concludes that
defendants are not required to preserve surveillance data across
all southern border POEs of aliens who withdrew their applications
for entry from January 1, 2016 to the present, beyond what they
have already preserved. Plaintiffs have not clearly articulated why
surveillance data is relevant, nor is the Court convinced that
defendants could reasonably meet plaintiffs' request without
incurring substantial burden. The Court concludes that preservation
of application withdrawals at all southern border POEs from January
1, 2016 to the present is not proportional to the needs of the
case.

Accordingly, the defendants' Motion for a protective order on this
issue is GRANTED.
The Defendants will not be required to preserve all surveillance
ESI of arriving aliens at all southern border POEs that were made
during the process of these aliens seeking to withdraw their
applications for admission, from January 1, 2016 to the present.

Defendants Must Preserve Specific Incidents Identified by
Plaintiffs Within 45 Days of Occurrence

Next before the Court is whether CBP must preserve ESI of
individual incidents between alleged asylum seekers and the
government if reported by plaintiffs within 30 or 45 days.
Defendants offer to preserve such incidents if reported within
thirty days and if provided with the individual's name, A-number or
date of birth, date and time of the incident, and the relevant POE.
To expand the time frame beyond 30 days, CBP contends, would
require CBP to create infrastructure to preserve the video. CBP
claims plaintiffs' request would require wholesale preservation
that exceeds current CBP infrastructure, and so the 45-day
timeframe is over burdensome.

The Defendants raise the more challenging question of whether they
are obligated to preserve incidents involving individuals who
plaintiffs believe may be a putative class member. They also argue
that because plaintiffs did not assert any need for discovery to
defend the pending Motion to Dismiss, they should not have to
preserve any of the surveillance data identified by plaintiffs.

The Court disagrees.

First, that plaintiffs did not require discovery to oppose
defendants Motion to Dismiss does not alleviate defendants'
obligation to preserve relevant information. Even where a motion to
dismiss is granted, a class certification ruling and accompanying
precertification discovery might be necessary to determine the
appropriate scope of the dismissal.  

Second, discovery is currently stayed pending the plaintiffs'
filing of an Amended Complaint in light of the District Court's
ruling on defendant's Motion to Dismiss. The Court will reconsider
the appropriate scope of discovery at that time.21 "District courts
have broad discretion to control the class certification process,
and whether or not discovery will be permitted lies within the
sound discretion of the trial court.

Rule 26 permits discovery of matters relevant to pre-class
certification, but is typically limited to the factors that infoim
class certification: e.g., number of class members, existence of
common questions, typicality of claims, and the representatives'
ability to represent the class. For that reason, defendants cannot
escape their duty to preserve relevant information where the
preservation is not overburdensome.

Accordingly, the defendants Motion for a Protective Order on this
issue is DENIED. The Defendants going forward must preserve
surveillance ESI not already over-written of individual incidents
between alleged asylum seekers and the government if reported by
plaintiffs within 45 days and defendants are provided with the
individual's name, A-number or date of birth, date and time of the
incident, and the relevant POE. Defendants are to also preserve
such information for incidents that occurred before the entry of
this Order, to the extent it has not been over-written.

CBP Must Preserve Surveillance ESI of Lines Stretching From the San
Ysidro POE into Mexico Between December 18, 2017 and December 26,
2017

Finally, the defendants seek a protective order that would preclude
them from preserving surveillance ESI of individuals waiting in
lines on the Mexican side of the border waiting to enter the United
States at the San Ysidro POE for an eight day period from December
18, 2017 through December 27, 2017. Defendants also request that
they be protected from the need to preserve any future similar ESI
that plaintiffs request.

The Plaintiffs assert that video of individuals waiting in line to
enter the San Ysidro POE between December 18, 2017 and December 27,
2017 is relevant and should be preserved because plaintiffs allege
defendants have an unlawful policy of denying access to the asylum
process to any individual lacking a ticket given by Mexican
immigration authorities. The cooperation between Mexican officials
and CBP personnel, plaintiffs argue, is at the core of their
complaint.

The Plaintiffs expect that video of these lines might show
individuals, as alleged, being told to go get a ticketing system
and then seeking out a ticket or being pulled out of line by the
Mexican officials. Because plaintiffs allege Mexican and CBP
officials cooperate with one another to deny asylum seekers their
rights and because plaintiffs seek a relatively narrow period of
video surveillance, they contend the burden is proportional to the
needs of the case.

The Defendants counter that the requested surveillance ESI is at
best tangentially relevant to plaintiffs' Complaint. Similarly,
they assert that any lines in Mexico or actions by Mexican
officials are not under the control of Defendants and such video,
if it existed, is outside the scope of the Complaint filed by
plaintiffs. Finally, defendants argue the requested surveillance
ESI does not involve specific incidents which CBP's infrastructure
is set up to preserve and actually demonstrates that the agency is
following the law but is constrained by limited resources.

The undersigned confirms the prior findings and partially GRANTS in
part and DENIES in part, Defendants' Motion for a Protective
Order.

The Defendants will not be required to preserve all surveillance
ESI of arriving aliens at all southern border POEs that were made
during the process of these aliens seeking to withdraw their
applications for admission, from January 1, 2016 to the present.
Any ESI already preserved and responsive to plaintiffs' requests,
however, must be retained, including recordings already preserved
of the plaintiffs seeking to withdraw their applications. Going
forward, defendants must retain specific incidents in which an
individual has withdrawn their asylum application if identified by
plaintiffs within 45 days, and defendants are provided with the
individual's name, A-number or date of birth, relevant POE, and the
date and time of the incident.

The Defendants going forward must preserve surveillance ESI of
individual incidents between alleged asylum seekers and the
government if reported by plaintiffs within 45 days and defendants
are provided with the individual's name, A-number or date of birth,
date and time of the incident, and the relevant POE. To the extent
that this information has not been overwritten, defendants are to
also preserve such information for incidents that occurred before
the entry of this Order.

The Defendants must preserve surveillance ESI of lines of
individuals attempting to enter the San Ysidro POE between December
18, 2017 and December 26, 2017, to the extent such information has
not already been overwritten. The Court recognizes ten days of
video recordings can constitute a substantial amount of data.
Defendants are within their rights to identify what camera(s)
provides the best view of the lines, and preserve this ESI. Once
preserved, or it is determined the December, 2017 data no longer
exists on CBP servers, defendants may move forward and transition
the San Ysidro POE to CAVSS. On a going forward basis, defendants
must preserve specific, similarly limited surveillance ESI of lines
stretching into Mexico at all southern border POEs when incidents
are reported by plaintiffs within 45 days.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 17, 2018 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y9djrcha from Leagle.com.

Al Otro Lado, Inc., a California corporation, Abigail Doe,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Beatrice Doe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Carolina Doe, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Dinora Doe, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Ingrid Doe, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated & Jose Doe, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by
Michaela R. Laird -- michaela.laird@lw.com -- Latham & Wakins, LLP,
Robin Kelley -- robin.kelley@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP, Angelo
R. Guisado, Center for Constitution Rights, pro hac vice, Baher
Azmy, The Center for Constitution Rights, pro hac vice, Faraz R.
Mohammadi -- faraz.mohammadi@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP, Ghita
R. Schwarz, Center for Constitution Rights, pro hac vice, Karolina
J. Walters, American Immigration Council, pro hac vice, Kathryn E.
Shepherd, American Immigration Council, pro hac vice, Melissa E.
Crow, American Immigration Council, pro hac vice, Wayne S. Flick --
wayne.s.flick@lw.com -- Latham and Watkins LLP & Manuel A. Abascal
-- manny.abascal@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP.

Kevin K. McAleenan, Acting Commissioner, United States Customs and
Border Protection, in his official capacity & Todd C. Owen,
Executive Assistant Commissioner, Office of Field Operations,
United States Customs and Border Protection, in his official
capacity, Defendants, represented by Alexander James Halaska, U.S.
Department of Justice, Gisela Ann Westwater, US Department of
Justice, Brian Ward, U.S. Department of Justice, Danielle K.
Schuessler, Civil Division - Office of Immigration Litigation,
Genevieve Kelly, Genevieve M. Kelly, US Department of
Justice,Sairah G. Saeed, USDOJ Civil Division - Office of
Immigration Litigation & Yamileth G. Davila, United States
Department of Justice.

Kirstjen Nielsen, Acting Secretary, U.S. Departmernt of Homeland
Security, Defendant, represented by Alexander James Halaska, U.S.
Department of Justice, Gisela Ann Westwater, US Department of
Justice, Brian Ward, U.S. Department of Justice, Danielle K.
Schuessler, Civil Division - Office of Immigration Litigation,
Genevieve M. Kelly, US Department of Justice,Sairah G. Saeed, USDOJ
Civil Division - Office of Immigration Litigation & Yamileth G.
Davila, United States Department of Justice.


UNITED STATES: Ottawa Proposes $100MM Settlement for Disabled Vets
------------------------------------------------------------------
Lee Berthiaume, writing for CBC News, reports that Ottawa has
agreed to pay $100 million to settle a four-year legal battle with
disabled veterans who had launched a class-action lawsuit after
some of their financial benefits were clawed back.

The settlement, which must still be approved by the Federal Court,
would provide more than 12,000 veterans with payments of between
$2,000 and $50,000 depending on when they served and the severity
of their disabilities.

It is the latest in what could be a string of such settlements as
the Liberals have indicated that they plan to resolve several other
class actions brought forward by current and retired military
personnel.

"I believe the proposed settlement is fair and provides both sides
with needed closure," Veterans Affairs Minister Seamus O'Regan said
in a statement announcing the agreement in principle.

"Now that this matter may soon be behind us, the government of
Canada will continue working to better serve veterans and their
families. I believe this decision shows that we intend to ensure
that veterans in Canada are better off now than they were before."

The lawsuit was launched in 2014 after the federal government
clawed back financial assistance from thousands of low-income
veterans because they were also receiving disability pensions for
injuries sustained while in uniform.

Complaints about the Liberals' pension plan

The veterans alleged that the deductions, which took place between
April 2006 and May 2012, violated their charter rights by
discriminating against them because they were disabled.

A Federal Court hearing is scheduled for December, where the
government and lawyers representing the veterans are expected to
ask for the settlement to be approved.

The settlement represents the latest win for veterans and military
personnel after several previous proposed class-action lawsuits
were similarly resolved before reaching trial, most notably an
$887-million agreement in 2013 for military pension clawbacks.

The Liberals also ordered government lawyers in February to launch
settlement talks for three proposed class-action lawsuits filed by
former Canadian Forces members who say they experienced harassment
and discrimination while in uniform.

Yet the community also suffered a devastating loss last month when
the Supreme Court opted not to hear an appeal brought by a group of
disabled veterans called the Equitas Society, who were fighting the
Liberals to bring back lifelong disability pensions.

Those pensions were abolished in 2006 and replaced by a lump-sum
payment and career-training assistance, much to the chagrin of the
Equitas members and other veterans, who said it provided
significantly less financial compensation than the old system.

The Liberals have promised their own pension plan, which comes into
effect next year, but the Equitas members and others have
complained that it also falls far short.[GN]


UNITED STATES: Renewed Bid for Summary Judgment in Gatore Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RICA GATORE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES
DEPARMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Defendant, Civil Action No. 15-459
(RBW) (D. D.C.), Judge Reggie B. Walton of the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia (i) denied the Defendant's Renewed
Motion for Summary Judgment, and the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification; and (ii) sua sponte granted summary judgment to the
individual Plaintiffs on their requests for the reasonably
segregable portions of their assessments.

Catholic Charities and eight individual Plaintiffs initiated the
putative class action against the Defendant, the United States
Department of Homeland Security, under the Freedom of Information
Act ("FOIA"), seeking, inter alia, portions of documents termed
"assessments to refer" prepared by asylum officers in connection
with the individual Plaintiffs' applications for asylum in the
United States.

Catholic Charities submitted FOIA requests to the Defendant on
behalf of each of the eight individual Plaintiffs, requesting,
inter alia, the individual Plaintiffs' assessments, which are
documents prepared by asylum officers after interviewing an
applicant for asylum and that contain, inter alia, their opinion
about whether an applicant should receive asylum or, instead, be
referred to an immigration judge for removal proceedings.  Although
the Defendant initially disclosed some documents in response to the
individual Plaintiffs' FOIA requests, it withheld in full the
assessments prepared in each of the individual Plaintiffs' cases.


Consequently, on March 31, 2015, the Plaintiffs filed the action,
alleging that the Defendant had violated the FOIA by (1) refusing
to release the first several paragraphs of each assessment, which
contain information regarding the applicants' biography, basis of
claim for asylum, and testimony presented to the asylum officer;
and (2) by having a blanket policy and practice of never providing
any part of an assessment to a FOIA requester, and not even
attempting to determine if there are reasonably segregable portions
of an assessment.

Thereafter, the Plaintiffs filed their motion for class
certification, which requests that the Court certify a class of all
persons who, since March 30, 2009, have made, or will make during
the pendency of the Plaintiffs' lawsuit, a FOIA request for the
assessment of their asylum officer, but were provided no portion of
the assessment.

In this motion, the Plaintiffs represented that the putative class
consisted of at least 41 members, including seven of the individual
Plaintiffs then involved in the case, plus 34 other asylum
applicants on whose behalf Catholic Charities had submitted a FOIA
request for their assessments.  Subsequently, they identified 20
additional class members.

On July 28, 2015, the Defendant moved for summary judgment on the
individual Plaintiffs' claims regarding their requests for
production of their assessments, asserting that it had properly
withheld the assessments in their entirety pursuant to the
deliberative process privilege of Exemption 5 of the FOIA.  In
support of its position, the Defendant relied on a declaration from
Jill A. Eggleston, the Assistant Center Director in the FOIA and
Privacy Act Unit of the National Records Center of the United
States Citizenship and Immigration Services, in which she concluded
that the factual portions of the assessments cannot be severed or
segregated from their context and thus must remain exempt from
disclosure pursuant to Exemption 5 of the FOIA.

In the Court's memorandum opinion issued on April 6, 2016, it
denied the Defendant's initial summary judgment motion due to the
concerns with the Defendant's position that factual portions of the
assessments were not reasonably segregable.  To afford the
Defendant an opportunity to address these concerns, the Court
denied its initial summary judgment motion and ordered it to submit
a revised Vaughn index, affidavit, or declaration that reassesses
the issue of segregability as to each of the individual Plaintiffs'
assessments, and provides an adequate description of each
assessment to support the Defendant's assertion that no portion may
be released.  Additionally, the Court held in abeyance the
Plaintiffs' class certification motion pending the Defendant's
compliance with the Court's order and the resolution of any renewed
motions for summary judgment.  On May 27, 2016, in response to the
Court's Order, the Defendant filed a supplemental declaration from
Eggleston.

On Feb. 8, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which
added a new cause of action regarding an eighth individual
Plaintiff, Veronica Carolina Lemus Miranda, who also sought
production of portions of her assessment.  Shortly thereafter, on
March 14, 2017, the the Defendant released limited portions of the
assessments to the seven individual Plaintiffs who originally
brought the case.  Specifically, it released the first paragraph of
each of the assessments for Plaintiffs Gatore, Isam Al Timemy,
Aminata Ouedraogo, Herve Shyaka, and Charly Minth Ayessa, and the
first two paragraphs of each of the assessments for Plaintiffs
Innocent Kabano Shyaka and Georgine Lumonika.

A few months later, on June 9, 2017, the Defendant filed its
renewed motion for summary judgment.  On that same date, the
Defendant also released the first three paragraphs of the
assessment for Plaintiff Lemus Miranda.  It simultaneously
submitted a second and third supplemental declaration from
Eggleston, both which acknowledged the Defendant's decision to
release information from the eight individual Plaintiffs'
assessments.

On Jan. 4, 2018, following its review of the three supplemental
Eggleston declarations and the parties' additional submissions, the
Court ordered the Defendant to submit the individual Plaintiffs'
assessments to the Court for in camera review.  On Jan. 10, 2018,
in accordance with the Court's Jan. 4, 2018 Order, the Defendant
submitted the individual Plaintiffs' assessments for in camera
review.

Upon in camera review of the Plaintiffs' assessments, Judge Walton
agrees with the Plaintiffs that a number of factual introductory
paragraphs in each assessment do not qualify for protection under
Exemption 5.  As the Gosen, Abtew, and Bayala Courts found, these
paragraphs simply recite and summarize the facts that the
Plaintiffs presented to the asylum officer during their asylum
application interviews, and in their asylum applications.
Moreover, his in camera review reveals that the facts contained in
these paragraphs do not otherwise reflect the asylum officer's
deliberative process, as they are presented without interpretation,
characterization, or analysis by the author.  Therefore, although
there may have been some streamlining involved in the composition
of these paragraphs, the Judge cannot conclude that they involve
the sort of culling of facts from a large universe that could be
characterized as deliberative.

Additionally, he concludes that these paragraphs are not
inextricably intertwined with exempt portions, and as such are
reasonably segregable and must be produced.  Therefore, the
Defendant has failed to satisfy its burden to demonstrate that it
has fully discharged its obligation under the FOIA" to produce the
reasonably segregable portions of the individual Plaintiffs'
assessments, and accordingly, the Court must deny the Defendant's
renewed motion for summary judgment as to the individual
Plaintiffs' requests for their assessments.  Moreover, he finds it
appropriate to sua sponte enter summary judgment for the individual
Plaintiffs as to these requests.  Therefore, because he has
concluded that the factual introductory paragraphs in each
assessment are reasonably segregable and must be produced, he will
enter summary judgment for the individual Plaintiffs on their
requests for their assessments and order the Defendant to release
the assessments' factual introductory paragraphs to the individual
Plaintiffs.

As to Catholic Charities' policy-or-practice claims, the Judge
concludes that Catholic Charities has identified specific facts
demonstrating that it is likely to be subjected to the Defendant's
alleged policies and practices in the future.  Consequently, the
Defendant has failed to demonstrate that Catholic Charities lacks
standing to challenge its alleged policies and practices.  He also
concludes that Catholic Charities has satisfied its burden to
identify specific facts such that a reasonable factfinder could
return a verdict for it on its claim that the defendant has a
policy and practice of not providing any part of an assessment to
FOIA requesters in violation of the FOIA.  Accordingly, hemust deny
the Defendant's motion for summary judgment on this
policy-or-practice claim.

As to the Defendant's motion for summary judgment on Catholic
Charities' challenge to an alleged policy and practice of not even
attempting to determine if there are reasonably segregable portions
of an assessment, the Judge holds that the Defendant simply cannot
obtain summary judgment on Catholic Charities' claim challenging
its alleged policy or practice of not even attempting to determine
if assessments contain reasonably segregable material.  The
evidence proffered by the defendant in opposition to Catholic
Charities' claim merely creates a genuine factual dispute that
cannot be resolved on summary judgment.  Accordingly, he must deny
the Defendant's motion for summary judgment as to this claim.

As to the Individual Plaintiffs' motion for class certification,
the Judge concludes that the individual Plaintiffs have failed to
demonstrate that the requirements for class certification under
Rule 23(a) and (b)(2) have been satisfied.  Accordingly, he must
deny the individual Plaintiffs' request for class certification.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Walton concludes that the
Defendant has failed to demonstrate that it has disclosed all
reasonably segregable portions of the individual Plaintiffs'
assessments, and therefore, he denied the Defendant's motion for
summary judgment as to the individual Plaintiffs' requests for the
factual introductory paragraphs of their assessments.  He also sua
sponte entered summary judgment for the individual Plaintiffs as to
these requests and order the Defendant to disclose the first
several paragraphs of each assessment as indicated in the Order
accompanying the Memorandum Opinion.  

Additionally, the Judge concludes that Catholic Charities has
identified sufficient evidence for a reasonable factfinder to
conclude that the Defendant has a policy or practice of never
providing any part of an assessment and not even attempting to
determine if assessments contain reasonably segregable material.
Thus, he denied the Defendant's motion for summary judgment as to
Catholic Charities' policy-or-practice claims, as well.  Finally,
because the individual Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that
they are members of the putative class or that they have standing
to obtain prospective injunctive or declaratory relief, he denied
the individual Plaintiffs' request for class certification.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 24, 2018 Memorandum Opinion
is available at https://is.gd/F6PQ9d from Leagle.com.

RICA GATORE, ISAM AL TIMEMY, GEORGINE LUMONIKA, INNOCENT KABANO
SHYAKA, CHARLY MINTH AYESSA, AMINATA OUEDRAOGO, HERVE SHYAKA,
CATHOLIC CHARITIES & VERONICA LEMUS-MIRANDA, Plaintiffs,
represented by David Laundon Cleveland -- 1949.david@gmail.com --
CATHOLIC CHARITIES.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Defendant,
represented by Johnny Hillary Walker, III, U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
Civil Division.


UNITED STATES: Weston County to Join PILT Class-Action Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Alexis Barker, writing for News Letter Journal, reports that Weston
County will join 17 of the 23 Wyoming counties in the PILT class
action lawsuit against the federal government. The Weston County
commissioners were made aware of their eligibility for the lawsuit
in July, but were waiting to make the decision to join the lawsuit
until their regular meeting on Sept. 4, 10 days before the
deadline, according to County Clerk Jill Sellers.

The lawsuit alleges that the federal government did not pay
counties the entirety of the funds owed in 2015, 2016 and 2017. The
payment in lieu of taxes program attempts to compensate counties
for the lost tax revenue from federally owned lands.

Weston County received funds for each of the years cited -- just
not the full amount the county believes it should have received.
Sellers told the commissioners on Sept. 4 that the county would be
expected to gain about $15,000 through the lawsuit.

Sellers had previously explained to the News Letter Journal that
attorney fees will come with the lawsuit, with that expense taken
out of the payment to Weston County. She also noted that the
federal government also has the ability to appeal the lawsuit but
believes it is unlikely.

"I just checked briefly. We fit the definition you have to fit to
be qualified to get the money," County Attorney William Curley,
Esq. -- wc.wecao@gmail.com -- said on July 3. "The right court
already ruled that the language of the act does not give the
government the option to opt out if the funds are available. The
court says they are obligated and they need to make the funds
available."

PILT payments were established in 1976, when Congress passed the
Payment in Lieu of Taxes Act, which has since been amended three
times.

On Sept. 4, the commissioners voted unanimously to join the
lawsuit.[GN]


USA TECHNOLOGIES: Bernstein Liebhard Files Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, announces that a securities class action lawsuit has been
filed on behalf of those who purchased or acquired the securities
of USA Technologies, Inc. ("USAT" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: USAT)
between November 9, 2017 and September 11, 2018, both dates
inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover USAT
shareholders' investment losses.

If you purchased USAT securities, and/or would like to discuss your
legal rights and options, please visit USAT Shareholder Class
Action Lawsuit or contact Daniel Sadeh toll free at (877) 779-1414
or dsadeh@bernlieb.com.

According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) USAT's treatment of contractual arrangements in its
financial statements would result in an internal investigation and
delay the filing of its annual report for fiscal year 2018; (2)
consequently, USAT's internal controls over financial reporting
were weak and deficient; (3) as a result, Defendants' statements
about USAT's business, operations and prospects were materially
false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all
relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

On September 11, 2018, USAT disclosed that it was unable to timely
file its Form 10-K with the SEC for the fiscal year ended June 30,
2018 as 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, 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, damaging investors.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than November 13, 2018. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.

If you purchased USAT securities, and/or would like to discuss your
legal rights and options, please;

         Daniel Sadeh, Esq.
         Bernstein Liebhard LLP
         Telephone: (877) 779-1414
         Email: dsadeh@bernlieb.com [GN]


VENQUEST BG: Vicki Ross Sues over Customer Billing Surcharge
------------------------------------------------------------
VICKI ROSS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. VENQUEST BG, LLC, a Limited Liability
Corporation dba BUCKHORN GRILL; and DOES I to 25, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. CGC-18-569414 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sept. 4,
2018), alleges that the Defendant adds a 3.8% 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 which it calls "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


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Dieselgate Victims Set to Pioneer Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Volker Votsmeier and Dietmar Neuerer, writing for Handelblatts
Global, reports that a new German law permitting class action
lawsuits could see up to two million aggrieved Volkswagen drivers
take the carmaker to task over the emissions-rigging scandal.

German consumers have been chomping at the bit to take Volkswagen
to court for cheating them on diesel emissions, and now they will
finally get their chance.

Three years after VW admitted using software to artificially lower
toxic exhaust fumes, a new law is set to allow up to two million VW
customers to join a class action suit for damages.

For years, Germany has resisted such lawsuits because of what it
considers abuses of the process in the United States. The only
exception has been for investors who suffer losses because of
faulty information from a company. But these so-called "model"
trials still require individual plaintiffs to file a lawsuit once
the model trial has rendered a verdict. This is the method launched
by VW investors this week as they seek to recoup an alleged EUR9
billion ($10.5 billion) in losses.

The consumer class action, however, will take VW's potential
liability to a new level. German owners have looked on helplessly
as a US class action suit against the carmaker brought a settlement
of $10 billion, including buyback or reimbursement of repair
costs.

                                One for all

But it won't be straightforward for consumers. The new law, due to
come into effect in November, requires a consumer organization
fulfilling certain criteria to represent the plaintiffs. Two such
organizations -- the state-sponsored VZBV consumer advocate and the
ADAC automobile club -- announced they have joined forces to act on
their behalf. As with the current investor lawsuit against VW, the
consumer action will be heard in the state superior court in
Braunschweig, near the car giant's headquarters in Wolfsburg.

The two consumer groups declined to speculate about the outcome of
the trial because it takes German jurisprudence into uncharted
territory. "So far, case law across Germany has adjudicated
software manipulation very differently in individual lawsuits,"
said August Markl, president of ADAC.

The law firms engaged for the class action suit have considerable
experience with the VW issue already. Rogert & Ulbrich has
represented 8,000 clients against VW or dealers and won hundreds of
verdicts favoring the plaintiffs. The other firm, Stoll & Sauer,
has represented 10,000 plaintiffs. "Many aggrieved VW diesel
drivers have so far been reluctant to sue because of the expense,"
said partner Ralf Stoll, Esq. -- kanzlei@dr-stoll-kollegen.de "Now
this obstacle has been removed."

There is considerable uncertainty about how many diesel customers
will join in, however, though some two million customers
potentially belong to the class. The suit takes in buyers of VW,
Audi, Skoda and Seat models with EA 189 engines sold after November
1, 2008.

Despite the expected tidal wave of plaintiffs, Mr. Stoll believes
VW will take its chances in court. "This process could go on for a
few years," he said. VW professes not to be impressed by the new
legal challenge. "There is no legal basis for customer complaints
in connection with the diesel issue in Germany," a company
spokesman said.[GN]


YAHOO INC: Judge Grants Final OK to $80MM Settlement
----------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that a
federal judge granted final approval on September 7 of an $80
million settlement for a class of investors who lost money due to a
Yahoo data breach in 2014, which it revealed in 2016.


YOGI KRUPA: Madrigal Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
JAVIER MADRIGAL, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. YOGI KRUPA 594 INC. (D/B/A LALU DELI GROCERY), LALU
GROCERY 594 NY INC. (D/B/A LALU DELI GROCERY), LALU GROCERY 594
INC. (D/B/A LALU DELI GROCERY), BHARATKUMAR PATEL, SHETAL M PATEL,
TEJAS B PATEL, NIRAV (A.K.A. NICK) PATEL, GUNVANT PATEL, BRIJESH
PATEL, MD S ISLAM, and KALPESH PATEL, Case No. 1:18-cv-08504
(S.D.N.Y., September 18, 2018), arises from the Defendants' alleged
failure to pay the Plaintiff minimum wage and overtime compensation
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

Yogi Krupa 594 Inc. is a domestic corporation organized and
existing under the laws of the state of New York.  Lalu Grocery 594
NY Inc. is a New York domestic corporation.  Lalu Grocery 594 Inc.
is a New York domestic corporation.  The Individual Defendants
serve or served as owners, managers, principals, or agents of the
Defendant Corporations.

The Defendants own, operate, or control a deli, located at 594-596
Columbus Avenue, in New York City, under the name "Lalu Deli
Grocery."[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


YUMMY ORIENTAL: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Kiang Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TONG FU KIANG, on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. YUMMY ORIENTAL RESTAURANT, INC. d/b/a Yummy Oriental;
ORIENTAL PORT WASHINGTON INC d/b/a Yummy Oriental; and YUMMY PORT
WASHINGTON RESTAURANT INC d/b/a Yummy Oriental; TONG HOWE TAN, and
KOK HOBI LOOI, Case No. 2:18-cv-05256 (E.D.N.Y., September 18,
2018), alleges that the Defendants have committed widespread
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law
by failing to pay its employees, including the Plaintiff, overtime
compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek.

Yummy Oriental Restaurant, Inc., is a domestic business corporation
organized under the laws of the state of New York with a principal
address in Port Washington, New York.  Oriental Port Washington
Inc. is a domestic business corporation organized under the laws of
the state of New York with a principal address in Port Washington.
Yummy Port Washington Restaurant Inc. is a domestic business
corporation organized under the laws of New York with a principal
address in Port Washington.  The Individual Defendants are
officers, directors, managers, majority shareholders or owners of
the Corporate Defendants.

The Corporate Defendants are joint employers of the Plaintiff and
constitute an enterprise.  The Defendants is an enterprise, and is
otherwise engaged in related activities performed through unified
operation and/or common control for a common business purpose, and
are co-owned by the same partners doing business as "Yummy
Oriental" at 86 Main Street, in Port Washington.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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