CAR_Public/181003.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, October 3, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 198

                            Headlines

247.AI INC: Copeland Files Suit in N.D. California
650 PARLIAMENT: Two Law Firms File Class Action Over Fire
7-ELEVEN: Johnson Files Product Liability Suit in E.D. New York
A.J. BOGGS: Faces Class Suit over Release of Medical Information
AGWAY ENERGY: Court Dismisses Breach of Contract Suit

ALABAMA: Court Certifies Class of Randolph County Arrestees
ALAMO ENVIRONMENTAL: Underpays Inspectors, Harper Suit Alleges
ALARM.COM HOLDINGS: Settles Securities Class Action for $28MM
ALLIANCEMED LLC: Retina Associates Sues over Unsolicited Fax Ads
ALPHA RECOVERY: Ford Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York

ALTICE USA: Paul Warner Sues over 2017 Public Offering
AMBIANCE WINE: Haddoumi Files FLSA Suit in S.D. New York
AMN HEALTHCARE: Ogletree Deakins Attorney Discusses Court Ruling
ATCO PEST: Sykes Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
ATLANTIC COUNTY, NJ: Moore Class Certification Affirmed

AUSTRALIA: Indonesians Wrongly Jailed as Adults Seek Compensation
AVID TECHNOLOGY: Settlement Amount Already Paid in Mohanty Suit
BANK OF AMERICA: Wants 2nd Cir. to Examine Class Certification
BARCLAYS BANK: Christensen Sues over Debt Collection Practices
BEST COMPANION: Harris Files FLSA Suit in E.D. New York

BIOCRYST PHARMACEUTICALS: Klein Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
BIOCRYST PHARMACEUTICALS: Raatz Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
BITE SQUAD: Underpays Delivery Drivers, Holley et al. Claim
BUMBLE TRADING: Violates Dating Services Law, Schlossberg Says
C.TECH COLLECTIONS: Lowenbein Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York

CA INC: Faces Gilley Suit over Proposed Broadcom Merger
CAFE OF CRESCENT: Sanchez Arce Files FLSA Suit in E.D. New York
CALIFORNIA FAMILY HEALTH: Kahlfuss et al Sue in Calif. State Court
CANADA: Halifax Africville Expropriation Class Action Tossed
CAPUTO'S NEW FARM: Krause Sues over Use of Biometric Data

CEREBRAL ASSESSMENT: Schutty Sues over Investment Losses
CERNER CORP: Court Narrows Claims in Fung-Schwartz Suit
CHARLOTTE PALM: Court Grants Preliminary Approval of Class Deal
CHERYL YORK: Faces Callahan et al. Suit in N.D. Illinois
CONTINENTAL CASUALTY: Insurance Class Action Pending in Illinois

CRONOS GROUP: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action
CRUNCH SAN DIEGO: 9th Cir. Flips Summary Judgment in TCPA Suit
CUYAHOGA, OH: Weiskopf et al. Sue over Judgment Liens
DIAMOND MATTRESS: Faces Lopez Wage-and-Hour Suit
DIGNITY HEALTH: Faces Fichtner Suit in California State Court

DYCKMAN ELECTRONICS: Galindo Files FLSA Suit in S.D. New York
DYNAMIC PET: Court Affirms $2.4MM Class Action Settlement
EAZE SOLUTIONS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Lloyd Suit Alleges
EL RINCONCITO: Sandoval Seeks Minimum Wages under FLSA
ELECTRONIC ARTS: Court Denies Summary Judgment Bid in Davis Suit

ELECTRONIC ARTS: Ex-NFL Players Seeks Reversal of Madden Ruling
EMPIRE RESORTS Website Not Accessible, Mendez Suit Alleges
ENHANCED RECOVERY: Fraley Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. California
FINGER LAKES: Website Not Accessible, Mendez Suit Alleges
FIRST CONNECTICUT: Monteverde & Associates Files Class Action

FIRST DATA: Hernandez Sues over Credit Card Processing
FLAGSTAR BANK: Smiths Seek Interest in Mortgage Escrow Account
FLAVOR BOUTIQUE: Strulowitz Seeks Wages for Ice Scream Scoopers
FLINT, MI: Appeal Filed in Doris et al. Case
FLORIDA BEHAVIORAL: Violates Medical Leave Act, Steighler Says

FOODLINER INC: $1.2M Settlement in Austin Has Prelim Approval
FORBIDDEN FRUIT: Lizzol Files FLSA Suit in E.D. New York
FORSTER & GARBUS: Damasco Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
FOWLER FOODS: Underpay General Managers, Jones Suit Alleges
FUSO TRUCKING: Faces Rubalcaba Suit in California Superior Court

GF-PASSAIC FOODS: NJ App. Div. Partly Affirms Barile Dismissal
GOLDMAN SACHS: Gender Discrimination Class Action Can Proceed
GORANA INTERNATIONAL: Honeywell Files ADA Suit in S.D. Florida
GORDON FOOD: Sullivan Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
GRAY TELEVISION: Forbes Suit Alleges Price Fixing of TV Ad Rates

GREAT ESCAPE INN: Honeywell Files ADA Suit in S.D. Florida
GREAT-WEST LIFE: Court Strikes Expanded ERISA Class Definition
GROSSMAN & KARASZEWSKI: Farrell Alleges Wrongful Debt Collections
HARDEE: Seeks Dismissal of Hepatitis A Outbreak Class Action
HAYT HAYT: Barendaum Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania

HEALTH CARE: Dismissal Show Cause Order Issued in Candelaria Suit
HOLLOWAY CREDIT: Tabbs Sues over Debt Collection Practices
IAC/INTERACTIVECORP: Proposed Dismissal Order Filed in "McCloskey"
ICU MEDICAL: Court Wants Class Suit over Saline Solution Revised
IDAHO TIMBER: Underpays Production Workers, Knight Suit Alleges

INDIANA: Court Grants Summary Judgment in IDOC HepC Care Suit
INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS: Website Not Accessible, Mendez Claims
INTRUST BANK: Court Narrows Claims in Locicero TILA Suit
JD.COM: Faces Securities Class Action Following CEO's Arrest
JKAT LLC: Fails to Pay OT to Teaching Staff, Hidalgo Alleges

JOY GLOBAL: Dec. 20 Fairness Hearing on Securities Suit Settlement
JUNO THERAPEUTICS: Settles Shareholder Class Action for $24MM
KINGATE MANAGEMENT: 2d Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Investors Suit
KNORR-BREMSE AG: Faces Escalera Suit over No-Poach Agreements
KNORR-BREMSE: Castagno Sues over No-Poach Agreements

KOCH FOODS: Boiler Chicken Antitrust Suit Transferred to N.D. Ill.
LA VOGLIA: Gomez Files ADA Suit in S.D. Florida
LANDMARK RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Wages, Garcia Says
LIONS GATE: Continues to Defend Starz Merger Class Action
LIONS GATE: Gross Class Action in Colorado Still Stayed

LOS ANGELES, CA: 9th Cir. Affirms Campbell Class Decertification
MARCUS CLEGG: Endicott and Median Allege Investment Scams
MATCH GROUP: Shearman Sterling Discusses Class Action Dismissal
MDL 2656: Court Extends Fact Discovery Deadlines
MDL 2741: Naranjo Suit vs Monsanto over Roundup Consolidated

MDL 2843: Court Sets Protocol for Common Benefit Work & Expenses
MDL 2870: Consolidation of Class Suits v. Patriot National Sought
METROPOLITAN LIFE: 9th Circuit Appeal in Martin Suit Still Pending
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Continues to Defend Voshall Class Suit
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Faces Roycroft Class Action in New York

MEWBOURNE OIL: Fails to Pay Wages to Lease Operators, Felps Says
MICHIGAN: Washington/MDOC Director Dismissed from ICF Inmates' Suit
MICRON TECHNOLOGY: D'Amore et al. Sue over DRAM Price Fixing
MICROSOFT CORP: Moussouris Appeals Class Cert. Denial to 9th Cir.
MIDLAND CREDIT: California Court Won't Dismiss FDCPA Suit

MISSION CONSTRUCTORS: Fails to Pay Wages, Hernandez Says
MISSOURI: Class Action Mulled Over Inhumane Prison Conditions
MONDA WINDOW: Court Dismisses Individual Defendants in FLSA Suit
NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Court Issues Confidentiality Order in Abante
NCAA:: College Athletes Challenge Compensation Limit

NEW RAMS DELI: Alvarado Files FLSA Suit in S.D. New York
NEW YORK: Police Officers File Class Action Over Quotas
NFL: NFLPA Seeks Dismissal of Securities Class Action
NIEMELA REALTY: Swan Sues over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
NXIVM: Seagram Heiress Faces Class Action Over Fraudulent Scheme

OS RESTAURANT SERVICES: Fails to Pay Wages, Briggs III Alleges
PACIFIC CAPITAL: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Knapp Suit Claims
PAPER FACTORY: Face Juscinska Suit in S.D. New York
PHIA GROUP: Court Narrows Claims in Weyant GBL Suit
PHOENIX FOOTWEAR: Website Not Accessible, Kiler Suit Alleges

PLANTLAB LLC: Culinary School Misleads Students, Dilallo Claims
PLASTIC EXPRESS: Underpays Truck Drivers, Flores Suit Alleges
PREMIER COURIER: $600K Settlement in Wright Has Final Approval
RED MANGROVE: Honeywell Files ADA Suit in S.D. Florida
RELIABLE COLLECTIONS: Latteri Sues over Debt Collection Practices

RENT-A-CENTER INC: Faces Downing Suit over Vintage Merger
RETAIL SERVICES: Perez et al. Seek Overtime Pay
REVLON INC: Bid to Dismiss Arden Merger-Related Suit Still Pending
ROBBIE'S LAUNDRYMAT: Underpays Laundry Attendants, Hernandez Says
ROCK ISLAND COUNTY, IL: Court Dismisses Roberson Prisoners Suit

ROCKPORT ADMINISTRATIVE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Wing Says
SACRAMENTO REGIONAL TRANS: Faces White Suit in Calif. State Court
SAFETY INSURANCE: Court Dismisses Rodolakis FDCA Suit
SAGE INTACCT: Thompson Ly Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
SALUS MSO: Faces Velazquez Suit in New York State Court

SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Wazwaz et al. Seek OT Pay under FLSA
SERF TWO: Pereda Files FLSA Suit in S.D. New York
SERVICELINK FIELD: Collins Suit Moved to C.D. California
SETERUS INC: Faces Fordham Suit in District of New Jersey
SINALOA 2000: Underpays Salespersons, Tamayo Suit Alleges

SKECHERS U.S.A.: Wilk Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
SORRENTO THERAPEUTICS: Yvonne Williams Class Action Concluded
SUMMIT CREDIT: Court Dismisses Domann EFTA Suit
TATA CONSULTANCY: Court Won't Invalidate Release Agreements
TCR SPORTS: Gonzalez TCPA Suit Remains in District Court

TESLA INC: Shearman & Sterling Discusses Securities Suit Dismissal
TIP COUSINS: Velasquez Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
TRIMED HOME: Underpays Home Care Attendants, Young Suit Claims
UNITED STATES: Contractual Guidance Sought in SA-TECH Suit
UNITED STATES: Injunction Bid in Immigration Suit Held in Abeyance

UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI: Sung Hee Joo Suit Removed to S.D. Fla.
US EXPRESS: Discovery Ongoing in Calif. Truck Drivers' Class Suit
WEB.COM GROUP: Franchi Balks at Merger Deal with Parker Private

                            *********

247.AI INC: Copeland Files Suit in N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against [24]7.AI, Inc. The
case is styled as Madison Copeland individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. [24]7.AI, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 5:18-cv-05859 (N.D. Cal., Sept. 24, 2018).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

The Plaintiff, [24]7.ai Inc., is a customer experience software and
services company that uses artificial intelligence and machine
learning to understand consumer intent. It helps companies create a
personalized experience across all channels.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq.
     Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, LLP
     15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400
     Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
     Phone: (818) 788-8300
     Fax: (818) 788-8104
     Email: dwarshaw@pswlaw.com


650 PARLIAMENT: Two Law Firms File Class Action Over Fire
---------------------------------------------------------
The law firms of Strosberg Sasso Sutts LLP and Charney Lawyers PC
have filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of the approximately
1500 residents of the apartment building located at 650 Parliament
Street in Toronto, Ontario.

On August 21, 2018, an electrical fire occurred in the building.
All of the residents were evacuated, and none of them have been
able to return to their homes as a result of the extensive damage
caused by the fire, except to briefly gather some belongings.

Residents may be entitled to compensation for loss of use and
enjoyment of their homes, physical injury including smoke
inhalation, emotional injuries, damage to property, costs of repair
and cleanup of their property, expenses for mileage, food, and the
costs of purchasing new clothing and essentials, costs of obtaining
alternative accommodations and lost income.

"A class action will provide access to justice for all tenants and
their families," said Ted Charney of Charney Lawyers PC.

"Our goal is to obtain compensation for the residents of 650
Parliament Street. I implore the residents to save their receipts
for expenses incurred, record their mileage for extra driving and
track days missed from work for the purposes of proving their
losses," said Sharon Strosberg -- sharon@strosbergco.com -- of
Strosberg Sasso Sutts LLP.

Mr. Charney and Ms. Strosberg was scheduled to hold a town hall
information meeting for the residents on Tuesday September 11 at
6:00 pm at Saint Luke's United Church located at 353 Sherbourne
Street (Carlton & Sherbourne). Residents were encouraged to attend
the meeting to meet the lawyers and learn more about the class
action.

Mr. Charney and Ms. Strosberg are experienced class action
litigators with particular expertise in residential tenancy class
actions. As co-counsel, they were successful in obtaining
compensation for residents in class actions arising out of
fires/explosions at apartment buildings in Toronto on Secord Avenue
and Kingston Road. They were also co-counsel on the Sunrise Propane
class action which was resolved in a $23 million settlement.

Residents of 650 Parliament Street are encouraged to register to
receive more information about the class action at
https://www.strosbergco.com/class-actions/parliament. [GN]


7-ELEVEN: Johnson Files Product Liability Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 7-Eleven, Inc. The
case is styled as Jonathan Johnson individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 7-Eleven, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-05351 (E.D. N.Y., Sept. 21, 2018).

The nature of suit is stated as Health Care/Pharmaceutical Personal
Injury Product Liability.

7-Eleven, Inc. operates, franchises, and licenses a chain of
convenience stores in the United States, Canada, Japan, Taiwan,
Thailand, South Korea, China, Malaysia, Mexico, Singapore,
Australia, the Philippines, Indonesia, Norway, Sweden, and Denmark.
The company offers hot food, sandwiches, bakery products,
breakfast, pizza, snacks, meals, coffee, salads and side dishes,
cut fruits, protein box, burgers, bottled cans, beer, and wine
under the brands such as Slurpee, Big Bite, and Big Gulp. It also
offers private brand products under the 7-Select brand.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Spencer I. Sheehan. Esq.
     Sheehan & Associates, P.C.
     891 Northern Blvd, Suite 201
     Great Neck, NY 11021
     Phone: (516) 303-0552
     Fax: (516) 234-7800
     Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com


A.J. BOGGS: Faces Class Suit over Release of Medical Information
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN DOE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. A.J. BOGGS & COMPANY; and DOES 1-100,
the Defendant, Case No. 18CECG03378 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sept. 11,
2018), seeks to recover damages as a result of the Defendant's
unauthorized release of Plaintiffs' individual identifiable
"medical information" made unlawful by Civil Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to obtain the
written consent of Plaintiff and the Class before publishing
Plaintiff's and the Class' medical information on its ADAP
enrollment Internet portal, which is accessible to anyone without
the need for decryption or entry of a password.  This constitutes a
negligent release of Plaintiff's and the Class' confidential,
individual identifiable "medical information" to an unauthorized
person or persons in violation of the Civil Code.

The Defendant is engaged in streamline service delivery
business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patrick N. Keegan, Esq.
          KEEGAN & BAKER, LLP
          6156 Innovation Way
          Carlsbad, CA 92009
          Telephone: (760) 929 9303
          Facsimile: (760) 929 9260


AGWAY ENERGY: Court Dismisses Breach of Contract Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania issued a Memorandum Opinion granting Defendant Agway
Energy Services, LLC's (Agway) Motion to Dismiss pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) in the case captioned
JAMES BROWN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated Plaintiff, v. AGWAY ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, Defendant.  Civ.
A. No. 18-321. (W.D. Pa.).

Agway is an electric generation supplier (EGS) that purchases
energy directly or indirectly from energy production companies and,
in turn, sells that energy to consumers. Plaintiff brings this suit
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
alleging that Agway uses improper pricing practices with respect to
its variable rates, resulting in its consumers paying considerably
more for their electricity than they otherwise should pay under the
Customer Contract. According to Plaintiff, Agway lures customers
into switching energy suppliers by offering initial teaser rates
and then promising a variable rate based on market-related
factors.

Under Pennsylvania law, a claim for breach of contract has three
elements: (1) the existence of a contract, including its essential
terms, (2) a breach of a duty imposed by the contract and (3)
resultant damages.

The dispute lies in whether the Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged
a breach of that contract with respect to the price structure
terms. The Plaintiff relies solely on the Customer Contract's
language that the variable rate structure revolves around
market-related factors and thus, Plaintiff concludes, the ultimate
rate must be competitive with the local utility's rates. Because
Agway charged variable rates between 20% and 46% higher than the
local utility's rate, Plaintiff alleges that Agway is in breach of
the Customer Contract's variable rate terms.

Agway clearly did not promise money savings, since the Customer
Contract also explicitly states that there is no guarantee of
future savings. The Plaintiff in this case argues that Agway's
charged variable rates breached the pricing terms of the Customer
Contract because the local utility rates incorporate essentially
the same factors as Agway's, so the difference between the two
rates each month shows plausible price gouging, which is a breach
of Agway's pricing terms. The Court concludes this comparison
provides insufficient factual support for the Plaintiff's claim to
survive Agway's Motion to Dismiss.

The Plaintiff's allegation in his Complaint that purchases made by
the utilities from the wholesale market reflect actual market costs
and conditions confuses wholesale rates with Agway's actual costs.
The Plaintiff's Complaint acknowledges that the very purpose of
deregulating the energy market was to allow EGSs, like Agway, to
use innovative purchasing strategies to buy electricity. While
lawmakers may have intended for this to result in lower prices for
consumers, the various options for purchasing electricity gives
Agway discretion as to how it acquires its electricity.

Agway could have bought electricity wholesale, either in advance or
on the spot market, produce its own supply, or contract from other
brokers. Moreover, retailers often seek to offset market volatility
through futures contracts, which could also impact Agway's costs.
Because Plaintiff does not plead how Agway filled its supply needs,
it cannot equate wholesale rates with Agway's acquisition costs,
and a difference of even 46% in a discrete window of time is not
sufficiently unreasonable to give rise to a plausible breach of
Agway's price structure even if Agway's price structure was more
narrowly tailored to simply market factors. But the price structure
here is not so narrowly tailored.

So long as the contractual price structure incorporates some factor
beyond market factors, a simple comparison of the EGS's rate to the
local public utility rate is not sufficient to support the
reasonable inference that the EGS did not adhere to that formula.
Here, Agway's price structure was based on many factors beyond
market-related charges. Agway gave itself discretion in setting
rates. Many cases on which Plaintiff relies to support his argument
that high EGS rates demonstrate unlawful price gouging involved
written agreements where discretion was not a named factor and the
price was explicitly linked to only market conditions, thus
distinguishing those holdings from this case.  

Therefore, the Plaintiff's factual allegation regarding the
discrepancy between the local utility rate and Agway's utility rate
as pled in the Complaint, in light of Agway's discretion to set
rates, is insufficient to support the reasonable inference that
Agway did not adhere to its rate formula.

The Plaintiff argues that of all the price structure factors
enumerated, the factors beyond the wholesale electricity cost are
insignificant in terms of the overall costs, but the Plaintiff's
statement that factors beyond electricity acquisition costs
represent only an insignificant adder and thus cannot account for
up to a 46% differential is a conclusory statement unsupported by
factual allegations. The Plaintiff directs the Court to Paragraphs
40 through 50 of his Complaint as explaining how each of those
factors affect the rate, yet these allegations do not shed any
light on how the components exclusive to EGSs such as Agway might
cause variations in Agway's rates. As Plaintiff has failed to
allege that his rate comparator, the local utility, incorporates
costs, expenses, and margins comparable to those of Agway, he has
failed to allege sufficient facts to state a plausible claim for
breach of contract.

The Plaintiff's breach of contract claim is dismissed as it fails
to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 10, 2018
Memorandum Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/yc2reml9
from Leagle.com.

JAMES BROWN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by D. Aaron Rihn , Robert Peirce &
Associates, P.C., Jonathan Shub -- jshub@kohnswift.com -- Kohn,
Swift & Graf, P.C., pro hac vice, Kevin Laukaitis --
klaukaitis@kohnswift.com -- Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.C., pro hac vice,
Steven L. Wittels -- slw@wittelslaw.com -- Law Offices of Steven L
Wittels, PC, pro hac vice & Tiasha Palikovic --
tpalikovic@wittelslaw.com -- Wittels Law, pro hac vice.

AGWAY ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, represented by Jesse C.
Ehnert -- jehnert@bmg.law -- Bevan, Mosca & Giuditta, P.C., pro hac
vice, John D. Coyle -- jcoyle@bmg.law -- Bevan, Mosca & Giuditta,
PC, pro hac vice, William K. Mosca, Jr. -- wmosca@bmg.law -- Bevan,
Mosca & Giuditta, P.C., pro hac vice, Stanley Yorsz --
stanley.yorsz@bipc.com -- Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC & Sydney
Rochelle Normil -- sydney.normil@bipc.com -- Buchanan Ingersoll &
Rooney.


ALABAMA: Court Certifies Class of Randolph County Arrestees
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of
Alabama, Eastern Division, issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order
granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification in the case
captioned KANDACE KAY EDWARDS, Plaintiff. v. DAVID COFIELD, et al.,
Defendants. Case No. 3:17-CV-321-WKW. (M.D. Ala.).

The Plaintiff seeks to certify a class consisting of all
state-court arrestees who are or who will be jailed in Randolph
County who are unable to pay the secured money bail amount required
for their release.

To avail herself of this exception, a plaintiff seeking class
certification bears the burden of proving that she has satisfied
the four prerequisites of Rule 23(a) often shorthanded as
numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy  and that the
class action will meet one of the three requirements of Rule 23(b).


The parties agree that the Plaintiff has met the requirements for
class certification under Rule 23(a) and (b)(2), although there is
some dispute about the definition and number of classes. The
Plaintiff defined her proposed class in her motion for class
certification and supporting memorandum as consisting of all
arrestees who are or who will be jailed in Randolph County who are
unable to pay the secured monetary bail amount required for their
release.

In her reply brief, the Plaintiff suggested modifying that
definition to include all state-court arrestees who are or who will
be jailed in Randolph County who are unable to pay the secured
money bail amount required for their release. That modification was
intended to exclude municipal-court arrestees as well as
individuals detained solely due to a hold request from another
jurisdiction.

Upon consideration of the arguments and the law on class
certification, the court finds that the Plaintiff's proposed class
meets the requirements of Rule 23(a) and (b)(2) and that breaking
that proposed class into two separate classes is unnecessary at
this time. The Plaintiff's proposed class is sufficiently numerous
that joinder of all members would be impracticable; there are
questions of law or fact common to the proposed class; the
Plaintiff's claims are typical of the claims of the proposed class;
and the Plaintiff and her counsel will fairly and adequately
protect the interests of the class.  

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants have acted or refused to
act on grounds generally applicable to the proposed class, which
would make final declaratory and injunctive relief appropriate
respecting the proposed class as a whole. Finally, this type of
suit is the quintessential stuff of Rule 23(b)(2) class actions.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 10, 2018
Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y8zb6jrz from Leagle.com.

Kandace Kay Edwards, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Alec Karakatsanis --
mtemple@reedsmith.com -- Equal Justice Under Law, Andrea Woods --
awoods@aclu.org -- ACLU, Brandon Jerel Buskey -- bbuskey@aclu.org
-- American Civil Liberties Union, Katherine Hubbard --
katherine@civilrightscorps.org -- Civil Rights Corps, pro hac vice,
Micah West -- micah.west@splcenter.org -- Southern Poverty Law
Center, Randall C. Marshall -- rmarshall@aclualabama.org -- ACLU of
Alabama Foundation, Inc., Samuel Jacob Brooke --
samuel.brooke@splcenter.org -- Southern Poverty Law Center,
Alexandra Marie Jordan -- alexandra.jordan@splcenter.org --
Southern Poverty Law Center & Brock Boone -- bboone@aclualabama.org
-- ACLU of Alabama.

David Cofield, in his official capacity as Randolph County Sheriff,
Defendant, represented by Jamie Helen Kidd -- jkidd@webbeley.com --
Webb & Eley, P.C. & Kendrick Emerson Webb -- kwebb@webbeley.com --
Webb & Eley.

Christopher May, in his official capacity as Circuit Clerk, Jill
Puckett, in her official capacity as Magistrate of the Randolph
County District Court & Amy Newsome, Defendants, represented
byBenjamin Howard Albritton , Alabama Attorney General's Office,
Brad A. Chynoweth , State of Alabama Office of the Attorney
General, James William Davis , State of Alabama Office of the
Attorney General, Jordan Dorman Walker, Jr. , Balch & Bingham LLP,
Laura Elizabeth Howell , Office of the Alabama Attorney General &
John W. Naramore , Balch & Bingham LLP.


ALAMO ENVIRONMENTAL: Underpays Inspectors, Harper Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
JINA HARPER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ALAMO ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. d/b/a ALAMO 1,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00417 (E.D. Tex., Aug. 23, 2018) is an
action against the Defendant to recover unpaid overtime wages,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs.

The Plaintiff Harper was employed by the Defendant as inspector
from January 29, 2018 to July 6, 2018.

Alamo Environmental, Inc. operates as an environmental contractor.
It offers abatement services for schools, hospitals, city
buildings, military bases, and insurance companies; construction
services, such as site work/space planning, laying foundation,
metal building construction, carpentry, painting, installation of
acoustical ceilings, flooring, general contracting, renovations,
and job order contracting; and demolition services, which include
initial planning, budgetary advice, plant and equipment salvage,
plant and structural dismantling, excavation, and site remediation
and preparation. The company was founded in 2003 and is based in
San Antonio, Texas with additional offices in Texas, Florida; and
the Gulf Coast. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Melissa Moore, Esq.
          Curt Hesse, Esq.
          Bridget Davidson, Esq.
          MOORE & ASSOCIATES
          440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 222-6775
          Facsimile: (713) 222-6739


ALARM.COM HOLDINGS: Settles Securities Class Action for $28MM
-------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Medici, writing for Washington Business Journal, reports that
Tysons-based home security and smart home company Alarm.com
Holdings Inc. has agreed to pay $28 million to settle a nearly
3-year-old class-action lawsuit tied to telemarketing, according to
recent Securities and Exchange Commission filings.

The case stems from the actions of an Alarm.com service provider's
alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act,
detailed in a lawsuit filed in December 2015. The plaintiffs argued
that Alarm.com was liable for the actions of its service providers,
including repeated robocalls and calls to people who had been
placed on a do not call registry.

Now all parties will ask the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California to stay the proceedings pending a
negotiation of a full agreement and its approval by that court.
Alarm.com is making no admission of liability, the company said in
the filing.

The settlement agreement hasn't damped the company's stock price,
which continues to hover near $56 per share -- close to the $57.67
the company hit on Aug. 22, which is the highest it has been in
company history.

Alarm.com President and CEO Stephen Trundle said in the SEC filing
that the company was pleased to reach a settlement that eliminates
the risk of continued litigation. He added Alarm.com does not and
has never made any outbound telemarketing calls in violation of the
TCPA, and that its agreements with service providers stipulate they
must follow all applicable laws.

A jury trial was scheduled to begin in October, and TCPA permits a
jury to award damages far higher than the proposed settlement, he
said.

"Based on these considerations, we determined it was in the best
interest of the Company to settle the matter, Mr. Trundle said.
"Our belief is that this particular case involved a number of
unique circumstances that made settlement here a more reasonable
course for the Company."

The company has been beating analyst expectations, with revenue
growing to $104 million for the second quarter of 2018, up from
$85.9 million during the same time last year. Revenue for the first
half of 2018 is up nearly $40 million over the same period in 2017,
and profits are also way up, with $21.2 million compared to $12.8
million during the first six months of last year. [GN]


ALLIANCEMED LLC: Retina Associates Sues over Unsolicited Fax Ads
----------------------------------------------------------------
RETINA ASSOCIATES MEDICAL GROUP, INC., individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ALLIANCEMED,
LLC d/b/a ALLIANCEMED and DRAYE TURNER, the Defendants, Case No.
8:18-cv-01670 (C.D. Cal., Sept. 14, 2018), alleges that Defendants
violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Turner works for AllianceMed as an inside sales representative.
According to the complaint, the Defendants, directly or through
other persons acting on their behalf, conspired to, agreed to,
contributed to, assisted with, or otherwise caused the wrongful
acts and omissions, including the dissemination of the junk faxes
that are the subject matter of this complaint.

The Defendants have in the past four years systematically and under
a uniform policy and procedure sent or arranged to be sent
hundreds, or thousands, of fax advertisements, advertising the
commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or
services, to fax machines or computers to fax machines throughout
the United States, including those of Plaintiff and Class Members,
which did not contain an opt-out notice as required by the TCPA.

The fax advertisements that Defendants caused to be sent contain
preprinted, standardized text and format. Defendants' advertising
by fax was not sporadic or unorganized, but instead was part of a
well-organized mass advertising tactic and campaign. Each fax
advertisement sent to Plaintiff and, and each Class Member
routinely failed to include the opt-out notice required by the TCPA
and its regulations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ALPHA RECOVERY: Ford Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alpha Recovery Corp.
The case is styled as James Ford individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Alpha Recovery Corp,
Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-05366
(E.D. N.Y., Sept. 24, 2018).

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

Alpha Recovery Corp was established in 2010 as a full service
Accounts Receivable Management (ARM) firm located in Greenwood
Village, CO. Alpha's partners have over 70 years of experience of
being a leader in different positions within the ARM industry.

Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC provides payment rewards, bankruptcy
collection, and debt collection services. It purchases and services
consumer bankruptcy accounts in its client's portfolio; evaluates
and acquires bankruptcy receivables through bulk sales/on a forward
flow basis; provides bankruptcy claims services and notification
services; and purchases virtual accounts at various stages of the
charge-off recovery cycle.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.



ALTICE USA: Paul Warner Sues over 2017 Public Offering
------------------------------------------------------
PAUL WARNER, Individually and on Behalf of Himself and All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. ALTICE USA, INC., ALTICE
EUROPE N.V. (f/k/a ALTICE N.V.), PATRICK DRAHI, JEREMIE JEAN
BONNIN, ABDELHAKIM BOUBAZINE, MICHEL COMBES, DAVID P. CONNOLLY,
DEXTER G. GOEI, VICTORIA M. MINK, MARK CHRISTOPHER MULLEN, DENNIS
OKHUIJSEN, LISA ROSENBLUM, CHARLES F. STEWART, RAYMOND SVIDER,
GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. LLC, J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, MORGAN STANLEY
& CO. LLC, CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE,
FENNER & SMITH, INC., BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC., BNP PARIBAS SECURITIES
CORP., CREDIT AGRICOLE SECURITIES (USA) INC., DEUTSCHE BANK
SECURITIES INC., RBC CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC, SCOTIA CAPITAL (USA)
LLC, SG AMERICAS SECURITIES LLC, and TD SECURITIES (USA) LLC, the
Defendants, Case No. 709097/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Sept. 12, 2018),
is a class action on behalf of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired Altice USA common stock pursuant or traceable to
the Company's Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in
connection with Altice USA's June 2017 initial public offering.
The action asserts strict-liability, non-fraud claims under
sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 against
Altice USA, its former controlling parent Altice N.V., certain
current and former officers and directors of Altice USA and the
former Altice N.V., and the underwriters of the IPO.

In June 2017, Defendants commenced the IPO, issuing over 71 million
shares of Altice USA common stock to the investing public at $30
per share, all pursuant to the Registration Statement.  According
to the complaint, the Offering Documents contained untrue
statements of material fact and omitted to state material facts
both required by governing regulations and necessary to make the
statements made not misleading.

Altice USA is a broadband communications provider and, until
approximately June 8, 2018, was the United States subsidiary of
Altice N.V., a Netherlands-based multinational telecommunications
company founded and controlled by Defendant Patrick Drahi. Altice
USA and Altice N.V. were interdependent. They shared officers and
directors. They jointly reported respective quarterly and yearly
financial results. They jointly conducted earnings calls with
analysts. Altice USA was majority-owned and controlled by Altice
N.V. and Defendant Drahi; in turn, Altice N.V. was majority-owned
and controlled by Defendant Drahi. Through related shell entities,
Altice N.V. and Defendant Drahi owned 75.2% of Altice USA's issued
and outstanding shares of common stock and held 98.5% of the voting
power of Altice USA's outstanding capital stock.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff Paul Warner

          Thomas L. Laughlin, IV, Esq.
          Rhiana L. Swartz, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
          The Helmsley Building
          230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
          New York, New York 10169
          Telephone: (212) 233 6444
          Facsimile: (212) 233 6334
          E-mail: tlaughlin@scott-scott.com
                  rswartz@scott-scott.com

               - and -

          Francis A. Bottini, Jr., Esq.
          Albert Y. Chang, Esq.
          Yury A. Kolesnikov, Esq.
          BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC.
          7817 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 102
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (858) 914 2001
          Facsimile: (858) 914 2002
          E-mail: fbottini@bottinilaw.com
                  achang@bottinilaw.com
                  ykolesnikov@bottinilaw.com


AMBIANCE WINE: Haddoumi Files FLSA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ambiance Wine LLC et
al. The case is styled as Maryem Haddoumi, Andrea Vugec on behalf
of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Ambiance
Wine LLC d/b/a Vella Wine Bar, Evgenia Huldisch, Vladislav "Billy"
Karasik, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-08651 (S.D. N.Y., Sept. 21,
2018).

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

Vella is a Mediterranean restaurant on the Upper East Side with
outdoor seating and oyster Happy Hour.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.


AMN HEALTHCARE: Ogletree Deakins Attorney Discusses Court Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael J. Nader, Esq. -- michael.nader@ogletree.com -- of
Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., in an article for
The National Law Review, wrote that how can a company manage its
overtime policy in compliance with California law? A recent
decision by a federal district court in California certified a
class action involving claims of unpaid overtime, and the court's
reasoning shows what factors employers may want to consider -- and
to avoid -- when designing an overtime policy. In Shaw v. AMN
Healthcare, Inc., a putative class of traveling nurses (employed by
a labor contractor, AMN Healthcare, Inc., that recruits and places
traveling nurses at healthcare facilities nationwide) claimed that
they were not paid for overtime when they worked at Kaiser
hospitals in California. The court certified the class action,
finding that the plaintiffs met the commonality and predominance
requirements as to their overtime claims.

The Court's Analysis
The judge emphasized that California law requires employers to
compensate employees for all time they are "suffered or permitted
to work, whether or not required to do so." As such, it is the duty
of management to "make every effort" to enforce a rule against
uncompensated work, including "tak[ing] reasonable steps to
investigate" suspected work that is done without compensation.
Employers cannot "sit[] back" or "stand[] idly by" while employees
do uncompensated work.   

In reviewing the facts, the judge found that common policies and
communications were sent to traveling nurses that conveyed to them
that Kaiser has a "strict policy against overtime." Handbook
policies at some facilities expressly stated that overtime is not
authorized. Other policies provided an approval process for
overtime that the plaintiffs claimed was too burdensome because it
required the preapproval and signatures of two different managers.
Some plaintiffs testified that they were exhausted after a 12-hour
shift and that "it was often an 'impossible task' to track down a
manager or charge nurse to authorize overtime."

The court also found that Kaiser requires all of its nurses (its
own nurses as well as the traveling nurses) to perform the same
core duties and requires that they uphold the same ethical and
professional obligations with respect to patient care. However, the
court noted that Kaiser's overtime policy for its own nurses
permits them to work up to two hours of overtime each week without
supervisor approval, while travel nurses must be preauthorized for
any overtime. The court cautioned that this situation could
evidence a "structural problem" of failing to pay overtime to
traveling nurses, giving employers of such nurses something to
analyze and consider.

Key Takeaways
There are many steps a company may want to consider taking to
manage overtime within the requirements of California law,
including the following:   

Instead of designing a policy that prohibits overtime, an employer
may want to consider drafting a policy that permits overtime based
on the preauthorization of a supervisor.

Consider adopting a preauthorization requirement that is less
burdensome than requiring employees to obtain signed forms prior to
working overtime, such as requiring verbal authorization of
overtime and then documentation the following day by the
supervisor.

Employers may want to apply similar overtime policies to similar
categories of employees.

An employer can expressly require employees to record all hours
worked, including overtime that was not approved in advance as
required by the policy.

Employers may want to require employees to sign their time sheets
to attest that they are accurate and complete and that they include
all time worked, including any overtime, whether or not it was
preauthorized.

Another suggestion is to require employees to attest that they were
provided their duty-free meal breaks and that they took their
breaks. Plaintiffs often raise overtime claims based on allegations
that they were required to work through their meal breaks, and thus
when they clock out at the end of their regular 8-hour shift, they
claim to have worked 30 minutes of overtime. Ensuring the provision
of duty-free meal breaks can prevent such overtime claims.    

Employers may want to notify employees that the underreporting of
time worked and working off-the-clock are violations of company
policy and may lead to the termination of employment.

An employer can encourage employees to carefully review their
records of time worked, earnings statements, pay stubs, direct
deposit statements, and paychecks to ensure that they are accurate
and correct and to immediately report any discrepancies to human
resources (HR).

Consider reminding employees in writing that no manager or
supervisor has the authority to require, encourage, suggest, or
permit an employee to work off-the-clock or underreport their hours
worked. Also, remind any employee experiencing such situations to
immediately report them to HR.

An employer may want to require employees to immediately report to
HR any concerns about their schedules, time worked, records of
overtime worked, or their pay.

Consider training supervisors that they are prohibited from (a)
withholding overtime pay for any reason, including as a means to
enforce a preauthorization policy; (b) encouraging or coercing
employees to misrepresent or underreport their time worked; or (c)
encouraging or coercing employees to work off-the-clock.

An employer may want to regularly audit records of overtime paid
and any complaints about the preauthorization process or
uncompensated overtime. [GN]


ATCO PEST: Sykes Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ATCO Pest Control
Inc. The case is styled as Sykes, Devonnea D. on behalf of himself,
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ATCO Pest Control Inc.,
a California Corporation, Defendant, Case No. CGC18570020 (Cal.
Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Sept. 21, 2018).

The case type is stated as "Other Non Exempt Complaints".

ATCO Pest Control Inc. is a family-owned, independent company, and
it takes pride in designing pest management strategies tailored to
the individual needs and preferences of its clients in the San
Francisco Bay Area. Owners Richard and Estella Estrada have over 20
years’ of experience in the pest control industry. ATCO Pest
Control clients include: residential homeowners, commercial
building owners, municipalities, schools and hospitals. ATCO’s
technicians focus on creating effective, long-term solutions for
specific pest problems. It does not require lengthy
one-size-fits-all service contracts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Shaun Setareh, Esq.
     Setareh Law Group
     315 S Beverly Dr, Ste 315
     Beverly Hills, CA 90212-4309
     Phone: (310) 888-7771
     Fax: (310) 888-0109
     E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com


ATLANTIC COUNTY, NJ: Moore Class Certification Affirmed
-------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, issued an
Opinion affirming the judgment of the District Court's granting
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification in the case captioned
JOHN MOORE, ALPHONSO JOHNSON, MEL FREE EL and DONALD DILLARD,
individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. ATLANTIC COUNTY and GARY MERLINE, both
individually and in his official capacity as the Warden of the
Atlantic County Correctional Facility, Defendants-Appellants. No.
A-5317-16T3. (N.J. Super. App. Div.).

Defendants Atlantic County and Gary Merline appeal on the Court's
leave order granting the motion of plaintiffs John Moore, Alphonso
Johnson, Mel Free El and Donald Dillard to certify as a class all
persons detained in the Atlantic County Correctional Facility for
non-indictable offenses who were strip searched or subject to body
cavity searches on admission, when Atlantic County ended the
policy, as well as a subclass of inmates for whom there was no
legally cognizable consent.

The Plaintiffs thereafter filed a four-count complaint in the Law
Division alleging Atlantic County had a policy of strip-searching
and conducting cavity searches on all individuals who entered the
Atlantic County Correctional Facility regardless of the reason for
their detention in violation of New Jersey law, which requires
particularized suspicion for such searches.

Judge Savio found several common questions appropriate for
class-wide adjudication including whether Article 1, Paragraph 7
prohibits strip searching non-indictable detainees upon admission
to a jail; whether it was constitutionally permissible for Atlantic
County to adopt a blanket consent to strip search policy and
practice; whether it was constitutionally permissible for the
County to request consent of detainees in a custodial setting
absent any articulable suspicion they were in possession of
contraband; whether the searches had to be authorized by a
supervisor; whether they constituted cavity searches, and if so,
whether the consent form was adequate to authorize such a search
and were they illegal because not performed by medical personnel;
and whether the County can establish that detainees had an
unfettered right to refuse consent given the consent form advised
failure to consent would result in segregation or isolation or
housing in higher security sections of the jail and plaintiffs
insist detainees who refused were placed in leg irons.

Atlantic County appeals, reprising the arguments it made to the
trial court that common questions of law and fact do not
predominate over the numerous factual questions surrounding the
validity of the 10,000-plus written consents provided by detainees
during the putative class period [that must] be answered as to each
individual detainee.

The Court rejects the County's argument.

The Court's review of this record provides no basis for us to
interfere with Judge Savio's decision that this matter proceed as a
class action. Atlantic County's insistence that individual issues
of each detainee's consent to be strip searched predominate ignores
that at the heart of this case is plaintiffs' insistence that any
consent extracted from persons in custody for traffic violations or
failure to pay child support conditioned on the threat of being
confined in segregated housing or in higher security areas of the
jail cannot be voluntary. As our Supreme Court has acknowledged,
consent' that is the product of official intimidation or harassment
is not consent at all. Citizens do not forfeit their constitutional
rights when they are coerced to comply with a request that they
would prefer to refuse.

The Court affirms the order granting class certification. Because
Atlantic County only ended the policy challenged after plaintiffs
filed suit and continues to insist the policy and the consent form
are lawful and appropriate, we reject its contention that the
request for injunctive relief is moot and the class improperly
certified under Rule 4:32-1(b)(2).  Atlantic County's remaining
arguments, to the extent we have not addressed them, lack
sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion.  

A full-text copy of the Superior Court's September 13, 2018 Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/yddytkn8 from Leagle.com.

Melissa J. Brown -- mbrown@moodklaw.com -- argued the cause for
appellants (Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, PC, attorneys
for appellants) Sean X. Kelly -- skelly@moodklaw.comand -- Sean
Robins, on the briefs).

Carl D. Poplar, 1010 Kings Highway South, Building One, Cherry
Hill, NJ 08034, argued the cause for respondents (Carl D. Poplar
and William A. Riback , on the brief).

Nicole Espin argued the cause for Amicus Curiae American Civil
Liberties Union of New Jersey (Rutgers Constitutional Rights
Clinic, attorneys; Ronald K. Chen, Edward L. Barocas, Jeanne M.
LoCicero and Alexander R. Shalom, of counsel and on the brief).

James A. Barry -- jbarry@lockslaw.com -- argued the cause for
Amicus Curiae New Jersey Association for Justice (Locks Law Firm,
LLC, attorneys; Michael A. Galpern, James A. Barry and Neel Bhuta,
on the brief).


AUSTRALIA: Indonesians Wrongly Jailed as Adults Seek Compensation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BBC reports that more than 120 Indonesians who say Australia
wrongly jailed them as adults -- when in fact they were children --
have launched a bid for compensation.

The BBC's Indonesia editor Rebecca Henschke visited remote Rote
Island to hear how they became caught up in human trafficking.

Siti Rudy's eyes fill with tears when she recalls the long months
in 2009 when, with no news, she assumed her son Abdul was dead.

"I cried and cried because as the youngest he was the one who
looked after me," she says, sitting on the cement floor of her
home, a one-bedroom house in Oelaba village on Rote, the Indonesian
island closest to Australia.

"After a long time he called me and told me he was in jail in
Australia. That was a very hard thing to hear."

Abdul says he unwittingly became, in the eyes of the Australian
authorities, a people smuggler, carrying asylum seekers into
Australian waters.

He says he was offered around $100 (£77), a significant amount of
money in this area, to work on a boat transporting rice. He didn't
know or ask where it was going.

Australia intercepts any boats attempting to bring refugees or
asylum seekers to its shores.

Under Australian policy at the time, any crew members of those
boats found to be children should have been returned home - rather
than face charges.

But Abdul was convicted as an adult and jailed for two-and-a-half
years. His family and village officials say he was just 14 at the
time.

"I was scared I would be beaten up," he says.

"I was so far from my family and held for a long time. That's what
was frightening but I got used to it after a while," he says.

I have interviewed many men in Abdul's position over the years --
they all go very quiet when they talk about their time in jail.
Lawyers say several children were physically and sexually abused,
and still suffer psychological trauma.

Lawyers in town
Siti's small house is a hive of activity. Giggling children crowd
around the veranda as a group of Australian lawyers take down her
story.

Among the visitors, Mark Barrow of Ken Cush Associates is building
up a case to have Abdul's conviction overturned and to fight for
some form of compensation.

More than 120 boys who were imprisoned between 2009 and 2011 have
signed up for the class action, pursuing compensation through the
Australian Human Rights Commission.

They are seeking money from the Australian Federal Police,
Australia's Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions and the
doctor who used a now-discredited X-ray method to determine their
age.

A 2012 report by the Australian Human Rights Commission entitled An
Age of Uncertainty found numerous breaches of the boys' rights.

"If this was an Australian child, you would expect the Indonesian
police to ring up their parents and ask for the details, and
quickly their child would be sent back to Australia. This didn't
happen," says Mr Barrow.

"I think most people would fairly agree that if that happened to
their children, then they would seek redress."

The whistleblower
Colin Singer was an independent prison visitor, a volunteer job he
had held for around four years, when he came across the Indonesian
boys behind bars.

"There was this tiny kid holding on to this barbed wired fence and
I remember saying to him gently, 'what's your name?' And he was in
tears, clearly traumatised."

Mr Singer started asking questions, but says appeals to resolve the
matter with Australian and Indonesian authorities fell on deaf
ears.

"I strongly believe that the Commonwealth of Australia knowingly
and willingly imprisoned these children," he says.

"It's beyond belief that a single child could end up in adult
prison -- not for a day, not for a week, but for nearly three years
-- and we are not just taking about one child here."

As for Indonesia, he says: "The government didn't want to do
anything. They didn't provide lawyers. They didn't provide any
assistance whatsoever. I was appalled."

The lead claimant
The boy Mr Singer met behind bars that day was Ali Jasmin.

Documents, including an Indonesian birth certificate showing he was
13 at the time of his arrest, were obtained by the Indonesian
government but never tendered in his defence.


"I kept arguing that I was a child, but I was sentenced to three
years because they said I was an adult," he says.

"I was angry that the test they used was not my mum; it didn't give
birth to me."

Ali Jasmin was released in 2012, after extensive media coverage of
his case, and deported back to Indonesia.

Last year he became the first boy to have his conviction overturned
in Western Australia's Court of Appeal, which found that a
"miscarriage of justice" had occurred.

"My battle for justice was worth it," he says.

Mr Singer, he says, has become like family for him.

"What I am fighting for now is compensation for the time I spent in
jail," Ali says. "After that I will give money to my parents. I
want to make my family happy."

He has a two-year-old daughter and works as a fisherman. Having not
been able to complete his high school education, jobs are scarce.

What Australia and Indonesia say
The 2012 Australian Human Rights Commission report found numerous
breaches of the boys' rights, and flawed handling of their cases.

It stated that "federal police and the CDPP [Australia's
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions] placed reliance on
wrist X-ray analysis as evidence that a person was over the age of
18 years - despite significant material being available to support
the conclusion that they should not do so."

The CDPP and Australia's foreign affairs department turned down the
BBC's requests for interviews.

The CDPP said via email: "You are aware there are still active
legal proceedings and as such we decline the offer to be
interviewed or provide any comment."

Dede Syamsuri was Indonesia's consular-general in Perth at the
time. Now ambassador to Morocco, he says Indonesia was not in a
position to help most of the boys.

"[This was] simply because we had nothing in our hand - we had no
proof of how old the boys were," he says.

He says Indonesian authorities were able to help just two, or
perhaps more, boys - including Ali Jasmin. In those instances,
Indonesia helped the boys get documents from their families to
prove they were children.

Once those documents were handed over to lawyers appointed by
Australia, Dede Syamsuri says Indonesia left the matter with the
Australian courts.

"Because those responsible were doctors using medical ways [to
determine ages], I just had to agree with what they said. We had to
accept what the doctor found," he says.

"Indonesia did firmly raise the issue of the underage boys with
Canberra." But he adds: "It was very hard to discuss further the
issue."

Anger over inaction
Ali Jasmin says he felt deeply let down by Indonesia.

"I am disappointed and angry because they should have been fighting
for us," he says.

"They should have been our biggest defenders but they just weren't.
The Indonesian consular [officials] asked us if we were underage
and we told them clearly that we were, but nothing changed."

Dede Syamsuri says Indonesian officials regularly visited the boys
in jail, bringing them religious books and food.

"Of course being in jail wasn't fun but I saw that they were
happy," he says.

"They could do regular exercise because there was a basketball
court, football pitch and they had a room just for watching TV. The
facilities were very good and they enjoyed them. The jails are very
different to ones we have in Indonesia."

He says he did receive reports that some boys were being sexually
harassed, and he requested that the boys be moved to other jails.

Dede Syamsuri says he was surprised and pleased to hear from the
BBC that Ali's conviction had been overturned.

Too sick to go home
For Erwin Prayoga, who shared a cell with Ali Jasmin, this legal
battle comes too late. He died about two months after being
released and sent home to Rote Island.

Erwin's family says he was 14 when he was arrested by Australia.

His younger brother, Baco Ali, breaks down when he tells me about
the excruciating pain Erwin was in before his death.

"It's hard to remember how sick he was," Baco Ali says through
tears.

"They had to push him in a wheelbarrow to the local health centre.
I have been told by the lawyers that if you are not well then you
shouldn't be sent home from Australia. I want to know why he was."

Lawyers have obtained his medical records in Australia and are
asking the same question.

Erwin's family say any compensation they receive will be used to
make him a proper grave.

Now it's marked simply with rocks and a wooden block at the back of
their house, near the fishing boats where Baco Ali comes to pray
often.

Lawyers say more avenues are available through the courts, if
compensation is not achieved through the Australian Human Rights
Commission. [GN]


AVID TECHNOLOGY: Settlement Amount Already Paid in Mohanty Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Avid Technology, Inc. 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's insurers
have paid already the settlement amount in the case, Mohanty v.
Avid Technology, Inc. et al.

In November 2016, a purported securities class action lawsuit was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
(Mohanty v. Avid Technology, Inc. et al., No. 16-cv-12336) against
the company and certain of its executive officers seeking
unspecified damages and other relief on behalf of a purported class
of purchasers of the company's common stock between August 4, 2016
and November 9, 2016, inclusive.

The complaint purported to state a claim for violation of federal
securities laws as a result of alleged violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. The complaint's allegations relate generally to the
company's disclosure surrounding the level of implementation of the
company's Avid NEXIS solution product offerings. On February 7,
2017, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and counsel in the
matter.

On June 14, 2017, the company moved to dismiss the action. On July
31, 2017, the lead plaintiff filed an opposition to the company's
motion to dismiss, and on August 21, 2017, the company filed its
reply brief. On October 13, 2017, after a mediation, the parties
reached an agreement in principle to settle this litigation.

The settlement was approved by the court and the settlement payment
was made by the company's insurers in May 2018.

Avid Technology, Inc. develops, markets, sells, and supports
software, hardware, and integrated solutions for video and audio
content creation, management, and distribution worldwide. The
company was founded in 1987 and is headquartered in Burlington,
Massachusetts.


BANK OF AMERICA: Wants 2nd Cir. to Examine Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pete Brush, writing for Law360, reports that megabanks Bank of
America and JPMorgan Chase asked the Second Circuit on Sept. 4 to
examine Manhattan U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald's
certification of a class of investors in Libor suit. [GN]


BARCLAYS BANK: Christensen Sues over Debt Collection Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
ELLEN MARIE CHRISTENSEN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BARCLAYS BANK DELAWARE; and
STILLMAN LAW OFFICE, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 18-2638 (Cmmw.
Mass., Suffolk Cty., Aug. 22, 2018) seeks to stop the Defendant's
unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Barclays Bank Delaware, through its subsidiary Barclaycard US,
provides customized and co-branded credit card programs for travel,
entertainment, retail, affinity, and financial institutions in the
United States. Barclays Bank Delaware was formerly known as Juniper
Bank and changed its name to Barclays Bank Delaware in February
2003. The company was founded in 2000 and is based in Wilmington,
Delaware. Barclays Bank Delaware operates as a subsidiary of
Barclays Group US, Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kenneth D. Quat, Esq.
          QUAT LAW OFFICES
          929 Worcester Rd.
          Framinghan, MA 01701
          Telephone: (508) 872-1261
          E-mail: ken@quatlaw.com


BEST COMPANION: Harris Files FLSA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Best Companion
Homecare Services Inc., et al. The case is styled as Tyhanna R
Harris on behalf of herself and similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiff v. Best Companion Homecare Services Inc., Patricia
Pacaud-Brezault, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-05328 (S.D. N.Y.,
Sept. 21, 2018).

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

BEST COMPANION HOMECARE SERVICES, INC. provides daily and hourly
services for the sick, elderly or homebound.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.


BIOCRYST PHARMACEUTICALS: Klein Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------
BioCryst Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 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 case entitled,
Melvyn Klein v. BioCryst Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., has been
voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff.

On March 6, 2018, a purported stockholder of BioCryst filed a
putative class action lawsuit against BioCryst, the BioCryst board
of directors, Idera Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Idera"), a Delaware
corporation, Nautilus Holdco, Inc., a Delaware corporation and a
direct, wholly owned subsidiary of BioCryst ("Holdco"), Island
Merger Sub, Inc., a Delaware corporation and a direct, wholly owned
subsidiary of Holdco ("Merger Sub A"), and Boat Merger Sub, Inc., a
Delaware corporation and a direct, wholly owned subsidiary of
Holdco ("Merger Sub B") in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware, captioned Melvyn Klein v. BioCryst
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-00358-UNA. The
complaint alleged that the defendants violated Sections 14(a) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act because the preliminary Form S-4 filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission allegedly contains
material omissions and misstatements.

On July 20, 2018, the action was voluntarily dismissed by the
plaintiff.

BioCryst Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a biotechnology company, designs,
optimizes, and develops small molecule drugs that block key enzymes
involved in the pathogenesis of diseases. BioCryst Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in Durham, North
Carolina.


BIOCRYST PHARMACEUTICALS: Raatz Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------
BioCryst Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 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 case entitled,
Lisa Raatz, v. Idera Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., has been
voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff.

On March 14, 2018, a purported stockholder of Idera filed a
putative class action lawsuit against Idera, the Idera board of
Directors, BioCryst, Holdco, Merger Sub A and Merger Sub B in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts,
captioned Lisa Raatz, v. Idera Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al, Case
No. 1:18-cv-10485.

The complaint alleged that the defendants violated sections 14(a)
and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder and section 20(a) of the
Exchanges Act because the preliminary Form S-4 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission allegedly contains material
omissions and misstatements.

The complaint sought, among other things, injunctive relief
preventing the consummation of the Mergers and damages.

On July 26, 2018, the action was voluntarily dismissed by the
plaintiff.

BioCryst Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a biotechnology company, designs,
optimizes, and develops small molecule drugs that block key enzymes
involved in the pathogenesis of diseases. BioCryst Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in Durham, North
Carolina.


BITE SQUAD: Underpays Delivery Drivers, Holley et al. Claim
-----------------------------------------------------------
RUSSELL HOLLEY; SUSAN COOK; and DAVID BRYAN LUCAS, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
BITESQUAD.COM LLC d/b/a BITE SQUAD, Case No. 4:18-cv-00572-SWW
(E.D. Ark., Aug. 21, 2018) is an action against the Defendant for
declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages,
interest, penalties, attorneys' fees and costs as a result of the
Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiffs proper minimum wage.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as delivery drivers.

BiteSquad.com, LLC provides internet based services. The Company
offers online and mobile food ordering and delivery service.
BiteSquad.com provides hand picked delivery services from their
partnered restaurants.  BiteSquad.com serves customers in the
United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BUMBLE TRADING: Violates Dating Services Law, Schlossberg Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
DYLAN SCHLOSSBERG, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. BUMBLE TRADING, INC., and
BUMBLE HOLDING LTD., the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-08376
(S.D.N.Y., Sept. 14, 2018), seeks statutory, equitable, injunctive,
and monetary relief as a result of Bumble's failure to provide
consumers with the required "Dating Service Consumer Bill of
Rights" as required by the Dating Services Law.

According to the complaint, Bumble Trading, Inc. and Bumble Holding
Ltd. own and operate a subscription-based dating service which
charges a fee, called Bumble Boost.  Bumble's uniform policies and
practices for Bumble Boost violate the New York Dating Services
Law, and deprive consumers of their rights under the Dating
Services Law.

In addition, Bumble allegedly does not provide consumers with the
statutorily required notice of their right to cancel the contract
within three business days and to obtain a full refund without any
obligation. In fact, Bumble has a uniform policy of denying refunds
requested by Plaintiff and other class members, which violates the
Dating Services Law. As a result of Bumble's conduct, the Plaintiff
and the class members suffered injury in the form of loss of
refunds, deprivation of their rights of rescission, and the
deprivation of their statutory right to exercise the option to try
the service and cancel within three business days, without
obligation.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff Schlossberg, on his own behalf and on
behalf of all others similarly situated:

          Yitzchak H. Lieberman, Esq.
          PARASMO LIEBERMAN LAW
          7400 Hollywood Boulevard, Suite 505
          Los Angeles, CA 90046
          Telephone: (646) 509 3913
          Facsimile: (877) 501 3346
          E-mail: gparasmo@parasmoliebermanlaw.com
                  ylieberman@parasmoliebermanlaw.com

               - and -

          David C. Parisi, Esq.
          Suzanne Havens Beckman, Esq.
          PARISI & HAVENS LLP
          212 Marine Street, Unit 100
          Santa Monica, CA 90405
          Telephone: (818) 990 1299
          Facsimile: (818) 501 7852
          E-mail: dcparisi@parisihavens.com
                  shavens@parisihavens.com


C.TECH COLLECTIONS: Lowenbein Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against C.Tech Collections,
Inc. The case is styled as Bashei Lowenbein on behalf of herself
and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v. C.Tech
Collections, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-05348 (E.D. N.Y.,
Sept. 21, 2018).

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

C.Tech Collections, Inc. is a collection agency focusing on
delinquent receivables, while providing professional, courteous
collection services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CA INC: Faces Gilley Suit over Proposed Broadcom Merger
-------------------------------------------------------
KENNETH GILLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CA, INC.; MICHAEL GREGOIRE; JENS ALDER;
RAYMOND BROMARK; JEAN HOBBY; ROHIT KAPOOR; JEFFREY KATZ; KAY
KOPLOVITZ; CHRISTOPHER LOFGREN; and RICHARD SULPIZIO, Defendants,
Case No. 1:18-cv-01286-UNA (D. Del., Aug. 22, 2018) alleges
violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On July 11, 2018, CA and Broadcom Inc. issued a joint press release
announcing they had entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger
dated July 11, 2018 ("Merger Agreement") to sell CA to Broadcom.
Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, each CA stockholder will
receive $44.50 for each share of CA common stock they own.

The Proposed Transaction is valued at approximately $18.9 billion.
On August 10, 2018, CA filed a Definitive Proxy Statement on
Schedule 14A (the "Proxy Statement"). The Proxy Statement, which
recommends that CA stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed
Transaction, omits or misrepresents material information
concerning, among other things: (i) the Company's financial
projections; (ii) the valuation analyses performed by CA's
financial advisor, Qatalyst Partners LP ("Qatalyst"); and (iii) the
background of the Proposed Transaction. The failure to adequately
disclose such material information constitutes a violation of
Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act as CA stockholders
need such information in order to make a fully informed decision
whether to vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction or seek
appraisal.

Unless remedied, CA's public stockholders will be forced to make a
voting or appraisal decision on the Proposed Transaction without
full disclosure of all material information concerning the Proposed
Transaction being provided to them. The Plaintiff seeks to enjoin
the stockholder vote on the Proposed Transaction unless and until
such Exchange Act violations are cured.

CA, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, develops, markets,
delivers, and licenses software products and services in the United
States and internationally. The company was formerly known as CA
Technologies and changed its name to CA, Inc. in 2006. CA, Inc. was
founded in 1974 and is headquartered in New York, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan M. Ernst, Esq.
          Daniel P. Murray, Esq.
          O'KELLY ERNST & JOYCE, LLC
          901 N. Market St., Suite 1000
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 778-4000
          E-mail: rernst@oelegal.com
                dmurray@oelegal.com

               - and -

          Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
          Michael A. Rogovin, Esq.
          Kelly C. Keenan, Esq.
          WEISSLAW LLP
          1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 682-3025
          Facsimile: (212) 682-3010

               - and -

          Melissa A. Fortunato, Esq.
          BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, P.C.
          885 Third Avenue, Suite 3040
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 308-5858
          Facsimile: (212) 486-0462
          E-mail: fortunato@bespc.com


CAFE OF CRESCENT: Sanchez Arce Files FLSA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cafe of Crescent,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Salvador Sanchez Arce
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. Cafe of Crescent, Inc. doing business as: Packard Cafe & Grill,
Demetrio Zacatelco, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-05325 (E.D. N.Y.,
Sept. 21, 2018).

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

Packard Cafe & Grill is a counter-serve joint with sandwiches &
all-day breakfast, plus coffee, smoothies & desserts.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

CALIFORNIA FAMILY HEALTH: Kahlfuss et al Sue in Calif. State Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against California Family
Health LLC.  The lawsuit is captioned as Manuela 'Aila' Kahlfuss
and Trendete Randolph, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. California Family Health LLC, a
Delaware Company and Does 1-10, the Defendant, Case No.
34-2018-00240448-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sept. 10, 2018).

California Family owns and operates gyms in the greater Sacramento
area.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by Constanitinos Kerestenzis, Esq.


CANADA: Halifax Africville Expropriation Class Action Tossed
------------------------------------------------------------
Pam Berman, writing for CBC News, reports that a Nova Scotia
Supreme Court judge has turned down an application to create a
class-action lawsuit over Halifax's expropriation in the 1960s of
land in Africville, the former black community on the shores of the
Bedford Basin.

Nelson Carvery had asked the court to allow former Africville
residents or their descendents to sue for compensation for the loss
of communal lands in the community, which dates to the 1800s.
Anyone who already had a claim settled or dismissed would not be
included.

In a ruling issued on Aug. 31, Justice Patrick Duncan said the
plaintiff "has not satisfied the requirements" to certify the class
action, which would allow the case to proceed.

The judge said he had concerns that the size and location of
communal lands hadn't been adequately defined, and it wasn't clear
how it would be determined how much each resident used those
lands.

But Tony Smith, a spokesperson for a group of former Africville
residents who would like to join the class action, said on Sept. 4
he doesn't believe the judge's decision means the case is over. He
said lawyers for the class-action case will seek another hearing
and try to address the judge's concerns.

"We have to make sure that our T's are crossed and our I's are
dotted," he said. "It takes time, it's frustrating in that sense
because we've been waiting over 50 years. But we'll just have to
wait a little bit longer and make sure it gets done right."

Farm, gather berries
When the application was heard in November 2016, Mr. Carvery's
lawyer, Robert Pineo, estimated 300 people could join the lawsuit.

In an affidavit, Mr. Carvery explained that his family and others
used common land in Africville to farm, gather berries and for
recreation. He also said the shoreline was used for fishing,
storing gear and docking boats.

According to Mr. Carvery, his father never agreed to sell his six
parcels of land to the old City of Halifax and did not receive
compensation.

He also said his family never took part in a 1996 lawsuit that
ended in 2010 with a settlement agreement for some of the affected
families. That agreement did not involve individual compensation
but instead provided $3 million and a hectare of land so the
Seaview African United Baptist Church could be rebuilt.

The lawyers defending Halifax in the current class-action case took
issue with the claim for the loss of communal lands, saying the
plaintiff did not adequately describe who was an affected owner or
the size and location of communal lands.  

Duncan agreed there are problems with the "criteria for class
membership," pointing out that Africville was not incorporated with
defined boundaries.

He also said there was no objective criteria to determine if a
resident has "property interest in the communal lands" or what
actually constitutes communal lands. [GN]


CAPUTO'S NEW FARM: Krause Sues over Use of Biometric Data
---------------------------------------------------------
EVAN KRAUSE, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. CAPUTO'S NEW FARM PRODUCE, INC., d/b/a
CAPUTO'S FRESH MARKETS, and ADP LLC, the Defendant, Case No.
2018CH11660 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Sept. 14, 2018), seeks to redress and
curtail the Defendants' unlawful collection, use, storage, and
disclosure of Plaintiff's sensitive biometric data.

According to the complaint, Caputo's is specialty grocery store
that owns and operates seven locations in the Chicagoland area.
When Caputo's hires an employee, he or she is enrolled in its ADP
employee database. Caputo's uses the employee database to monitor
the time worked by Caputo's hourly employees. While many employers
use conventional methods for tracking time worked (such as ID badge
swipes or punch clocks), Caputo's employees are required to have
their fingerprints scanned by a biometric timekeeping device.

Biometrics are not relegated to esoteric corners of commerce. Many
businesses -- such as Defendants' -- and financial institutions
have incorporated biometric applications into their workplace in
the form of biometric timeclocks, and into consumer products,
including such ubiquitous consumer products as checking accounts
and cell phones. Unlike ID badges or time cards -- which can be
changed or replaced if stolen or compromised -- fingerprints are
unique, permanent biometric identifiers associated with each
employee. This exposes Caputo's employees to serious and
irreversible privacy risks. For example, if a database containing
fingerprints or other sensitive, proprietary biometric data is
hacked, breached, or otherwise exposed -- like in the recent Yahoo,
eBay, Equifax, Uber, Home Depot, MyFitnessPal, Panera, Whole Foods,
Chipotle, Omni Hotels & Resorts, Trump Hotels, and
Facebook/Cambridge Analytica data breaches or misuses -- employees
have no means by which to prevent identity theft, unauthorized
tracking or other unlawful or improper use of this highly personal
and private information.

Caputo's New Farm, doing business as Angelo Caputo's Fresh Markets,
Inc., operates grocery stores that offer traditional, healthy, and
organic foods. It offers grocery, frozen, refrigerated, meat and
seafood, produce, bakery, liquor, general, floral, cucina and
catering, deli, and gluten free products; and appetizers,
beverages, breads, breakfast, desserts, lunch, main course, salads,
side dishes, and snacks.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          James B. Zouras, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          205 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 2560
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 233 1550
          Facsimile: (312) 233 1560


CEREBRAL ASSESSMENT: Schutty Sues over Investment Losses
--------------------------------------------------------
JOHN F. SCHUTTY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DR. CHARLES DUFFY; THOMAS BONADIO; DR. JEAN
JOSEPH; RICHARD KAPLAN; DAVID KLEIN; DAVID LESSEN, and CEREBRAL
ASSESSMENT SYSTEMS, INC, Defendants, Case No. 654206/2018 (N.Y.
Sup., Aug. 23, 2018) is an action seeking damages for the
Plaintiff's lost of investments caused by the Defendants' breach
and corporate mismanagement.

According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, he and the other
shareholders were enticed to invest in the Company which was touted
as an innovative, cutting edge medical technology company. Contrary
to the Defendants' representations, the Company was plagued with
stagnant sales and, as such, was over-leveraged and relied heavily
on "insider" loans, e.g. individual loans by the various board
members. Thus, to secure repayment of their insider loans, the
Director Defendants solicited money from unwitting investors to
keep the Company afloat and position it for a sale. The sale
proceeds, however, left nothing for the very shareholders who made
it possible. The Director Defendants secured only enough to cover
repayment of pre-existing loans -- indeed their own -- and
"deferred compensation" allegedly owed to Defendants Duffy and
Lessen. No efforts were made to compensate Schatty or the other
shareholders. In this manner -- and by fading to explore other
opportunities to sell or salvage the business -- the Defendants
breached the fiduciary duty they owed to the Plaintiffs.

Cerebral Assessment Systems, LLC provides medical services. It
specializes in therapies for Alzheimer's disease, as well as
provides services to patients with neurological disorders. The
company was founded in 2002 and is based in Rochester, New York.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Robert A. Giacovas, Esq.
           Marci Goldstein, Esq.
           LAZARE POTTER GIACOVAS & MOYLE LLP
           875 Third Avenue, 28th Floor
           New York, NY 10022
           Telephone: (212)758-9300


CERNER CORP: Court Narrows Claims in Fung-Schwartz Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York issued an Opinion and Order granting in part and denying in
part Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case captioned JENNIFER
FUNG-SCHWARTZ, MD, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CERNER CORPORATION, et
al., Defendants. No. 17-CV-233 (VSB). (S.D. N.Y.).

Before the Court is the Defendants' partial motion to dismiss under
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 9(b), 12(b)(1), and 12(b)(6) for
failure to plead with specificity, lack of subject matter
jurisdiction, and failure to state a claim.  The Defendants do not
seek dismissal of the Plaintiffs' breach of contract claim (Count
17).

The Plaintiffs, Dr. Jennifer Fung-Schwartz, individually and/or on
behalf of her patients, and Jennifer Fung-Schwartz DPM LLC
(Plaintiffs), bring this action against Defendants Cerner
Corporation (Cerner Corp.) and Cerner Healthcare Solutions, Inc.
(Cerner) asserting multiple claims stemming from certain contracts
Fung-Schwartz and/or the Practice executed with Cerner.

The Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted with respect to Counts
1-8, 10, 12, and 14-16 and denied with respect to Counts 9, 11, 13,
and 18 of the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint.

Conversion (Count 9)

The Plaintiffs have sufficiently stated a claim for conversion.
First, the Plaintiffs allege that the property subject to
conversion is a specific identifiable thing, namely certain
patients' electronic medical records and insurance claims. While
typically tangible property is the subject of a conversion action,
Second, the Plaintiffs assert that they exercised possession or
control over the claims and records prior to the conversion. The
Plaintiffs had routine access to and control over the software
provided by the Defendants, which contained the records of the
Plaintiffs' patients. Third, the Plaintiffs claim that the
Defendants cut off the Plaintiffs' access to the software and
records and took patients' insurance claims and destroyed their
value. Consequently, the Plaintiffs could not treat patients and
lost significant business and revenue.  

Consequently, the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs'
conversion claim is denied.

Tortious Interference with Business Relations (Counts 11, 13)

The Defendants argue that Plaintiffs failed to plead sufficient
facts to establish that Defendants acted with any wrongful purpose
and that Defendants' acts interfered with or injured Plaintiffs'
relationships with any third party.  

The Plaintiffs have alleged improper means amounting to tortious
and/or illegal activity. For instance, Plaintiffs claim that
Defendants intentionally double billed insurance claims, leading to
threats from insurance providers that Plaintiffs would be subject
to fraud investigations. Plaintiffs also assert that Defendants
intentionally wasted patients' insurance claims and caused insurers
not to issue payments to Plaintiffs and that Defendants' refusal to
provide Plaintiffs with access to their patients' electronic
medical records was prohibited by HIPAA, among other statutes.  

the Plaintiffs' tortious interference with business relations
claims have been properly pled and the Defendants' motion to
dismiss these claims is denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 13, 2018 Opinion
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y9nztnzj from
Leagle.com.

Jennifer Fung-Schwartz, MD & Jennifer Fung-Schwartz, DPM, LLC,
Plaintiffs, represented by Elizabeth Shieldkret , Elizabeth
Shieldkret, Attorney at Law.

Cerner Corporation & Cerner Healthcare Solutions, Inc., Defendants,
represented by Patrick Fanning -- pfanning@shb.com -- Shook, Hardy
& Bacon, LLP & John Michael Lyons -- jlyons@shb.com -- Shook, Hardy
& Bacon L.L.P.


CHARLOTTE PALM: Court Grants Preliminary Approval of Class Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of North
Carolina, Charlotte Division, issued an Order granting Plaintiff's
Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Rule 23 Class Action
and FLSA Collective Action Settlement in the case captioned CHARIE
AUTRY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. CHARLOTTE PALM CORP., Defendant. Civil Action No.
3:16-cv-00797-GCM. (W.D.N.C.).

The Parties' Class Action Settlement is preliminary approved as
fair, reasonable, and adequate pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e),
and a fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute under
the Fair Labor Standards Act. As a result, the terms of the
Parties' Class Action Settlement Agreement are approved and
incorporated herein.

The following Settlement Class is preliminarily certified pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 and 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b), pending final
approval of the settlement:

     Every individual employed by Defendant as a server, server
assistant, runner and/or bartender during any workweek between
November 18, 2013 and August of 2017.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 10, 2018 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y8v39n9o from Leagle.com.

Charie Autry, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew C. Ficzko --
aficzko@stephanzouras.com -- Stephan Zouras, LLP, pro hac vice,
James B. Zouras -- jzouras@stephanzouras.com -- Stephan Zouras,
LLP, pro hac vice, Philip J. Gibbons, Jr. -- phil@gibbonsleis --
Gibbons Leis, PLLC & Craig Lorne Leis, Gibbons Leis, PLLC.

Charlotte Palm Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jerry Howard
Walters, Jr. -- jwalters@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C. &
Molly M. Shah -- mmshah@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, PC.


CHERYL YORK: Faces Callahan et al. Suit in N.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cheryl York. The
lawsuit is captioned as David Callahan and Heine Heininger,
Individually, and on behalf of all similarly situated persons, the
Plaintiff, v. Cheryl York; Robert Berlin, in his Official Capacity
as DuPage County State's Attorney, and County of DuPage, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-06276 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 13, 2018). The
case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Ruben Castillo.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gregory E. Kulis, Esq.
          Brian M Orozco, Esq.
          Monica Ghosh, Esq.
          GREGORY E. KULIS AND ASSOCIATES, LTD.
          30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2140
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 580 1830
          E-mail: gkulis@kulislawltd.com
                  borozco@kulislawltd.com
                  mghosh@kulislawltd.com


CONTINENTAL CASUALTY: Insurance Class Action Pending in Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------------
Erin D. Saltaformaggio, Esq. -- esaltaformaggio@bradley.com -- of
Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, in an article for Lexology, wrote
that a long-term care insurance class action filed in May 2018
highlights the importance of clearly defined policy language. At
dispute in the lawsuit pending in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois is the definition of "premium
class." The phrase is not defined in the Continental Casualty
Company (CNA) policy, which was issued through CNA's Federal
Judiciary Group Program. The plaintiff, who was a resident of the
state of Washington at the time the policy was purchased, alleges
that the term "premium class" refers to the "nationwide pool of
insureds under the group insurance plan within a given age
category." According to CNA, the plaintiff's interpretation of
"premium class" would render each state's individual authority to
approve premium rate increases a nullity, effectively "negat[ing]
[state] insurance laws that are incorporated into the Policy as a
matter of law."

The policy states:

"We cannot change the Insured's premiums because of age or health.
We can, however, change the Insured's premium based on his or her
premium class, but only if We change the premiums for all other
Insureds in the same premium class."

CNA applied for premium rate increases for Washington participants
in its group programs to the Washington State Office of the
Insurance Commissioner (OIC) in 2015. The OIC approved certain rate
changes. In 2017, CNA advised the plaintiff that his premium would
increase by 25 percent in the first year, with a 25 percent premium
increase each of the following two years. The CNA letter also
indicated that the premium increase was not uniform across the
premium class as laws and approval requirements varied by state,
and the requested premiums might not be approved by all states.
Plaintiff argues that the premium increase violates the terms of
the policy because it is not uniform nationwide.

Plaintiff Took Issue with 2017 Rate Increases

Plaintiff Carlton Gunn, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, alleges that CNA breached the terms of the
policy, breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing, violated consumer protection laws, and engaged in
fraudulent concealment relating to the premium increases. Plaintiff
claims that both the marketing materials used in soliciting
purchasers and the policy itself state that premiums would not be
increased unless they were increased uniformly for everyone in the
same age group. The plaintiff alleges that CNA improperly "imposed
rate increases at different times and in different amounts from one
state to the next."

CNA filed a motion to dismiss arguing the complaint is not viable
as a matter of law. CNA argues that plaintiff's interpretation of
"premium class" is not reasonable and therefore cannot support the
plaintiff's claims. CNA also argues plaintiff's interpretation
would negate state authority to approve premium rate increases,
which states are permitted to do with federal deference to state
jurisdiction under the McCarran-Ferguson Act.

Alternatively, CNA seeks a stay of the proceedings, asserting that
there is a threat of inconsistent judgments if the Washington State
Office of the Insurance Commissioner is not allowed to first
address plaintiff's "challenge to [the OIC's] authority and how the
rate decision was made" since the challenged rate increase
"applie[s] to policies that fall outside plaintiff's current
proposed class definition."

Stay tuned. If the court adopts plaintiff's interpretation, the
ruling could change how and when insurers increase long-term care
premium rates. [GN]


CRONOS GROUP: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
National law firm Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") on Sept. 4
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of persons and/or entities that acquired Cronos Group, Inc.
("Cronos" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: CRON) securities between
August 21, 2018, and August 30, 2018, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims against the Defendants, under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Cronos investors are hereby notified that they have 60 days from
the date of this notice to move the Court to serve as lead
plaintiff in this action.

If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, visit
https://www.glancylaw.com/case/cronos-group-inc to participate.

On August 30, 2018, Citron Research published an article entitled
"Cronos: The Dark Side of Cannabis Space," alleging, among other
things, that the Company has been "deceiving the investing public
by purposely not disclosing the size of its distribution agreements
with provinces -- unlike every other major cannabis player" and
that this was because "the agreements are so small that they could
never justify the premium investors are paying for the stock."  On
this news, Cronos' share price fell $3.62 per share, or over $28%,
to close at $9.12 per share on August 30, 2018, on unusually heavy
trading volume.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that, throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects.  Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose: (1) that
the size of Cronos' distribution agreements with the provinces was
relatively small; and (2) that, as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' positive statements about Cronos' business, operations,
and prospects were materially false and/or misleading, and/or
lacked a reasonable basis.

If you purchased Cronos securities during the Class Period, you may
move the Court no later than 60 days from the date of this notice
to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member
of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you may
retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an
absent member of the Class. If you wish to learn more about this
action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement
or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please
contact Lesley Portnoy, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East,
Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com,
or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email
please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of
shares purchased. [GN]


CRUNCH SAN DIEGO: 9th Cir. Flips Summary Judgment in TCPA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, issued an
Opinion reversing the District Court's judgment granting
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment in the case captioned
JORDAN MARKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CRUNCH SAN DIEGO, LLC,
Defendant-Appellee. No. 14-56834. (9th Cir.)

Jordan Marks appeals the grant of summary judgment to Crunch
Fitness on his claim that three text messages he received from
Crunch violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).

Crunch Fitness communicates with its prospective and current gym
members by sending text messages through this Textmunication
system. Jordan Marks signed up for a gym membership with Crunch
Fitness. After joining the gym, Marks received three text messages
from Crunch over a period of eleven months. Marks's phone carrier
charged him incoming tolls for each of these text messages. Marks
filed a putative class action complaint against Crunch, alleging
violations of Section 227(b) of the TCPA. He claimed that Crunch
negligently contacted him on his cellular telephone, in violation
of the TCPA, thereby invading his privacy.

Marks alleged that the text messages were sent using an ATDS which
has the capacity to send text messages to cellular telephone
numbers from a list of telephone numbers automatically and without
human intervention.

The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Crunch on
the ground that the Textmunication system did not qualify as an
ATDS because it presently lacked a random or sequential number
generator, and did not have the potential capacity to add such a
feature.

Because it defined an ATDS as necessarily including a random or
sequential number generator, the court did not consider the
declaration of Marks's expert witness, Jeffrey Hansen, stating that
the Textmunication system called numbers from a stored list.

As originally enacted, the TCPA placed restrictions on the use of
automated telephone equipment, including automatic telephone
dialing systems and telephone facsimile machines. The statute
defined automatic telephone dialing systems (ATDS) as follows: (1)
The term automatic telephone dialing system means equipment which
has the capacity: (A) to store or produce telephone numbers to be
called, using a random or sequential number generator; and
(B) to dial such numbers.

Marks points out that a number generator is not a storage device; a
device could not use a random or sequential number generator to
store telephone numbers. Therefore, Marks asserts, it does not make
sense to read store in subdivision (A) as applying to telephone
numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number
generator. Instead, Marks contends that we should read the
definition as providing that an ATDS is equipment which has the
capacity (A) to (i) store [telephone numbers to be called or (ii)
produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or
sequential number generator; and (B) to dial such numbers. In other
words, a piece of equipment qualifies as an ATDS if it has the
capacity to store telephone numbers and then dial them.

Crunch, in turn, argues that due to the placement of the comma in
the statute, the phrase using a random or sequential number
generator modifies both store and produce. Therefore, Crunch argues
that the best reading of the statute defines an ATDS as equipment
which has the capacity (A) to store [telephone numbers produced
using a random or sequential number generator or to produce
telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number
generator; and (B) to dial such numbers. As such, to qualify as an
ATDS, according to Crunch, a device must store telephone numbers
that have been produced using a random or sequential number
generator.

This conclusion is supported by provisions in the TCPA allowing an
ATDS to call selected numbers. For instance, the TCPA permitted use
of autodialers for a call made with the prior express consent of
the called party. To take advantage of this permitted use, an
autodialer would have to dial from a list of phone numbers of
persons who had consented to such calls, rather than merely dialing
a block of random or sequential numbers.  Congress's 2015 amendment
to the TCPA provides additional information about Congress's views
on the scope of the definition of ATDS. After the FCC issued its
2015 order, Congress added language to Section 227(b)(1)(A)(iii),
exempting the use of an ATDS to make calls solely to collect a debt
owed to or guaranteed by the United States.

Like the exception allowing the use of an autodialer to make calls
with the prior express consent of the called party, this debt
collection exception demonstrates that equipment that dials from a
list of individuals who owe a debt to the United States is still an
ATDS but is exempted from the TCPA's strictures. Moreover, in
amending this section, Congress left the definition of ATDS
untouched, even though the FCC's prior orders interpreted this
definition to include devices that could dial numbers from a stored
list. The Court presumes that when Congress amends a statute, it is
knowledgeable about judicial decisions interpreting the prior
legislation.

Because the Court infers that Congress was aware of the existing
definition of ATDS, its decision not to amend the statutory
definition of ATDS to overrule the FCC's interpretation suggests
Congress gave the interpretation its tacit approval.  

Despite the ambiguity of the statutory definition of ATDS, reading
the definition in its context and with a view to [its] place in the
overall statutory scheme, the Court concludes that the statutory
definition of ATDS is not limited to devices with the capacity to
call numbers produced by a random or sequential number generator,
but also includes devices with the capacity to dial stored numbers
automatically.

Accordingly, the Court reads Section 227(a)(1) to provide that the
term automatic telephone dialing system means equipment which has
the capacity (1) to store numbers to be called or (2) to produce
numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator
and to dial such numbers.

The Court also rejects Crunch's argument that a device cannot
qualify as an ATDS unless it is fully automatic, meaning that it
must operate without any human intervention whatsoever. By
referring to the relevant device as an automatic telephone dialing
system. Congress made clear that it was targeting equipment that
could engage in automatic dialing, rather than equipment that
operated without any human oversight or control.  

Common sense indicates that human intervention of some sort is
required before an autodialer can begin making calls, whether
turning on the machine or initiating its functions. Congress was
clearly aware that, at the very least, a human has to flip the
switch on an ATDS. Crunch does not dispute that the Textmunication
system dials numbers automatically, and therefore it has the
automatic dialing function necessary to qualify as an ATDS, even
though humans, rather than machines, are needed to add phone
numbers to the Textmunication platform.

A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's September 13, 2018 Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/ybhy29x3 from Leagle.com.

Seyed Abbas Kazerounian -- ak@kazlg.com -- (argued) and Jason A.
Ibey -- jason@kazlg.com -- Kazerouni Law Group APC, Costa Mesa,
California; Joshua B. Swigart -- josh@westcoastlitigation.com --
Hyde & Swigart, San Diego, California; for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Ian C. Ballan -- Ballon@gtlaw.com -- (argued), Lori Chang --
changl@gtlaw.com -- Nina D. Boyajian -- boyajiann@gtlaw.com -- and
Justin A. Barton -- bartonjas@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig LLP,
Los Angeles, California, for Defendant-Appellee.

Shay Dvoretzky -- sdvoretzky@jonesday.com -- Jeffrey R. Johnson --
jeffreyjohnson@jonesday.com -- and Vivek Suri --
jeffreyjohnson@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, Washington, D.C., for
Amicus Curiae Sirius XM Radio Inc.

Brian Melendez -- brian.melendez@btlaw.com -- Barnes & Thornburg
LLP, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for Amicus Curiae ACA International.

Stuart T. Rossman and Carolyn Carter , National Consumer Law
Center, Boston, Massachusetts;Ira Rheingold , National Association
of Consumer Advocates, Washington, D.C.; for Amici Curiae National
Consumer Law Center and National Association of Consumer
Advocates.


CUYAHOGA, OH: Weiskopf et al. Sue over Judgment Liens
-----------------------------------------------------
EDWARD A. WEISKOPF; THOMAS R. GRADY; GUS GEORGALIS; PINNACLE 701
LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA; and CUYAHOGA COUNTY CLERK OF
COURTS, Defendants, Case No. CV18902609 (Ohio Com. Pleas, Cuyahoga
Cty., Aug. 22, 2018) alleges that the Defendants failed to make and
file in their cases an itemized bill of court costs and failed to
provide the Plaintiffs with the itemized bill and subsequent
notices to them for payment prior to filing judgment liens against
them in the year 2012 and 2013.

According to the complaint, from August 9, 2012 to December 31,
2012 the Clerk, as Creditor, issued over 50,000 certificates of
judgment and filed judgment lien cases in the Cuyahoga County Court
of Common Pleas (Cases Nos. JL-12-496769 - JL-12-574508), against
certain Debtors, which certificates of judgment were based on
delinquent court costs due by the Debtors to the Clerk in certain
originating cases involving the Debtors which were filed in the
Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas.  The Clerk never provided
the Debtors with notice that the 2012 JL Cases had been filed
against them.

From January 1,2013 to December 31, 2013 the Clerk, as Creditor,
issued over 30,000 certificates of judgment and filed judgment lien
cases in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas (Cases Nos.
JL-13-574509 - JL-13-61 1326), against certain Debtors, which
certificates of judgment were based on delinquent court costs due
by the Debtors to the Clerk in certain originating cases involving
the Debtors which were filed in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common
Pleas. The Clerk never provided the Debtors with notice that the
2013 JL Cases had been filed against them.

Cuyahoga County is a county in the U.S. state of Ohio. Its county
seat is Cleveland. The county is named after the Iroquoian word
Cuyahoga, which means 'crooked river'. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Frank Consolo, Esq.
          Horace F. Consolo, Esq.
          212 Hoyt Block
          CONSOLO LAW FIRM CO., LPA
          700 West St. Clair Avenue
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 696-5400
          Facsimile: (216) 696-2610
          E-mail: fconsolo@consololaw.com
                  hconsolo@consololaw.com


DIAMOND MATTRESS: Faces Lopez Wage-and-Hour Suit
------------------------------------------------
ERICK LOPEZ, an individual on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. DIAMOND MATTRESS COMPANY,
INC.; and DOES 1 to 10 inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC720947
(Cal. Super. Ct., Sept. 11, 2018), seeks to recover overtime pay
and double time wages and minimum wages under the California Labor
Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants manufacture mattresses
in Compton, California.  The Defendants employ numerous non-exempt
employees, including but not limited to line loaders, spring bale
openers, assemblers, and quilters. In addition to a base hourly
wage, the Defendants also pay their employees a piece rate wage per
mattress manufactured.  The Defendants label the additional
piece-rate wages "Earned Incentive" on employees' itemized wage
statements. However, the wage statements only show the total amount
of piece-rate wages earned during the pay period and fail to show
the number or piece-rate units earned or the applicable piece rate
of pay in calculating the regular rate of pay for purposes of
determining overtime and double time wages. The Defendants fail to
include the amount of "Earned Incentive" wages in the rate,
resulting in employees being paid at a rate that is less than the
minimum required for overtime and double time hours worked. When
Plaintiff worked more than 8 hours in a day and/or 40 hours in a
week, the Defendants did not include the value of his "Earned
Incentive" wages in his regular rate of pay for purposes of
calculating his overtime and/or double time wages.

Diamond Mattress is a family-run store specializing in handmade
mattresses that also carries beds & accessories.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew B. Hayes, Esq.
          Kye D. Pawlenko, Esq.
          HAYES PAWLENKO LLP
          595 E. Colorado Blvd., Suite 303
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (626) 808 4357
          Facsimile: (626) 921 4932
          E-mail: mhayes@helpcounsel.com
                  kpawlenko@helpcounsel.com


DIGNITY HEALTH: Faces Fichtner Suit in California State Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dignity Health. The
lawsuit is captioned Stacy O'Braza, Rache Elias-Berg and Heather
Fichtner, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. Dignity Health and Does 1-10, the Defendants,
Case No. 34-2018-00240446-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sept. 10,
2018).

Dignity Health is a California-based not-for-profit public-benefit
corporation that operates hospitals and ancillary care facilities
in three states.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory Philip Wong, Esq.
          Adept Employment Law, APC
          10880 Wilshire Blvd Ste. 1101
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (213) 505 6283
          E-mail: greg.wong@adeptemploymentlaw.com


DYCKMAN ELECTRONICS: Galindo Files FLSA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dyckman Electronics
Center Inc., et al. The case is styled as Jovito Galindo,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. Dyckman Electronics Center Inc. doing business as: Dyckman
Electronics, Front Row Electronics LLC doing business as: Dyckman
Electronics, Avraham Oz, Nuriel Guedalia, Jackie Oz, Angela Torres,
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-08678 (S.D. N.Y., Sept. 21, 2018).

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

Dyckman Electronics Center Inc. is in the Consumer Electronic
Equipment business.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


DYNAMIC PET: Court Affirms $2.4MM Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
Scott Lauck, writing for The Missouri Court of Appeals Western
District affirmed a $2.4 million nationwide class-action settlement
with a dog-treat maker, despite objections from some of the class
members. The global settlement approved last year resolved suits
filed in Missouri and California against Dynamic Pet Products LLC
and Frick's Meat Products Inc. [GN]


EAZE SOLUTIONS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Lloyd Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
KRISTINE LLOYD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EAZE SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
4:18-cv-05176-DMR (N.D. Cal., Aug. 23, 2018) seeks to stop the
Defendant from soliciting the Plaintiff and the class to buy drugs
via text.

Eaze Solutions, Inc. provides Eaze, a medical marijuana delivery
service for patients in California. The company was founded in 2014
and is based in San Francisco, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
          David W. Hall, Esq.
          HEDIN HALL LLP
          Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 766-3534
          Facsimile: (415) 402-0058
          E-mail: fhedin@hedinhall.com
                  dhall@hedinhall.com


EL RINCONCITO: Sandoval Seeks Minimum Wages under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------
VILMA SANDOVAL, on her own behalf and others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. EL RINCONCITO SALVADORENO, INC., a Florida
Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 0:18-cv-62180-MGC (S.D. Fla.,
Sept. 14, 2018), alleges that Defendant failed to pay minimum wages
to all servers/waitpersons pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the Florida Minimum Wage Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has owned and operated a
restaurant since its opening for at least five years prior to the
filing of this Complaint, in Fort Lauderdale, Broward County,
Florida within the jurisdiction of this Court. The Defendant
allegedly orchestrated a common policy and practice of paying its
servers a flat daily rate of $40.00, regardless of the number of
hours the servers worked. In addition, Defendant required its
servers to perform side work each week that was not incidental to
tip producing activities. Because servers' shifts were generally 10
hours, the effective hourly rate was approximately $4.00 per hour.
Tip credit workers in Florida must be paid a cash wage of at least
$5.23 per hour. The Plaintiff and other similarly situated servers
were required to perform side work several hours per week that was
not related to tip producing activities. Plaintiff should have been
paid a minimum wage with no tip credit for this time.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff:

          Robert S. Norell, Esq.
          ROBERT S. NORELL, P.A.
          300 N.W. 70th Avenue, Suite 305
          Plantation, FL 33317
          Telephone: (954) 617 6017
          Facsimile: (954) 617 6018
          E-mail: rob@floridawagelaw.com


ELECTRONIC ARTS: Court Denies Summary Judgment Bid in Davis Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Richard Seeborg of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California denied EA's motion for summary judgment in
the case, MICHAEL E. DAVIS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ELECTRONIC ARTS
INC., Defendant, Case No. 10-cv-03328-RS (N.D. Cal.).

The named Plaintiffs in the putative class action are former
National Football League players who contend that the Defendant has
misappropriated their likenesses and rights of publicity through
marketing and selling the popular "Madden NFL" series of video
games.  EA now seeks to dispose of the remaining claims by summary
judgment.

Judge Seeborg finds that EA's motion for summary judgment has five
basic prongs -- all of which have been the subject, to one degree
or another, of prior motion practice.  The Plaintiffs are wrong,
however, to argue that EA is barred by "law of the case" from
raising these issues once again, or that it must meet the standards
applicable to motions for reconsideration.  It was appropriate for
EA to test the viability of the remaining claims in the light of
the fully developed record now presented.  However, EA is not
entitled to judgment in its favor even on that record.

EA now contends there are no triable issues of fact as to whether
the avatars in the game are "identifiable" as any or all of the
specific Plaintiffs, even under the common law claim.  It insists
the Plaintiffs must be able to show that more than a de minimus
number of persons can recognize avatars as being representations of
them.  

The Judge holds that there is little doubt that EA made efforts to
render the avatars generic or anonymous to some degree.  A
reasonable inference is that EA was trying to have it both ways: it
wanted its customers to believe they could have genuine
reenactments of games with representations of the actual players,
while simultaneously hoping to remove enough identifying features
that the former players could not claim a license was legally
required.  Although a fact-finder may very well conclude that
avatars are not sufficiently identifiable to support the
Plaintiffs' claims, the present record does not allow for such a
finding to be made as a matter of law.

EA argue, in essence, that the fully-developed record shows that
the avatars are not literal representations of the Plaintiffs.  The
argument, however, does not present a separate basis for rejecting
the Plaintiffs' claims, the Judge finds.  He says if a trier of
fact were to agree with EA that the avatars are not literal
(identifiable) representations of the Plaintiffs, EA will prevail
on the merits, without consideration of the First Amendment. C
onversely, if the trier of fact finds the avatars are sufficiently
identifiable to support the misappropriation claim, there will be
no grounds to reconsider the prior rulings that the use of the
identities is not sufficiently transformative to merit First
Amendment protection.

EA contends the recent order denying its motion to dismiss was
legally erroneous in holding that copyright preemption did not
apply because the Plaintiffs' likenesses are not "fixed" in the
Madden game.  The Judge holds that although EA certainly can
copyright the game itself, it has not shown that the copyright
extends to the game play in which its customers participate.
Furthermore, with respect to this prong of the current motion, EA
has not shown the record on summary judgment to differ from what
was considered at the motion to dismiss stage.  Accordingly, as to
this prong, EA is effectively seeking reconsideration, without
having made a threshold showing that reconsideration is warranted.


EA contends the Plaintiffs' UCL, conversion, and trespass to
chattels claims all fail because the Plaintiff supposedly cannot
identify cognizable property rights to support the claim.  As
reflected in the recent order upholding the magistrate judge's
sanctions ruling, the Plaintiffs may still present damages
calculations through expert testimony.

Finally, EA's moving papers sought a ruling that only Madden '09 is
within the applicable statute of limitations.  Indeed, the record
is not sufficient at this juncture to evaluate whether or not any
versions of the game other than Madden '09 fall within the
limitations period.

For these reasons, Judge Seeborg denied the EA's motion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 17, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/2vlrrL from Leagle.com.

Michael E. Davis, also known as Tony Davis, Vince Ferragamo, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated & Billy Joe
Dupree, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, represented by Austin P. Tighe, Jr. --
austin@feazell-tighe.com -- Feazell & Tighe LLP, Brian Douglas
Henri -- brianhenri@henrilg.com -- Henri Law Group, Michael Irwin
Katz -- mkatz@ggtriallaw.com -- Greenberg Gross LLP & Sony Broto
Barari -- sbarari@bzbm.com  -- Bartko, Zankel, Bunzel & Miller.

Samuel Michael Keller, Plaintiff, represented by Leonard W. Aragon
-- leonard@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac
vice.

Electronic Arts Inc., Defendant, represented by R. James Slaughter
-- rslaughter@keker.com -- Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP, Joseph
Taylor Gooch -- tgooch@keker.com -- Keker and Van Nest LLP,
Nicholas David Marais -- nmarais@keker.com -- Keker, Van Nest &
Peters LLP & Robert Adam Lauridsen -- alauridsen@keker.com --
Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP.


ELECTRONIC ARTS: Ex-NFL Players Seeks Reversal of Madden Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Donahue, writing for Law360, reports that a group of retired
NFL players is urging a federal judge to undo a decision that
barred them from collectively suing Electronic Arts Inc. for
featuring them in Madden video games. [GN]


EMPIRE RESORTS Website Not Accessible, Mendez Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
HIMELDA MENDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EMPIRE RESORTS, INC. D/B/A MONTICELLO GAMING
AND RACEWAY, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-07702 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 23,
2018) seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's
corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's
website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.

According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people. The Defendant’s denial of full and
equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its goods and
services offered thereby and in conjunction with its physical
locations, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the
Americans with Disabilities Act.

Empire Resorts, Inc. engages in hospitality and gaming businesses
in New York. Empire Resorts, Inc. was founded in 1993 and is based
in Monticello, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
          300 Cadman Plaza West, 12 Fl.
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Telephone: (929) 575-4175
          Facsimile: (929) 575-4195
          E-mail: Joseph@cml.legal

               - and -

          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003-2461
          Telephone: (212) 228-9795
          E-mail: nyjg@aol.com
                  danalgottlieb@aol.com


ENHANCED RECOVERY: Fraley Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Enhanced Recovery
Company, LLC. The case is styled as Latrice Fraley, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC d/b/a ERC and John Does 1-25,
Defendants, Case No. 2:18-at-01505 (E.D. Cal., Sept. 21, 2018).

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

Enhanced Recovery Company LLC provides business process outsourcing
services that include recovery, outsourcing, and market research
primarily for Fortune 500 companies in the United States and
internationally.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jonathan Aaron Stieglitz, Esq.
     Law Office of Jonathan A. Stieglitz
     11845 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 800
     Los Angeles, CA 90064
     Phone: (323) 979-2063
     Fax: (323) 488-6748
     Email: jonathan.a.stieglitz@gmail.com


FINGER LAKES: Website Not Accessible, Mendez Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------
HIMELDA MENDEZ, individually and on behalf of and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FINGER LAKES RACING ASSOCIATION,
INC. d/b/a FINGER LAKES GAMING, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-07701
(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 23, 2018) seeks a permanent injunction to cause a
change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures
so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers.

According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people. The Defendant’s denial of full and
equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its goods and
services offered thereby and in conjunction with its physical
locations, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the
Americans with Disabilities Act.

Finger Lakes Racing Association, Inc. owns and operates the Finger
Lakes Gaming & Racetrack in New York. The company offers horse
racing, gaming machines, dining, and entertainment services. The
company was founded in 1962 and is based in Farmington, New York.
Finger Lakes Racing Association, Inc. is a subsidiary of Delaware
North Companies, Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
          300 Cadman Plaza West, 12 Fl.
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Telephone: (929) 575-4175
          Facsimile: (929) 575-4195
          E-mail: Joseph@cml.legal

               - and -

          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003-2461
          Telephone: (212) 228-9795
          E-mail: nyjg@aol.com
                  danalgottlieb@aol.com


FIRST CONNECTICUT: Monteverde & Associates Files Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Monteverde & Associates PC on Sept. 4 disclosed that it has filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of Maryland, Case No. 1:18-cv-02496-RDB, on behalf of
shareholders of First Connecticut Bancorp, Inc. ("First
Connecticut" or the "Company") (NasdaqCM: FBNK) who held First
Connecticut shares and have been harmed by First Connecticut and
its board of directors' (the "Board") for alleged violations of
Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act") in connection with the acquisition of the
Company by People's United Financial, Inc. ("People's United")
(NasdaqGS :PBCT ) ( the "Proposed Transaction").

Pursuant to the terms of the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated
June 18, 2018, each share of First Connecticut common stock issued
and outstanding will be converted into the right to receive 1.725
shares of People's United common stock (the "Merger
Consideration").  The complaint questions the fairness of the
Merger Consideration offered to the Company's shareholders and
alleges that the proxy statement regarding the Proposed Transaction
(the "Proxy") fails to disclose material information that is
necessary for shareholders to properly assess the fairness of the
Proposed Transaction, thereby rendering certain statements in the
Proxy incomplete and misleading.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from September 4, 2018.  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 contact:

Click here for more information:
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/first-connecticut-bancorp-inc. It is
free and there is no cost or obligation to you.

Monteverde & Associates PC -- http://www.monteverdelaw.com-- is a
national class action securities and consumer litigation law firm
committed that has recovered millions of dollars and is committed
to protecting shareholders and consumers from corporate wrongdoing.
Monteverde & Associates PC lawyers have significant experience
litigating Mergers & Acquisitions and Securities Class Actions,
whereby they protect investors by recovering money and remedying
corporate misconduct.  Mr. Monteverde, who leads the legal team at
the firm, has been recognized by Super Lawyers as a Rising Star in
Securities Litigation in 2013 and 2017, an award given to less than
2.5% of attorneys in a particular field.  He has also been selected
by Martindale-Hubbell as a 2017 Top Rated Lawyer.

Contact:

Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.   
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Ave, Suite 4405
New York, NY 10118
United States of America
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com  
Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN]


FIRST DATA: Hernandez Sues over Credit Card Processing
------------------------------------------------------
JERRY HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. FIRST DATA MERCHANT SERVICES LLC and
NORTHERN LEASING SYSTEMS INC, the Defendant, Case No. BC721305
(Cal. Super. Ct., Sept. 10, 2018), seeks to recover compensatory
damages, restitution, disgorgement of profits, costs of suit,
actual damages, attorneys' fees, costs, declaratory judgment,
injunctive relief, and any other relief that this Court deems just
and proper arising from Defendants' unfair, unlawful, unethical,
fraudulent, unconscionable, and/or deceptive business policies and
practices related to Defendants' marketing and administration of
its credit card processing terminal leases and services.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff is a small business
owner, who has been damaged as a result of Defendants' unfair,
unlawful, unethical, deceptive, unconscionable, and/or fraudulent
business practices. Defendant is engaged in the credit card
processing equipment lease financing and service business.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class:

          Francis J. Flynn, Jr.
          LAW OFFICE OF FRANCIS J. FLYNN, JR.
          422 South Curson Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90036
          Telephone: (314) 662 2836
          Facsimile: (855) 710 7706
          E-mail: casey@lawofficeflynn.com


FLAGSTAR BANK: Smiths Seek Interest in Mortgage Escrow Account
--------------------------------------------------------------
LOWELL and GINA SMITH, individually, and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FLAGSTAR BANK, FSB; and DOES
1-100, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-05131-KAW (N.D. Cal.,
Aug. 22, 2018) seeks to stop the Defendant's policy and practice of
failing to pay interest on money it routinely holds in mortgage
escrow accounts for California borrowers.

According to the complaint, the Defendant created an escrow account
pursuant to the Deed of Trust executed by the Plaintiffs, and held
the Plaintiffs' money in that escrow account, but did not pay the
Plaintiffs for interest on those funds as required by law. On July
13, 2018, the Plaintiffs gave written notice and demand for cure of
their grievance pursuant to the Deed of Trust. The Defendant has
not cured or offered to cure.

Flagstar Bank, FSB provides banking products and services to
individuals and businesses in Michigan. Flagstar Bank, FSB was
formerly known as First Security Savings Bank, FSB and changed its
name to Flagstar Bank, FSB in January 1996. The company was founded
in 1987 and is based in Troy, Michigan. Flagstar Bank, FSB operates
as a subsidiary of Flagstar Bancorp Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Thomas E. Loeser, Esq.
           HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
           1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
           Seattle, WA 98101
           Telephone: (206) 623-7292
           Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
           E-mail: toml@hbsslaw.com

                - and -

           Peter B. Fredman, Esq.
           LAW OFFICE OF PETER FREDMAN PC
           125 University Ave, Suite 102
           Berkeley, CA 94710
           Telephone: (510) 868-2626
           Facsimile: (510) 868-2627
           E-mail: peter@peterfredmanlaw.com


FLAVOR BOUTIQUE: Strulowitz Seeks Wages for Ice Scream Scoopers
---------------------------------------------------------------
JASON STRULOWITZ, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated in the proposed FLSA Collective Action, the Plaintiff, vs
FLAVOR BOUTIQUE 796 INC. d/b/a HOLEY CREAM, and FLAVOR BOUTIQUE 522
INC. d/b/a HOLEY CREAM, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-08382
(S.D.N.Y., Sept. 14, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wage/minimum
wage compensation, unpaid overtime wage compensation, full portion
of tips illegally retained by Defendants, liquidated damages,
spread of hours pay, up to $5,000 as a result of the Defendants'
failure to provide a Time of Hire Notice detailing rates of pay on
each pay day, up to $5,000 for Defendants' failure to provide a
paystub that accurately and truthfully lists the employee's hours
along with the name, employer's name, employer's address and
telephone number, employee's rate or rates of pay, any deductions
made from employee's wages, any allowances claimed as part of the
minimum wage, and the employee's gross and net wages for each pay
day, prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and attorneys' fees
and costs, under the New York State Wage Theft Prevention Act, the
Fair Labor Standards Act, and the New York State Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was employed as an ice
scream scooper, assisting with servicing customers, taking orders
and processing credit cards at the register, at the HC 9th Avenue
from July 9, 2018 through and including July 20, 2018. The
Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals are individuals
who have worked for the Defendants in similarly-titled, hourly paid
position, during the statutory period. The Plaintiff and other
similarly situated individuals all shared similar job titles,
training, job descriptions and job tasks, during the statutory
period.

The Plaintiff was not paid anything at all by the Defendants for
the work performed during the period of July 9, 2018 through and
including July 20, 2018. In addition to scheduled work hours,
Plaintiff (as well as other similarly situated employees) regularly
worked before their scheduled shift began and after their scheduled
shifts ended. The Plaintiff Strulowitz, as well as other similarly
situated employees, were not compensated for hours worked before
their shift began or after their shift ended.  At all relevant
times, the Defendants did not pay Plaintiff at the rate of one and
one-half times his hourly wage rate for hours worked in excess of
40 per workweek.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and proposed FLSA Collection Action:

          Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq.
          LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          One Penn Plaza, Suite 2527
          New York, NY 10119
          Telephone: (212) 792 0046
          E-mail: Joshua@levinepstein.com


FLINT, MI: Appeal Filed in Doris et al. Case
--------------------------------------------
An appeal has been filed from a court decision in the case
captioned, COLLIN DORIS; PLEASANT ROBIN; PHINISSE JASON; MCDONALD
LEE, and CONLEY COLLISION INC, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CITY OF FLINT; SNYDERRICK
GOVERNOR; STATE OF MICHIGANS; EARLEY DARNELL; WALLING DAYNE; CROFT
HOWARD, Defendants, Case No. 16-106077-CZ, Genesee Circuit Court.
The appeal was filed on August 22, 2018, before the Michigan Court
of Appeals, and captioned as, COLLIN DORIS; PLEASANT ROBIN;
PHINISSE JASON; MCDONALD LEE, and CONLEY COLLISION INC,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. CITY OF FLINT; SNYDERRICK GOVERNOR; STATE OF
MICHIGANS; EARLEY DARNELL; WALLING DAYNE; CROFT HOWARD, Defendants,
Case No. 345203 (Mich. App., Aug. 22, 2018).

Flint is the largest city and seat of Genesee County, Michigan,
United States. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by Fletcher Loyst Jr., Esq. and
Brenda R Williams, Esq.

The Defendants are represented by Frederick A Berg, Esq., at BUTZEL
LONG, P.C.; and William Y Kim, Esq., Assistant City Attorney.


FLORIDA BEHAVIORAL: Violates Medical Leave Act, Steighler Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
RITA STEIGHLER on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated individuals, the Plaintiff, vs. CENTRAL FLORIDA BEHAVIORAL
HEALTH NETWORK, INC., a Florida not for Profit Corporation, the
Defendant, Case No. 8:18-cv-02282-EAK-JSS (M.D. Fla., Sept. 14,
2018), seeks compensatory damages, liquidated damages, award of
interest, costs and reasonable attorney's fees and expert witness
fees, equitable relief, declaratory relief, pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest, and jury trial on all issues so triable
under the Family Medical Leave Act.

According to the complaint, Rita Steighler suffers from a
disability that is also a chronic severe health condition entitling
her to benefits under the FMLA. Ms. Steighler made Defendant aware
of her condition, her anticipated treatment plan, and her need for
fixed leave. Defendant’s managers had knowledge of Steighler's
emergency request for leave, while in the hospital. Defendant
failed to provide Plaintiff notice of her FMLA rights or to
designate Steighler's leave request as FMLA protected leave.
Further, with direct and actual knowledge of Plaintiff's medical
condition and her need for continuing treatment, Defendant
terminated Plaintiff, within one week of her discharge from the
hospital.[BN]

Trial Counsel for Plaintiff:

          Paul M. Botros, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          600 N. Pine Island Road, Suite 400
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Telephone: (954) 318 0268
          Facsimile: (954) 327 3016
          E-mail: pbotros@forthepeople.com


FOODLINER INC: $1.2M Settlement in Austin Has Prelim Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RONDA AUSTIN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FOODLINER, INC.,
Defendant, Case No.16-cv-07185-HSG (N.D. Cal.), Judge Haywood S.
Gilliam, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California granted the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for
preliminary approval of class action settlement.

The Plaintiffs are former employees of the Defendant Foodliner.
They worked as truck drivers for the Defendant, and seek to bring
suit on behalf of a class of all individuals whom Foodliner
employed as truck drivers in California at any time during the
Class Period, which commenced on Nov. 3, 2012.

The Plaintiffs allege that their primary duty is to haul materials
from one location to another using the Defendant's trucks.  The
Defendant controls all logistical details, like drivers' schedules
and what specific duties are to be performed, and pays drivers on a
per-trip basis.  The Plaintiffs allege that they are not paid for
all hours worked.  Finally, the Plaintiffs and other truck drivers
are not paid separately for their missed meal and rest periods.
Further, the Defendant allegedly failed to reimburse the putative
class for certain eligible costs incurred while on the job, and
failed to provide accurate wage statements.

On April 19, 2018, the parties notified the Court that they had
reached a settlement agreement, after which the Plaintiffs filed
their unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the class
settlement.  After conducting extensive discovery, the parties went
to mediation on Aug. 16, 2017.  Although the case did not settle at
that session, the mediator later made a proposal on April 4, 2018.
The parties accepted a modified version of that proposal and
reached a settlement. I

The class is defined as all individuals employed by Foodliner as
truck drivers in California at any time during the class period,
which means Nov. 3, 2012 continuing through and including the date
of the Court's order regarding preliminary approval of the
Settlement.  There is also a Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA")
subclass which will consist of all Class Members who were employed
at any time during the time period from Oct. 31, 2015, through the
date of Preliminary Approval of the Settlement.

The Defendant agrees to pay a gross settlement amount of $1.2
million, which is inclusive of all payments to the Class Members,
the Class Counsel Fees and Costs Payment, the Class Representative
Service Payment, the Settlement Administration Fees, withholdings
for wage payments made to Class Members under the Settlement, and
payment to the California Labor & Workforce Development Agency for
its share of PAGA penalties.  This amount does not include employer
payroll taxes.

The proceeds will be distributed as follows: each Participating
Class Member will receive a proportionate share that is equal to
(i) the number of workweeks he or she worked during the time period
from Nov. 3, 2012, through the date of Preliminary Approval of the
Settlement, divided by (ii) the total number of workweeks worked by
all Participating Class Members during the time period from Nov.3,
2012, through the date of Preliminary Approval of the Settlement.


Furthermore, one quarter of the proceeds allocated to PAGA
penalties ($81,405) will be distributed to the PAGA subclass as
follows: each Participating Class Member who is a member of the
PAGA Subclass will receive a proportionate share of money allocated
to that subclass that is equal to (i) the number of workweeks he or
she worked during the time period from Oct. 31, 2015, through the
date of Preliminary Approval of the Settlement, divided by (ii) the
total number of workweeks worked by all Participating Class Members
who are members of the PAGA Subclass during the time period from
October 31, 2015, through the date of Preliminary Approval of the
Settlement.

Within 30 days of the Court's granting preliminary approval, the
Defendant will provide the settlement administrator with relevant
data about the class members.  Within 10 days of receipt, the
settlement administrator will send the notice of proposed
settlement by first-class mail.  The parties propose that class
members who wish to opt out be required to mail to the settlement
administrator a request for exclusion with 45 calendar days
following the date of initial mailing of the Notice by the
Settlement Administrator.

Plaintiff Austin intends to apply for an incentive award of no more
than $10,000.  Plaintiffs Corduck, Dial, Gibson, and Smith intend
to apply for incentive awards of no more than $7,500 each.  The
Defendant agrees not to oppose any of those applications.

The Plaintiffs intends to file an application for attorney's fees
not to exceed 33% of the gross settlement amount, or $399,960.
They further intends to seek costs and expenses not to exceed
reasonable actual costs incurred by the Class Counsel.

Judge Gilliam granted the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary
approval of the class action settlement.  He directed the parties
to meet and confer, and to submit to the Court a proposed schedule
for further proceedings as follows:

     i. to provide class contact information to the Settlement
Administrator Deadline for Settlement Administrator to mail notice
to all putative class members;

     ii. filing deadline for motion for (1) attorney's fees and
costs, and (2) class representative incentive payments;

     iii. deadline for the  class members to opt out or object to
settlement and/or application for attorney's fees and costs and
incentive payment; and

     iv. Filing deadline for final approval motion Final fairness
hearing and hearing on motions.

The parties will submit their proposal no later than Aug. 25, 2018.
When submitting their motion for final approval, the parties will
include both a joint proposed order and a joint proposed judgment.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 17, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/5QlKu0 from Leagle.com.

Ronda Austin, Christopher Corduck, Ernest Dial, Billy Wayne Gibson
& Bobby G. Smith, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Hunter Pyle --
hpyle@ssrplaw.com -- Hunter Pyle Law & Chad A. Saunders --
csaunders@ssrplaw.com -- Sundeen Salinas & Pyle.

Foodliner, Inc., Defendant, represented by Mollie Michelle Burks --
mburks@grsm.com -- Gordon & Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP, John Paul
Briscoe -- jbriscoe@mayallaw.com -- Burton Employment law &
Nicholas A. Deming -- ndeming@grsm.com -- Gordon & Rees.


FORBIDDEN FRUIT: Lizzol Files FLSA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Forbidden Fruit Inc.,
et al. The case is styled as Elaine Lizzol on behalf of herself and
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. Forbidden Fruit Inc.
doing business as: The Landing Strip formerly known as: The
Forbidden Fruit, Edward Preas, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-05335
(E.D. N.Y., Sept. 21, 2018).

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

The Landing Strip is an adult entertainment club.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


FORSTER & GARBUS: Damasco Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Forster & Garbus, LLP
et al. The case is styled as Toni A Damasco on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Forster & Garbus,
LLP, Mark A. Garbus, Ronald Forster, Defendants, Case No.
2:18-cv-05369 (E.D. N.Y., Sept. 24, 2018).

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

Forster & Garbus LLP provides legal services. The Company
specializes in collecting debts. It is located at 60 Motor Parkway,
Commack, NY 11725.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


FOWLER FOODS: Underpay General Managers, Jones Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
BRADLEY JONES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FOWLER FOORDS, INC.; FOWLER BROTHERS, INC.;
FB FOODS, LLC; RIDGE PARK FOODS, LLC; FOWLER DELTA FOODS, LLC;
MEMPHIS FOODS, LLC; EAST TENNESSEE FOODS, LLC, NORTH MISSISSIPPI
FOODS, LLC, NORTH FLORIDA FOODS, LLC, ALABAMA FOODS, LLC, SOUTHERN
ILLINOIS FOODS, LLC, and SOUTHWEST ARKANSAS FOODS, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-02572 (W.D. Tenn., Aug. 21, 2018)
seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid overtime compensation,
minimum wage, interest, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys'
fees, and costs.

The Plaintiff Jones was employed by the Defendants as restaurant
general manager.

Fowler Foods, Inc. operates and manages restaurants. The company
operates franchises for various brands like Kentucky Fried Chicken,
Taco Bells and Pancho's. Fowler Foods, Inc. was founded in 1970 and
is based in Jonesboro, Arkansas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
          James L. Holt, Jr., Esq.
          J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
          Paula R. Jackson, Esq.
          Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq.
          JACKSON SHIELDS YEISER & HOLT
          262 German Oak Drive
          Memphis, TN 38018
          Telephone: (901) 754-8001
          Facsimile: (901) 759-1745
          E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
                  jholt@jsyc.com
                  rbryant@jsyc.com
                  pjackson@jsyc.com
                  rturner@jsyc.com


FUSO TRUCKING: Faces Rubalcaba Suit in California Superior Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fuso Trucking Corp.
The lawsuit is captioned as Romualdo Ibarra Rubalcaba, on behalf of
other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Does 1-25 and
Fuso Trucking Corp., the Defendant, Case No.
34-2018-00240439-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sept. 10, 2018).

Fuso Trucking Corp is a licensed and bonded freight shipping and
trucking company running freight hauling business from West
Sacramento, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Santos Gomez, Esq,
          LAW OFFICES OF SANTOS GOMEZ
          1003 Freedom Blvd.
          Watsonville, CA 95076
          Telephone: (831) 228 1560


GF-PASSAIC FOODS: NJ App. Div. Partly Affirms Barile Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, affirmed in
part and reversed in part the trial court's order granting the
Defendants' Rule 4:6-2(e) motion to dismiss with prejudice the
case, PATRICK BARILE, on behalf of himself and those similarly
situated, Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Respondent, v. GF-PASSAIC
FOODS, LLC, and GF-EAST PATTERSON FOODS, LLC,
Defendants-Respondents/Cross-Appellants, Case No. A-4706-16T1 (N.J.
Super. App. Div.).

In the matter, the Court is asked to decide whether the trial court
erred in granting the Defendants' Rule 4:6-2(e) motion to dismiss
with prejudice the Plaintiff's class action complaint, which
alleged violations of the Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and
Notice Act ("TCCWNA"), by providing sales receipts for purchases
that revealed sales tax charges higher than the rate allowed by
state law.  It is also asked whether the trial court erred in
deciding that it does not have jurisdiction over the Plaintiff's
complaint because the Director of the Division of Taxation has
exclusive jurisdiction to refund sales tax.

The Plaintiff appeals the court's dismissal based upon its
determination that the sales receipts do not violate the TCCWNA.
The Defendants cross-appeal the court's rejection of their
contention that the sales receipts were not "contracts" or
"notices" under the TCCWNA.

The Court concludes the complaint should have been dismissed with
prejudice because the sales receipts are not a violation of the
TCCWNA, and that they are not contracts or notices under the Act,
and that exclusive jurisdiction over sales tax disputes resides
with the Director.  Thus, it affirmed in part and reversed in
part.

Barile's complaint seeking class-action relief alleged that on
multiple occasions over a three-week period in 2016, he purchased
grocery items at the Defendants' Gala Fresh stores in Paterson and
Passaic and was given sales receipts showing that he paid sales tax
in excess of the seven percent rate permitted by the Sales and Use
Tax Act ("SUTA").  He contended the sales receipts violated the
TCCWNA.

In response, the Defendants filed a Rule 4:6-2(e) motion to dismiss
the complaint with prejudice arguing that as a matter of law, the
sales receipts did not constitute contracts or notices as required
to establish a TCCWNA violation, and that the exclusive
jurisdiction to refund sales tax resided with the Director of the
Division of Taxation.

The court granted the Defendants' motion on the basis that,
accepting there was a violation of the law by overcharging the
Plaintiff sales tax, the sales receipts did not violate the TCCWNA
because the overcharging occurred after the sales transaction was
complete.  It also agreed with the Defendants that since the
Plaintiff's claim only concerns the overcharging of sales tax, in
accordance with Kawa v. Wakefern Food Corp., jurisdiction lies
exclusively with the Director.

On appeal, the Plaintiff argues the court erred in dismissing his
complaint by finding the sales receipts did not contain any
violations of law under TCCWNA, and that the Director of Taxation
does not have exclusive jurisdiction over issues involving SUTA.
The Defendants argue on cross-appeal that although the court
properly found there was no TCCWNA violation, it erred in finding
that the sales receipts constitute contracts or notices under the
TCCWNA.

The Court explains that TCCWNA is a remedial statute, entitled to a
broad interpretation to facilitate its stated purpose.  This
statute, by its terms, only prohibits certain affirmative actions,
that is, the offering or signing of a consumer contract, or giving
or displaying of consumer warranties, notices, or signs, which
violate a substantive provision of law.  The plain language of the
statute establishes certain requirements for its application.  The
entity that is the target of the prohibition must be a seller
acting in the course of his business.  The party to be protected
must be a consumer.  

The targeted conduct has two elements.  First, there is the action
of the seller, who must offer or enter into any written consumer
contract or give or display any written notice.  The second element
regards the content of the writing.  It must include a provision
that violates any clearly established legal right of a consumer or
responsibility of a seller.

Guided by these principles, for the reasons substantially stated by
the court in its oral decision, it agrees that the sales receipts
memorialize the Plaintiff's purchases and, therefore, are not
violations of the law covered under TCCWNA.  It further agrees with
the court's reasoning that the Director has exclusive jurisdiction
under SUTA over issues involving sales tax.  The fact that, under
N.J.S.A. 56:12-17, a TCCWNA violation imposes a civil penalty of
not less than $100, or actual damages at the consumer's election,
together with reasonable attorney fees and court costs, does not
nullify the Director's exclusive jurisdiction in matters involving
sales tax.

The Court finds unpersuasive the Plaintiff's submission under Rule
2:6-11(d), that the Court's recent decision in Pisack v. B & C
Towing, Inc., requires it to conclude that the sales receipts
constitute contracts and notices under TCCWNA, and that discovery
should be permitted on his class claims.  Here, the sales receipts,
despite memorializing sales tax overcharges, are not bills or
invoices given to purchasers to indicate what must be paid but are
given to record the purchases and the sales tax charged.  Unlike
the towing companies' bills in Pisack, sales receipts -- albeit
containing sales tax overcharges -- were not tendered to deceive
the consumer into paying charges that are not allowed by law.

Furthermore, the Court sees no cause for discovery as teh Plaintiff
contends.  Even assuming discovery would reveal that the Defendants
were intentionally overtaxing their customers and keeping the
excess sales taxes rather than turning them over to the State, the
sales receipts are still neither contracts nor notices under TCCWNA
because they were not issued to the Plaintiff to entice him to pay
more sales taxes than he was required to pay.  The fact that the
TCCWNA is remedial legislation and entitled to broad interpretation
does not allow us to impose requirements that are not within the
four corners of its language.

Finally, the Court disagrees with the court's declaration that the
sales receipts constitute contracts or notices under TCCWNA.  For
the same reason that the receipts do not constitute a violation of
TCCWNA, they do not constitute a notice or contract.  Under the
TCCWNA, a contract is a written agreement to purchase real or
personal property for cash or credit.  And, as mentioned
previously, notice means a written or printed announcement.  Since
the receipts are merely a record of the sales transaction and do
not set forth or publicize a deceptive practice, they are neither a
contract nor notice under TCCWNA.

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

The Wolf Law Firm, LLC and the Law Office of David C. Ricci, LLC,
attorneys for appellant/cross-respondent (Matthew S. Oorbeek --
moorbeek@wolflawfirm.net -- on the briefs).

Cruser, Mitchell, Novitz, Sanchez, Gaston & Zimet, LLP, attorneys
for respondents/cross-appellants (Douglas V. Sanchez -- dsanchez
@cmlawfirm.com -- of counsel and on the brief; Michael S. Williams
-- mwilliams @cmlawfirm.com -- on the brief).


GOLDMAN SACHS: Gender Discrimination Class Action Can Proceed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Dugan, writing for New York Post, reports that a federal
appeals court on Sept. 4 allowed a 13-year-old class action gender
discrimination lawsuit against Goldman Sachs to proceed.

The suit was filed by four female former bankers and alleged that
Goldman is a "boys' club," where women are sexualized, compensated
less and given less-prestigious positions.

The women had won class action status last March and, in the latest
courtroom skirmish, Goldman tried to reverse the class action
ruling.

A three-judge panel of the appeals court called the Goldman effort
"unwarranted."

The ruling clears the way for about 2,000 women to join the suit
against the investment bank.

"We are happy," Kelly Dermody, a lawyer for the women, told
Bloomberg. "We look forward to the next stage of the case."

"This constellation of evidence reflects widespread concerns among
women about gender bias and a 'boys club' atmosphere; the
sexualization of women and an uncorrected culture of sexual
harassment and assault," according to the complaint.

The suit also claims that female vice presidents earned 21 percent
less than their male counterparts, while female associates earned 8
percent less.

Goldman Sachs, in fighting the suit, produced an expert witness in
2014 who claimed that the differences in salaries between men and
women were statistically insignificant.

"We continue to believe that the plaintiffs' claims are without
merit and will continue to defend ourselves against those
allegations," Michael DuVally, a spokesman for Goldman Sachs, said
in a statement.

It's unclear when a hearing would be scheduled for the case, should
it go to trial. [GN]


GORANA INTERNATIONAL: Honeywell Files ADA Suit in S.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gorana International,
Inc. The case is styled as Cheri Honeywell individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Gorana
International, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 0:18-cv-62257-BB (S.D.
Fla., Sept. 21, 2018).

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

Gorana International, Inc. provides building construction products
and services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GORDON FOOD: Sullivan Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gordon Food Service,
Inc. The case is styled as Phillip Sullivan, Jr. on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Gordon Food
Service, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-08671 (S.D. N.Y., Sept.
21, 2018).

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

Gordon Food Service, Inc. provides food distribution services in
North America. It offers beef, poultry, pork, seafood, bakery,
grocery, dairy, and special dietary products; sausages and hot
dogs, appetizers and soups, fruits and vegetables, beverages, and
disposables; cleaning, dining, and kitchen supplies; and specialty
meats and other products to restaurants, healthcare facilities,
educational facilities, other industries, trade shows, non-profit
organizations, and chemical and beverage organizations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GRAY TELEVISION: Forbes Suit Alleges Price Fixing of TV Ad Rates
----------------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN FORBES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GRAY TELEVISION, INC.; HEARST
COMMUNICATIONS; NEXSTAR MEDIA GROUP, INC.; TEGNA INC.; TRIBUNE
MEDIA COMPANY; and SINCLAIR BROADCAST GROUP, INC., Defendants, Case
No. 1:18-cv-05708 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 21, 2018) alleges violation of
the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that instead of competing
for customers based on advertising rates as horizontal competitors
would in an efficient market, the Defendants reduced or eliminated
competition through a common scheme to inflate, fix, or stabilize
local television advertising rates. The prices of local television
commercials are based on the rates charged and quoted to customers
by the stations operating in their respective local markets. The
Defendants understood that they could halt the downward pressure on
the prices of local television commercials by entering into
agreements to fix rates and to not compete on rates across the
numerous local television markets in which they operate.

Gray Television, Inc., a television broadcast company, owns and
operates television stations and digital assets in the United
States. The company was formerly known as Gray Communications
Systems, Inc. and changed its name to Gray Television, Inc. in
August 2002. Gray Television, Inc. was founded in 1897 and is
headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Derek Y. Brandt, Esq.
          McCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO, LLP
          100 N. Main St., Suite 11
          Edwardsville, IL 62025
          Telephone: (618)307-6116
          E-mail: dyb@mccunewright.com

               - and -

          Christopher M. Burke, Esq.
          Walter W. Noss, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
          600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 233-4565
          Facsimile: (619) 233-0508
          E-mail: cburke@scott-scott.com
                  wnoss@scott-scott.com

               - and -

          Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
          Thomas K. Boardman, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
          The Helmsley Building
          230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10169
          Telephone: (212) 223-6444
          Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
          E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com
                  tboardman@scott-scott.com

               - and -

          E. Kirk Wood, Esq.
          WOOD LAW FIRM, LLC
          P. O. Box 382434
          Birmingham, AL 35238-2434
          Telephone: (205) 908-4906
          Facsimile: (866) 747-3905
          E-mail: ekirkwood1@bellsouth.net


GREAT ESCAPE INN: Honeywell Files ADA Suit in S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Great Escape Inn
(LBTS) LLC. The case is styled as Cheri Honeywell individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The Great
Escape Inn (LBTS) LLC, a Florida limited liability company,
Defendant, Case No. 0:18-cv-62256-WPD (S.D. Fla., Sept. 21, 2018).

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

The Great Escape Inn is just steps from the beach in beautiful
Lauderdale-by-the-Sea. The peaceful town of Lauderdale-by-the-Sea
is located between the Atlantic Ocean and the Intracoastal
Waterway, about 15 miles north of the Fort Lauderdale Hollywood
International Airport (FLL). It offers pristine beaches with warm
tropical breezes, a fully functioning pier with fishing pole
rentals and bait, and a vacation atmosphere all year around. It
also boasts a variety of cafes, fine restaurants, lively bars with
nightly live bands and music, in addition to grocery stores, drug
stores and banks.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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




GREAT-WEST LIFE: Court Strikes Expanded ERISA Class Definition
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Colorado
issued an Order granting in part and denying in part Defendants'
Motion To Strike Expanded Class Definition in the case captioned
WAHAN KRIKORIAN, On Behalf of the TPS Parking Management, LLC
401(k) Plan and On Behalf of All Other Similarly Situated Employee
Benefit Plans, Plaintiff, v. GREAT-WEST LIFE & ANNUITY INSURANCE
COMPANY, GREAT-WEST LIFE & ANNUITY INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK,
GREAT-WEST TRUST COMPANY, LLC, and ADVISED ASSETS GROUP, LLC,
collectively d/b/a EMPOWER RETIREMENT, Defendants. Civil Action No.
16-cv-00094-REB-SKC. (D. Colo.).

Mr. Krikorian alleges that the TPS Plan and Empower Retirement, in
its relationship with the TPS Plan, are controlled by the Employee
Retirement Income and Security Act (ERISA). He alleges that Empower
Retirement acts as an ERISA fiduciary in relationship to the TPS
Plan. Empower Retirement invests contributions made to the TPS Plan
in various mutual funds. Often, Empower Retirement receives revenue
sharing payments (RSPs) from mutual funds into which Empower
Retirement invests retirement contributions.

In his first motion for class certification and in his present
motion for class certification, Mr. Krikorian proposes a different
class definition:

     All employee pension benefit plans covered by the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 subject to Internal Revenue
Code Sections 401(a) or 401(k) in Empower Retirement's Core Market
(i.e., plans with $50 million or less in assets).

In his renewed motion for class certification, Mr. Krikorian claims
Empower Retirement uses essentially the same contractual mechanism,
participation agreements with mutual funds, to improperly retain
RSPs for plans with Group Contracts and plans with a NAV contract
structure.  

In their motion to strike, the defendants ask that the class
definition proposed in the renewed motion for class certification
be stricken from that motion. Striking the proposed definition from
the motion is of no utility. Thus, that request for relief is
denied. However, the motion to strike is granted to the extent that
the court finds and concludes that the proposed expanded class
definition in the renewed motion for class certification is
improper because that definition includes both plaintiffs not
described in the complaint and claims not alleged in the
complaint.

MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, a class may be certified if the following
requirements are met: (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of
all members is impracticable; (2) there are questions of law or
fact common to the class; (3) the claims or defenses of the
representative parties are typical of those of the class, and; (4)
the representative parties will protect the interests of the class
adequately.  

The motion for class certification seeks certification of a class
of plaintiff 401(k) plans which includes plans working with Empower
Retirement under a Group Contract structure and plans working with
Empower Retirement based on a NAV contract structure. However, Mr.
Krikorian does not allege in the complaint that any plans work with
Empower Retirement based on a NAV contract structure.

Mr. Krikorian does not allege in the complaint that Empower
Retirement improperly retains RSPs when working with plans under a
NAV contract structure.

The claims a plaintiff seeks to include in a class action must be
claims alleged in the complaint. The plaintiffs a plaintiff seeks
to include in a proposed class of plaintiffs must be plaintiffs
described in the complaint. The plaintiff class proposed by Mr.
Krikorian includes plaintiff 401(k) plans working with Empower
Retirement under a NAV contract structure. The allegations in the
complaint [#1] do not describe this group of plaintiffs. The
plaintiff class proposed by Mr. Krikorian includes claims based on
a NAV contract structure. The allegations in the complaint do not
include claims based on a NAV contract structure. The definition of
a Rule 23 class may not be expanded to include plaintiffs not
described in the complaint and claims not alleged in the complaint.
Without an amendment of the complaint to include these plaintiffs
and these claims, Mr. Krikorian may not expand the definition of
his proposed class to include these plaintiffs and these claims.

Therefore, the Defendants' Motion To Strike Expanded Class
Definition Contained in Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for Class
Certification is granted to the extent the court finds and
concludes that the class definition proposed in the renewed motion
for class certification is improper because that definition
includes plaintiffs and claims which are not the subject of the
allegations in the complaint. Otherwise, that motion is denied.
Similarly, the Plaintiff's Corrected Renewed Motion for Class
Certification and Supporting Memorandum of Law is denied because
the proposed class definition includes both plaintiffs not
described in the complaint and claims not alleged in the
complaint.

The Defendants' Motion To Strike Expanded Class Definition
Contained in Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for Class Certification is
granted to the extent that the court finds and concludes that the
proposed expanded class definition in the renewed motion for class
certification is improper because that definition includes both
plaintiffs not described in the complaint and claims not alleged in
the complaint.

Otherwise, the Defendants' Motion To Strike Expanded Class
Definition Contained in Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for Class
Certification is denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 13, 2018 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/ybqndpfq from Leagle.com.

Wahan Krikorian, On Behalf of the TPS Parking Management, LLC
401(k) Plan and on Behalf of All Other Similarly Situated Employee
Benefit Plans, Plaintiff, represented by James Edward Miller --
jmiller@sfmslaw.com -- Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP,
Kolin Chen-Ting Tang -- ktang@sfmslaw.com -- Shepherd, Finkelman,
Miller & Shah, LLP, Nathan C. Zipperian -- nzipperian@sfmslaw.com
-- Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah, LLP, Ronald Scott Kravitz --
rkravitz@sfmslaw.com -- Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah, LLP &
Laurie Rubinow -- lrubinow@sfmslaw.com -- Shepherd Finkelman Miller
& Shah, LLP.

Great-West Life & Annuity Insurance Company, Great-West Life &
Annuity Insurance Company of New York, Great-West Trust Company,
LLC & Advised Assets Group, LLC, doing business as Empower
Retirement, Defendants, represented by Daniel C. Craig --
DCRAIG@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin, LLP, Edward Craig Stewart --
stewart@wtotrial.com -- Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell, LLP, Joel Stephen
Feldman -- JFELDMAN@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin LLP, Joshua Eugene
Anderson -- janderson@sidley.com -- Sidley Austin, LLP, Mark B.
Blocker -- MBLOCKER@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin LLP, Robert Michael
Little , Great-West Life and Annuity Insurance Company & Tara A.
Amin -- MBLOCKER@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin LLP.


GROSSMAN & KARASZEWSKI: Farrell Alleges Wrongful Debt Collections
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER FARRELL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GROSSMAN & KARASZEWSKI, PLLC, and
JHPDE FINANCE I, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 6:18-cv-06609 (W.D.N.Y.,
Aug. 21, 2018) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and
unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Grossman & Karaszewski, PLLC is a law firm formed under the laws of
the State of New York, engaged in the collection of debts, with a
principal place of business at  East Amherst, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alexander J. Douglas, Esq.
          DOUGLAS FIRM, P.C.
          36 West Main Street, Ste 500
          Rochester, NY 14614
          Telephone: (585) 568-2224
          Facsimile: (585) 546-6185
          E-mail: alex@lawroc.com


HARDEE: Seeks Dismissal of Hepatitis A Outbreak Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
WSOCTV.com reports that Hardees is asking a federal court judge to
dismiss a class action lawsuit after this summer's hepatitis A
outbreak in Charlotte.

The case was filed earlier this summer in Mecklenburg County
Superior Court, but was moved to federal court.

Customers want the restaurant to compensate them for having to get
a vaccine after the outbreak.

Hardees said the allegations are ambiguous and argues customers
haven't specifically proven exposure in its restaurant.

Channel 9 covered the outbreak in June extensively and reported
that an employee at the Hardees on Little Rock Road was diagnosed
with hepatitis A.

The health department encouraged anyone who ate at the restaurant
between June 13 and June 23 to get vaccinated.

The county offered free vaccinations for 11 days and vaccinated
over 2,000 people. The health department estimated 4,000 were
exposed to the virus. [GN]


HAYT HAYT: Barendaum Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hayt, Hayt & Landau,
LLC. The case is styled as Daniel Barenbaum on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Hayt, Hayt &
Laundau, LLC, Midland Funding, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
2:18-cv-04120-BMS (E.D. Pa., Sept. 24, 2018).

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

Hayt, Hayt & Landau, LLC is a law firm maintaining offices in
Eatontown, New Jersey and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and handles
litigation in State and Federal Courts of New Jersey and
Pennsylvania. It bears the names and the legacy of deceased Hayt,
Hayt & Landau partners, Emanuel Hayt, Lillian R. Hayt and Bernard
D. Landau.

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:

     Ari H. Marcus, Esq.
     Marcus & Zelman LLC
     1500 Allaire Ave, Suite 101
     Ocean, NJ 07712
     Phone: (732) 695-3282
     Email: ari@marcuszelman.com


HEALTH CARE: Dismissal Show Cause Order Issued in Candelaria Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico
issued an Order to Show Cause in the case captioned NORA
CANDELARIA, Plaintiff, v. HEALTH CARE SERVICE CORPORATION,
Defendant. No. 17-cv-0404 KG/SMV. (D.N.M.).

Despite a deadline and eight extensions, by which to file a motion
for conditional certification of the collective, no motion has been
filed. The most recent deadline was September 3, 2018. That date
has come and gone, and nothing further has been filed on the
record.

The Plaintiff show cause no later than October 10, 2018, why her
claims should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution and for
failure to comply with the Court's deadlines.  

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 10, 2018 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7c3hf7e from Leagle.com.

Nora Candelaria, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C.
Section 216 (b), Kimani Singleton, Arthur Santoyo, Debra Hollins,
Yvette Buckhaulter, Karen D Davis, Niteria McIntosh, Cynthia M
Medley, Keitta Smith, Idi Edem, Mari Gabbert, Janice Tucker, Fausat
Osiade & Bobbie S Drodwell, Plaintiffs, represented by Jack L.
Siegel -- jack@siegellawgroup.biz -- Siegel Law Group PLLC, Jesse
Hamilton Forester -- jay@foresterhaynie.com -- Forester Haynie
PLLC, Travis Andrew Gasper, Lee & Braziel, LLP & J. Derek Braziel,
Lee & Braziel LLP.

Sabrina Powell & Charlene Gabaldon, Plaintiffs, represented by J.
Derek Braziel, Lee & Braziel LLP, Jack L. Siegel, Siegel Law Group
PLLC & Travis Andrew Gasper, Lee & Braziel, LLP.

Health Care Service Corporation, Defendant, represented by Adam J.
Weiner -- ajweiner@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith, LLP, Mark D. Temple
-- mtemple@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith LLP & Randy S. Bartell --
rbartell@motand.com -- Montgomery & Andrews, P.A..


HOLLOWAY CREDIT: Tabbs Sues over Debt Collection Practices
----------------------------------------------------------
John Tabb and Patricia Tabb, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Holloway Credit
Solutions, LLC, an Alabama limited liability company, the
Defendant, Case No. 5:18-cv-01507-HNJ (N.D. Ala., Sept. 14, 2018),
seeks to recover damages under the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs are citizens of the
State of Alabama, residing in the Northern District of Alabama,
from whom Defendant attempted to collect a defaulted consumer debt,
which they allegedly owed for medical services. The Defendant is an
Alabama limited liability company that acts as a debt collector, as
defined by section 1692a of the FDCPA, because it regularly uses
the mails and/or the telephone to collect, or attempt to collect,
defaulted consumer debts. In fact, Defendant Holloway was acting as
a debt collector as to the defaulted consumer debt it attempted to
collect from Plaintiffs. The Defendant sent Mr. and Mrs. Tabb each
an initial form collection letter, dated April 14, 2018, demanding
payment of a defaulted consumer debt that they allegedly owed for
medical services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David J. Philipps, Esq.
          Mary E. Philipps, Esq.
          PHILIPPS & PHILIPPS, LTD.
          9760 S. Roberts Road, Suite One
          Palos Hills, IL 60465
          Telephone: (708) 974 2900
          Facsimile: (708) 974 2907
          E-mail: davephilipps@aol.com
                  mephilipps@aol.com

               - and -

          Ronald C. Sykstus, Esq.
          BOND, BOTES, SYKSTUS, TANNER & EZZELL, P.C.
          225 Pratt Avenue
          Huntsville, AL 35801
          Telephone: (256) 539 9899
          Facsimile: (256) 713 0237
          E-mail: Rsykstus@bondnbotes.com


IAC/INTERACTIVECORP: Proposed Dismissal Order Filed in "McCloskey"
------------------------------------------------------------------
IAC/InterActiveCorp 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 defendants in Mary
McCloskey et ano. v. Match Group, Inc. et al., have submitted a
proposed order formalizing the court's dismissal ruling.

On February 26, 2016, a putative nationwide class action was filed
in federal court in Texas against Match Group, five of its officers
and directors, and twelve underwriters of Match Group's initial
public offering in November 2015.  The case was captioned as David
M. Stein v. Match Group, Inc. et al., No. 3:16-cv-549 (U.S.
District Court, Northern District of Texas).

The complaint alleged that Match Group's registration statement and
prospectus issued in connection with its initial public offering
were materially false and misleading given their failure to state
that: (i) Match Group's Non-dating business would miss its revenue
projection for the quarter ended December 31, 2015, and (ii)
Average Revenue per Subscriber (ARPU) would decline substantially
in the quarter ended December 31, 2015.

The complaint asserted that these alleged failures to timely
disclose material information caused Match Group's stock price to
drop after the announcement of its earnings for the quarter ended
December 31, 2015. The complaint pleaded claims under the
Securities Act of 1933 for untrue statements of material fact in,
or omissions of material facts from, the registration statement,
the prospectus, and related communications in violation of Sections
11 and 12 and, as to the officer/director defendants only,
control-person liability under Section 15 for Match Group's alleged
violations. The complaint sought among other relief class
certification and damages in an unspecified amount.

On March 9, 2016, a virtually identical class action complaint was
filed in the same court against the same defendants by a different
named plaintiff. The case was captioned as Stephany Kam-Wan Chan v.
Match Group, Inc. et al., No. 3:16-cv-668 (U.S. District Court,
Northern District of Texas).

On April 25, 2016, Judge Boyle in the Chan case issued an order
granting the parties' joint motion to transfer that case to Judge
Lindsay, who was presiding over the earlier-filed Stein case.

On April 27, 2016, various current or former Match Group
shareholders and their respective law firms filed motions seeking
appointment as lead plaintiff(s) and lead or liaison counsel for
the putative class. On April 28, 2016, the Court issued orders: (i)
consolidating the Chan case into the Stein case, (ii) approving the
parties' stipulation to extend the defendants' time to respond to
the complaint until after the Court has appointed a lead plaintiff
and lead counsel for the putative class and has set a schedule for
the plaintiff's filing of a consolidated complaint and the
defendants' response to that pleading, and (iii) referring the
various motions for appointment of lead plaintiff(s) and lead or
liaison counsel for the putative class to a United States
Magistrate Judge for determination.

On June 9, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued an order appointing
two lead plaintiffs, two law firms as co-lead plaintiffs' counsel,
and a third law firm as plaintiffs' liaison counsel. In accordance
with this order, the consolidated case is now captioned Mary
McCloskey et ano. v. Match Group, Inc. et al., No. 3:16-CV-549-L.

On July 27, 2016, the parties submitted to the Court a joint status
report proposing a schedule for the plaintiffs' filing of a
consolidated amended complaint and the parties' briefing of the
defendants' contemplated motion to dismiss the consolidated
complaint. On August 17, 2016, the Court issued an order approving
the parties' proposed schedule. On September 9, 2016, in accordance
with the schedule, the plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated
complaint.

The amended pleading focused solely on allegedly misleading
statements or omissions concerning the Match Group's Non-dating
business. The defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended
consolidated complaint on November 8, 2016. The plaintiffs filed
oppositions to the motions on December 23, 2016, and the defendants
filed replies to the oppositions on February 6, 2017.

On September 27, 2017, the court issued an opinion and order: (i)
denying, without prejudice to renewal, the defendants' motions and
(ii) directing the plaintiffs to file a further amended pleading
addressing the deficiencies in the amended consolidated complaint
that were identified in the defendants' motions.

On October 30, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a second amended
consolidated complaint, which among other things, dropped their
claim under Section 12 of the Securities Act of 1933. Pursuant to
an agreed-upon briefing schedule approved by the court, the
defendants filed motions to dismiss the second amended consolidated
complaint on December 15, 2017, the plaintiffs filed an opposition
to the motions on January 29, 2018, and the defendants filed
replies to the opposition on February 20, 2018. On March 8, 2018,
the court issued an order transferring the case from Judge Lindsay
to newly appointed Judge Scholer.

On June 19, 2018, the court heard oral arguments on the motions,
issued an oral ruling from the bench dismissing the second amended
consolidated complaint without leave to amend, and indicated that a
written opinion and order would be forthcoming. On July 10, 2018,
pursuant to the court's suggestion at oral argument, the defendants
submitted a proposed order formalizing the court's dismissal
ruling.

IAC/InterActiveCorp, together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
media and Internet company in the United States and
internationally. It operates through Match Group, ANGI
Homeservices, Video, Applications, and Publishing segments.
IAC/InterActiveCorp was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in New
York, New York.


ICU MEDICAL: Court Wants Class Suit over Saline Solution Revised
----------------------------------------------------------------
ICU Medical, Inc. 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 district court
granted defendants' motion to dismiss the operative complaint in
the intravenous saline solution-related suit, but is allowing
plaintiff to file a second amended complaint.

Beginning in November 2016, purported class actions were filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
against Pfizer, Inc. subsidiaries, Hospira, Inc., Hospira
Worldwide, Inc. and certain other defendants relating to the
intravenous saline solutions part of the Hospira Infusion Systems
(HIS) business.

Plaintiffs seek to represent classes consisting of all persons and
entities in the U.S. who directly purchased intravenous saline
solution sold by any of the defendants from January 1, 2013 until
the time the defendants' allegedly unlawful conduct ceases.

Plaintiffs allege that the defendants' conduct restricts output and
artificially fixes, raises, maintains and/or stabilizes the prices
of intravenous saline solution sold throughout the U.S. in
violation of federal antitrust laws. Plaintiffs seek treble damages
(for themselves and on behalf of the putative classes) and an
injunction against defendants for alleged price overcharges for
intravenous saline solution in the U.S. since January 1, 2013.

On July 5, 2018, the District Court granted defendants' motion to
dismiss the operative complaint, but is allowing plaintiff to file
a second amended complaint.

ICU Medical said, "On February 3, 2017, we completed the
acquisition of the HIS business from Pfizer. This litigation is the
subject of a claim for indemnification against us by Pfizer and a
cross-claim for indemnification against Pfizer by us under the HIS
stock and asset purchase agreement ("SAPA")."

ICU Medical, Inc. develops, manufactures, and sells medical devices
used in vascular therapy, critical care, and oncology applications
worldwide. It offers infusion therapy products comprising a tube
running from a bottle or plastic bag containing a solution to a
catheter inserted in a patient's vein. ICU Medical, Inc. was
founded in 1984 and is headquartered in San Clemente, California.


IDAHO TIMBER: Underpays Production Workers, Knight Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM KNIGHT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. IDAHO TIMBER OF CARTHAGE, LLC; and IDAHO
TIMBER, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 5:18-cv-215-KGB (E.D. Ark., Aug.
22, 2018) is an action for declaratory judgment, monetary damages,
liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, attorneys' fees and
costs, as a result of the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff
and the class lawful overtime compensation for hours worked in
excess of 40 per week.

Mr. Knight was employed by the Defendant as production worker.

Idaho Timber of Carthage, LLC operates as a subsidiary of Leucadia
National Corporation. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Chris Burks, Esq.
           Josh Sanford, Esq.
           SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
           650 South Shackleford, Suite 411
           Little Rock, AR 72211
           Telephone: (501) 221-0088
           Facsimile: (888) 787-2040


INDIANA: Court Grants Summary Judgment in IDOC HepC Care Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Indiana, Indianapolis Division, issued an Order granting
Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment on their Eighth Amendment
Claim in the case captioned MICHAEL RAY STAFFORD, CHARLES SMITH,
DOUGLAS SMITH, Plaintiffs, v. ROBERT E. CARTER, JR., MICHAEL
MITCHEFF, M.D., MONICA GIPSON, R.N., WEXFORD OF INDIANA, LLC,
Defendants. No. 1:17-cv-00289-JMS-MJD. (S.D. Ind.).

This case arises out of a challenge to the medical care that
inmates receive while incarcerated in Indiana Department of
Corrections (IDOC) facilities. A class of Plaintiffs who suffer
from chronic Hepatitis C infection (HCV) contends that IDOC's
policies regarding HCV treatment have resulted in the withholding
of effective treatment to the vast majority of HCV infected
inmates. Plaintiffs contend that IDOC's treatment of individuals
with chronic HCV violates the Eighth Amendment to the United States
Constitution, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the
Rehabilitation Act.

LEGAL STANDARD

A motion for summary judgment asks the Court to find that a trial
is unnecessary because there is no genuine dispute as to any
material fact and, instead, the movant is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law. As the current version of Rule 56 makes clear,
whether a party asserts that a fact is undisputed or genuinely
disputed, the party must support the asserted fact by citing to
particular parts of the record, including depositions, documents,
or affidavits

IDOC's HCV Treatment Policy

IDOC contracts with Wexford to provide medical services to
individuals incarcerated in IDOC facilities, and Dr. VanNess is
responsible for overseeing the quality of the medical vendor. The
contract requires Wexford to abide by IDOC's health care
directives, including Health Care Services Directive 3.09 (HCSD
3.09).  HCSD 3.09 requires that all incoming and returning inmates
be screened for the presence of the HCV antibody in accordance with
State statute. It also requires that a baseline clinical evaluation
be performed for all inmates diagnosed with HCV within 90 days of
arrival. It then mandates that health services staff shall manage
offenders with HCV in accordance with the Federal Bureau of
Prison's [sic] Evaluation and Management of Chronic Hepatitis C
Virus (HCV) Infection. The contract requires Wexford to place $1.5
million in escrow to provide exclusively for HCV treatment, and any
expenditure over that amount must be requested by IDOC's Chief
Medical Officer.

Eighth Amendment: Deliberate Indifference

The Eighth Amendment imposes upon prison officials a duty to
provide humane conditions of confinement, and it safeguards the
prisoner against a lack of medical care that may result in pain and
suffering which no one suggests would serve any penological
purpose. Accordingly, deliberate indifference to serious medical
needs of a prisoner constitutes the unnecessary and wanton
infliction of pain forbidden by the Constitution. In order to
establish deliberate indifference, an inmate must satisfy both an
objective and a subjective element. Id. The Court addresses each in
turn, but first addresses a class certification issue.

Objective Element: Sufficiently Serious Medical Need

In the medical care context, an inmate satisfies the objective
element of the deliberate indifference standard if he demonstrates
that his medical need was sufficiently serious. A medical need is
considered sufficiently serious if the inmate's condition has been
diagnosed by a physician as mandating treatment or. is so obvious
that even a lay person would perceive the need for a doctor's
attention. A medical condition need not be life-threatening to be
serious; rather, it could be a condition that would result in
further significant injury or unnecessary and wanton infliction of
pain if not treated. And the Eighth Amendment protects an inmate
not only from deliberate indifference to his or her current serious
health problems, but also from deliberate indifference to
conditions posing an unreasonable risk of serious damage to future
health.

The Plaintiffs contend that the undisputed evidence establishes
that HCV constitutes a serious medical condition, due to its risks
both to current and future health.

The undisputed medical evidence establishes that individuals
suffering from chronic HCV may experience symptoms such as fatigue,
joint pain, nerve pain, skin disorders, jaundice, ascites, hepatic
encephalopathy, gastro-intestinal bleeding, and liver cancer.
Within twenty years of chronic infection, many individuals will
develop cirrhosis of the liver, and between one and five percent of
people will die from the consequences of chronic HCV. Physicians
cannot predict with precision the rate at which progression will
occur in individual patients. And even before HCV reaches an
advanced stage, it can cause harm such as kidney failure, diabetes,
decreased cognitive function, joint pain, nerve damage, and other
conditions.

Based on this undisputed evidence, the Court concludes, as have
many other courts that have considered the issue, that chronic HCV
constitutes a serious medical condition.  

Subjective Element: Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment

The Plaintiffs contend that the undisputed evidence establishes
that they have satisfied the subjective element of the deliberate
indifference standard, because the Defendants are aware of the
substantial risk of both present and future harm to HCV-infected
inmates, and the Defendants have disregarded the risk by electing
not to treat 98.8% of infected inmates.  

Here, the undisputed record evidence establishes that individuals
with untreated chronic HCV face a substantial risk of harm.
Individuals suffering from chronic HCV face a variety of immediate
symptoms, as well as the certainty that their disease will progress
through the stages of infection. The Defendants do not argue, and
present no evidence, that individuals in earlier stages of
infection necessarily experience lesser or less severe symptoms,
such that HCV at its earlier stages does not pose a substantial
risk of harm. The undisputed evidence establishes that, once
chronic, the disease inevitably progresses, and that the speed of
progression cannot be predicted with certainty. The undisputed
evidence also establishes that the metric used by Defendants to
measure disease progression is not effective at distinguishing
between degrees of infection before the disease becomes advanced.  


For all of these reasons, and those discussed in relation to the
Defendants' Cross-Motion, the Court concludes that the Plaintiffs
face a substantial risk of harm.

Second, the undisputed evidence establishes that chronic HCV is a
curable disease, and the only effective treatment oral DAA
medication can cure it within eight to twelve weeks. While IDOC's
mandatory treatment policy requires the classification of inmates
according to their APRI score the undisputed evidence establishes
that there is no medical reason to divide individuals by priority
or to ration the use of DAAs. And Defendants have provided no other
rationale for the prioritization system. Dr. VanNess was aware at
the time of the drafting of HCSD 3.09 that the prioritization
policy differs from the nationally accepted standard of care for
chronic HCV, as articulated by the AASLD Guidance, and that DAAs
cure HCV.

While 41 individuals have received treatment over the span of more
than a year, 98.8% of individuals suffering from chronic HCV have
received no treatment at all. This can be described in no other way
than an effective denial of treatment for those suffering from
chronic HCV.

The Court therefore concludes that the Plaintiffs have satisfied
both the objective and subjective elements of the deliberate
indifference standard. Accordingly, the Court concludes that the
Defendants have violated the Eighth Amendment, and the Plaintiffs
are entitled to summary judgment on that claim.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 10, 2018 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/yanjwot2 from Leagle.com.

MICHAEL RAY STAFFORD, on behalf of himself and other similarly
situated individuals, CHARLES SMITH, on behalf of himself and other
similarly situated individuals & DOUGLAS SMITH, on behalf of
himself and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs,
represented by Mark W. Sniderman -- msniderman@findlingpark.com --
FINDLING PARK CONYERS WOODY & SNIDERMAN, PC & Robert A. Katz --
rokatz@iu.edu -- INDIANA UNIVERSITY MCKINNEY SCHOOL OF LAW, pro hac
vice.

ROBERT E. CARTER, JR., Defendant, represented by Aleksandrina
Penkova Pratt, INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL, Benjamin Myron Lane Jones,
INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL, Jonathan Paul Nagy, INDIANA ATTORNEY
GENERAL & Kelly Suzanne Thompson, INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL.

MICHAEL MITCHEFF, M.D., Defendant, represented by Aleksandrina
Penkova Pratt , INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL, Benjamin Myron Lane
Jones, INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL, Douglass R. Bitner, KATZ KORIN
CUNNINGHAM, P.C., Jonathan Paul Nagy, INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL &
Kelly Suzanne Thompson , INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL.

WEXFORD OF INDIANA, LLC, Defendant, represented by Douglass R.
Bitner -- dbitner@kkclegal.com -- KATZ KORIN CUNNINGHAM, P.C. &
Jarrod Alvin Malone -- jmalone@kkclegal.com -- KATZ KORIN
CUNNINGHAM, P.C..


INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS: Website Not Accessible, Mendez Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
HIMELDA MENDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS GROUP RESOURCES,
INC. d/b/a EVEN HOTELS, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-07613-AT
(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 21, 2018) is an action against the Defendant for
its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website
to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff
and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.

InterContinental Hotels Group Resources, Inc. operates a chain of
hotels. The Company offers amenities such as restaurants, room
service, swimming pools, fitness centres, and comfortable lounge.
InterContinental Hotels Group Resources serves worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
          300 Cadman Plaza West, 12 Fl.
          Brooklyn, N.Y. 11201
          Telephone: (929) 575-4175
          Facsimile: (929) 575-4195
          E-mail: Joseph@cml.legal

               - and -

          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, N.Y. 10003-2461
          Telephone: (212) 228-9795
          E-mail: nyjg@aol.com
                  danalgottlieb@aol.com


INTRUST BANK: Court Narrows Claims in Locicero TILA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida issued an Order granting in part Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss the case captioned FRANCISCA D. LOCICERO, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. INTRUST BANK, N.A., et al., Defendants. Case No.
17-61484-CIV-GAYLES. (S.D. Fla.).

The Plaintiff's putative class action complaint arises from an
alleged loan generation scheme for financing expensive home
improvement products, such as air conditioners. According to the
Amended Complaint, Defendant GreenSky, LLC (GreenSky) arranges and
brokers the loans, while Defendant Intrust Bank, N.A. (Intrust) is
the actual lender.

The Amended Complaint alleges five causes of action: (1) violation
of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) by Intrust; (2) declaratory
relief; (3) restitution and unjust enrichment; (4) violation of the
Florida Credit Service Organization Act; and (5) violation of the
Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act.

The Defendants seek to dismiss Plaintiffs entire complaint. The
Defendants raise three main reasons for dismissal: (1) any fee paid
by Intrust to GreenSky was not charged to the Plaintiff and,
therefore, was not a finance charge required to be disclosed by
TILA; (2) the Plaintiff is subject to the terms of the Loan
Agreement, which include a Kansas choice-of-law provision, the
application of which requires dismissal of the two Florida
statutory causes of action, the CSOA and FCCPA claims; and (3)
Plaintiff's common law claims do not state claims against the
Defendants.

Plaintiff's TILA Claim Against Intrust is Dismissed in Part

The Plaintiffs TILA claim alleges that Intrust violated TILA in
multiple ways. To the extent Intrust and Plaintiff entered into a
closed-end credit transaction, Plaintiff maintains that Intrust
violated TILA by (i) failing to accurately and properly disclose
the annual percentage rate; (ii) failing to accurately and properly
disclose the finance charge; and (iii) failing to accurately and
properly disclose the amount financed.  

Intrust seeks to dismiss the Plaintiffs TILA claim arguing that
there was no undisclosed fee that it was required to disclose to
Plaintiff and that the Loan Agreement was not an open-end credit
transaction. Because whether Intrust imposed an undisclosed finance
charge is a question of fact, it is not appropriate to resolve on a
motion to dismiss. However, the Loan Agreement, when read as a
whole and in the context of the air conditioner purchase, is not an
open-end credit transaction.

The Loan Agreement Was Not an Open-End Credit Transaction

Intrust maintains that the Loan Agreement was not an open-end
credit transaction and, thus, the Plaintiffs TILA claims based on
the requirements for open-end credit transactions must be
dismissed. Under TILA, an open-end credit plan is one under which
the creditor reasonably contemplates repeated transactions, which
prescribes the terms of such transactions, and which provides for a
finance charge which may be computed from time to time on the
outstanding unpaid balance.

Intrust argues, without citing any support, that the Loan Agreement
contemplated a single transaction to finance the air conditioner.
In response, Plaintiff maintains that the GreenSky Shopping Pass is
a credit card and, as a result, the Loan Agreement constitutes an
open-end credit transaction.

While the Shopping Pass may have some of the attributes of a credit
card and the Loan Agreement contains some language that could
indicate an open-end credit transaction, it is clear from the face
of the Loan Agreement that it was not an open-end credit
transaction. Reading the Loan Agreement as a whole, it is apparent
that Plaintiff was approved for $8,000.00 in credit and received
that full $8,000.00 as the result of a single transaction that took
place at approximately the same time that Plaintiff obtained the
credit.  

The Plaintiffs TILA claims based on the requirements for open-end
credit transactions are dismissed with prejudice.

Plaintiff's Unjust Enrichment Claim is Dismissed in Part

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants were unjustly enriched
when they accepted and retained charges for credit services from
Plaintiff. Plaintiff maintains that Defendants were not entitled to
these charges by law and that Defendants should not be permitted to
retain the benefits of these illegal charges.  

The CSOA Claim Is Dismissed in Part

The Defendants seek to dismiss Plaintiff's Florida CSOA claim based
on a choice of law provision in the Loan Agreement, which, in
effect, designates Kansas law as the applicable law.  

The CSOA Claim Against GreenSky is Adequately Pled

The Plaintiff argues that there is no authority to support
GreenSky's proposition that it is only a credit service
organization if it represents the buyer and charges the buyer for
its services. The only case in Florida this Court found that
interprets this section of the Act is inapposite.  

While GreenSky argues that Plaintiff did not pay it a fee,
Plaintiff's complaint alleges that GreenSky was paid a fee, which
came from Plaintiff directly or indirectly. Taking the allegations
in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, Plaintiff has adequately
pled that GreenSky. received a fee from Plaintiff in return for
GreenSky obtaining an extension of credit on behalf of Plaintiff.

Accordingly, the Defendants' Joint Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's
Amended Complaint is granted in part and denied in part:

   (a) Count I is dismissed with prejudice to the extent that it
alleges that the Loan Agreement was an open-end credit
transaction.

   (b) the Plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim, Count III, against
Intrust is dismissed without prejudice.

   (c) the Plaintiff's CSOA claim, Count IV, against Intrust is
dismissed without prejudice.

   (d) Count V against both the Defendants is dismissed without
prejudice.

   (e) The Motion to Dismiss is denied in all other respects.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 13, 2018 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y6wckhum from Leagle.com.

Francisca D Locicero, Plaintiff, represented by Kathleen P. Hyland,
Hyland Law Firm, LLC, pro hac vice & Robert William Murphy.

INTRUST Bank, N.A. & GreenSky, LLC, Defendants, represented by
Barry Goheen -- bgoheen@kslaw.com -- King & Spalding, LLP, pro hac
vice.


JD.COM: Faces Securities Class Action Following CEO's Arrest
------------------------------------------------------------
South China Morning Post reports that JD.com, China's second
largest e-commerce player, is facing class action lawsuits from
several US law firms which allege the company may have failed to
disclose information pertinent to its chief executive officer
Richard Liu Qiangdong, who was arrested in the US on Aug. 31 for
alleged sexual misconduct.

The Schall Law Firm, Pomerantz LLP and Rosen Law Firm all said
separately on Sept. 4 they are investigating potential securities
claims on behalf of shareholders of JD.com. Shares of the
Nasdaq-listed company fell US$1.87 or 5.97 per cent to close at
US$29.43 on September 4, the first trading day following Liu's
arrest in Minnesota on August 31 for alleged sexual assault.

JD.com is the worst-performing stock on the Nasdaq 100 index,
declining 33 per cent in the past six months.

Rosen alleges that JD.com may have issued materially misleading
business information to the investing public, while Schall said its
investigation focuses on whether the Chinese company issued false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose information
pertinent to investors, according to announcements on their
respective websites.

Pomerantz, which had not posted details of its class action lawsuit
against JD.com on its website as of the time of writing, said in a
press release through PRNewswire.com dated September 4 that it is
investigating claims on behalf of investors as to whether JD.com
and some of its officers and/or directors engaged in securities
fraud or other unlawful business practices, which it did not
specify.

JD.com shares plunge after Richard Liu's US arrest on sexual
misconduct claim

Class action lawsuits against listed companies are common in the
US. Last month, Nasdaq-listed Pinduoduo, whose shares slumped on
media reports that criticised the Chinese e-commerce platform for
selling counterfeit products, also faced class action lawsuits from
at least six legal firms, including the three that are considering
action against JD.com.

While Liu has dropped out of the top 10 popular search terms on
Weibo -- where news of his arrest in the US was a hot topic on
social media in China -- his profile has become one of the most
viewed on the Bloomberg terminal, a news-and-data tool used
primarily by traders and investors, attracting 250 "hits" or views
on Sept. 5. That made him the 11th-most viewed profile on the
terminal.

JD.com did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the
US class action lawsuits.

In its latest annual report, the company said that as of February
28 this year Liu beneficially owned 79.5 per cent of the aggregate
voting power of our company, giving him "considerable influence
over important corporate matters".

Liu, also founder of JD.com, was arrested on a rape accusation, a
first-degree felony if he is charged with the crime, according to
police records. No charge has been filed against Liu as the matter
is still under investigation by the sex crimes division of the
Minneapolis Police Department.

"We are putting resources to the investigation and our concern is
to provide services to the complainant and to ensure that we're
protecting the rights of Mr Liu," John Elder, a police department
spokesman, told the South China Morning Post.

Liu was in Minneapolis to take classes at the University of
Minnesota, where he was enrolled at the school's Carlson School of
Management to complete the American residency of a US-China
business administration doctorate programme.

JD.com said in a statement on Sept. 3: "We were informed that our
CEO Richard Qiangdong Liu was taken into custody by Minneapolis
police on August 31, 2018. He has been released without any
charges, and without requirement for bail. Mr Liu has returned to
work in China."

Meanwhile, the identity of the alleged accuser remains unknown. A
woman referred to as the victim in multiple online posts has put
out a statement denying she has ever met Liu.

The 45-year-old billionaire returned to China on Sept. 3 after he
was released without any charges. He showed up at JD.com's Beijing
headquarters on Sept. 4 to sign a strategic partnership with
Chinese textile manufacturer Ruyi Group. JD.com released a group
photograph showing a smiling Liu flanked by Qiu Yafu, chairman of
Ruyi, and executives from both companies. [GN]


JKAT LLC: Fails to Pay OT to Teaching Staff, Hidalgo Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
MARY ANN HIDALGO, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JKAT, LLC d/b/a/ THE GODDARD SCHOOL FOR
EARLY CHILDHOOD DEVELOPMENT - CHICAGO, Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-05749 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 22, 2018) seeks to recover from the
Defendant unpaid overtime compensation, prejudgment interest,
maximum liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees, and costs.

The Plaintiff Hidalgo was employed by the Defendant as teaching
staff.

JKAT, LLC d/b/a/ The Goddard School for Early Childhood Development
– Chicago provides childcare and pre-school teaching services.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


JOY GLOBAL: Dec. 20 Fairness Hearing on Securities Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
MILWAUKEE DIVISION

STEVEN DUNCAN, et al., Individually and on                         
     
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,                
Plaintiffs,                
vs.                
JOY GLOBAL INC., et al.,                
Defendants.

Civil No. 2:16-cv-01229-PP
CLASS ACTION

SUMMARY NOTICE

TO:
        
ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED, SOLD OR HELD JOY GLOBAL INC. ("JOY
GLOBAL") COMMON STOCK DURING THE PERIOD FROM AND INCLUDING
SEPTEMBER 1, 2016, THE RECORD DATE FOR JOY GLOBAL'S SPECIAL
STOCKHOLDER MEETING REGARDING THE ACQUISITION OF JOY GLOBAL BY
KOMATSU LTD. AND CERTAIN OF ITS SUBSIDIARIES (THE "ACQUISITION"),
THROUGH AND INCLUDING APRIL 5, 2017, THE DATE THE ACQUISITION
CLOSED

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Milwaukee
Division, that a hearing will be held on December 20, 2018, at 2:00
p.m., before the Honorable Pamela Pepper at the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Milwaukee
Division, United States Federal Building and Courthouse, 517 E.
Wisconsin Ave., Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202, for the purpose of
determining: (1) whether the proposed Settlement of the Litigation
for $20 million should be approved by the Court as fair,
reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether a Final Judgment and Order of
Dismissal with Prejudice should be entered by the Court dismissing
the Litigation with prejudice and releasing the Released Claims;
(3) whether the Plan of Allocation for the Net Settlement Fund is
fair, reasonable, and adequate and should be approved; and (4)
whether the application of Lead Counsel for the payment of
attorneys' fees and any award to Lead Plaintiffs pursuant to 15
U.S.C. Section 78u-4(a)(4) should be approved.

IF YOU PURCHASED, SOLD OR HELD JOY GLOBAL COMMON STOCK DURING THE
PERIOD FROM AND INCLUDING SEPTEMBER 1, 2016 THROUGH AND INCLUDING
APRIL 5, 2017 (THE "CLASS PERIOD"), YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY
THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS LITIGATION, INCLUDING THE RELEASE AND
EXTINGUISHMENT OF CLAIMS YOU MAY POSSESS RELATING TO YOUR HOLDINGS
OF JOY GLOBAL COMMON STOCK DURING THE CLASS PERIOD. If you have not
received a detailed Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of
Class Action ("Notice") and a copy of the Proof of Claim and
Release form, you may obtain copies by writing to Joy Global
Securities Litigation, Claims Administrator, c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC,
P.O. Box 404067, Louisville, KY 40233-4067, or on the Internet at
www.JoyGlobalSecuritiesLitigation.com. If you are a Class Member,
in order to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund,
you must submit a Proof of Claim and Release by mail postmarked no
later than January 14, 2019, or online at
www.JoyGlobalSecuritiesLitigation.com no later than January 14,
2019, establishing that you are entitled to recovery.

If you purchased, sold or held Joy Global common stock during the
Class Period and you desire to be excluded from the Class, you must
submit a request for exclusion so that it is received no later than
November 29, 2018, in the manner and form explained in the detailed
Notice referred to above. All Members of the Class who do not
timely and validly request exclusion from the Class will be bound
by any judgment entered in the Litigation pursuant to the
Stipulation of Settlement.

Any objection to the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, Lead
Counsel's request for attorneys' fees, and Lead Plaintiffs' request
for time and expenses must be received by each of the following
recipients no later than November 29, 2018:

Court:

CLERK OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
MILWAUKEE DIVISION
United States Federal Building and Courthouse
517 E. Wisconsin Ave.
Milwaukee, WI 53202

Lead Counsel:

ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN
& DOWD LLP
David A. Knotts, Esq.
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101

Counsel for Defendants:

ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
Vincent A. Sama, Esq.
250 West 55th Street
New York, NY 10019

  -- and --

FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
Bryan B. House, Esq.
777 East Wisconsin Avenue
Milwaukee, WI 53202

  -- and --

WACHTELL, LIPTON, ROSEN & KATZ
Peter C. Hein, Esq.
51 West 52nd Street
New York, NY 10019

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE. If you have any questions about the Settlement, you
may contact Lead Counsel at the address listed above.

DATED: September 14, 2018                                     
BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
MILWAUKEE DIVISION


JUNO THERAPEUTICS: Settles Shareholder Class Action for $24MM
-------------------------------------------------------------
Clare McGrane, writing for GeekWire, reports that more than two
years after a slate of patient deaths in a clinical trial, cancer
immunotherapy company Juno Therapeutics is poised to settle a class
action lawsuit over its handling of the incident.

Seattle-based Juno, now part of biotech giant Celgene, and three of
Juno's top executives, including former CEO Hans Bishop, agreed to
a settlement that includes a $24 million payout to certain Juno
stockholders. The parties agreed to the settlement in July, but it
will not be finalized until a hearing in federal court on Nov. 16.

The lawsuit, brought on behalf of stockholders, alleged that Juno
and the named executives misled investors by withholding
information related to patient deaths in the clinical trial of its
most advanced drug, called JCAR015.

The drug is a kind of cancer immunotherapy that genetically
re-engineers a patient's immune cells to find and destroy cancer.
Others like it have successfully wiped out the disease in terminal
patients. JCAR017, Juno's current focus, has found success in early
trials.

In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs say that the first of the patient
deaths had important implications for JCAR015's future. It was the
first sign of possible safety problems with the drug, problems
which led the FDA to suspend the trial twice, both of which sent
Juno's stock value plummeting.

But the company did not notify investors of the first patient death
until about a month after it happened, after two other patients
also died.

After investigating the deaths, Juno removed a secondary drug
thought to have caused them and continued the trial. When two more
patients died in November, the FDA suspended the trial once more.
Juno finally pulled the drug in March of 2017.

The lawsuit is a prime example of the challenges facing companies
that develop these cutting-edge therapies. The science around
immunotherapy treatments like Juno's is still developing, including
our understanding of the side effects that could have caused the
deaths of these patients.

As part of the settlement, anyone who acquired Juno stock between
June 4, 2016 and Nov. 22, 2016, is eligible for a payout. The terms
of the settlement say it is not an admission of wrongdoing on the
part of Juno or the executives named in the lawsuit, including
Bishop, Juno's current chief medical officer Mark Gilbert and its
chief financial officer Steven Harr.

Since pulling JCAR015, Juno has continued to pursue other, similar
treatments. The company was acquired by biotech giant Celgene for
$9 billion in January, after which Bishop left the CEO role and
joined Celgene's board of directors. [GN]


KINGATE MANAGEMENT: 2d Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Investors Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the
District Court's dismissal of the case, IN RE: KINGATE MANAGEMENT
LIMITED LITIGATION. CRITERIUM CAPITAL FUNDS B.V., BBF TRUST, BANCA
ARNER S.A., ALVARO CASTILLO, BG VALORES, S.A., JAQUES LAMAC, NITKEY
HOLDINGS CORPORATION, Plaintiffs-Appellants, LUCIEN GELDZAHLER,
Plaintiff-Consolidated Defendant-Appellant, SILVANA WORLDWIDE
CORPORATION, WALL STREET SECURITIES, S.A., EITHAN EPHRATI, ANDBANC,
Plaintiffs, v. TREMONT (BERMUDA) LIMITED, SANDRA MANZKE, FIM
ADVISERS LLP, MICHAEL G. TANNENBAUM, TREMONT GROUP HOLDINGS,
INCORPORATED, PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP, Defendants-Appellees,
KINGATE MANAGEMENT LIMITED, FIM (USA) INCORPORATED, CITI HEDGE FUND
SERVICE LTD, Defendants-Consolidated Defendants-Appellees,
PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS BERMUDA, CARLO GROSSO, FIM LIMITED, FEDERICO
M. CERETTI, Consolidated Defendants-Appellees, BERNARD L. MADOFF,
GRAHAM H. COOK, JOHN E. EPPS, CHARLES SEBAH, KEITH R. BISH,
CHRISTOPHER WETHERHILL, PHILLIP A. EVANS, MARGARET EVERY, SHAZIEH
SALAHUDDIN, JOHANN WONG, PRESTON M. DAVIS, BANK OF BERMUDA LIMITED,
Defendants, PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS, ANDORRA BANC AGRICOL REIG S.A.,
on behalf of itself and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Consolidated Defendants, Case No. 16-3450-cv (2d Cir.).

The Plaintiffs appeal from the Sept. 26, 2016 judgment of the
District Court dismissing their class action claims against the
Defendants.  They Plaintiffs were investors in Kingate Global Fund,
Ltd. and Kingate Euro Fund, Ltd. ("Funds"), two "feeder funds" for
Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities that lost substantially all
of their assets due to Madoff's fraud.  The Defendants were the
managers, auditors, consultant, and administrator of the Funds.
The Plaintiffs brought common law claims against the Defendants
alleging, inter alia, breach of contractual and tort-based duties
in connection with the Defendants' management and oversight of the
Funds.  

In 2011, the District Court dismissed all of the Plaintiffs' claims
as precluded by the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of
1988 ("SLUSA").  The Court vacated that dismissal and remanded for
further proceedings, holding that SLUSA precluded from proceeding
in a covered class action only those state law claims predicated on
conduct of the defendant specified in SLUSA's operative provisions,
which reference the anti-falsity provisions of the Securities Act
of 1933 and Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On remand, the District Court dismissed some of the Plaintiffs'
claims as precluded by SLUSA, and the rest for lack of standing and
failure to state a claim under British Virgin Islands
("BVI")/Bermuda law.

The Appellate Court agrees with the District Court that the
Plaintiffs waived their primary argument on appeal that SLUSA,
which precludes certain class actions based upon the statutory or
common law of any State, does not apply to their claims, which are
governed by foreign law.  Given the importance of SLUSA's
applicability to the disposition, the argument that SLUSA would not
apply if the District Court found that BVI/Bermuda law applied
should have been advanced at the time.  The Plaintiffs' failure to
timely raise it is not excused merely because the District Court
only later determined that foreign law applied.  The Court
therefore agrees with the District Court's determination that the
Plaintiffs waived this argument by failing to raise it before the
District Court in response to the Defendants' first motion to
dismiss.

The Plaintiffs also argue the District Court erred in finding that
SLUSA precluded their negligent misrepresentation claims against
PricewaterhouseCoopers ("PwC") and Citi Hedge.  They argue SLUSA
does not preclude their negligent misrepresentation claims against
PwC and Citi Hedge, because the alleged misrepresentations were not
made in connection with the purchase or sale of a covered
security.

The Judge finds that the Plaintiffs purchased the uncovered shares
of the offshore Funds, expecting that the Funds were investing the
proceeds in S & P 100 stocks, which are covered securities.  They
made attempted investments in covered securities, albeit through
feeder funds.  The Defendants' alleged misrepresentations, which
concerned the financial health and value of the Funds, were thus
material to a decision by one or more individuals to buy or to sell
a `covered security, and satisfied SLUSA's "in connection with"
requirement.

Finally, the Judge finds that the District Court correctly
concluded that the Plaintiffs' remaining claims were barred by the
reflective loss rule.  This is true of both the Plaintiffs' Group 4
claims (those alleging breach of tort- and contract-based duties)
and their Group 5 claims (those seeking compensation for fees).  As
to the Group 5 claims, as the Plaintiffs concede, the subscription
instructions required the entire price of an investor's
subscription, including the 5% charge, to be wired to a bank
account naming a Fund as beneficiary.  The loss of that fee is thus
rightly considered the Funds' loss, and the loss to the Plaintiffs
merely reflective.  In addition, the Court sees no abuse of
discretion in the District Court's denial of leave to replead under
the circumstances.  It has considered the Plaintiffs' remaining
arguments and concluded that they are without merit.

Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 17, 2018 Summary Order is
available at https://is.gd/3gsusK from Leagle.com.

DAVID A. BARRETT -- dbarrett@bsfllp.com -- Boies, Schiller &
Flexner LLP, New York, N.Y. (Stuart H. Singer -- ssinger@bsfllp.com
-- Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Fort Lauderdale, FL; Steven J.
Toll, Joshua S. Devore, S. Douglas Bunch, Cohen Milstein Sellers &
Toll PLLC, Washington, D.C., on the brief), for Appellants.

CARMINE D. BOCCUZZI, JR. -- cboccuzzi@cgsh.com -- Cleary Gottlieb
Steen & Hamilton LLP, New York, N.Y.; BARRY G. SHER, JODI A.
KLEINICK -- jodikleinick@paulhastings.com -- Paul Hastings LLP, New
York, N.Y. (Anthony Antonelli, Mor Wetzler , Paul Hastings LLP, New
York, N.Y.; Erica Klipper, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP,
New York, N.Y.; Scott W. Reynolds, Erin E. Valentine --
erin.valentine@chaffetzlindsey.com -- Chaffetz Lindsey LLP, New
York, N.Y.; Dennis H. Tracey, III -- dennis.tracey@hoganlovells.com
-- Sanford M. Litvack, Hogan Lovells US LLP, New York, N.Y.;
Kimberly Perrotta Cole, Jonathan D. Cogan --
jonathan.cogan@kobrekim.com -- Kobre & Kim LLP, New York, N.Y.;
Seth M. Schwartz -- seth.schwartz@skadden.com -- Skadden, Arps,
Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, New York, N.Y., Laura G. Birger --
lbirger@cooley.com -- Abigail B. Seidner, Cooley LLP, New York,
N.Y., on the brief), for Appellees.


KNORR-BREMSE AG: Faces Escalera Suit over No-Poach Agreements
-------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID ESCALERA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KNORR-BREMSE AG; KNORR BRAKE COMPANY LLC;
NEW YORK AIR BRAKE LLC; WESTINGHOUSE AIR BRAKE TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; FAIVELEY TRANSPORT, S.A.; FAIVELEY TRANSPORT NORTH
AMERICA INC.; and DOES 1-20, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-01116-JFC
(D. Pa., Aug. 23, 2018) alleges illegal conspiracy of the
Defendants to suppress the compensation of each of their employees.
Without the knowledge or consent of their employees, the Defendants
and senior executives at these companies entered into express
agreements to eliminate or reduce competition among them for
skilled labor in violation of the Sherman Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants would
not hire or attempt to hire employees from the other company
without prior consent from that company. The intended and actual
effect of this Conspiracy is to suppress employee compensation, and
to impose unlawful restrictions on employee mobility. Their
employees possessed skills that were particularly valuable to each
other, and so their no-poach agreements were an effective means of
reducing competition for employees and suppressing employee pay
below competitive levels.

Knorr-Bremse Aktiengesellschaft develops, produces, markets, and
services braking systems for rail and commercial vehicles. The
Company provides entrance, windscreen wiper, driver assistance, and
power supply systems, as well as platform screen doors and
torsional vibration dampers. Knorr-Bremse serves customers
worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roberta D. Liebenberg, Esq.
          Gerard A. Dever, Esq.
          FINE KAPLAN AND BLACK, R.P.C.
          One South Broad Street, Suite 2300
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 567-6565
          Facsimile: (215) 568-5872
          E-mail: rliebenberg@finekaplan.com
                  gdever@finekaplan.com

               - and -

          Richard M. Heimann, Esq.
          Kelly M. Dermody, Esq.
          Brendan P. Glackin, Esq.
          Dean M. Harvey, Esq.
          Lin Y. Chan, Esq.
          Michael K. Sheen, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
          Telephone: (415) 956-1000
          Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
          E-mail: rheimann@lchb.com
                  kdermody@lchb.com
                  bglackin@lchb.com
                  dharvey@lchb.com
                  lchan@lchb.com
                  msheen@lchb.com

               - and -

          Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq.
          NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C.
          1211 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (917) 438-9102
          E-mail: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com

               - and -

          Thomas G. Foley, Jr., Esq.
          Robert A. Curtis, Esq.
          FOLEY BEZEK BEHLE & CURTIS, LLP
          15 W. Carrillo Street
          Santa Barbara, CA 93101
          Telephone: (805) 962-9495
          Facsimile: (805) 962-0722
          E-mail: tfoley@foleybezek.com
                  rcurtis@foleybezek.com

               - and -

          Richard E. Donahoo, Esq.
          Sarah L. Kokonas, Esq.
          Judith L. Camilleri, Esq.
          DONAHOO & ASSOCIATES, PC
          440 W. First Street, Suite 101
          Tustin, CA 92780
          Telephone: (714) 953-1010
          Facsimile: (714) 953-1777
          E-mail: rdonahoo@donahoo.com
                  skokonas@donahoo.com
                  jcamilleri@donahoo.com


KNORR-BREMSE: Castagno Sues over No-Poach Agreements
----------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH CASTAGNO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. KNORR-BREMSE AG; KNORR BRAKE COMPANY;
NEW YORK AIR BRAKE LLC; WESTINGHOUSE AIR BRAKE TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; FAIVELEY TRANSPORT NORTH AMERICA, INC.; RAILROAD
CONTROLS, L.P.; and XORAIL, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 18-1212
(W.D. Pa., Sept. 11, 2018), seeks to recover damages and injunctive
relief arising from Defendants' unlawful conspiracy to suppress
Plaintiff's and Class members' compensation, under the antitrust
laws of the United States.

The class action challenges an illegal conspiracy among the world's
dominant rail equipment suppliers to restrain competition in the
labor markets in which they compete for the service of rail
equipment employees. Beginning in 2009, Defendants allegedly
entered into express agreements to eliminate or reduce competition
amongst them for skilled labor. Knorr, Wabtec, and Faiveley were
the three largest rail equipment suppliers in the world and were
direct competitors. The intended and actual effect of the
Conspiracy was to suppress employee compensation, and reduce
employee mobility.

The Conspiracy was first revealed publicly on April 3, 2018, with
an announced action and settlement by the U.S. Department of
Justice with Knorr and Wabtec. The settlement prohibits Wabtec and
Knorr from entering, maintaining, or enforcing no-poach agreements,
subject to limited exceptions.

Knorr-Bremse AG is a German manufacturer of braking systems for
rail and commercial vehicles that has operated in the field for
over 110 years.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David B. Spear, Esq.
          MINTO LAW GROUP, LLC
          Two Gateway Center
          603 Stanwix Street, Suite 2025
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 201 5525
          E-mail: dspear@mintolaw.com

               - and -

          Eugene A. Spector, Esq.
          William G. Caldes, Esq.
          Jonathan M. Jagher, Esq.
          SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C.
          1818 Market Street, Suite 2500
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 496 0300

               - and -

          Peggy Wedgworth, Esq.
          Andrei V. Rado, Esq.
          Matthew A. Kupillas, Esq.
          MILBERG TADLER PHILLIPS
          GROSSMAN LLP
          One Pennsylvania Plaza, Suite 1920
          New York, NY 10119
          Telephone: (212) 594 5300
          Facsimile: (212) 868 1229
          E-mail: arado@milberg.com


KOCH FOODS: Boiler Chicken Antitrust Suit Transferred to N.D. Ill.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Kansas issued
a Memorandum and Order granting Defendant's Motion to Transfer to
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois the case captioned ASSOCIATED WHOLESALE GROCERS, INC.,
Plaintiff, v. KOCH FOODS, INC., et al., Defendants. Case No.
18-2258-DDC-KGG. (D. Kan.), under 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a) because
some 20 related cases currently are pending in that district.

The Complaint asserts that the defendants and their
co-conspirators, beginning in 2008, engaged in a nationwide
conspiracy to increase the price of broiler chickens, thus
violating Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act and various state
antitrust laws. The Plaintiff alleges that it has purchased about
two billion dollars' worth of broiler chickens since 2008. And it
seeks to recover the alleged overcharges it claims it has paid
because of the defendants' illegal conspiracy to raise the price of
broiler chickens.

The Defendants assert that the court should transfer this case to
the Northern District of Illinois, where the Broiler Litigation is
pending, because transfer would conserve judicial resources and
provide a more convenient forum for the parties and witnesses in
this case.

The Plaintiff does not dispute that this case is substantially
similar to the 20 cases pending in the Broiler Litigation. Indeed,
the plaintiff concedes that coordinating this case with the Broiler
Litigation will produce certain efficiencies. But, the plaintiff
contends, the court need not transfer the case to the Northern
District of Illinois to achieve those efficiencies. Instead, it
argues, the court can achieve efficiencies simply by coordinating
discovery between this case and the Broiler Litigation and do so
without transferring the case and depriving plaintiff of its chosen
forum for trial.

The Plaintiff asserts that a material and significant connection
exists between the facts of the case and the plaintiff's chosen
forum because the plaintiff's headquarters are located in Kansas
City, Kansas.  Also, the plaintiff argues, the parties negotiated
all of the master contracts for the purchase of broiler chickens in
Kansas City, Kansas, and plaintiff made all of the payments
including alleged illegal overpayments in Kansas City, Kansas.  

But the plaintiff's Complaint never alleges that any of the
defendants' unlawful conduct occurred in Kansas. Instead, the
Complaint alleges that the defendants conspired and colluded at
trade association meetings, investor conferences, and the
defendants' broiler chicken plants.  As the defendants correctly
assert, other courts have held that the locus of operative facts in
an antitrust action is where the defendants allegedly conspired or
colluded to violate the antitrust laws.

The court thus finds that the facts giving rise to this lawsuit
lack a material relation or significant connection to Kansas.

The Defendants assert that the interest of justice strongly favors
the case's transfer. The court agrees. The court has held that the
pendency of related litigation in another forum is a proper factor
to consider in resolving choice of venue questions.

Here, the defendants assert that the key issue that plaintiff must
prove at trial is the existence of a conspiracy between defendants
and alleged co-conspirators. The witnesses who will testify about
this key issue likely are defendants' current or former employees.
The Defendants are located across the county. None are in Kansas.
The Defendants assert that the Broiler Litigation will require
these key witnesses to travel to Northern District of Illinois to
provide testimony. And, defendants contend, it is inconvenient to
require them to travel to a second district to provide the same
testimony in Kansas.

The Plaintiff responds that a transfer here merely would shift the
burden of inconvenience from the bottom of the caption to the top.
And the court has held that transfer is not appropriate in these
circumstances.  The Plaintiff asserts that Kansas is a far more
convenient forum for plaintiff and its witnesses than the Northern
District of Illinois. Plaintiff's headquarters are in Kansas, and
the buyers who negotiated the contracts to purchase broiler
chickens are located in the Kansas City, Kansas, area.  

Considering all these facts, the court finds that the convenience
of witnesses and parties weighs in favor of transfer, albeit just
slightly.

After considering all the factors used to determine whether to
transfer an action under 28 U.S.C. Section 1404, the court, in its
discretion, concludes that defendants have met their burden to show
that the factors strongly favor transfer. Transfer will serve the
convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the interest
of justice. The court thus transfers this case to the Northern
District of Illinois.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 13, 2018
Memorandum and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7jay3gj
from Leagle.com.

Associated Wholesale Grocers, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by
Daniel D. Owen -- dowen@polsinelli.com -- Polsinelli PC, Guillermo
Gabriel Zorogastua -- gzorogastua@polsinelli.com -- Polsinelli PC,
Milton S. Winter, IV -- mwinter@polsinelli.com -- Polsinelli PC &
P. John Brady -- jbrady@polsinelli.com -- Polsinelli PC.

Koch Foods, Inc., JCG Foods of Alabama, Inc., JCG Foods of Georgia,
LLC & Koch Meat Co., Defendants, represented by Brian J. Madden --
BMADDEN@WCLLP.COM -- Wagstaff & Cartmell, LLP, Eric D. Barton --
EBARTON@WCLLP.COM -- Wagstaff & Cartmell, LLP & Sarah S. Ruane --
Wagstaff & Cartmell, LLP.

Tyson Foods, Inc., Tyson Chicken, Inc., Tyson Breeders, Inc. &
Tyson Poultry, Inc., Defendants, represented by Stephen J. Moore --
sjm@shankmoore.com -- Shank & Moore, LLC.
Pilgrim's Pride Corporation, Defendant, represented by Carrie C.
Mahan -- carie.mahan/@weil.com -- Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro
hac vice.


LA VOGLIA: Gomez Files ADA Suit in S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against La Voglia Fine Foods.
The case is styled as Andres Gomez, Plaintiff v. La Voglia Fine
Foods Corp. doing business as: Farfalle, Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-23928-FAM (S.D. Fla., Sept. 24, 2018).

Andres Gomez, on his own and on behalf of all other individuals
similarly situated, filed the case under the Americans with
Disabilities Act in 1990.

La Voglia Fine Foods Corp. is a Florida Profit Corporation created
on July 9, 2014.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LANDMARK RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Wages, Garcia Says
----------------------------------------------------
ADRIANA GARCIA, an individual on behalf of herself and on behalf of
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. LANDMARK RESTAURANT
GROUP, INC., a Nevada Corporation; J. ANTHONY KOUBA, an Individual;
WILLTOP, INC., California Corporation; SEGUNDOHOP, INC., a
California Corporation; TORRAHOP, INC., a California Corporation;
DOWNEY HOP. INC., a California Corporation; ALISAL VENTURES, LLC, a
California Limited Liability Company; BUNHOP, LLC, a California
Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case
No. BC721246 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sept. 14, 2018), seeks to recover
damages as well as penalties under the California Private Attorneys
General Act of 2004, on account of the Defendants' failure to pay
all wages due upon termination of employment relationship; failure
to timely pay wages; and refusal to pay wages due and payable after
demand for wages had been made.

Landmark Restaurant provides foods and drinking facilities.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C. E. Kimberly Lind, Esq.
          Ashleigh N. Stone, Esq.
          KOL LEGAL, INC.
          100 Ocean Gate 12111 Floor
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: (562) 628 5548
          Facsimile: (714) 242 1590
          E-mail: Kim@KO-Legal.com


LIONS GATE: Continues to Defend Starz Merger Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Lions Gate Entertainment Corp. 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 remains
a defendant in a consolidated class action suit entitled, In re
Starz Stockholder Litigation.

Between July 19, 2016 and August 30, 2016, seven putative class
action complaints were filed by purported Starz stockholders in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.

These actions have been consolidated into In re Starz Stockholder
Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 12584-VCG, and the plaintiffs in
the consolidated action filed a verified consolidated class action
complaint on August 16, 2016. On August 18, 2016, plaintiffs filed
a motion for expedited proceedings. On September 22, 2016, the
court denied the motion. The defendants filed answers to the
verified consolidated class action complaint on January 24, 2017.

On May 16, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a verified amended
consolidated class action complaint. The amended complaint names as
defendants former members of the board of directors of Starz Susan
Lyne, Andrew Heller, Greg Maffei, Christopher Albrecht, Daniel E.
Sanchez, and Charles Y. Tanabe. The amended complaint also names as
defendants Dr. Malone and Lions Gate. The amended complaint
alleges, among other things, that the members of the Starz board of
directors breached fiduciary duties owed to Starz and the holders
of Starz Series A common stock in connection with the merger and
related transactions; that Dr. Malone was a controlling stockholder
of Starz who breached fiduciary duties owed to other Starz
stockholders in connection with the merger and related
transactions; and that Lions Gate aided and abetted such breaches
of fiduciary duty.

On June 18, 2018, the defendants (except Mr. Heller and Ms. Lyne)
filed answers to the amended complaint. On July 3, 2018, Mr. Heller
and Ms. Lyne filed a motion seeking summary judgment on the claims
against them.

The court has entered a scheduling order providing for a trial to
commence in the second half of fiscal 2019. Defendants intend to
defend the action vigorously.

Lions Gate Entertainment Corp. engages in motion picture production
and distribution, television programming and syndication, home
entertainment, interactive ventures and games, and location-based
entertainment in Canada, the United States, and internationally.
The company operates through three segments: Motion Pictures,
Television Production, and Media Networks.


LIONS GATE: Gross Class Action in Colorado Still Stayed
-------------------------------------------------------
Lions Gate Entertainment Corp. 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 case, Gross v.
John C. Malone, et al., remains stayed.

On August 9, 2016, a putative class action complaint was filed by a
purported Starz stockholder in the District Court for the City and
County of Denver, Colorado: Gross v. John C. Malone, et al.,
2016-CV-32873. The complaint names as defendants the members of the
board of directors of Starz, Dr. Malone and Robert Bennett, as well
as Lions Gate and an affiliated entity.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the members of the
Starz board of directors breached fiduciary duties owed to Starz
and the holders of Starz Series A common stock in connection with
the merger and the transactions contemplated by the merger
agreement, and that Dr. Malone, Mr. Bennett, Lions Gate, and Merger
Sub aided and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duty.

On December 10, 2016, the court granted the defendants' unopposed
motion to stay the action pending final resolution of the
consolidated Delaware action.

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

Lions Gate Entertainment Corp. engages in motion picture production
and distribution, television programming and syndication, home
entertainment, interactive ventures and games, and location-based
entertainment in Canada, the United States, and internationally.
The company operates through three segments: Motion Pictures,
Television Production, and Media Networks. Lions Gate Entertainment
Corp. was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in Santa Monica,
California.


LOS ANGELES, CA: 9th Cir. Affirms Campbell Class Decertification
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, issued an
Opinion affirming the District Court's judgment in the case
captioned DANIEL CAMPBELL; et al, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF
LOS ANGELES, Defendant-Appellee. CESAR MATA, Plaintiff, and RICHARD
D. ALBA; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES,
Defendant-Appellee. Nos. 15-56990, 16-55002. (9th Cir.).

The district court granted the City's motion for decertification
and dismissed the Officers without prejudice to refiling their Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA) claims individually.

The present appeal arises from the decertification of a pair of
related collective actions brought under the FLSA. Between 2004 and
2009, roughly 2,500 officers (Officers) of the Los Angeles Police
Department (Department) opted into two collective actions alleging
a pervasive, unwritten policy discouraging the reporting of
overtime.

The Court turns to the standard the district court should apply in
evaluating a post-discovery motion for decertification. Determining
the proper legal standard is a question of law, so the Court
proceed de novo.

Because preliminary certification is not challenged in this case,
the Court address only the standard the district court should apply
to post-discovery decertification. The Court concludes that, in a
case such as this one, in which decertification overlaps with the
merits of the underlying FLSA claims, the summary judgment standard
is the appropriate one.

The substantial evidence standard is not well-explained, nor are
the reasons for its adoption. However, given the parallels between
post-discovery decertification and partial summary judgment on the
question of entitlement to the collective action mechanism, the
standard has a certain logic. As it normally manifests itself in
district court, substantial evidence is the standard for denying
judgment as a matter of law during or after trial. The standard is
therefore a mid- or post-trial analogue to the test applied at
summary judgment, which asks, pretrial, whether sufficient evidence
exists to preclude a judgment as a matter of law because, viewing
the competent evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving
party, the trier of fact could properly find for the nonmoving
party.  

Here, for instance, the Officers' allegations of an unwritten,
Department-wide policy discouraging the reporting of overtime do
double duty. They provide a basis for collective treatment, as they
raise a similarity of fact or law whose disposition would advance
the litigation of the Officers' FLSA claims. And, relatedly, they
go directly to the merits of the individual Officers' claims, as
proving the policy at trial is essential to the Officers' FLSA
theory, including their satisfaction of the FLSA's knowledge
requirement. It follows that, in this case, a post-discovery
decertification motion does double duty as well. It is, in effect,
indistinguishable from a motion for partial summary judgment
limited to the question of whether an unwritten, Department-wide
policy existed.  

Put differently, to the extent overlap exists between the
availability of the collective action mechanism and the merits of
the underlying claim, challenges to the former are no different
from challenges to the latter, and so should be analyzed under the
same standard. In the present posture of this case, a
post-discovery decertification motion that standard is summary
judgment.

If it were otherwise, a decertification motion could become an end
run around the submission of factual disputes to the trier of
fact.

It follows that, to the extent decertification overlaps with the
merits, a district court cannot weigh the evidence, as ordinary
summary judgment practice precludes doing so. The collective
mechanism is meant to ensure that party plaintiffs have the option
of benefitting from the efficiencies of collective litigation
including, in cases presenting genuine disputes of material fact,
collective access to trial. That principle is not consistent with
allowing district courts to break apart the collective based on
their own resolution of merits questions otherwise reserved to the
trier of fact. If there is a merits dispute that would survive
summary judgment on which the disposition of decertification also
depends, the merits dispute should be tried. Whether the question
will be answered favorably or unfavorably is for the trier of fact.


In sum, to the extent the decertification issues overlap with the
merits, the Court agrees with the district courts' widely held view
that the standard on a post-discovery decertification motion is
effectively the summary judgment standard. The Court emphasizes,
however, that as with a motion formally styled as summary judgment,
the district court may not, on a merits-dependent decertification
motion, weigh evidence going to the merits. If collective treatment
is premised on a genuine dispute of material fact as to the merits
of the party plaintiffs' FLSA claims, the collective action cannot
be decertified unless the factual dispute is resolved against the
plaintiffs' assertions by the appropriate factfinder.

First, the district court applied an overly demanding test of the
FLSA's similarly situated requirement.

Second, although the district court recited the
substantial-evidence standard, which is an adequate statement of
the summary judgment analysis, it weighed evidence regarding the
existence of a Department-wide policy.

The key problem for the Officers in providing evidence of the
Department-wide policy they allege is one of scale. That the policy
is Department-wide is essential to the viability of the collective
action, as it is the sole justification advanced for a
Department-wide collective. Yet the evidence in the record is
simply not probative of an unwritten overtime policy of that
breadth.

The Officers' primary contention appears to be that there exists a
kind of tacit policy that operates top-down, such that an inference
may be drawn that the policy applies Department-wide. As the
district court noted, however, the evidence the Officers have
produced, a mass of individual declarations, mostly containing rote
recitations of hours worked and bare assertions of a certain
Department culture has a fundamentally different focus. The
Officers' declarations speak of immediate supervisors at discrete
worksites. And even then the evidence is not of a uniform practice
from which one might infer direction from a higher level, but of
variable practices variably applied. Critically, there is no
evidence of any directives, incentives, conversations, emails, or
actions such as denials of promotions by Department leadership that
could have communicated to local supervisors, implicitly or
otherwise, a uniform policy against reporting small amounts of
overtime.

Furthermore, there is no evidence to suggest that the declarants'
vaguely reported experiences are in fact representative of the
experiences of the party plaintiffs Department-wide; the only
evidence in the record is that they are not.

First, the Officers offer no sampling or expert statistical
evidence tying the declarants' statements to the experiences of the
party plaintiffs or of the workforce generally. The declarations
are too limited in individual detail to support an inference that
failure to report specific instances of overtime was tied to a
policy from above. Nor have the Officers presented evidence  lay or
expert, anecdotal or statistical that the City's overtime claims
process, or the enforcement of it, was somehow structurally
inadequate, or implemented Department-wide in a way that inhibited
the accurate reporting of overtime. Furthermore, as the district
court noted, many of the declarants who claim they were first
taught not to report overtime during their training at the Police
Academy were members of Academy classes that substantially pre-date
the Department's promulgation of the current written overtime
policy.

Second, although the Officers' declarations are creditable evidence
of instances of unpaid overtime, when it comes to the issue of a
Department-wide policy, they run up against the City's overwhelming
evidence of widespread FLSA compliance. It is undisputed that
330,000 overtime claims in amounts of less than one hour were filed
during the relevant period, including 64,000 by the party
plaintiffs themselves. Confronted with that contradiction, lacking
affirmative evidence of a structural problem, and in light of the
Department's widely disseminated written policy requiring that
overtime claims be filed, no reasonable trier of fact could
conclude that the City fostered or tolerated a tacit policy of
noncompliance.

Absent substantial evidence that the City fostered or tolerated a
tacit, systemic policy against the reporting of overtime, there is
no genuine dispute of fact as to the only allegation the party
plaintiffs have cited as a basis for proceeding in a
Department-wide collective. The collective action was therefore
correctly decertified and the opt-in plaintiffs correctly
dismissed.

A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's September 13, 2018 Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y6ug4v5f from Leagle.com.

Gregory Glenn Petersen -- greg@lawnet.com -- (argued), Gregory G.
Petersen A Law Corporation, Santa Ana, California, for
Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Brian P. Walter -- bwalter@lcwlegal.com -- (argued), Geoffrey S.
Sheldon -- gsheldon@lcwlegal.com -- David A. Urban, and Danny Y.
Yoo -- dyoo@lcwlegal.com -- Liebert Cassidy Whitmore, Los Angeles,
California; for Defendant-Appellee.


MARCUS CLEGG: Endicott and Median Allege Investment Scams
---------------------------------------------------------
TINA A. ENDICOTT, and DENISE T. MEDINA, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs vs. GEORGE MARCUS; and
MARCUS CLEGG BALS & ROSENTHAL, P.A. f/k/a MARCUS, CLEGG &
MISTRETTA, P.A., Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-00331-NT (D. Me.,
Aug. 22, 2018) alleges that the Defendants are engaged in a
fraudulent investment scheme that involved the sale and exchange of
various unregistered securities that purportedly provided investors
with an opportunity to share in the growth of privately held
start-up MDO, LLC (the "MDO Scheme").

According to the complaint, pursuant to the MDO Scheme, the
Plaintiffs were led by the actions of the MDO Scheme's
perpetrators, which included the Defendants, to believe that they
were investing, indirectly, in fast-growing privately-owned MDO,
and later on Mozido, Inc., which bought all of MDO's assets. MDO
described itself as a technology start-up company offering mobile
business solutions for its customers, including a "mobile wallet"
which would allow customers to use their cell phones to pay for
products and transfer money. In reality, the Defendants raised more
than $55 million of investor money, and misappropriated most of it
to fund the Defendants' lifestyle, including chartered flights, a
dairy cow farm, and the funding of a movie production.

Marcus, Clegg and Mistretta, P.A. offers corporate and commercial
law and litigation services. The firm's areas of practice include
bankruptcy, creditors and debtors' rights, mergers and
acquisitions, securities, financing, reorganizing, restructuring,
and construction law. Marcus, Clegg and Mistretta was founded in
1996 and is based in Portland, Maine. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Christiane D. Williams, Esq.
           TERRY GARMEY & ASSOCIATES
           482 Congress Street, Ste 402
           Portland, ME 04101
           Telephone: (207) 899-4644
           Facsimile: (207) 541-9242
           E-mail: cwilliams@garmeylaw.com

               - and -

           Alan L. Rosca, Esq.
           Paul Scarlato, Esq.
           GOLDMAN SCARLATO & PENNY PC
           Eight Tower Bridge, 161 Washington St
           Conshohocken, PA 19428
           Telephone: (216) 242-6460
           E-mail: rosca@lawgsp.com
                  scarlato@lawgsp.com

               - and -

           J. Barton Goplerud, Esq.
           Brian O. Marty, Esq.
           SHINDLER ANDERSON GOPLERUD & WEESE PC
           5015 Grand Ridge Dr, Ste 100
           West Des Moines, IA 50265
           Telephone: (515) 223-4567
           Facsimile: (515) 223-8887
           E-mail: goplerud@sagwlaw.com
                   marty@sagwlaw.com


MATCH GROUP: Shearman Sterling Discusses Class Action Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for JDSupra, wrote that on
August 24, 2018, Judge Karen Gren Scholer of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Texas dismissed with
prejudice a putative securities class action against an educational
services company ("the Company"), certain of its officers and
directors, and the underwriters of its November 2015 initial public
offering (the "IPO").  David M. Stein v. Match Group Inc., No.
3:16-cv-00549 (N.D. Tex.).  Plaintiffs—investors in the
IPO—claimed that defendants violated Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 because the offering documents for the IPO
allegedly contained material misstatements and omissions concerning
expected sales and revenues from one of the Company's business
segments and failed to disclose certain information as required by
Items 303 and 503 of Regulation S-K.  The Court held that
plaintiffs had failed to plausibly allege any untrue statement of
material fact because the alleged misrepresentations were accurate
statements of historical results.  The Court also held that
plaintiffs failed to allege a known trend that was required to be
disclosed under Item 303 and failed to allege a significant risk
factor that was required to be disclosed under Item 503.

The Company divides its business into two segments:  a dating
segment and a non-dating segment, which includes educational
services and test preparation services for the SAT and other tests.
Before the Company's IPO, the organization that administers the
SAT, the College Board, revamped the test and announced a free test
preparation program.  Plaintiffs alleged that certain financial
metrics in the offering documents for the IPO were materially
misleading because they did not also disclose (i) changes to the
SAT, (ii) the College Board offering free test preparation, (iii)
the Company's shift in focus from in-person training to online
courses, and (iv) the delay of a large institutional contract.
Following the IPO, the Company reported that its revenue for the
non-dating segment of its business fell short of expectations and
its share price declined from $12.82 to $9.30 per share.

The Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the Section 11
claim with prejudice, holding that plaintiffs failed to plausibly
allege that the registration statement for the IPO contained untrue
statements of material fact.  The Court ruled that the allegedly
misleading financial metrics were accurate reports of historical
performance and that the offering documents included sufficient
cautionary language that historical results are not indicative of
future results.

The Court also rejected plaintiffs' argument that defendants failed
to disclose certain material information required to be disclosed
under Item 303 of Regulation S-K.  Item 303 requires an issuer to
describe any known trends or uncertainties that may have a material
favorable or unfavorable impact on the business.  Plaintiffs
alleged that defendants violated Item 303 because the offering
documents allegedly did not disclose (among other things) the risks
posed by the introduction of the new SAT and by the College Board's
provision of free test preparation services.  The Court found that
plaintiffs failed to plead sufficient facts to establish a known
trend with respect to declining non-dating business revenue due to
the SAT redesign and failed to establish how any impact on revenue
would reasonably have been expected to persist after the new test
went into effect.   The Court also ruled that plaintiffs failed to
allege sufficiently how a proposed redesign of the SAT—only one
of many standardized tests for which the Company offered test
preparation services—would materially decrease the Company's
reported results.

The Court also rejected plaintiffs' argument that defendants failed
to disclose certain information required by Item 503 of Regulation
S-K.  Item 503 requires a company to provide a discussion of the
most significant factors that make the offering speculative or
risky.  Plaintiffs alleged that the Company violated Item 503 by
failing to disclose the risks associated with shift in focus of the
Company's business and the risks associated with contract delays.
The Court found that neither of these alleged omissions were
violations of Item 503 because, according to the Court, they cannot
be said to be the most significant factors that made the offering
speculative or risky.  The Court also ruled that similar to the
Item 303 claims, plaintiffs failed to allege sufficient facts to
quantify how the alleged shift in focus and delayed contract were
material to the Company's revenue. [GN]


MDL 2656: Court Extends Fact Discovery Deadlines
------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Columbia
issued a Memorandum Opinion granting Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion
and Motion for an Extension of Fact Discovery Deadlines pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) in the case captioned IN
RE DOMESTIC AIRLINE TRAVEL ANTITRUST LITIGATION. This Document
Relates To: ALL CASES. MDL Docket No. 2656, (D.D. C.)

This case involves a multidistrict class action litigation brought
by Plaintiffs, who are purchasers of air passenger transportation
for domestic travel, against [remaining] Defendants, Delta Air
Lines, Inc. (Delta) and United Airlines, Inc. (United), two of the
four largest commercial air passenger carriers in the United
States, based on allegations that Defendant airlines willingly
conspired to engage in unlawful restraint of trade.

The Court acknowledges that the request for extension of deadlines
is opposed and the Court has addressed the arguments set forth by
all parties.  In this case, no pretrial or trial date has been set,
and trial is not imminent. Because this is a production of core
documents by the Defendants, and the production was made after
numerous negotiations regarding search terms and methodologies, it
is no stretch of the imagination that the documents which are
responsive to Plaintiffs' discovery requests are likely to lead to
relevant evidence.

With regard to the foreseeability of the need for additional
discovery, the Plaintiffs explain that the parties waited until
they had largely completed search methodology negotiations to
propose a schedule so Defendants would have a realistic sense of
how much time was needed for production. The Court set a strict
schedule for discovery and insisted repeatedly that the parties
comply with the deadlines in that schedule. Plaintiffs' need for
additional time to pursue discovery did not become apparent to the
Plaintiffs until after United produced its core documents. Taken
together, these additional factors relevant to the good cause
analysis weigh in favor of the Plaintiffs.

The Court will grant the Plaintiffs' Motion for Extension of Fact
Discovery Deadlines, with the proviso that no further extensions of
discovery will be considered by this Court.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 10, 2018
Memorandum Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y8aorrvc
from Leagle.com.

INTERNATIONAL AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION, Non-Party Respondent,
represented by Thomas J. Lang -- thomas.lang@haynesboone.com --
HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP & Michael James Scanlon --
thomas.lang@haynesboone.com -- HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP.

WILLIAM YOUMANS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Kit A. Pierson --
kpierson@cohenmilstein.com -- COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC.

SHAWN JAIN, Plaintiff, represented by Gary Edward Mason --
gmason@wbmllp.com -- WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP.

RACHEL GOLIAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated & ISRAEL KATZ, Plaintiffs, represented by Ronald J.
Aranoff, Wollmuth Maher & Deutsch LLP.

AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., (AMR), Defendant, represented by Benjamin
Bradshaw -- bbradshaw@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers, pro hac vice,
Dennis S. Schmelzer -- dennis.schmelzer@dechert.com -- DECHERT LLP,
Jeffrey Allen Nuxoll Kopczynski -- jkopczynski@omm.com -- O'Melveny
& Myers LLP -- krobson@omm.com -- O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP, Paul
Thomas Denis -- krobson@omm.com -- DECHERT, LLP, Richard G. Parker
-- rparker@gibsondunn.com -- GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP, Robert
Alan Siegel -- rsiegel@omm.com -- O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP, Sloane
Ackerman -- sackerman@omm.com -- O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP, pro hac
vice & Benjamin G. Bradshaw -- bbradshaw@omm.com -- O'MELVENY &
MYERS, LLP.

DELTA AIRLINES, INC, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant, represented
by James Peter Denvir, III -- JDenvir@BSFLLP.com -- BOIES, SCHILLER
& FLEXNER LLP, John F. Cove, Jr. -- jcove@bsfllp.com -- BOIES,
SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP, Michael S. Mitchell -- mmitchell@bsfllp.com
-- BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP, Abby L. Dennis --
adennis@bsfllp.com -- BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP, Martha Lea
Goodman -- mgoodman@bsfllp.com -- BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP,
Rory L. Skaggs, BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP & William A.
Isaacson -- wisaacson@bsfllp.com -- BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER,
LLP.


MDL 2741: Naranjo Suit vs Monsanto over Roundup Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled RICK NARANJO, the Plaintiffs, v.
MONSANTO COMPANY, 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-05489-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 Naranjo 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 2843: Court Sets Protocol for Common Benefit Work & Expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Vince Chhabria of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California has entered a pretrial order setting
protocol for common benefit work and expense in the case, IN RE:
FACEBOOK, INC. CONSUMER PRIVACY USER PROFILE LITIGATION. This
document relates to: ALL ACTIONS, MDL No. 2843, Case No.
18-md-02843-VC (N.D. Cal.).

The protocol will govern all work for common benefit and expense,
in the action, including, among other issues, the exercise of
billing judgment; the maintenance of contemporaneous, detailed time
records; the periodic reporting of fees, expenses, and/or costs;
staffing; and rules for attendance at court hearings.

Judge Chhabria adopts the following guidelines for the management
of case-staffing, timekeeping, cost reimbursement, and related
common benefit issues.  The recovery of common benefit attorneys'
fees and cost reimbursements will be limited to "Participating
Counsel."  The Participating Counsel will be eligible to receive
common benefit attorneys' fees and reimbursement of costs and
expenses only if the time expended, costs incurred, and activity in
question were (a) for the common benefit of Plaintiffs; (b) timely
submitted; and (c) reasonable in the determination of Co-Lead
Counsel and the Court.  Any counsel seeking reimbursement for fees
and expenses for work in the action will submit to the Co-Lead
Counsel monthly common benefit time and expense submissions.

The "Common Benefit Work" includes all work done and expenses
incurred that inure to the common benefit of the Plaintiffs in the
MDL.

Only reasonable expenses will be reimbursed.  Except in unusual
circumstances approved by the Lead Counsel, all travel
reimbursements are subject to limitations.  No entry should contain
more than one category of expense when practical, and no entry
should have more than one expense category code assigned to it.
Every expense entry should be as detailed and specific as
reasonably practical.  The attorneys will provide receipts for all
expenses.

All time must be accurately and contemporaneously maintained.  The
Participating Counsel will keep contemporaneous billing records of
the time spent in connection with Common Benefit Work on the MDL,
indicating with specificity the hours (in tenth-of-an-hour
increments) and billing rate, along with a description of the
particular activity.

The "Shared Costs" are costs that will be paid out of the
Litigation Fund administered by the Plaintiffs' Co-Lead Counsel.
The Co-Lead Counsel will contribute to the Fund at times and in
amounts sufficient to cover the Plaintiffs' expenses for the
administration of this MDL.  The timing and amount of each
assessment will be determined by the Plaintiffs' Co-Lead Counsel,
and each assessment will be paid within 14 days as instructed by
the Plaintiffs' Co-Lead Counsel.  

The Shared Costs are costs incurred for the common benefit of
Plaintiffs in this MDL as a whole.  No client-related costs, save
certain costs relating to future cases selected as bellwether cases
that will be for the common benefit (e.g., related to liability and
causation), will be considered Shared Costs, unless exceptional
circumstances exist and are approved by later order of this Court.
All Shared Costs must be approved by Co-Lead Counsel prior to
payment.

The "Held Costs" are those that will be carried by each attorney in
this MDL and reimbursed as and when Co-Lead Counsel determines to
do so.  They are those that do not fall into the above Shared Costs
categories but are incurred for the common benefit of all
Plaintiffs in the MDL.  They will be recorded in accordance with
the guidelines set forth herein and will be subject to the travel
and administrative limitations set forth in this Order.

For the Co-Lead Counsel to maintain all time submissions in a fully
sortable and searchable format, all of the time and expense
submissions must be provided by submitting counsel in the following
format: (i) the counsel must use the Excel forms; (ii) in the
Monthly Time Report, the person who performed each task should be
identified in the column called Last Name, First Name by their
complete last name, a comma, and their complete first name (e.g.,
Smith, John); (iii) in all reports, the date must be provided in
month/day/year format (e.g., 10/23/14).

The Time submissions will be made to the Co-Lead Counsel on a
monthly basis, by deadlines and in accordance with the guidelines
set forth herein.  The first submission is due on Sept. 15, 2018
and should include all time and expense from inception of work on
Facebook-related litigation through Aug. 31, 2018.  After this
first submission, each monthly submission should include all common
benefit time and expenses incurred from the first to the last day
of the preceding month (e.g., the submission due Oct. 15, 2018,
should contain all common benefit time and expenses incurred from
Sep. 1, 2018, through Sept. 30, 2018.  Supplemental submissions of
common benefit time will be permitted only for good cause shown and
with the approval of the Co-Lead Counsel.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 17, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/T8vC8m from Leagle.com.

Lauren Price, Plaintiff, represented by John A. Yanchunis, Morgan
and Morgan, P.A., Joshua Haakon Watson, Clayeo C. Arnold, A
Professional Law Corporation, Patrick A. Barthle, II, Morgan and
Morgan Complex Litigation Group, Ryan McGee, Morgan and Morgan
Complex Litigation Group & Steven William Teppler, Abbott Law
Group, P.A.

Scott Schinder, Plaintiff, represented by Lesley Elizabeth Weaver
-- lweaver@bfalaw.com -- Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP, Daniel C.
Hedlund -- dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com -- Gustafson Gluek PLLC,
Derek William Loeser -- dloeser@KellerRohrback.com -- Keller
Rohrback, LLP, Joseph C. Bourne, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Joseph
Goldberg, Freedman Boyd Hollander Goldberg & Ives, P.A., Matthew
Sinclair Weiler -- MWeiler@bfalaw.com -- Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP
& Vincent J. Ward -- info@fbdlaw.com -- Freedman Boyd Hollander
Goldberg Urias and Ward P.A.

Jonathan D. Rubin, Plaintiff, represented by Brian Samuel Clayton
Conlon, Phillips, Erlewine, Given & Carlin LLP, Nicholas A. Carlin,
Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP & David M. Given, Phillips
Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP.

Howard O'Kelly, Plaintiff, represented by Barrett Jay Vahle, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP, J. Austin Moore, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP, Jason
Scott Hartley, Stueve Siegel Hanson, LLP & Norman E. Siegel, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP.

Theresa Beiner, Plaintiff, represented by Allen Carney, Carney
Bates Pulliam, PLLC, David Taylor Rudolph, Lieff Cabraser Heimann
and Bernstein, LLP, David F. Slade, Carney Bates & Pulliam, PLLC,
Hank Bates, Carney Bates & Pulliam, PLLC, Joseph Henry Bates, III ,
Carney Bates & Pulliam, PLLC, Melissa Ann Gardner, Lieff Cabraser
Heimann Bernstein, LLP, Michael W. Sobol, Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein, LLP & Nicholas Diamand, Lieff Cabraser Heimann and
Bernstein LLP.

Brandon Haubert, Plaintiff, represented by Allen Carney, Carney
Bates Pulliam, PLLC, David Taylor Rudolph, Lieff Cabraser Heimann
and Bernstein, LLP, David F. Slade, Carney Bates & Pulliam, PLLC,
Hank Bates, Carney Bates & Pulliam, PLLC, Joseph Henry Bates, III ,
Carney Bates & Pulliam, PLLC, Melissa Ann Gardner, Lieff Cabraser
Heimann Bernstein, LLP, Michael W. Sobol, Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein, LLP & Nicholas Diamand, Lieff Cabraser Heimann and
Bernstein LLP.

Ashley Gennock & Randy Nunez, Plaintiffs, represented by Adam
Russell Credeur , Law Offices of Kenneth W. DeJean, Arthur Mahony
Murray, Murray Law Firm, Caroline Thomas White, Murray Law Firm,
Gary F. Lynch, Carlson Lynch Sweet & Kilpela, LLP, Karen Hanson
Riebel, Lockridge Grindal Nauen, Kate M. Baxter-Kauf , Lockridge
Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., Kelly Kathleen Iverson, Carlson Lynch Sweet
Kilpela and Carpenter LLP, Kenneth W. DeJean, Law Offices of
Kenneth W. DeJean, Todd David Carpenter, Carlson Lynch Sweet
Kilpela & Carpenter LLP & Arielle S. Wagner, Lockridge Grindal
Nauen, PLLP.

Jay Malskoff & Kenneth Irvine, Plaintiffs, represented by
Christopher L. Ayers, Seeger Weiss LLP, Caroline F. Bartlett,
Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody Agnello, Christopher A. Seeger,
Seeger Weiss LLP, pro hac vice, James E. Cecchi, Carella Byrne
Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello, P.C., Michael A. Innes, Carella,
Byrne, Cecchi, Olstein, Brody, Agnello, P.C. & Stephen A. Weiss,
Seeger Weiss LLP.

Victor James Comforte, II & Brendan Michael Carr, Plaintiffs,
represented by Joseph Scott Davidson, Sulaiman Law Group, ltd. &
James Constantine Vlahakis, Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd.

Matthew Lodowski, Carlos Gonzalez-Rivera & Raynelle Jackson,
Plaintiffs, represented by William Craft Hughes, Hughes Ellzey
LLP.

Facebook, Inc., Defendant, represented by Brian Michael Lutz --
blutz@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Carl S.
Burkhalter, MAYNARD COOPER & GALE PC, David Evan Ross, Ross
Aronstam & Moritz LLP, Evan P. Moltz, MAYNARD COOPER & GALE PC,
Joshua Seth Lipshutz -- jlipshutz@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn
and Crutcher LLP, Kristin A. Linsley, Esq., --
klinsley@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP & Orin
Snyder -- osnyder@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn and Crutcher.

SCL Group, a United Kingdom Company & Cambridge Analytica LLC,
Defendants, represented by Ashlee Nicole Lin, Milbank Tweed Hadley
& McCloy LLP & Mark Christopher Scarsi -- mscarsi@milbank.com --
Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP.

Mark Zuckerberg, Defendant, represented by Joshua Seth Lipshutz,
Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher LLP, Kristin A. Linsley, Esq., Gibson,
Dunn & Crutcher LLP & Orin Snyder, Gibson Dunn and Crutcher.


MDL 2870: Consolidation of Class Suits v. Patriot National Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------------
IN RE: PATRIOT NATIONAL, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case MDL No.
2870, Aric McIntire and Henry Wasik (Movants) move MDL Panel,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1407, for an order transferring and
centralizing for consolidated or coordinated pretrial proceedings
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida, four securities class actions, each alleging violations of
the securities laws in connection with Patriot National, Inc.
common stock.

To date, former Patriot National shareholders have filed four
actions alleging violations of the securities laws in connection
with Patriot National's publicly traded securities of behalf of
alleged classes of Patriot National investors.  The Related Actions
are pending in two districts, two cases in the Southern District of
Florida and two cases in the Southern District of New York. The
cases in the Southern District of New York have been consolidated.
The Related Actions involve some common defendants, including
Patriot National's former officers. The Related Actions also
involve common factual allegations and overlapping theories of
liability, including claims of securities fraud relating to
statements by Steven Mariano, Patriot National's former controlling
stockholder and former Chairman, President, and Chief Executive
Officer.

In addition to common questions of law, the Related Actions
"involve[e] one or more common questions of fact," 28 U.S.C.
section 1407(a), including: whether Mariano, made certain
misrepresentations, whether plaintiffs purchased Patriot National's
stock at artificially inflated prices, and whether plaintiffs'
suffered losses as a result of defendants' fraud.

Centralization of the Related Actions will promote the goals of 28
U.S.C. section 1407 by conserving judicial resources, reducing
litigation costs, preventing potentially inconsistent pretrial
rulings, eliminating duplicative discovery, and permitting the
cases to proceed more efficiently. Prompt centralization of the
Related Actions will allow the transferee court to efficiently
resolve common factual and legal issues and address any discovery
related to these issues.

Counsel for Movants:

          Nicholas I. Porritt, Esq.
          Adam M. Apton, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          55 Broadway, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 363 7500
          Facsimile: (212) 363 7171


METROPOLITAN LIFE: 9th Circuit Appeal in Martin Suit Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
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 appeal
to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in the case,
Martin v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, is still pending.

Plaintiffs filed this putative class action lawsuit on behalf of
themselves and all California persons who have been charged
compound interest by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company in life
insurance policy and/or premium loan balances within the last four
years. Plaintiffs allege that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
has engaged in a pattern and practice of charging compound interest
on life insurance policy and premium loans without the borrower
authorizing such compounding, and that this constitutes an unlawful
business practice under California law.

Plaintiffs assert causes of action for declaratory relief,
violation of California's Unfair Competition Law and Usury Law, and
unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive
relief, restitution of interest, and damages in an unspecified
amount. On April 12, 2016, the court granted Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company's motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs have appealed
this ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.

The Company intends to defend this action vigorously.

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

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: Continues to Defend Voshall Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
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 a putative class action lawsuit
entitled, Voshall v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, April 8,
2015).

Plaintiff filed this putative class action lawsuit on behalf of
himself and all persons covered under a long-term group disability
income insurance policy issued by Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company to public entities in California between April 8, 2011 and
April 8, 2015.

Plaintiff alleges that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
improperly reduced benefits by including cost of living adjustments
and employee paid contributions in the employer retirement benefits
and other income that reduces the benefit payable under such
policies.

Plaintiff asserts causes of action for declaratory relief,
violation of the California Business & Professions Code, breach of
contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing.

The Company intends to defend this action vigorously.

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

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: Faces Roycroft Class Action in New York
----------------------------------------------------------
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 has been named as defendant in a putative class action suit
entitled, Roycroft v. MetLife, Inc., et al. (S.D.N.Y., filed June
18, 2018).

Plaintiff filed this putative class action against MetLife, Inc.
and Metropolitan Life Insurance Company on behalf of all persons
due benefits under group annuity contracts and whose annuity
benefits were released from reserves. Plaintiff asserts claims for
conversion, unjust enrichment, constructive trust and accounting
based on allegations that the Company held and profited from monies
owed to beneficiaries of group annuity contracts by releasing
reserves after failing to locate the beneficiaries. Plaintiff seeks
declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as unspecified
compensatory and punitive damages, and other relief.

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.


MEWBOURNE OIL: Fails to Pay Wages to Lease Operators, Felps Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
JONATHAN FELPS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MEWBOURNE OIL COMPANY, INC. Defendant, Case
No. 2:18-cv-00811 (D.N.M., Aug. 22, 2018) is brought against the
Defendant for wage theft under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff Felps was employed by the Defendant as lease operator
from the year 2014 to October 2016.

Mewbourne Oil Company, Inc. operates as an oil and natural gas
exploration and production company in the Anadarko and Permian
Basins of Texas, Oklahoma, and New Mexico. The company was founded
in 1965 and is based in Tyler, Texas. It has exploration offices in
Amarillo and Midland, Texas; and Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. The
company also has operational offices in Perryton and Midland,
Texas; Hobbs, New Mexico; and Woodward, Oklahoma. Mewbourne Oil
Company, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Mewbourne Holdings, Inc.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

                - and -

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


MICHIGAN: Washington/MDOC Director Dismissed from ICF Inmates' Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ADE BROWN, Plaintiff, v. SABRINA DAVIS et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-812 (W.D. Mich.), Judge Paul l.
Maloney of the U.S. District Court for the Western Disitrict of
Michigan, Southern Division, (i) dismissed Defendants Washington
and Unknown Party #1 for failure to state a claim; (ii) ordered the
service of the complaint against Defendants Davis, Christiansen,
Maranka, Davids, Sandburn, Miniard, Barber, Schiebner, and Smith;
and (iii) denied the Plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel.

The Plaintiff is presently incarcerated with the Michigan
Department of Corrections ("MDOC") at the Ionia Correctional
Facility ("ICF") in Ionia, Ionia County, Michigan.  The events
about which he complains occurred at that facility.  The Plaintiff
sues MDOC Director Heidi Washington and, MDOC Director of Mental
Health (Unknown Party #1), together with the following current or
former officials at ICF: Former Warden Willie Smith; Warden John
Davids; former Deputy Warden (unknown) Schiebner; Deputy Wardens
(unknown) Sandborn and Gary Miniard; Inspector (unknown) Barber;
Assistant Warden John Christiansen; Psychologist David Maranka; and
Resident Unit Manager (RUM) Sabrina Davis.

The Plaintiff alleges that, between his arrival at ICF on March 18,
2016 and, August 2017, he was confined to administrative
segregation and housed mostly in Unit 1, A Wing.  He alleges that
throughout Unit 1, the heat and cooling ventilation system worked
properly, and the Plaintiff alleges that he was never exposed to
extreme temperatures.

He was moved to the other administrative segregation unit, Unit 2,
in July or August of 2017 where the windows were kept closed, and
the air vents (which are supposed to provide heat and fresh air)
did not work properly.  As a result, the Plaintiff became extremely
depressed.  He was supposedly released to general population in
October 2017, and he was sent to Unit 4.  He was moved to Unit 5 in
January 2018.  Currently, he is in Unit 3.  None of the three units
has a properly working ventilation system, resulting in extreme
cold in the winter and extreme heat in the summer, throughout every
unit except Unit 1.

In April 2018, Defendant Christiansen began to seal shut every
window at ICF, despite knowing about the ventilation problems.
Numerous prisoners have complained, including Plaintiff, but the
process of sealing the windows has continued.  The Plaintiff
asserts that the ventilation conditions are exacerbated by the fact
that Level-V prisoners must remain in their cells 23 to 24 hours
per day.  He also alleges that, because of the solid cell doors and
walls, no air circulation occurs without a working ventilation
system.

The Plaintiff also contends that correctional officers use large
fans in the unit to torture prisoners, creating loud and constant
noise without benefit to the prisoners, since no breezes can enter
the solid cell doors.  The Prisoners, including the Plaintiff, have
complained repeatedly to the ICF Defendants, including Davis, but
all have refused to change the practice.

The Plaintiff argues that Defendant Davis was the only RUM in the
facility and was aware of the conditions in all units, but she not
only failed to protect the Plaintiff from those conditions (and
refused to turn off the fans), she made the conditions worse by
taking away the incentive program in the rehabilitation unit.  The
Plaintiff contends that Davis, in conjunction with Miniard, Davids,
and Maranka violated the MDOC requirement that all segregation
prisoners have access to the Start Program.  He also alleges that
Smith, Christiansen, and Schiebner began the practice of denying
segregation prisoners basic hygiene items, such as deodorant,
toothbrushes, toothpaste, and shampoo, despite the fact that he
cannot buy the items and the items are available in the supply
room.  He contends that Davids, Davis, and Miniard continue the
practice.

The Plaintiff alleges that he complained to Defendants Smith,
Christiansen, Schiebner, Miniard, Maranka, Davids, Davis, and
Barber repeatedly, both in person and in writing, but no changes
were made to the ventilation system or the use of loud fans.  He
contends that Defendant Maranka had a duty under state law to
prevent segregation conditions from harming mentally ill prisoners.
He alleges that Defendant Washington is responsible for overseeing
conditions and therefore must have authorized the horrendous
conditions at ICF.

The Plaintiff contends that the various allegations constitute
violations of his Eight Amendment protection against cruel and
unusual punishment.  He also contends that the Defendants, by
preventing conversation and denying phone privileges, are denying
him his First Amendment right to freedom of speech.  In addition,
he contends that his treatment in the rehabilitation unit has been
turned into a segregation unit for all intents and purposes and
that he is being denied equal protection in relation to other
prisoners because of his mental illness.

The Plaintiff seeks to have his lawsuit designated a class action.
He seeks a variety of injunctive relief, together with compensatory
and punitive damages.

Judge Maloney finds that the Plaintiff has failed to allege that
Defendants Washington and Unknown Party #1 engaged in any active
unconstitutional behavior.  Accordingly, he fails to state a claim
against them.  Inaddition, upon initial review, he concludes that
the Plaintiff has stated at least one claim against each of the
other Defendants.  He therefore will order service on the
Defendants Davis, Christiansen, Maranka, Davids, Sandburn, Miniard,
Barber, Schiebner, and Smith.

The Plaintiff has filed a motion to appoint counsel.  The Judge
explains that appointment of counsel is a privilege that is
justified only in exceptional circumstances.  In determining
whether to exercise its discretion, the Court should consider the
complexity of the issues, the procedural posture of the case, and
the Plaintiff's apparent ability to prosecute the action without
the help of counsel. He has carefully considered these factors and
determines that, at this stage of the case, the assistance of
counsel does not appear necessary to the proper presentation of tge
Plaintiff's position.  The Plaintiff's request for appointment of
counsel will be denied.

Having conducted the review required by the Prison Litigation
Reform Act, Judge Maloney determines that Defendants Washington and
Unknown Party #1 will be dismissed for failure to state a claim,
under 28 U.S.C. Sections 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b), and 42 U.S.C.
Section 1997e(c).  He ordered the service of the complaint against
Defendants Davis, Christiansen, Maranka, Davids, Sandburn, Miniard,
Barber, Schiebner, and Smith.  He denied the Plaintiff's motion to
appoint counsel.  An Order consistent with his Opinion will be
entered.

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

Ade Brown, plaintiff, pro se.


MICRON TECHNOLOGY: D'Amore et al. Sue over DRAM Price Fixing
------------------------------------------------------------
BRITTANY D'AMORE; and JOSEPH REALDINE, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MICRON TECHNOLOGY,
INC.; MICRON SEMICONDUCTOR PRODUCTS, INC.; SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO.,
LTD.; SAMSUNG SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.; SK HYNIX, INC. F/K/A HYNIX
SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.; SK HYNIX AMERICA, INC. F/K/A HYNIX
SEMICONDUCTOR AMERICA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-05002-JCS
(N.D. Cal., Aug. 16, 2018) alleges that the Defendants combined and
contracted to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize the prices at
which the dynamic random access memory ("DRAM") was sold in the
United States from at least June 1, 2016 to February 1, 2018. The
Defendants' conspiracy artificially inflated prices for DRAM
throughout the supply chain that were ultimately passed through to
Plaintiffs and the Class, causing them to pay more for DRAM
Products than they otherwise would have absent Defendants'
conspiracy.  The lawsuit alleges violation of the Sherman Act.

Micron Technology, Inc. provides semiconductor systems worldwide.
It markets its products to original equipment manufacturers and
retailers through its internal sales force, independent sales
representatives, and distributors; and through a Web-based customer
direct sales channel, and channel and distribution partners. The
company was founded in 1978 and is headquartered in Boise, Idaho.
[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jeff D. Friedman, Esq.
          Rio S. Pierce, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Telephone: (510) 725-3000
          Facsimile: (510) 725-3001
          E-mail: jefff@hbsslaw.com
                  riop@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Simon Bahne Paris, Esq.
          Patrick Howard, Esq.
          Charles J. Kocher, Esq.
          SALTZ MONGELUZZI BARRETT
          & BENDESKY, P.C.
          One Liberty Place, 52nd Floor
          1650 Market Place
          Philadelphia, PA19103
          Telephone: (215) 575-3986
          Facsimile: (215) 496-0999
          E-mail: sparis@smbb.com
                  phoward@smbb.com
                  ckocher@smbb.com


MICROSOFT CORP: Moussouris Appeals Class Cert. Denial to 9th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Katherine Moussouris, Holly Muenchow, Dana
Piermarini on behalf of themselves and a class of those similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. Microsoft Corporation, Defendant, Case No.
2:15-cv-01483-JLR (W.D., Wash., Sept 16, 2015) was brought before
the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Sept.
21, 2018, and assigned Case No. 18-35791.

According to the case docket, the Ninth Circuit, in its discretion,
grants the Appellants' petition for permission to appeal the
district courts June 25, 2018 order denying class action
certification.

The schedule is set as follows:

   * Mediation Questionnaire due on 09/28/2018

   * Transcript ordered by 10/22/2018

   * Transcript due 11/19/2018

   * Appellants Katherine Moussouris, Holly Muenchow and Dana
Piermarini opening brief due 12/31/2018

   * Appellee Microsoft Corporation answering brief due 01/31/2019


   * Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief

Microsoft Corporation is an American multinational technology
company with headquarters in Redmond, Washington. It develops,
manufactures, licenses, supports and sells computer software,
consumer electronics, personal computers, and related services. Its
best known software products are the Microsoft Windows line of
operating systems, the Microsoft Office suite, and the Internet
Explorer and Edge web browsers. Its flagship hardware products are
the Xbox video game consoles and the Microsoft Surface lineup of
touchscreen personal computers.

Plaintiffs-Appellants Katherine Moussouris, Holly Muenchow and Dana
Piermarini are represented by:

     Kelly M. Dermody, Esq.
     Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
     275 Battery Street
     29th Floor
     San Francisco, CA 94111
     Personal: 415-956-1000

          - and -

     Rachel Jenny Geman, I, Esq., Attorney General
     Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
     250 Hudson Street
     New York, NY 10013
     Personal: 212-355-9500

          - and -

     Adam T. Klein. Esq.
     Outten & Golden LLP
     685 Third Avenue
     25th Floor
     New York, NY 10017
     Personal: 212-245-1000

          - and -

     Anne Shaver, Esq.
     Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
     275 Battery Street
     29th Floor
     San Francisco, CA 94111
     Personal: 415-956-1000

          - and -

     Michael Craig Subit, Esq.
     Frank Freed Subit & Thomas LLP
     705 Second Avenue, Suite 1200
     Seattle, WA 98104
     Personal: 206-682-6711

Defendant MICROSOFT CORPORATION is represented by:

     Kelsi Brown Corkran, Esq.
     Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
     1152 15th Street, N.W.
     Washington, DC 20005-1706
     Business: 202-339-8400
     Personal: 202-339-8536

         - and -

     Lynne C. Hermle, Esq.
     Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP
     1000 Marsh Road
     Menlo Park, CA 94025-1015
     Personal: 650-614-7400

         - and -

     Joseph C. Liburt, Esq. Attorney
     Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP
     1000 Marsh Road
     Menlo Park, CA 94025-1015
     Personal: 650-614-7400

         - and -

     Mark Parris, Esq.
     Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
     701 Fifth Avenue
     Seattle, WA 98104-7097
     Personal: 206-839-4320

         - and -

     Jessica R. Perry, Esq.
     Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP
     1000 Marsh Road
     Menlo Park, CA 94025-1015
     Personal: 650-614-7400

         - and -

     E. Joshua Rosenkranz, Esq.
     Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
     51 West 52nd Street
     New York, NY 10019-6142
     Personal: 212-506-5380

         - and -

     Marc Shapiro, Esq.
     Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
     51 West 52nd Street
     New York, NY 10019-6142
     Personal: 212-506-3521

         - and -

     Randall Clayton Smith, Esq.
     Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
     1152 15th Street, N.W.
     Washington, DC 20005-1706
     Business: 202-339-8400
     Personal: 202-339-8400


MIDLAND CREDIT: California Court Won't Dismiss FDCPA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
California issued an Order denying Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
the case captioned SKY D. SHADOW, Plaintiff, v. MIDLAND CREDIT
MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendant. Case No. 3:17-cv-02277-L-BLM. (S.D.
Cal.).

Defendant Midland Credit Management, Inc. (MCM) filed a motion to
dismiss for failure to state a claim.

The Plaintiff filed the pending action alleging the Letter violated
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and the Rosenthal
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (Rosenthal Act).

A motion under Rule 12(b)(6) tests the sufficiency of the
complaint. Dismissal is warranted where the complaint lacks a
cognizable legal theory. Alternatively, a complaint may be
dismissed where it presents a cognizable legal theory, yet fails to
plead essential facts under that theory.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Letter was misleading, confusing,
deceptive and unfair  because it attempted to enforce a time-barred
debt in violation of the FDCPA, as well as the Rosenthal Act, which
incorporates these provisions by reference, Cal. Civ. Code Section
1788.17. Furthermore, the Letter encouraged her to pay the debt
without disclosing that by making even a single partial payment the
statute of limitations would potentially be revived which would
allow Defendant another four years to sue her for the entire
balance.

In analyzing whether a consumer would be misled under 15 U.S.C.
Sections 1692e and 1692f, the Court applies the least sophisticated
consumer standard. The standard is lower than simply examining
whether particular language would deceive or mislead a reasonable
debtor.

MCM argues that the letter is not misleading because a partial
payment cannot revive a time-barred debt. The parties agree that
this legal issue is governed by California Code of Civil Procedure
Section 360. As relevant here, section 360 provides that a part
payment is deemed to be a sufficient acknowledgment of a
`continuing contract' to take the case out of the statute of
limitations.

Plaintiff does not dispute that a written acknowledgment is
required. She argues the Letter was misleading because it
encouraged her to make a payment on a time-barred debt. In
addition, in accepting one of the discount offers, she could
unwittingly re-start the statute of limitations.

Although partial payment of a time-barred debt does not necessarily
revive it, it may, provided there is a written acknowledgment. It
is not clear from the Letter, as drafted by Defendant, if a written
acknowledgment would be required for the debtor to take advantage
of the discounts.

MCM's argument that the complaint should be dismissed because the
debt could not be revived is rejected.

MCM also argues that the complaint should be dismissed because it
is not obligated and cannot give legal advice to debtors on the
potential ramifications of their various possible responses to the
Letter. Accepting at face value MCM's contention that it is not
obligated to provide legal advice, the argument is rejected. The
implication of Plaintiff's claims is not that MCM must provide
legal advice, but merely that it must comply with the law by not
misleading consumers.

Because the Plaintiff's FDCPA claims survive MCM's motion, so do
her wholly derivative Rosenthal Act claims.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 13, 2018 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y86g7g7f from Leagle.com.

Sky D. Shadow, an Individual on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Todd M. Friedman --
tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com -- Law Offices of Todd M.
Friedman, P.C.

Midland Credit Management, Inc., Defendant, represented by Mei-Ying
M. Imanaka -- mimanaka@swsslaw.com -- Solomon Ward Seidenwurm &
Smith, LLP & Thomas F. Landers -- tlanders@swsslaw.com -- Solomon
Ward Seidenwurm & Smith, LLP.


MISSION CONSTRUCTORS: Fails to Pay Wages, Hernandez Says
--------------------------------------------------------
JOSE LUIS HERNANDEZ, Individually and on Behalf of All Other
Similarly Situated Employees of Defendants, the Plaintiff, v.
MISSION CONSTRUCTORS, INC.; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the
Defendant, Case No. CGC-18-569727 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sept. 14,
2018), seeks to recover actual and/or compensatory damages, civil
penalties, restitution, equitable relief, costs and expenses of
litigation, including attorneys' fees, and all additional and
further relief that may be available and that the Court may deem
under the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiffs are current and former laborers and other
construction workers who were improperly required to forego meal
and rest breaks while in the employ of Defendants, and, as a
result, were improperly paid while in the employ of the Defendants.
This included the wrongful denial of compensation for meal periods
and rest breaks. The Plaintiffs allege that, during the course of
Plaintiff Hernandez's employment by Defendants, he and the Class
were not provided with legally required thirty-minute meal breaks
or ten-minute rest breaks and instead were required to work through
their meal and rest breaks without receiving premium compensation.
Defendants also told Plaintiffs that, in order to get paid for
their work, Plaintiffs had to falsely state on their timecards that
they took 30-minute meal periods when, in reality, they were not
provided meal periods. Not only did Defendants deny Plaintiffs the
opportunity to take breaks, Defendants also failed to provide
Plaintiffs with portable bathrooms and washing facilities. The
Plaintiffs had to walk significant distances to restaurants or gas
stations to use a toilet and washing facilities.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert S. Arns, Esq.
          Jonathan E. Davis, Esq.
          Kevin M. Osborne, Esq.
          Julie C. Erickson, Esq.
          THE ARNS LAW FIRM
          515 Folsom St., 3rd Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94109
          Telephone: (415) 495 7800
          Facsimile: (415) 495 7888
          E-mail: rsa@amslaw.com
                  jed@am.slaw.com
                  kmo@amslaw.com
                  jce@amslaw.com


MISSOURI: Class Action Mulled Over Inhumane Prison Conditions
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Kansas City Star reports that a Missouri statute allows members
of the General Assembly to visit state-run prisons at any time. The
law overrides a directive issued by Missouri Department of
Corrections Director Anne Precythe to Ronda Pash, warden at
Crossroads Correctional Center, to deny entry to the prison.

But the recent refusal to allow state Rep. Brandon Ellington, a
Kansas City Democrat, to check on prisoners housed at the
correctional facility in Cameron could be the least of the state's
concerns if a class-action lawsuit determines prison officials are
subjecting inmates to inhumane conditions.

Inmates' complaints about health and sanitary conditions, food
service, reduced visitation times, recreation time out of cells and
other concerns have largely been ignored.

A riot broke out in May at Crossroads. The prison has been on some
level of lockdown since.

Although prison officials say many services are slowly returning to
Crossroads, inmates insist in dozens of letters to Ellington that
basic necessities remain unavailable.

"If people aren't concerned about inmates, they should at least be
concerned about their tax dollars," Rep. Ellington said.

Henry Service and Arimeta Dupree, two Kansas City attorneys, plan
to file a class-action lawsuit on behalf of inmates in Missouri
claiming inhumane treatment and constitutional violations, among
other things.

If the state won't allow access to prisons, then maybe a lawsuit
will get their attention, Service said.

"We, as a society, have to decide what we want to be," he said.

Ms. Dupree said the U.S. and Missouri constitutions, as well as
state statutes protect inmates from being subjected to such
treatment.

"Prisoners or not, this is a human rights issue," she said.

Ms. Dupree makes a valid point. It's illegal to deprive inmates of
nutritious meals and expose them to diseases such as MRSA, a
dangerous bacterial infection, as some prisoners have claimed.

"We do not lock people up in disease-ridden environments," Service
said.

Rep. Ellington was denied entry to the prison to meet with inmates
about their concerns, which also include a lack of access to the
prison's law library.

He filed a formal complaint with the governor's officer over the
denial, telling The Star that the department's reasoning for
preventing the visit was suspect.

"Now, not only do I have concerns about taxpayer dollars . . .
(and) about the people who are confined to this facility, I now
have concerns about the warden breaking state statute and state
law," Rep. Ellington said.

Inmates are human beings. They deserve basic protections. As Rep.
Ellington points out, not everyone in a correctional facility is a
lifelong criminal. And all prisoners have rights.

Taxpayers in Missouri need to know if prison officials are
subjecting inmates to cruel and unusual punishment. More
transparency and accountability are the only way to reassure the
public that state officials are upholding the law.

That starts with Precythe, Pash and other wardens across the state.
They simply cannot be in charge of correctional facilities if they
don't follow the law. [GN]


MONDA WINDOW: Court Dismisses Individual Defendants in FLSA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York issued a Memorandum and Order granting in part and denying in
part Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case captioned JIAN PING
LIN, Plaintiff, v. MONDA WINDOW & DOOR SYSTEMS, INC., MONDA WINDOW
& DOOR, CORP., MONDA WINDOW & DOOR, MFG. LTD., WONDA LLC, RIBIAO
WANG, DENIS WANG, MIN OUYANG, DANCY LIN, and ELIAS ABUBEKER,
Defendants. No. 17-CV-3737 (MKB) (RER). (E.D.N.Y.).

Defendants MWDS, Wonda LLC, and Dancy Lin moved to dismiss the
Plaintiff's claims against them pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Plaintiff commenced the above-captioned putative class action
against the Defendants asserting claims under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, New York Labor Law, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law
and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act alleging, inter
alia, non-payment of minimum wage and overtime.  

A district court reviewing a magistrate judge's recommended ruling
may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge. Failure to object to
a magistrate judge's report and recommendation within the
prescribed time limit 'may operate as a waiver of any further
judicial review of the decision,' as long as the parties receive
clear notice of the consequences of their failure to object.

The Court grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss with respect to
the Plaintiff's claims against Dancy Lin and the New York Labor Law
claims against all Defendants. The Court denies the Defendants'
motion to dismiss MWDS and Wonda as the Defendants in this action.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 13, 2018
Memorandum and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7d9ywcy
from Leagle.com.

Jian Ping Lin, Plaintiff, represented by John Troy, Troy &
Associates, PLLC.

Monda Window & Door Systems, Inc., doing business as, Wonda LLC,
doing business as, Monda Window & Door & Dancy Lin, Defendants,
represented by Richard A. Chen, LAW OFFFICES OF RICHARD ALAN CHEN,
ESQ.


NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Court Issues Confidentiality Order in Abante
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Edward M. Chen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Francisco Division, has entered the
parties' Agreed Confidentiality Order in the case, ABANTE ROOTER
AND PLUMBING INC., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE
COMPANY; AMIN EMPIRE, INC. D/B/A EXCLUSIVE CALLS; and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-CV-03328-EMC (N.D.
Cal.).

The Order is entered based on the representations and agreements of
the parties and for the purpose of facilitating discovery.  All
materials produced or adduced in the course of discovery, including
initial disclosures, responses to discovery requests, deposition
testimony and exhibits, and information derived directly therefrom,
will be subject to the Order concerning Confidential Information.

As used in the Order, "Confidential Information" means information
designated as "Confidential-Subject to Protective Order" or
Confidential -- Attorney's Eyes Only by the producing party that
falls within one or more of the following categories: (a)
information prohibited from disclosure by statute; (b) information
that reveals trade secrets; (c) research, technical, commercial or
financial information that the party has maintained as
confidential; (d) medical information concerning any individual;
(e) personal identity information; (f) income tax returns
(including attached schedules and forms), W-2 forms and 1099 forms;
(g) personnel or employment records of a person who is not a party
to the case.

A party challenging the designation of Confidential Information
must do so in good faith and must begin the process by conferring
directly with counsel for the designating party.  The designating
party must respond to the challenge within five business days.

Within 63 days after dismissal or entry of final judgment not
subject to further appeal, all Confidential Information and
documents marked "Confidential-Subject to Protective Order" or
Confidential -- Attorney's Eyes under the Order, will be returned
to the producing party unless the document has been offered into
evidence or filed without restriction as to disclosure.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 17, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/xWPgV9 from Leagle.com.

Abante Rooter and Plumbing Inc, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas Edward
Wheeler, Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C., Adrian R. Bacon,
Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C., Meghan Elisabeth George, Law
Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C. & Todd Michael Friedman, Law
Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C.

Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Sonia Renee Martin -- sonia.martin@dentons.com -- Dentons US LLP &
Tamar Gabriel Ellyin -- gabrielt@cmtlaw.com  -- Carlson & Messer
LLP.

Amin Empire, Inc., Defendant, represented by Alex Augustine Wade --
wadea@cmtlaw.com -- Carlson and Messer LLP & Tamar Gabriel Ellyin,
Carlson & Messer LLP.


NCAA:: College Athletes Challenge Compensation Limit
----------------------------------------------------
Rachel Bachman, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that
college athletes mounted their latest and strongest charge against
the idea that they are amateurs as they began a court challenge on
Sept. 4 of the NCAA's power to limit their compensation in a
multibillion-dollar industry.

Former athletes in Division I men's and women's basketball and
top-division football are seeking to end the NCAA's cap on what
they may receive for participating in college sports: generally,
little more than tuition, room and board.

The plaintiffs in "In Re: National Collegiate Athletic Association
Athletic Grant-in-Aid Cap Antitrust Litigation" say the NCAA's
rules violate U.S. antitrust laws by artificially depressing
athletes' compensation. Previous litigation by athletes sought to
stop the NCAA from profiting from their name, image or likeness
without sharing the proceeds, but in this case they're seeking to
change the basic relationship between college sports leaders and
participants.

The NCAA says compensation limits are necessary to maintain the
distinction between college and professional sports, and that
letting schools pay athletes unlimited sums would erode college
sports' appeal to the public. NCAA officials say athletic
scholarships and the chance to earn a college degree -- in many
cases worth a few hundred thousand dollars -- are ample
compensation for what they say is an amateur pursuit.

"What sets college sports apart is that the competitors are
students and not paid professionals," NCAA lawyers wrote in their
prepared opening remarks, released ahead of the Sept. 4 trial
start. They warn that a "competition between athletes recruited and
paid based on the value of their performance, on one hand, and
athletes who compete just as part of their student experience and a
way to maintain it, would readily degenerate into an uninteresting
and potentially dangerous mismatch."

The class-action case will be decided in a bench trial in U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California in Oakland,
and is expected to last several weeks. A ruling is expected weeks
or months later.

College sports' annual revenues have skyrocketed in recent decades,
boosted by escalating fees paid by TV networks to broadcast games.
The NCAA earned more than $1 billion in revenue last year, mostly
from the men's basketball tournament. Its associated athletic
conferences together earned billions more, largely through
broadcast-rights fees for football games.

In their prepared opening remarks, plaintiffs' lawyers wrote that
"the schools compete against one another without limitation to
attract top coaches and trainers and administrators, to construct
the largest stadia and the most lavish suites, and to secure the
most lucrative broadcast and sponsorship and licensing agreements.
In the multibillion-dollar business of D-I basketball and FBS
football, competition is stifled only -- and entirely --when it
comes to compensating athletes for their services."

The current case will be decided by Judge Claudia Wilken, who four
years ago ruled for NCAA athletes in a similar but more limited
antitrust case. That case, headlined by former UCLA basketball star
Ed O'Bannon, was sparked by an NCAA-licensed videogame that
featured animated likenesses that mimicked actual college athletes
without compensating the players.

Judge Wilken's ruling in O'Bannon resulted in schools being allowed
to award the full cost of college attendance to athletes. Some
schools began giving athletes stipends, generally worth a few
thousand dollars, above their scholarships to pay expenses that
scholarships didn't cover, such as laundry or transportation.

The O'Bannon case set a precedent favorable to future plaintiffs in
that it ruled that the NCAA violated antitrust laws. Yet the
decision also largely preserved the current college-sports model so
the NCAA also claims it as a kind of victory.

"As was demonstrated in the O'Bannon case, the NCAA will show that
our rules are essential to providing educational opportunities to
hundreds of thousands of student-athletes across the country,"
Donald Remy, chief legal officer of the NCAA, said in a statement.
"Allowing paid professionals to replace student-athletes on college
campuses would change the face of college sports as we know it."

Skeptics -- or realists -- point out that a shadow market already
exists for college athletes' services. A criminal case working its
way through U.S. federal court alleges that shoe-company
representatives and others connected to college sports arranged
kickbacks and bribes to induce high school recruits to sign with
certain schools.

A win by the plaintiffs in this case could bring bidding for
players into the light. [GN]


NEW RAMS DELI: Alvarado Files FLSA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against New Rams Deli Plus
Inc. et al. The case is styled as Juan Carlos Alvarado, Alberto
Tetlamatzi, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. New Rams Deli Plus Inc. doing business as:
New Ram's Deli Plus, Rams Deli Plus Inc. doing business as: New
Ram's Deli Plus, Waleed M. Salem, Anice Salem also known as: Alli,
Mahedi Awua, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-08650 (S.D. N.Y., Sept.
21, 2018).

The Plaintiffs file the case under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

New Rams Deli Plus Inc. is a restaurant located at 574 E Fordham
Rd, West Bronx, NY 10458, United States, Belmont.

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.


NEW YORK: Police Officers File Class Action Over Quotas
-------------------------------------------------------
Now This reports that a group of cops called The NYPD 12 exposed
injustice in America's largest police department -- and they're
still advocating for change in policing.

The group of 12 officers of color in the New York City Police
Department filed a class-action suit against the NYPD in 2015,
claiming arrest quotas are still unofficially enforced despite
being banned.

Many of the officers say they became cops because of the racism
they saw or experienced.

"When you witness your partner speak about people of color and
refer to them as savages, refer to them as animals. When you see
they don't care. When you hear them say, 'Hey, this is America,
speak English.' I have to interrupt and say I got this. Then I
speak to them in their language," said Officer Pedro Serrano.

The officers say they were retaliated against for not meeting high
summons and arrest goals. Their story is told in a documentary
called "Crime + Punishment" by Stephen Maing, released in theaters
and on Hulu.

"The quotas are mainly in areas that are considered higher crime
areas which are also areas that predominantly minorities live,"
explained Sergeant Edwin Raymond. "This is the paragon of systemic
racism."

The NYPD 12 officers hope that by opening up in the documentary,
they'll inspire new conversations about changing policing and pave
the way for change in the future. [GN]


NFL: NFLPA Seeks Dismissal of Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Adam Lidgett, writing for Law360, reports that the National
Football League Players Association and others have urged a New
York federal judge to toss a former player's proposed Employee
Retirement Income Security Act class action. [GN]


NIEMELA REALTY: Swan Sues over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
JASON SWAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. NIEMELA REALTY & ASSOCIATES, LLC, a
Florida Limited Liability Company, the Defendant, Case No.
9:18-cv-81243-WPD (S.D. Fla., Sept. 14, 2018), alleges that
Defendant knowingly and willfully violated the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, by making unsolicited prerecorded telemarketing
calls in violation of consumers' privacy rights.

According to the complaint, the Defendant, a Florida Real Estate
Agency, knew that it was prohibited by the TCPA from contacting
consumers on their cellular telephones with prerecorded calls,
without their prior express consent. Nevertheless, in a failed
attempt to circumvent the TCPA, the Defendant did just that by
utilizing "ringless" voicemail technology to place calls to
Plaintiff and members of the Class to promote its products and
services. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to hold the
Defendant accountable for its flagrant violations of the TCPA, and
for willfully and knowingly violating the privacy of hundreds or
thousands of consumers. The Plaintiff, for himself and a Class of
similarly situated individuals, seeks injunctive relief to halt the
Defendant's unlawful conduct. Plaintiff also seeks statutory
damages on behalf of himself and members of the Class, and any
other legal or equitable remedies to redress Defendant's violations
of the TCPA.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and all others similarly situated:

          Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
          14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 400
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone (305) 479 2299
          Facsimile (786) 623 0915
          E-mail: efilings@shamisgentile.com

               - and -

          Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW, PA
          19495 Biscayne Blvd No. 607
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: 305-975-3320
          E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com


NXIVM: Seagram Heiress Faces Class Action Over Fraudulent Scheme
----------------------------------------------------------------
Emily Saul, writing for New York Post, reports that two former
students of accused sex cult leader Keith Raniere are suing an
alleged Seagram's heiress disciple and she's not
Clare Bronfman.

Ms. Bronfman's sister, Sara Bronfman-Igtet, is instead the target
of the Brooklyn Supreme Court class-action suit, which claims that
she "ensnared" Isabella Martinez, Gabrielle Leal and others in "a
fraudulent scheme nationwide" as part of Mr. Raniere's cult,
Nxivm.

Clare has already been charged with federal conspiracy raps
involving Nxivm. The feds allege that Bronfman provided hefty
financial backing for Mr. Raniere's alleged sick sex network while
conspiring to commit identify fraud, among other things.

The sisters are the daughters of late billionaire Seagrams CEO
Edgar Bronfman.

The new suit claims Ms. Bronfman-Igtet "uniformly misled Plaintiffs
and the Class that they would participate in classes that were
equivalent to a 'practical MBA' to achieve success in business and
in life.

"Part of the fraud committed to induce the purchase from ESP, was
the claim that the program was developed by the 'one of the World's
Smartest Men' – Keith Raniere," the papers say.

ESP stands for "Executive Success Program," the name of the series
of workshops offered by Mr. Raniere as part of Nxivm's teachings.

Ms. Bronfman-Igtet lured in program patsies by touting Mr.
Raniere's own repeated proclamations that he "1) was one of the
World's Smartest Men; 2) began talking in complete sentences by age
one; 3) was an East Coast Judo Champion at age twelve; 4) tied the
New York State record for the 100-yard dash in High School; and 5)
had a very rare problem-solving ability that allowed him to create
a curriculum to assist others with their business projects," the
suit says.

Ms. Bronfman-Igtet failed to mention that Mr. Raniere has been sued
by the New York state Attorney General's Office for a prior
business venture, which was deemed an illegal multilevel marketing
business and for which he was fined, the suit says.

"He is not one of the world's smartest men, he is not a judo
champion," said the plaintiffs' lawyer, Omar Rosales.

"It's all a lie, it's all a scam."

Mr. Rosales said he even took an ESP course himself in 2009 "and
met Allison Mack, and it was very benign. Talk about the banality
of evil."

The lawsuit says the Nxivm courses were simply a scheme meant to
"defraud students out of millions of dollars with classes that had
no end, no graduation, no certification, and no credential.

"Moreover, the student-victims' tuition was used to fund a criminal
enterprise run by Defendant and her indicted co-conspirators," the
suit says.

Martinez and Leal say they separately shelled out $2,400 for a
five-day intensive set of Nxivm classes in San Francisco in 2016 --
but never would have done so had Ms. Bronfman-Igtet not lied to
them.

Ms. Bronfman-Igtet has not been charged in the criminal case
involving her sister, Mr. Raniere and a host of others, including
"Smallville" TV actress Mack, who face charges from money
laundering to sex trafficking and kidnapping.

Ms. Bronfman-Igtet helped secure her sister's release pending trial
on a whopping $100 million bond.

Ms. Bronfman-Igtet, who lives in France, could not immediately be
reached. [GN]


OS RESTAURANT SERVICES: Fails to Pay Wages, Briggs III Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
LLOYD T. BRIGGS III, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OS RESTAURANT SERVICES, LLC;
BLOOMIN' BRANDS, INC.; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. BC719069 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Aug.
22, 2018) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay
minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and
rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse
necessary business expenses.

The Plaintiff Briggs III was employed by the Defendants as
non-exempt employee at the restaurants in California.

OS Restaurant Services, LLC is a limited liability company
organized under the State of Florida. The company is engaged in the
restaurant business. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Allen Felahy, Esq.
          FELAHY EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS
          550 South Hope Street, Suite 2655
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (323) 645-5197
          Facsimile: (323) 645-5198
          E-mail: afelahy@felahylaw.com

               - and –

          Yashdeep Singh, Esq.
          YASH LAW GROUP
          550 South Hope Street, Suite 2655
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (714) 494-6244
          Facsimile: (714) 406-2722
          E-mail: ysingh@yashlaw.com


PACIFIC CAPITAL: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Knapp Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
RAYMOND KNAPP, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff vs. PACIFIC CAPITAL FINANCE, LLC; DOES 1
through 10, Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-05137-KAW (N.D Cal., Aug.
22, 2018) seeks damages and any other available legal or equitable
remedies resulting from the illegal actions of the Defendant, in
negligently, knowingly, and willfully contacting the Plaintiff via
"telephone facsimile machine" in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

Pacific Capital Finance, LLC offers equipment leasing and small
business loans. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PAPER FACTORY: Face Juscinska Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Paper Factory Hotel,
LLC. The lawsuit is captioned as Natalia Juscinska, on behalf of
herself and all other similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Paper
Factory Hotel, LLC, a New York limited liability company, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-08201-ALC (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 10, 2018).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr.[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


PHIA GROUP: Court Narrows Claims in Weyant GBL Suit
---------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York issued an Opinion and Order granting in part and denying in
part Defendant's Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned JESSICA
WEYANT, Plaintiff, v. THE PHIA GROUP LLP, et al., Defendants. No.
17 Civ. 8230 (LGS). (S.D.N.Y.).

Plaintiff Jessica Weyant brings this putative class action against
Defendants Phia Group, LLC (Phia) and INDECS Corporation (INDECS)
on behalf of herself and those similarly situated, alleging
violations of New York General Obligations Law (GOL), the terms of
a health benefits plan, the duty of good faith and fair dealing,
New York General Business Law (GBL).

The Defendants' motion to dismiss as to Counts I, as to violations
of GOL Section 5-335), II, IV and VI is granted, and the
Defendants' motion for summary judgment on Counts I, as to
violations of the Plan and III is granted.  The Defendants' motion
to dismiss the conversion claim in Count VII is denied.  The
Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is denied as moot.

The Complaint alleges a sufficient claim that the Plan, and thus
the Defendants as the Plan's agents, violated GOL Section 5-335
because the Plan is an insurer as defined in the statute.

GOL Section 5-101 defines insurer as any insurance company or other
entity which provides for payment or reimbursement of health care
expenses or any other benefits under a policy of insurance or an
insurance contract.

The legislative history also supports the conclusion that the Plan,
a self-funded municipal health benefits plan, is an insurer under
GOL Section 5-101. When section 5-335 was enacted in 2009, it
eliminated an asymmetry between jury verdicts and settlements that
tended to discourage the settlement of personal injury lawsuits. In
particular, jury awards could not include medical expenses even
though insurers could seek a refund of medical expenses included in
a settlement.

Thus, tortfeasors would be unlikely to include medical expenses in
settlement offers as these would not be included in awards at
trial, and yet insurers could use subrogation to extract from tort
settlements medical expenses that they had covered.GOL Section
5-335 fixed this issue by providing that a personal injury
settlement presumptively does not include any compensation for the
cost of health care services' or other losses that are obligated to
be paid or reimbursed by a benefit provider and that benefit
providers have no right of subrogation or reimbursement against any
such settling party.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 13, 2018 Opinion
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ybn6pesw from
Leagle.com.

Jessica Weyant, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Charles Thomas Kannebecker, Law
Office of Charles Kannebecker.

The Phia Group LLC & INDECS Corporation, Defendants, represented by
Ryan L. Woody , Matthiesen Wickert & Lehrer, S.C. & Thomas John
Luz, Karaahmet Luz & Greenberg, L.L.P.


PHOENIX FOOTWEAR: Website Not Accessible, Kiler Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
MARION KILER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PHOENIX FOOTWEAR GROUP, INC. d/b/a Trotters,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-04791-NGG-JO (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 23, 2018)
is an action against the Defendant for failure to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons.

According to the complaint, Trotters.com provides to the public a
wide array of the goods, services, price specials, employment
opportunities and other programs offered by Trotters. However,
Trotters.com contains thousands of access barriers that make it
difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired
customers to use the website. The access barriers make it
impossible for blind and visually-impaired users to even complete a
transaction on the website.

Phoenix Footwear Group, Inc. designs, develops, markets, and sells
women’s footwear primarily in the United States. The company
offers its products under the Trotters and SoftWalk brand names. It
distributes its products through department stores, specialty and
independent retail stores, mail order catalogues, and Internet
retailers, as well as directly to consumers through
SoftWalkshoes.com and trotters.com Websites. Phoenix Footwear
Group, Inc. was founded in 1882 and is headquartered in Carlsbad,
California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PLANTLAB LLC: Culinary School Misleads Students, Dilallo Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
KHRISTINA DILALLO, as an Individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, STEEVIMCNEELY, as an Individual and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PLANTLAB, LLC,
a California Limited Liability Company; PLANTLAB CULINARY CA, LLC,
a California Limited Liability Company; PLANTLAB WELLNESS, LLC, a
California Limited Liability Company; ADAM REED ZUCKER, an
individual; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No.
BC721304 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sept. 10, 2018), alleges that Zucker and
his so called "international culinary academy" known as PLANTLAB
lured Plaintiff(s) and hundreds of other similarly situated student
victims into spending tens of thousands of dollars in "tuition" to
be "certified" in the "art" of plant-based cuisine.  However, the
gap that exists between the "award-winning academy" that Plantlab
claims to be, and what it actually is -- a ghost entity that became
a vehicle to collect tuition and give nothing back -- is
significant.  What Plaintiffs and the Class of unsuspecting victims
got in return for their investment was unkept promises, cancelled
classes, unqualified anchor absent instructors and a complete loss
of their tuition with nothing to show for it.  Meanwhile,
Defendants profited handsomely and continued to promote PLANTLAB as
an international "academy" that caters to health-conscious people
throughout the United States, Mexico, Canada and Europe.

The lawsuit contends that Defendants were deceptively representing
and advertising their capabilities and engaging in outright theft
by collecting millions in tuition dollars without the means or the
intention of fulfilling their pie-in-the-sky promises. Countless
student-victims quit their jobs, left their homes and coughed up
serious tuition money to attend Plantlab's "certification" program,
only to arrive in Los Angeles and find that Plantlab is no longer
operating and that its owner, Zucker, is facing criminal
prosecution. It was recently reported that the California
Department of Consumer Affairs initiated an investigation into
Plantlab for operating as an unaccredited academic institution.
Despite this, Defendants continue to promote their "courses" and
"certification programs" on their website in the interim.

The lawsuit asks the Court to enjoin Defendants from continuing to
falsely market and advertise, conceal material information from the
public, and commit unlawful and unfair business acts and practices;
order Defendants to engage in a corrective notice campaign, and
require Defendants to refund to Plaintiffs and all Class Members
the funds paid.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Proposed Class:

          Maurice D. Pessah, Esq.
          Jasmin K. Gill, Esq.
          PESSAH LAW GROUP, PC
          1801 Century Park East, 26lh Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Tel: (310) 772 2261
          E-mail: maurice@pessahgroup.com
                  jgill@pessahgroup.com


PLASTIC EXPRESS: Underpays Truck Drivers, Flores Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
DENIS FLORES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PLASTIC EXPRESS, and DOES 1-50, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. BC719071 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Aug.
22, 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. Flores was employed by the Defendants as truck driver from June
2016 to April 2018.

Plastic Express was founded in 1970. The company's line of business
includes providing local trucking with storage services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shani O. Zakay, Esq.
          ZAKAY LAW GROUP, APLC
          5850 Oberlin Drive, Suite 230A
          San Diego, CA 92121
          Telephone: (619) 892-7095
          Facsimile: (858) 404-9203

               - and –

          Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
          Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq.
          Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq.
          BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK
          DE BLOUW LLP
          2255 Calle Clara
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (858) 551-1223
          Facsimile: (858) 551-1232


PREMIER COURIER: $600K Settlement in Wright Has Final Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, Brandon Wright, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Premier
Courier, Inc., et al., Defendants. Brian Lumley, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. Premier Courier, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case Nos.
2:16-cv-420, 2:17-cv-654 (S.D. Ohio), Judge Micahel H. Watson of
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern
Division, granted final approval of the parties' Settlement and
Release Agreement, and entered the final judgment.

Wright filed a class and collective action complaint against the
Defendant, an amended complaint, and a second amended complaint on
May 18, 2017.  Lumley joined the Action by filing a Consent Form on
May 17, 2017.  The Plaintiffs alleged that they and other drivers
should have been paid as hourly employees by Premier Courier, Inc.
and are owed overtime compensation as well as minimum wages.  The
Defendants deny the Plaintiffs' claims and asserted affirmative
defenses.

A related case, filed by Lumley on July 27, 2017, alleged that the
Defendants had transferred assets in violation of the Ohio
Fraudulent Transfer Act.  The Defendants deny those allegations as
well.

On July 10, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for conditional and
class certification, seeking conditional certification of Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") claims pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section
216(b) and class certification of state-law claims under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23.  The motion was opposed by the
Defendants and extensively briefed by the parties.

Negotiations leading to the proposed settlement were protracted and
difficult.  The mediation with Stephen A. Watring on Feb. 10, 2017
was unsuccessful.  Subsequently the Parties exchanged settlement
proposals to narrow their positions, and that effort resulted in a
second mediation with the assistance of the Court.  After
additional and prolonged negotiations, the Settlement was
achieved.

On Oct. 31, 2017, the parties filed their joint motion for
settlement approval.  On Jan. 8, 2018, the Court found that the
proposed settlement satisfied the standard for approval of a FLSA
collective action under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b).  It also
certified the class defined as all persons who performed services
under an Independent Contractor Agreement with Premier at any point
from Aug. 8, 2013 to the Preliminary Approval Date.

The Settlement resolves three types of disputed claims between the
parties.  First, the Settlement resolves FLSA claims of the named
Plaintiffs and similarly-situated employees who opted into the case
pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b).  Second, the Settlement
resolves state-law wage-and-hour claims of the named Plaintiffs and
all members of the proposed Settlement Class pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e).  Third, the Settlement resolves
other claims of the Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class including
those arising under the Ohio Fraudulent Transfer Act, which were
asserted in the separate Lumley case.

The Settlement total is $600,000, before attorney fees and costs.
The settlement makes individual settlement payments available to
the Plaintiffs, Opt-Ins, and Settlement Class Members representing
a substantial percentage of their claimed damages.  The parties'
proposed method of allocating the net settlement amount is to award
one-half to the Plaintiffs and Opt-Ins and one-half to Settlement
Class Members, then distributing those sums based on the
participants' respective weeks of service to Defendant Premier
during the relevant timeframe.

The Plaintiffs retained Dahl Administration, LLC, to be the
Settlement Administrator.  Dahl was responsible for providing
Notice to the Class Members and the potential Opt-in Plaintiffs.
As of June 13, 2018, the Settlement Administrator averred that Dahl
had not received any requests for exclusion from the Settlement
Class or any objections from the Class Members.
Judge Watson granted the joint motion for final settlement approval
and attorney's fees.  He approved the Settlement and ordered that
it be implemented according to its terms and conditions and the
Order.  

The Judge approved the Table of Individual Payments and ordered
that such payments be distributed in the manner, and subject to the
terms and conditions, set forth in the Settlement Agreement.  He
approved the proposed service awards to Wright and Lumley, in the
amount of $5,000 each, and ordered that such payments be made in
the manner, and subject to the terms and conditions, set forth in
the Settlement Agreement.

The Judge also approved the payment to the Plaintiffs' counsel of
attorney's fees in the amount of $200,000, expense reimbursements
in the amount of $12,343, and costs of administration in the amount
of $10,508, as provided in the Settlement Agreement and
Supplemental Memorandum.  Such payments will also be made in the
manner, and subject to the terms and conditions, set forth in the
Settlement Agreement.

He dismissed the cases with prejudice and directed the Clerk to
enter the Final Order and Judgment.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 17, 2018 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/Kd0ZKc from Leagle.com.

Brandon Wright, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph Francis Scott --
jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com -- Ryan A. Winters & Thomas A. Downie --
tom@chagrinlaw.com.

Premier Courier, Inc. & Ronald T. Dillard, Defendants, represented
by James O'Connor -- joconnor@reminger.com -- Reminger & Reminger
Co., L.P.A. & Jonathan H. Krol --jkrol@reminger.com.


RED MANGROVE: Honeywell Files ADA Suit in S.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Red Mangrove
Holdings, LLC. The case is styled as Cheri Honeywell, Plaintiff v.
Red Mangrove Holdings LLC, Defendant, Case No. 0:18-cv-62252-DPG
(S.D. Fla., Sept. 21, 2018).

The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act
in 1990.

Red Mangrove Holdings LLC is located at 157 Sapodilla Drive,
Islamorada, FL 33036.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RELIABLE COLLECTIONS: Latteri Sues over Debt Collection Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LORAINE LATTERI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RELIABLE COLLECTIONS, INC.; GERALD G.
RICKELMANN; and JOHN DOES 1 to 10, Defendants, Case No.
ESX-L-005977-18 (N.J. Super., Essex Cty., Aug. 22, 2018) seeks to
stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a
debt.

Reliable Collections, Inc. is a New Jersey company doing business
in Bloomfield, New Jersey. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RENT-A-CENTER INC: Faces Downing Suit over Vintage Merger
---------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL DOWNING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RENT-A-CENTER, INC.; MITCHELL E. FADEL; J.V.
LENTELL; MICHAEL J. GADE; CHRISTOPHER B. HETRICK; and JEFFREY J.
BROWN, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01299-UNA (D. Del., Aug. 23,
2018) is a stockholder class action brought by the Plaintiff
against Rent-A-Center and the members of Rent-A-Center's Board of
Directors for their violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and to enjoin the vote on a proposed transaction, pursuant to
which Rent-A-Center will be acquired by Vintage Capital Management,
LLC, through Vintage Rodeo Parent, LLC and Vintage Rodeo
Acquisition, Inc.

According to the complaint, on June 18, 2018, Rent-A-Center and
Vintage issued a joint press release announcing they had entered
into an Agreement and Plan of Merger dated June 17, 2018 to sell
Rent-A-Center to Vintage. Under the terms of the Merger Agreement,
each Rent-A-Center stockholder will receive $15 for each share of
Rent-A-Center common stock they own. The Proposed Transaction is
valued at approximately $1.365 billion.

On August 15, 2018, Rent-A-Center filed a Definitive Proxy
Statement on Schedule 14A with the SEC. The Proxy Statement, which
recommends that Rent-A-Center stockholders vote in favor of the
Proposed Transaction, omits or misrepresents material information
concerning, among other things: (i) the background of the Proposed
Transaction; (ii) the Company's financial projections, relied upon
by the Company's financial advisor, J.P. Morgan Securities, LLC
("J.P. Morgan") in its financial analyses; (iii) the valuation
analyses performed by J.P. Morgan in connection with the rendering
of its fairness opinion; and (iv) potential conflicts of interest
faced by Company insiders and J.P. Morgan. The failure to
adequately disclose such material information constitutes a
violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act as
Rent-A-Center stockholders need such information in order to make a
fully informed decision whether to vote in favor of the Proposed
Transaction or seek appraisal.

Unless remedied, Rent-A-Center's public stockholders will be forced
to make a voting or appraisal decision on the Proposed Transaction
without full disclosure of all material information concerning the
Proposed Transaction being provided to them. The Plaintiff seeks to
enjoin the stockholder vote on the Proposed Transaction unless and
until such Exchange Act violations are cured.

Rent-A-Center, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, leases
household durable goods to customers on a rent-to-own basis. It
operates retail installment sales stores under the Get It Now and
Home Choice names; and rent-to-own and franchised rent-to-own
stores under the Rent-A-Centre, ColorTyme, and RimTyme names.
Rent-A-Center, Inc. was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in
Plano, Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Blake A. Bennett, Esq.
          COCH AND TAYLOR, P.A.
          1000 West Street, 10th Floor
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 984-3800
          Facsimile: (302) 984-3939

               - and -

          Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
          Michael A. Rogovin, Esq.
          Kelly C. Keenan, Esq.
          WEISSLAW LLP
          1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 682-3025
          Facsimile: (212) 682-3010

               - and -

          Melissa A. Fortunato
          BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, P.C.
          885 Third Avenue, Suite 3040
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 308-5858
          Facsimile: (212) 486-0462
          E-mail: fortunato@bespc.com


RETAIL SERVICES: Perez et al. Seek Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------
CHRISTINA CELIA PEREZ and STEPHANIE STUDEBAKER, on behalf of the
general public as private attorney general, the Plaintiff, v.
RETAIL SERVICES WIS CORPORATION, a California Corporation, and DOES
1-50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
37-2018-00045996-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Super. Ct., Sept. 12, 2018),
contends that the Defendants violated various provisions of the
California Labor Code by implementing policies and practices which
led to unpaid wages resulting from Defendants' failure to:

     (a) accurately pay overtime wages;

     (b) pay minimum wages;

     (c) provide meal periods for every work period exceeding more
than 10 hours per day and failure to pay an additional hour's of
pay or accurately pay an additional hour's of pay in lieu of
providing a meal period;

     (d) provide rest breaks for every four hours or major fraction
thereof worked and failure to pay an additional hour's of pay or
accurately pay an additional hour's of pay in lieu of providing a
rest period;

     (e) pay all wages earned and owed upon separation from
Defendant's employ;

     (f) provide accurate itemized wage statements; and

     (g) indemnify necessary business expenses.

As a result of these unpaid wages enumerated under Labor Code
section 2699.5, the Plaintiffs seek penalties under Labor Code
2698, et. seq. on behalf of the general public as private attorney
general and all other aggrieved employees as well as wages due and
owing under Labor Code section 558 pursuant to the provision of
Labor Code section 2699.5.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James R. Hawkins, Esq.
          Gregory Mauro, Esq.
          JAMES HAWKINS APLC
          9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 387 7200
          Facsimile: (949) 387 6676
          E-mail: James@jameshawkinsaplc.com
                  Greg@jameshawkinsaplc.com


REVLON INC: Bid to Dismiss Arden Merger-Related Suit Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Revlon, Inc. 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 parties in the awaits court decision
on the defendants' motion to dismiss the Elizabeth Arden merger
related suit.

Following the announcement of the execution of the Elizabeth Arden
Merger Agreement, several putative shareholder class action
lawsuits and a derivative lawsuit were filed challenging the
Merger.

In addition to the complaints filed on behalf of plaintiffs Parker,
Christiansen, Ross and Stein on July 25, 2016, a lawsuit (Hutson v.
Elizabeth Arden, Inc., et al., Case No. CACE-16-013566) (referred
to as the "Hutson complaint") was filed in the Seventeenth Judicial
Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida (the "Court") against
Elizabeth Arden, the members of the board of directors of Elizabeth
Arden, Revlon, Products Corporation and Acquisition Sub.

In general, the Hutson complaint alleges that: (i) the members of
Elizabeth Arden's board of directors breached their fiduciary
duties to Elizabeth Arden's shareholders with respect to the
Merger, by, among other things, approving the Merger pursuant to an
unfair process and at an inadequate and unfair price; and (ii)
Revlon, Products Corporation and Acquisition Sub aided and abetted
the breaches of fiduciary duty by the members of Elizabeth Arden's
board of directors. The plaintiff seeks relief similar to that
sought in the Parker case.

By Order dated August 4, 2016, all five cases were consolidated by
the Court into a Consolidated Amended Class Action. Thereafter, on
August 11, 2016, a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint was
filed, seeking to enjoin defendants from consummating the Merger
and/or from soliciting shareholder votes. To the extent that the
Merger was consummated, the Consolidated Amended Class Action
Complaint seeks to rescind the Merger or recover rescissory or
other compensatory damages, along with costs and fees. The grounds
for relief set forth in the Consolidated Amended Class Action
Complaint in large part track those grounds as asserted in the five
individual complaints, as previously disclosed. Class counsel
advised that post-consummation of the Merger they were going to
file a Second Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint.

The Second Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint (which
superseded the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint) was
ultimately filed on or about January 26, 2017. Like the
Consolidated Amended Class Action complaint, the grounds for relief
set forth in the Second Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint
in large part track those grounds as asserted in the five
individual complaints.

The defendants' motions to dismiss the Second Consolidated Amended
Class Action Complaint were filed on March 28, 2017. Plaintiffs'
response was filed on June 6, 2017 and defendants' replies were
filed on July 13, 2017. A hearing on the defendants' motion to
dismiss was held on September 19, 2017 and on November 20, 2017,
the defendants' motion was granted and the case was dismissed, with
leave to amend under limited circumstances.

On December 8, 2017, plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint,
seeking relief on the same grounds sought in the First and Second
Amended Complaints, but alleged as direct, as opposed to
derivative, claims. On January 12, 2018, the defendants once again
moved to dismiss. The motion was heard on March 29, 2018 and the
parties await a decision.

The Company believes the allegations contained in the Third
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint are without merit and
intends to continue to vigorously defend against them. Additional
lawsuits arising out of or relating to the Merger Agreement or the
Merger may be filed in the future.

Revlon, Inc., through its subsidiaries, manufactures, markets,
distributes, and sells beauty and personal care products worldwide.
Revlon, Inc. was founded in 1932 and is headquartered in New York,
New York.


ROBBIE'S LAUNDRYMAT: Underpays Laundry Attendants, Hernandez Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NEREIDA HERNANDEZ LEAL, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ROBBIE'S LAUNDRYMAT, INC. D/B/A
ROBBIE'S LAUNDRYMAT; ROBERTO RIVERO, and MAGALY RIVERO, Defendants,
Case No. 2:18-cv-13114 (D.N.J., Aug. 23, 2018) is an action against
the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wage, overtime pay, and
keep records under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff Hernandez was employed by the Defendants as laundry
attendant from the year 2006 to August 19, 2018.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ROCK ISLAND COUNTY, IL: Court Dismisses Roberson Prisoners Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Harold A. Baker of the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of Illinois dismissed the case, MICHAEL D. ROBERSON, JR.,
Plaintiff, v. GERALD BUSTOS, et al., Defendants, Case No. 18-4138
(C.D. Ill.) for failure to state a claim.

The Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and presently detained in the Rock
Island County Jail, brings the present lawsuit pursuant to 42
U.S.C. Section 1983 alleging inhumane conditions of confinement.
The matter comes before the Court for merit review under 28 U.S.C.
Section 1915A.

The Defendants are employed at the jail in the following
capacities: Defendant Bustos is the Sheriff; Defendant Erickson is
a captain; Defendants Young and Nessler are lieutenants; Defendant
Brown is a sergeant; and, Defendant Stulir is an Inmate Services
Officer.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants, collectively, have
deprived him and other inmates of opportunities for exercise.
Specifically, he alleges that when inmates participate in working
out, they are stopped by correctional staff and are threatened with
segregation and commissary denial.  He also alleges that jail
officials have denied access to an official recreational room, a
gymnasium, and an outside area where inmates could receive fresh
air.  Instead, the Plaintiff alleges, he and other inmates are
confined to a dorm for 24 hours a day.  He also alleges that jail
officials have denied educational opportunities to obtain a G.E.D.

Judge Baker explains that the Court must consider both the severity
and the duration of the alleged lack of exercise to determine
whether the Plaintiff states a viable claim.  He finds that the
Plaintiff has not alleged for how long he has been forced to endure
the deprivations he alleges.  Further, the extent to which the
Plaintiff is able to exercise is also unclear as his allegations
suggest that he has had some opportunity to exercise.  Therefore,
he finds that the Plaintiff has not yet stated a constitutional
claim based upon the alleged denial of exercise.

Moreover, Section 1983 creates a cause of action based on personal
liability and predicated upon fault; thus, liability does not
attach unless the individual defendant caused or participated in a
constitutional deprivation.  The Plaintiff must, therefore,
describe how each of the Defendants in the case personally
participated in the constitutional violations he alleges.  He finds
that the Plaintiff has not yet done so.

With respect to the alleged denial of access to a GED program, the
Plaintiff does not state a claim.  Hence, the Judge will dismiss
the claim.  Accordingly, he will grant the Plaintiff an opportunity
to file an amended complaint within 30 days to provide additional
information regarding his claim that he has been denied
opportunities for exercise.

The Plaintiff, along with five other inmates at the Rock Island
County Jail, contemporaneously filed the same complaint in their
respective cases.  With their complaints, the Plaintiff and the
other inmates included a letter requesting that their cases be
handled as a class action.  The Judge interprets the letter as a
motion.  He says though not specified, the Plaintiff's letter
suggests that one or all of the inmates proceeding pro se will act
as class representatives in the matter.  Inmates proceeding pro se
are not allowed to act as class representatives.  Therefore, their
motion will be denied.

For these reasons, Judge Baker dismissed the Plaintiff's complaint
for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)
and 28 U.S.C. Section 1915A.  The Plaintiff will have 30 days from
the entry of the order to file an amended complaint on his claim
related to the alleged denial of exercise.  Failure to file an
amended complaint will result in the dismissal of the case, without
prejudice, for failure to state a claim.  The Plaintiff's amended
complaint will replace his original complaint in its entirety.
Accordingly, the amended complaint must contain all allegations
against all the Defendants.

The Judge also denied the Plaintiff's motion for counsel with leave
to renew upon demonstrating that he made attempts to hire his own
counsel.  This typically requires writing to several lawyers and
attaching the responses.  If the Plaintiff renews his motion, he
should set forth how far he has gone in school, any jobs he has
held inside and outside of prison, any classes he has taken in
prison, and any prior litigation experience he has.

Finally, the Judge denied the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Action.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 17, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/7blQME from Leagle.com.

Michael D. Roberson, Jr., Plaintiff, pro se.


ROCKPORT ADMINISTRATIVE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Wing Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
JILL WING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ROCKPORT ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, LLC; and
DOES 1-100, Defendants, Case No. BC719077 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles
Cty., Aug. 22, 2018) is an action against the Defendants for unpaid
regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal
and rest periods.

The Plaintiff Wing was employed by the Defendants as admissions
coordinator.

Rockport Administrative Services, LLC was founded in 2010. The
Company's line of business includes providing management consulting
services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William Turley, Esq.
          David Mara, Esq.
          Matthew Crawford, Esq.
          THE TURLEY & MARA LAW FIRM, APLC
          7428 Trade Street
          San Diego, CA 92121
          Telephone: (619) 234-2833
          Facsimile: (619) 234-4048


SACRAMENTO REGIONAL TRANS: Faces White Suit in Calif. State Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sacramento Regional
Transit District.  The lawsuit is captioned as Isaiah White, on
behalf himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Does 1-10, and Sacramento Regional Transit District, the
Defendants, Case No. 34-2018-00240461-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Sep. 10, 2018).

The Sacramento Regional Transit District, commonly referred to as
SacRT, is the agency responsible for public transportation in the
Sacramento, California area. It was established on April 1, 1973,
as a result of the acquisition of the Sacramento Transit
Authority.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael D Singer, Esq.
          COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER
          605 "C" Street, Suite 200
          San Diego, CA 92101-5305
          Telephone: (888) 808 8358
          Facsimile: (619) 595 3000


SAFETY INSURANCE: Court Dismisses Rodolakis FDCA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Judge Rya W. Zobel of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts granted Safety's and Law Offices of Thomas S.
Francis' motions to dismiss the case, ALEX RODOLAKIS, on behalf of
himself and others, v. SAFETY INSURANCE COMPANY and LAW OFFICES OF
THOMAS S. FRANCIS, Civil Action No. 17-12080-RWZ (D. Mass.).

The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff was involved in an
automobile accident in October 2013, and that he was, at the time,
insured by Defendant Safety.  The operator who, the Plaintiff
asserts, was entirely responsible for the accident, was insured by
a company other than Safety.  

Letters attached to the complaint and the Defendants' motions to
dismiss show that Safety paid the Plaintiff $2,240.82 for repairs
to his vehicle and that the Plaintiff also received payment in the
amount of $2,495.39 from the other driver's insurance company.  The
Paragraph 7 of the complaint then details the crux of the
Plaintiff's grievance that on Feb. 2, 2017, Safety acting through
its counsel Francis, also named as a Defendant, made demand for
payment of a debt from Mr. Rodolakis.  Among other things, Safety
claimed under the terms of its insurance contract that it was
legally entitled to collect $2,240.82 from Mr. Rodolakis.  Safety
later brought suit against Rodolakis in the Boston Municipal Court
to recover this sum.  The Plaintiff resides in Barnstable County.

The Plaintiff claims violations by one or both the Defendants of
the state and federal Fair Debt Collection Practices ("FDCPA")
statutes, Ch. 93A, and violations of the covenant of good faith and
fair dealing.  Without any factual allegations he also purports to
bring the claims on behalf of a class of all Massachusetts
consumers sued by Safety and/or Francis to collect debts in
violation of the FDCPA or MDCPA.

The Defendants have moved to dismiss the complaint on several
grounds, including that the amount claimed was not a "debt."  

Judge Zobel finds that the Plaintiff's claim under the federal
FDCPA must be dismissed because the complaint fails to plead that
the Defendants sought to recover a "debt" from him.  The FDCPA
claim against Safety also fails because the complaint does not
allege that Safety is a "debt collector" under the law.
Accordingly, Count IV is dismissed.  The Plaintiff's stand-alone
claim under the Massachusetts FDCPA (Count II) is dismissed for the
same reason.  Moreover, the claim fails for the independent reason
that the statute does not provide a private right of action.

Next, the Judge finds that without the FDCPA counts, there is
little to prop up the Plaintiff's Massachusetts Consumer Protection
Act claim (Count I).  He say the Plaintiff's allegation that the
Defendants sued him in Suffolk County despite his residing in
Barnstable County is insufficient to make out a Chapter 93A claim.
As applied to Defendant Francis, the consumer protection claim also
fails for the independent reason that the complaint does not allege
Francis engaged in trade or commerce vis-a-vis Plaintiff.

Finally, the Judge finds that the complaint also fails to state a
claim that Safety violated the implied covenant of good faith and
fair dealing implicit in its insurance agreement with the Plaintiff
(Count VIII).  Because the Plaintiff does not attach the contract
to his complaint, reference any of its provisions, or set forth any
allegations about the parties' reasonable understandings of their
performance obligations, he necessarily fails to plead that Safety
did anything that had the effect of destroying or injuring his
right to receive the fruits of the contract.

For these reasons, Judge Zobel granted the Defendants' Motions to
Dismiss.  Judgment may be entered accordingly.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 17, 2018 Memorandum of
Decision is available at https://is.gd/8dOlde from Leagle.com.

Alex Rodolakis, on Behalf of himself and others, Plaintiff,
represented by James L. O'Connor, Jr., Nickless & Phillips PC.

Safety Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Tanya T.
Austin, Boyle & Shaughnessy Law PC.

Law Offices of Thomas S. Francis, Defendant, represented by Kara G.
Thorvaldsen -- kara.thorvaldsen@wilsonelser.com
vCard -- Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, LLP & Jason W.
Canne -- jason.canne@wilsonelser.com -- Wilson Elser Moskowitz
Edelman & Dicker, LLP.


SAGE INTACCT: Thompson Ly Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------
THOMPSON LY, individually and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. SAGE INTACCT,
INC., and DOES 1 to 10, the Defendants, Case No. 18CV334378 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Sept. 12, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation and other wages under the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and all members of the
class identified herein were regularly scheduled as a matter of
uniform company policy to work, and in fact worked, as salaried
inside sales employees in excess of eight hours per workday and/or
in excess of 40 hours per workweek without receiving straight time
or overtime compensation for such overtime hours worked in
violation of California Labor Code sections 510, 1194 and
California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order 4-2001.

The Defendant has allegedly failed to meet the requirements for
establishing the exemption because all class members (a) regularly
spent more than 50% of their time performing nonexempt work, (b)
did not customarily and regularly exercise discretion and
independent judgment on matters of significance, (c) did not have
the authority to hire or fire or make meaningful recommendations
regarding same, (d) did not customarily and regularly supervise at
least two employees or the equivalent, (e) did not perform work
directly related to the management policies or the general business
operations of Defendant or Defendant's customers, (f) did perform
nonexempt production and/or sales work a majority of their time
consistent with Defendant's realistic expectations, (g) did not
customarily and regularly spend more than 50% of their time away
from the Defendant's places of business selling or obtaining orders
or contracts, and (h) did not earn more than 50% of their
compensation in a bona fide commission plan.

Sage Intacct is an American provider of financial management and
services. The company was founded in 1999 and it was acquired by
The Sage Group PLC for $850 million in 2017.[BN]

Plaintiff's Counsel:

          Edward J. Wynne, Esq.
          George Nemiroff, Esq.
          WYNNE LAW FIRM
          80 E. Sir Francis Drake Blvd., Ste. 3G
          Larkspur, CA 94939
          Telephone (415) 461-6400
          Facsimile (415) 461-3900
          E-mail: ewynne@wynnelawfirm.com
                  gnemiroff@wynnelawfirm.com

               - and -

          Bryan J. McCormack, Esq.
          MCCORMACK & ERLICH, LLP
          150 Post Street, Suite 742
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone (415) 296 8420
          Facsimile (415) 296 8552
          E-mail: bryan@mcelawfirm.com


SALUS MSO: Faces Velazquez Suit in New York State Court
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SALUS MSO LLC.  The
case is captioned, VELAZQUEZ, JENNIFER , ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND
ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v. SALUS MSO LLC
D/B/A ESSENMED HOUSE CALLS, the Defendant, Case No. 26854/2018,
(N.Y. Sup. Ct., Sept. 11, 2018), and assigned to the Hon. Judge
Donna M. Mills.

EssenMED House Calls is a primary care office in Bronx, New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Louis Ginsberg, Esq.
          LOUIS GINSBERG, P.C.
          The Woolworth Building
          233 Broadway, Suite 2220
          New York, NY 10279
          Telephone: (212) 406 3630

The Defendant is represented

          Raymond Iryami, Esq.
          RAYMOND IRYAMI LAW FIRM P.C.
          305 Madison Avenue, 46th Fl
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 599 1081


SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Wazwaz et al. Seek OT Pay under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------
ABDULLAH WAZWAZ, JASON MOORE, KENNETH YEUNG, and, BRIAN KAM, on
behalf of themselves and all similarly situated individuals, the
Plaintiffs, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Defendant, Case
No. 3:18-cv-05580-JSC (N.D. Cal., Sep. 12, 2018), is an action on
behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated who
work, or have worked, for the Defendant at any time over the last
three years and were deprived of their complete statutory overtime
compensation and compensatory time off cashouts.

San Francisco, in northern California, is a hilly city on the tip
of a peninsula surrounded by the Pacific Ocean and San Francisco
Bay.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David E. Mastagni, Esq.
          Jeffrey R. A. Edwards, Esq.
          MASTAGNI HOLSTEDT
          1912 "I" Street
          Sacramento, CA 95811
          Telephone: (916) 446 4692
          Facsimile: (916) 447 4614
          E-mail: davidm@mastagni.com
                  jedwards@mastagni.com


SERF TWO: Pereda Files FLSA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Serf Two, Inc., et
al. The case is styled as Ruperto Pereda, Celso Hilario Guzman
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. Serf Two, Inc. d/b/a Babbalucci Italian Kitchen,
Charles LoPresto as an individual, Andrew LoPresto as an
individual, Robert Fried as an individual, Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-08647 (S.D. N.Y., Sept. 21, 2018).

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

Serf Two, Inc. doing business as: Babbalucci Italian Kitchen, is a
restaurant that serves Italian cuisine. It is located at 331 Lenox
Ave, New York, NY 10027, b/t 126th St & 127th St, Harlem.

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.


SERVICELINK FIELD: Collins Suit Moved to C.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/transferred from the
Superior Court of CA County of San Diego, to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California (Western Division -
Los Angeles) on Sep. 14, 2018. The Clerk of the District Court for
the Central District of California assigned Case No.
2:18-cv-08064-DMG-MRW to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
the Hon. Judge Dolly M. Gee. The suit alleges labor/management
relations violation.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dennis Frank Moss, Esq.
          MOSS BOLLINGER LLP
          15300 Ventura Boulevard Suite 207
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: (310) 982 2984
          Facsimile: (818) 963 5954
          E-mail: dennis@mossbollinger.com

Attorneys for Servicelink Field Services, LLC:

          Curtis Alan Graham, Esq.
          Anthony Gerald Ly, Esq.
          Jaime B Laurent, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON PC
          633 West Fifth Street 63rd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 443 4300
          Facsimile: (213) 443 4299
          E-mail: cagraham@littler.com
                  aly@littler.com
                  jlaurent@littler.com


SETERUS INC: Faces Fordham Suit in District of New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Seterus, Inc.  The
lawsuit is captioned as JUDITH FORDHAM, on Behalf of Herself and
Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. SETERUS, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-13808-BRM-LHG (D.N.J., Sept. 12, 2018).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Brian R. Martinotti, and
alleges Fair Debt Collection Act violation.

Seterus, Inc., is a specialty loan servicing company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin F. Johns, Esq.
          CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS, LLP
          One Haverford Centre
          361 West Lancaster Avenue
          Haverford, PA 19041
          Telephone: (610) 642 8500
          E-mail: bfj@chimicles.com


SINALOA 2000: Underpays Salespersons, Tamayo Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------
XIOMARA TAMAYO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SINALOA 2000, INC.; MARTIN GUTIERREZ; ANAHI
GUTIERREZ; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. BC719070
(Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Aug. 22, 2018) is an action against
the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime
compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide
accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business
expenses.

The Plaintiff Tamayo was employed by the Defendants as salesperson
from October 2016 to January 2018.

Sinaloa 2000, Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under
the laws of the State of California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jual F. Reyes, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JUAL F. REYES
          A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
          1875 Century Park East, Suite 600
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 854-5917
          Facsimile: (877) 227-5276


SKECHERS U.S.A.: Wilk Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------
EALEEN WILK, an individual, the Plaintiff, vs. SKECHERS U.S.A.,
INC. and DOES 1-100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
5:18-cv-01921-JGB-SP (C.D. Cal., Sept. 10, 2018), alleges that
Defendant engaged in uniform policy and practice, failing to
properly calculate Plaintiff's regular rate of pay and underpaid
her under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, Ms. Wilk was hired by Skechers in or
around August 2015. Throughout her employment, Ms. Wilk was an
hourly, non-exempt employee. As such, Ms. Wilk was eligible for and
at times worked overtime. Ms. Wilk and Skechers' other hourly,
non-exempt employees were eligible for and at times received
non-discretionary bonuses, commissions, and other items of
compensation. Throughout her employment however, Skechers failed to
properly calculate and pay the overtime wages owed to Ms. Wilk and
their other hourly, non-exempt employees.

Specifically, Skechers failed to include commissions,
non-discretionary bonuses and other items of compensation when
determining the regular rate of pay of Ms. Wilk and their other
hourly, non-exempt employees for purposes of overtime. For example,
during the pay period of February 14, 2016 through February 27,
2016, Wilk earned a non-discretionary bonus of $1,000.00. Pursuant
to is uniform policy and practice, Skechers failed to properly
calculate Wilk's regular rate of pay and underpaid her.

Skechers is a footwear brand that designs, develops, and markets
lifestyle and performance footwear.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff Ealeen Wilk and the Putative Class:

          Robert J. Wasserman, Esq.
          William J. Gorham, Esq.
          Nicholas J. Scardigli, Esq.
          Vladimir J. Kozina, Esq.
          MAYALL HURLEY P.C.
          2453 Grand Canal Boulevard
          Stockton, CA 95207-8253
          Telephone: (209) 477 3833
          Facsimile: (209) 473 4818
          E-mail: rwasserman@mayallaw.com
                  wgorham@mayallaw.com
                  nscardigli@mayallaw.com
                  vjkozina@mayallaw.com


SORRENTO THERAPEUTICS: Yvonne Williams Class Action Concluded
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc. 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 class action suit
filed by Yvonne Williams has been dismissed.

On October 25, 2017, Yvonne Williams filed a Supplemental and
Amended Class Action and Derivative Complaint which re-added George
Ng as a defendant, added Eragon Ventures, LLC as a defendant, and
added certain claims challenging transactions whereby Eragon
Ventures, LLC agreed to purchase certain stock in the Company's
subsidiary, LA Cell, Inc. Following a mediation held on November
16, 2017, the parties agreed that day to a term sheet reflecting a
settlement of the Williams Action, which agreement was memorialized
in a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement executed on December
22, 2017 and filed with the Court.

The settlement consisted of non-monetary consideration, such as the
cancellation of certain subsidiary shares of stock that were
obtained by defendants pursuant to options previously exercised by
defendants. The settlement and plaintiff's counsel's request for an
award of attorneys' fees were submitted to the Court for approval.


On May 15, 2018, the Court held a hearing on the request for
approval of the settlement and approved the settlement and awarded
plaintiff's counsel attorneys' fees of $3.25 million. This case was
dismissed with prejudice. The Company has caused the attorneys'
fees payment to be made, which payment was covered in large part,
but not in whole, by insurance.

Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc., a clinical stage biotechnology
company, primarily engages in the discovery and development of
therapies focused on oncology and the treatment of chronic cancer
pain worldwide. Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc. was founded in 2006 and
is based in San Diego, California.


SUMMIT CREDIT: Court Dismisses Domann EFTA Suit
-----------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Wisconsin issued an Opinion and Order granting Defendant's Motion
to Dismiss in the case captioned MATTHEW DOMANN, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SUMMIT
CREDIT UNION, Defendant. No. 18-cv-167-slc. (W.D. Wis.).

Defendant SCU has filed a motion to dismiss the First Cause of
Action (breach of contract based on SCU's Opt-In form), Second
Cause of Action (breach of contract based on the Membership
Agreement), Fifth Cause of Action (unjust enrichment), Sixth Cause
of Action (money had and received); and Seventh Cause of Action
(violation of Electronic Fund Transfers Act (EFTA) (Regulation E).

Plaintiff Matthew Domann has filed a proposed class action in which
he alleges that his credit union, defendant Summit Credit Union,
misled him and similarly situated customers about its overdraft fee
policy.

Domann was charged a $25 overdraft fee on a debit card payment of
$4.63, which was made when Domann's ledger balance was $85.51. This
is because SCU uses the actual balance rather than the ledger
balance method when it determines whether an account holder has
sufficient funds in his account to cover a transaction. Domann
claims that by assessing him an overdraft fee on a positive ledger
balance, SCU breached both its standard membership agreement
(Account Agreement) and the Regulation E Opt In Agreement.
According to Domann, these documents promise to use the ledger
balance method of calculating whether the member's account contains
available funds to cover a transaction, but SCU actually uses the
available balance method.

SCU now moves to dismiss the breach of contract claims for failure
to state a claim, arguing that the Account and Opt-In Agreements,
construed together, unambiguously state that SCU would use the
available balance method in assessing overdraft fees. SCU moves to
dismiss the equitable claims on the ground that they cannot be
maintained where Domann has conceded that an express contract
controls the parties' relationship. SCU moves to dismiss the
Regulation E claim on the ground that it is untimely.

Breach of Contract

The Court agrees with SCU that the Opt In Agreement must be
construed together with the Account Agreement. As SCU notes, in
Wisconsin, instruments executed at the same time between the same
contracting parties in the course of the same transaction generally
will be construed together.  Although Domann has not alleged when
he entered into the respective agreements, he has not attempted to
distinguish these cases on the ground that he executed the Opt In
Agreement and the Account Agreement at separate times. Moreover,
even if the agreements were not executed simultaneously, there
would be no need for the overdraft coverage provided for in the Opt
In Agreement were it not for the existence of a corresponding
account established through the Account Agreement.  The Court finds
that the language of the Opt In Agreement must be construed
together with the Account Agreement for purposes of the breach of
contract claims.

To be sure, the Account Agreement-and the Overdrafts" section in
particular-could have been written more clearly to explain how the
available balance method works and its potential impact on
overdraft charges. But the question presented to the court is not
whether SCU could have or should have explained its procedures more
clearly, the question is whether the terms as written reasonably
can be understood as a promise by SCU to use a member's actual or
ledger balance when assessing overdraft fees. The contract at issue
cannot reasonably be read this way. Accordingly, Domann's breach of
contract claims will be dismissed.

Unjust Enrichment and Money Had and Received

SCU moves to dismiss Domann's equitable claims for unjust
enrichment and money had and received (the Fifth and Sixth Causes
of Action) on two grounds: first, the two claims are
indistinguishable, second, neither claim can be maintained because
the parties entered into a written contract addressing the same
subject matter. Domann acknowledges that he cannot recover on both
a contract theory and an unjust enrichment theory but contends that
he may plead these theories in the alternative.

Throughout his complaint, Domann asserts that he entered into
binding contracts with SCU in which SCU promised to do certain
things that it did not do. Domann's claims for unjust enrichment
and money had and received are not based upon an alternative theory
under which there is no express contract; to the contrary, both
counts incorporate by reference all of the breach of contract
allegations. Domann's allegations that the parties' relationship is
governed by the terms of express, written contracts are thus
incompatible with his quasi-contract theories. As a result, those
claims must be dismissed.  

EFTA Claim

SCU moves to dismiss Count 7, in which Domann alleges that SCU
violated Regulation E of EFTA, by not accurately describing SCU's
overdraft service in the Opt In Agreement. SCU moves to dismiss the
claim on the grounds that the claim is untimely.

Generally, 15 U.S.C. Section 1693m imposes civil liability on an
institution that fails to comply with the provisions of EFTA. 15
U.S.C. Section 1693m(a). EFTA claims must be brought within one
year from the date of the occurrence of the violation.

Domann argues that, because he did not realize until he met with
counsel in December 2017 that SCU's assessment of a single
overdraft was part of a systematic practice that harmed an entire
class of plaintiffs, he should be entitled to the exception
announced in Goodhand v. United States, 40 F.3d 209 (7th Cir.
1994). In Goodhand, 40 F.3d at 212-13, the Seventh Circuit adopted
a trivial injury exception for claims brought under the Federal
Tort Claims Act, holding that where an injury is reasonably
initially thought to be too slight to warrant the expense,
inconvenience and uncertainties of litigation, the running of the
statute of limitations is suspended until the injury is discovered
to be serious. Domann cites no case extending this rule which
applies to personal injuries to consumer class actions.

The reason for this lack of authority is obvious: taken to its
logical conclusion, Domann's argument would effectively suspend the
limitations period for all putative class actions until the date on
which a potential class representative met with class counsel and
learned the scope of the harm. Nothing in Goodhand supports such an
enormous extension of a limited exception to the ordinary discovery
rule.

In sum, with reasonable diligence Domann would have known of his
injury when he received his first overdraft fee on February 9,
2017. Because he did not file his lawsuit until more than one year
later, the EFTA claim is untimely.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 13, 2018 Opinion
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yau4lcge from
Leagle.com.

Matthew Domann, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas P. Dehler --
doug.dehler@wilaw.com -- O'Neil, Cannon, Hollman, DeJong & Laing
S.C., Laura Jean Lavey -- laura.lavey@wilaw.com -- O'Neil, Cannon,
Hollman, DeJong & Laing S.C. & Richard Dale McCune, Jr. --
rdm@mccunewright.com -- McCune Wright Arevalo, LLP.

Summit Credit Union, Defendant, represented by Stuart M. Richter --
stuart.richter@kattenlaw.com -- Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP &
William Warren Ehrke -- wehrke@crivellocarlson.com -- Crivello
Carlson, S.C.


TATA CONSULTANCY: Court Won't Invalidate Release Agreements
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California issued an Order denying Plaintiffs' Motion to Invalidate
Release Agreements in the case captioned CHRISTOPHER SLAIGHT, ET
AL., Plaintiffs, v. TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES, LTD, Defendant, Case
No. 15-cv-01696-YGR (N.D. Calif.).

The Plaintiffs allege that TCS discriminated against them in their
employment and/or termination practices based on race and national
origin. Specifically, the plaintiffs claim that TCS maintains a
pattern and practice of intentional discrimination in its United
States workforce whereby TCS treats persons who are South Asian or
of Indian national origin more favorably than those who are not
South Asian or of Indian national origin.

The prophylactic power accorded to the court presiding over a
putative class action under Rule 23(d) is broad; the purpose of
Rule 23(d)'s conferral of authority is not only to protect class
members in particular but to safeguard generally the administering
of justice and the integrity of the class certification process.

The issue remaining is what, if anything, should occur with respect
to the payments already made and received. Here, the inquiry
centers on TCS's conduct as compared to the rights of the class
members. The critical inflection point in this interaction is the
Court's December 27, 2017 certification order, which substantially
clarified and expanded the scope of this litigation. The timing and
distribution of the releases at issue does not reflect a sudden or
significant increase following certification. Rather, only 5 of the
370 agreements were executed on or after December 27, 2017.  

Moreover, the fact that a small number of individuals brought up
this lawsuit in an effort to negotiate higher severance pay, and
TCS rejected those efforts, supports the conclusion that prior to
the December 27, 2017 certification order, TCS did not view the
instant action as a genuine issue and that the payments made do not
represent an effort to discourage participation in the case. Nor
does the Court find evidence in the record showing an affirmative
attempt to circumvent the protections of a Rule 23 action.  

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 10, 2018 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/ybjyqrxn from Leagle.com.

Brian Buchanan & Christopher Slaight, Plaintiffs, represented by
Daniel A. Kotchen -- dkotchen@kotchen.com -- Kotchen & Low LLP,
Daniel Lee Low -- dlow@kotchen.com -- Kotchen and Low LLP, Michael
J. von Klemperer -- mvonklemperer@kotchen.com -- Kotchen and Low
LLP, Lindsey Grunert -- ltremaine@kotchen.com -- Kotchen and Low
LLP, Michael F. Brown -- mbrown@dvglawpartner.com -- DVG Law
Partner LLC & Steven Gregory Tidrick -- sgt@tidricklaw.com -- The
Tidrick Law Firm.

Seyed Amir Masoudi & Nobel Mandili, Plaintiffs, represented by
Lindsey Grunert, Kotchen and Low LLP, Michael J. von Klemperer,
Kotchen and Low LLP & Daniel A. Kotchen, Kotchen & Low LLP.

Tata Consultancy Services, Ltd, Defendant, represented by Michelle
M. LaMar -- mlamar@loeb.com -- Loeb & Loeb LLP, Bernard Robert
Given, II -- bgiven@loeb.com -- Loeb & Loeb, Erin Michelle Smith --
bgiven@loeb.com -- Loeb and Loeb LLP, Laura Ann Wytsma --
lwytsma@loeb.com -- Loeb & Loeb LLP, Patrick Norton Downes --
pdownes@loeb.com -- Loeb And Loeb LLP, Terry D. Garnett --
tgarnett@loeb.com -- Loeb & Loeb LLP & William Michael Brody --
wbrody@loeb.com -- Loeb & Loeb.

Apple Inc., Movant, represented by Danielle Conley --
DANIELLE.CONLEY@WILMERHALE.COM -- Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale &
Dorr LLP, Kathryn Diane Zalewski -- kathryn.zalewski@wilmerhale.com
-- Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP & Kimberly A. Parker --
KIMBERLY.PARKER@WILMERHALE.COM -- Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale &
Dorr LLP.


TCR SPORTS: Gonzalez TCPA Suit Remains in District Court
--------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida denies Plaintiff's Motion for Remand in the case captioned
SEBASTIAN GONZALEZ, Plaintiff, v. TCR SPORTS BROADCASTING HOLDING,
LLP, d/b/a/Mid-Atlantic Sports Network, et al., Defendants. Case
No. 18-cv-20048-GAYLES/OTAZO-REYES. (S.D. Fla.).

The Plaintiff seeks statutory damages for alleged violations of the
federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The Plaintiff
alleges that four defendants TCR Sports Broadcasting Holding LLP,
d/b/a Mid-Atlantic Sports Network (MASN), Hyundai Motor America,
Inc. (Hyundai), Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (Mercedes), and Jiffy Lube
International, Inc. (Jiffy Lube) unlawfully transmitted advertising
via text messages using an automatic telephone dialing system in
the absence of express consent from the recipients.

APPLICABLE LAW

The procedure for a motion to remand is governed by 28 U.S.C.
Section1447(c), which mandates that if at any time before final
judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.

The Plaintiff makes two arguments in support of its Motion.

First, the Plaintiff argues that MASN's notice of removal was
untimely because Hyundai failed to file its notice of consent until
after the 30-day period for removal had run.   

Regardless of whether the notice itself was technically deficient,
that deficiency was cured. The Eleventh Circuit has unequivocally
held that a technical defect related to the unanimity requirement
may be cured by opposing a motion to remand prior to the entry of
summary judgment.

Because all Defendants oppose the Motion, the Court declines to
remand this action based on the alleged technical deficiency in the
notice of removal.

Second, the Plaintiff argues that MASN has failed to adequately
allege a basis for this Court's jurisdiction. The Plaintiff asserts
that because Section 1446(a) requires a short and plain statement
of the grounds for removal, in other words, a short and plain
statement of the basis for the Court's original jurisdiction—MASN
was required to allege that Plaintiff has Article III standing  In
Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Company, LLC v. Owens, 135 S.Ct. 547
(2014), defendants removed a class action from Kansas state court
on the basis of jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act
(CAFA). The Defendants' notice of removal in that case indicated
that although the plaintiff had not specified an amount of damages
in its state court complaint, defendants calculated the potential
amount in controversy to be well above the $75,000.01 required for
federal diversity jurisdiction.  

The Supreme Court ultimately held in Dart Cherokee that defendants
were not required to prove that amount in controversy at the
outset, but rather needed only to make a plausible allegation in
their notice of removal. The claims in this action are entirely
based on federal statute, and Defendant here plausibly alleged
federal question jurisdiction in its notice of removal.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 10, 2018 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/yatcmee6 from Leagle.com.

Sebastian Gonzalez, Plaintiff, represented by David Philip Milian
-- dmilian@caseyrodriguez -- Carey Rodriguez Milian Gonya LLP,
Ruben Conitzer -- Rconitzer@caseyrodriguez.com -- Carey Rodriguez
Milian Gonya LLP & David Matthew Levine --
dlevine@caseyrodriguez.com -- Carey Rodriguez Milian Gonya, LLP.

TCR Sports Broadcasting Holding LLP, Defendant, represented by Ian
M. Ross -- rossi@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig, P.A.

Hyundai Motor America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Mitchell
Edward Widom -- mwidom@bilzin.com -- Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price &
Axelrod.

Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, Defendant, represented by Daniel Brandon
Rogers -- drogers@shb.com -- Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP & James John
Feeney -- jfeeney@shb.com -- Shook Hardy & Bacon.

Jiffy Lube International, Inc., Defendant, represented by Edward
Maurice Mullins -- emullins@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith LLP.


TESLA INC: Shearman & Sterling Discusses Securities Suit Dismissal
------------------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for Lexology, wrote that on
August 24, 2018, Judge Charles Breyer of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California dismissed with leave
to amend a putative class action against an electric car
manufacturer (the "Company"), its Chief Executive Officer, and its
Chief Financial Officer for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and
Rule 10b-5. Wochos v. Tesla, Inc., et al., No. 17-cv-05828 (N.D.
Cal. Aug. 24, 2018). Plaintiffs alleged that defendants made false
and misleading statements regarding production projections for the
Company's Model 3 that it failed to meet. Stating that "[f]ederal
securities laws do not punish companies for failing to achieve
targets," the Court held that the challenged statements were
protected by the safe harbor provision of the Private Security
Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA") because they were
forward-looking and accompanied by meaningful cautionary language.

In 2016, the Company, an electric car manufacturer, announced plans
to produce an affordable, mass market vehicle called the Model 3.
In a quarterly report filed on May 3, 2016, the Company said it
planned to ramp up Model 3 production to 5,000 finished vehicles
per week by the end of 2017. Defendants reiterated this in
subsequent statements. On October 2, 2017, the Company announced it
failed to meet the goals for the third quarter of 2017 because of
"production bottlenecks." A month later, the Company moved its goal
of 5,000 per week to the end of the first quarter of 2018, again
citing bottlenecks. Based in part on information from former
employees who allegedly informed the CEO that the production
targets were "impossible" to meet, plaintiffs claimed that
defendants' statements regarding the Model 3 production schedule,
production status, and production process were false.

The Court first considered defendants' request for judicial notice
of various documents containing public statements made by
defendants regarding Model 3 production that were not specifically
referenced in the complaint. Finding that the accuracy of the
documents could not reasonably be disputed and that the documents
constitute the subject matter of the claim, i.e., the Company's
public statements about Model 3 production, the Court took judicial
notice of the filings and earnings call transcripts. The Court
noted it was not taking notice of these documents for the truth of
any facts asserted therein, but instead, for what the Company told
the market.

Under the PSLRA safe harbor, a forward-looking statement is not
actionable if it is accompanied by meaningful cautionary language
(unless plaintiffs can show the defendant actually did not believe
the statement was true). The Court concluded almost all of the
allegedly misleading statements were forward-looking. For example,
the Court held that statements the Company was "on track" to
achieving its Model 3 production goals were forward-looking,
rejecting the argument the statements were representations of the
then-current state of affairs. According to the Court, "every
future projection depends on the currents state of affairs," and
accepting plaintiffs' argument would collapse the distinction
between present and forward-looking statements.

The Court then found that the Company's forward-looking statements
were accompanied by meaningful cautionary language including, for
example, that (a) "[the Company] may experience . . . delays . . .
in bringing to market and ramping up production of new vehicles,
such as Model 3"; (b) "a car consists of several thousand unique
items," and the Company could "only go as fast as the slowest
item"; (c) it had "no experience to date in manufacturing vehicles
at the high volumes [it] anticipate[d] for the Model 3"; and (d)
its production plan was based on a number of assumptions. The Court
also held that plaintiffs' complaint did not establish that
defendants knew it was impossible (rather than unlikely) to meet
the production goals. Consequently, the Court found that the
statements at issue were protected by the PSLRA's safe harbor
provision. [GN]


TIP COUSINS: Velasquez Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------
WILMER VELASQUEZ on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. TIP COUSINS, INC. dba ROCKY
POINT PIZZA and Gary T. Tipley, the Defendants, Case No.
2:18-cv-05099 (E.D.N.Y., Sep. 10, 2018), seeks to recover overtime
pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants are engaged in the
restaurant business. The Plaintiff and similarly situated employees
performed non-exempt work for Defendants. They regularly worked
more than 40 hours in a work week but were not paid overtime.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter A. Romero, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC
          825 Veterans Highway-Ste. B.
          Hauppauge, New York 11788
          Telephone: (631) 257 5588
          E-mail: primero@romerolawny.com


TRIMED HOME: Underpays Home Care Attendants, Young Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
JACQUELINE S. YOUNG, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRIMED HOME CARE SERVICES, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-04749-DRH-GRB (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 22,
2018) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid overtime
compensation, prejudgment interest, maximum liquidated damages,
reasonable attorneys' fees, and costs.

Ms. Young was employed by the Defendant as home care attendant.

Trimed Home Care Services, Inc. is a company doing business in
Queens County, New York, engaged in providing healthcare support,
and assisted living company to customers. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aneeba Rehman, Esq.
          Nadia M. Pervez, Esq.
          PERVEZ & REHMAN, P.C.
          68 South Service Road, Suite 100
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 427-0700
          E-mail: arehman@pervezrehman.com


UNITED STATES: Contractual Guidance Sought in SA-TECH Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
SYSTEMS APPLICATION & TECHNOLOGIES, INC., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant, Case No. 8:18-cv-02607-PX (D. Md.,
Aug. 22, 2018) is an action for declaratory judgment and injunctive
relief pursuant to the Contract Disputes Act.

According to the complaint, the action involves significant, novel
questions regarding the attempted application of California wage
and hour law, which diverges markedly from Federal law, to SA-TECH
as related to the cost-reimbursement work SA-TECH performs aboard
U.S. Navy ships, or ships procured by the Navy, and to a lesser
degree worked on federal enclaves. Specifically, and in the wake of
a 2015 California Supreme Court decision altering California's
position, SA-TECH faces a class action lawsuit asserting that
SA-TECH must pay so called "sleep at sea" overtime and further
provide state mandated meal periods and rest breaks to its
personnel, who work on Navy-owned vessels or on private vessels
procured at the Navy's direction, in support of Navy-directed
weapons evaluation and shipboard training missions.

The complaint notes that federal law does not require compensation
for such non-work time or dictate times for meals or breaks. As a
cost-reimbursement contractor, the position of the United States
has significant relevance to SA-TECH's ongoing contract
performance, SA-TECH's defense of the class action lawsuit, and
SA-TECH's decision regarding settling the ongoing litigation. If
the United States agrees that California wage and hour law trumps
Federal law aboard Navy ships for purposes of SA-TECH's Contracts
and will reimburse SA-TECH for such wages, one course of action is
appropriate. If the United States believes that Federal law trumps
California law and will not reimburse SA-TECH for such additional
wages, including sleep time, meal period, and rest break premium
pay, another course of action is necessary. Despite repeated
SA-TECH requests, the United States has refused to provide
contractual guidance regarding whether payment of the California
wages and overtime under these Federal Contracts (despite
conflicting Federal law) is appropriate, whether the United States
will reimburse SA-TECH for such wages, and significantly whether
the United States Navy believes the Public Vessels Act ("PVA") and
Suits In Admiralty Act ("SIAA") apply to the involved Navy
Contracts.

The United States of America is a federal republic consisting of 50
states, a federal district (Washington, D.C., the capital city of
the United States), five major territories, and various minor
islands. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Craig A. Holman, Esq.
           ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
           601 Massachusetts Ave., N.W.
           Washington, D.C. 20001
           Telephone: (202) 942-5722
           Facsimile: (202) 942-5999
           E-mail: Craig.Holman@arnoldporter.com


UNITED STATES: Injunction Bid in Immigration Suit Held in Abeyance
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, M.M.M., on behalf of his minor child, J.M.A., et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. JEFFERSON BEAUREGARD SESSIONS, III, Attorney General
of the United States, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 18-1835
(PLF) (D. D.C.), Judge Paul L. Friedman of the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia held in abeyance the Plaintiffs'
motion for a preliminary injunction.

The Plaintiffs are six children who were forcibly separated from
their parents shortly after crossing the United States border with
Mexico.  They bring the action by and through their parents and
next friends under Rule 17(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.  Under the government's "zero-tolerance" policy adopted
earlier this year, immigrant parents unlawfully entering the
country were subject to criminal prosecution and separated from
their children with whom they entered.  During the period of
separation, these Plaintiffs were deemed "unaccompanied minors" and
placed in removal proceedings, while their parents received
expedited removal orders in separate removal proceedings. The
families were later reunified by court order.

The Plaintiffs filed their original complaint in Civil Action No.
18-1759 on July 27, 2018, asserting four causes of action:
violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment (Count
I); petition for a writ of mandamus under 28 U.S.C. Section 1361
(Count II); violation of the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA")
under 5 U.S.C. Section 706(2)(A) (Count III); and judicial review
of the Defendants' expedited removal policy under 8 U.S.C. Section
1252(e)(3) (Count IV).  They sought relief on behalf of a class of
non-citizen children who were separated from their parents shortly
after entering the country.

On July 27, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary
restraining order and preliminary injunction.  The Court held a
hearing on the motion on July 31, 2018, during which the Defendants
orally moved to transfer venue to the Southern District of
California for consideration of the claims together with the Ms. L.
class action pending before Judge Dana M. Sabraw brought on behalf
of separated parents, and two other actions brought on behalf of
separated children.

Following additional briefing on the issue of transfer, the Court
granted the Defendants' motion to transfer venue on Aug. 3, 2018.
It severed and transferred the class action -- Counts I, II, and
III -- to the Southern District of California.  The Court retained
jurisdiction over Count IV, over which the United States District
Court for the District of Columbia has exclusive jurisdiction.

On Aug. 8, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in the
action -- Civil Action No. 18-1835 -- asserting one cause of action
under 8 U.S.C. Section 1252(e)(3).  They allege that the Defendants
- various federal agencies and officials responsible for enforcing
immigration laws -- seek to remove them from the country without
providing the separate asylum procedures guaranteed by the
Immigration and Nationality Act, and the Due Process Clause of the
Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, in violation of 8 U.S.C.
Section 1252(e)(3).  

The Plaintiffs ultimately seek, inter alia: (1) an order declaring
that the Defendants' written policy of denying children the right
to petition for asylum in removal proceedings under Section 235 or
Section 240 on the INA is unlawful under the Fifth Amendment, the
INA, and the APA; (2) an order declaring that the Plaintiffs have a
right to pursue their own asylum claims in removal proceedings
under Section 240 with the assistance of a parent or guardian and a
right to a credible fear interview under Section 235 with the
assistance of a parent or guardian; and (3) a permanent injunction
enjoining the Defendants' alleged policy.

On Aug. 8, 2018, the Plaintiffs also filed a motion for a
preliminary injunction seeking to prohibit the Defendants from
removing them without providing the asylum procedures to which they
are entitled under the INA and the Due Process Clause.  Following
expedited briefing, the Court held a hearing on the motion on Aug.
14, 2018.

Two days later, on Aug. 16, 2018, Judge Sabraw issued an order
which is binding on the parties in the case and addresses many of
the same issues raised here.  Specifically, Judge Sabraw entered a
temporary restraining order prohibiting the Defendants from
removing reunified children and their parents pending a ruling on a
separate motion for a preliminary injunction pending before him
concerning the asylum procedures due to reunified children.

He set a status conference for Aug. 24, 2018, at which the
Plaintiffs' counsel in that action should be prepared to address
whether they wish to proceed with a request for a preliminary
injunction, and counsel for both parties should be prepared to
address how they wish to proceed on the issues of class
certification and the Plaintiffs' entitlement to asylum proceedings
under Sections 235 or 240.  The order concludes by encouraging the
parties to meet and confer and propose a solution -- one which
follows the law, and is equitable and reflective of ordered
governance.

On Aug. 17, 2018, at the Court's request, the parties in the action
filed supplemental briefs addressing the impact of Judge Sabraw's
order on the preliminary injunction motion pending before the
Court.  Having carefully reviewed the parties' submissions, Judge
Sabraw's order, and the entire record in the case, Judge Friedman
finds it appropriate to hold in abeyance the Plaintiffs' motion for
a preliminary injunction until after the hearing before Judge
Sabraw on Aug. 24, 2018.  As noted, his order temporarily
restraining the Defendants from removing the Plaintiffs and their
parents is binding on the parties in the case and addresses many of
the same issues raised in the motion currently pending before the
Court.  He echoes Judge Sabraw in encouraging the parties to meet
and confer and, if possible, propose a solution to the issues that
the Plaintiffs have identified.

Accordingly, Judge Friedman held in abeyance the Plaintiffs' motion
for a preliminary injunction until after the hearing before Judge
Sabraw on Aug. 24, 2018.  The parties will file in the Court copies
of any written submissions filed before Judge Sabraw in advance of
the Aug. 24, 2018 hearing.  They will submit a status report after
the hearing before Judge Sabraw on Aug. 24, 2018 at their earliest
convenience, but in any event no later than 5:00 p.m. on Aug. 27,
2018.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 17, 2018 Mmeorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/6o66vn from Leagle.com.

M.M.M, On behalf of his minor child, J.M.A., I.A.T., On behalf of
his minor child E.A.H., N.B., On behalf of her minor child D.B.G.,
P.A.P., On behalf of her minor child, G.M.A., G.C.H., On behalf of
his minor child, A.M.C. & L.C.O., On behalf of her minor child,
L.A.A., Plaintiffs, represented by Haley K. Costello Essig --
haley.essig@hoganlovells.com -- HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, pro hac vice,
Ira M. Feinberg -- ira.feinberg@hoganlovells.com -- HOGAN LOVELLS
US LLP, pro hac vice, Justin Bernick --
justin.bernick@hoganlovells.com -- HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, Katherine
A. Nelson -- katherine.nelson@hoganlovells.com -- HOGAN LOVELLS US
LLP, pro hac vice, Oliver J. Armas -- oliver.armas@hoganlovells.com
-- HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, pro hac vice, T. Clark Weymouth --
t.weymouth@hoganlovells.com -- HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP & Zachary W.H.
Best -- zachary.best@hoganlovells.com -- HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP.

JEFFERSON BEAUREGARD SESSIONS, III, Attorney General of the United
States, RONALD VITIELLO, Acting Director of U.S. Immigration and
Custom Enforcement, L. FRANCIS CISSNA, Director of U.S. Citizenship
and Immigration, KEVIN K. MCALEENAN, Commissioner of U.S. Customs
and Border Protection, SCOTT LLOYD, Director of the Office of
Refugee Resettlement, DANIEL A. BIBLE, Director of ICE San Antonio
Field Office, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED
STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER
PROTECTION, U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES & OFFICE OF REFUGEE
RESETTLEMENT, Defendants, represented by Briana Faith Yuh, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Office of Immigration Litigation - District
Court, Jeffrey S. Robins, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Office of Immigration Litigation, District Court & Scott Grant
Stewart, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

KIRSTJEN NIELSEN, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland
Security & ALEX AZAR, Secretary of the Department of Health and
Human Services, Defendants, represented by Briana Faith Yuh, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Office of Immigration Litigation - District
Court, Jeffrey S. Robins, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Office of Immigration Litigation, District Court & Scott Grant
Stewart, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.


UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI: Sung Hee Joo Suit Removed to S.D. Fla.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Sung Hee Joo and other similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff v. University Of Miami, Defendant,
was removed from state court to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida on Sept. 21, 2018, and assigned Case
No. 1:18-cv-23904-KMW.

The nature of suit is stated as Federal Employer's Liability under
the Equal Pay Act.

Sung Hee Joo is an assistant professor of environmental
engineering. She accuses the University of gender discrimination in
the way it compensates faculty members.

The University of Miami is a private, nonsectarian research
university in Coral Gables, Florida, United States. As of 2017, the
university enrolls 17,003 students in 12 separate colleges/schools,
including the Leonard M. Miller School of Medicine in Miami's
Health District, a law school on the main campus, and the
Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science focused on the
study of oceanography and atmospheric sciences on Virginia Key,
with research facilities at the Richmond Facility in southern
Miami-Dade County.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Anthony Maximillien Georges-Pierre, Esq.
     Remer & Georges-Pierre, PLLC
     Court House Tower
     44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
     Miami, FL 33130
     Phone: (305) 416-5000
     Fax: (305) 416-5005
     Email: agp@rgpattorneys.com

          - and -

     Max Lloyd Horowitz, Esq.
     Remer & Georges-Pierre PLLC
     44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
     Miami, FL 33130
     Phone: (305) 416-5000
     Fax: (305) 416-5005
     Email: mhorowitz@rgpattorneys.com

The Defendant is represented by:

     Eric David Isicoff, Esq.
     Isicoff, Ragatz & Koenigsberg
     601 Brickell Key Drive, Suite 750
     Miami, FL 33131
     Phone: (305) 373-3232
     Fax: (305) 373-3233
     Email: Isicoff@irlaw.com

          - and -

     Teresa Ragatz, Esq.
     Isicoff, Ragatz & Koenigsberg
     601 Brickell Key Drive, Suite 750
     Miami, FL 33131
     Phone: (305) 373-3232
     Fax: (305) 373-3233
     Email: Ragatz@irlaw.com


US EXPRESS: Discovery Ongoing in Calif. Truck Drivers' Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Xpress Enterprises, Inc. 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 discovery is ongoing
in the California truck drivers' class action lawsuit.  

In December 2015, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
company in the Superior Court of California, County of San
Bernardino. The case was transferred to the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California.  

The putative class includes current and former truck drivers
employed by the company who worked or work in California after the
completion of their training while residing in California since
December 23, 2011 to present.  The case alleges that class members
were not paid for off-the-clock work, were not provided duty free
meal or break times, and were not paid premium pay in their
absence, were not paid minimum wage for all hours worked, were not
provided accurate and complete time and pay records and were not
paid all accrued wages at the end of their employment, all in
violation of California law.  

The class seeks a judgment for compensatory damages and penalties,
injunctive relief, attorney fees and costs and pre- and
post-judgment interest.

The matter is currently in discovery, and a jury trial is set for
December 4, 2018.  

U.S. Xpress said, "We are currently unable to determine the
possible loss or range of loss. We intend to vigorously defend the
merits of these claims."

U.S. Xpress Enterprises, Inc. operates as an asset-based truckload
carrier providing services primarily in the United States. It
operates in two segments, Truckload and Brokerage. The company was
founded in 1985 and is headquartered in Chattanooga, Tennessee.


WEB.COM GROUP: Franchi Balks at Merger Deal with Parker Private
---------------------------------------------------------------
ADAM FRANCHI, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. WEB.COM GROUP, INC., DAVID L. BROWN,
TIMOTHY P. COST, HUGH M. DURDEN, PHILIP J. FACCHINA, JOHN GIULIANI,
TIMOTHY I. MAUDIN, ROBERT S. MCCOY, JR., and DEBORAH H. QUAZZO, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01408-UNA (D. Del., Sep. 11, 2018),
alleges that Sefendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with a proxy
statement.

The action stems from a proposed transaction announced on June 21,
2018, pursuant to which Web.com Group, Inc. will be acquired by
affiliates of Siris Capital Group, LLC. On June 20, 2018, Web.com's
Board of Directors caused the Company to enter into an agreement
and plan of merger with Parker Private Holdings II LLC and Parker
Private Merger Sub Inc., which was amended on August 5, 2018.
Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, if the Proposed
Transaction is approved by Web.com's shareholders and completed,
Web.com's stockholders will receive $28.00 in cash for each share
of the Web.com common stock they hold. On September 5, 2018,
Defendants filed a proxy statement with the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed
Transaction. The Proxy Statement, which scheduled a stockholder
vote on the Proposed Transaction for October 10, 2018, omits
material information with respect to the Proposed Transaction,
which renders the Proxy Statement false and misleading.

Web.com Group is an American company headquartered in Jacksonville,
Florida that provides domain name registration and web development
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          RM LAW, P.C.
          Richard A. Maniskas
          1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Telephone: (484) 324-6800
          Facsimile: (484) 631-1305
          Email: rm@maniskas.com

               - and -

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



                            *********

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 ***