CAR_Public/181005.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, October 5, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 200

                            Headlines

63-28 WOODHAVEN: Fails to Pay Overtime Premiums, Uruena et al. Say
A-PARA TRANSIT: Fails to Pay Wages & Overtime, Foster Says
ACTIVISION PUBLISHING: Faces Class Action Over Guitar Hero
ADS ALLIANCE: Underpays Payment Specialists, Al-Sabur Suit Says
ADVANCE AUTO: Continues to Defend Delaware Class Action

AEMETIS INC: Fails to Pay Proper OT, Turner Suit Alleges
AFSCME CALIFORNIA: Hernandez Sues over Payroll Deductions
AGGRENOX ANTITRUST LITIG.: Blue Cross Files 2nd Cir. Appeal
ALASKA COMMUNICATIONS: Court Certifies Sales Workers Class
ALLIANCE MEDICAL: Fails to Pay OT & Minimum Wages, de la Cruz Says

ALTRIA GROUP: Tobacco Lawsuit in Document Production Phase
AMAZON.COM INC: Waithaka Remanded to Worcester Superior Court
AMERICAN BANK: Bid to Vacate Class Cert. Order in Kramer Denied
AMERICAN FRUITS: Fails to Pay Proper OT, Sanchez Suit Alleges
APEX BEHAVIORAL: Underpays Behavioral Therapists, El Faramawi Says

ARADIGM CORP: Court Enters Dismissal Order in Kheder Suit
ASURION LLC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Alleged Pay Practices
BAIRES GRILL: Lezama Suit Seeks to Recover Minimum and OT Wages
BEST BUY: Can Compel Arbitration in Lovig FLSA Suit
BLUE APRON: Berardi Sues over 2017 Public Offering

BLUESTEM BRANDS: Conditional Certification of Norris Class Denied
BOB'S RED: Oat Products Contain Carcinogen, Frankel et al. Claim
CALAVERAS COUNTY, CA: To Repay Renewal Fees to Cannabis Growers
CANADA: Class Action Mulled Against Toronto Over Bill 5
CANADA: Edmonton Man Files Class Action Over Unlawful Confinement

CARGILL MEAT: To Pay $1.5MM to Settle Charges
CEDAR GROVE: Composters Settle With Marysville Residents Suit
CHARLES SCHWAB: Still Faces Crago Order Routing Suit in California
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Settles Antitrust Class Action for $6.95MM
CHESAPEAKE HOTEL: Honeywell Files ADA Suit in S.D. Florida

CITY BUFFET: Fails to Pay OT to Chefs, Rodriquez Suit Alleges
CLIENT SERVICES: Faces Abrahamov FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
COCRYSTAL PHARMA: Bragar Eagel Files Class Action Lawsuit
COLLECTION PROFESSIONALS: Alleman Seeks to Certify Three Classes
COLUMBUS RESTAURANT: FLSA Class of Workers Certified in "Didoni"

CONTINENTAL CASUALTY: Dolins Suit Deal Gets Final Court Approval
CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Burns Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Texas
COOK COUNTY, IL: Sheriff Sued over Race & Employment Bias
COYOTE LOGISTICS: Kreslake Files Suit for Invasion of Privacy
CYTRX CORP: Court Approves Class Settlement in Securities Suit

DAIICHI SANKYO: Removes Handley et al. Suit to W.D. Oklahoma
DALLAS BACKUP: Underpays Lighting Technicians, Alfaro Suit Says
DEMENNO-KERDOON: Cruz Seeks Minimum and OT Wages under FLSA
DIOCESE OF PITTSBURGH: Faces Sex Abuse Class-Action Lawsuit
DYNAMIC PET: Mo. App. Affirms Approval of Paulson Suit Settlement

ELYSEE MANAGEMENT: Breeze Files Civil Rights Class Action
ENDEAVORS LLC: Faces Honeywell ADA Suit in S.D. Florida
ENDO PHARMA: Settles Lidoderm Pain Patch Antitrust Class Action
ENVISION CREDIT: Daniels Sues over Debt Collection Practices
EQUIFAX: Did Not Receive Punishment for Consumer Data Breach

FACEBOOK INC: Fails to Protect Users' Personal Info, Staggs Says
FAUGNO ACQUISITION: Conn. High Court Affirms Class Certifications
FIRST MOTOR GROUP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Navarro et al. Say
FORD MOTOR: Aware of Brake Failures, Class Action Lawsuit Claims
FORTUNE DIVERSIFIED: Underpays Assistant Manager, Saintcyr Says

FUNKO INC: May Not Reply to Kanugonda Pending Counsel Appointment
GENERAL MOTORS: Seeks Dismissal of Blind Zone Alert Class Action
GEORGIA: Class Claims in Martinez Prison Condition Suit Dismissed
GLOBAL POWER: Budde Appeals Dismissal of Class Action
GOLDEN QUEEN: Underpays Heavy Equipment Operators, Windham Claims

GRAMERCY PROPERTY: Faces Hurtado Suit over Blackstone Merger
GREAT LAKES: Court Certifies Class of Student Loan Borrowers
GT ADVANCED: Lead Plaintiff Moves to Certify Class in Levy Suit
HELIOS & MATHESON: Faces Chang and Braxton Class Suits
HERTZ CORP: Unlawfully Changed Car Rental Terms, Berry Suit Claims

HESKA CORP: Court Certifies Class in Fauley TCPA Suit
HIGH QUALITY: Nieves Sues over Sale of Gray Market Vehicles
HUFF DISTRIBUTING: Underpays Route Drivers, Thomas Suit Alleges
HUNTER WARFIELD: Smith Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Missouri
IMPINJ INC: Montemarano Sues over Drop in Share Prices

INDIO, CA: To Settle Suit Over Minor Local Code Violation Fees
INFUSYSTEM HOLDINGS: Parties Ink Confidential Settlement
INT'L BUSINESS: Sued for Discriminating Against Older Employees
J & J RICHHAVEN: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Li Claims
JD.COM: Law Firms Mull Class Action Over Founder's Arrest

JETRO HOLDINGS: Fails to Pay Wages, Carroll Says
JONATHAN NEIL: Court Certifies Class of Consumers in Brown Suit
JRV SERVICES: Court Narrows Claims in Pereira FLSA Suit
KIA MOTORS: Escorsia Sues over Sale of Defective 2.0 GDI Engine
KOHN LAW FIRM: Certification of Class Sought in Cerveny Suit

KOL BARAMA: Faces 1MM Shekels for Keeping Women Off The Air
KT HOTELS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Shachno Suit Alleges
LELAND STANFORD: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Taylor et al. Claim
M&T BANK: Court Dismisses Kim Fraud Suit
MACTANZ INC: Fails to Pay Proper OT to Waiters, Nguyen Suit Says

MAEFIELD DEVELOPMENT: Underpays Lease Operators, Orosco Alleges
MARKETSOURCE INC: Must Produce Delgado Class Members' Contact Info
MATCH GROUP: McCloskey Securities Suit Dismissed
MCKESSON CORP: Conditional Certification of Hunt Class Partly OK'd
MDB TRANSPORTATION: Underpays Truck Drivers, Smith Suit Alleges

MDL 2804: Mercy House v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al., Consolidated
MDL 2819: Court Won't Dismiss Restasis(R) Antitrust Suit
MICHIGAN: Sued Over Poor Huron Valley Prison Conditions
MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY: Levi & Korsinsky Files Class Action Lawsuit
MLK EXPRESS: Huggins Seeks to Certify Drivers Class and Sub-Class

NANTHEALTH INC: Certification of Two Classes Sought in Deora Suit
NCB MANAGEMENT: Made Unsolicited Calls, Gogue Suit Alleges
NDM HOSPITALITY: Underpays Cook Supervisors, Wright Suit Claims
NEVADA: Writ of Mandamus Petition Dismissed
NEW HAMPSHIRE: Mulls New Psychiatric Hospital After Complaints

NOVATION COMPANIES: Oral Argument Held in NJ Carpenters Class Suit
NRJM INC: Rodino Suit Notice Okayed ; Case Stayed Through March 19
ODWALLA: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Product Labels
OHR PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues to Defend Class Suit in New York
ONE KEY: Adero Law Firm Begins Mineworkers' Union Legal Action

ONEWEST BANK: Underpays Relationship Associate Bankers, Suit Says
ONTARIO: Sued Over Solitary Confinement in Jails
OPEN DOOR: To File Joint Report on Scope of Release in Conde Deal
PATIENT INNOVATION: Tomala Moves to Certify FLSA Class of Dancers
PERSONAL CHOICE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Johnson Alleges

PHH CORP: $5.1MM Attorneys' Fees Awarded in Dodge Suit
POLLACK & ROSEN: Sproul Sues over Debt Collection Practices
POP WARNER: Continues to Defend Head Trauma Class Action
PUCCI'S PIZZA: Sued over Website Discriminatory Conditions
QUEST PHARMACEUTICALS: SSD Sues Over Unsolicited Fax Messages

RALEYS: Faces Hughes Suit in Sacramento California
REAL VALUE:  SSD Files TCPA Suit in Mississippi
REALPAGE INC: Faces FCRA Class Action Lawsuit
RECOVERY CONNECTIONS: Presson Files FLSA Suit in North Carolina
RESEARCH TRIANGLE: Souders Files Suit for Invasion of Privacy

RIPPLE LABS: General Counsel Quits Amid Class Actions
ROCKET PHARMACEUTICALS: Appeal in Whitehead Class Suit Ongoing
ROYAL SWEET: Hernandez Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages under FLSA
RP AUTOMOTIVE: Cortez Seeks OT & Minimum Wage under Labor Code
SAFE STREETS: Can Compel Arbitration in Anderson FLSA Suit

SAFRAN TURNEY: Faces Smith-Centz Suit Over Tip Sharing Policy
SAKS AND COMPANY: Rudolph Suit Moved to S.D. New York
SCRIPPS HEALTH: Underpays Supply Technicians, Angcaya Suit Says
SENTRY CREDIT: Certification of Class Sought in Bencomo Suit
SERVICE EMPLOYEES: Conn. Gov't Workers Sue Over Coercive Unionism

SHIMADZU PRECISION: Gunn Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
SIGNATURE CLEANING: Sanchez Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
SILVER TREE: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Pay, Fefel Suit Says
SINGAPORE: Veteran Diplomat Calls for Class Action v. Sec. 377
SIRIUS XM RADIO: Alvarez Sues over Radio Lifetime Subscriptions

SLIDE FIRE: Court Dismisses Festival Shooting Negligence Suit
SNAP INC: Still Faces Securities Class Action over March 2017 IPO
SONY MUSIC: Court Partly Affirms Strike Order in Serova Suit
SOUTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY: Judge Denies Ex-Doctor Class-Action
SPRINT/UNITED: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Burgains Suit Alleges

STERLITE OF OHIO: Ohio App. Reverses Dismissal of Lunsford Suit
SUNOPTA INC: Accrues $5.0MM for De Jesus Settlement at June 30
SUPERCLEAN BRANDS: Web Site Not Deaf-friendly, Sullivan Suit Says
TASTE OF NATURE: Settles Class Action Over Candy Packaging
TD AMERITRADE: Judge Certifies Equity Trades Class Action

TELECLARO LLC: Pineda Seeks Injunction Over TCPA Violations
TELLIGEN: Faces Class Action Over Employee-Purchase Deal
TETRAPHASE PHARMA: Rosen Law Firm Files Class Action
TIBANA FINISHING: 2 Settlement Classes Certified in Vazquez Case
TIGER NATURAL: Fishman Seeks to Certify Customer Class, Sub-Class

TIVITY HEALTH: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Jeffrey Katz Alleges
TOLTECA ENTERPRISES: Hackler Sues over Debt Collection Practices
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Former Engineer Supports Pay Equity Settlement
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Judge Rejects Lfyt Drivers Spying Class Action
UBS AG: Class Cert Denied in Suit Over Puerto Rico Govt Bonds

UMPQUA BANK: Settlement in Connolly FCRA Suit Has Prelim Approval
UNITED STATES: Class Action Appropriate in Monk Case Against VA
UNITED STATES: Immigrant Families File Mental Health Class Action
UNITED STATES: Immigration Advocates to Fight Detention Proposal
UNITED STATES: Loses Summary Judgment Bid in GM Dealers' Suit

UNITED STATES: Migrant Families Sue Over "Zero Tolerance" Policy
UNIV OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Sued over Doctor's Sexual Conduct
USANA HEALTH: Bid to Drop Rumbaugh Class Suit Still Pending
VALHI INC: NL Industries Still Faces Lawsuits over Lead Pigments
VERISMA SYSTEMS: Court Won't Review McCracken Summary Ruling

VILLAGE OF RIDGEWOOD: Township of Wyckoff Sues over Water Rates
VITAMIN SHOPPE: Plaintiffs Voluntarily Drop Securities Class Suit
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Dutch Asset Managers Join Class Action
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Bill for Cheating Emissions May Reach EUR30BB
WABASH NATIONAL: 2nd Amended Complaint Pending in Suit vs. Supreme

WABTEC CORP: 9th Cir. Wants Supreme Court to Tackle Wage Issue
WARRANTECH CORP: Faces Class Action Lawsuit
WORLD WRESTLING: Court Dismisses Retired Wrestlers' Suit
WYNN RESORTS: Still Faces Ferris Securities Class Suit in Nevada
XPERTS CONSTRUCTION: Underpays Operators & Laborers, Suit Alleges

YRC INC: Workers Class & 9 Subclasses Certified in Alvarez Suit
ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Briefing Underway in Evans Case Appeal

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: $2.1MM Awarded After Asbestos Trial
ASBESTOS UPDATE: $7MM Verdict vs Jenkins Bros. in Asbestos Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2nd Suit Filed Over Asbestos Cover-Up in Apartment
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 33-Year Old Woman Dies of Asbestos Cancer
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal from $13MM Verdict in Lopez Still Pending

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Forces County Employees to Evacuate
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Avon Still Defends Talc-Related Suits at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BNSF Still Defends PI Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chemours Accrues $38MM for DuPont Suits at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Had $53.8MM Accrued Liability at June 29

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Had 17,574 Unresolved Claims at June 29
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colgate Awarded Costs on Appeal of Alfaro Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Companies Sued for D. Neal's Asbestos Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Conn. High Ct. Upholds Award in Asbestos Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contractor Finds More Asbestos in Mill Demolition

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Denial of WGAST's Motions for Judgment Affirmed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Expert Testimony Precluded in Talc Lawsuit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Family Continues Fight for Asbestos Justice
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gardner Denver Had $100.8MM Reserve at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: GBP260,000 Payout for Asbestos Death

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graham Corp. Still Faces Lawsuits at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grenfell Survivors At Risk of Asbestos Poisoning
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Inc. Has US$858.8MM Liability at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Units Had 25,000 Claims Pending at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MetLife Unit Had 1,754 New Cases Jan-June 2018

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minerals Technologies Faces 25 Cases at July 1
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Moore Couple Sues for Failure Warn Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: More Asbestos Found in Minnie Water
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Nelson Man Dies of Asbestosis
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NL Industries Still Defends 110 Cases at June 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parsons Class Lawsuit vs. Liggett Still Stayed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Richards' Bid to Supplement Expert Report Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Roper Tech, Units Still Defend Suits at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sempra Energy Units Still Face Suits at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: SPX Had $615.3MM Asbestos Liability at June 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Steel Partners Unit Has 50 Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment vs. Mohn Affirmed on Appeal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tenneco Faces Less Than 500 Cases at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Thomas-Fish Claims vs. Delaware Defendants Severed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: WestRock Co. Had 725 PI Suits at June 30



                            *********

63-28 WOODHAVEN: Fails to Pay Overtime Premiums, Uruena et al. Say
------------------------------------------------------------------
LEANDRO CASIMIRO URUENA and BUDI ANTORO, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. 63-28 WOODHAVEN
INC. d/b/a BRIDIE'S BAR & GRILL, JASON BRUNETTI, RENEE BARBONE,
JESSICA VALENTI, and KEVIN KILLARNEY, Jointly and Severally, the
Defendants, Case No. 714300/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Sept. 18, 2018),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime premiums pursuant to the New York
Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs worked for Defendants as
a line cook, dishwasher, food prep, and cleaning person at their
bar and grill located in Rego Park, Queens. For their work, despite
the fact that Plaintiffs were required to work well in excess of 40
hours per week, the Plaintiffs were not paid overtime premiums for
hours worked over 40. The Plaintiffs also did not receive
spread-of-hours premiums when they worked shifts of 10 or more
hours per day and did not receive proper wage notices and wage
statements.

Bridie's is a casual American restaurant & sports bar offering
games on 18 flat-screen TVs & weekend brunch.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the putative class:

          Brent E. Pelton, Esq.
          Taylor B. Graham, Esq.
          PELTON GRAHAM LLC
          www.PeltonGraham.com
          111 Broadway, Suite 1503
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 385 9700
          Facsimile: (212) 385 0800
          E-mail: Pelton@PeltonGraham.com
                  Graham@PeltonGraham.com


A-PARA TRANSIT: Fails to Pay Wages & Overtime, Foster Says
----------------------------------------------------------
DARRYL FOSTER on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated,
and on behalf of the general public, the Plaintiffs, vs A-PARA
TRANSIT CORP.; and DOES 1-100, the Defendants, Case No. R618920985
(Cal. Super. Ct., Sept. 18, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages
and overtime wages under the California Labor Code.

A-Para Transit and/or DOES have had a consistent policy and/or
practice of not paying Plaintiff and its non-exempt employees for
all of the hours they worked.

The Defendants own and operate trucks, industrial trucks,
industrial vehicles, and/or industrial work sites.[BN]

Attorneys for Darryl Foster, on behalf of himself all others
similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public:

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


ACTIVISION PUBLISHING: Faces Class Action Over Guitar Hero
----------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
consumers brought a federal class action against Activision
Publishing for announcing that it will shut down Guitar Hero TV and
the game's online servers on Dec. 1.


ADS ALLIANCE: Underpays Payment Specialists, Al-Sabur Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
ARSHAD AL-SABUR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ADS ALLIANCE DATA SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 2:18-cv-00957-GCS-CMV (S.D. Ohio, Aug. 27, 2018) is an
action against the Defendant to collect unpaid overtime
compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff Al-Sabur was employed by the Defendant as payment
specialist from July 2015 to August 2017.

ADS Alliance Data Systems, Inc. provides transaction processing
services, credit services, and marketing services to the retail,
petroleum, financial services, utility, and hospitality markets in
North America. ADS Alliance Data Systems, Inc. was formerly known
as BSI Business Services, Inc. and changed its name to ADS Alliance
Data Systems, Inc. in 1996. The company was founded in 1983 and is
based in Plano, Texas. As of December 2, 1996, ADS Alliance Data
Systems, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Alliance Data Systems
Corporation. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
          COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
          1457 S. High St.
          Columbus, OH 43207
          Telephone: (614) 949-1181
          Facsimile: (614) 386-9964
          E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com

               - and -

          Daniel I. Bryant, Esq.
          BRYANT LEGAL, LLC
          1457 S. High St.
          Columbus, OH 43207
          Telephone: (614) 704-0546
          Facsimile: (614) 573-9826
          E-mail: dbryant@bryantlegalllc.com

               - and -

          Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
          Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER LLC
          7266 Portage Street, N.W., Suite D
          Massillon, OH 44646
          Telephone: (330) 470-4428
          Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
          E-mail: sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com
                  hans@ohlaborlaw.com


ADVANCE AUTO: Continues to Defend Delaware Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Advance Auto Parts, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 14, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended July 14, 2018, that the company continues to
defend a putative class action suit in the U.S. District Court,
District of Delaware.

On February 6, 2018, a putative class action on behalf of
purchasers of the company's securities who purchased or otherwise
acquired their securities between November 14, 2016 and August 15,
2017, inclusive (the "Class Period"), was commenced against the
company and certain of its current and former officers in the
United States District Court, District of Delaware.

The plaintiff alleges that the defendants failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the company's financial well-being,
business relationships, and prospects during the alleged Class
Period in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  The case is still
in its preliminary stages.

Advance Auto Parts said' "We strongly dispute the allegations of
the complaint and intend to defend the case vigorously."

Advance Auto Parts, Inc. provides automotive replacement parts,
batteries, accessories, and maintenance items for domestic and
imported cars, vans, sport utility vehicles, and light and heavy
duty trucks.  The company was founded in 1929 and is based in
Roanoke, Virginia.


AEMETIS INC: Fails to Pay Proper OT, Turner Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL TURNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AEMETIS, INC.; AEMETIS ADVANCED FUELS KEYES,
INC.; and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants, Case No. 18CV333697 (Cal.
Super., Santa Clara Cty., Aug. 28, 2018) is an action against the
Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff overtime compensation for
hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

Mr. Turner was employed by the Defendants as an hourly-paid,
non-exempt employee from December 2014 to July 2015.

Aemetis, Inc. operates as a renewable fuels and bio-chemicals
company in North America and India. The company was formerly known
as AE Biofuels, Inc. and changed its name to Aemetis, Inc. in
November 2011. Aemetis, Inc. was founded in 2005 and is
headquartered in Cupertino, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas Han, Esq.
          Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, Esq.
          Daniel J. Park, Esq.
          JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
          411 North Central Avenue, Suite 500
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone (818) 230-7502
          Facsimile (818) 230-7502


AFSCME CALIFORNIA: Hernandez Sues over Payroll Deductions
---------------------------------------------------------
The case, LILIANA HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AFSCME CALIFORNIA; AFSCME
LOCAL 3299; THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA; EDMUND G.
BROWN, in his official capacity of Governor of the State of
California; XAVIER BECERRA, in his official capacity as Attorney
General of the State of California; MARK GREGERSEN; ERIC BANKS;
PRISCILLA WINSLOW; ERICH SHINERS; and ARTHUR A. KRANTZ, in their
official capacities as chair and members of the California Public
Employment Relations Board, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-at-01413
(E.D. Cal., Aug. 31, 2018), alleges that the Defendants establish
an "agency shop" where employees were compelled to pay money to
AFSCME Local 3299 and its affiliates as a condition of employment.
The Defendants deduct union dues from the Plaintiff's paycheck even
after she clearly and unequivocally communicated to both the union
and her employer that she wants to terminate her union membership
and halt the payroll deductions of union-related fees.

American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees,
AFL-CIO is a public service employees union that organizes for
social and economic justice in the workplace. AFSCME was founded in
1932 and is based in Washington, District of Columbia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bradley Benbrook, Esq.
          BENBROOK LAW GROUP, PC
          400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2530
          Sacramento, CA 95814
          Telephone: (916) 447-4900
          Facsimile: (916) 447-4904
          E-mail: brad@benbrooklawgroup.com

               - and -

          Jonathan F. Mitchell, Esq.
          MITCHELL LAW PLLC
          106 East Sixth Street, Suite 900
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 686 3940
          Facsimile: (512) 686-3941
          E-mail: jonathan@mitchell.law


AGGRENOX ANTITRUST LITIG.: Blue Cross Files 2nd Cir. Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Vermont, Inc. filed an appeal from a
decision in the original case captioned as Aggrenox Antitrust
Litigation, Case No. 3:14MD2516(SRU). The appeal was filed on
August 20, 2018, before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
District and assigned Case No. 18-2474.

Blue Cross appeal the following orders of the U.S. District Court
for the District of Connecticut: (1) July 19, 2018 Order granting
End-Payor Plaintiffs' Motion for an Order Regarding Certain Opt Out
Requests; and (2) July 19, 2011 Order Granting Final Judgment.

Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. offers human
prescription medicines for the treatment of lung health,
cardiovascular diseases, men's prostate health, and anti-viral
therapy. The company was founded in 1971 and is based in
Ridgefield, Connecticut with research and development facilities in
Ohio, Virginia, Germany, and Italy. Boehringer Ingelheim
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Boehringer
Ingelheim Corporation. The Company manufactures Aggrenox. [BN]

The Appellant is represented by:

          Peter D. St. Phillip, Jr., Esq.
          Uriel Rabinovitz, Esq.
          LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
          44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Telephone: (914) 997-0500
          E-mail: pstphillip@lowey.com
                  urabinovitz@lowey.com

               - and –

          Mark D. Fischer, Esq.
          Robert Griffith, Esq.
          RAWLINGS & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
          One Eden Parkway
          LaGrange, KY 40031-1800
          Telephone: (502) 587-1279
          E-mail: mdf@rawlingsandassociates.com
                  rg1@rawlingsandassociates.com


ALASKA COMMUNICATIONS: Court Certifies Sales Workers Class
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LAURA LEE PETERSON, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, and MATTHEW SMITH, HILARY FISHER, AND
JENNIFER CARGILE, Plaintiffs, v. ALASKA COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS
GROUP, INC., and ALASKA COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS HOLDINGS, INC., dba
ALASKA COMMUNICATIONS, Defendants, Case No. 3:12-cv-00090-TMB (D.
Alaska), Judge Timothy M. Burgess of the U.S. District Court for
the District of Alaska the Plaintiffs' Motion for Certification of
a Rule 23 Class Action.

Peterson, a former sales employee at ACS, sued ACS on behalf of
herself, additional named Plaintiffs, and a class of potential
Plaintiffs for allegedly violating the overtime provisions of the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the Alaska Wage and Hour Act
("AWHA").  The instant dispute centers on the Plaintiffs'
allegation that ACS improperly classified them and other Client
Account Managers ("CAMs") as exempt under the outside sales
exemption, and that ACS failed to pay overtime in violation of
state and federal law.

The Plaintiffs sought, and the Court granted, conditional
certification of a collective action under the FLSA.  Since
conditional certification, 21 individuals have opted-in to the FLSA
collective action.  To the date of the Order, six of these opt-in
Plaintiffs have either withdrawn or been dismissed, and are no
longer part of the FLSA collective action.

ACS also filed a motion in limine to exclude Plaintiff Peterson's
deposition errata.  After briefing by the parties, the Court denied
the motion without prejudice but noted that ACS may also argue that
those nine changes warrant little, if any, weight on any other
motions (including certification and decertification motions).

The Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion on Sept. 29, 2017, seeking
to certify a class based on violations of the AWHA.  The Plaintiffs
state that they seek to appoint Plaintiff Laura Lee Peterson and
opt-in Plaintiffs Carrie Shephard and Sharon Hubbs as the class
representatives of the proposed class.

The Plaintiffs propose the class of all full-time exempt employees
who work or worked for ACS in the job position which is currently
titled Client Account Manager (I, II, or III), (formerly known as
Account Executive or, in the case of the Carrier/Federal group,
Senior Manager or Sr. CAM), in the ACS Anchorage office from April
30, 2010 through the date of judgment.

The Plaintiffs note that they have narrowed the class definition
from the proposed definition in the First Amended Complaint.  ACS
did not raise any objection or concern with the narrowing of the
proposed class definition from the First Amended Complaint.

ACS filed its Response in Opposition on Nov. 16, 2017, opposing
certification of the proposed class.  The Plaintiffs filed their
Reply to the Response in Opposition on Jan. 24, 2018.

Judge Burgess holds that the Plaintiffs have satisfied the
requirements of Rule 23, and therefore granted the Motion for
Certification of a Rule 23 Class.  Accordingly, he granted the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification of their state-law claim
pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3).  He appointed Michael D. Palmer of the
law firm Sanford Heisler Sharp, LLP as the class counsel; and Laura
Lee Peterson, Carrie Shephard, and Sharon Hubbs as the class
representatives.

The Judge ordered the parties to (i) contact the Court within 10
days of the Order to schedule a status conference and (ii) submit a
status report and proposed scheduling order within 14 days of the
Order.  Prior to the scheduled status conference, the counsel will
file a proposed form of a class notice consistent with Rule
23(c)(2)(B).

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 28, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/jHpHQa from Leagle.com.

Laura Lee Peterson, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Mary L. Holen, Lee
Holen Law Office, Michael Douglas Palmer --
mpalmer@sanfordheisler.com -- Sandford Heisler Kimpel, LLP, pro hac
vice & Nicole Elizabeth Wiitala -- nwiitala@sanfordheisler.com --
Sandford Heisler Sharp, LLP.

Janet Furr, Matthew Hemmer, Daniel M. McCormick, Jan Marie Carroll,
Pamela Ramos, Isaac Taylor & Shawna Thomas, Plaintiffs, represented
by Mary L. Holen, Lee Holen Law Office.

Sharon Hubbs, Sylvija Kasper, James Kim, Carrie Shephard, aka
Carrie McDermott, Travis Horn, Julie Reich & Becky Baird,
Plaintiffs, represented by Mary L. Holen, Lee Holen Law Office &
Michael Douglas Palmer, Sandford Heisler Kimpel, LLP, pro hac
vice.

Alaska Communications Systems Group, Inc., doing business as Alaska
Communications, Defendant, represented by Douglas S. Parker --
dparker@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson & LeiLani J. Hart --
lhart@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C., pro hac vice.

Alaska Communications Systems Holdings, Inc., doing business as
Alaska Communications Defendant, represented by Douglas S. Parker,
Littler Mendelson.

Alaska Communications Systems Holdings, Inc., doing business as
Alaska Communications, Defendant, represented by LeiLani J. Hart,
Littler Mendelson, P.C., pro hac vice.


ALLIANCE MEDICAL: Fails to Pay OT & Minimum Wages, de la Cruz Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN DE LA CRUZ, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. ALLIANCE MEDICAL PRODUCTS, INC., a
California corporation, and DOES 1 TO 50, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. 37-2018-00048879-CU-0E-NC (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Sept. 18, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages, overtime
compensation and minimum wage under the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants maintained and enforced
against its Employees, among others, unlawful practices and
policies in violation of California wage and hour laws, including:
failing to pay Employees all wages, including the minimum wage and
overtime; forcing Employees to work off the clock without
compensation; failing to provide Employees with meal breaks or
provide premium pay for missed or deficient meal breaks; and
failing to provide Employees with rest periods or premium pay for
missed or deficient rest periods; failing to pay Employees
statutory penalties pursuant to Labor Code; failing to provide
Employees with timely, accurate, and itemized wage statements; and
failing to pay Employees and the State of California penalties
pursuant to Labor Code.

Alliance Medical Products, Inc. provides contract manufacturing and
analytical services to pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and medical
device companies, offering sterile liquid, ointment, suspension,
gel, and emulsion aseptic filling products, etc.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony J. Orshansky, Esq.
          Justin Kachadoorian, Esq.
          COUNSELONE, PC
          9301 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 650
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: (310) 277 9945
          Facsimile: (424) 277 3727
          E-mail: anthony@counseloncgroup.com
                  justin@counseloncgroup.com


ALTRIA GROUP: Tobacco Lawsuit in Document Production Phase
----------------------------------------------------------
Clare Clancy, writing for Edmonton Journal, reports that a
$10-billion provincial lawsuit against tobacco companies that
launched more than five years ago continues to plod along while the
Alberta government considers taking action against pharmaceutical
companies over opioid addictions.

Litigation to recover smoking related health-care costs is in the
document production phase, said Alberta Health spokesman Rob
Gereghty in an email on Sept. 7, adding the province has provided
more than 145,000 pages of records to the tobacco defendants and
will soon deliver a second set of 370,000 pages.

"A case management meeting is currently set for Sept. 21 . . . at
which time the province will seek to have a court ordered timetable
set for the next steps in the litigation," he said.

The former Progressive Conservative government had filed suit
against 14 Canadian and international tobacco firms in 2012, making
a move similar to other provinces.

The case has been marred in controversy after former premier Alison
Redford was accused of wrongdoing in how she selected a law firm to
represent the province.

She was Alberta's justice minister in 2010 when she chose a
consortium of law firms that included a company that employed her
former husband.

Redford was cleared by two separate ethics investigations in 2013
and 2017.

British Columbia was the first province to take big tobacco to
court in 1998 and is once again ahead of the curve after announcing
that it is suing more than 40 opioid manufacturers and
distributors.

The class-action suit filed in the B.C. Supreme Court will aim to
recoup costs associated with opioid addiction.

B.C. Addictions Minister Judy Darcy told reporters the opioid
crisis -- which the federal government estimates has led to nearly
4,000 overdose deaths in Canada -- is the worst public health
emergency in B.C.

None of the allegations made by B.C. have been proven in court.

"The Government of Alberta is watching this legal action closely,"
said Health Minister Sarah Hoffman in an email statement on Sept.
7. "Our lawyers are reviewing the statement of claim before
determining any next steps."

Alberta started closely tracking deaths due to fentanyl-related
overdoses in 2016, when 368 people died.

This year from Jan. 1 to May 6, 228 people died from
fentanyl-related overdoses, according to the latest government
data.

It means Alberta is on track to average 12.6 deaths per week this
year, higher than the 11.2 deaths per week in 2017, when a total of
583 people died.

The case is Her Majesty in Right of Alberta v. Altria Group, Inc.;
B.A.T. Industries P.L.C.; British American Tobacco (Investments)
Limited; British American Tobacco P.L.C.; Canadian Tobacco
Manufacturers Council; Carreras Rothmans Limited; Imperial Tobacco
Canada Limited; JTIMacDonald Corp.; Philip Morris International,
Inc.; Philip Morris USA, Inc.; R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company; R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco International, Inc.; Rothmans Benson & Hedges
Inc.; and Rothmans Inc. [GN]


AMAZON.COM INC: Waithaka Remanded to Worcester Superior Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Timothy S. Hillman of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts granted Plaintiff's Motion to Remand the
case, BERNARD WAITHAKA, on Behalf of Himself and All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. AMAZON.COM, INC., AMAZON
LOGISTICS, INC., Defendants, Civil Action No. 17-40141-TSH (D.
Mass.), to Worcester Superior Court.

On Aug. 28, 2017, Waithaka filed a Complaint in Worcester Superior
Court against Amazon for wage violations on behalf of delivery
drivers who Waithaka contends are employed by Amazon but have been
misclassified as independent contractors.  Waithaka alleges that
Amazon has violated Mass. Gen. L. c. 149 Sections 148, 148B, by
failing to reimburse drivers for business expenses, and Mass. Gen.
L. c. 151 Sections 1, 7, by failing to pay drivers for additional
hours worked after a shift ended and failing to pay drivers minimum
wage after expenses.  In his Complaint, he seeks damages for
vehicle expenses, phone expenses, minimum wage violations, unpaid
wages, and attorneys' fees.

On Oct. 29, 2017, Amazon filed its Notice of Removal in the Court.
It claims that the case is removable under either the Class Action
Fairness Act of 2005 ("CAFA") or traditional diversity
jurisdiction, because the amount in controversy exceeds the
jurisdictional threshold of $5 million or $75,000, respectively.
Specifically, Amazon alleges that the amount in controversy,
including attorneys' fees, exceeds $5,490,468 for the class, or
$90,864 for the named Plaintiff.  Of these amounts, Amazon
estimates that $1,098,093, for the class, and $72,000, for the
named Plaintiff, will come from the attorneys' fees alone.

Before the Court is Waithaka's Motion to Remand the case to state
court because the amount in controversy does not exceed the
jurisdictional thresholds under either CAFA or traditional
diversity jurisdiction.

Judge Hillman finds that there is no dispute that a party may
include attorneys' fees, where provided by statute, in calculating
the amount in controversy.  While Amazon argues that because the
Plaintiff's counsel has previously spent between 943 and 1,800
hours on misclassification cases it will likely spend 1,200 hours
on the case, it is equally likely that the case will be decided on
summary judgment or settle early.  Given that the Plaintiff's
attorneys' fees through this motion totaled only $11,700, and that
the Plaintiff has shown that cases under Massachusetts Independent
Contractor Law are routinely decided on summary judgment, it is
unreasonably speculative to assume that this will be a heavily
litigated case that amasses over $600,000 in attorneys' fees.

Likewise, the Judge finds that it is unreasonably speculative to
assume that the attorneys' fees for the named Plaintiff alone would
exceed $56,136.  While it is possible that the case will be heavily
litigated, the Plaintiff has put forward evidence suggesting that
it is equally likely that the case will be decided on a motion for
summary judgement.  Because there is a presumption against removal,
the case will not survive the Motion to Remand on the basis of
traditional diversity jurisdiction where two courses of litigation
are equally likely.  Further, attorneys' fees can only be included
in the calculations of amount in controversy to the extent
reasonable and having over two thirds of the estimated amount come
from attorneys' fees is not reasonable.

Finally, because the damages that may be accrued after the date of
removal in a misclassification case are speculative, the Judge
declines to include future damages in the amount in controversy
calculation.

For these reasons, Judge Hillman granted the Plaintiff's Motion to
Remand, and remanded the matter to Worcester Superior Court.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 28, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/pvc58L from Leagle.com.

Bernard Waithaka, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Shannon E. Liss-Riordan --
sliss@llrlaw.com -- Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C. & Adelaide H.
Pagano -- apagano@llrlaw.com -- Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C.

Amazon.com, Inc. & Amazon Logistics, Inc., Defendants, represented
by James Walsh -- james.walsh@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius, LLP, pro hac vice, Douglas T. Schwarz --
douglas.schwarz@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP &
Elizabeth M. Bresnahan -- elizabeth.bresnahan@morganlewis.com --
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP.


AMERICAN BANK: Bid to Vacate Class Cert. Order in Kramer Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARC KRAMER, KIRIL TRAJCEVSKI, and MATT NYMAN, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v. AMERICAN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, N.A., Defendant, Case No.
11-cv-08758 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Andrea R. Wood of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division,
denied Bank's Motion to Vacate the March 31, 2017 Memorandum
Opinion and Order of Judge John Z. Lee, but granted the Motion to
Reconsider the same.

The named Plaintiffs are former loan officers for the Bank who have
brought this putative class action, alleging that the Bank failed
to pay legally-mandated minimum and overtime wages, as well as
commissions owed under the parties' employment contracts.  In the
action, the Plaintiffs have brought claims under the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"); the Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL"); and
the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act ("IWPCA"); as well as
for common law breach of contract, fraud by misrepresentation, and
fraud by omission.  

In February 2014, Judge Lee conditionally certified a collective
action under the FLSA.  In November 2015, the Plaintiffs moved for
certification of a class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23 on all claims other than their FLSA claim, and in
January 2016, the Bank moved to decertify the FLSA collective.

Specifically, Plaintiffs sought to certify one class and two
additional subclasses.  First, with respect to the minimum wage and
overtime claims under the IMWL, they sought to certify a class
defined as all loan officers employed by the Bank in Illinois at
any point during the three-year period preceding the filing of the
Complaint through January 2011 ("IMWL Class").  Second, with
respect to the allegations that the Bank "skimmed" a portion of the
secondary gain off revenue generated by loan officers, they sought
to certify two subclasses ("Skimming Subclasses").  With respect to
the IWPCA claims, they sought to certify a subclass defined as all
loan officers employed by the Bank in Illinois at any point during
the ten years preceding the filing of the case through January 2011
("IWPCA Subclass").  And with respect to the breach of contract and
fraud claims, they sought to certify a subclass defined as all loan
officers employed by the Bank at any point in the five years
preceding the filing of the case through January 2011 ("Contract
and Fraud Subclass").

In his March 31, 2017 Opinion, Judge Lee granted the Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification with respect to the following
classes:

      (1) The Illinois Minimum Wage Law Class is defined as all
loan officers employed by American Bank & Trust Co. in Illinois at
any point in time from Dec. 9, 2008 through January 2011.

      (2) The Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act Class is
defined as all loan officers employed by American Bank & Trust Co.
in Illinois at any point in time from Dec. 9, 2001 through January
2011.

      (3) The Breach of Contract Class is defined as all loan
officers employed by American Bank & Trust Co. at any point in time
from Dec. 9, 2006 through January 2011.

      (4) The Fraud Class is defined as all loan officers employed
by American Bank & Trust Co. at any point in time from Dec. 9, 2006
through January 2011.

Judge Lee also denied the Bank's motion to decertify the previously
conditionally-certified FLSA collective action.

Prior to the March 31, 2017 decision, on Dec. 7, 2016, the
Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Leave to Substitute Counsel, seeking
to substitute their prior attorneys with attorneys from the law
firm of Freeborn & Peters LLP.  On Dec. 12, 2016, Judge Lee entered
an Order granting the substitution motion, and a Freeborn & Peters
attorney subsequently filed an appearance.

On May 11, 2017, Judge Lee recused himself from the case indicating
that one of the parties is represented by a law firm he was
associated with during the past five years.  The case was
subsequently transferred to the Court.

The Bank then filed the instant motion, requesting that the Court
reconsiders or vacates Judge Lee's March 31, 2017 decision.
Specifically, the Bank argues that the basis for Judge Lee's
recusal was his previous affiliation with Freeborn & Peters and,
because that basis existed prior to his March 31, 2017 ruling, that
decision should be vacated and reconsidered by a judge who does not
have a basis for recusal.

Judge Wood agrees with the finding in the March 31, 2017 Opinion
that the Plaintiffs have met the Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3) for
each proposed class.  She adopts the conclusion in the March 31,
2017 Opinion that the requirements of Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3) have
been met and that proceeding as a class action is a superior method
for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the claims in the case.
She therefore confirms the prior certification under Rule 23(b)(3)
of the classes identified in the March 31, 2017 Opinion.

Specifically:

     (1) The Illinois Minimum Wage Law Class is defined as all loan
officers employed by American Bank & Trust Co. in Illinois at any
point in time from Dec. 9, 2008 through January 2011.

     (2) The Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act Class is
defined as all loan officers employed by American Bank & Trust Co.
in Illinois at any point in time from Dec. 9, 2001 through January
2011.

     (3) The Breach of Contract Class is defined as all loan
officers employed by American Bank & Trust Co. at any point in time
from Dec. 9, 2006 through January 2011.

     (4) The Fraud Class is defined as all loan officers employed
by American Bank & Trust Co. at any point in time from Dec. 9, 2006
through January 2011.

As noted in the March 31, 2017 Opinion, the analysis regarding
whether to proceed as a collective action under 216(b) concerns
many of the same issues addressed when determining class
certification under Rule 23.  The Bank's arguments in support of
decertification track its arguments under Rule 23 class
certification.  And for the same reasons the Plaintiffs met the
requirements of Rule 23, they also met their burden to show that
the opt-in Plaintiffs are similarly-situated under Section 216(b).


The Judge further agrees with the conclusion in the March 31, 2017
Opinion that the Bank's additional arguments in support of its
motion to decertify the FLSA class and not included in its
opposition to the Plaintiffs' Rule 23 motion do not justify
decertification.  The March 31, 2017 Opinion addresses these
arguments in depth.  Suffice to say, she declines to decertify the
previously conditionally certified FLSA collective action.  The
FLSA collective action remains defined as all loan officers
employed by American Bank & Trust's Mortgage Division from June 12,
2009, to the present, who were paid on a commission basis and who
were not paid minimum wage or overtime compensation.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Wood denied the Bank's motion to
vacate the March 31, 2017 Memorandum Opinion and Order, but granted
the Bank's motion to reconsider the same, in the limited sense that
she has conducted an independent assessment of the parties'
arguments regarding Rule 23 class certification and decertification
of the conditionally-certified FLSA collective.  After doing so,
she concludes that the issues covered by the March 31, 2017
Memorandum Opinion and Order were correctly decided and those
rulings should stand.

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

Marc Kramer, Plaintiff, represented by Angela Davis Pallozzi --
apallozzi@offitkurman.com -- Offit Kurman, P.a., pro hac vice,
April Michelle Rancier -- arancier@offitkurman.com -- Offit Kurman,
pro hac vice, Steven Michael Hartmann -- shartmann@freeborn.com --
Freeborn & Peters, Timothy J. McCaffrey -- tmccaffrey@freeborn.com
-- Freeborn & Peters LLP, Ari Karen -- akaren@offitkurman.com --
Offit Kurman, PA, pro hac vice, Katharine Thomas Batista --
kbatista@offitkurman.com -- Offit Kurman, P.A., pro hac vice,
Stanley Todman, Offit Kurman, PA, pro hac vice & Timothy Cronin
Lynch -- tlynch@offitkurman.com -- Offit Kurman, pro hac vice.

Kiril Trajcevski & Matt Nyman, on behalf of themselves and all
other similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Angela Davis
Pallozzi, Offit Kurman, P.a., pro hac vice, April Michelle Rancier,
Offit Kurman, pro hac vice, Steven Michael Hartmann, Freeborn &
Peters, Ari Karen, Offit Kurman, PA, pro hac vice, Katharine Thomas
Batista, Offit Kurman, P.A., pro hac vice, Stanley Todman, Offit
Kurman, PA, pro hac vice & Timothy Cronin Lynch, Offit Kurman, pro
hac vice.

American Bank and Trust Company, N.A., Julie Klaus, Harry S. Coin,
Sharon Wheeler & Dale Dollenbacher, Defendants, represented by
Cameron A. Davidson, Heninger and Heninger, P.C. & Jeffrey David
Wright -- jwright@poflegal.com -- Pappas O'Connor, P.C., pro hac
vice.


AMERICAN FRUITS: Fails to Pay Proper OT, Sanchez Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
MARCELO SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICA FRUITS AND FLAVORS, LLC; MONSTER
ENERGY US LLC; MONSTER ENERGY COMPANY; and DOES 1 TO 100,
Defendants, Case No. BC719410 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Aug.
28, 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. Sanchez was employed by the Defendants as hourly-paid,
non-exempt employee.

American Fruits and Flavors, LLC produces and supplies fruit and
vegetable-based products, concentrates, and flavors for the food
and beverage industry worldwide. The company was incorporated in
1975 and is based in Pacoima, California. As of April 1, 2016,
American Fruits and Flavors, LLC operates as a subsidiary of
Monster Beverage Corporation. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anwar D. Burton, Esq.
          Joseph Lavi, Esq.
          LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
          8889 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 200
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 432-0000
          Facsimile: (310) 432-0001
          E-mail: jlavi@lelawfirm.com
                  aburton@lelawfirm.com


APEX BEHAVIORAL: Underpays Behavioral Therapists, El Faramawi Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
BASMAH EL FARAMAWI, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. APEX BEHAVIORAL CONSULTING LLC;
and LESLIE DEUTCHMAN, Defendants, Case No. 18-2863E (Mass. Cmmw.,
Suffolk Cty., Aug. 27, 2018) is an action against the Defendants to
recover unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees
and costs.

The Plaintiff El Faramawi was employed by the Defendants as
behavioral therapist from December 16, 2016 to August 14, 2018.

Apex Behavioral Consulting LLC is a Massachusetts limited liability
company doing business in Boston, Massachusetts. The Company offers
comprehensive behavior analysis services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Howard M. Brown, Esq.
          BOSTON EMPLOYMENT LAW PC
          1170 Beacon St, Suite 200
          Brookline, MA 02446
          Telephone: (617) 566-8090
          Facsimile: (617) 566-8091
          E-mail: hmb@bostonemploymentlaw.com


ARADIGM CORP: Court Enters Dismissal Order in Kheder Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Aradigm Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 14, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the court has entered a
stipulated order of dismissal in the putative class action suit
entitled, Kevin Kheder v. Aradigm Corporation, et al.

On January 11, 2018, a putative class action lawsuit, Kevin Kheder
v. Aradigm Corporation, et al., No. 3:18-cv-00261, was filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California against the Company and two of its former officers. The
suit was purportedly brought on behalf of persons and entities who
acquired or otherwise purchased Aradigm common stock between the
Class Period.

alleges that defendants made false and misleading statements during
the Class Period that artificially inflated the price of Aradigm
stock. Lead plaintiff did not file an amended complaint, and
instead, on May 9, 2018, the parties filed a stipulation asking the
Court to dismiss the action with prejudice as to the lead plaintiff
and without prejudice to other putative class members. The Court
entered the stipulated order of dismissal on May 11, 2018.  The
case has been terminated.

Aradigm Corporation, a specialty pharmaceutical company, focuses on
the development and commercialization of products for the treatment
and prevention of severe respiratory diseases. The company was
founded in 1991 and is headquartered in Hayward, California.


ASURION LLC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Alleged Pay Practices
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kristine Gonzales-Abella, writing for SE Texas Record, reports that
a call center employer is alleged to have required employees to
work off-the-clock and failed to pay overtime wages.

William Alexander filed a complaint individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated on Sept. 4 in the Houston Division of
the Southern District of Texas against Asurion LLC alleging that
the extended warranty insurer violated the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that he routinely
worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek for the defendant without
receiving compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40 per
week. He alleges the defendant "has enforced a uniform company-wide
policy wherein it improperly required its hourly call center
employees -- plaintiff and the putative class members -- to perform
work off-the-clock and without pay," the suit states.

The plaintiff holds Asurion LLC responsible because the defendant
allegedly required employees to clock-in only when ready to take
their first call and did not pay them overtime compensation for all
hours worked in excess of 40 each week.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks unpaid wages,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, costs and interest and such
other and further relief as may be necessary and appropriate. He is
represented by Clif Alexander, Esq., Austin W. Anderson, Esq.,
Lauren E. Braddy, Esq, Alan Clifton Gordon, Esq. Carter T.
Hastings, Esq. and George Schimmel, Esq. of Anderson Alexander PLLC
in Corpus Christi.

Houston Division of the Southern District of Texas case number
4:18-cv-03103[GN]


BAIRES GRILL: Lezama Suit Seeks to Recover Minimum and OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Lezama, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Baires Grill, LLC, a Florida limited liability company;
Baires Brickell, LLC, a Florida limited liability company; and,
Baires Sunny Isles, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, Case
No. 1:18-cv-23856-KMM (S.D. Fla., September 19, 2018), seeks to
recover damages for alleged unpaid wages, minimum wages, overtime
wages, and other relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act,
Florida Statutes and the Florida Constitution.

Baires Grill, LLC, is a Florida limited liability company, which is
in the business of operating restaurants and bars in South Florida
as a single conglomerate organized under related, closely held and
operated limited liability companies using the same name.  Baires
Brickell, LLC, and Baires Sunny Isles, LLC, are Florida limited
liability companies.

Among the restaurants and bars operated by the Defendants are three
located in Miami-Dade County, Florida, with locations on Lincoln
Road, Brickell Avenue, Sunny Isles, and another in Weston, Broward
County, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony F. Sanchez, Esq.
          ANTHONY F. SANCHEZ, P.A.
          6701 Sunset Drive, Suite 101
          Miami, FL 33143
          Telephone: (305) 665-9211
          Facsimile: (305) 328-4842
          E-mail: afs@laborlawfla.com


BEST BUY: Can Compel Arbitration in Lovig FLSA Suit
---------------------------------------------------
In the case, NIKOLA LOVIG, Plaintiff, v. BEST BUY STORES LP, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-02807-PJH (N.D. Cal.), Judge
Phyllis J. Hamilton of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California compelled the Plaintiff to arbitrate on an
individual basis claims one through six of his First Amended
Complaint.

Lovig was an employee of Best Buy Stores from approximately April
24, 2004 until May 12, 2017.  On April 3, 2018, he brought an
action against Best Buy as a putative class action on behalf of all
persons employed by Defendants and/or any staffing agencies and/or
any other third parties in hourly or non-exempt positions in
California during the Relevant Time Period.

The state court complaint alleged the following causes of action:
(1) failure to provide meal periods, (2) failure to provide rest
periods, (3) failure to pay hourly wages, (4) failure to provide
accurate written wage statements, (5) failure to timely pay all
final wages, and (6) unfair compensation.  On July 10, 2018, the
Plaintiff filed a FAC, adding a seventh cause of action under the
Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA").

Effective March 15, 2016, while the Plaintiff was employed by Best
Buy Stores, the Defendants implemented an arbitration policy.  Over
five months later, on Aug. 28, 2016, the Plaintiff's manager gave
the Plaintiff a list of online training modules for her to
complete, including an information module about the Arbitration
Policy.  The Plaintiff completed all of the training modules except
the one covering arbitration.  The Plaintiff at that time told his
manager, Richard Arganda, that he didn't agree with arbitration
agreements and wouldn't sign one with Best Buy.  Arganda then went
to confer with another manager, Michelle Garcia, who the Plaintiff
believed to be a more senior manager.  The Plaintiff alleges that
Arganda then told him that there are no issues with his refusal to
complete the training covering the arbitration agreement.

In a retaliation complaint the Plaintiff filed with the California
Labor Commissioner's Office, Retaliation Complaint Investigation
Unit, at some point during or before September 2016, he alleged
that, by implementing the Arbitration Policy, they are able to
force him to quit the company or waive my right to sue and by
making other employees agree to the 'Arbitration Policy' or be
fired, they position themselves to impede/prevent me from starting
a class action lawsuit against them.

On Feb. 22, 2017, the Plaintiff was approached by another manager,
Dragos Damien, who instructed him to complete several online
training modules, pointing out specifically the training module
covering the arbitration policy.  The Plaintiff once again
completed all of the training programs except the one covering
arbitration.  Later that day, Damien asked the Plaintiff whether he
completed the arbitration training program.  The Plaintiff informed
Damien that he discussed this issue with other managers and that he
would not complete the arbitration training module as he was not
willing and had no desire to sign an arbitration agreement.

Through the date of his termination on May 12, 2017, the Plaintiff
had not signed any arbitration agreement with the Defendants.  He
claims that he was never made aware that by remaining employed with
the Defendants, he was agreeing to an arbitration agreement.

On April 3, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a complaint in Alameda County
Superior Court.  On May 3, 2018, the Defendants provided the
Plaintiff's counsel with materials regarding the Arbitration Policy
and requested that the Plaintiff stipulate to arbitrate his claims
on an individual basis and dismiss the complaint.  The Plaintiff's
counsel did not respond.

On May 11, 2018, the Defendants removed the case to the Court.  On
July 10, 2018, the Plaintiff filed the FAC, adding the PAGA cause
of action.

The Defendants move the Court for an order compelling the Plaintiff
to arbitrate certain of his claims, dismissing his class claims,
and staying his PAGA claim pending arbitration.

Judge Hamilton compelled the Plaintiff to arbitrate on an
individual basis claims one through six of his First Amended
Complaint for failure to provide meal periods; failure to provide
rest periods; failure to pay hourly wages; failure to provide
accurate written wage statements; failure to timely pay all final
wages; and unfair competition.  The entire action is stayed pending
resolution of the arbitration.  The Plaintiff's class claims are
dismissed with prejudice.

The Judge finds, among other things, that the availability of the
Arbitration Policy on the intranet, were clearly sufficient to
provide Lovig with notice of the new policy.  Lovig remained
employed by Best Buy over five months beyond the effective date of
the policy without raising any objection to it.  His continued
employment expressed agreement to and acceptance of the Arbitration
Policy, even if Lovig had not known that his actions constituted
acceptance.  Lovig's unexpressed intentions or understandings about
the policy cannot negate his outward expression of assent to its
terms.

He also finds that procedurally, the Arbitration Agreement was
unconscionable.  It was not negotiated -- it was presented as
take-it-or-leave-it.  As such, it was oppressive because it
involved lack of negotiation or meaningful choice.  Because the
Plaintiff must show both procedural and substantive
unconscionability -- and he fails to do so -- the agreement is not
unconscionable, even when recognizing the procedural oppression and
applying a sliding scale.

The Arbitration Policy unambiguously applies to past, present or
future Claims between an Employee/former Employee or applicant and
Best Buy, that arise out of or relate in any way to the applicant's
or Employee's employment application, employment and/or termination
of employment with Best Buy.  Elsewhere, the policy states that it
requires that Employees bring in arbitration, rather than in court,
any past, present or future claims, disputes, or lawsuits.  The
terms are clear on their face, and the Arbitration Policy applies
retroactively.

Finally, the Judge finds that because he agreed to arbitrate any
and all non-PAGA claims on an individual basis only, the
Plaintiff's class claims are dismissed with prejudice.  And taking
the considerations into account, the Judge finds that it is
appropriate to stay Plaintiff's PAGA claim.


A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 28, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/yXgMnJ from Leagle.com.

Nikola Lovig, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situtated,
Plaintiff, represented by Shaun Setareh -- info@setarehlaw.com --
Setareh Law Group, Chaim Shaun Setareh, Setareh Law Group, Howard
Scott Leviant -- scott@setarehlaw.com  -- Setareh Law Group &
William Matthew Pao -- william@setarehlaw.com -- Setareh Law
Group.

Best Buy Stores LP, a Virginia limited partnership & MN Best Buy Co
Inc, a Minnesota corporation, Defendants, represented by Barbara
Jean Miller -- barbara.miller@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis &
Bockius, LLP & Christopher J. Taylor --
christopher.taylor@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis, Bockius LLP.


BLUE APRON: Berardi Sues over 2017 Public Offering
--------------------------------------------------
PACUALE BERARDI, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. BLUE APRON HOLDINGS, INC., MATT
SALZBERG, BRADLEY DICKERSON, BENJAMIN C. SINGER, JULIE M.B.
BRADLEY, TRACEY BRITT COOL, KENNETH A. FOX, ROBERT P. GOODMAN, GARY
R. HIRSHBERG and BRIAN P. KELLEY, the Defendants, Case No.
654534/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Sept. 12, 2018), seeks to recover
damages caused by the Defendants' alleged violations of the
Securities Act of 1933.

The case is a securities class action on behalf of all persons,
other than the Defendants, who acquired Blue Apron securities
pursuant to the registration statement for Blue Apron's initial
public offering in June last year.  Blue Apron's Class A common
stock trades on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol
"APRN."

According to the complaint, in the IPO Registration Statement and
the IPO Prospectus, the Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business and its
operational and compliance policies.  The Defendants failed to
disclose known material trends that would have a material impact on
net sales or revenues or income from continuing operations, and
that would cause reported financial information not to be
necessarily indicative of future operating results.

On August 10, 2017, in connection with the release of its second
quarter earnings, Blue Apron revealed it had encountered
significant delays associated with ramping up production in its
highly touted new factory in Linden, New Jersey. These pervasive
equipment malfunctions and serious staffing issues prevented Blue
Apron from attaining full production capacity at its Linden
facility, which was intended to generate more than half of Blue
Apron’s total production. These persistent production delays led
to further delays in implementing new product initiatives that Blue
Apron had hailed as crucial to customer growth and retention.
Production delays also meant that the Company was forced to reduce
the amount it spent on marketing since it did not make sense to add
new customers that it could not service.

Blue Apron is a subscription-based meal-kit delivery service
founded in 2012.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Levine, Esq.
          STULL, STULL & BRODY
          6 East 45th Street
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 687 7230
          Facsimile: (212) 490 2022


BLUESTEM BRANDS: Conditional Certification of Norris Class Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Tina Norris, Sally Michalak, and Wendy Loepp,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Bluestem Brands, Inc., Blair, LLC, and Does 1-10,
Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-3954 (SRN/TNL) (D. Minn.), Judge Tony N.
Leung of the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota
denied the Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for Conditional Certification
and Notification to All Putative Class Members Under 29 U.S.C.
Section 216(b).

Bluestem, a Delaware corporation headquartered in Eden Prairie,
Minnesota, is a parent company to 13 e-commerce retail brands,
including Appleseed's and Blair, LLC.  It employs individuals at
call centers as telephone customer support and salespersons.
Defendant Blair, a Delaware limited liability company headquartered
in Warren, Pennsylvania, operates call centers in Warren and Erie,
Pennsylvania.  Blair does business as Appleseed's and Orchard
Brands.

The Named Plaintiffs all worked for the Defendants' call center in
Erie, Pennsylvania.  All three, on behalf of themselves and those
similarly situated, assert that they were regularly required to
work a substantial amount of time off-the-clock as part of their
jobs as Call Center Agents and were never compensated for this
time.  

The Plaintiffs were required by their employer to allot time to
come into the office before their scheduled shifts to boot up their
computers and launch and log into all necessary programs and check
for any updates or any other necessary work related information
from their supervisors or the corporate office.  Following this
boot-up procedure, they were then allowed to pull up the
Defendants' timing-keeping system and clock in.  

This pre-shift procedure prior to clocking in would take
approximately 10 minutes per shift.  The Plaintiffs assert the
pre-shift boot-up procedure was integral and indispensable to the
Defendants' business and integral and indispensable to the
performance of Call Center Agents' principal job duties.  They
assert the Defendants refused to recognize the time spent
performing their pre-shift boot-up procedure as compensable.

The Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint on July 26,
2017,and moved contemporaneously for conditional class
certification.  They asked the Court to conditionally certify a
collective action for unpaid wages pursuant to Section 216(b) of
the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), for telephone sales agents
and customer service agents employed by Bluestem and Blair at call
centers in Pennsylvania any time in the last three years who were
not paid for preshift and post-shift work.

The Court granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs'
conditional class certification motion.  It found that the
Plaintiffs had shown only that: (1) employees at the Erie call
center -- but not at the Franklin or Warren call centers -- were
similarly situated; and (2) that these employees were subject to a
common injury from a common policy with respect to pre-shift -- but
not post-shift—work.  The Court found that the Plaintiffs had
presented no evidence to justify including employees from the
Franklin or Warren call centers in the conditionally-certified
class.

The Plaintiffs objected to and appealed the First Conditional
Certification Order on the grounds that it was error to decline
inclusion of the Warren and Franklin call centers in the
conditionally-certified class.  The District Court upheld the First
Conditional Certification Order's analysis and conclusions and
noted, in light of the present record, that the Plaintiffs are
unlikely to ultimately present evidence of a company-wide policy
sufficient to warrant inclusion of the Warren and Franklin call
centers in the conditionally-certified class, but permitted thenm
an opportunity to present such evidence.  Thus, the District Court
permitted the Plaintiffs to file a renewed motion for conditional
certification in the event that they obtain and file at least some
evidence to sustain their burden of establishing that employees at
the Franklin and Warren call centers were subject to the same
unwritten policy as that alleged by the Erie employees.

ThePlaintiffs have now filed their renewed conditional
certification motion, seeking to add employees of the Warren and
Franklin call centers to the already conditionallycertified class
of employees at the Erie, Pennsylvania call center.  In conjunction
with this third attempt to seek conditional certification, the
Plaintiffs submitted four declarations.

Judge Leung concludes that without any reliable information
concerning the Franklin, Pennsylvania call center, the Judge again
declines to include it in the conditional class.  With respect to
the Warren, Pennsylvania call center, the Plaintiffs have failed to
show a common injury from a common policy tying the Warren facility
to the Erie facility.  Absent a common policy between the Warren
and Erie facilities, conditional class certification for the Warren
facility remains inappropriate.

Based on the foregoing, he denied the Plaintiff's Renewed Motion.
Pursuant to ECF No. 172, wherein the Court granted the parties'
request to cancel the settlement conference pending the Order, the
Judge directed the parties will jointly contact the undersigned
within seven days to reschedule the settlement conference in the
matter.  Failure to comply with any provision of the Order or any
other prior consistent order will subject the non-complying party,
non-complying counsel, and/or the party such counsel represents to
any and all appropriate remedies, sanctions, and the like.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 28, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/vrT2Z5 from Leagle.com.

Tina Norris, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Wendy Loepp, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated & Sally Michalak, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Jacob
Robert Rusch -- jrusch@johnsonbecker.com -- Johnson Becker PLLC &
Molly E. Nephew -- mnephew@johnsonbecker.com -- Johnson Becker
PLLC.

Bluestem Brands, Inc. & Blair, LLC, Defendants, represented by
Andrew B. Murphy -- andrew.murphy@FaegreBD.com -- Faegre Baker
Daniels LLP & Samantha M. Rollins -- samantha.rollins@FaegreBD.com
-- Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, pro hac vice.


BOB'S RED: Oat Products Contain Carcinogen, Frankel et al. Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
TAMARA FRANKEL, and NATASHA PARACHA, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BOB'S RED MILL NATURAL
FOODS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-05394-JCS (N.D. Cal.,
Aug. 31, 2018) alleges that the food products of the Defendant,
including Steel Cut Oats and Old Fashioned Rolled Oats, contain
glyphosate which causes cancer.

The Plaintiff allege in the complaint that recent testing confirmed
that the Steel Cut Oats and Old Fashioned Rolled Oats contain
glyphosate, which the World Health Organization classifies as a
"probably carcinogenic to humans." Glyphosate is even more
dangerous for children, whose bodies are more sensitive to
exposure, leaving them more vulnerable to carcinogens. Had
Plaintiff known that the Defendant's food products contained
glyphosate, she would never have purchased them.

Bob's Red Mill Natural Foods, Inc. produces whole grain and
gluten-free foods. Bob's Red Mill Natural Foods, Inc. was formerly
known as Moore's Natural Foods, Inc. The company was founded in
1978 and is based in Milwaukie, Oregon. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Elaine A. Ryan, Esq.
          Carrie A. Laliberte, Esq.
          BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN &
          BALINT, P.C.
          2325 E. Camelback Rd., Suite 300
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Telephone: (602) 274-1100
          E-mail: eryan@bffb.com
                  claliberte@bffb.com

               - and -

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


CALAVERAS COUNTY, CA: To Repay Renewal Fees to Cannabis Growers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Recordnet.com reports that Calaveras County announced on Sept. 6
that it will be repaying some renewal fees paid by commercial
cannabis growers.

In a statement, the county said it is working toward a final
conclusion of the commercial cannabis program and that part of the
process included the accounting and possible reimbursement of money
remaining in the fee fund.

"The initial reimbursement for those growers who paid a renewal
registration fee will occur by October 15, 2018," the statement
read.

Commercial cannabis cultivation was banned in January -- a decision
that affected about 200 permitted growers and many others who
applied for permits after the county encouraged the industry to
locate there. According to earlier news reports, each permit cost
$5,000 and the county has collected more than $7 million in taxes
from marijuana growers since 2016.

According to the county, commercial growers who registered under
the urgency ordinance adopted in May 2016 and were still operating
under an "application pending" status had until June 7 to comply
with the ban.

"All cannabis cultivation, including caregiver cultivation is now
prohibited, except for registered indoor cultivation sites of six
plants or less on a parcel with a residence," according to the
county website.

There are 28 cultivation sites that will be notified of the
availability of a refund check.

In August, the law offices of Henry G. Wykowski & Associates in San
Francisco and William G. Panzer of Oakland filed a civil class
action lawsuit against Calaveras County, requesting the return of
$12.3 million in Measure C taxes and the more than $4 million in
fees collected in 2017 from cannabis cultivation businesses who
participated in the Calaveras County's now defunct commercial
cannabis registration program.

The first court hearing is on Dec. 5 in the Calaveras Superior
Court.

For more information regarding the refunds, call (209) 754-6394.
[GN]


CANADA: Class Action Mulled Against Toronto Over Bill 5
-------------------------------------------------------
Steph Wechsler and Fatima Syed, writing for Canada's National
Observer, report that Ontario Superior Court Justice Edward
Belobaba was expected to make a critical decision for the future of
democracy in Toronto by Sept. 10.

The ruling would decide whether Ontario Premier Doug Ford's
government had the authority to enforce sweeping changes to the
size and structure of city council, only a few weeks before Toronto
residents go to the polls in an Oct. 22 election.

Mr. Ford's Tories rushed to adopt Bill 5 -- also known as the
Better Local Government Act -- at Queen's Park, right before the
Ontario legislature adjourned for the summer on Aug. 14. They
changed the normal rules of the legislature, to limit debate and
allow them to adopt it only a few weeks after it was introduced.

Mr. Ford had promised to reduce the size of government to save
taxpayers money during the 2018 Ontario provincial election
campaign, but his party never mentioned that it was musing about
this legislation, which unilaterally reduces the size of Toronto's
city council from 47 members to 25.

A fleet of lawyers and intervenors made their case in favour and
against the bill before Belobaba on Aug. 31, with enough spectators
in the room to fill one of the Ontario Superior Court's largest
hearing rooms.

Here's what's at stake.

A long day in court
After the bill's passage, a handful of parties applied for
intervenor status, the first of which was Rocco Achampong, who had
taken a break from his law practice to run as a municipal candidate
in Ward 13.

He was swiftly followed by a handful of others including the City
of Toronto, and candidates Chris Moise, Jennifer Hollett, and
Prabha Khosla.

"I've spent more time reading factums than knocking on doors," Mr.
Achampong told Justice Belobaba.

The candidates argue that the legislation -- which received royal
assent the day nominations closed -- interferes dramatically in an
election already underway and undermines the potential for better
representation for women, LGBTQ+ residents and racialized
communities in local government.

A coalition of lawyers fighting the province on their behalf made
use of section 2B in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to try and
convince the judge that the province was violating fundamental
rights through the timing of its actions. This section of the
Charter says that freedom of thought, belief, opinion and
expression, including freedom of the press and other media of
communication are fundamental rights under Canada's Constitution..

Heather Ann McConnell, one of the lawyers at the firm representing
a spate of intervenors including WomenWinTO, argued that the bill
would "not only (freeze) access, it further disadvantages them."

The ward structure, to be changed by the legislation, was the
result of an $800,000 review process, the court heard, undertook
while the late mayor Rob Ford and his brother, now Premier Ford,
were on council and in support.

"Voter parity was not the motive," said Mr. Achampong, of the
province's legal argument that the 25-ward system would achieve a
preferable type of representation.

Lawyers challenging the law made note that there is no evidence to
support that a 25-member council would be more effective than a
47-member one, nor of the premier's estimate of $25 million in
savings.

They also suggested during the proceedings that the premier may not
have asked for legal advice before tabling the bill.

The city is a creation of the province under the City of Toronto
Act, one that it could theoretically "destroy," noted Belobaba,
assuming it doesn't infringe on Charter rights.

"When governments legislate, sometimes there are winners and
losers," said Robin Basu, representing the province, who also said
that representation is a policy choice, rather than a
constitutional imperative.

Mr. Basu, along with the City of Toronto's lawyers, declined to
comment for this story.

Justice Belobaba acknowledged that after he renders his decision,
the unfavoured party will likely appeal.

'I think it's a danger'
Each is concerned about what legal precedent could be set in the
conclusion of such an unprecedented legal battle.

The Canadian Taxpayer Federation (CTF), an intervenor on the
province's side, applied for status after the city told the court
it was battling its case based on the notion of unwritten
constitutional principles.

These unwritten principles of "democracy and rule of law," argued
the city's lawyers in their factum, are factors that should limit
the province's powers, "especially in the context of legislation
that purports to arbitrarily interfere with an ongoing election and
thereby reduce electoral fairness."

But the federation says it doesn't make sense to argue a case based
on an unwritten principle.

"From our perspective, to strike down validly enacted legislation
on the basis of an unwritten principle, that's something that's
never been done and doing it on the basis of the principal of
democracy sort of flies in the face that this was a democratically
elected government that was elected with a mandate to save taxpayer
money," Christine Van Geyn, Ontario director at the CTF, told
National Observer.

She explained that the federation is intervening in the case
because it has a mandate to advocate for smaller government and
reducing taxpayer costs -- two objectives she says Bill 5 clearly
serves.

"The legislation is fully within the scope of provincial powers to
enact, and we had concerns that relying on the unwritten principal
to undo something that a democratically elected government had been
voted in to do was going to be setting a bad constitutional
precedent."

The province's opponents are also concerned about what it will mean
for municipalities if the province can alter their democracies on a
whim.

"It's actually kind of ironic that this government is holding the
banner of free speech on university campuses because from a Charter
perspective, an attack on a democratic campaign and an attack on
your effective right to vote is a very fundamental attack on your
rights to political expression," Gavin Magrath, who is representing
Achampong, told National Observer.

"It's just an invention that Toronto is dysfunctional and needs to
be addressed. It's just an invention that 25 is better than 47.
It's just invention that we're going to save $25 million a year.
And it's similarly just invention that what was important to this
government was establishing voter parity in the City of Toronto."

As a result, explains Mr. Magrath, if the province hasn't persuaded
Belobaba with its arguments, it's going to have an uphill battle in
an appeal.

If Justice Belobaba decides against the province on the merits of
the Charter challenge and it chooses to appeal, Ontario's lawyers
are going to have to prove that the province had a pressing and
substantial objective in passing Bill 5, Mr. Magrath explained, one
that would make the law "a reasonable response that minimally
impairs democratic rights."

"It looks to me that that will be absolutely impossible," he said.

He noted, as did at least one of his peers in the courtroom, that
no other municipality has the proportion of representatives the
province is angling for, and that the premier has capriciously
singled out one of its largest cities for personal reasons.

If the province's power goes "untrammelled," he said, there's
nothing to stop it from downloading the legislation into other
local governments.

Craig Scott, a professor of law at Osgoode Hall Law School of York
University and a former Member of Parliament for Toronto-Danforth,
believes that if the judge allows the bill to stand, "It's a blow
and it basically will open the gateways to many possible future
pieces of (legislation) . . .  where a premier can act as
dictatorially as he or she wants and interrupt any number of things
that are fundamental to our collective life in a democratic or
rates-based way and get away with it.

"I think it's a danger," said Scott, who has been observing the
proceedings.

If, however, the justice rules against the bill, Scott believes he
will be "standing up and doing the job that we need judges to do,
which is not to be scared of saying that . . . democracy is tied to
the rule of law," and not on any one leader or government.

In that case, Scott believes, "it will be a brave decision but an
important one."

What comes next is 'definitely not well-travelled territory'
The judge's decision was expected Sept. 10, a phase in this process
speedily expedited in light of the amended deadline for city
council candidates to register on Sept. 14.

While the parties have yet to form the basis of their appeals
without details of Justice Belobaba's ruling, some are preparing
for what action they can take if the law stays on the books.

Philip Tunley, a lawyer who has been closely monitoring the city's
proceedings, says he has been discussing with candidates the
possibility of a class action lawsuit if Bill 5 is upheld by the
courts.

Candidates, he noted, have quit their jobs to accommodate their
campaigns, worked to raise funds and registered by a former
deadline in compliance with the existing rules.

The sudden upheaval may make them eligible for damages, says Mr.
Tunley.

"It's definitely not well-travelled territory," he explained,
adding that "these would be novel claims but there's authority and
close analogies that would support an action. The real issue is
what the province would do in response to that. The law is pretty
clear that the province can retroactively extinguish claims that
are made, so the political question is whether Premier Ford and his
government would do that." [GN]


CANADA: Edmonton Man Files Class Action Over Unlawful Confinement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonny Wakefield, writing for Edmonton Journal, reports that an
Edmonton-area man who says sheriffs held him in custody for several
hours after a judge found him not guilty has filed a lawsuit,
claiming the practice violated his rights.

Daryl Fuhr alleges in a class action lawsuit that he was wrongfully
imprisoned after his May acquittal. The sheriffs who held him
claimed to be following department policy, the lawsuit alleges.

Mr. Fuhr, 46, was facing a string of charges including sexual
assault, unlawful confinement, pointing a firearm and assault with
a weapon. He was denied bail and held at the Edmonton Remand
Centre.

He was acquitted of those charges by Court of Queen's Bench Justice
J.H. Goss at around 4 p.m. on May 11, 2018, while additional
charges were withdrawn.

Mr. Fuhr, however, claims he was not immediately allowed to walk
free. Alberta sheriffs, who are in charge of transporting prisoners
between lock-up and court, allegedly held him for two-and-a-half
hours for processing and paperwork.

The sheriffs are said to have cited Alberta Sheriffs Branch
practices and policies when asked to explain the detention.

A statement of claim filed on Sept. 5 says there was no lawful
basis to hold Mr. Fuhr after his acquittal. Specifically, the
lawsuit says Mr. Fuhr's Charter rights related to arbitrary
detention and cruel and unusual punishment were breached.

"We're taking a run at the constitutionality of this policy," said
Avnish Nanda, Mr. Fuhr's lawyer.

The lawsuit seeks to include in a class action anyone who was held
in custody after being found not guilty of all the charges against
them -- either by acquittal, or because the charges were withdrawn
or stayed -- since Sept. 5, 2016.

It would also include anyone who was held in custody after
receiving a sentence to be served in the community.

While it does not provide specific examples, the lawsuit says other
prisoners in addition to Mr. Fuhr have been returned to
correctional facilities or police lock-ups for additional
processing and paperwork after charges against them were
extinguished, rather than being released at the courthouse.

Mr. Nanda said in cases where courthouses and correctional
facilities are far apart, the processing could result in people
spending many hours of additional time in custody.

"This practice and policy constitutes a systemic breach of the
rights of the class members," the lawsuit says.

Mr. Fuhr's lawsuit says he immediately objected to being taken into
custody after the ruling. His lawyer, Tom Engel, requested Goss
return to the courtroom.

Justice Goss ordered Mr. Fuhr's immediate release once it was
confirmed there were no outstanding warrants on him, the lawsuit
states. However, it is alleged sheriffs continued to hold Fuhr in
breach of that order.

In a statement, Alberta Justice and Solicitor General spokesman
Jason Maloney said they could not comment on the case specifically
because it is before the courts.

However, he said a number of factors go into how quickly a prisoner
is released, including establishing whether there are holds on them
related to other charges, whether they still have personal items or
money at the correctional facility, and the proximity of the
courthouse to the prison or jail.

Another factor is whether the person is wearing appropriate
clothing, Maloney said, saying some people might still be wearing
correctional clothing, or might not have street clothing suitable
to the weather.

Mr. Fuhr's lawsuit seeks general and punitive damages as well as
compensation for lost income, though it does not specify dollar
amounts. [GN]


CARGILL MEAT: To Pay $1.5MM to Settle Charges
---------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
Cargill Meat Solutions will pay $1.5 million to settle charges of
discriminating against African and Muslim employees, the EEOC
announced on September 14.

CEDAR GROVE: Composters Settle With Marysville Residents Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
KPUG 1170 reports that a Snohomish County composting company has
agreed to pay more than $785,000 to settle a class-action lawsuit
over bad smells from its plant.

The Daily Herald reports Cedar Grove Composting agreed to the
settlement with Marysville residents, saying it would also spend
$1.45 million to reduce the potential for smelly emissions.

A company spokeswoman says Cedar Grove has denied the suit's
allegations and won a previous suit that went to trial, but it's
settling to reach a resolution and to be able to focus on its
business.[GN]


CHARLES SCHWAB: Still Faces Crago Order Routing Suit in California
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Charles Schwab Corporation still defends itself in the Crago
Order Routing Litigation, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018.

On July 13, 2016, a securities class action lawsuit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on
behalf of a putative class of customers executing equity orders
through CS&Co.  The lawsuit names CS&Co and CSC as defendants and
alleges that an agreement under which CS&Co routed orders to UBS
Securities LLC between July 13, 2011 and December 31, 2014 violated
CS&Co's duty to seek best execution.  Plaintiffs seek unspecified
damages, interest, injunctive and equitable relief, and attorneys'
fees and costs.

After a first amended complaint was dismissed with leave to amend,
plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on August 14, 2017.
Defendants again moved to dismiss, and in a decision issued
December 5, 2017, the court denied the motion.

Defendants have answered the complaint to deny all allegations, and
intend to vigorously contest the lawsuit.

The Charles Schwab Corporation (CSC) is a savings and loan holding
company engaged, through its subsidiaries (collectively referred to
as "Schwab" or the "Company"), in wealth management, securities
brokerage, banking, asset management, custody, and financial
advisory services. The company is based in San Francisco,
California.


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Settles Antitrust Class Action for $6.95MM
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tulsa World reports that Chesapeake Energy Corp. and former
SandRidge Energy Inc. CEO Tom L. Ward have agreed to pay $6.95
million to settle an antitrust class-action lawsuit that claimed
they conspired on lease bonuses to Oklahoma royalty owners. [GN]


CHESAPEAKE HOTEL: Honeywell Files ADA Suit in S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------
Chesapeake Hotel and Villas, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit
in Florida.  The case is captioned as Cheri Honeywell individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Chesapeake Hotel and Villas, Inc. a Florida corporation, Defendant,
Case No. 0:18-cv-62316-WPD (S.D. Fla., Sept. 28, 2018).

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

Chesapeake Hotel And Villas Inc also known as Chesapeake Resort is
a privately held company in Islamorada, FL and is a Single Location
business.[BN]

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


CITY BUFFET: Fails to Pay OT to Chefs, Rodriquez Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
RAMON RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CITY BUFFET, INC.; BING XI LI; and NAI R.
LI, Defendants, Case No. 6:18-cv-01417-GAP-KRS (M.D Fla., Aug. 28,
2018) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid overtime
compensation, minimum wage, interest, liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mr. Rodriquez was employed by the Defendants as chef from January
2014 to February 2016.

Buffets, Inc., doing business as Ovation Brands, develops, owns,
franchises, and operates buffet restaurants. The Company provides
meats, gravies and sauces, salad dressings and condiments,
vegetables, prepared salads, soups, entrees, desserts, and
beverages. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Monica Espino, Esq.
          ESPINO LAW
          2655 S. Le Jeune Road, Suite 802
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 704-3172
          Facsimile: (305) 722-7378


CLIENT SERVICES: Faces Abrahamov FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Client Services, Inc.
under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.  The case is styled
as Daniel Abrahamov on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Client Services, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-05449 (E.D. N.Y., Sept. 27, 2018).

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Daniel C Cohen, Esq.
     Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
     300 Cadman Plaza West
     12th Floor
     Brooklyn, NY 11201
     Phone: (929) 575-4175
     Fax: (929) 575-4195
     Email: dan@cml.legal


COCRYSTAL PHARMA: Bragar Eagel Files Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed in the U.S. District Court of New Jersey on behalf
of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
Cocrystal Pharma, Inc. (COCP) securities between September 23, 2013
through September 7, 2018 (the "Class Period").  

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) defendants were engaged in a pump-and-dump scheme to
artificially inflate Cocrystal's stock price; (2) this illicit
scheme would result in governmental scrutiny, including from the
SEC; (3) defendants failed to abide by SEC disclosure regulations;
and (4) as a result, defendants' statements about Cocrystal's
business, operations and prospects were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

If you purchased Cocrystal securities during the Class Period or
continue to hold shares purchased before the Class Period, have
information, would like to learn more about these claims, or have
any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or
interests with respect to these matters, please contact Brandon
Walker or Melissa Fortunato by email at investigations@bespc.com,
or telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact
form.  There is no cost or obligation to you.

         Brandon Walker, Esq.
         Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
         Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
         Telephone: (212) 355-4648
         Website: www.bespc.com
         Email: fortunato@bespc.com
                walker@bespc.com [GN]


COLLECTION PROFESSIONALS: Alleman Seeks to Certify Three Classes
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gail Alleman asks the Court to enter an order determining that the
action entitled GAIL ALLEMAN, on behalf of herself and the class
members v. COLLECTION PROFESSIONALS, INC., Case No. 1:17-cv-09294
(N.D. Ill.), may proceed as a class action arising from claims
based on the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Illinois
Collection Agency Act, and the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act.

Ms. Alleman seeks to certify three classes, defined as:

   * With respect to Count I -- FDCPA, the class consists of (a)
     all individuals in Illinois, (b) who paid defendant a fee
     for handling an online payment (c) on or after a date 1 year
     prior to December 27, 2017, the date of filing of the
     action;

   * With respect to Count II -- ICAA, the class consists of
     (a) all individuals in Illinois, (b) who paid defendant a
     fee for handling an online payment (c) on or after a date
     5 years prior to December 27, 2017, the date of filing of
     the action; and

   * With respect to Count III -- ICFA, the class consists of
     (a) all individuals in Illinois, (b) who paid defendant a
     fee for handling an online payment (c) on or after a date
     3 years prior to December 27, 2017, the date of filing of
     the action.

Ms. Alleman further asks that Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin,
LLC, be appointed counsel for the class.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          Julie Clark, Esq.
          Isabella M. Janusz, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603-1824
          Telephone: (312) 739-4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419-0379
          E-mail: dedelman@edcombs.com
                  ccombs@edcombs.com
                  jclark@edcombs.com


COLUMBUS RESTAURANT: FLSA Class of Workers Certified in "Didoni"
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Cecilia M. Altonaga entered an order in the lawsuit styled
ROBERTA DIDONI, et al. v. COLUMBUS RESTAURANT, LLC, et al., Case
No. 1:18-cv-22325-CMA (S.D. Fla.), granting Plaintiffs Roberta
Didoni and Ximena Lara's Motion to Certify 216(b) Collective Action
and Facilitate Notice to Potential 216(b) Class Members.

Judge Altonaga granted the Motion as follows:

   1. Conditional certification for the putative class identified
      in paragraph one of the Amended Complaint is granted;

   2. The parties shall confer and prepare a joint Notice of this
      lawsuit for distribution to putative class members;

   3. Following Court approval of the Notice, the Defendants
      shall post the Notice at the Columbus Restaurant in a
      location regularly seen by servers at the restaurant by
      October 8, 2018;

   4. The Defendants shall provide the names and contact
      information of all individuals employed as servers at
      Columbus Restaurant during the time period between June 1,
      2015, and the date of this Order by October 8, 2018;

   5. The parties shall file a proposed amended scheduling order
      with proposed class-related deadlines, including deadlines
      for the addition of class members and a deadline to file
      class decertification motions.

Plaintiff Didoni has sought certification of this class under
Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act:

     All persons who worked for Defendants as servers during the
     three (3) years preceding this lawsuit and who were required
     to share their tips with their employer, to pay for
     impermissible business expenses, and were not paid for all
     hours worked, for one or more weeks during the Relevant Time
     Period.

Plaintiff Didoni also sought certification of this class under the
Florida Minimum Wage Act:

     All persons who worked for Defendants as servers during the
     five (5) years preceding this lawsuit and who were required
     to share their tips with their employer, to pay for
     impermissible business expenses, and were not paid for all
     hours worked, for one or more weeks during the Relevant Time
     Period.[CC]


CONTINENTAL CASUALTY: Dolins Suit Deal Gets Final Court Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on September 20, 2018, in the case
titled Jerrold Dolins v. Continental Casualty Company, et al., Case
No. 1:16-cv-08898 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before
the Honorable Gary Feinerman.

The minute entry states that:

   -- for the reasons stated on the record, the Plaintiff's
      unopposed motion for final approval of class action
      settlement and certification of settlement class is
      granted;

   -- Plaintiff's unopposed motion for award of attorneys' fees
      and reimbursement of expenses, and for incentive award to
      named Plaintiff is granted; and

   -- civil case is closed.[CC]


CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Burns Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Texas
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Convergent
Outsourcing, Inc. The case is styled as Cindy Burns, individually
and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Convergent Outsourcing, Inc., and John Does l-25,
Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-03502 (S.D. Tex., Sept. 28, 2018).

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

Convergent Outsourcing, Inc. offers business process outsourcing,
revenue cycle, and receivables management services. It also
provides receivables collection services to credit grantors in
retail, telecommunications, and utilities industries. Convergent
Outsourcing, Inc. was formerly known as ER Solutions, Inc. and
changed the name to Convergent Outsourcing, Inc. in November,
2011.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jonathan David Kandelshein, Esq.
     The Law Office of Jonathan Kandelshein
     18208 Preston Rd, Ste D-9 No. 256
     Dallas, TX 75252
     Phone: (646) 753-0149
     Email: Jonathan.kandelshein@gmail.com


COOK COUNTY, IL: Sheriff Sued over Race & Employment Bias
---------------------------------------------------------
DAVID EVANS III; DAVID SHEPPARD; MARTENIA SHYNE; TABAS JACKSON;
ANTOINETTE GARRETT-WILLIAMS; MONTA SERVANT; and LASHON SHAFFER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. THOMAS J. DART, SHERIFF OF COOK COUNTY; and COUNTY OF
COOK, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-06018 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 2, 2018)
alleges employment discrimination in violation of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as correction
officers.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants has
adopted facially-neutral policies, practices, and decisions of
suspending non-Caucasian officers without pay pending a hearing
before the Merit Board at a statistically-significant higher rate
than Caucasian officers.

The Plaintiffs have discovered that far more Black officers are
investigated for misconduct, recommended for discipline following
investigation, and suspended without pay from their careers pending
Merit Board hearings, than are similarly-situated Caucasian
officers who are accused of engaging in identical or similar
conduct.

Cook County is a county in the U.S. state of Illinois. It is the
second-most populous county in the United States after Los Angeles
County, California. Its county seat is Chicago, the largest city in
Illinois and the third-most populous city in the United States.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Cass T. Casper, Esq.
          TALON LAW, LLC
          79 West Monroe Street, Suite 1213
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 351-2478
          Facsimile: (312) 276-4930
          E-mail: ctc@talonlaw.com

               - and -

          Arthur Gold, Esq.,
          GOLD & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
          55 West Monroe Street, #2300
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 473-2968
          Facsimile: (312) 372-0778
          E-mail: asg@gcjustice.com


COYOTE LOGISTICS: Kreslake Files Suit for Invasion of Privacy
-------------------------------------------------------------
KURTIS KRESLAKE, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. COYOTE LOGISTICS, LLC, and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. 5:18-cv-01999 (C.D. Cal., September 19, 2018),
accuses the Defendants of negligently contacting the Plaintiff on
his cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, thereby, invading his privacy.

Coyote Logistics is a transportation and logistics service
provider.  The true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants are
currently unknown to the Plaintiff.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Meghan E. George, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
          Tom E. Wheeler, 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
                  twheeler@toddflaw.com


CYTRX CORP: Court Approves Class Settlement in Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California issued a Judgment granting Approval on Class Action
Settlement in the case captioned In Re CytRx Corporation Securities
Litigation. NICHOLAS CRIHFIELD, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. CYTRX CORPORATION, STEVEN
A. KRIEGSMAN, and JOHN Y. CALOZ, Defendants. Case No.
2:16-CV-05519-SJO-SK. (C.D. Cal.).

Lead Plaintiff Gregory Callender, on behalf of himself and the
Settlement Class, and (b) defendants CytRx Corporation (CytRx),
Steven A. Kriegsman (Kriegsman), and John Y. Caloz (Caloz)
(Parties) have entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of
Settlement (Stipulation), that provides for a complete dismissal
with prejudice of the claims asserted against Defendants in the
Action on the terms and conditions set forth in the Stipulation,
subject to the approval of this Court (Settlement).

The Court affirms its determinations in the Preliminary Approval
Order certifying, for the purposes of the Settlement only, the
Action as a class action pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of the Settlement Class
consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired CytRx Common Stock or exchange-traded CytRx Call Options,
or sold exchange-traded CytRx Put Options, during the period
September 12, 2014 to July 11, 2016, inclusive (Settlement Class
Period) and were damaged thereby (Settlement Class). Excluded from
the Settlement Class are CytRx, Steven A. Kriegsman, and John Y.
Caloz, the Officers and directors of CytRx at all relevant times,
members of their Immediate Families and their legal
representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns and any entity in
which the Defendants have or had a controlling interest. Also
excluded from the Settlement Class are the persons and entities
listed on Exhibit 1 hereto who or which are excluded from the
Settlement Class pursuant to request.

Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and
for the purposes of the Settlement only, the Court hereby affirms
its determinations in the Preliminary Approval Order certifying
Lead Plaintiff as Class Representatives for the Settlement Class
and appointing Lead Counsel as Class Counsel for the Settlement
Class. Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel have fairly and adequately
represented the Settlement Class both in terms of litigating the
Action and for purposes of entering into and implementing the
Settlement and have satisfied the requirements of Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure 23(a)(4) and 23(g), respectively.

Pursuant to, and in accordance with, Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, this Court fully and finally approves the
Settlement set forth in the Stipulation in all respects (including,
without limitation: the amount of the Settlement; the Releases
provided for therein; and the dismissal with prejudice of the
claims asserted against Defendants in the Action), and finds that
the Settlement is, in all respects, fair, reasonable and adequate
to the Settlement Class. The Court further finds that the record is
sufficiently developed and complete to have enabled the Parties to
have adequately evaluated and considered their positions.
Accordingly, the Settlement embodied in the Stipulation is hereby
finally approved in all respects. The Parties are directed to
implement, perform and consummate the Settlement in accordance with
the terms and provisions contained in the Stipulation.

The Action and all of the claims in any complaint asserted against
Defendants in the Action by Lead Plaintiff and the other Settlement
Class Members are hereby dismissed with prejudice. The Parties
shall bear their own costs and expenses, except as otherwise
expressly provided in the Stipulation.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 17, 2018
Judgment and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yd8765gk
from Leagle.com.

Nicholas Crihfield, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Robert Vincent
Prongay -- rprongay@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay and Murray LLP,
Charles Henry Linehan -- clinehan@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay
and Murray LLP, Lesley F. Portnoy -- lportnoy@glancylaw.com --
Glancy Prongay and Murray LLP & Lionel Zevi Glancy --
lglancy@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay and Murray LLP.

Gregory D. Callender, Lead Plaintiff, Consol Plaintiff, represented
by Robert Vincent Prongay, Glancy Prongay and Murray LLP, Charles
Henry Linehan, Glancy Prongay and Murray LLP,Danielle Leigh
Manning, Glancy Prongay and Murray LLP, Jonathan M. Rotter, Glancy
Prongay and Murray LLP, Kara M. Wolke, Glancy Prongay and Murray
LLP, Lesley F. Portnoy, Glancy Prongay and Murray LLP & Lionel Zevi
Glancy, Glancy Prongay and Murray LLP.

CytRx Corporation, Steven A. Kriegsman & John Y. Caloz, Defendants,
represented by Allen L. Lanstra -- allen.lanstra@skadden.com --
Skadden Arps Slate Meagher and Flom LLP, Clifford H. Pearson --
cpearson@pswplaw.com -- Pearson Simon Warshaw LLP, Kasonni M.
Scales -- kasonni.scales@skadden.com -- Skadden Arps Slate Meagher
and Flom LLP, Michael Harrison Pearson -- mpearson@pswlaw.com --
Pearson Simon and Warshaw LLP, Neil Swartzberg --
nswartzberg@pswlaw.com -- Pearson Simon and Warshaw LLP & Winston
Ping Hsiao -- hsiao2010@lawnet.ucla.edu -- Skadden Arps Slate
Meagher and Flom LLP.


DAIICHI SANKYO: Removes Handley et al. Suit to W.D. Oklahoma
------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendants in the case of TRACY HANDLEY; SHELLY PHILLIPS;
MARGARET ADEBAYO; JANICE ATWELL; ERNEST HOPKINS; DARNELL NEWTON;
BRETT RICH; and SANDEE SALMON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DAIICHI SANKYO, INC.;
DAIICHI SANKYO CO., LTD.; DAIICHI SANKYO US HOLDINGS, INC.; FOREST
LABORATORIES, LLC; FOREST PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; and FOREST
RESEARCH INSTITUTE, INC., Defendants, filed a notice to remove the
lawsuit from the District Court of the State of Oklahoma, County of
Pottawatomie County (Case No. CJ-18-343) to the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Oklahoma on August 31, 2018, and
assigned Case No. 5:18-cv-00853-F (W.D. Okla., Aug. 31, 2018).

Daiichi Sankyo, Inc. develops and markets pharmaceuticals. Daiichi
Sankyo, Inc. was formerly known as Sankyo Pharma Inc. and changed
its name to Daiichi Sankyo, Inc. in April 2006. The company was
founded in 1996 and is based in Basking Ridge, New Jersey. Daiichi
Sankyo, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Daiichi Sankyo Company,
Limited. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Amy Sherry Fischer, Esq.
          FOLIART HUFF OTTAWAY & BOTTOM
          201 Robert S. Kerr Ave., 12th Floor
          Telephone: (405) 232-4633
          Facsimile: (405) 232-3462
          E-mail: amyfischer@oklahomacounsel.com


DALLAS BACKUP: Underpays Lighting Technicians, Alfaro Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
JESUS ALFARO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DALLAS BACKUP, INC. a/k/a ONSTAGE SYSTEMS;
ONSTAGE PRODUCTIONS, INC.; HYACINTH BELCHER; VIVIAN N. BELCHER; and
CHARLES F. BELCHER, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-02327-M (N.D.
Tex., Aug. 31, 2018) is an action against the Defendants for
failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class minimum wages, and
overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per
week.

Mr. Alfaro was employed by the Defendants as lighting technician
from August 6, 2018 to September 10, 2016.

Dallas Backup, Inc. a/k/a Onstage Systems is a full-service event
solutions and event production company. The Company offer design,
production management, audio, lighting, video, backline, ooftops,
crowd control and staging for your event needs. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert Manteuffel, Esq.
          J.H. Zidell, Esq.
          Joshua A. Petersen, Esq.
          6310 LBJ Freeway, Ste. 112
          Dallas, TX 75240
          Telephone: (972) 233-2264
          Facsimile: (972) 386-7610
          E-mail: rlmanteuffel@sbcglobal.net
                  zabogado@aol.com
                  josh.a.petersen@gmail.com


DEMENNO-KERDOON: Cruz Seeks Minimum and OT Wages under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
HUGO IVAN CRUZ, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. DEMENNO-KERDOON, a California
corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, the Defendants, Case No.
BC721308 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sept. 12, 2018), alleges that Defendants
maintained a uniform practice and policy of instructing Plaintiff
and other non-exempt employees to only record the hours for which
they were scheduled to work rather than the hours actually worked.
Specifically, Defendants required Plaintiff and other non-exempt
employees to wear safety equipment in connection with the
performance of their duties. Plaintiff and the other non-exempt
employees were required and directed by Defendants to don their
safety equipment prior to the start of their scheduled shifts.
Therefore, Plaintiff would be required by Defendants to arrive at
work approximately 10 to 15 minutes prior to the start of his
scheduled shift in order to don his safety equipment. However,
despite being under Defendants' direction and control during the
time Plaintiff was required to don his safety equipment, Defendants
only paid Plaintiff from the time his work shift was scheduled to
commence and failed to pay Plaintiff for the time he was required
by Defendants to don his safety equipment.

Defendants did business by recycling used motor oil and antifreeze
products. Defendants receive, treat, store and recycle a range of
waste materials, including without limitation, used motor oil, oily
waste water, waste gasoline, marine diesel oil and antifreeze
products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott M. Lidman, Esq.
          Elizabeth Nguyen, Esq.
          Milan Moore, Esq.
          LID MAN LAW, APC
          222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (424) 322 4772
          Facsimile: (424) 322 4775
          E-mail: slidman@lidmanlaw.com
                  enguyen@lidmanlaw.com
                  mmoore@lidmanlaw.com

               - and -

          Paul K. Haines, Esq.
          HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
          222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (424) 292 2350
          Facsimile: (424) 292 2355
          E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com


DIOCESE OF PITTSBURGH: Faces Sex Abuse Class-Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
National Catholic Reporter reports that a class-action lawsuit was
filed Sept. 17 against eight Catholic dioceses in Pennsylvania
demanding the dioceses provide proof that they submitted the names
of all suspected predators.

The lawsuit was filed in the Court of Common Pleas for Allegheny
County by two people representing two classes of plaintiffs:
survivors of clergy sexual abuse and children currently enrolled in
Catholic schools who could be at risk of abuse, according to the
lawsuit.

A Pennsylvania man and a Catholic school kindergartner are the
representative plaintiffs in the lawsuit. Ryan O'Connor, the adult
plaintiff, represents those who were abused. O'Connor, who is
Catholic and has children at Catholic school, said he was abused by
a priest when he was young.

The child plaintiff, representing Catholic school students, is
represented by his mother, Kristen Hancock, a volunteer at her
son's Catholic school.

The defendants include the six dioceses at the center of the grand
jury report issued in August: Pittsburgh, Allentown, Erie,
Greensburg, Harrisburg, Scranton.

It also targets two other dioceses that were previously
investigated: the Diocese of Altoona-Johnstown, investigated by a
grand jury in 2016 and the Archdiocese of Philadelphia,
investigated in 2005 and 2011.

Bishops named in the lawsuit are: Philadelphia Archbishop Charles
Chaput and Bishops Alfred Schlert of Allentown, Mark Bartchak of
Altoona-Johnstown, Lawrence Persico of Erie, Edward Malesic of
Greensburg, Ronald Gainer of Harrisburg, David Zubik of Pittsburgh
and Joseph Bambera of Scranton.

The lawsuit claims the dioceses failed to meet their reporting
obligations since only 10 of the 301 priests named as alleged
sexual abusers in the grand jury report are publicly listed on
Pennsylvania's Megan Law database. Although two of the priests
listed in the report have been arrested, the suit says, the names
of 20 others were redacted.

The lawsuit asks dioceses to admit that illegal, abusive acts
occurred and publicly acknowledge wrongdoing. The plaintiffs do not
seek monetary damages except payment for attorney and
expert-witness fees and "any and all other legal or equitable
relief that the court may deem proper and just."

As of Sept. 20, the only diocese to publicly issue a statement in
response to the lawsuit on its website was Allentown, which said it
"already has reported to law enforcement every allegation of clergy
sexual abuse of which it is aware, and the diocese published a list
of all diocesan priests against whom there have been credible
allegations of abuse of minors."[GN]


DYNAMIC PET: Mo. App. Affirms Approval of Paulson Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KHRISTIE REED PAULSON, et al., Objectors/Appellants,
MICHAEL TAYLOR, et al., Plaintiffs/Respondents, v. DYNAMIC PET
PRODUCTS, LLC, et al., Defendants/Respondents, Case No. WD81070
(Mo. App.), Judge Karen King Mitchell of the Court of Appeals of
Missouri for the Western District affirmed the trial court's order
approving the settlement agreement.

Objectors Paulson, Rebecca Brandel, Diane Canutt, Rod Canutt,
Crystal Lewis, Rene Lucht, Diane Ortman, Debra Porwoll, Kris
Vosburgh, and Stephanie Brown appeal the entry of a judgment
approving a class action settlement between the Plaintiffs/Class
Representatives Michael Taylor, Dawn Fortner, and Catherine Gemkow,
and Defendants Dynamic Pet Products, LLC, and Frick's Meat
Products, Inc.  The Objectors raise three arguments on appeal: (1)
the court erred in approving the settlement on numerous grounds;
(2) the court erred in failing to strike and then relying on a
statement from the mediator; and (3) the court erred in denying
Objectors' motion to intervene.

On May 1, 2015, the Objectors filed a nationwide class action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California against the Defendants, alleging false and deceptive
advertising with respect to the Defendants' product, "The Real Ham
Bone for Dogs," in violation of state consumer protection laws.  On
Oct. 5, 2015, they also filed a state court action for injunctive
relief on the same grounds in San Diego Superior Court.

On May 16, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed a class action petition in
Missouri state court, alleging several violations of the Missouri
Merchandising Practices Act ("MMPA") by the Defendants insofar as
their product, "The Real Ham Bone for Dogs," falsely advertised
that it was safe for dogs but, in fact, was inherently dangerous to
dogs, resulting in injury or death.  The Defendants filed their
answer in the case on Dec. 1, 2016, denying the allegations and
raising thirty-six affirmative defenses.

On both Feb. 16, 2017, and March 16, 2017, the parties participated
in court-ordered mediation sessions for which John R. Phillips from
Husch Blackwell, LLP, served as the mediator.  On Jan. 16, 2017,
the Plaintiffs' counsel invited the Objectors' counsel to
participate in the mediation sessions in hopes of reaching a global
settlement of both the Reed and Taylor cases.  The Objectors'
counsel attended and fully participated in both mediation sessions,
wherein both the Objectors' and the Plaintiffs' counsel jointly
proposed a claims-made settlement structure and a reversion of
unclaimed funds to the Defendants.

As a result of the mediation sessions, the parties in the
underlying suit were able to reach an agreement, and on April 4,
2017, the Plaintiffs filed an amended petition identifying a
nationwide class and a request for preliminary approval of a class
action settlement.  Attached to the request was a term sheet for
the proposed settlement agreement, a draft claim form, and draft
settlement notices.

On April 12, 2017, the court set a hearing date of April 19, 2017,
for preliminary approval of the settlement agreement.  The next
day, the Plaintiffs' counsel emailed the Objectors' counsel to
notify of the upcoming hearing.  The Objectors' counsel did not
respond and did not attend the hearing for preliminary approval.

Following the hearing, the court issued a preliminary order
approving the settlement and setting dates for notice, opt-outs,
and objections.  On May 5, 2017, the Objectors filed a motion to
intervene, which was denied by the trial court on June 6, 2017.  On
July 11, 2017, the Objectors filed their objections to the
settlement agreement and notice of intent to appear at the final
settlement approval hearing.

Because the Objectors' opposition to the settlement was based, in
part, on the allegation that the settlement was the product of
collusion, the Plaintiffs filed Suggestions in Response to
Objections to Settlement, which included, as an attachment, a
declaration of Mediator Phillips indicating that the settlement was
reached as a result of an arms-length negotiation.  

The Objectors filed an "Objection to Plaintiffs' and Class
Counsel's Application for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Expenses
and Incentive Awards to Class Representatives," in which they
argued that the declaration submitted by mediator John R. Phillips
should be stricken, implying that it violated Phillips' duty of
impartiality.  At the final hearing, however, the Objectors did not
re-assert their request to strike; accordingly, the court did not
rule on the motion.

Following the final approval hearing, wherein the court received
argument from the Plaintiffs, the Defendants, and the Objectors,
the court issued its "Final Order and Judgment," approving the
settlement and dismissing the petition with prejudice.  The
Objectors appeal.

Judge Mitchell finds that because the Objectors filed their
objections to the settlement within the time frame prescribed by
the trial court, they have standing to appeal even absent
intervention.  As such, the trial court committed no error in
denying their request to intervene.  Point III is denied.

As for the Objectors' argument that the trial court erred in
relying on Mediator Phillips's declaration, the Judge holds that
Objectors have failed to meet their burden of demonstrating error
insofar as the record does not reflect that the trial court relied
on the declaration in reaching its conclusions.  The only reference
to Mediator Phillips in the final judgment is to note that he
supervised two all-day mediation conferences and that he is a
mediator with substantial experience in resolving complex class
actions.

Finally, because the Objectors participated in the mediation
process and had the opportunity to raise their challenges either
before or at the preliminary approval hearing, but instead chose to
remain silent, their challenges are now waived.  To the extent that
the Objectors challenge the attorneys' fee award, which arguably
was not fully known at the time of the preliminary approval
hearing, those claims are not identified in the point relied on and
are, therefore, waived.  Point I is denied.

For these reasons, Judge Mitchell concluded that the trial court
committed no error in approving the settlement agreement over the
Objectors' objections.  She affirmed its judgment.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 28, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/l4zBfe from Leagle.com.

Robert A. Horn -- rhorn@connorsodell.com -- and Joseph Kronawitter
-- jkronawitter@hab-law.com -- Kansas City, MO, and Timothy G.
Blood -- tblood@bholaw.com -- Leslie E. Hurst, and Jennifer L.
MacPherson, San Diego, CA, Attorneys for Objectors/Appellants.

Christopher S. Shank, Stephen J. Moore -- sjm@radevitolaw.com --
and David L. Heinemann -- davidh@shankmoore.com -- Mission Woods,
KS, Attorneys for Plaintiffs/Respondents Michael Taylor, Dawn
Fortner, and Catherine Gemkow.

Daniel E. Tranen -- daniel.tranen@wilsonelser.com -- and Jason D.
Johnson, Edwardsville, IL, and Steven P. Kuenzel, Washington, MO,
Attorneys for Defendants/Respondents Dynamic Pet Products, LLC and
Frick's Meat Products, Inc.


ELYSEE MANAGEMENT: Breeze Files Civil Rights Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Elysee Management,
Inc. The case is styled as Byron Breeze, Jr. on behalf of himself,
and all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. Elysee
Management, Inc. a New York corporation, Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-08915 (S.D. N.Y., Sept. 28, 2018).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights.

Elysee Management Group Inc. was founded in 1992 and is based in
Rolling Hills Estates, California. The company's line of business
includes operating public hotels and motels. It is located at 60 E
54th St, New York, NY 10022, United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se:

     Byron Breeze, Jr., Esq.
     39 Broadway, Ste. 2250
     New York, NY 10006
     c/o Law Offices of Nolan Klein, P.A.


ENDEAVORS LLC: Faces Honeywell ADA Suit in S.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------
Endeavors, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit under the Americans
with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Cheri Honeywell
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Endeavors, LLC doing business as: Creekside Inn, a
Florida Limited Liability Company, Defendant, Case No.
0:18-cv-62315-BB (S.D. Fla., Sept. 28, 2018).

Endeavors, LLC doing business as Creekside Inn, is located in
Islamorada in the heart of the Florida Keys along 1,000 ft. of
unique canal front with prime dockage and deep water access.[BN]

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


ENDO PHARMA: Settles Lidoderm Pain Patch Antitrust Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
a federal judge on Sept. 20 finalized two class action settlements
worth $270 million, ending four years of litigation over an alleged
antitrust conspiracy to keep a generic form of the Lidoderm pain
patch off the market.

Under the terms of two deals approved on Sept. 20, drug makers
Endo, Teikoku and Watson will pay $166 million to a class of direct
buyer plaintiffs and $104.7 million to a class of end-payor
plaintiffs.

The pharmaceutical firms were sued in 2014; accused of striking an
anti-competitive settlement deal in May 2012 that blocked a cheaper
generic version of Lidoderm from hitting the market for more than a
year.

As part of that settlement, Watson agreed to delay launching its
generic patch until September 2013 and to drop a pending patent
suit against Endo and Teikoku, creators of the original Lidoderm
painkiller. In exchange, Endo gave Watson $96 million worth of
Lidoderm patches and promised not to launch its own generic patch
until 7 ½ months after Watson's generic hit the market, according
to the plaintiffs.

Last year, Endo submitted to an injunction barring it from striking
anti-competitive pacts with generic drug makers to resolve
antitrust claims with the Federal Trade Commission.

In February 2017, U.S. District Judge William Orrick certified two
separate classes of plaintiffs -- one consisting of direct
purchasers of Lidoderm and another group called end-payor
plaintiffs, whose financial harm was more indirect.

For the $166 million settlement with direct buyers, Endo will pay
$60 million, Watson will pay $71 million, and Teikoku will forfeit
$35 million.

For the separate $104.7 million deal with end-payor plaintiffs,
Watson will pay $41 million, Endo will pay $40 million, and Teikoku
will cover a smaller share of $23 million.

On Sept. 20, Orrick also approved attorneys' fees awards for each
class. The judge awarded $47.3 million in attorneys' fees and costs
to lawyers for the direct purchaser plaintiffs.

He also approved a fees award of $34.9 million for the end-payor
class, finding it justified to apply a 1.37 multiplier to the
lawyers' billable hours because they "obtained a significant
benefit" for the class. Orrick also approved another $3.9 million
in reimbursement of litigation costs for the end-payor class.

Peter Kohn, lead class counsel for the direct purchaser class, and
Daniel Girard, lead class counsel for the end-payor class, did not
immediately return emails seeking comment after business hours on
Sept. 20.

Mr. Kohn is with Faruqi & Faruqi in Jenkintown, Pennsylvania.
Girard is with Girard Gibbs in San Francisco.


ENVISION CREDIT: Daniels Sues over Debt Collection Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
REINA DANIELS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ENVISION CREDIT UNION, Defendant, Case No.
4:18-cv-00404-MW-CAS (N.D. Fla., Aug. 28, 2018), seek to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. The
case was assigned to Chief Judge Mark E. Walker and referred to
Magistrate Judge Charles A. Stampelos.

Envision Credit Union provides a range of financial products and
services to its members. It was formerly known as North Florida
Education Credit Union and changed its name to Envision Credit
Union in 2000. The company was founded in 1954 and is based in
Tallahassee, Florida with additional branches in Tallahassee,
Chattahoochee, Marianna, and Quincy, Florida; and Bainbridge,
Georgia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey Miles Ostrow, Esq.
          KOPELOWITZ OSTROW ET AL - FORT LAUDERDALE FL
          200 SW 1st Ave 12th Floor
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 525-4100
          Facsimile: (954) 525-4300
          E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com


EQUIFAX: Did Not Receive Punishment for Consumer Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------------
Corrine Purtill, writing for Quartz, reports that had the stakes
not been so high and the breach so egregious, Equifax's bungled
response one year ago to the theft of 147 million consumers'
personal data from its computer servers could have been considered
comical.

The credit agency kept news of the hack quiet for a month after its
internal discovery, giving executives time to sell almost $2
million in shares. Once the news went public, Equifax first
insisted that customers waive their right to a class-action lawsuit
before accepting any credit protection; after an outcry, it backed
down. A typo in a tweet from Equifax's account directed customers
to a phishing site instead of the actual website the company set up
to tell customers if they'd been affected, which didn't really work
anyway.

A year after the hack, the lack of penalties for the company's
failures is equally laughable. Stock prices bounced back. Former
CEO Richard Smith retired with his full $90 million package. No US
federal agency has made any move to punish the company.

Meanwhile, consumers' best shot at protection is still to take on
the cumbersome process of freezing their credit at all three US
credit agencies themselves, knowing that any identity theft that
happens as a result of the hack will be on their shoulders to fix
too.

The one-year anniversary of the Equifax breach has frustrating
parallels to the 10-year anniversary of the global financial
crisis, another inauspicious milestone, with the watershed collapse
of Lehman Brothers 10 years ago on Sept. 15. While many of the
institutions whose missteps created the disaster have recovered and
thrived in the decade since, millions of private citizens have
not—people who lost homes and jobs, whose savings have still not
recovered from the fallout of the crisis.

US senators Elizabeth Warren and Mark Warner have introduced a bill
to hold credit agencies accountable for data theft. "Companies like
Equifax do not ask the American people before they collect their
most sensitive information," Ms. Warren wrote in a Sept. 6 letter
to the Consumer Protection Bureau and Federal Trade Commission
asking for an update on their Equifax investigations. Private
individuals have had to be accountable for the impact of these
mistakes; it's only fair that the companies that cause them should
too. [GN]


FACEBOOK INC: Fails to Protect Users' Personal Info, Staggs Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
MITCH STAGGS, SANDRA ATKINS, and SHELLY FORMAN, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. FACEBOOK, INC., a
Delaware corporation, Case No. 3:18-cv-05754 (N.D. Cal., September
19, 2018), alleges that the Defendant fails to take appropriate
steps to safeguard its users' Personal Information from
unauthorized access, aggregation, distribution and use.

The class action concerns a grievous and unprecedented breach of
trust and invasion of privacy by which Facebook allowed third
parties, such as Cambridge Analytica, LLC, and other unknown third
parties access to, and the potential unlimited use of, vast amounts
of sensitive personal information, including names, birthdates,
locations, photos, videos, and likes ("Personal Information") from
Facebook users without their consent, allege the Plaintiffs.  The
Plaintiffs contend that Cambridge Analytica, through the use of one
such third party app developer, obtained Personal Information from
more than 87 million Facebook users, which it thereafter used to
create targeted political advertising and messaging in various
United States elections.

Facebook, Inc., a publicly traded company, is incorporated in the
state of Delaware, with its headquarters located in Menlo Park,
California.  Facebook is an online social media and social
networking service company founded in 2004.  Facebook operates a
social networking website that enables users to connect, share, and
communicate with each other through text, photographs, and videos
as well as to interact with third party apps, such as games and
quizzes on mobile devices and personal computers.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


FAUGNO ACQUISITION: Conn. High Court Affirms Class Certifications
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, STANDARD PETROLEUM COMPANY, v. FAUGNO ACQUISITION,
LLC, ET AL. KENNYNICK, LLC, ET AL., v. STANDARD PETROLEUM COMPANY,
Case Nos. (SC 19874), (SC 19875) (Conn.), Judge Andrew J. McDonald
of the Supreme Court of Connecticut affirmed the trial court's
orders certifying class actions.

Standard, the counterclaim Defendant and the Defendant,
respectively, in the two cases that comprise the consolidated
action, appeals from the trial court's orders certifying class
actions against it.  The class actions are premised on allegations
that the Defendant overcharged service station operators and
franchisees for gasoline products.   

Generally, the Defendant claims that the trial court abused its
discretion in certifying the class2 because it failed to apply the
"rigorous analysis" that is required before such a certification
may be granted.  In particular, it claims that the trial court's
error is most clearly evidenced by its failure to address various
elements of the causes of action and the special defenses when it
determined that common issues predominated.

Judge McDonal concludes that the Defendant has failed to establish
that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering class
certification.  

Kennynick and Faugno are service station operators and were
franchised dealers for gasoline products supplied by the Defendant,
which is a wholesale supplier.  In 2009, the Plaintiffs commenced
an action against the Defendant, purportedly on behalf of
themselves and other persons who had been supplied with gasoline
products by the Defendant.

The complaint alleged that the proposed class members had been
overcharged in two respects.  First, it alleged that the Defendant
had charged the class members the federal gasoline tax at a rate of
18.4 cents per gallon without applying a federal tax credit that
would have had the effect of reducing that rate and that had been
effective between Jan. 1, 2005 and Dec. 31, 2011.  Second, it
alleged that, at all relevant times since Sept. 27, 2004, the
defendant had charged class members the Connecticut gross receipts
tax on the basis of the price of gasoline as delivered, and thus
had improperly charged for state tax on the defendant's profit
(including the federal tax overcharge) and delivery.

In reliance on these allegations, the six count complaint set forth
claims of (1) breach of contract, (2) unjust enrichment, (3)
violation of the Connecticut Petroleum Franchise Act, (4) violation
of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act ("CUTPA"), (5)
violation of the good faith requirement under the Uniform
Commercial Code, and (6) misrepresentation.  The Plaintiffs sought
relief including money damages for past losses, injunctive relief
prohibiting the Defendant from conduct that would cause future
losses, and punitive damages.

Shortly thereafter, the Defendant commenced a separate action
against Faugno, alleging breach of contract.  In response, Faugno
filed a counterclaim, also styled as a proposed class action, which
in all material respects mirrored the Plaintiffs' complaint in the
earlier action.  Pursuant to the Plaintiffs' motions, and in the
absence of objection from the Defendant, the trial court
consolidated the two actions.

In 2015, after the Plaintiffs had obtained compliance with
discovery requests, they moved for orders certifying the action as
a class action pursuant to Practice Book Section 9-9.  The
Defendant filed an opposition, which included a supporting
affidavit by its vice president.  

The trial court held a hearing on the motion and reserved decision.
Thereafter, the trial court issued orders certifying a class
action on all counts.  The orders defined the class as all entities
or persons who: (i) purchased gasoline from the Defendant during
the period Sept. 27, 2004 to date; (ii) were charged federal
gasoline tax at a rate of 18.4 cents per gallon on such gasoline
purchases; (iii) did not receive the federal tax credit, while it
was in effect, on such gasoline purchases; and (iv) were charged
state gross receipts tax on such gasoline purchases based on the
price of gasoline, as delivered.  The orders also approved the
Plaintiffs as class representatives and their counsel as the class
counsel.  The orders indicated that further articulation would
follow.

The trial court thereafter issued a memorandum of decision setting
forth that articulation.  In that decision, the trial court noted
that the Plaintiffs had identified at least 81 of the Defendant's
gasoline customers during the relevant time period as potential
members of the proposed class: 44 had supply contracts with the
Defendant and 37 had purchased gasoline on an as invoiced basis.
The court pointed to the fact that all of the potential class
members had received invoices from the Defendant.  Largely in
reliance on the facts and legal issues cited in that analysis, the
court also concluded that each of the policy considerations under
Practice Book Section 9-8 weighed in favor of allowing the action
to proceed as a class action.

The Defendant appealed from the orders certifying the class.  After
the court issued its memorandum of decision, the Defendant did not
seek any further articulation.

On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court abused its
discretion in granting class certification because it failed to
apply the requisite "rigorous analysis" to each class certification
requirement.  Instead, the Defendant contends, the trial court
merely required some showing to support each requirement, engaged
in a cursory review of the claims and evidence, and disregarded
certain evidence, elements, and defenses.  

Judge McDonald concludes that, in light of the claims and arguments
advanced to the trial court, its grant of class certification was
not an abuse of discretion.  Insofar as he can glean specific
arguments directed at specific requirements, he addresses them and
concludes that none merits reversal of the trial court's decision.
None of the Defendant's contentions persuades him that the trial
court abused its discretion in concluding that the class
certification requirements of Practice Book Section 9-7 were met.

In addition, the Judge finds that the trial court's ultimate
determination that predominance was met was not an abuse of
discretion.  The Defendant's position effectively would impose the
burden on the Plaintiffs to prove whether each conclusory defense
includes common issues and/or are subject to common proof as to
whichever counts they conceivably might be relevant.  He is aware
of no authority that supports such a proposition, and he squarely
rejects it.

Finally, the Defendant's additional argument, in effect, contends
that the totality of the trial court's purportedly improper rulings
regarding the other class action requirements evidences why a class
action is not the superior mechanism to resolve the issue.  In
light of the Court's prior determinations that the trial court's
conclusions were not an abuse of discretion, the Judge holds that
no further response is required.

For these reasons, Judge McDonald affirmed the orders granting the
class certification.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 28, 2018 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/aGNW92 from Leagle.com.

Mary E. R. Bartholic -- mbartholic@cbshealaw.com -- with whom was
Thomas W. Witherington -- witherington@cbshealaw.com -- for the
appellant (plaintiff in Docket No. SC 19874 and defendant in Docket
No. SC 19875).

John J. Morgan, for the appellees (named defendant in Docket No. SC
19874 and plaintiffs in Docket No. SC 19875).


FIRST MOTOR GROUP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Navarro et al. Say
----------------------------------------------------------------
HECTOR NAVARRO; ANTHONY PINKINS; KEVIN MALONE; and RUBEN CASTRO,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. FIRST MOTOR GROUP OF ENCINO, LLC; ENCINO MOTORCARS,
LLC TROPHY AUTOMOTIVE DEALER GROUP LLC; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC719406 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles
Cty., Aug. 27, 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 Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as hourly,
non-exempt employees.

First Motor Group of Encino, LLC is a limited liability company and
conduct business in the State of California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          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


FORD MOTOR: Aware of Brake Failures, Class Action Lawsuit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Finley, writing for WSMV Nashville, reports that a class
action lawsuit blames Ford Motor Company for having knowledge of a
safety defect and not recalling all of the impacted trucks.

An ongoing News4 I-Team investigation found more than 200 drivers
across the nation complaining their brakes suddenly failed in their
2015 or 2016 Ford F-150 pickup trucks.

Our investigation found repair invoices and government records
indicating that brake fluid from the master cylinder was leaking
and causing the failures.

In the class action suit was filed on behalf of drivers in Florida,
Alabama, Georgia and Texas who say they all experienced frightening
brake failures due to a defect with an unreasonable safety risk.

Their complaints echo what Chad Wampler described happened to him.

The Williamson county man said he was driving his Ford F150 pickup
truck when the brakes suddenly failed without warning.

"You feel like you could have died?" asked the News4 I-Team.

"Most definitely," Wampler said.

The class action lawsuit zeroes in as the leak in the master
cylinder as the problem, citing internal emails that show Ford knew
about the problem for some time.

The lawsuit claims the leak decreased the truck's ability to brake
by 75 percent.

The suit also reads that Ford issued an inadequate recall when it
brought in the 2013 and 2014 models for the same problem, but did
not include the 2015 and 2016 models to be repaired.

Ford has not yet responded to the lawsuit in court filings.

A spokeswoman for Ford has repeatedly denied our requests for an
interview, only writing in an emailed statement that when the data
indicates a recall is needed, they will act quickly on behalf of
their customers.[GN]


FORTUNE DIVERSIFIED: Underpays Assistant Manager, Saintcyr Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
CRISTINA SAINTCYR, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FORTUNE DIVERSIFIED, INC. d/b/a
BURGER KING CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 77143224 (Fla. Cir.,
Miami-Dade Cty., Aug. 28, 2018) seeks to recover from the Defendant
unpaid overtime compensation, minimum wage, interest, liquidated
damages, reasonable attorneys' fees, and costs.

The Plaintiff Saintcyr was employed by the Defendant as assistant
manager from the year 2015 to December 2017.

Fortune Diversified, Inc. d/b/a Burger King Corporation a
corporation organized under the laws of the State of Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony M. Georges-Pierre, Esq.
          Max L. Horowitz, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          Court House Tower
          44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416-5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
          E-mail: agp@rgpattorneys.com
                  mhorowitz@rgpattorneys.com


FUNKO INC: May Not Reply to Kanugonda Pending Counsel Appointment
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SATYANARAYANA KANUGONDA, Individually and On Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. FUNKO, INC, BRIAN
MARIOTTI, RUSSELL NICKEL, KEN BROTMAN, GINO DELLOMO, CHARLES
DENSON, DIANE IRVINE, ADAM KRIGER, RICHARD MCNALLY, GOLDMAN SACHS &
CO., J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER &
SMITH INCORPORATED, PIPER JAFFRAY & CO., JEFFERIES LLC; STIFFEL,
NICOLAUS & COMPANY, INCORPORATED, BMO CAPITAL MARKETS CORP., and
SUNTRUST ROBINSON HUMPHREY, INC., Defendants, Case No.
2:18-cv-00812-RSM (W.D. Wash.), Judge Ricardo S. Martinez of the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington,
Seattle, has issued a stipulated order extending time to answer,
move or otherwise respond pending appointment of the Lead Plaintiff
and the Lead Counsel.

On June 4, 2018, the Plaintiff filed the complaint in the putative
class action against the Funko Defendants and the Underwriter
Defendants.  The Complaint alleges violations of Sections 11, 12,
and 15 of the federal Securities Act of 1933, and is subject to the
Lead Plaintiff procedures of the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA").

On June 27, 2018, the Court entered an Order holding that proper
notice was not provided in the action and that the Plaintiff could
publish notice pursuant to the PSLRA and initiate the 60-day period
for class members to seek tje Lead Plaintiff status.

On June 28, 2018, the Plaintiff caused notice to be issued of the
pending action pursuant to the PSLRA.  The deadline for the class
members to move for appointment as the Lead Plaintiff is Aug. 27,
2018.  The counsel for the Defendants has agreed to accept service
of process on behalf of those respective Defendants who have not
been served.  There have been no prior extensions of time for the
Defendants to answer, move or otherwise respond to the Complaint in
the Court.

Therefore, the parties stipulated and agreed, and Judge Martinez
granted, that the undersigned counsel for the Funko Defendants and
the Underwriter Defendants are authorized to and accept service of
process in the action on behalf of the unserved Funko Defendants
and Underwriter Defendants, respectively, without prejudice and
without waiver of any defenses, objections, or arguments in the
matter or any other matter, including without limitation any
arguments regarding personal jurisdiction or venue, except as to
sufficiency of service of process.

The Defendants will not be required to answer, move, or otherwise
respond to the Complaint until after the Court appoints a Lead
Plaintiff and a Lead Counsel.  Unless otherwise agreed by the
parties or ordered by the Court, within 14 days after the Court
appoints a Lead Plaintiff and a Lead Counsel, the Defendants and
the Lead Plaintiff will confer and jointly submit a: (i) proposed
schedule and dates by which the Lead Plaintiff will file an amended
complaint or designate a complaint as the operative complaint; and
(ii) briefing schedule on the Defendants' anticipated motion(s) to
dismiss.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 28, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/ltnDQK from Leagle.com.

Satyanarayana Kanugonda, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Phillip C. Kim --
pkim@rosenlegal.com -- THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, PA, pro hac vice,
Spencer Hall, Jr. -- shall@hallgeorge.com -- HALL & GEORGE PLLC &
Colin M. George -- cgeorge@hallgeorge.com -- HALL & GEORGE PLLC.

Funko, Inc, Brian Mariotti, Russell Nickel, Ken Brotman, Gino
Dellomo, Charles Denson, Diane Irvine, Adam Kriger & Richard
McNally, Defendants, represented by Benjamin Naftalis --
benjamin.naftalis@lw.com -- LATHAM & WATKINS, pro hac vice, Kevin
M. McDonough -- kevin.mcdonough@lw.com -- LATHAM & WATKINS, pro hac
vice, Stellman Keehnel -- stellman.keehnel@dlapiper.com -- DLA
PIPER US LLP & David Ian Freeburg -- david.freeburg@dlapiper.com --
DLA PIPER US LLP.


GENERAL MOTORS: Seeks Dismissal of Blind Zone Alert Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a GM side
blind zone alert lawsuit should allegedly be dismissed because the
plaintiff's claims about 2013-2018 Chevy Cruze cars are allegedly
not based on the facts. That opinion is held by General Motors as
the automaker filed a motion to dismiss the class-action.

Anthony and Lisa Hudson say they purchased a 2013 Chevy Cruze in
September 2013, a car equipped with the optional "Enhanced Safety
Package" which included the system that illuminates an amber
display in the side mirrors if it detects vehicles in the "blind
spots" of the side mirrors.

The plaintiffs allege in May 2015, the General Motors side blind
zone alert system "malfunctioned" and was repaired under warranty
by a GM dealer. But the plaintiffs claim the system malfunctioned
again after the warranty expired, causing problems to unspecified
electrical systems.

The lawsuit alleges it can cost $1,000 to repair the system, but
the lawsuit doesn't allege the plaintiffs paid that amount for
repairs.

According to the lawsuit, there are problems with the sensors
because they are located on the rear bumper where the sensors can
be affected by water, rain, snow and dirt.

Attorneys for GM tore into the alleged arguments made by the
plaintiffs and told the judge the case should immediately be
dismissed.

GM points out the lawsuit alleges more than 1.1 million 2013-2018
Chevy Cruze cars were sold and about 25 percent were equipped with
the alert systems. This means the plaintiffs claim more than
250,000 cars in the U.S. have defective alert systems, yet the
lawsuit mentions only 40 cars that were presented for service of
the systems during the warranty periods.

In addition, GM argues the plaintiffs don't allege any specific
facts about those 40 Cruze cars, such as the problems experienced
or details about the repairs.

Saying the nationwide class-action lawsuit gives the term
"threadbare" new meaning, attorneys for GM told the judge that 40
cars needing repairs out of more than 250,000 over the course of
five years doesn't mean the side blind zone alert systems are
defective.

According to GM, the plaintiffs sued because their car was repaired
once for free under warranty, and apparently the car owners want
"limited" warranties to last forever.

"GM provides a limited warranty, not a lifetime guarantee. Two
repairs after several years of vehicle use does not come close to
supporting their individual claims, much less a costly and
time-consuming class action."

In its motion to dismiss the lawsuit, GM says the plaintiffs allege
"the problem with the sensors is inherent in the design of the
vehicle." But the automaker argues the express terms of GM's
limited warranty only applies to defects caused by "materials or
workmanship," not to the alleged side blind zone alert design
defect.

The automaker also told the judge no breach of warranty violations
occurred because the plaintiff's alert system was repaired for free
under the warranty. The plaintiffs never claim they took their
vehicle back to the dealer and asked for another repair under
warranty. But GM argues even if they had and GM denied the request,
the automaker would still be in the clear.

Attorneys for GM note that "nothing in the warranty guarantees that
a part repaired during the warranty period will never again require
repair, nor does the law impose such an obligation upon a
manufacturer. To do so would be tantamount to re-writing the terms
of the limited warranty into one of unlimited scope and duration."

Furthermore, the automaker says even if the system malfunctioned a
second time does not mean the first repair was not "effective," as
the plaintiffs contend. And GM's lawyers told the judge the lawsuit
doesn't allege the alert system was nonfunctional when the Cruze
was sold or at any time prior to 2015.

As part of the lawsuit, the Cruze owners claim GM had knowledge of
the alleged defects because of warranty claims and customer
complaints, but GM argues the plaintiffs have no sound argument.
While the plaintiffs reference internet complaints, GM says the
plaintiffs do not name a single complaint made before they
purchased their Cruze in September 2013.

In addition, GM says numerous courts have ruled random postings
online do not mean a manufacturer has advance knowledge of possible
problems. GM argues if that was the case, then "[a]ll any plaintiff
would be required to show is that a product broke once and that
someone complained about it on the internet."

And finally, General Motors says warranty and fraud claims based on
a nationwide class-action should be dismissed because the
"variations in state laws would preclude class certification."

The GM side blind zone alert lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division --
Anthony and Lisa Hudson, et al., vs. General Motors LLC. [GN]


GEORGIA: Class Claims in Martinez Prison Condition Suit Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, HARLEM MARTINEZ, Plaintiff, v. WARDEN HILTON HALL;
GREG DOZIER; ASSISTANT WARDEN RICK STONE; and LINDA WALKER,
Defendants, Civil Action No. 5:17-cv-119 (S.D. Ga.), Judge Lisa
Godbey Wood of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Georgia, Waycross Division, (i) dismissed the access to courts,
conspiracy, class action, and preliminary injunctive relief claims;
and (ii) denied him in forma pauperis on appeal as to these
claims.

The Judge concurred with the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation, to which the Plaintiff filed Objections.  She finds
that while the Plaintiff makes an admirable effort to cure the
deficiencies of his original Complaint through his Objections, his
effort fails.

As an example, the Plaintiff attempts to show his habeas corpus
petition filings were unsuccessful due to the Defendants' alleged
policy of only having one Spanish-language book in the prison's
library.  However, he notes the habeas court, in denying his
petition, mainly pointed out that he failed to satisfy his burden
of proof as to his ineffective assistance of counsel claims.
Indeed, from the Plaintiff's own admissions, he was able to pursue
his habeas petition. His lack of success on the relative merits is
irrelevant to asserting a cognizable access to courts claim.

Thus, Judge Wood overruled the Plaintiff's Objections and adopted
the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation as the opinion of
the Court.  She dismissed the Plaintiff's access to courts,
conspiracy, class action, and preliminary injunctive relief claims;
and denied him in forma pauperis on appeal as to these claims.  The
Plaintiff's equal protection claim against the Defendants remains
pending.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 28, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/q1uQEk from Leagle.com.

Harlem Martinez, Plaintiff, pro se.

Warden Hilton Hall, Assistant Warden Rick Stone & Linda Walker,
Defendants, represented by Stephen E. Curry, Curry Law Firm.


GLOBAL POWER: Budde Appeals Dismissal of Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
The lead plaintiff in the case, MARGARET BUDDE, lead plaintiff, and
DANIEL REAM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. GLOBAL POWER EQUIPMENT GROUP, INC.,
RAYMOND K. GUBA, LUIS MANUAL RAMIREZ, and DAVID L. WILLIS,
Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:15-cv-1679-M (N.D. Tex.), has taken
an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit from (a) the memorandum opinion and order granting
defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint; (b) the
memorandum opinion and order granting defendants' motion to dismiss
the third amended complaint; and (c) the judgment entered on
September 11, 2018.  The Notice of Appeal was filed September 11.

Williams Industrial Services Group Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
14, 2018, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that a
putative shareholder class action, captioned Budde v. Global Power
Equipment Group Inc., is pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas naming the Company and certain former
officers as defendants.  This action and another action were filed
on May 13, 2015 and June 23, 2015, respectively, and on July 29,
2015 the court consolidated the two actions and appointed a lead
plaintiff. On May 1, 2017, the lead plaintiff filed a second
consolidated amended complaint that names the Company and three of
its former officers as defendants.

It alleges violations of the federal securities laws arising out of
matters related to the Company's restatement of certain financial
periods and claims that the defendants made material
misrepresentations and omissions of material fact in certain public
disclosures during the putative class period in violation of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and Rule 10b-5, as promulgated thereunder.

The plaintiffs seek class certification on behalf of persons who
acquired the Company's stock between September 7, 2011 and May 6,
2015, monetary damages of "more than $200 million" on behalf of the
putative class and an award of costs and expenses, including
attorneys' fees and experts' fees. The Company intends to defend
against this action.

On June 26, 2017, the Company and the individual defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint. On August 23, 2017, the lead
plaintiff filed its opposition to that motion. On September 22,
2017, defendants filed their reply brief in further support of
their motion to dismiss. On December 27, 2017, the court issued a
memorandum opinion and order granting the motion to dismiss,
allowing the plaintiffs until January 15, 2018 to file an amended
complaint.

The court found that, with respect to each of the defendants,
plaintiffs failed to plead facts supporting a strong inference of
scienter, or the required intent to deceive, manipulate or defraud,
or act with severe recklessness.

On January 15, 2018, the plaintiffs filed their third amended
complaint, and in response the Company filed a renewed motion to
dismiss. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion in opposition to
the Company's motion to dismiss, and requested oral argument.
Defendants filed their reply brief in further support of their
motion on March 23, 2018, and oral argument was held on July 19,
2018 and the court has not yet issued a ruling.

Williams Industrial said, "Litigation is subject to many
uncertainties, and the outcome of this action is not predictable
with assurance. At this time, the Company is unable to predict the
possible loss or range of loss, if any, associated with the
resolution of this litigation, or any potential effect such may
have on the Company or its business or operations."

Liaison Counsel for Lead Plaintiff:

     Joe Kendall, Esq.
     Jamie J. Mckey, Esq.
     Kendall Law Group, PLLC
     3811 Turtle Creek, Suite 1450
     Dallas, TX 75219
     Tel: (214) 744-3000
     Fax: (214) 744-3015
     E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com
             jmckey@kendalllawgroup.com

Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiff:

     Jeffrey C. Block, Esq.
     Jacob A. Walker, Esq.
     Block & Leviton LLP
     155 Federal Street, Suite 400
     Boston, MA 02110
     Tel: (617) 398-5600
     Fax: (617) 507-6020
     E-mail: jeff@blockesq.com
            jake@blockesq.com

Williams Industrial Services Group Inc. provides general and
specialty construction, maintenance and modification, and plant
management support services to the nuclear, hydro and fossil power
generation, pulp and paper, refining, petrochemical, and other
process and manufacturing industries. Williams Industrial Services
Group Inc. was founded in 1998 and is headquartered in Irving,
Texas.


GOLDEN QUEEN: Underpays Heavy Equipment Operators, Windham Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RICKY WINDHAM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GOLDEN QUEEN MINING COMPANY LLC; and DOES 1
through 100, Defendants, Case No. BC719591 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., Aug. 28, 2018) is an action against the Defendants
for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for
missed meal and rest periods.

The Plaintiff Windham was employed by the Defendants as heavy
equipment operator from June 2015 to June 2018.

Golden Queen Mining Company, LLC offers exploration and mining of
gold and silver ores. The company was founded in 1985 and is based
in Mojave, California. Golden Queen Mining Company, LLC operates as
a subsidiary of Gauss LLC and Golden Queen Mining Co. Ltd. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter M. Hart, Esq.
          Peter Choi, Esq.
          Ashlie E. Fox, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF PETER M. HART
          12121 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 725
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 207-2277
          Facsimile: (509) 561-6441


GRAMERCY PROPERTY: Faces Hurtado Suit over Blackstone Merger
------------------------------------------------------------
RAUL HURTADO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff vs. GRAMERCY PROPERTY TRUST; ALLAN J. BAUM; Z.
JAMIE BEHAR; CHARLES E. BLACK; GORDON F. DUGAN; THOMAS D. ECKERT;
JAMES L. FRANCIS; GREGORY F. HUGHES; JEFFREY E. KELTER; LOUIS P.
SALVATORE; and MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-02711-ELH (D. Md., Aug. 31, 2018) alleges violation of the
Securities and Exchange Act.  The Plaintiff brought an the action
on behalf of the holders of Gramercy Property Trust common stock
against Gramercy, its Board of Trustees, and Morgan Stanley & Co.
LLC.

According to the complaint, on June 27, 2018, and supplemented on
July 13, 2018, the Defendants filed the Definitive Proxy Statement.
The Proxy contained the recommendation of each Individual
Defendants to Gramercy stockholders to vote in favor of the
proposed sale of the Gramercy to an affiliate of The Blackstone
Group L.P. The Proxy contained several statements representing the
Board's opinion that the Merger is the shareholders' best interests
and the Merger consideration was "fair," and provided Morgan
Stanley's fairness analyses and fairness opinion to induce
shareholder approval of the Merger.

The Proxy failed to disclose facts to disabuse stockholders of
these incorrect assumptions. The Proxy did not disclose that Morgan
Stanley's valuation was objectively flawed. The Proxy also omitted
facts demonstrating that the Board either did not obtain a valid
valuation, or did, and did not disclose this material information
which directly contradicted the financial fairness of the
Merger.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dana W. McKee, Esq.
          Joseph B. Espo, Esq.
          BROWN GOLDSTEIN & LEVY, LLP
          120 E. Baltimore Street, Suite 1700
          Baltimore, MD 21202
          Telephone: (410) 962-1030
          Facsimile: (410) 385-0869
          E-mail: dwm@browngold.com
                  jbe@browngold.com

               - and -

          David T. Wissbroecker, Esq.
          Danielle S. Myers, Esq.
          Eun Jin Lee, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101-8498
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
          E-mail: dmyers@rgrdlaw.com
                  dwissbroecker@rgrdlaw.com
                  elee@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          W. Scott Holleman, Esq.
          JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP
          99 Madison Avenue, 5th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 802-1486
          Facsimile: (212) 602-1592
          E-mail: scotth@johnsonfistel.com


GREAT LAKES: Court Certifies Class of Student Loan Borrowers
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MEREDITH D. DAWSON, Plaintiff, v. GREAT LAKES
EDUCATIONAL LOAN SERVICES, INC., GREAT LAKES HIGHER EDUCATION
CORPORATION, JILL LEITL, DAVID LENTZ, and MICHAEL WALKER,
Defendants, Case No. 15-cv-475-jdp (W.D. Wis.), Judge James D.
Peterson of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Wisconsin (i) granted Dawson's renewed motion for class
certification as to liability issues, and (ii) denied without
prejudice as to damages issues.

The case is a proposed class action in which Dawson alleges that
the Defendants -- two affiliated student loan servicing companies
and three of their employees -- fraudulently and negligently
inflated the amount owed on her (and other similarly situated
borrowers') student loans.  Specifically, Dawson alleges that Great
Lakes wrongfully capitalized some interest that had accrued on her
student loans, improperly increasing the principal amount, and that
Great Lakes misrepresented its interest capitalization practices.
Dawson asserts claims for common law negligence and negligent
misrepresentation and violations of the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations ("RICO") Act.

Now before the Court is Dawson's second attempt to have the case
certified as a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23.  Dawson has revised her proposed class definition accordingly,
and the renewed motion requests certification of the class of all
persons who, between Jan. 1, 2006 and the present: (i) were
borrowers of a student loan issued under the Federal Family
Education Loan Program ("FFELP"), or of a student loan issued under
the Federal Direct Loan Program; (ii) had their FFELP and/or Direct
student loan(s) serviced by Great Lakes Educational Loan Services,
Inc. or Great Lakes Higher Education Corp.; (iii) had Great Lakes
place their FFELP and/or Direct student loan(s) in an
administrative forbearance status for a period of up to 60 days,
concurrent with the processing of their application for a
deferment, forbearance, consolidation loan, or change in repayment
plan; and (iv) had any amount of accrued interest capitalized at
the end of the administrative forbearance period.

The Court denied Dawson's initial motion to certify her proposed
class under Rule 23(b)(3), finding her claims too vague and her
injury too ill-defined to enable the court to conduct the necessary
inquiry under Rule 23.  With the Court's permission, Dawson filed a
renewed motion for class certification under Rule 23(b)(3).  The
parties submitted additional briefing and the Court heard oral
argument.  The Court has also received and reviewed several filings
since the hearing.

Dawson has narrowed the proposed class and clarified her claims,
and Judge Peterson is satisfied that she has cured the core
deficiencies identified in its prior order.  And the parties do not
appear to dispute that the primary issues related to liability to
can be resolved on a class-wide basis, so the Court will grant
Dawson's motion for class certification as to those issues.

There are three caveats.  First, the Judge will limit the class to
individuals like Dawson, who received a "standalone" B-9
forbearance and not "back-to-back" forbearances.  Dawson cannot
represent class members with different claims.  Second, the Judge
will create subclasses for the three types of alleged
capitalization errors at issue in this case.  Because Dawson
alleges that Great Lakes subjected her to all three kinds of
errors, she may serve as the class representative for each
subclass.  Third, he will not certify the class for damages issues
at this time.  Great Lakes has identified a number of potential
problems with resolving those issues in one case and Dawson has not
adequately rebutted those arguments.  After the Court resolves
liability, the parties may revisit the question of the best way to
decide damages.

Accordingly, Judge Peterson granted Dawson's renewed motion for
class certification as to liability issues, and denied without
prejudice as to damages issues.

He certified the class of all persons who, between Jan. 1, 2006 and
the present: (i) were borrowers of a student loan issued under the
Federal Family Education Loan Program ("FFELP"), or of a student
loan issued under the Federal Direct Loan Program; (ii) had their
FFELP and/or Direct student loan(s) serviced by Great Lakes
Educational Loan Services, Inc. or Great Lakes Higher Education
Corp.; (iii) had Great Lakes place their FFELP and/or Direct
student loan(s) in an administrative forbearance status for a
period of up to 60 days that is not immediately preceded by another
forbearance, deferment, or grace period, concurrent with the
processing of their application for a deferment, forbearance,
consolidation loan, or change in repayment plan; and (iv) had any
amount of accrued interest capitalized at the end of the
administrative forbearance period.

Included in the class are three subclasses of class members
subjected to capitalization of these types of interest: (a)
interest that accrued during the B-9 Forbearance period; (b)
interest that accrued before the B-9 Forbearance period; and (c)
interest that Great Lakes capitalized procedural or programming
errors.

The Judge appointed the law firm Finkelstein & Krinsk LLP as the
class counsel.  He granted Dawson's motion for leave to file a
response and denied as moot her motion for pretrial conference and
for corrective notice.  Dawson may have until Sept. 5, 2018, to
file a proposed class notice or inform the court that she wishes to
use Docket 163-1 as her proposed notice.  Great Lakes may have
until Sept. 12, 2018, to file any objections to the Dawson's
proposed notice, along with its own proposed notice.

The clerk of court is directed to set a new scheduling conference
with Magistrate Judge Stephen Crocker.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 28, 2018 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/3zSNcw from Leagle.com.

Meredith D. Dawson, Plaintiff, represented by David J. Harris, Jr.
-- djh@classactionlaw.com -- Finkelstein & Krinsk LLP, Adrian Trent
Ruark -- atr@classactionlaw.com -- Finkelstein & Krinsk LLP,
Jeffrey Robert Krinsk -- jrk@classactionlaw.com -- Finkelstein &
Krinsk LLP & Trenton R. Kashima -- trk@classactionlaw.com --
Finkelstein & Krinsk LLP.

Great Lakes Educational Loan Services, Inc., Great Lakes Higher
Education Corporation, Jill Leitl, David Lentz & Michael Walker,
Defendants, represented by Thomas L. Shriner, Jr. --
tshriner@foley.com -- Foley & Lardner LLP, Elizabeth A.N. Haas --
ehaas@foley.com -- Foley & Lardner LLP, Eric G. Pearson --
epearson@foley.com -- Foley & Lardner LLP & Michael D. Leffel --
mleffel@foley.com -- Foley & Lardner.


GT ADVANCED: Lead Plaintiff Moves to Certify Class in Levy Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Douglas Kurz, the Lead Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned ADAM S.
LEVY on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v.
THOMAS GUTIERREZ, RICHARD J. GAYNOR, RAJA BAL, J. MICHAL CONAWAY,
KATHLEEN A. COTE, ERNEST L. GODSHALK, MATTHEW E. MASSENGILL, MARY
PETROVICH, ROBERT E. SWITZ, NOEL G. WATSON, THOMAS WROE, JR.,
MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, GOLDMAN, SACHS & CO., CANACCORD GENUITY
INC., AND APPLE, INC., Case No. 1:14-cv-00443-JL (D.N.H.), together
with Securities Act Plaintiff Palisade Strategic Master Fund
(Cayman) Limited, and Named Plaintiff Vance K. Opperman move the
Court for an order certifying the action to proceed as a class
action pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.

Thomas Gutierrez is the president, chief operating officer and
director of GT Advanced Technologies, Inc., a now-bankrupt
manufacturer of materials for consumer electronics.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them to serve as Class
Representatives, and to appoint Bernstein Litowitz Berger &
Grossmann LLP as Class Counsel.[CC]

Lead Plaintiff Douglas Kurz is represented by:

          John C. Browne, Esq.
          Lauren A. Ormsbee, Esq.
          Ross Shikowitz, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
          1251 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020
          Telephone: (212) 554-1400
          Facsimile: (212) 554-1444
          E-mail: johnb@blbglaw.com
                  lauren@blbglaw.com
                  ross@blbglaw.com

               - and -

          Jennifer A. Eber, Esq.
          Jeffrey C. Spear, Esq.
          ORR & RENO, P.A.
          45 S. Main Street
          PO Box 3550
          Concord, NH 03302-3550
          Telephone: (603) 224-2381
          Facsimile: (603) 224-2318
          E-mail: jeber@orr-reno.com
                  jspear@orr-reno.com

Named Plaintiff Palisade Strategic Master Fund (Cayman) Limited is
represented by:

          Sherrie Savett, Esq.
          Gary E. Cantor, Esq.
          Glen Abramson, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3082
          Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
          E-mail: ssavett@bm.net
                  gcantor@bm.net
                  gabramson@bm.net

Named Plaintiff Vance Opperman is represented by:

          Richard A. Lockridge, Esq.
          Karen Riebel, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 22200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401-2179
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
          E-mail: ralockridge@locklaw.com
                  khriebel@locklaw.com


HELIOS & MATHESON: Faces Chang and Braxton Class Suits
------------------------------------------------------
Helios & Matheson Analytics Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 14, 2018, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the company faces
two putative class action suit entitled, Jeffrey Chang v. Helios
and Matheson Analytics Inc., et. al. and Jeffrey Braxton v. Helios
and Matheson Analytics, Inc. et al.

On August 2, 2018, Jeffrey Chang, a purported stockholder of the
Company, acting on behalf of himself and a putative class of
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common
stock between August 15, 2017, and July 26, 2018, filed a class
action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the Company and two of its executive
officers, Theodore Farnsworth and Stuart Benson (the "August 2,
2018 Complaint"). Jeffrey Chang v. Helios and Matheson Analytics
Inc., et. al., Case No. 1:18-cv-6965.

The August 2, 2018 Complaint alleges, among other things, that the
Company's statements to the market were materially false or
misleading. The plaintiffs assert claims under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5.

On August 13, 2018, Jeffrey Braxton, a purported stockholder of the
Company, acting on behalf of himself and a putative class of
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common
stock between August 15, 2017, and July 26, 2018, filed a class
action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the Company and two of its executive
officers, Theodore Farnsworth and Stuart Benson (the "August 13,
2018 Complaint"). Jeffrey Braxton v. Helios and Matheson Analytics,
Inc. et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-07242-UA. The August 13, 2018
Complaint makes substantially identical allegations as the August
2, 2018 Complaint.

Helios and Matheson said, "The Company intends to vigorously defend
these matters and believes that they are without merit. Given the
preliminary status of the litigation, it is difficult to predict
the likelihood of an adverse outcome or estimate the amount or
range of any reasonably possible losses, if any."

Helios and Matheson Analytics Inc. provides a range of information
technology (IT) solutions to Fortune 1000 companies and other
organizations in the United States. Helios and Matheson Analytics
Inc. was founded in 1982 and is headquartered in New York, New
York.


HERTZ CORP: Unlawfully Changed Car Rental Terms, Berry Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
ZSA ZSA BERRY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE HERTZ CORPORATION; and DOES 1-10,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC719082 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles
Cty., Aug. 27, 2018) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of
falsely advertising its car rental service agreements in violation
of the Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and the
Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants
represent to the Plaintiff that they will not materially alter the
car rental service agreement without notifying the Plaintiff first.
The Defendant omitted from its advertisement and statements to the
Plaintiff that the contract memorializing the Defendants' rental
agreement would transfer from a weekly rental agreement to a
monthly rental agreement after 28 days.

The Hertz Corporation engages in the vehicle rental and leasing
business. The company was founded in 1918 and is headquartered in
Park Ridge, New Jersey. The Hertz Corporation is a subsidiary of
Rental Car Intermediate Holdings, LLC. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
          Meghan E. George, Esq.
          Thomas E. Wheeler, 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
                  abacon@toddflaw.com
                  mgeorge@toddflaw.com
                  twheeler@toddflaw.com


HESKA CORP: Court Certifies Class in Fauley TCPA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
In the case, SHAUN FAULEY, individually and as the representative
of a class of similarly-situated persons, Plaintiff, v. HESKA
CORPORATION and JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 15 C 2171
(N.D. Ill.), Judge Jorge Alonso of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification.

Heska provides services to veterinary professionals, including
diagnostic testing services and digital imaging equipment.  The
Plaintiff, a veterinarian, alleges that, on May 19, 2013, he
received an unsolicited facsimile advertisement from Heska.  He
filed the suit, alleging that the Defendants violated the TCPA by
faxing an advertisement to him and putative class members without
the required opt-out language and without express permission or
invitation.

The Plaintiff says that, from March 2011 to July 2014, Heska sent
tens of thousands of similar faxes to recipients across the United
States, including 20 faxes to the Plaintiff, in violation of the
TCPA.  Heska raises a number of affirmative defenses, including
that it had an established business relationship with plaintiff,
that plaintiff gave prior express invitation and/or permission, and
that it has received a waiver from the FCC.

In April 2015, Heska timely filed a petition with the FCC seeking a
retroactive waiver of the opt-out rule for solicited fax
advertisements.  On Aug. 28, 2015, the FCC granted Heska a
retroactive waiver which excused Heska for any failure to comply
with the opt-out notice requirement for faxes sent prior to April
30, 2015, provided that Heska had obtained the prior express
invitation or permission of the recipient to receive the fax.

Near the close of discovery, Heska submitted its Fifth Supplemental
Disclosures to the Plaintiff, which included affidavits from
certain Heska employees, a sample of Heska Customer Account files,
evidence from Heska's purported "reconfirmation campaign," and
requests to be excluded from the class.  According to this
evidence, Heska maintains a customer database that was created in
1988 and contains accounts for customers and prospective customers.


In August 2015, Heska initiated a "reconfirmation campaign" in an
attempt to obtain specific evidence showing that the customers in
Heska's database gave Heska their fax numbers and consented to
receive fax advertisements from Heska before the faxes were sent.
As part of the campaign, Heska contacted over 10,850 customers.

Shortly after Heska submitted its Fifth Supplemental Disclosures,
the Plaintiff filed a motion pursuant to Rule 23(d), requesting the
Court to exercise control over this action and enter appropriate
orders governing the parties' conduct.  Specifically, the Plaintiff
sought an order from the Court (1) directing Heska to cease its
efforts to "reconfirm" prior express permission or use its
"script"; (2) holding that Heska cannot assert a defense of
"establishd business relationship" or "prior express invitation or
permission" in light of its opt-out notice violations; (3)
excluding any evidence obtained in the "reconfirmation" campaign as
inappropriately obtained and as untimely under Rule 26(e); (4)
invalidating any requests for exclusion obtained to date; and (5)
directing that corrective notice be sent to the putative class at
Heska's expense.

The Court referred the matter to the Magistrate Judge, who issued a
Report and Recommendation granting in part and denying in part the
Plaintiff's motion for rule 23(d) order.  In particular, the
Magistrate Judge recommended the Court to (1) deny the Plaintiff's
request to bar the Fifth Supplemental Disclosures as untimely; (2)
order the Defendant to cease using the script used during the
reconfirmation campaign; (3) require the Defendant to seek Court
approval of any amended script it intends to use in any continued
reconfirmation campaign; (4) reserve ruling on whether the
Defendant can utilize the evidence it already obtained in its
reconfirmation campaign; and (5) consider including a reference to
the Defendant's reconfirmation campaign if notice is eventually
disseminated to class members.

The Court adopted the Magistrate Judge's recommendations and
extended discovery for a limited purpose.  Heska later filed a
motion to approve revised script, which the Court denied.

The Plaintiff then filed a motion for class certification, seeking
to certify the class of all persons or entities who were
successfully sent one or more facsimiles regarding Heska's goods or
services from March 12, 2011 through July 21, 2014, that either (1)
contain no opt-out notice explaining how to stop future faxes or
(2) contain an opt-out notice stating, To unsubscribe from Heska's
promotional faxes, please call 800-464-3752, ext. 4565 or fax (970)
619-3008, and indicate your clinic name and fax number.

The Plaintiff also asks the Court to appoint him as the class
representative and to appoint his counsel as the class counsel.

Judge Alonso finds that the proposed class satisfies the
requirements of Rule 23(a)'s and Rule 23(b)(3)'s class
certification requirements.  Therefore, he granted the Plaintiff's
motion.  

He certified the class of all persons or entities who were
successfully sent one or more facsimiles regarding Heska
Corporation's goods or services from March 12, 2011 through July
21, 2014, that either (1) contain no opt-out notice explaining how
to stop future faxes or (2) contain an opt-out notice stating, To
unsubscribe from Heska's promotional faxes, please call
800-464-3752, ext. 4565 or fax (970) 619-3008, and indicate your
clinic name and fax number.

The Judge directed the parties to file a joint status report by
Sept. 7, 2018, informing the Court of their next intended steps.
The status hearing is set for Sept. 11, 2018 at 9:30 a.m.

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

Shaun Fauley, Plaintiff, represented by Brian J. Wanca --
bwanca@andersonwanca.com -- Anderson & Wanca, Glenn L. Hara --
GHara@andersonwanca.com -- Anderson & Wanca, Ross Michael Good --
rgood@andersonwanca.com -- Anderson Wanca, Ryan M. Kelly --
RKelly@andersonwanca.com -- Anderson & Wanca & Wallace Cyril
Solberg -- wsolberg@andersonwanca.com -- Anderson Wanca.

Heska Corporation, Defendant, represented by Joseph Patrick
Sanchez, Goodspeed & Merrill, pro hac vice, Suzanne S. Goodspeed,
Goodspeed & Merrill, pro hac vice, William B. Hayes , William B
Hayes, pro hac vice & Brian E. Hurley --  bhurley@smbplaw.com --
Brian E. Hurley & Associates, pro hac vice.


HIGH QUALITY: Nieves Sues over Sale of Gray Market Vehicles
-----------------------------------------------------------
PEDRO F. NIEVES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HIGH QUALITY IMPORTS, INC.; and JOHN DOES
1-5, Defendant, Case No. MID-L-005118-18 (N.J. Super., Aug. 28,
2018) alleges that the Defendants have engaged in the practice of
advertising and selling cars that were manufactured for sale
outside of the United States known as the "gray market vehicles,"
without disclosing the nature of these vehicles in advertisements,
signs, and sales documents in violation of the New Jersey Consumer
Fraud Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is selling cars with
substantially lower market value, typically 25% lower, than cars of
the same year, model, options, mileage, and condition that were
manufactured for sale in the United States. Moreover, these gray
market vehicles are not covered by manufacturer and most
third-party warranties.

The Plaintiff and the other members of the putative class suffered
ascertainable loss from the Defendants' deception and knowing
omission regarding gray market vehicles sold at their New Jersey
dealership locations. Since the Plaintiff and the class cannot
ascertain whether these vehicles were gray market vehicles, the
Defendants overcharged the Plaintiff and the consumers for Motor
Vehicle registration and transfer of title fees.

High Quality Imports, Inc. is a used car dealership in Woodbridge,
New Jersey. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Henry P. Wolfe, Esq.
          THE WOLF LAW FIRM, LLC
          1520 U.S. Highway 130, Suite 101
          North Brunswick, NJ 08902
          Telephone: (732) 545-7900
          Facsimile: (732) 545-1030


HUFF DISTRIBUTING: Underpays Route Drivers, Thomas Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
WADE THOMAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff vs. HUFF DISTRIBUTING, LLC; JASON K. HUFF; and
ANDREA L. HUFF, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-02058-MCR-CJK (N.D.
Fla., Aug. 28, 2018) is an action against the Defendants for
failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation
for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

Mr. Thomas was employed by the Defendants as route driver.

Huff Distributing, LLC distributes consumer products. The Company
offers cheese, vegetables, snacks, popcorn, and other food
products. Huff Distributing serves customers in the State of
Missouri. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeremiah J. Talbott, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JEREMIAH J. TALBOTT, P.A.
          900 E. Moreno Street
          Pensacola, FL 32503
          Telephone: (850) 437-9600
          Facsimile: (850) 437-0906(fax)
          E-mail: jjtalbott@talbottlawfirm.com
                  civilfilings@talbottlawfirm.com


HUNTER WARFIELD: Smith Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Missouri
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hunter Warfield. The
case is styled as Antoinette Smith individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Hunter Warfield,
Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-01642 (E.D. Mo., Sept. 27, 2018).

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

Hunter Warfield, Inc. provides debt collection and asset
investigation services. It specializes in multi-housing,
commercial, funeral care, and educational markets, as well as
serves educational-student housing and student loans, military
housing, utility billing, building and medical supply, and auction
bid defaults. The company was founded in 1983 and is based in
Tampa, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Yaakov Saks, Esq.
     RC LAW GROUP, PLLC
     285 Passaic Street
     Hackensack, NJ 07601
     Phone: (201) 282-6500 x101
     Fax: (201) 282-6501
     Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com


IMPINJ INC: Montemarano Sues over Drop in Share Prices
------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD MONTEMARANO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. IMPINJ, INC.; CHRIS DIORIO; EVAN
FEIN; and ERIC BRODERSEN, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-01264 (W.D.
Wash., Aug. 27, 2018) alleges violation of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that on August 2, 2018,
Impinj announced that it was delaying the release of its second
quarter 2018 ("2Q18") results for the period ended June 30, 2018,
its 2Q18 investor conference call, and the filing of its 2Q18
financial report with the SEC. The Company also disclosed that in
response to having received a complaint from a former employee, the
Audit Committee of Impinj's Board of Directors had commenced an
independent investigation and had retained independent counsel to
assist in the investigation. Impinj further disclosed that the SEC
had been notified of the former employee's complaint and the Audit
Committee's investigation into it. Impinj stated that it could not
"predict the duration or outcome of the investigation, and [would]
not be in a position to file its Form 10-Q until the Audit
Committee completed its investigation."

Impinj also announced preliminary 2Q18 financial results that day,
disclosing that it had reduced its bloated inventory balance by
$1.4 million, to approximately $53.3 million. On this news,
Impinj's share price fell $3.02 per share, or nearly 14%, on August
3, 2018, on heavy trading volume of 914,100 shares traded.

On August 13, 2018, Impinj disclosed that it had been notified by
the NASDAQ that its failure to timely file its 2Q18 financial
report took it out of compliance with NASDAQ's listing requirements
and that a failure to bring the financial reports current could
result in its common stock being delisted.

Impinj, Inc. operates a platform that enables wireless connectivity
to everyday items by delivering each item's unique identity,
location, and authenticity to business and consumer applications.
Impinj, Inc. was founded in 2000 and is headquartered in Seattle,
Washington. [BN]

The Plaintiff is presented by:

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          Karl P. Barth, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1918 8th Avenue, Suite 3300
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-7292
          Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
          E-mail: steveb@hbsslaw.com
                  karlb@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          David A. Rosenfeld, Esq.
          Mary K. Blasy, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN
          & DOWD LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 367-7100
          Facsimile: (631) 367-1173

               - and -

          David C. Walton, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN
          & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231-7423

               - and -

          Corey D. Holzer, Esq.
          HOLZER & HOLZER, LLC
          1200 Ashwood Parkway, Suite 410
          Atlanta. GA 30338
          Telephone: (770) 392-0090
          Facsimile: (770) 392-0029


INDIO, CA: To Settle Suit Over Minor Local Code Violation Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Westervelt, writing for WGBH, reports that cities in
California can no longer tack on exorbitant legal fees to settle
minor local code violations, thanks to a new law enacted recently.

The law makes it illegal for cities and counties to charge
defendants for the legal costs to investigate, prosecute or appeal
a criminal violation of a local ordinance.

"We made the argument that, yes, people should comply with local
code enforcement laws, but violations should remain in the civil
side of prosecution instead of the criminal side," says Eduardo
Garcia, a Democrat from Coachella. He co-sponsored the bill with
Republican Chad Mayes, of Yucca Valley.

The law was spurred in part by an NPR report and a series in the
Desert Sun newspaper earlier this year. Those reports showed how
some cities in Southern California contracted with private law
firms to recover the cost of enforcing what are mostly minor code
violations.

The practice saddled some homeowners with massive legal bills they
couldn't afford to pay.

One Coachella man told NPR he was fined some $30,000 because he
didn't get permits for an addition on his house.

NPR also reported on a $6,000 fine against 80-year-old Ramona
Morales, of Indio. She was penalized because one of her renters
kept chickens in the yard. That's a violation of Indio's municipal
code on farm animals in a residential area.

Ms. Morales is fighting her penalty. When she learned of the new
law, she felt relief.

"To me it's a good thing because I don't do nothing wrong and they
charged me a lot," Ms. Morales said. "I think it's not right what
they do -- collecting a lot of money from me and other people."

NPR has reached out to city representatives of Indio and Coachella.
They so far have declined to comment on the new legislation.

Critics of the for-profit policy praised the legislator for taking
swift action.

"It's really unusual for this kind of legislation to move this
fast, which goes to show that what's going on here is so outrageous
to most peoples' sense of decency and justice," says attorney
Jeffrey Redfern, with the Institute for Justice.

The group filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of California
residents saddled with legal fees following minor ordinance
violations. That suit continues, though Mr. Redfern says the city
of Indio has agreed, in principle, to settle the class action
case.

The city of Coachella continues to challenge it. (The institute
says it did not play a role in the newly passed legislation.)

Mr. Redfern says the billing practice marked a dangerous trend.

"Criminal prosecutors should decide what charges to bring solely on
what's just," Mr. Redfern says. "When prosecutors have a financial
incentive in a criminal case to run up the bills and impose
punitive measures -- that violates due process."

Assemblyman Garcia says he "wanted to correct a wrong and make sure
it doesn't happen to other people."

The law, signed by Gov. Jerry Brown, applies mainly to local
ordinances. It still allows cities and counties to try to collect
fees for probation, tax, insurance and other more serious
violations. [GN]


INFUSYSTEM HOLDINGS: Parties Ink Confidential Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------
InfuSystem Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 14, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the company and the
plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit have entered into a
confidential settlement agreement resolving claims made in the
litigation.

On January 29, 2018, the Company received notice that the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California (the "Court")
(Case No. 2:16-cv-08295-ODW) issued an order dismissing, with
prejudice, a putative class-active lawsuit against the Company. The
dismissal relates to an action brought on November 8, 2016 by
purported shareholders of the Company against the Company and two
individual defendants: Eric Steen, the Company's former Chief
Executive Officer, President and Director; and Jonathan Foster, the
Company's former Chief Financial Officer.

The complaint asserted claims against all defendants under the
antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws and against
Messrs. Steen and Foster as control persons.

On June 19, 2017, the Company and all defendants filed a Motion to
Dismiss the amended complaint. On December 15, 2017, the Court
dismissed the plaintiffs' first amendment to the class action
compliant ("FAC"), with leave to amend. On December 20, 2017, the
parties stipulated, and the Court extended, the plaintiffs' time to
amend the FAC up to January 19, 2018.

As of January 19, 2018, the plaintiffs never filed an amended
complaint and the Court dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice on
January 29, 2018. On February 28, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a
notice of appeal, on the motion to dismiss, to the 9th Circuit
Court of Appeals.

On June 4, 2018, the Company and the plaintiffs entered into a
confidential settlement agreement resolving claims made in the
litigation.

InfuSystem Holdings Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides
infusion pumps, and related products and services in the United
States and Canada. InfuSystem Holdings Inc. was founded in 2005 and
is headquartered in Madison Heights, Michigan.


INT'L BUSINESS: Sued for Discriminating Against Older Employees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that three men let go from
International Business Machines Corporation after a combined 82
years of service claim in a federal class action that the tech
giant "has been in the process of systematically laying off older
employees in order to build a younger workforce."

"Between 2012 and the present," the complaint states, "IBM has laid
off at least 20,000 employees over the age of forty."

The class is represented by the firm Lichten & Liss-Riordan of
Boston.


J & J RICHHAVEN: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Li Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DE YIN LI, Individually and On Behalf of Others Similarly Situated
v. J & J Richhaven Enterprises Inc., d/b/a U-Me Sushi, and Jing
Chow, Case No. 1:18-cv-05277 (E.D.N.Y., September 19, 2018), arises
from the Defendants' alleged failure to pay their employees,
including the Plaintiff, compensation for all hours worked, minimum
wage, and overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each
workweek and spread of hours  pay.

J & J Richhaven Enterprises Inc. is a domestic business corporation
organized under the laws of the state of New York with a principal
business address at 8509 Jamaica Avenue, in Woodhaven, New York.
The Company operates a Japanese restaurant, U-Me Sushi.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


JD.COM: Law Firms Mull Class Action Over Founder's Arrest
---------------------------------------------------------
Nikki Sun, writing for Nikkei Asian Review, reports that only a
week after the board of chipmaker Intel learned its chief executive
had been in a romantic relationship with a colleague, he was gone.

Steve Wynn resigned from the casino operator that carries his name
two weeks after press reports emerged about his alleged sexual
misconduct with employees. A top executive of animation studio
Pixar was put on a leave of absence, from which he never returned,
when his company learned a media report on harassment complaints
against him was about to be published.

At JD.com, there is no sign that billionaire founder Richard Liu
Qiangdong, the company's high-profile chairman and chief executive,
is stepping back at all even as police investigate him for the
alleged rape of a woman in Minneapolis on Aug. 31. Liu has not been
charged and was released from custody after one night and allowed
to return to China.

"If JD were an American company, the board would have already fired
the CEO after the rape allegation . . . simply because few U.S.
corporates want to deal with such controversial topic at the peak
of the news cycle and public attention," said Junheng Li, chief
executive of stock research firm JL Warren Capital in New York.

"It is distracting and expensive for a company's budget and
resources to fight such a battle in the public eye," she said.

JD.com's Nasdaq-listed shares fell 16% over the first two trading
sessions after Liu's brief arrest. But according to the company,
"The situation in Minnesota did not have and is not expected to
have any impact on JD.com's day-to-day operations."

JD.com's operations are big. In China, the world's largest market
for online shopping, JD.com is second only to Alibaba Group Holding
in market share. JD.com generated 362.33 billion yuan ($53.05
billion) in revenue last year well above Alibaba's 250.27 billion
yuan but they diverge greatly in profitability due in part to the
difference in their business models.

While Alibaba acts mostly as a marketplace matching buyers and
sellers, JD.com is itself more of a retailer, buying goods,
stocking inventory and handling distribution. Alibaba in its last
fiscal year turned a net profit of 61.41 billion yuan while JD.com
posted a net loss of 11.72 billion.

JD.com's heavyweight strategic backers include Tencent Holdings,
Walmart and Google. Yet its board is very much under Liu's personal
control. While he holds only 16% of JD.com's shares, his
stockholding carries with it 80% of overall voting rights.

A provision in JD.com's articles of association states in effect
that no board meeting can be held without Liu. Moreover, under the
convoluted corporate structures adopted by many Chinese internet
companies listing overseas due to Chinese investment laws, key
parts of JD.com's operations in China are handled by corporate
vehicles, known as variable interest entities, that it does not
have full legal control over -- and that Liu holds large direct
stakes in.

"His control of the company and the VIE structure make it
impossible to remove him," said John Gruetzner, founder of
China-focused corporate advisory firm Intercedent.

That doesn't mean JD.com's shareholders are sitting quietly. While
Walmart declined to comment on whether it has queried the company
about the allegations against Liu and Google did not respond,
institutional investors are worried.

"Shareholders are hugely concerned," said Shaun Rein, managing
director of China Market Research Group in Shanghai, who said he
had recently spoken with about 20 funds which have invested in
JD.com or Tencent. "The uncertainty is bad for stock prices and bad
for partnerships. Worries will grow over time if the stock
continues to slide."

Funds are likely to query the company about the criminal case, said
Jamie Allen, secretary-general of the Asian Corporate Governance
Association. "They won't refrain from talking to JD about it," he
said. "They would have some opportunities to raise it."

Messrs. Allen and Gruetzner believe the funds may try to leverage
the situation to pressure the company into corporate governance
reforms, such as beginning to hold an annual shareholders' meeting
and perhaps separating the roles of CEO and chairman so that a
nonexecutive chairman supervises the board.

On Sept. 4, three American law firms -- Rosen, Schall and Pomerantz
-- said in separate statements that they are organizing class
action lawsuits on behalf of the shareholders of JD.com after rape
allegations against Liu caused its share prices to tumble.

"We are aware that a few class action law firms have publicly
announced a desire to represent shareholders. We are aware of no
lawsuits being filed against the company ," JD said in a statement
on Sept. 6.  "If filed, we will contest the allegations
vigorously," it added.

"JD's board should, and likely will, take steps to show he is being
removed as the linchpin of the company," said Ross O'Brien,
principal consultant for greater China with IT research company
Ovum.

The funds' lobbying may also have more impact now because JD.com's
shares and business growth momentum were already under pressure
before Liu's arrest. Its stock has slumped 46.2% since peaking at
$50.68 in late January.

Junheng Li expects the shares to fall to $22 within six months.
Although JD.com reported a 31.2% increase in revenue on year in the
April-June quarter, it missed market estimates.

Transaction growth is slowing on its platform and Li forecasts that
profit margins will narrow this year and next as JD.com invests in
new initiatives in an effort to defend market share from Alibaba
and newer social shopping services like Pinduoduo. "Market
expectations are still ahead of underlying fundamentals," Li said.

The public view of Liu is more mixed. For years, he has been a
popular figure in China, due partly to his humble origins in a
farming village in Jiangsu Province. In January, he was given a
seat on the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, a
top-level advisory body to the Communist Party.

It is unclear whether this seat could be in jeopardy, but the
authorities are likely to at least push Liu to take a lower public
profile. "I'm sure the Chinese government will be on JD to dial
down his presence," O'Brien said.

Only a month before his arrest in Minnesota, lawyers for Liu in
Australia lost a battle to keep him from being identified as the
host of a 2015 party in Sydney at which one guest was convicted of
sexually assaulting another. There has been no suggestion that Liu
was involved in the crime.

Some internet users spoke up in support of Liu on social media. "No
matter if this case is true or not, JD is a flagship Chinese
company and Richard Liu is a national entrepreneur," wrote a poster
on microblog site Sina Weibo. "Who does not make mistakes in life?
How can we forget how great Liu is just for one thing he might have
done wrong?"

Yet while the impact of the #MeToo movement has been more limited
in China than in the U.S., Liu's fate may be affected by the
charged atmosphere around allegations of sexual misconduct.

So far, only a handful of Chinese men, mostly at universities, have
lost their positions due to such allegations even though women in
some surveys have said that harassment is widespread. In August, a
high-ranking monk resigned his position at the Buddhist Association
of China after accusations of sexual assault emerged on social
media.

"MeToo has not become a movement in China yet," said Xu Chao, a
former Beijing journalist who publicly accused a prominent
television presenter of sexually harassing an intern. "Some cases
got public attention because the victims made a lot of noise while
[most] others went away unnoticed."

Some worry though that JD.com would have a hard time carrying on
with Liu. There has been no public succession planning nor is there
a visible second-in-command, analysts say. A person close to the
management simply put it this way, "I don't know how JD.com would
run without Richard Liu." [GN]


JETRO HOLDINGS: Fails to Pay Wages, Carroll Says
------------------------------------------------
JOHN CARROLL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. JETRO HOLDINGS LLC D/B/A RESTAURANT
DEPOT, and JOHN DOES, the Defendants, Case No. 18-2674 (Mass.
Super. Ct., Sept. 18, 2018), seeks to recover damages based on the
Defendants' failure to pay wages under the Massachusetts law.

According to the complaint, Jetro operates "Restaurant Depot"
locations in Andover, Needham, Avon, Everett, and Chicopee,
Massachusetts. Jetro sells such retail restaurant equipment as
clothing, dinnerware, kitchen appliances, janitorial supplies, sink
equipment, and furniture. The Plaintiff worked at the Jetro
location in Everett, Massachusetts from approximately December 2017
until September 2018. The Plaintiff, as well as other members of
the Class, regularly worked on Sundays and certain holidays, but
was not paid time and one half his regular hourly wage for such
work.

Jetro Holdings operates as a holding company. The Company, through
its subsidiaries, provides wholesale distribution of groceries and
related products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Josh Gardner, Esq.
          Nicholas J. Rosenberg, Esq.
          GARDNER & ROSENBERG P.C.
          One State Street, Fourth Floor
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: 617 390 7570
          E-mail: josh@gardnerrosenberg.com


JONATHAN NEIL: Court Certifies Class of Consumers in Brown Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TERI BROWN, Plaintiff, v. JONATHAN NEIL AND
ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00675-SAB (E.D.
Cal.), Judge Stanley A. Boone of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California granted the Plaintiff's second
motion for class certification.

Brown, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
filed the action on May 16, 2017, alleging violations of the Fair
Debt Collections Practices Act ("FDCPA"), and California's
Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("RFDCPA").  Currently
before the Court is the Plaintiff's second motion for class
certification.

Sometime prior to March 14, 2017, the Plaintiff allegedly incurred
an obligation to Mercury Casualty Insurance.  Around March 14,
2017, the Defendant sent the Plaintiff a letter regarding the debt
owed to Mercury Casualty Insurance.  The Plaintiff received the
letter where the subject line states "RE: MERCURY CASUALTY
INSURANCE".
On May 15, 2017, the Plaintiff filed the action alleging violations
of the FDCPA and RFDCPA.  The Defendant filed an answer on June 22,
2017.  On July 28, 2017, a scheduling order was issued in the
action.

On Jan. 12, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification.
The Defendant filed an opposition on Jan. 31, 2018.

On Feb. 9, 2018, the Court granted in part Defendant's motion to
seal.  The Plaintiff filed a reply on Feb. 9, 2018.  Hearing on the
motion was held on Feb. 14, 2018, and the parties were ordered to
file supplemental briefing. On March 22, 2018, the parties filed a
notice of settlement.

On March 7, 2018, the parties filed a joint motion for preliminary
approval of the class action settlement.  On June 5, 2018, an order
issued finding the settlement was not fair, adequate, and
reasonable and the joint motion for preliminary approval was
denied.  On Aug. 10, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a second motion to
certify the class.  On Aug. 24, 2018, the Defendant filed a
statement of non-opposition to the motion to certify the class.

The Plaintiff seeks to certify a class which is defined as all
consumers with an address in Kern County, California, who,
beginning May 16, 2016 through and including the final resolution
of the case, were sent an initial letter from the Defendant
attempting to collect a consumer debt allegedly owed to Mercury
Casualty Insurance, which stated Re: Mercury Casualty Insurance
without specifically identifying that entity as the `current
creditor' or as the Defendant or as the Defendant's client.

Judge Boone finds that the Plaintiff has met the requirements of
Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b) and finds that the Plaintiff's motion for
certification of the class should be granted.  Accordingly, he
granted the Plaintiff's motion for class certification under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3).

He certified the class defined as all consumers with an address in
Kern County, California, who, beginning May 16, 2016 through and
including the final resolution of the case, were sent an initial
letter from Jonathan Neil & Associates, Inc. attempting to collect
a consumer debt allegedly owed to Mercury Casualty Insurance, which
stated Re: Mercury Casualty Insurance without specifically
identifying the current creditor.

Brown is appointed as the class representative; and counsel
Yitzchak Zelman and Ari H. Marcus as the class counsel.

Within 20 days of entry of the order, the Plaintiff will file a
proposed class action notice for the Court's approval.  The
Defendant will produce a class list to the Plaintiff's counsel for
use in mailing notice to the class.  

The Judge vaacted the hearing set for Sept. 7, 2018.  A second
phase scheduling conference is set for Sept. 27, 2018, at 3:30 p.m.
The parties will file a joint scheduling report seven days prior
to the Sept. 27, 2018 scheduling conference.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 28, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/gnJKit from Leagle.com.

Teri Brown, Plaintiff, represented by Ari H. Marcus --
Ari@MarcusZelman.com -- Marcus & Zelman, LLC, pro hac vice,
Yitzchak Zelman -- Yzelman@MarcusZelman.com -- Marcus & Zelman,
LLC, pro hac vice & Tammy L. Hussin -- Tammy@HussinLaw.com --
Hussin Law.

Jonathan Neil and Associates, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Christopher Michael Egan -- cegan@porterscott.com -- Porter Scott,
APC, Derek Joseph Haynes -- dhaynes@porterscott.com -- Porter
Scott, PC & Lynette Mary Komar -- lkomar@porterscott.com -- Porter
Scott.


JRV SERVICES: Court Narrows Claims in Pereira FLSA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Eldon E. Fallon granted in part and denied in part
the Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Class Certification in the
lawsuit titled ROLANDO PEREIRA v. JRV SERVICES, LLC, ET AL., Case
No. 2:18-cv-02720-EEF-DEK (E.D. La.).

"Because Pereira is unsuitable to stand as a representative for all
JRV workers during the past three years, the collection will be
limited to individuals who performed manual labor for JRV on the
Marquis Apartments project," Judge Fallon wrote in his Order and
Reasons.

Judge Fallon ordered the parties to meet, confer, and submit to the
Court a joint proposed notice.  Judge Fallon also directed the
Defendant to provide the Plaintiff with the names, phone numbers,
and last known addresses of the potential opt-in members.

Plaintiff Rolando Pereira brings this action under the Fair Labor
Standards Act to recover alleged overtime wages from Defendants JRV
Services, LLC, PRA-SE Construction, LP, and Juana Vargas.[CC]


KIA MOTORS: Escorsia Sues over Sale of Defective 2.0 GDI Engine
---------------------------------------------------------------
ERIC ESCORSIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.; and DOES 1 through
10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC719448 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., Aug. 27, 2018) alleges that the Defendants' vehicle
and its 2.0 gasoline direct injection (GDI) engine were defective
and susceptible to sudden and catastrophic failure.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants knew
since 2011, if not earlier, that the 2011-2014 KIA Optima,
2011-2013 KIA Sportage, and 2012-2014 IGA Sorento, vehicles
equipped with a 2.0 or 2.4L engine, including the 2012 Kia Optima
contained one or more design and manufacturing defects in their
engines that results in the restriction of oil flow through the
connecting rod bearings, as well as to other vital areas of the
engine. This defect -- which typically manifests itself during and
shortly after the limited warranty period has expired -- will cause
the KIA Vehicle to experience catastrophic engine failure and
stalling while in operation.

Kia Motors America, Inc. operates as an automobile dealer. The
Company offers passenger cars, minivans, sports utility vehicles,
crossovers, sedans, vans, and cargo trucks. Kia Motors serves
customers worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tionna Dolin, Esq.
          Daniel Tai, Esq.
          STRATEGIC LEGAL PRACTICES
          A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
          1840 Century Park East, Suite 430
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 929-4900
          Facsimile: (310) 943-3838
          E-mail: tdolin@slpattomey.com
                  dtai@slpattorney.com


KOHN LAW FIRM: Certification of Class Sought in Cerveny Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs move the Court to certify the class described in the
complaint of their lawsuit entitled JOSEPH CERVENY and CYNTHIA
ZOLANDZ, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. KOHN LAW FIRM S.C., Case No. 2:18-cv-01474 (E.D.
Wisc.), and further ask that the Court both stay the motion for
class certification and to grant them (and the Defendant) relief
from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules and
requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the
Motion.

Dicta in the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v.
Gomez, left open the possibility that a defendant facing a class
action complaint could moot a class representative's case by
depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of the
plaintiff's individual claim with the court and having the court
enter judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to the filing of a
class certification motion, the Plaintiffs assert, citing
Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016).

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with
the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the
certification motion.  Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891,
896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First
Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of
that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class
from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs.").

While the Seventh Circuit has held that the specific procedure
described in Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual settlement
of a class representative's claims, the same decision cautions that
other methods may prevent a plaintiff from representing a class,
the Plaintiffs tell the Court, citing Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco,
Inc., No. 16-3574, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10839 *9-10 (7th Cir. June
20, 2017).  The Plaintiffs assert that one defendant has attempted
a similar tactic by sending a certified check to the proposed class
representative. Bonin v. CBS Radio, Inc., No. 16-cv-674-CNC (E.D.
Wis.); see also Severns v. Eastern Account Systems of Connecticut,
Inc., Case No. 15-cv-1168, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23164 (E.D. Wis.
Feb. 24, 2016).

The Plaintiffs are obligated to move for class certification to
protect the interests of the putative class, the Plaintiffs
contend.

As the Motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when
short motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended
motion is filed, the Plaintiffs argue.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as class
representatives, and to appoint Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, as class
counsel.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
          Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482-8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
          E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com
                  jfruchter@ademilaw.com
                  bslatky@ademilaw.com


KOL BARAMA: Faces 1MM Shekels for Keeping Women Off The Air
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judy Maltz, writing for Haaretz, reports that an Israeli court on
September 20 awarded one million shekels (about $280,000) in
damages in a class action suit brought against an ultra-Orthodox
radio station that refused to put women on the air.

The suit was filed by Kolech, a group of Orthodox feminists, on
behalf of ultra-Orthodox women who, as a result of this practice,
could not hear the voices of women on Kol Barama, an ultra-Orthodox
radio station. Representing Kolech in the case were Orly Erez
Likhovsky, Esq. -- pluralist@irac.org -- and Assaf Fink, Esq. of
the Israel Religious Action Center -- the advocacy arm of the
Reform movement in the country.

The suit, which was filed in 2012 in the Jerusalem District Court,
is the first class action suit on civil rights in Israel.  In
September 2014, the court approved its class action nature and
determined that the radio station had operated in a discriminatory
fashion. Kol Barama contested the decision in the Supreme Court,
but its appeal was rejected a year later.

The studios of Kol Barama, an ultra-Orthodox radio station.

Since then, the Jerusalem District has convened several hearings to
determine the amount of damages to be paid.

Responding to the court decision, Erez-Likhovsky said: "It is an
important milestone in the struggle against discrimination in
general and the exclusion of women in particular. It also
underscores the importance of class action suits in achieving
social justice."

It is rare, she said, for a class action suit not to end in a
settlement between the sides.  "On this count as well," she said,
"this case represents a breakthrough."

Established in 2009, Kol Barama is based in the ultra-Orthodox town
of B'nei Brak.

Two years after the suit was filed, Kol Barama lifted its blanket
prohibition on putting women on the air, although its still does
not allow women singers to be heard. In recent months, several new
programs featuring female broadcasters have been launched at the
station.

The Jerusalem District Court ruled that the one million shekels in
damages would be distributed to programs that help empower
religious women.[GN]


KT HOTELS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Shachno Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW SHACHNO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KT HOTELS LLC, and DOES 1 through 50,
Defendants, Case No. 37-2018-0004360 1-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Super., San
Diego Cty., Aug. 28, 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 Shachno was employed by the Defendants as a
non-exempt employee.

KT Hotels LLC is a California limited liability company. The
Company is an independent hotel owner and operator, headquartered
in Irvine, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Jean-Claude Lapuyade, Esq.
           JCL LAW FIRM, APC
           10200 Willow Creek Road, Suite 150
           San Diego, CA 92131
           Telephone: (619) 599-8292
           Facsimile: (619) 599-8291
           E-mail: JLAPUYADE@JCL-LAWFIRM.COM


LELAND STANFORD: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Taylor et al. Claim
---------------------------------------------------------------
JEFFREY TAYLOR; CRYSTAL TOWNLEY; and SEAN ZIRKLE, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE BOARD
OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY; and DOES
1-100, Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-05248-JSW (N.D. Cal., Aug. 28,
2018) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid overtime
compensation, prejudgment interest, maximum liquidated damages,
reasonable attorneys' fees, and costs.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as non-exempt
employees.

The Board of Trustees of The Leland Stanford Junior University
provides educational services. The University offers programs in
nursing, business, accounting, and biology. The Board of Trustees
of The Leland Stanford Junior University operates in the State of
California. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ace T. Tate, Esq.
          David E. Mastagni, Esq.
          Isaac Stevens, Esq.
          MASTAGNI HOLSTEDT, PC
          1912 I Street
          Sacramento, CA 95811-3151
          Telephone: (916) 446-4692
          Facsimile: (916) 447-4614


M&T BANK: Court Dismisses Kim Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------
In the case, YOUNG MAN KIM, KENNETH RHEE a/k/a KUN Y RHEE, KKR
PARTNERS, INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. M&T BANK, Defendant, Civil Action No.
17-11810 (ES) (MAH) (D. N.J.), Judge Esther Salas of the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey (i) granted M&T's
motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Complaint, and (ii) dismissed the
Plaintiffs' Complaint without prejudice.

On Feb. 15, 2006, Kim, Rhee, and Sei-Jun Park formed KKR and each
acquired a 33.33% ownership interest.  The purpose of KKR was to
own and operate one or more dry-cleaning establishments.  In
November 2013, after being solicited through various promotional
efforts by M&T Bank, the Plaintiffs applied for a business loan at
one of M&T's New Jersey branches.  On Dec. 6, 2013, KKR executed a
form M&T "Term Note," which set out the terms of a $150,000 loan
from M&T.  That same date, Rhee and Kim, on behalf of KKR, also
executed a "Business Access Line of Credit Note" and a "Loan
Agreement."  Also on Dec. 6, 2013, Kim executed an "Unlimited
Guaranty" with M&T, in which Kim promised to guarantee the payment
of KKR's loan.

KKR defaulted on the loan, and M&T subsequently sued KKR, Rhee, and
Kim in the Supreme Court of New York, Erie County.  KKR and Rhee
raised the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction, but due to the
lack of funds available for defense these parties lost their
challenge and judgment was entered against them in the amount of
$150,458.89.  Rhee then filed for relief under Chapter 7 of the
Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of
New Jersey.  As for Kim, the Plaintiffs allege that M&T failed to
serve Kim with the complaint in that suit as a strategic decision
to divide the resources available to the joint Defendants to oppose
the Initial Loan Action.

M&T subsequently filed a separate guarantee action against Kim in
the Supreme Court of New York, Erie County.  According to the
Plaintiffs, the Guarantee Action was filed separately by M&T Bank
from the Initial Loan Action so that the Defendants could not share
lawyers and expenses, and thereby mount a more economic, joint
defense.  Kim moved to dismiss the Guarantee Action for lack of
personal jurisdiction and an inconvenient forum.  Kim's counsel
asked M&T's counsel if M&T would waive oral argument on the
personal-jurisdiction motion as a courtesy, and M&T refused.  The
Plaintiffs allege that M&T's refusal was motivated by a desire to
increase the cost of litigation, so Kim would have to spend many
times more than M&T to resolve the personal-jurisdiction issue.
The state court granted Kim's motion and dismissed the case.

The Plaintiffs filed the instant putative class-action Complaint
against M&T on Nov. 18, 2017.  They seek to represent the class of
persons and entities residing in the State of New Jersey who
entered into any loan or guarantor agreement with M&T Bank and who
were not informed of M&T Bank's intent to file suit in New York
and/or Buffalo in the event of a dispute.

The Plaintiffs allege violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud
Act (Count I), negligence and gross negligence (Count II),
equitable fraud (Count III), fraud in the inducement (Count IV),
negligent misrepresentation (Count V), and unjust enrichment (Count
VI).  For each claim, they seek, among other things, rescission of
all Loan Documents and Unlimited Guaranty and rescission of all
similar M&T Bank loan documents and guarantees and a declaration
that all loan agreements and guarantees subject to this Count
entered into by the Plaintiffs and Class members are void and have
no legal effect.

On Feb. 5, 2018, M&T moved to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Complaint
under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), (12)(b)(6), and
9(b).  M&T argues that the Plaintiffs' Complaint should be
dismissed because the Plaintiffs' claims seek recovery for harm to
the corporate entity, KKR; therefore, the individual Plaintiffs,
Kim and Rhee, lack standing to pursue them.  

The Plaintiffs opposed M&T's motion on March 19, 2018.  Their
response is twofold: (i) the claims brought by Kim and Rhee are not
derivative of any claims KKR may have had; and (ii) even if the
Court were to find that the Plaintiffs' claims were derivative, Kim
and Rhee may assert those claims because KKR is insolvent.

Judge Salas finds that KKR and Rhee's claims are barred under the
doctrine of res judicata.  Under New York law, which applies in the
case, res judicata bars successive litigation of all claims based
upon the same transaction or series of connected transactions if:
(i) there is a judgment on the merits rendered by a court of
competent jurisdiction, and (ii) the party against whom the
doctrine is invoked was a party to the previous action, or in
privity with a party who was.

If the Plaintiffs were unhappy with the result of that proceeding,
the proper recourse was a state court appeal.  Because they could
have presented the same claims they now assert as defenses or
counterclaims in the state action, the doctrine of res judicata
bars the litigation against M&T who was the state court Plaintiff.
As a result, KKR and Rhee's instant claims against M&T must be
dismissed.

The Judge turns to the surviving portion of the Complaint -- Kim's
claims under the Unlimited Guaranty.  She finds that the forum
selection clause is unambiguous and nothing in the plain language
of the clause suggests exclusivity.  The Plaintiffs claim that the
plain language of this provision states that the guarantor submits
only to the nonexclusive jurisdiction of the New Jersey courts.
But the clause does not employ the term "only," nor does it use the
words "exclusive," "shall," "must," or any other terms that might
suggest exclusivity.

The Judge is unpersuaded by the Plaintiffs' allegation that they
were misled into acquiescing to M&T's forum selection clause under
a misapprehension of the meaning M&T would later put upon that
clause, once litigation was commenced.  Their "misapprehension,"
whether a result of their failure to read the clause or an
ignorance of the clause's obligation, does not invalidate a forum
selection clause.  And M&T's failure to explain the terms of an
agreement does not constitute fraud, overreaching or
unconscionability so as to void a forum selection clause.

Even giving the Plaintiffs every favorable inference, the Judge
still finds that the forum selection clause in the Unlimited
Guaranty (which is identical in each agreement) is permissive and
thus does not vest jurisdiction only in New Jersey.  Because the
clause is permissive, she agrees with M&T that its exercise of its
rights under the permissive forum selection clause was not a
secret, dubious, or deceptive act.  Kim's claims -- all premised on
either M&T's alleged misrepresentations of the permissive forum
selection clause that provides for the "nonexclusive" jurisdiction
of New Jersey courts or M&T's alleged omission of its intent to
file claims elsewhere (as is permitted by the permissive forum
selection clause) -- therefore must be dismissed.

For these reasons, Judge Salas granted M&T's motion to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' Complaint, and dismissed without prejudice the
Plaintiffs' Complaint.  To the extent that the Plaintiffs can cure
the deficiencies noted in the Memorandum, they may file an amended
complaint within 30 days.  Failure to do so will result in
dismissal with prejudice.  Given its ruling, the Judge needs not
address the parties' alternative arguments.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 28, 2018 Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/jQixUy from Leagle.com.

YOUNG MAN KIM & KKR PARTNERS, INC., Plaintiffs, represented by
ROBERT JAMES BASIL, THE BASIL LAW GROUP, P.C.

KENNETH RHEE, also known as KUN Y RHEE, Plaintiff, represented by
NEIL GROSSMAN, BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, ESQS. & ROBERT JAMES
BASIL, THE BASIL LAW GROUP, P.C.

M&T BANK, Defendant, represented by FRED W. HOENSCH --
fred.hoensch@piblaw.com -- Parker Ibrahim & Berg LLP, JAMES PAUL
BERG -- james.berg@piblaw.com -- PARKER IBRAHIM & BERG LLP & SCOTT
W. PARKER -- scott.parker@piblaw.com -- PARKER IBRAHIM & BERG LLP.


MACTANZ INC: Fails to Pay Proper OT to Waiters, Nguyen Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN NGUYEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MACTANZ, INC. d/b/a MAC AND BOB'S
RESTAURANT, Defendant, Case No. 7:18-cv-00421-EKD (W.D. Va. Aug.
28, 2018) is brought against the Defendant to recover unpaid wages,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff Nguyen was employed by the Defendant as waiter.

Mactanz, Inc. d/b/a Mac and Bob's Restaurant is located in Salem,
Virginia, across the street from Roanoke College. The Company is
famous for its huge, great-tasting calzones and a wide range of
American menu items including wings, steaks, salads, burgers,
seafood, sandwiches, and pasta dishes. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William C. Tucker, Esq.
          TUCKER LAW FIRM, PLC
          690 Berkmar Circle
          Charlottesville, VA 22901
          Telephone: (434) 978-0100
          Facsimile: (434) 978-0101
          E-mail: bill.tucker@tuckerlawplc.com

               - and -

          Drew N. Herrmann, Esq.
          HERRMANN LAW, PLLC
          801 Cherry St., Suite 2365
          Fort Worth, TX 76102
          Telephone: (817) 479-9229
          Facsimile: (817) 260-0801
          E-mail: drew@herrmannlaw.com


MAEFIELD DEVELOPMENT: Underpays Lease Operators, Orosco Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
JESUS OROSCO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated vs. MAEFIELD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No.
4:18-cv-00037 (W.D. Tex., Aug. 28, 2018) is an action for
declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages,
prejudgment interest, costs, and attorneys' fees, 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 hours per
week.

Mr. Orosco was employed by the Defendant as lease operator from
April 2018 to August 2018.

Maefield Development Corporation, a real estate company, acquires,
develops, and sells undervalued and underutilized properties in the
United States. Its projects include retail and office spaces, and
single-family and multi-family residences. Maefield Development
Corporation was founded in 1991 and is based in Indianapolis,
Indiana with an additional office in Miami, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          650 South Shackleford Road, uite 411
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Telephone: (501) 221-0088
          Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
          E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


MARKETSOURCE INC: Must Produce Delgado Class Members' Contact Info
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RAY DELGADO, Plaintiff, v. MARKETSOURCE, INC., et al.,
Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-07370-LHK (VKD) (N.D. Cal.), Judge
Virginia K. Demarchi of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Jose Division, granted Mr. Delgado's
request for discovery of contact information for the putative class
members.

In the putative class action, Delgado sues MarketSource and unnamed
Doe Defendants for violating California labor laws.  The case was
originally filed in Santa Clara County Superior Court, but
MarketSource subsequently removed the action to the Court asserting
federal jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 1332(d) and
1453.  The parties dispute whether Mr. Delgado may obtain discovery
of the contact information of all putative class members in the
state of California.  The parties submitted a joint discovery
letter describing their respective positions on July 30, 2018.

Mr. Delgado alleges that he worked for MarketSource as a district
manager in Santa Clara County from approximately April 3, 2013 to
April 18, 2017.  He says that the wage statements issued to him by
MarketSource failed to separately itemize all deductions in
violation of California Labor Code Section 226(a), and that
MarketSource failed to pay all earned wages to him immediately upon
termination of his employment in violation of California Labor Code
Sections 201 and 203.  He alleges that MarketSource uniformly
administered a corporate policy and practice of failing to
accurately itemize employee wage statements and failing to pay all
wages owed and due to employees immediately upon termination.

Mr. Delgado seeks to pursue these claims on behalf of two classes:

     a. Wage Statement Class: All current and former employees who
worked for the Defendant in the State of California at any time
from Nov. 30, 2016, to the present.

     b. Final Wages Class" All former employees of the Defendant in
the State of California whose employment was involuntarily
terminated by the Defendant at any time from Nov. 30, 2014, to the
present.

MarketSource generally denies Mr. Delgado's allegations, and
objects to the request for certification of a class or classes.

Mr. Delgado moves to compel MarketSource to disclose contact
information for the current and former employees who are putative
members of what he has defined as the Wage Statement Class and the
Final Wages Class.  He seeks this discovery to support his
anticipated motion for class certification.

MarketSource objects to the discovery on several grounds, including
that Mr. Delgado has not made a prima facie showing that
MarketSource has committed any violation of California labor laws,
let alone a prima facie showing that his allegations meet the
requirements for maintaining a class action.  It separately objects
to the scope of Mr. Delgado's discovery to the extent he seeks
contact information for employees who worked at locations other
than the location where he worked, or contact information for
employees who have entered into arbitration agreements with class
action waivers.

Judge Demarchi granted Mr. Delgado's request for discovery of
contact information for putative class members, subject to the
further conditions.  She finds that the discovery Mr. Delgado seeks
falls squarely within the bounds of discovery necessary to
substantiate the class allegations he has made.  

She also finds that the possible existence of putative class
members who have signed arbitration agreements should not limit the
scope of pre-certification discovery of such members' contact
information, for at least two reasons.  First, it is not clear at
this early stage of the case whether the class action waivers to
which MarketSource refers are enforceable against the employees who
might otherwise be members of a class.  Second, even if some
putative class members could not join a class, they may well have
discoverable information bearing on the class action requirements
of Rule 23, such as how widespread the alleged violations are (or
are not) among MarketSource's current and former employees.

The Judge holds that Mr. Delgado may obtain discovery of contact
information for those putative class members that fall within the
Wage Statement Class or the Final Wages Class as those classes are
defined in the complaint.  MarketSource will produce the
information requested in Mr. Delgado's Interrogatories Nos. 1 and
4.

The parties' discovery dispute letter addresses only the
discoverability of the contact information of certain current and
former MarketSource employees.  The parties are ordered to confer
expeditiously regarding the procedures governing the production and
use of employee contact information in this case, including: (1)
whether a Belaire-West notification process should be used; (2)
whether employee contact information will be provided directly to
Mr. Delgado's counsel or to a third-party administrator; and (3)
whether any additional protections for employee confidential
information are warranted.

If the parties concur on these points, they will jointly file with
the Court a stipulation documenting their agreement.  If the
parties do not agree, they may submit their dispute to the Court
using the Court's discovery dispute procedures

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 28, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/qFrMxM from Leagle.com.

Ray Delgado, Plaintiff, represented by Kristen Michelle Agnew --
kagnew@diversitylaw.com -- Diversity Law Group, APC, Larry W. Lee
-- lwlee@diversitylaw.com -- Diversity Law Group, P.C., Nicholas
Rosenthal -- nrosenthal@diversitylaw.com -- Diversity Law Group &
William Lucas Marder -- bill@polarislawgroup.com -- Polaris Law
Group, LLP.

MarketSource, Inc., a Maryland Corporation, Defendant, represented
by Kevin Dennis Sullivan -- ksullivan@ebglaw.com -- Epstein Becker
& Green, P.C. & Michael Stuart Kun -- mkun@ebglaw.com -- Epstein
Becker & Green, P.C.


MATCH GROUP: McCloskey Securities Suit Dismissed
------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARY McCLOSKEY, et al., Plaintiff, v. MATCH GROUP,
INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:16-CV-549-S (N.D. Tex.), Judge
Karen Gren Scholer of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas, Dallas Division, granted both the Match Group
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Class Action
Complaint, and the Underwriter Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the
Second Amended Class Action Complaint.

The Plaintiffs bring the putative class action against the Match
Group Defendants and the Underwriter Defendants on behalf of
themselves and all other persons or entities who purchased or
acquired Match Group securities pursuant or traceable to the Match
Group's Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection
with the company's Initial Public Offering ("IPO"), which commenced
on Nov. 19, 2015.  The Plaintiffs allege that the Registration
Statement issued in connection with the IPO contained materially
false and/or misleading facts, omitted other facts necessary to
make the statements not misleading, and was otherwise not prepared
in accordance with the governing rules and regulations in violation
of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act.

The Plaintiffs aleege violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 against the Match Group Defendants and the
Underwriter Defendants, Per Special Order 3-3-18, the case was
transferred from the docket of Judge Sam A. Lindsay to the docket
of the Court on March 8, 2018.

On Feb. 26, 2016, Plaintiff David M. Stein filed a Class Action
Complaint.  Plaintiff Stephany Kam-Wan Chan filed a second Class
Action Complaint on March 9, 2016, asserting identical claims
against the same Defendants.  On April 28, 2016, the Court
consolidated these two cases.  

The Plaintiffs assert two claims in the Second Amended Complaint.
Count I alleges that the Match Group Defendants and the Underwriter
Defendants violated Section 11 of the Securities Act by making
false and materially misleading statements in the Registration
Statement.  Count II alleges that the Individuals Defendants are
liable as control persons pursuant to Section 15 of the Securities
Act.

On June 9, 2016, the Court appointed Plaintiffs McCloskey and Craig
Kneller to serve as the lead Plaintiffs.  The Plaintiffs filed the
Amended Complaint on Sept. 9, 2016.  On Nov. 8, 2016, the Match
Group Defendants and the Underwriter Defendants each filed a motion
to dismiss.  On Sept. 27, 2017, the Court denied the motions to
dismiss without prejudice and ordered the Plaintiffs to cure the
deficiencies outlined in the motions.  On Oct. 30, 2017, the
Plaintiffs filed the Second Amended Complaint.  The Match Group
Defendants and the Underwriter Defendants each filed a second
motion to dismiss on Dec. 14, 2017.

The parties appeared before the Court for oral argument on the
pending motions on June 19, 2018.

Judge Scholer finds that Match Group accurately reported its
historical results in the Non-Dating Business for a specified
period and made no projections or representations about the future
performance of that business.  When viewed in context, and taking
into consideration the cautionary language that historical results
are not indicative of future results, none of the statements at
issue was materially misleading.  There is no substantial
likelihood that including the facts alleged by the Plaintiffs to be
omitted would have significantly altered a reasonable investor's
perception of the total mix of information available in the
prospectus as a whole.  She therefore dismisses the Plaintiffs'
Section 11 claim based on the theory that Defendants made a
materially false or misleading statement in the offering
materials.

Next, the Judge dismisses the Plaintiffs' claim under Item 303 of
Regulation S-K.  She finds that the Plaintiffs fail to plausibly
allege a material omission of information required to be disclosed
under Item 303.  First, their contention that Match Group should
have disclosed that prior to the IPO there was a shift in focus in
the Non-Dating Business ignores the IPO disclosures.  Second, with
regard to the SAT redesign, the Plaintiffs do not plead sufficient
facts that could establish a "trend" at the time of the IPO with
respect to declining Non-Dating Business revenue attributable to
the redesigned SAT -- much less a trend that would have been
material in the context of Match Group's overall revenue.  Third,
as to the College Board's partnership with Khan Academy, the only
fact the Plaintiffs plead that attempts to quantify the effect of
this purported trend on Match Group's business is an irrelevant
one.  Finally, as to the delayed government contract, she finds
that the Plaintiffs do not allege that this was a particularly
important contract or that the delay was a symptom of broader
issues that were reasonably likely to affect the business over the
long term.  

The Judge also dismisses the Plaintiffs' claims under Item 503 of
Regulation S-K.  The Plaintiffs' Section 15 control person claim
fails because they've failed to allege a primary violation under
the Securities Act.  Therefore, she dismisses the Plaintiffs'
Section 15 control person claim against the Individual Defendants.

For the reasons she stated, Judge Scholer granted both the Match
Group Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and the Underwriter Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss.  In denying the previous motions to dismiss
without prejudice and allowing the Plaintiffs the opportunity amend
their pleadings, the Court stated, although it has concerns whether
the Plaintiffs can allege facts to support the securities claims
asserted, it is unclear at this juncture whether allowing them to
amend their pleadings would be futile.  The Judge now finds that
further amendment would be futile.  The Plaintiffs were given the
opportunity to amend, and failed to cure the deficiencies set forth
in the Match Group Defendants' and Underwriter Defendants' previous
motions to dismiss.  Therefore, the Plaintiffs' claims are
dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 24, 2018 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/nntnS4 from Leagle.com.

Mary McCloskey, Designated as Lead Plaintiff per [28] Order,
Plaintiff, represented by Lionel Z. Glancy -- lglancy@glancylaw.com
-- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, pro hac vice, Alexa J. Mullarky --
amullarky@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, pro hac
vice, Jamie Jean McKey -- jmckey@kendalllawgroup.com -- Kendall Law
Group LLP, Jeffrey H. Squire -- squire@bespc.com -- Bragar Eagel &
Squire PC, pro hac vice, Joe Kendall, Kendall Law Group LLP, 3232
McKinney, Ste 700, Dallas, Texas 75204 , Kara M. Wolke --
kwolke@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP & Todd H.
Henderson -- bragar@bespc.com  -- Bragar Eagel & Squire PC.

Craig Kneller, Designated as Lead Plaintiff per [28] Order,
Plaintiff, represented by Lesley F. Portnoy, Glancy Prongay &
Murray LLP, Lionel Z. Glancy, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, pro hac
vice, Ex Kano S. Sams, II, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, pro hac
vice, Jamie Jean McKey, Kendall Law Group PLLC, Joe Kendall,
Kendall Law Group PLLC, Kara M. Wolke, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP,
Melissa A. Fortunato, Bragar Eagel & Squire PC, pro hac vice & Todd
H. Henderson, Bragar Eagel & Squire PC.

Stephany Kam-Wan Chan, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Lesley F.
Portnoy, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Lionel Z. Glancy, Glancy
Prongay & Murray LLP, pro hac vice, Brian Schall, Goldberg Law PC,
J. Alexander Hood, II, Pomerantz LLP, Jeremy Alan Lieberman,
Pomerantz LLP, Marc Gorrie, Pomerantz LLP, Michael Goldberg,
Goldberg Law PC, Patrick Dahlstrom, Pomerantz LLP, Peretz
Bronstein, Bronstein Gewirtz & Grossman LLC & Willie Briscoe, The
Briscoe Law Firm.

Match Group Inc, Gregory R Blatt, Gary Swidler, Michael H
Schwerdtman, Gregg J Winiarski & Joseph M Levin, R. Thaddeus
Behrens --
thad.behrens@haynesboone.com -- Haynes & Boone LLP, Bradley R.
Wilso -- BRWilson@wlrk.com -- Wachtell Lipton Rosen & Katz &
Stephen R. DiPrima -- SRDiPrima@wlrk.com -- Wachtell Lipton Rosen &
Katz.

JP Morgan Securities LLC, Allen & Company LLC, Merrill Lynch,
Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc,
BMO Capital Markets Corp, Barclays Capital Inc, BNP Paribas
Securities Corp, PNC Capital Markets LLC, Cowen and Company LLC, SG
Americas Securities LLC, Fifth Third Securities Inc & Oppenheimer &
Co Inc, Defendants, represented by Yolanda Cornejo Garcia --
YGARCIA@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin LLP, Penny P. Reid --
PREID@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin LLP & Yvette Ostolaza, Sidley
Austin LLP.

Adam Marigliano, Shen Shen & Liwei Sun, Movants, represented by
Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Pomerantz LLP, Brian Schall, Goldberg Law
PC, J. Alexander Hood, II, Pomerantz LLP, Michael Goldberg,
Goldberg Law PC & Patrick Dahlstrom, Pomerantz LLP.

Kenneth Varin, Movant, represented by Brian P. Lauten --
blauten@brianlauten.com -- Brian Lauten, P.C..


MCKESSON CORP: Conditional Certification of Hunt Class Partly OK'd
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, VERONICA L. HUNT, Plaintiff, v. McKESSON CORPORATION,
Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-1834 (W.D. Pa.), Judge Mark R. Hornak
of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(i) granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff's Motion for
29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) Conditional Certification, and (ii) denied
as moot the Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions.

On May 31, 2017, Hunt filed the operative Complaint in the case,
the Second Amended Individual, Collective and Class Action
Complaint ("SAC"), against McKesson.  The SAC pleads two counts:
(1) failure to pay overtime in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"); and (2) failure to pay overtime in
violation of the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act ("PMWA").

The Plaintiff alleges that McKesson misclassified her and others
similarly situated as exempt from federal and Pennsylvania overtime
pay protections.  She filed her initial Complaint on Dec. 8, 2016.
Following a Stipulation to Amend Complaint, she filed her Amended
Complaint on May 31, 2017, altering the scope of the putative
class.  

On June 19, 2017, McKesson filed a Motion to Dismiss, seeking
dismissal of the collective allegations.  The Court granted the
Motion to Dismiss, concluding that the purported collective did not
fulfill the minimal threshold showing requisite under Zavala v. Wal
Mart Stores Inc., as there was not a sufficient relationship within
the class or within one or more subclasses to fulfill the
relatively light, but nonetheless very real, burden for collective
action treatment.

The Plaintiff filed her SAC on Sept. 20, 2017, with the same two
counts but with an amended FLSA purported collective of all persons
who were classified as exempt in position Professional Grade 103
and below, with the exception of manager and supervisor roles in
Grade 103 and below, in the United States at any time during the
three years prior to the filing of the initial complaint until the
change in classification on Oct. 23, 2016, in positions that were
reclassified as non-exempt as of October 2016.

McKesson filed its second Motion to Dismiss, arguing that the
Plaintiff failed to allege a common policy that caused harm to the
Plaintiff and "similarly situated" employees.  The Court granted
the Motion to Dismiss on Dec. 19, 2017, to the extent that by that
grant, the "Grade 103 and below" criterion was narrowed to solely
"Grade 103," a narrowing to which the Plaintiff consented at oral
argument.  The Motion to Dismiss was otherwise denied.

Following the litigation of two Motions to Dismiss, the parties
sought the Court's involvement in a discovery dispute.  The dispute
largely revolved around what discovery should be conducted prior to
(or, if) the Court grants conditional certification and what
discovery should be conducted after any such conditional
certification.  On Feb. 7, 2018, the Court ultimately ordered
McKesson to answer specific interrogatories and document requests,
with the Court making some modifications as to the scope of the
requests.

Pending before the Court is the Plaintiff's Motion for 29 U.S.C.
Section 216(b) Conditional Certification, and her Motion for
Sanctions.  The Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions asks the Court to
toll the statute of limitations as to the FLSA claim to March 26,
2018, as a sanction for McKesson's noncompliance with the Court's
Order of Feb. 7, 2018, related to the discovery dispute.

At this point, Judge Hornal cannot conclude that the commonality of
generally applicable employment and compensation policies
necessarily pales in comparison to individualized determinations of
liability.  Indeed, an examination of the merits of the claims and
defenses does not occur at this stage of the proceedings.  McKesson
will have an opportunity at final certification to challenge
whether those who have opted in actually did have sufficiently
similar levels of discretion and judgment to overcome any
differences in duties and titles.  

Therefore, he will grant conditional certification for the
collective of all persons who worked at McKesson Corp. in the
United States and were (1) classified as exempt in positions in
Grade 103, (2) had a position with a scope of follow standard
practices and procedures in analyzing situations or data from which
answers can be readily obtained, at any time between March 23,
2015, and Oct. 23, 2016.

The Judge concludes based on his review of the record and his
knowledge of the case (including specifically the discovery
dispute) that it would have been entirely reasonable for McKesson
to timely comply with the production request and to produce the
remaining matrices if not prior to the Court's intervention then
certainly within 14 days of the Feb. 7, 2018, Conference and Order.


Therefore, he will toll the statute of limitations from Feb. 21,
2018, to March 26, 2018.  Although the parties were embroiled in a
discovery dispute prior to the Court's involvement beginning on
Feb. 7, 2018, the fact that such a dispute arose is insufficient in
and of itself to justify any additional tolling in the case.  The
Court promptly held a status conference on the dispute and issued
an Order that same day.  The tolling period Ordered is sufficient
to account for McKesson's delay in producing the additional job
matrices, which were critical to the Plaintiff's Motion for
Conditional Certification.

The Judge also acknowledges that disputes relating to the form and
content of notice would be best resolved by the parties, so he will
allow the parties to further meet and confer regarding the notice
and notice procedures.  However, he will toll the FLSA limitations
period for the additional period beginning 10 days from the date of
the Order accompanying this Opinion until the date the Court
approves such Notice.

As to the Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions that solely seeks relief
in the form of tolling the statute of limitations of the FLSA
claim, the Judge addressed the equities of tolling, and his
decision to toll as a result of the discovery dispute adequately
addresses and sufficiently provides the relief sought in the
Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions.  As a result, tje Plaintiff's
Motion for Sanctions is denied as moot.

For the reasons stated in his Opinion, Judge Hornak granted in part
and denied in part the Plaintiffs' Motion for 29 U.S.C. Section
216(b) Conditional Certification; and denied as moot the
Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions.  An appropriate Order will
issue.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 28, 2018 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/iXDG8l from Leagle.com.

VERONICA L. HUNT, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by John R. Linkosky --
linklaw@comcast.net -- Joseph H. Chivers --
jchivers@employmentrightsgroup.com -- Laura L. Ho --
lho@gbdhlegal.com -- Goldstein, Borgen, Dardarian & Ho, pro hac
vice & Megan Ryan -- mryan@gbdhlegal.com -- Goldstein, Borgen,
Dardarian & Ho, pro hac vice.

MCKESSON CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by Alice S. Johnston
-- ajohnston@schnader.com -- Schnader, Harrison, Segal & Lewis,
LLP, Jo Bennett -- jbennett@schnader.com -- Schnader Harrison Segal
& Lewis LLP, pro hac vice & Rachel Horton -- rhorton@schnader.com
-- Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP, pro hac vice.


MDB TRANSPORTATION: Underpays Truck Drivers, Smith Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL SMITH; GREGORY CHEAIRS; JOSE MANUEL CASTELLANOS; and
FRANCISCO MACAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MDB TRANSPORTATION, INC.; MDB LOGISTICS,
INC.; AJR TRUCKING, INC.; U.S. HARBOR LOGISTICS GROUP, INC.;
KHACHATUR KUDIKYAN; HAKOP KUDIKYAN; JOHN DELATORE, and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC719084 (Cal. Super.,
Los Angeles Cty., Aug. 27, 2018) is an action against the
Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages,
wages for missed meal and rest periods.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as truck drivers.

MDB Transportation, Inc. a California Corporation engaged in the
trucking business. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Allen K. Hutkin, Esq.
          HUTKIN LAW FIRM
          1220 Marsh Street
          San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3326
          Telephone: (805) 554-1500
          Facsimile: (805) 544-1532
          E-mail: ahutkin@hutkinlaw.com

               - and -

          Jennifer Kramer, Esq.
          JENNIFER KRAMER LEGAL, APC
          5015 Eagle Rock Boulevard, Suite 202
          Los Angeles, CA 90041
          Telephone: (213) 955-0200
          Facsimile: (213) 226-4358
          E-mail: Jennifer@laborlex.com


MDL 2804: Mercy House v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al., Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mercy House Teen Challenge, a not-for-profit Corporation on behalf
of itself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Purdue Pharma L.P., Purdue Pharma Inc.; Cephalon Inc.; Teva
Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.; Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.;
Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Johnson & Johnson; Noramco Inc.;
Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., now known as Janssen
Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Janssen Pharmaceutical Inc., now known as
Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Endo Health Solutions Inc.; Endo
Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Allergan PLC, formerly known as: Actavis PLS;
Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., now known as Actavis Inc.; Watson
Laboratories Inc.; Actavis Pharma, Inc., formerly known as: Watson
Pharma, Inc.; Actavis LLC; Mallinckrodt PLC; Mallinckrodt LLC;
McKesson Corporation; Cardinal Health Inc.; merisourceBergen Drug
Corporation; and Purdue Frederick Company, Inc., the Defendants,
Case No. 3:18-cv-00584, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (Cleveland) on
Sept. 6, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:18-op-46070-DAP to the proceeding.

The Mercy House case is being consolidated with MDL 2804 in re:
NATIONAL PRESCRIPTION OPIATE LITIGATION. The MDL was created by
Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation on December 5, 2017. These cases concern the alleged
improper marketing of and inappropriate distribution of various
prescription opiate medications into cities, states and towns
across the country. Responding plaintiffs' positions on
centralization vary considerably. Plaintiffs in over 40 actions or
potential tag-along actions support centralization. Plaintiffs in
15 actions or potential tag-along actions oppose centralization
altogether or oppose transfer of their action. In addition to
opposing transfer, the State of West Virginia suggests that the MDL
Panel delay transferring its case until the Southern District of
West Virginia court decides its motion to remand to state court.
Third party payor plaintiffs in an Eastern District of Pennsylvania
potential tag-along action (Philadelphia Teachers Health and
Welfare Fund) oppose centralization of third partypayor actions.
Western District of Washington plaintiff City of Everett opposes
centralization and, alternatively, requests exclusion of its case.
Northern District of Illinois tag-along Plaintiff City of Chicago
asks the Panel to defer transfer of its action until document
discovery is completed.  The Presiding Judge in the MDL is Sarah S.
Vance, United States District Judge. The lead case is
1:17-md-02804-DAP.[BN]

Attorneys for Mercy House Teen Challenge:

          John A. Eaves, Jr., Esq.
          101 North State Street
          Jackson, MS 39201
          Telephone: (601) 355 7961
          Facsimile: (601) 355 0530
          E-mail: johnjr@eaveslaw.com


MDL 2819: Court Won't Dismiss Restasis(R) Antitrust Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York issued an Opinion denying Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the
case captioned IN RE RESTASIS (CYCLOSPORINE OPHTHALMIC EMULSION)
ANTITRUST LITIGATION THIS DOCUMENT APPLIES TO: 1199SEIU National
Benefit Fund et al. v. Allergan, Inc., 17-cv-6755; American
Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees District Council
37 Health & Security Plan v. Allergan, Inc., 1 7-cv-6684; Sergeants
Benevolent Association Health & Welfare Fund v. Allergan, Inc.,
17-cv-7300; Philadelphia Federation of Teachers Health & Welfare
Fund v. Allergan, Inc., 17-cv-7377; St. Paul Electrical Workers'
Health Plan v. Allergan, Inc., 18-cv-41; FWK Holdings, LLC v.
Allergan, Inc., 18-cv-677; Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc. v.
Allergan, Inc., 18-cv-970; KPH Healthcare Services, Inc., a/k/a
Kinney Drugs, Inc., v. Allergan, Inc., 18-cv-974; International
Union of Operating Engineers Local 501 Security Trust Fund v.
Allergan, Inc., 1 8-cv-749; United Food & Commercial Workers Unions
& Employers Midwest Health Benefits Fund et al. v. Allergan, Inc.,
18-cv-816; Self Insured Schools of California v. Allergan, Inc.,
18-cv-968; Fraternal Order of Police, Miami Lodge 20, Insurance
Trust Fund v. Allergan, Inc., 1 8-cv-969; and Plumbers &
Pipefitters Local 178 Health & Welfare Trust Fund v. Allergan,
Inc., 1 8-cv-972. No. 18-MD-2819 (NG) (LB). (E.D.N.Y.).

The Defendant moves to dismiss the Consolidated Complaints for
failure to adequately allege causation.

This multi-district litigation arises out of defendant Allergan's
alleged actions to improperly delay the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) in approving generic competitors to its
dry-eye medication Restasis(R).  The Plaintiffs allege that
Allergan engaged in a number of unlawful, anticompetitive measures
to delay generic drug manufacturers from entering the market and to
allow Allergan to continue charging inflated monopoly prices for
Restasis(R).

These measures include: (1) filing frivolous citizen petitions with
the FDA to delay its approval of generics; (2) defrauding the U.S.
Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) into issuing second-wave
patents on Restasis(R) by submitting a false and misleading
affidavit; (3) wrongfully listing those patents in the FDA's Orange
Book, which delayed the generic approval process; (4) suing generic
manufacturers for infringing on those fraudulently obtained patents
without a good-faith belief that its suits could succeed; and (5)
transferring the patents to the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe (and then
leasing them back) in order to avoid their invalidation by renting
the Tribe's sovereign immunity.

Are the Citizen Petitions Protected by Noerr-Pennington?

The Court must determine whether Allergan's citizen petitions are
protected by the First Amendment and therefore immune from
antitrust liability pursuant to the Noerr-Pennington doctrine. E.
R.R. Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc., 365 U.S.
127, 135 (1961); United Mine Workers of Am. v. Pennington, 381 U.S.
657, 670 (1965). The Noerr-Pennington doctrine shields citizen
petitions that are not wholly baseless from liability. Sham
petitions.,those that are not genuinely aimed at procuring
favorable government action, are unprotected.  For petitions that
are essentially nothing more than an attempt to smother
competition, the First Amendment protections are lost and the
Sherman Act applies.

In its motion, Allergan does not address the second (subjective)
prong of the PRE test. In view of plaintiffs' allegations in the
complaints, it is easily established that Allergan's subjective
intent in filing citizen petitions was to frustrate generic
competition of Restasis(R).  The Plaintiffs allege that Allergan
chose not to appeal any of the denials of its petitions to a
federal court, knowing that it was unlikely to win an appeal and
preferring instead to file successive petitions because that would
be more disruptive to the FDA approval process.

No other inference is offered by defendant as to why it did not
appeal the denials. The Plaintiffs also allege that Allergan made
scientific misrepresentations to the USPTO to obtain the patents,
filed frivolous litigation to delay the generics, and engaged in
bad-faith dealings with the Mohawk Tribe to circumvent the
invalidation of their patents. It is highly plausible that a
company willing to engage in such conduct was intending to delay
the entry of generics into the market, rather than seeking to
protect the public health, when it filed its citizen petitions.

Allergan does, on the other hand, contend that the plaintiffs'
allegations do not satisfy the first prong of the PRE test that the
citizen petitions were objectively baseless. Allergan exclusively
relies on the FDA's responses to its petitions to argue that they
were not shams.  It claims that, because the FDA partially granted
the first two petitions, these petitions cannot be deemed baseless.
It further argues that the FDA's responses to all three petitions
show that Allergan's submissions prompted the agency to consider
revisions to, and actually to revise, its draft guidance as well as
to alter its approach towards its review of ANDAs.

In this case, the FDA's responses fall far short of demonstrating
that the plaintiffs' allegations of objective baselessness are
implausible. The FDA denied every substantive request made by
Allergan in each of its three petitions. Allergan repeatedly
requested that the FDA do away with in vitro testing for
bioequivalency for Restasis(R), and the agency emphatically
rejected this request each time it was made. Of course, that the
petitions were denied in all substantive respects, standing alone,
is not necessarily enough to plausibly allege that they were
objectively baseless.

In Apotex, 823 F.3d at 61-62, the Second Circuit affirmed the
district court's conclusion that the plaintiff had failed to show
that a citizen petition was objectively baseless where the only
fact Apotex had pled other than the timing of the FDA's decision on
defendant Accorda's citizen petition is that Accorda's citizen
petition was ultimately fruitless. But, unlike in Apotex,
plaintiffs here do not merely allege that the petitions were
denied. Plaintiffs allege that, given the draft guidance's strict
requirements for proving bioequivalence through in vitro studies,
there would be no reason to expect any difference in clinical
results between Restasis® and the generic drug, and therefore, in
vivo testing would have served no purpose.

In fact, the plaintiffs allege that in vivo testing would have
delayed the FDA approval process, been more costly, involved human
testing, which the FDA endeavors to avoid, and most importantly,
would have been less reliable, because Restasis(R) has only a
modest clinical benefit and any differences between the brand and
generic would have been small. Therefore, plaintiffs have
sufficiently alleged that, at the time it filed its petitions,
Allergan could have had no reasonable expectation that the FDA
would agree to require in vivo studies to show bioequivalence.

In sum, whether, on all of the evidence, a factfinder would find
that the petitions were not baseless remains to be seen. Certainly,
the inferences Allergân draws, considering the other possible
inferences, are not sufficient to find as a matter of law that the
First Amendment shields Allergan's citizen petitions from antitrust
liability.

Is it Plausible that Allergan's Alleged Anticompetitive Actions
Caused a Delay in the FDA Approval Process?

Allergan asserts that, even if the citizen petitions are not immune
from antitrust liability, plaintiffs have failed to plausibly
allege that the petitions delayed the FDA's approval of generic
drugs. It points to 21 U.S.C. Section 355(q)(1)(A), which provides
that the FDA may not delay approval of an ANDA in order to address
a citizen petition unless the FDA determines, upon reviewing the
petition, that a delay is necessary to protect the public health.
From this statute, Allergan argues that its citizen petitions could
not have delayed FDA approval of generic entry.

Allergan's arguments are not sufficient to overcome the
plausibility of plaintiffs' claims. Plaintiffs allege that, despite
the existence of 21 U.S.C. Section 355(q)(1)(A), the FDA in
practice does delay approval of generics while responding to
citizen petitions, even when those petitions turn out to be
baseless. Plaintiffs cite two reasons for the FDA's practice: (1)
it fears litigation if it grants an ANDA without fully addressing
the citizen petition; and (2) it has limited resources, and
responding to a citizen petition takes time away from the approval
process. As other courts have recognized, the inferences drawn are
plausible.  

It is also reasonable to infer, as plaintiffs ask me to do, that
the stay resulting from the patent infringement litigation led the
FDA to divert its resources away from the ANDAs at issue. The FDA
may have prioritized reviewing applications for other generic
drugs, because, even if tentative approval were granted to the
ANDAs, a drug subject to a stay would not be able to enter the
market for some time possibly over a decade if the patent
infringement suit were successful and the ANDA applicant had to
wait until the patent expired.  

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 17, 2018 Opinion
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ydejjta3 from
Leagle.com.

American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
District Council 37 Health & Security Plan, 1199SEIU National
Benefit Fund, 1199SEIU Greater New York Benefit Fund, 1199SEIU
National Benefit Fund for Home Care Workers & 1199SEIU Licensed
Practical Nurses Welfare Fund, Plaintiffs, represented by Adam
Gitlin -- agitlin@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein,
pro hac vice, Bruce Leppla -- bleppla@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein, pro hac vice, Dan Drachler --
ddrachler@zsz.com -- Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP, David
Rudolph -- drudolph@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein,
pro hac vice, Eric B. Fastiff -- efastiff@lchb.com -- Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, pro hac vice, Jonathan D. Selbin
-- jselbin@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP,
Kelly Kristine McNabb -- jselbin@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann
& Bernstein, LLP, Robert S. Schachter -- rschachter@zsz.com --
Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP, pro hac vice, Sona R. Shah --
sshah@zsz.com -- Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP & Christina
H.C. Sharp -- chc@girardgibbs.com -- Girard Gibbs LLP.

CVS Pharmacy, Inc., Rite AID Corp. & Rite Aid Hdqtrs. Corp.,
Plaintiffs, represented by Andrew Martin Erdlen --
aerdlen@hangley.com -- Hangley Aronchick Segal Pudlin & Schiller &
Eric Bloom -- ebloom@hangley.com -- Hangley Aronchick Segal Pudlin
& Schiller.

Allergan, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jack Wesley Hill --
wh@wsfirm.com -- Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC, Jason McKenney --
jmckenney@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, pro hac
vice, M. Sean Royall -- sroyall@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn &
Crutcher LLP, pro hac vice, Matthew Cameron Parrott --
mparrott@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson. Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Michael S.
Royall, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, Richard Hale Cunningham, Gibson
Dunn & Crutcher LLP, pro hac vice & Eric J. Stock --
estock@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP.


MICHIGAN: Sued Over Poor Huron Valley Prison Conditions
-------------------------------------------------------
Ryan J. Farrick, writing for Legal Reader, reports that Huron
Valley Correctional Center, serving as Michigan's only all-women
prison, may run afoul of the United States Constitution.

Two experts who studied the Ypsilanti-area facility say the
conditions within Huron Valley amount to "cruel and unusual
punishment." Their report was filed in federal court on Sept. 6,
bolstering a lawsuit's claim that the prison is overcrowded and
poorly maintained.

Bad ventilation and a lack of recreational and exercise facilities
may also be contributing to what attorneys say is a mental health
crisis within the facility.

The reports, which the Detroit Free Press says were filed by the
plaintiffs' attorneys in a proposed class-action suit, alleges that
many prisoners are "packed into former closets and other converted
rooms." Clothing is scarce, medical treatment is substandard and
many inmates are so closely confined that they've little
opportunity to leave their cells.

The lawsuit poses an interesting divergence from the Corrections
Department's own statements.

The Michigan Department of Corrections says that Huron Valley's
current population is around 2,100. Several years ago, that number
was closer to 2,257. Either way, the number's lower than the
building's holding capacity of 2,400.

Attorneys have an interesting explanation: that Huron Valley's
capacity has been inflated by more than 500 since 2010. Cells have
been added within existing walls, taking away from space that had
once been used for recreation, storage and day rooms.

Randy Atlas, a Florida architect who specializes in prison design,
was noted by the Free Press as saying that the Michigan Department
of Corrections did convert offices and other suable spaces into
cells. But when Huron Valley began construction and expansion
operations, it never obtained requisite building permits. In some
cases, the jail didn't even use 'architectural plans' as a guide.

Prison conditions at Huron Valley, says Mr. Atlas, "deprive WHV
inmates of the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities."

After examining prison blueprints, Mr. Atlas said he could identify
at least 14 units 'housing close to 1,100 prisoners' that could be
considered "overcrowded and constituting cruel and unusual
punishment."

Some units, Mr. Atlas said, contained less than 6 ½ square feet of
space per prisoner.

Clinical psychologist Ellen Koch, who's worked with Huron Valley
inmates, says overcrowding is aggravating mental health problems.
Depression and suicide attempts are all on the rise, says Koch, in
a facility that's quite different from Michigan's other,
threat-segregated prisons.

"The current overcrowding situation is causing significant mental
health problems for the prisoners based on the lack of access to
materials, space, classes and food, as well as the constant and
excessive noise level," wrote Ms. Koch.

The Michigan Attorney General's Office has said the prisoners must
demonstrate subjection to intentional, 'wanton' indifference to
justify their claims of a constitutional violation.

"Allegations of temporary inconveniences are insufficient to state
a claim," they said. [GN]


MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY: Levi & Korsinsky Files Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:

To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of Microchip Technology Inc. ("Microchip") (NASDAQGS:
MCHP) between March 2, 2018 and August 9, 2018. You are hereby
notified that a securities class action lawsuit has been commenced
in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. To
get more information go to:

https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/microchip-technology-inc-loss-form?wire=3

or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500,
toll-free: (877) 363-5972. There is no cost or obligation to you.

The complaint alleges that throughout the class period Defendants
issued materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose that: (1) Microsemi's financial performance was
underperforming Microchip's expectations; and (2) as a result of
the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects, including positive statements
about Microsemi, were materially misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis.

If you suffered a loss in Microchip you have until November 16,
2018 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your
ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as
a lead plaintiff.

Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York,
California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys
have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in
securities litigation, and have recovered hundreds of millions of
dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

         Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
         Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
         55 Broadway, 10th Floor
         New York, NY 10006
         Telephone: (212) 363-7500
         Toll Free: (877) 363-5972
         Fax: (212) 363-7171
         Email: jlevi@levikorsinsky.com[GN]



MLK EXPRESS: Huggins Seeks to Certify Drivers Class and Sub-Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled GREGORY GIBBS and TATONYA
HUGGINS on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated v. MLK
EXPRESS SERVICES, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company; AG PLUS
EXPRESS, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company; AMAZON.COM,
INC., a Foreign for Profit Corporation; AMAZON LOGISTICS, INC., a
Foreign for Profit Corporation; AMAZON.COM SERVICES, INC., a
Foreign for Profit Corporation; MANIHONG M. PHANOUVONG,
Individually, and LILA V. PHANOUVONG, Individually, Case No.
2:18-cv-00434-SPC-MRM (M.D. Fla.), ask the Court to enter an order
conditionally certifying a collective action for unpaid minimum and
overtime wages, permitting, under Court supervision, notice to:

   a. All Amazon local delivery drivers or driver associates who
      were solely paid a purported "day rate" and who worked for
      any company that contracted with Amazon.com to provide
      local delivery services at any location within the United
      States, within the three year period preceding June 18,
      20181 (the "Amazon Local Driver Class"); and

   b. All local delivery drivers or driver associates, paid by
      the MLK Defendants, who were solely paid a purported "day
      rate" within the three year period preceding June 18, 2018
      (the "MLK Sub-Class").

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to:

   -- require the Defendants to identify all putative members of
      the proposed classes by providing a list of their names,
      last known addresses, dates of employment, the
      subcontracting company through which the putative class
      member worked, cell phone number, and e-mail addresses in
      electronic and importable format, within 14 days of an
      entry of an order;

   -- permit the Plaintiffs' counsel to send Court-approved
      notice of this action to the putative class members of the
      proposed collective action via U.S. Mail, e-mail, and text
      message;

   -- permit the Plaintiffs' counsel to send a reminder notice
      via e-mail and text message to putative class members at
      the half-way point in the notice period;

   -- approve a 90-day opt-in period from the date the
      Court-approved notice is sent during which the putative
      class members may join this case by returning their written
      consents; and

   -- allow putative class members to electronically sign and
      return the Consent to Become an Opt-In Plaintiff.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
          Paul M. Botros, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          600 N. Pine Island Road, Suite 400
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Telephone: (954) WORKERS
          Facsimile: (954) 327-3013
          E-mail: AFrisch@forthepeople.com
                  PBotros@forthepeople.com


NANTHEALTH INC: Certification of Two Classes Sought in Deora Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Southeastern Pennsylvania Transit Authority and Michael Fontaine,
Lead Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled ATUL SINGH DEORA, et al. v.
NANTHEALTH, INC., et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-01825-TJH-MRW (C.D.
Cal.), move for an order certifying two classes:

   (1) Securities Act Class:

       All persons or entities who purchased or acquired
       NantHealth, Inc., common stock in or traceable to the IPO;
       and

   (2) Exchange Act Class:

       All persons or entities who purchased any NantHealth,
       Inc., common stock between June 1, 2016, and May 1, 2017.

Excluded from both Classes are (i) Defendants, (ii) NantHealth's
officers and directors, (iii) any entity in which Defendants have
or had a controlling interest, (iv) members of Defendants'
immediate families and the legal representatives, heirs,
successors, or assigns of any such excluded party, and (v) any
judge presiding over this matter, his or her spouse, and all
persons within the third degree of relationship to either of them
and the spouse of such persons.

The Lead Plaintiffs seek to certify and represent the Securities
Act Class in their claims for violations of the Securities Act of
1933.  These claims are: (1) violations of Section 11 of the
Securities Act against Defendants NantHealth, Patrick Soon-Shiong,
Paul Holt, Michael S. Sitrick, Kirk K. Calhoun, Mark Burnett,
Edward Miller, and Michael Blaszyk; (2) violations of Section
12(a)(2) of the Securities Act against NantHealth; and (3)
violations of Section 15 of the Securities Act against Patrick
Soon-Shiong and Paul Holt.

The Lead Plaintiffs seek to certify and represent the Exchange Act
Class in their claims for violations of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.  These claims are (1) violations of Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 against NantHealth and Patrick
Soon-Shiong; and (2) violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act against Patrick Soon-Shiong and Paul Holt.

Lead Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint Gibbs Law Group LLP
and Kehoe Law Firm, P.C., as Class Counsel under Rule 23(g) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Court will commence a hearing on February 4, 2019, to consider
the Motion.[CC]

The Lead Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Eric H. Gibbs, Esq.
          David Stein, Esq.
          Amy M. Zeman, Esq.
          Amanda M. Karl, Esq.
          GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
          505 14th Street, Suite 1110
          Oakland, CA 94612-1406
          Telephone: (510) 350-9700
          Facsimile: (510) 350-9701
          E-mail: ehg@classlawgroup.com
                  ds@classlawgroup.com
                  amz@classlawgroup.com
                  amk@classlawgroup.com

               - and -

          John A. Kehoe, Esq.
          KEHOE LAW FIRM, P.C.
          Two Penn Center Plaza
          1500 JFK Boulevard, Suite 1020
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 792-6676
          E-mail: jkehoe@kehoelawfirm.com

               - and -

          Javier Bleichmar, Esq.
          BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP
          7 Times Square, 27th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 789-1341
          E-mail: jbleichmar@bfalaw.com


NCB MANAGEMENT: Made Unsolicited Calls, Gogue Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
DOROTHY GOGUE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff vs. NCB MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., and DOES 1
through 10, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-07320 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 21,
2018) seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of making unauthorized
phone calls to cellular telephones under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

NCB Management Services, Inc. provides call center/business process
outsourcing solutions in the United States. The company was founded
in 1994 and is based in Trevose, Pennsylvania. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patric A. Lester, Esq.
          CONSUMER ATTORNEY ADVOCATES INC.
          5694 Mission Center Road, #358
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 665-3888
          Facsimile: (314) 241-5777
          E-mail: pl@lesterlaw.com


NDM HOSPITALITY: Underpays Cook Supervisors, Wright Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
KADEEM ANTHONY WRIGHT, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NDM HOSPITALITY SERVICES PAYROLL,
LLC d/b/a BURGERFI; DAF HOSPITALITY, LLC; MPF HOSPITALTY, LLC; NRF
HOSPITALITY, LLC; DANIEL FALCONE; NICOLAS R. FALCONE; and MATTHEW
FALCONE, Defendants, Case No. 77145862 (Fla. Cir., Miami-Dade Cty.,
Aug. 28, 2018) is an action to recover damages, interest, costs,
and attorneys' fees, as a result of the Defendant's failure to pay
the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked
in excess of 40 hours per week.

Mr. Wright was employed by the Defendants as cook supervisor from
December 15, 2015 to December 22, 2017.

NDM Hospitality Services Payroll, LLC d/b/a Burgerfi is a Florida
Limited Liability company conducting business in Miami-Dade,
Florida. The Company owns, develops, and operates hospitality
assets in the Food & Beverage and Resort Management sectors. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony M. Georges-Pierre, Esq.
          Max L. Horowitz, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416-5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
          E-mail: agp@rgpattorneys.com
                  mhorowitz@rgpattorneys.com


NEVADA: Writ of Mandamus Petition Dismissed
-------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Nevada issued an Order dismissing Petition for
Writ of Mandamus in the case captioned MICHAEL MURRAY; AND MICHAEL
RENO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
Petitioners, v. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF
NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE KATHLEEN
E. DELANEY, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, and JASMINKA DUBRIC; A
CAB, LLC; A CAB SERIES LLC; EMPLOYEE LEASING COMPANY; AND CREIGHTON
J. NADY, Real Parties in Interest. No. 75877. (Nev.)

This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a district
court order denying petitioner class representatives' motion to
intervene in the competing Minimum Wage Act (MWA) action in which
real parties in interest have jointly moved for conditional
certification of the same or a similar class for settlement
purposes and preliminary approval of a proposed class settlement
agreement.

Petitioners submitted to this court a declaration and exhibits
showing that,  the district court entered summary judgment in favor
of the class in the MWA action in which petitioners are
representatives.

Although petitioners state that they are unsure how the judgment
affects their request for writ relief since real parties in
interest have not indicated whether they intend to continue
pursuing class certification and settlement approval, we conclude
that the judgment renders this petition moot and thus we dismiss it
without prejudice.

In that regard, the final judgment in the competing class action
appears to obviate petitioners' reasons for seeking intervention,
at least at this time, as the class claims have been resolved and
real parties in interest may proceed differently in the underlying
case. If petitioners still believe they should be allowed to
intervene, they may file a renewed request to do so in district
court addressing the change in the status of the class claims, and
if denied, they may seek writ relief in this court, if warranted.

A full-text copy of the state Supreme Court's September 13, 2018
Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y97mdmzw from
Leagle.com.


NEW HAMPSHIRE: Mulls New Psychiatric Hospital After Complaints
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nancy West, writing for Manchester Link, reports that after
fighting to change New Hampshire's policy of incarcerating mentally
ill people who haven't been charged with or convicted of a crime at
the prison's Secure Psychiatric Unit, advocates say they are
pleased the state is looking to change.

The state has put out a Request for Information to build a 100-bed
forensic psychiatric hospital for patients currently receiving care
at the Secure Psychiatric Unit, the New Hampshire Hospital, both in
Concord, and the Laconia Designated Receiving Facility.

"The envisioned facility would consolidate forensic care within one
location and provide a comprehensive program for the forensic
patients," according to the request posted on the Department of
Health and Human Services' website.

The population served would include civilly committed individuals
found not guilty by reason of insanity, incompetent to stand trial,
patients deemed too dangerous to themselves or others to be housed
in the state's psychiatric hospital, forensic patients that are
also diagnosed with developmental disability, and others who would
benefit from a comprehensive forensic program.

"It's exciting. I take this as a very positive step," said state
Rep. Renny Cushing, D-Hampton, a longtime advocate for change at
the men's prison unit. It's a first step, but the proposal must get
through the legislative process to get funded, he said.

"I can't help but think this is DHHS' response to the recent flurry
of court filings to head off a possible class-action lawsuit,"
Cushing said.

Court action
He was referring to a half dozen petitions filed in federal court
demanding Secure Psychiatric Unit patients be transferred to a
licensed psychiatric hospital, a federal lawsuit alleging patient
mistreatment including tasering, and patient families fighting the
state's attempts to take away their guardianship.

Several of the petitions were filed with the help of Advocates for
Ethical Mental Health Treatment, a citizens group co-founded by
Wanda Duryea and Beatrice Coulter.

"We have fought really hard and I am glad to see this step in the
right direction," Duryea said.

Coulter added: "Hopefully, in the long term it will create an
environment that fosters evidence-based best practices and civil
rights safeguards."

Lawmaker support
The Secure Psychiatric Unit has been the target of public scrutiny
as more advocates, patients and their families have taken court
action and spoken publicly to the press and at legislative
hearings.

Duryea, Cushing, and Rep. Peter Schmidt, D-Dover, waited at the New
Hampshire Hospital on Sept. 6 to support Nancy Heath of Milan, who
is fighting to maintain guardianship of her adult son, Tony Heath,
who has been civilly committed to the prison's Secure Psychiatric
Unit deemed incompetent to stand trial.

Tony Heath, who filed a civil lawsuit claiming he was tasered for
refusing a routine blood draw, was transported to the New Hampshire
Hospital on Sept. 6 for the hearing wearing a prison uniform, leg
chains and handcuffs. He struggled to eat a hamburger while
handcuffed during the three-hour wait for the hearing that was
ultimately cancelled.

Nancy Heath and Tony both support having Duryea, Cushing, Schmidt
and InDepthNH.org present for the continuation of the confidential
guardianship hearing at the small courtroom on the hospital grounds
as allowed by RSA 494-A:8. Judge Barbara Maloney has previously
denied opening the hearing to anyone but the participants.

Andrew Butler's case also drew public attention as the popular
former high school athlete's friends rallied around him. The
21-year-old from Hollis was released from the Secure Psychiatric
Unit in June, but is still under the control of the state because
he was originally committed to the New Hampshire Hospital for two
years.

He hadn't committed a crime, but was transferred from the New
Hampshire Hospital to the Secure Psychiatric Unit after a violent
outburst, which his father, Doug Butler, blamed on medication. Doug
Butler wants Andrew to obtain treatment from a private
psychiatrist.

Members of the Hollis community raised funds for Andrew and held a
march from the prison in Concord to the federal court to protest
him being held in a prison.

Wait lists
The state is also hoping to solve another serious problem with the
delivery of mental health services – the backlog of people who
spend days and sometimes weeks awaiting treatment in hospital
emergency rooms.

"Through this collaboration and development of a new facility, the
added inpatient capacity is expected to reduce the number of
psychiatric patients waiting in hospital emergency rooms for
inpatient treatment at New Hampshire Hospital," the request
states.

The request was issued by the New Hampshire Department of Health
and Human Services, New Hampshire Hospital and the Department of
Corrections, and the Secure Psychiatric Unit to solicit information
regarding the construction and/or operation of a forensic
hospital.

Forensic licensing as a healthcare facility in the state and
initial Joint Commission accreditation will be required.

The request says the state is considering all available solutions
that would ensure the wellbeing of the patient population
including:

Option #1 - Construction and Operation of a New Facility.

Option #2 - Renovation of Existing Facility and/or Addition of New
Facilities and Operation of Facilities.

Option #3 - Construction of a New Facility which the State of New
Hampshire will then Operate.

Option #4 - Renovation of Existing Facility and/or Addition of New
Facilities.

The Department of Health and Human Services oversees the New
Hampshire Hospital, the state's psychiatric hospital as it stands
now. But the Secure Psychiatric Unit at the men's prison is part of
the prison and run by the Department of Corrections.

The New Hampshire Hospital provides acute, inpatient psychiatric
services for children, adults, and the elderly who need active
treatment and other essential supports within a continuum of
community-based care.

"The proposed facility would be constructed and operated in
accordance with the Joint Commission Accreditation for Acute
Psychiatric Hospitals," the request states. It also says it is not
a guarantee the facility will be built. [GN]


NOVATION COMPANIES: Oral Argument Held in NJ Carpenters Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Novation Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 14, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that an oral argument has
been held in the purported class action suit filed by the New
Jersey Carpenters' Health Fund.

On May 21, 2008, a purported class action case was filed in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, by the New
Jersey Carpenters' Health Fund, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated. Defendants in the case included  Mortgage
Funding Corporation (NMFC) and NovaStar Mortgage, Inc. ("NMI"),
wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Company, and NMFC's individual
directors, several securitization trusts sponsored by the Company
("affiliated defendants") and several unaffiliated investment banks
and credit rating agencies. The case was removed to the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

On June 16, 2009, plaintiff filed an amended complaint. Plaintiff
seeks monetary damages, alleging that the defendants violated
Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended,
by making allegedly false statements regarding mortgage loans that
served as collateral for securities purchased by plaintiff and the
purported class members. On August 31, 2009, the Company filed a
motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claims, which the court granted
on March 31, 2011, with leave to amend.

Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on May 16, 2011, and the
Company again filed a motion to dismiss. On March 29, 2012, the
court dismissed plaintiff's second amended complaint with prejudice
and without leave to replead.

Plaintiff filed an appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit (the "Appellate Court"). On March 1, 2013, the
Appellate Court reversed the judgment of the lower court, which had
dismissed the case. Also, the Appellate Court vacated the judgment
of the lower court which had held that plaintiff lacked standing,
even as a class representative, to sue on behalf of investors in
securities in which plaintiff had not invested, and the appellate
court remanded the case back to the lower court for further
proceedings.

On April 23, 2013 plaintiff filed its memorandum with the lower
court seeking a reconsideration of the earlier dismissal of
plaintiff's claims as to five offerings in which plaintiff was not
invested, and on February 5, 2015, the lower court granted
plaintiff's motion for reconsideration and vacated its earlier
dismissal. On March 8, 2017, the affiliated defendants and all
other parties executed an agreement to settle the action, with the
contribution of the affiliated defendants to the settlement fund
being paid by their insurance carriers.

The court certified a settlement class and granted preliminary
approval to the settlement on May 10, 2017.  

One member of the settlement class objected to the settlement and
sought a stay of the final settlement approval hearing on the
ground that it did not receive notice of the settlement and had no
opportunity to timely opt out of the class. After the court
rejected the motion for a stay, the objector filed an appeal and
requested a stay of the court proceedings pending disposition of
the appeal. The Appellate Court denied the temporary stay of the
court proceedings pending a decision on the objector's request for
a stay. The oral argument on the appeal is scheduled for September
2018.

Novation Companies said, "Assuming the settlement is approved and
completed, which is expected, the Company will incur no loss. The
Company believes that the affiliated defendants have meritorious
defenses to the case and, if the settlement is not approved,
expects them to defend the case vigorously."

Novation Companies, Inc., through its subsidiary, Healthcare
Staffing, Inc., provides outsourced health care staffing and
related services primarily to Community Service Boards in Georgia.
It also owns a portfolio of mortgage securities. The company was
formerly known as NovaStar Financial, Inc. and changed its name to
Novation Companies, Inc. in May 2012. Novation Companies, Inc. was
founded in 1996 and is based in Kansas City, Missouri.


NRJM INC: Rodino Suit Notice Okayed ; Case Stayed Through March 19
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on September 20, 2018, in the case
styled Paul Rodino v. NRJM, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-05167
(N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the Honorable Gary
Feinerman.

The minute entry states that:

   -- Joint motion to approve form of notice of collective action
      and to stay proceedings is granted;

   -- The October 30, 2018 status hearing is stricken and re−set
      for March 19, 2019, at 9:00 a.m.; and

   -- By agreement, this case is stayed through March 19,
      2019.[CC]


ODWALLA: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Product Labels
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a federal judge refused on
Sept. 19 to dismiss a class action alleging that Odwalla, a
subsidiary of The Coca-Cola Co., misled customers by labeling its
products "100% Juice" with "No Added Sugar."


OHR PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues to Defend Class Suit in New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
OHR Pharmaceutical Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 14, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the company continues to
defend itself in a class action suit filed in the Southern District
of New York.

On February 14, 2018, plaintiff, Jeevesh Khanna, commenced an
action in the Southern District of New York, alleging that several
current and former officers violated federal securities laws
between June 24, 2014 and January 4, 2018.

On August 7, 2018, the lead plaintiffs, now George Lehman and
Insured Benefits Plans, Inc. filed an amended complaint, stating
that the class period be April 8, 2014 through January 4, 2018. The
plaintiffs did not quantify any alleged damages in their complaint
but, in addition to attorneys' fees and costs, they seek maintain
the action as a class action to recover damages on behalf of
themselves and other persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
our stock during the putative class period and purportedly suffered
financial harm as a result.

OHR Pharmaceutical SAID, "We dispute these claims and intend to
defend the matter vigorously. This litigation could result in
substantial costs and a diversion of management's resources and
attention, which could harm our business and the value of our
common stock."

OHR Pharmaceutical, Inc., a clinical-stage pharmaceutical company,
focuses on the development of novel therapies for the treatment of
ophthalmic diseases. OHR Pharmaceutical, Inc. is headquartered in
New York, New York.


ONE KEY: Adero Law Firm Begins Mineworkers' Union Legal Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ian Kirkwood, writing for Newcastle Herald, reports that some
casual mineworkers at a number of Hunter mines are being
"terminated" on Sept. 3 and switched between subsidiaries of labour
hire firm One Key Resources as it moves to cope with a courtroom
loss to the mineworkers' union.

But what would normally be two-way stoush between employer and
union has turned into a three-way affair with class action firm
Adero Law injecting itself into the long-running battle over casual
employment in the coal industry.

Adero arrived in the Hunter earlier this year when it announced a
class action against labour hire firm Chandler Macleod over
employment conditions at BHP's Mount Arthur mine.

It has now begun legal action over aspects of the One Key case, and
has been writing to affected employees offering to help them, much
to the ire of the union.

The total number of mines and mineworkers involved in the situation
is unclear, but Glencore says there are some at its Bulga and Mount
Owen mines and Adero says Wambo is also affected.

In an interview on Sept. 7, the national president of the
mineworkers' division of the Construction, Forestry, Maritime,
Mining and Energy Union, Tony Maher, said the One Key case was one
of two major cases the union had been pursuing against "dodgy
enterprise agreements".

The other case was Workpac v Skene, and both cases were decided
recently by full bench hearings of the Federal Court.

Employer groups have been up in arms about the union push, with
lawyers Clayton Utz saying the Workpac case would "send shockwaves
through many businesses who rely on a casualised workforce, as it
makes it much harder to classify and treat employees as 'casual'
where they work set, inflexible hours, and there is a degree of
certainty about their ongoing work".

The One Key case centred on the union's objection to an enterprise
agreement that was originally signed by only three people but was
later used to employ more than 1100.

After the union court victory overturned the agreement, One Key put
the subsidiary concerned, One Key Workforce, into voluntary
administration under Ernst & Young on the last day of August, with
the intention of transferring the affected employees to another
company in the group.

The union accepted this move, but Adero -- which challenged the
agreement -- wrote to the One Key workers telling them that they
were likely to be owed substantial amounts of pay and entitlements
under the federal government's Fair Entitlements Guarantee scheme
as a result of the court case, and urged them to be careful before
signing anything.

"One Key should not be liquidating any of it's entities or
transferring any employees until a full audit of back pay owing to
each current and former One key Workforce employee is completed,"
Adero principal Rory Markham said on Sept. 9.

"They have grown tired of the new enterprise agreements, contracts
and promises that result in nothing but a new ABN on their payslip
or logo on their shirt."

One Key has not responded to requests for comment, but documents
show the affected employees were originally offered work with the
new subsidiary "conditional on [their] resignation" from the old
one.

But a day after Adero advised the workers not to resign, they
received letters from the administrator saying One Key Workforce
would not be able to pay them beyond "5:59am Monday, September 10,
2018"  and that "your employment with the company will be
terminated" at that time. They would be offered work with the new
company once "your employment with One Key Workforce Pty Ltd
ceases".

The union advised its members to accept the new work offer, but not
to resign their old jobs, for the same reason given by Adero.

Ernst & Young was set to hold a first creditors' meeting in
Brisbane on Wednesday, Sept. 12, which the union says it will
attend. It has told its members it has "reached a settlement for
members employed by a number of One Key companies, including One
Key Workforce".

"Whilst there have been some recent legal issues that have held up
the compensation that will flow from that agreement, we are
confident these will be resolved in the near future," the union
says.

It described Adero as "a little-known Canberra law firm" cashing in
on the union's success in challenging sub-standard conditions.

Mr Markham dismissed the union's criticism and said its clients
"simply want the security of a full-time job and to be paid what
they are owed". [GN]


ONEWEST BANK: Underpays Relationship Associate Bankers, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS A. INCHAUSTI, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ONEWEST BANK, a Division of CIT
BANK, N.A.; CITBANK, N.A.; and DOES 1­50, Defendants, Case
No.BC719407 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Aug. 28, 2018) is an
action against the Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime
hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods.

Mr. Inchausti was employed by the Defendants as relationship
associate banker from September 2015 to August 2017.

OneWest Bank Group LLC operates as a bank holding company for
OneWest Bank, National Association, which provides personal and
commercial banking services. The company was founded in 2009 and is
based in Pasadena, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James R. Hawkins, Esq.
          Gregory Mauro, Esq.
          Michael Calvo, 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
                  Michael@jameshawkinsaplc.com


ONTARIO: Sued Over Solitary Confinement in Jails
------------------------------------------------
CTV News London reports that a Superior Court judge has ruled a
lawsuit alleging the Ontario government violated the rights of
inmates by placing them inappropriately in solitary confinement can
proceed as a class action.

The province didn't oppose certification of the 600-million dollar
action.

The representative plaintiff maintains his already fragile mental
health was exacerbated by stints in segregation.

The suit includes inmates diagnosed with severe mental illnesses
such as schizophrenia or psychosis, who served time in segregation
in provincial facilities since January 1st, 2009.[GN]


OPEN DOOR: To File Joint Report on Scope of Release in Conde Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CARLOS CONDE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. OPEN DOOR
MARKETING, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 15-cv-04080-KAW (N.D.
Cal.), Judge Kandis A. Westmore of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California has ordered the parties to file a
joint status report, stating whether they will limit the scope of
the release to the claims asserted in the operative complaint.

Plaintiffs Shikwana Jennings and Lisa Drake filed the putative
class and collective action against Defendants 20/20
Communications, Inc. ("20/20"), Open Door, Larry Clark, and Jerrimy
Farris, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") and various California labor laws.  On Aug. 16, 2018, the
Court held a hearing on the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for
settlement approval, which seeks to settle the claims of the
Plaintiffs and the 176 individuals who opted in to the collective
action.

Having considered the papers filed by the parties, the relevant
legal authority, and the arguments advanced by the counsel, Judge
Westmore intends to deny the motion for settlement approval.  She
finds that while the parties addressed most of the Court's
concerns, including the scope of Section V of the Settlement
Agreement and Release, the Court continues to have concerns that
the proposed release is overbroad.

Specifically, the parties seek to release any wage and hour claims
that were raised or could have been raised in the operative
complaint.  As noted by the Court, however, the courts in the
district routinely reject FLSA settlements when the scope of the
release goes beyond the overtime claims asserted in the complaint.
The Settlement Agreement also lists various types of claims that
would be released, but states that those claims are not exhaustive.


At the hearing, Defendant 20/20 distinguished Otey by pointing to
Selk v. Pioneers Memorial Healthcare District as a case where the
district court approved a settlement that released claims not pled
in the complaint because additional consideration was given to the
California opt-in plaintiffs.  A careful reading of Selk, however,
does not suggest that the settlement released claims outside of the
complaint.  There was no finding by the district court that a
release outside of the alleged claims was justified by any
additional independent consideration to the California opt-ins.  

Here, the Judge finds that the Plaintiffs stated in their
supplemental belief that the parties have agreed to allocate a
double share to California workweeks in light of the California
state law claims which were asserted in the case, and in
recognition of the additional remedies afforded by California law
that the Nevada opt-ins would not have been able to obtain.  In
other words, the double share is simply an acknowledgment that the
California opt-ins are already entitled to a higher proportion of
the settlement because they are releasing California-specific
claims that are pled in the complaint itself.  This is
distinguishable from a showing that any of the opt-in Plaintiffs
are receiving independent consideration for the claims that were
not pled in the operative complaint.  Without independent
consideration for such claims, and given that the Court has not
been able to locate any decision in the district that approved a
settlement of the parties' proposed scope, the Judge will not
approve the settlement agreement as written.

Accordingly, Judge Westmore ordered the parties to file a joint
status report, by Sept. 12, 2018, stating whether they will limit
the scope of the release to the claims asserted in the operative
complaint.  If the parties are not so inclined, she will issue her
order denying the Plaintiff's motion for settlement approval.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 28, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/UvTPp7 from Leagle.com.

Carlos Conde, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Shikwana Jennings, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated & Lisa Drake, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by
Shannon Liss-Riordan -- sliss@llrlaw.com -- Lichten & Liss-Riordan,
P.C.

Open Door Marketing, LLC, Larry Dale Clark & Jerrimy Farris,
Defendants, represented by Kristin Alexandria Smith --
ksmith@fosteremploymentlaw.com -- Foster Employment Law & Michael
Leslie Thompson, Lehr Middlebrooks Vreeland and Thompson, P.C.

20/20 Communications, Inc., Defendant, represented by Christopher
William Decker -- christopher.decker@ogletree.com -- Ogletree
Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart PC & Wendy V. Miller --
wendy.miller@ogletree.com -- Ogletree Deakins Law Firm, pro hac
vice.


PATIENT INNOVATION: Tomala Moves to Certify FLSA Class of Dancers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned The Estate of Alexandra
Tomala, To be administered by Boguslawa Tomala, individually and on
behalf of all persons similarly situated, as class representative
under Illinois Law and/or as members of the Collective as permitted
under the Fair Labor Standards Act v. Patient Innovation Center,
NFP and Christopher Gay and Angelica Magana Named as an Employers
under the FLSA and IWPCA, Case No. 1:17-cv-08530 (N.D. Ill.), asks
the Court to:

   a) certify the requested Fair Labor Standards Act Collective
      and allow an opt-in period of 90 days;

   b) order the Defendants to produce the full names, aliases,
      addresses, phone numbers, e-mail addresses and last date(s)
      of performance of all potential putative class members who
      worked for the Defendants;

   c) the last known work and home physical and e-mail addresses
      and phone numbers of the dancers, who worked for the
      Defendant from August 30, 2015, to the present, no later
      than two weeks after the date of the entry of the Order;

   d) approve a notice based on a form to be submitted by the
      Plaintiff;

   e) approve transmittal of the Notice to members of the class
      via US Mail, e-mail, text message, on site posting and on
      site distribution; and

   f) grant the Plaintiff's Tolling Request, tolling all FLSA
      claims from the filing of this Motion to the date the
      collective members join the suit.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John C. Ireland, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF JOHN C. IRELAND
          636 Spruce Street
          South Elgin, IL 60177
          Telephone: (630) 464-9675
          Facsimile: (630) 206-0889
          E-mail: attorneyireland@gmail.com


PERSONAL CHOICE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Johnson Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
CASSANDRA JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PERSONAL CHOICE LINEN AND LAUNDRY,
INC. a/k/a PERSONAL CHOICE DRY CLEANING; SCOTTY'S DRY CLEANERS;
TAILORS & SHOE REPAIR LL; COVE SPOT MASTER DRY CLEANERS;
ALTERATIONS & SHOE REPAIR LLC; IOANNIS GIANNOULIS;JOHN GIANNOULIS;
and LUCY GIANNOULIS, Defendants, Case No. 0:18-cv-62066-FAM (S.D.
Fla., Aug. 31, 2018) is an action against the Defendants for
failure to pay the Plaintiff minimum wage and overtime compensation
for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Plaintiff Johnson was employed by the Defendants as a
non-exempt employee from May 1, 2018 to July 24, 2018. Her duties
consisted of washing, drying, smoothing clothes, removing wrinkles,
and folding laundry and processing payments.

Personal Choice Linen and Laundry, Inc. a/k/a Personal Choice Dry
Cleaning serves Palm Beach and Broward Counties, and the rest of
the southern Florida area. The Company is engaged in dry cleaning
and garment care. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jordan Richards, Esq.
          JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC
          401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 871-0050
          E-mail: Jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com
                  livia@jordanrichardspllc.com
                  jake@jordanrichardspllc.com
                  melissa@jordanrichardspllc.com


PHH CORP: $5.1MM Attorneys' Fees Awarded in Dodge Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Judge Fernando M. Olguin of the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California granted the requested attorney's fees,
expenses and service award in the case, SHERI DODGE, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. PHH CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. SA CV
15-1973 FMO (AFMx) (C.D. Cal.).

Pursuant to the Court's Order Re: Final Approval of Class Action
Settlement; Approval of Attorney's Fees, Expenses & Service Award,
filed contemporaneously with the filing of the Judgment, the Judge,
in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement, ordered
that (i) Plaintiffs Sheri Dodge, Neil Dodge, Ram Agrawal, and
Sarita Agrawal will each be paid a service payment of $2,500; (ii)
the class counsel will be paid $5.1 million in attorney's fees, and
$36,704.82 in costs; and the Claims Administrator, KCC, will be
paid for its fees and expenses.

All the class members who did not validly and timely request
exclusion from the settlement have released their claims, as set
forth in the Settlement Agreement, against any of the released
parties.  Except as to any class members who have validly and
timely requested exclusion, the action is dismissed with prejudice,
with all parties to bear their own fees and costs except as set
forth in the Judgment and in the prior orders of the Court.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 28, 2018 Judgment is available
at https://is.gd/NCP75f from Leagle.com.

Sarita Agrawal, Ram Agrawal, Sheri Dodge & Neil Dodge, Plaintiffs,
represented by Evan Christopher Borges -- eborges@ggtriallaw.com --
Greenberg Gross LLP & Daniel S. Robinson, Robinson Calcagnie Inc.

PHH Corporation, a Maryland corporation, PHH Mortgage Corporation,
a New Jersey corporation & PHH Broker Partner Corporation, a
Maryland corporation, Defendants, represented by Mitchel Howard
Kider -- kider@thewbkfirm.com -- Weiner Brodsky Kider PC, David M.
Souders -- souders@thewbkfirm.com -- Weiner Brodsky Kider PC, pro
hac vice, Joel Allen Schiffman -- schiffman@thewbkfirm.com --
Weiner Brodsky Kider PC & Michael Y. Kieval --
kieval@thewbkfirm.com -- Weiner Brodsky Kider PC, pro hac vice.

Realogy Holdings Corp., a Delaware corporation, Realogy Group LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company, Realogy Intermediate Holdings
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Title Resource Group
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, West Coast Escrow
Company, a California corporation, TRG Services Escrow, Inc., a
Delaware corporation, NRT LLC, a Delaware corporation, Realogy
Services Group LLC, a Delaware limited liability company & Realogy
Services Venture Partner LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
Defendants, represented by Calvin L. Litsey --
calvin.litsey@FaegreBD.com -- Faegre Baker Daniels LLP & Wendy J.
Wildung -- wendy.wildung@FaegreBD.com -- Faegre Baker Daniels LLP,
pro hac vice.

PHH Home Loans LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, RMR
Financial, LLC, a California limited liability company & NE Moves
Mortgage LLC, a Massachusetts limited liability company,
Defendants, represented by David L. Permut --
dpermut@goodwinlaw.com -- Goodwin Procter LLP, pro hac vice, Steven
A. Ellis -- sellis@goodwinlaw.com -- Goodwin Procter LLP, Thomas M.
Hefferon -- thefferon@goodwinlaw.com -- Goodwin Procter LLP, pro
hac vice & Todd A. Boock -- tboock@goodwinlaw.com -- Goodwin
Procter LLP.

Equity Title Company, a California corporation, Defendant,
represented by Calvin L. Litsey, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP & Wendy
J. Wildung, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP.


POLLACK & ROSEN: Sproul Sues over Debt Collection Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------
ALIVEINA SPROUL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. POLLACK & ROSEN P.A., Defendants, Case No.
0:18-cv-62043-FAM (S.D. Fla., Aug. 28, 2018) seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Pollack & Rosen, P.A. operates as a law firm. The Company serves
clients in the areas of law such as liquidation of accounts
receivables and collections for both consumer and business
accounts, commercial and general litigation, and family law. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


POP WARNER: Continues to Defend Head Trauma Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Doug Thompson, writing for Blue Ridge Muse, reports that as high
school football seasons get underway in Southwestern Virginia,
three high schools in Virginia entered this season with no football
on their fields.

Manassas Park and Park View -- suburban schools in Northern
Virginia -- no longer have varsity football along with Charles
City.  In nearby North Carolina, Chapel Hill, dropped its football
program as did Bedford, KY, and Bladensburg, MD.

Several reasons account for the drop: Declining student
enrollments, changing demographics, other sports alternatives and
players choosing to specialize in just one sport, but a primary
cause comes from the growing number of injuries suffered in the
game, especially head trauma.

An extensive study of brains of deceased National Football players
found 87 percent of the brains suffered a degenerative brain
disorder because of repetitive head trauma.

The National Federation of State High School Associations says
enrollment in football dropped by 20,000 students between 2016 and
2017 and enrollment in the last decade is down 6.6 percent
nationwide.

A study of student athletes by Boston University in 2017 found that
kid who began playing tackle football at age 12 or younger had more
behavioral and cognitive problems later in life.

BU found those you participated in youth football before the age of
12 suffered a twofold "risk of problems with behavioral regulation,
apathy and executive function and a threefold risk of "clinical
elevated depression."

Students at high schools and colleges have died on the field during
practice sessions and in games.  Jordan McNair, a student football
athlete at the University of Maryland, died in June of this year
after collapsing on the field.  In 2015, seven high school football
students died in football games or practice at American schools in
just seven weeks.

Wake Forest School of Medicine said magnetic resonance imaging
technology found that boys between the ages of 8 and 23 for just
one season suffered diminished brain functions.

The Pop Warner youth football league is fighting a class-action
lawsuit that claims the program knowingly put young players in
danger by ignoring the risks of head trauma.

Ivy League schools decided last year to eliminate tackling at
practices during the regular season, as does the Canadian Football
League.

"The curiosity about head injuries and the correct age to play full
contact is peaking," Terry O'Neill, founder of Practice Like the
Pros, which recommends only flag football in the sixth grade and
limited tackling in 7th and 8th grade games.

"Tackling is the culprit," Mr. O'Neill adds.  "Everybody associated
with the game is worried about the numbers."

The National Football League has been slow to react to studies in
head trauma, even though studies show extreme trauma issue
associated with both scholastic, collegiate and professional
football.

Increasingly, studies show, parents now think twice before letting
their children participate in tackle football in middle schools or
high schools.

Bladensburg, MD, announced it won't be fielding a football team
this year because of safety concerns.  Other schools report they
are withholding their children from participation because of the
same concerns. [GN]


PUCCI'S PIZZA: Sued over Website Discriminatory Conditions
----------------------------------------------------------
ANDRES GOMEZ, Individually, the Plaintiffs, v. PUCCI'S PIZZA LLC A
Limited Liability Company, the Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-23744-CMA (S.D. Fla., Sept. 12, 2018), seeks injunctive
relief and payment of attorney's fees, litigation expenses and
costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has violated the ADA
provisions either directly or through contractual, licensing or
other arrangements with respect to Plaintiff and other similarly
situated individuals on the basis of their disability:

    a. by depriving them of the full and equal enjoyment of the
goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or
accommodations of its place of public accommodation;

    b. by denying them the opportunity to participate in or benefit
from the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or
accommodations;

    c. in affording them the opportunity to participate in or
benefit from a good, service, facility, privilege, advantage, or
accommodation that is not equal to that afforded to other
individuals;

    d. by providing them a good, service, facility, privilege,
advantage, or accommodation that is different or separate from that
provided to other individuals, unless such action is necessary to
provide the individual or class of individuals with a good,
service, facility, privilege, advantage, or accommodation, or other
opportunity that is as effective as that provided to others;

    e. by failing to afford them goods, services, facilities,
privileges, advantages, and accommodations in the most integrated
setting appropriate to the needs of the individual;

    f. notwithstanding the existence of separate or different
programs or activities provided in accordance with this section, by
denying them the opportunity to participate in such programs or
activities that are not separate or different;

    g. by failing to make reasonable modifications in policies,
practices, or procedures, when such modifications are necessary to
afford such goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or
accommodations to individuals with disabilities, unless the entity
can demonstrate that making such modifications would fundamentally
alter the nature of such goods, services, facilities, privileges,
advantages, or accommodations; and

    h. by failing to take steps as may be necessary to ensure that
they are not excluded, denied services, segregated or otherwise
treated differently than other individuals because of the absence
of auxiliary aids and services, unless the entity can demonstrate
that taking such steps would fundamentally alter the nature of the
good, service, facility, privilege, advantage, or accommodation
being offered or would result in an undue burden.

The Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer, frustration
and humiliation as the result of the discriminatory conditions
present at the Defendant's website. By continuing to operate its
website with discriminatory conditions, Defendant contributes to
Plaintiff's sense of isolation and segregation and deprives
Plaintiff the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services,
facilities, privileges and/or accommodations available to the
general public. By encountering the discriminatory conditions at
Defendant's website, and knowing that it would be a futile gesture
to attempt to utilize the website unless he is willing to endure
additional discrimination, Plaintiff is deprived of the meaningful
choice of freely visiting and utilizing the same accommodations
readily available to the general public and is deterred and
discouraged from doing so. By maintaining a website with
violations, Defendant deprives plaintiff the equality of
opportunity offered to the general public. The Plaintiff has
suffered and will continue to suffer direct and indirect injury as
a result of the Defendant's discrimination until the Defendant is
compelled to comply with the requirements of the ADA.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Duane Crooks, Esq.
          THOMAS B. BACON, P.A.
          P.O. Box 450973
          Sunrise, FL 33345
          Telephone: (305) 761 2146
          E-mail: crookslawfirm@gmail.com


QUEST PHARMACEUTICALS: SSD Sues Over Unsolicited Fax Messages
-------------------------------------------------------------
SSD LLC, a Mississippi limited liability company v. QUEST
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., a Kentucky corporation, Case No.
3:18-cv-00202-DMB-RP (N.D. Miss., September 19, 2018), alleges that
the Defendant violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of
1991 by sending unsolicited facsimiles to the Plaintiff and
similarly situated putative class members.

Quest is a corporation organized and validly existing under the
laws of Kentucky, and is located in Murray, Kentucky.  Quest is a
generic drug distributor selling products within Mississippi.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          L.N. Chandler Rogers, Esq.
          ROGERS LAW GROUP
          201 E Bankhead Street
          New Albany, MS 38652
          Telephone: (662) 538-5990
          Facsimile: (662) 538-5997
          E-mail: chandler@rogerslawgroup.com

               - and -

          Winston B. Collier, Esq.
          THE COLLIER FIRM
          2090 Old Taylor Road
          Oxford, MS 38655
          Telephone: (870) 347-2100
          Facsimile: (870) 347-1164
          E-mail: winston@thecollierfirm.com


RALEYS: Faces Hughes Suit in Sacramento California
--------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action lawsuit has been filed against
Raleys. The case is captioned as KAREN HUGHES, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RALEYS, and
DOES 1-50, Defendants, Case No. 34-2018-00239655-CU-OE-GDS (Cal.
Super., Sacramento Cty., Aug. 28, 2018).

Raley's operates a retail chain of supermarkets. The Company offers
dry foods, fruits, vegetables, seafood, deli, bakery, meats,
beverages, and pharmacy and health products. Raley's serves
customers in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by Larry W Lee, Esq.


REAL VALUE:  SSD Files TCPA Suit in Mississippi
-----------------------------------------------
SSD, LLC, a Mississippi limited liability company v. REAL VALUE,
INC., a Texas corporation, Case No. 3:18-cv-00201-MPM-JMV (N.D.
Miss., September 19, 2018), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff
and all others similarly situated seeking damages and injunctive
relief pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991,
as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005.

Real Value is a public company that distributes prescription drugs
throughout the U.S. in 47 states, including Mississippi.  Real
Value has its principal place of business in San Antonio, Texas, is
organized under the laws of the state of Texas, and is a resident
of the state of Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          L.N. Chandler Rogers, Esq.
          ROGERS LAW GROUP
          201 E Bankhead Street
          New Albany, MS 38652
          Telephone: (662) 538-5990
          Facsimile: (662) 538-5997
          E-mail: chandler@rogerslawgroup.com

               - and -

          Winston B. Collier, Esq.
          THE COLLIER FIRM
          2090 Old Taylor Road
          Oxford, MS 38655
          Telephone: (870) 347-2100
          Facsimile: (870) 347-1164
          E-mail: winston@thecollierfirm.com


REALPAGE INC: Faces FCRA Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------
Jenie Mallari-Torres, writing for Penn Record, reports that tenants
have filed a class action lawsuit against RealPage Inc., doing
business as On-Site, a consumer reporting agency, alleging a
violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Patricia McIntyre filed a complaint on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated on Sept. 12, in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, against RealPage Inc.,
alleging that the consumer reporting agency breached its duty of
good faith and fair dealings.

The plaintiffs allege that she and other individuals seeking to
lease a property have suffered injuries to their credit reputation,
and were forced to live in expensive extended-stay housing, because
of the inaccurate and outdated tenant screening report submitted by
the defendant about plaintiff and the class.

The plaintiffs hold RealPage Inc. responsible, because the
defendant allegedly failed to follow procedures to assure the
maximum possible accuracy of the information contained in the
consumer report and failed to provide all of the information it
maintains about consumers upon request.

The plaintiffs request a trial by jury and seek judgment against
defendant, certify class action, actual, statutory, and punitive
damages, costs, attorney's fees, and further relief as may be just
and proper.

They are represented by James A. Francis, Esq. --
jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com -- John Soumilas Esq. --
jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com -- and Lauren KW Brennan, Esq. --
lbrennan@consumerlawfirm.com -- of Francis & Mailman PC in
Philadelphia.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Case
number 18-cv-03934[GN]


RECOVERY CONNECTIONS: Presson Files FLSA Suit in North Carolina
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Recovery Connections
Community under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The case is styled as
Andrew Presson, Kimberly Myris on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Recovery Connections
Community, Journey to Recovery LLC, Jennifer A. Warren, Phillip J.
Warren, 3M & N, Inc., Western North Carolina Lions, Inc.,
Integrity-Hominy Valley, LLC, Integrity-Candler 02, LLC,
Integrity-Candler Living Center, LLC, Integrity-Candler 01, LLC,
Integrity Senior Properties Investments, LLC, Cedarbrook
Residential Center, Inc., The Autumn Group, Inc., Defendants, Case
No. 5:18-cv-00466 (E.D. N.C., Sept. 27, 2018).

The Defendants are assisted living facilities. Recovery Connections
Community is a recovery support service provider that offers
various levels of opportunity to persons with substance use
disorders and process addictions. Journey To Recovery, LLC is a
drug rehab facility in Lake Worth, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.


RESEARCH TRIANGLE: Souders Files Suit for Invasion of Privacy
-------------------------------------------------------------
KRISTYNA SOUDERS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. RESEARCH TRIANGLE INSTITUTE; and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:18-cv-08129-JFW-JEM (C.D. Cal.,
September 19, 2018), accuses the Defendants of negligently
contacting the Plaintiff on her cellular telephone in violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby causing her to incur
unwanted and unnecessary charges and invading her privacy.

Research Triangle Institute is a research company.  The true names
and capacities of the Doe Defendants are currently unknown to the
Plaintiff.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RIPPLE LABS: General Counsel Quits Amid Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------------
Nathan Rodriguez, writing for Chainbits, reports that in the latest
cryptocurrency news, the general counsel of Ripple, Brynly Llyr,
has decided to leave the blockchain payments startup. A
spokesperson confirmed the news on Sept. 7, though her departure
was already in the rumor mill.

A 'Mutual Decision'

Llyr first joined the firm in 2016 as a top legal officer. Since
then, she has played a vital role for two and a half years.
Although no reason was given for her untimely departure, a
spokesperson of Ripple suggested that the stepping out was a
"mutual decision" between her and the startup.

The spokesperson was quoted saying, "We're grateful to all that she
did to help build an incredible team that will continue the work
they've been focused on for the past year and beyond."

It further stated, "We wish Brynly all the best in her next
endeavor and the team here at Ripple looks forward to the next
chapter where we will continue to pave the way in this
ever-evolving and unchartered industry."

Before joining the blockchain payments company, Llyr was known for
providing help to fintech companies. She also led litigation teams
and partnered on matters that involve commercial deals (i.e.
acquisitions and mergers) and intellectual property protection.
PayPal and eBay were two of her biggest clients as stated in her
company biography.

Fighting Lawsuits
Apparently, the news comes as Ripple continues to battle various
class-action lawsuits. Most of these reportedly claim that the XRP
token is merely a security distributed directly by the company.

In previous reports, there were a number of investors suing the
company, as they blame Ripple for dropping the price of the digital
currency over the last year. As expected, Ripple tried to counter
the claims and clarified the infamous issue.

In order to defend the aforementioned claims, Ripple included some
legal heavyweights to its side. One of these includes the titular
Mary Jo White, who was the former SEC chair.

Interestingly, the company managed to achieve triumph over a number
of procedural victories, with one district court-level case said to
be voluntarily dismissed. There were also two superior lower
court-level cases being consolidated.

The only catch, however, is that the company has yet to acquire
either a hearing or trial on the underlying claims for any of the
ongoing suits. It is interesting to see just how much impact these
will bring to the startup. [GN]


ROCKET PHARMACEUTICALS: Appeal in Whitehead Class Suit Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rocket Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 14, 2018, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the appeal in the
case entitled, Whitehead v. Inotek Pharmaceuticals Corporation, et
al., is ongoing.

On January 6, 2017, a purported stockholder of Inotek filed a
putative class action in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Massachusetts, captioned Whitehead v. Inotek Pharmaceuticals
Corporation, et al., No. 1:17-cv-10025. An amended complaint was
filed on July 10, 2017, and a second amended complaint was filed on
September 5, 2017.

The second amended complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5
against the Company, David Southwell, and Rudolf Baumgartner based
on allegedly false and misleading statements and omissions
regarding Inotek's phase 2 and phase 3 clinical trials of
trabodenoson. The lawsuit seeks, among other things, unspecified
compensatory damages for purchasers of Inotek's common stock
between July 23, 2015 and July 10, 2017, as well as interest and
attorneys' fees and costs. The second amended complaint was
dismissed with prejudice on June 27, 2018, and the plaintiffs filed
a notice of appeal on July 27, 2018.  

Rocket Pharmaceuticals said, "The Company continues to vigorously
defend itself against this claim."

Rocket Pharmaceuticals, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
operates as a multi-platform biotechnology company that focuses on
developing gene therapies for rare and devastating pediatric
diseases. Rocket Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is headquartered in New
York, New York.


ROYAL SWEET: Hernandez Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
LUIS-RODRIGUEZ-HERNANDEZ, Individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. MIKHAIL YUSIM Individually
and ROYAL SWEET BAKERY, INC., the Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-05243 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 18, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid
minimum wages and related damages for unpaid overtime hours worked
under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other FLSA Collective
Plaintiffs are and have been similarly situated, have had
substantially similar job requirements and pay provisions, and are
and have been subjected to Defendants' decision, policy, plan and
common policies, programs, practices, procedures, protocols,
routines, and rules willfully failing and refusing to pay them one
and one half times their regular rate for work in excess of 40
hours per workweek.

Royal Sweet Bakery, Inc. was founded in 1997. The company's line of
business includes the manufacturing of fresh or frozen bread and
bread-type rolls, cakes, pies, and other perishable bakery
products.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and proposed FLSA collective Plaintiffs:

          Darren P.B. Rumack, Esq.
          THE KLEIN LAW GROUP
          39 Broadway Suite 1530
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 344 9022
          Facsimile: (212) 344 0301


RP AUTOMOTIVE: Cortez Seeks OT & Minimum Wage under Labor Code
--------------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS CORTEZ, in a Representative Capacity, and on behalf of other
members of the general public similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
RP AUTOMOTIVE, INC., a California Corporation; and DOES 1-10,
inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. 37-2018-00046786-CU-OE-CTL (Cal.
Super. Ct., Sept. 11, 2018), seeks to recover overtime and minimum
wage under the California Labor Code.

The Defendant failed to pay the members of the Representative
action all compensation due, including overtime compensation, in
violation of, among other statutes, Labor Code sections 510 and
1197. This failure was caused by several separate uniform practices
of RP. For example, RP employed a standard practice of failing to
accurately record, and pay for, all time the employees spent under
RP's control, and providing a simple "draw" for a bi-weekly
pay-period, as well as inaccurately providing commission payments
within a separate pay-period, wherein the "draw' was deducted from
the employees' pay. As a second example, RP had several policies
and practices which required employees to work in excess of 8
hours, without overtime compensation, where the employees had not
yet sold an automobile. As a third example, Plaintiff would work --
and RP would acknowledge the work -- without receiving the proper
Minimum Wage. As a specific example, for the "Pay Date" of 1/08/18,
RP acknowledged that Plaintiff worked a total of "75.72" hours of
"Regular" time (which Plaintiff is informed and believes means in
excess of 75 hours) for the operative pay period. However, the
Plaintiff received a total of only $771.16 for this pay period.
Given the controlling Minimum Wage at this time, RP violated
California's Minimum Wage laws by failing to provide the minimum
amount owing.

RP Automotive, Inc. was founded in 2008. The company's line of
business includes general automotive repair.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William B. Sullivan, Esq.
          Eric K. Yaeckel, Esq.
          Andrea J. Torres-Figueroa, Esq.
          2330 Third Avenue
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 702 6760
          Facsimile: (619) 702 6761
          E-mail: helen@sullivanlawgroupapc.com.
                  yaeckel@sullivanlawgroupapc.com
                  andrea@sullivanlawgroupapc.com


SAFE STREETS: Can Compel Arbitration in Anderson FLSA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARK ANDERSON, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SAFE STREETS USA LLC and Does 1
through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-00323-KJM
(E.D. Cal.), Judge Kimberly J. Mueller of the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of California granted Safe Streets' motion
to compel arbitration of most claims and stay all further
proceedings.

Anderson asserts began working for Safe Streets in October 2014.
Safe Streets asserts it hired Anderson on Aug. 19, 2015, but he
postponed his start date to Oct. 19, 2015.  On his hiring date of
Aug.19, 2015, he signed several documents on that date as part of
the hiring process; his electronic signature appears on the
documents next to a date and time stamp.  One of these documents,
titled "Retention Bonus," contained an "Agreement to Arbitrate."
The arbitration clause is underlined and clearly visible on the
first page of the Retention Bonus document.

Anderson filed the putative class action against Safe Streets on
Feb. 12, 2018.  He alleged claims under the Fair Labor Standards
Act, various sections of the California Labor Code, and the
California Business & Professions Code.  One of Anderson's
California Labor Code claims is a Private Attorneys General Act
("PAGA") claim to recover civil penalties.

On March 9, 2018, Safe Streets moved to compel arbitration,
asserting Anderson signed a valid and enforceable arbitration
agreement when he started with Safe Streets.  Safe Streets contends
all claims except for Anderson's PAGA claim fall under the "Covered
Claims" section of the arbitration agreement.  It asks the Court to
stay all further proceedings, including Anderson's PAGA claim,
until arbitration resolves his other claims.

Anderson opposes Safe Streets' motion to compel arbitration for
several reasons.  First, he asserts he does not recall seeing or
signing the Retention Bonus agreement.  Second, he argues that even
if the agreement is valid, it is unconscionable and may not be
enforced.  Third, he claims that the class action waiver clause in
the agreement violates the National Labor Relations Act.  Fourth,
Anderson contends the arbitration agreement's statement that it
will be governed by the FAA and the law of the State of North
Carolina to the extent New Jersey law is not inconsistent with the
FAA renders the entire agreement potentially unenforceable.  Fifth,
he argues the Court should not stay his PAGA claims even if other
claims go to arbitration.

Judge Mueller finds that Safe Streets has provided sufficient
evidence to meet its burden to show Anderson signed the arbitration
agreement.  Because Anderson does not dispute that the agreement
covers his claims, the Judge Anderson's argument that the agreement
is unconscionable.

She finds that the agreement's choice-of-law provision is not so
ambiguous to preclude enforcement of the Retention Bonus agreement
in full.  Nor does she finds this provision overly harsh, "unduly
oppressive, unreasonably favorable or that it shocks the
conscience.  Because she does not find the agreement substantively
unconscionable on the grounds Anderson asserts and the degree of
procedural unconscionability is low, the Judge finds the agreement
enforceable.

Anderson's PAGA claim is derivative of his substantive claims.  His
claims a status as an aggrieved employee that relies on the same
injuries giving rise to his non-PAGA claims, such as his alleged
lack of rest periods, paid earned wages owed, including proper
overtime and double time pay, lack of reimbursement for
work-related expenses, lack of provided signed commission
statements, deductions from his wages and not being provided
accurate wage statements as required by state law.  The Judge
therefore stays Anderson's PAGA claim until arbitration is
completed.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Mueller granted Safe Streets'
motion to compel arbitration and stayed all further proceedings
until the parties notify the court that arbitration is complete.
She ordered the parties to notify the Court within seven days and
to submit a Joint Status Report within 30 days after arbitration is
complete explaining the parties' positions on scheduling of the
balance of the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 28, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/QQnoha from Leagle.com.

Mark Anderson, Plaintiff, represented by Rachel Elizabeth Davey --
rachel@workmanlawpc.com -- Workman Law Firm PC & Robin G. Workman
-- robin@workmanlawpc.com -- Workman Law Firm, PC.

Safe Streets USA, LLC, Defendant, represented by Christina Theresa
Tellado -- christina.tellado@hklaw.com -- Holland and Knight LLP,
Deisy Castro -- Deisy.Castro@hklaw.com -- Reed Smith LLP & Thomas
E. Hill, Reed Smith LLP.


SAFRAN TURNEY: Faces Smith-Centz Suit Over Tip Sharing Policy
-------------------------------------------------------------
SARAH SMITH-CENTZ, on behalf of herself and similarly situated
employees v. SAFRAN TURNEY HOSPITALITY; RESTAURANT 13, INC.;
GROCERY 13, INC.; LOCUST13, INC.; and LOLITA RESTAURANT, INC., Case
No. 2:18-cv-04055-TJS (E.D. Pa., September 19, 2018), arises from
the Defendants' alleged tip sharing policy that violated the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act of 1968 and
the Philadelphia Gratuity Protection Bill.

Safran Turney Hospitality is a business entity maintaining a
principal place of business in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.  Safran
is owned and operated by Valarie Safran and Marcie Turney.

Restaurant 13, Inc., is a Pennsylvania corporation maintaining a
principal place of business in Philadelphia.  Restaurant 13
operates a restaurant called "Barbuzzo" located at 110 South 13th
Street in Philadelphia.  Restaurant 13 is a wholly owned subsidiary
of Safran.

Grocery 13, Inc., is a Pennsylvania corporation maintaining a
principal place of business in Philadelphia.  Grocery 13 operates a
restaurant called "Jamonera" located at 101 South 13th Street in
Philadelphia.  Grocery 13 is a wholly owned subsidiary of Safran.

Locust13, Inc., is a Pennsylvania corporation maintaining a
principal place of business in Philadelphia.  Locust13 operates two
restaurants named "Little Nonna's" and "Bud & Marilyn's" that are
both located at 1234 Locust Street in Philadelphia.  Locust13 is a
wholly owned subsidiary of Safran.

Lolita Restaurant, Inc., is a Pennsylvania corporation maintaining
a principal place of business in Philadelphia.  Lolita Restaurant
operates a restaurant called "Lolita" located at 106 South 13th
Street in Philadelphia.  Lolita Restaurant is a wholly owned
subsidiary of Safran.

The restaurants "Barbuzzo" "Jamonera" "Little Nonna's" "Bud &
Marilyn's" and "Lolita" are each part of the "We Heart 13th Street"
restaurant group and are owned, operated, and overseen by Safran
Turney Hospitality.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter Winebrake, Esq.
          R. Andrew Santillo, Esq.
          Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq.
          WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
          715 Twining Road, Suite 211
          Dresher, PA 19025
          Telephone: (215) 884-2491
          E-mail: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com
                  asantillo@winebrakelaw.com
                  mgottesfeld@winebrakelaw.com


SAKS AND COMPANY: Rudolph Suit Moved to S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Alexandria Rudolph, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Saks and Company LLC, doing business as: Saks Off 5th, a Delaware
limited liability company, the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-05107,
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York (Foley Square) on Sep. 18, 2018. The New York
Southern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-08472-PKC
to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge P. Kevin
Castel.

Saks & Company LLC owns and operates stores that sell apparel,
shoes and bags for men and women.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin Heikali, Esq.
          Joshua Nassir, Esq.
          FARUQI AND FARUQI LLP
          10866 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1470
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (424) 256 2884
          Facsimile: (424) 256 2885
          E-mail: bheikali@faruqilaw.com
                  jnassir@faruqilaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Joseph Duffy, Esq.
          Nicolette Leilani Young, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS AND BOCKIUS LLP
          300 South Grand Avenue 22nd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 612 2500
          Facsimile: (213) 612 2501
          E-mail: joseph.duffy@morganlewis.com
                  nicolette.young@morganlewis.com


SCRIPPS HEALTH: Underpays Supply Technicians, Angcaya Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
PAUL ANGCAYA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SCRIPPS HEALTH; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 37-2018-00042688-CU-OE-CTL (Cal.
Super., San Diego Cty., Aug. 23, 2018) is an action against the
Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages,
wages for missed meal and rest periods.

Mr. Angcaya was employed by the Defendants as supply technician
from May 4, 2015 to December 6, 2017.

Scripps Health operates as a non-profit, community-based health
care network. The Hospital provides audiology, behavioral health,
cardiology, cosmetic surgery, critical care, elbow surgery, foot
care, hand therapy, heart failure treatment, x-rays, and other
medical services. Scripps serves the patients and communities of
San Diego, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alexander I. Dychter, Esq.
          S. Adam Spiewak, Esq.
          DYCHTER LAW OFFICES, APC
          1010 Second Ave., Suite 1835
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 487-0777
          Facsimile: (619) 330-1827
          E-mail: alex@dychterlaw.com
                  adam@dychterlaw.com


SENTRY CREDIT: Certification of Class Sought in Bencomo Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Modesta Luna Bencomo moves the Court to certify the class described
in the complaint of the lawsuit styled MODESTA LUNA BENCOMO,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
SENTRY CREDIT INC., Case No. 2:18-cv-01475 (E.D. Wisc.), and
further asks that the Court both stay the motion for class
certification and to grant the Plaintiff (and the Defendant) relief
from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules and
requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the
Motion.

Dicta in the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v.
Gomez, left open the possibility that a defendant facing a class
action complaint could moot a class representative's case by
depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of the
plaintiff's individual claim with the court and having the court
enter judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to the filing of a
class certification motion, the Plaintiff asserts, citing
Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016).

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with
the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the
certification motion.  Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891,
896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First
Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of
that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class
from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs.").

While the Seventh Circuit has held that the specific procedure
described in Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual settlement
of a class representative's claims, the same decision cautions that
other methods may prevent a plaintiff from representing a class,
the Plaintiff tells the Court, citing Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco,
Inc., No. 16-3574, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10839 *9-10 (7th Cir. June
20, 2017).  The Plaintiff asserts that one defendant has attempted
a similar tactic by sending a certified check to the proposed class
representative. Bonin v. CBS Radio, Inc., No. 16-cv-674-CNC (E.D.
Wis.); see also Severns v. Eastern Account Systems of Connecticut,
Inc., Case No. 15-cv-1168, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23164 (E.D. Wis.
Feb. 24, 2016).

The Plaintiff is obligated to move for class certification to
protect the interests of the putative class, the Plaintiff
contends.

As the Motion is a placeholder motion as described in Damasco, the
parties and the Court should not be burdened with unnecessary
paperwork and the resulting expense when short motion to certify
and stay should suffice until an amended motion is filed, the
Plaintiff asserts.

The Plaintiff also asks to be appointed as class representative,
and for the appointment of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, as class
counsel.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
          Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482-8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
          E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com
                  jfruchter@ademilaw.com
                  bslatky@ademilaw.com


SERVICE EMPLOYEES: Conn. Gov't Workers Sue Over Coercive Unionism
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bill McMorris, writing for The Washington Free Beacon, reports that
government workers in Connecticut have filed a class-action suit to
recover their wages in the wake of the Supreme Court's ruling
against coercive unionism.

Employees with the Connecticut Department of Energy and
Environmental Protection are suing the state chapter of Service
Employees International Union, Local 2001, to win back dues and
agency fees the state required them to pay as a condition of
employment. The suit comes just months after the Supreme Court
declared forced-dues schemes in the public sector an
unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment. It alleges the
department and union have made no effort to reimburse workers for
mandatory payments.

"Local 2001 and the State Defendants acting under color of state
law to force employees to join a union or pay a fee as a condition
of continued employment have violated Plaintiffs' rights," the suit
says. "Defendants, acting in concert with one another, have
deprived, and continue to deprive, Plaintiffs and class members' of
their constitutional rights."

In June, the Supreme Court ruled in Janus v. American Federation of
State, County, and Municipal Employees that government agencies
could no longer require workers to pay union fees or dues as a
condition of employment, overturning the long-standing precedent
set forth in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education (1977). The ruling
has caused panic in the labor movement as the four largest
public-sector unions, including SEIU, face the loss of 400,000
agency fee payers who provide partial dues meant to cover the cost
of representational activities, such as collective bargaining and
grievance proceedings, while withholding financial support for
political activities and lobbying. The loss of those partial
payments could cost labor organizations hundreds of millions of
dollars.

SEIU Local 2001 represents about 21,000 workers and collects more
than $6 million in revenue each year charging dues that range
between $300 and $884 per year, according to its 2017 federal labor
filings. The union had only 682 agency fee payers that year. The
department ceased automatic deductions for dissenters in July
following the Janus ruling, but the union continues to demand
payments from them, according to the suit. The workers, who are
represented by the National Right to Work Legal Defense
Foundation—the same lawyers who argued Janus before the Supreme
Court—argue that deductions should have ceased years earlier
since the Supreme Court questioned the constitutionality of
compulsory union fees in the 2012 Knox case. The suit also seeks a
pledge from the union that it will not seek to include mandatory
payments in future contract negotiations with the state.

"Local 2001 has been on notice since at least the Supreme Court's
decision in Knox in 2012 that agency fees violated the First and
Fourteenth Amendment as the Court explained in Janus," the suit
says. It further asks the Court to expressly prohibit "the State
Defendants from requiring, requesting, collecting, receiving, or in
any other way possessing or obtaining union fees from Plaintiffs
and the class at all."

The union vowed to fight the suit, calling it "malevolently
motivated" and "completely without merit." Local 2001 said it
abided by all relevant federal laws in collecting dues and that it
was within its right to accept agency fees after the Supreme Court
affirmed mandatory payments in the Abood case. Union executive
director David Glidden said it has complied fully with the new
Janus standard.

"The lawsuit, in addition to being malevolently motivated, is
completely without merit, and we shall vigorously defend against
it. CSEA has complied fully with the Janus decision since it was
issued," he said in a statement. "Prior to that, we collected fair
share fees in accordance with 35 years of Supreme Court precedent
for the purposes of negotiating and administering contracts, and
therefore we are confident that we will prevail in this matter."

A department spokesman referred the Washington Free Beacon to a
spokesman for Democratic governor Dannel Malloy. The governor's
office did not respond to requests for comment. [GN]


SHIMADZU PRECISION: Gunn Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
------------------------------------------------------------
GEORGE GUNN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. SHIMADZU PRECISION INSTRUMENTS, INC., a
California corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the
Defendant, Case No. BC719424 (Cal. Super. Ct., Aug. 31, 2018),
alleges failed to pay minimum wages and overtime wages under the
California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have policies and
practices of not paying Plaintiff and class members all wages
earned and due, through methods and schemes which include, but are
not limited to, failing to provide meal periods; failing to
authorize and permit rest breaks; failing to pay minimum and
overtime wages; failing to provide accurate itemized statements;
failing to maintain required records; and failing to compensate
Plaintiff and class members for necessary expenditures, in
violation of the California Labor Code and the applicable
Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order.

Shimadzu Precision assembles, repairs, and supplies OEM aircraft
equipment spare parts, components, and assemblies to commercial
airlines. The company also offers repair/overhaul and
non-destructive testing services for aircraft equipment.[BN]

Attorneys for George Gunn, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated:

          Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
          Launa Adolph, Esq.
          Deanna S. Leifer, Esq.
          MATERN LAW GROUP
          1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
          Telephone: (310) 531 1900
          Facsimile: (310) 531 1901


SIGNATURE CLEANING: Sanchez Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------
RODNEY J. SANCHEZ, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiff
and the Class, the Plaintiff, vs SIGNATURE CLEANING SERVICES, INC.,
and ANDREW WEISBACH, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-08483
(S.D.N.Y., Sept. 18, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages,
including unpaid overtime, due to time-shaving, unpaid wages,
statutory penalties, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and
costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other FLSA Collective
Plaintiffs are and have been similarly situated, have had
substantially similar job requirements and pay provisions, and are
and have been subjected to Defendants' decision, policy, plan and
common policies, programs, practices, procedures, protocols,
routines, and rules willfully failing and refusing to pay them one
and one half times their regular rate for work in excess of 40
hours per workweek.

Defendants operate a commercial cleaning company, offering cleaning
and maintenance services to different businesses, under the
tradename "Signature Cleaning Services Inc."[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          Anne Seelig, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 465 1188
          Facsimile: (212) 465 1181


SILVER TREE: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Pay, Fefel Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
LORRAINE FEFEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated Plaintiff v. SILVER TREE RESIDENTIAL, LLC, and TICE
VIEIRA, Defendants, Case No. 0:18-cv-62065-BB (S.D. Fla., Aug. 31,
2018) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay the
Plaintiff and overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of
40 hours per week.

The Plaintiff Fefel was employed by the Defendants as non-exempt,
hourly employee.

is the sole management company for the communities owned by Mr. Mr.
Carmichael as well as those owned by Housing Preservation, Inc. The
Company offers property management service for senior and family
apartment homes. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jordan Richards, Esq.
          JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC
          401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 871-0050
          E-mail: Jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com
                  Livia@jordanrichardspllc.com
                  Jake@jordanrichardspllc.com
                  Melissa@jordanrichardspllc.com


SINGAPORE: Veteran Diplomat Calls for Class Action v. Sec. 377
--------------------------------------------------------------
YAHOO! News reports that India's Supreme Court recently partially
struck down Section 377 of the Penal Code, a colonial-era law that
criminalised gay sex.

The five-judge bench held that Section 377 is irrational,
indefensible and manifestly arbitrary, and hence,
unconstitutional.

Soon after that landmark ruling, a prominent veteran Singapore
diplomat, Tommy Koh, called on the LGBT community in Singapore to
"bring a class action to challenge the constitutionality of Section
377A", which is the particular section of the Singapore law
outlawing sex acts between men.

This prompted a response from Minister for Law and Home Affairs, K
Shanmugam, who said it was a matter for Parliament to decide. He
added that in policies such as these, public opinion is often
relevant. [GN]


SIRIUS XM RADIO: Alvarez Sues over Radio Lifetime Subscriptions
---------------------------------------------------------------
PHILIPP ALVAREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SIRIUS XM RADIO, INC., Defendants, Case No.
BC719411 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Aug. 28, 2018) seeks
declaratory and injunctive relief from the Defendant to honor its
lifetime subscriptions without encumbrances.

According to the complaint, the Defendant owns various digital
radio stations that transmit programming via satellite. In an
effort to gain subscribers and substantially increase revenue --
especially at the outset of its operations -- the Defendant offered
and sold lifetime subscriptions to consumers.  Purchasers of the
lifetime subscriptions took a chance and paid large upfront
lifetime subscription fees to the Defendant with no guarantee that
the Defendant would survive as an ongoing business, but in the hope
that if the Defendant did survive, their lifetime subscription
purchases would pay off over time.  The Defendant is now failing to
honor the lifetime subscriptions it sold to consumers, thereby
harming those consumers who purchased the lifetime subscriptions.

Sirius XM Radio Inc. provides radio broadcasting services in the
United States and Canada. The company was incorporated in 1990 and
is based in New York, New York.  Sirius XM Radio Inc. operates as a
subsidiary of Sirius XM Holdings Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tina Wolfson, Esq.
          Bradley K. King, Esq.
          AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
          10728 Lindbrook Drive
          Los Angeles. CA 90024
          Telephone: (310) 474-9111
          Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
          E-mail: twolfson@ahaootwolfson.com
                  bking@ahdootwolfson.com


SLIDE FIRE: Court Dismisses Festival Shooting Negligence Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Nevada issued
an Order granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case captioned
DEVON PRESCOTT, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SLIDE FIRE SOLUTIONS, LP,
Defendant. Case No. 2:18-cv-00296-GMN-GWF. (D. Nev.).

This case arises from the tragic mass shooting that occurred at the
Route 91 Harvest Music Festival (Festival), in Las Vegas, Nevada.
Plaintiffs were attendees of the Festival on that evening when
Stephen Paddock (Paddock) opened fire on the concert goers from the
thirty-second floor of his hotel room at the Mandalay Bay. Slide
Fire is the designer, manufacturer, marketer, and seller of bump
stocks, and holds itself out as the sole patent holder of bump fire
technology.

The Plaintiffs filed their class action bringing the following
causes of action against Slide Fire: (1) negligence (2) negligent
infliction of emotional distress under a theory of bystander
liability (3) negligent infliction of emotional distress under a
theory of direct liability (4) negligent products liability (5)
strict products liability and (6) public nuisance.

Here, Slide Fire is a limited partnership with its principal place
of business in Texas, and each partner of Slide Fire is a Texas
citizen. Plaintiffs' argument is premised upon Slide Fire's
marketing, soliciting, and/or otherwise advertising its products
for sale in Nevada, as well as Slide Fire's online activity, from
which it has generated millions of dollars in revenue from its
sales of bump stocks with Nevadans, and Paddock in particular,
contributing a portion of that financial support. These asserted
contacts, however, are insufficient to establish that Slide Fire is
essentially at home in Nevada. It is axiomatic that a business'
advertising and sales directed towards consumers in a given forum
cannot alone support general jurisdiction.

Moreover, operation of an interactive website even a highly
interactive website does not confer general jurisdiction.

The Court, accordingly, finds these alleged contacts do not support
general jurisdiction over Slide Fire.

The Plaintiffs' allegations concerning the nature of Slide Fire's
website suggests that it falls somewhere in the middle of the
sliding scale, albeit towards the interactive side. Plaintiffs
allege Slide Fire's website sells, markets, solicits, or otherwise
advertises its products for sale to Nevada residents, and contains
a locate a dealer function which enables Nevadans to identify local
retailers who sell Slide Fire's products. These assertions indicate
that Slide Fire's website is commercial in nature but perhaps falls
short of continuously and deliberately exploit[ing]' the Nevada
market. The Court need not determine whether this, standing alone,
is sufficient because Slide Fire's other asserted contacts with
Nevada in conjunction with its website establish purposeful
availment.

The Plaintiffs also point to Slide Fire's attendance and
participation at two firearm trade shows in Las Vegas where it
promoted, marketed, and sold its bump fire products to vendors,
buyers and resellers in Nevada. The Ninth Circuit has held, that a
non-resident defendant's act of soliciting business in the forum
state will generally be considered purposeful availment if that
solicitation results in contract negotiations or the transaction of
business.

Relatedness of Contacts with the Forum

Slide Fire argues that its attendance at the trade shows cannot
establish relatedness because there is no allegation that Mr.
Paddock attended this trade show, or that any of Slide Fire's
products allegedly used during the incident were sold at the show.
Therefore, according to Slide Fire, Plaintiffs cannot establish
that its claims arise out of Slide Fire's contacts with Nevada.  

The Court disagrees.

Plaintiffs' allegations in support of its six causes of action are
not as narrow as Slide Fire suggests. The first three claims
incorporate allegations that Slide fire failed to adequately and
properly market, sell, advertise, and promote the bump stock as a
device to help individuals with limited mobility and negligently
marketed, promoted, and sold the bumps stocks as an inexpensive
device to circumvent federal law. The fourth cause of action
contains allegations that Slide Fire failed to exercise the proper
standard of care in its manufacture, design, sales, and
distribution to ensure it was safe for its intended and reasonably
foreseeable use. The fifth cause of action provides that Slide Fire
knew and/or should have known that by marketing, promoting,
distributing, selling and/or advertising its defense product as one
to circumvent federal law, it was foreseeable that individuals use
such a device not for its intended purpose. The sixth cause of
action states that Slide Fire's negligent, reckless, or intentional
manufacture, sale, or marketing ensured a steady flow of dangerous
products in large quantities to persons with criminal purposes.

In summary, at the root of each cause of action is the manner in
which Slide Fire manufactured, promoted, distributed, or advertised
its bump stocks, and the way in which the same created a
foreseeable risk of the October 1 shooting. Because Plaintiffs
assert that Slide Fire marketed, promoted, distributed, or sold
bump stocks at the trade shows in Las Vegas, through its online
sales, and marketing directed at Nevadans, it follows that Slide
Fire's contacts with Nevada are causally related to Plaintiffs'
claims. The Complaint further ties Slide Fire's promotional
activities to Paddock with the allegation that Slide Fire designed,
manufactured, marketed, distributed, and/or sold one or more of the
bump stocks used by Paddock during the subject incident and that
Slide Fire holds itself out as the sole patent holder of bump fire
technology. Drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of
Plaintiffs, the Court finds that Slide Fire's connections to Nevada
are causally related to Plaintiffs' causes of action.

Reasonableness

Slide Fire fails to advance any argument on this prong of the
personal jurisdiction analysis. Even if Slide Fire were to dispute
this point, the Court would nonetheless find that jurisdiction is
reasonable given Plaintiffs' and Nevada's robust interests in
adjudicating the instant case in this forum. Moreover, Plaintiffs'
uncontroverted allegation that Slide Fire recently attended trade
shows in Las Vegas indicates that travel itself is not unduly
burdensome. Therefore, the Court concludes that its exercise of
jurisdiction over Slide Fire is reasonable.

In light of the foregoing, the Court finds that it has personal
jurisdiction over Slide Fire. Accordingly, Slide Fire's Motion to
Dismiss, to the extent it is premised upon personal jurisdiction,
is denied. Next, the Court turns to Slide Fire's argument that the
Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) requires
dismissal of Plaintiffs' Complaint.

Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act

Congress enacted the PLCAA upon finding that manufacturers and
sellers of firearms are not, and should not, be liable for the harm
caused by those who criminally or unlawfully misuse firearm
products  that function as designed and intended.

Whether Bump Stocks are Qualified Products under the PLCAA

The PLCAA defines a qualified product as a firearm or a component
part of a firearm or ammunition.

Here, the word component is defined as a constituent part and
constituent means an essential part or serving to form, compose, or
make up a unit or whole. Part means one of the often indefinite or
unequal subdivisions into which something is or is regarded as
divided and which together constitute the whole or an essential
portion or integral element. An accessory, in contrast, is a thing
of secondary or subordinate importance or an object or device that
is not essential in itself but adding to the beauty, convenience,
or effectiveness of something else.
Slide Fire argues that bump stocks are component parts of firearms
because they are a type of rifle stock and rifle stocks are
necessary for a rifle to be fired from the shoulder.

In support, Slide Fire cites to a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms and Explosives (ATF) Guidebook (ATF Guidebook) which
identifies a stock as a component part of a rifle; a June 10, 2010
letter from the ATF to Slide Fire classifying the bump stock as a
firearm part (ATF Letter); and case law in which courts label
stocks as component parts of firearms. Plaintiffs counter that bump
stocks are accessories rather than component parts because they are
added after a consumer purchases a fully functional rifle, require
post-purchase installation, and are advertised as a way to enhance
or overhaul a rifle in Slide Fire's promotional catalog (Slide Fire
Catalog). Plaintiffs also cite to cases in which courts have held
that devices such as cable locks, sights, and compensators are
accessories rather than component parts of firearms, as well as
federal tax regulations that Plaintiffs suggest define accessories
to encompass bump stocks.  

The Court finds that bump stocks are component parts of firearms
and are, accordingly, qualified products under the PLCAA.

The PLCAA's Predicate Exception

Plaintiffs assert that the PLCAA's third exception, Section
7903(5)(A)(iii), applies to the instant suit. Under that exception,
the PLCAA does not pre-empt.

an action in which a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product
knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the
sale or marketing of the product, and the violation was a proximate
cause of the harm for which relief is sought.

Here, Plaintiffs argue in favor of two predicate statutory
violations: (1) Slide Fire's alleged false entry on its application
for a federal firearms license (FFL); and (2) Slide Fire's
misrepresentations to the ATF about bump stocks being intended for
persons with limited mobility.  

Plaintiffs have not come forward with any authority suggesting that
a device's utility to those with disabilities impacts whether that
device constitutes a firearm or firearm part.

Significantly, if a device's marketability to those with
disabilities was not a factor in the ATF's finding, then it follows
that Plaintiffs cannot show that Slide Fire's misrepresentation
proximately caused the injuries that are the subject of this case.
Therefore, at this juncture, the Court is not satisfied that Slide
Fire's alleged misrepresentation to the ATF gives rise to a
predicate statutory violation under the PLCAA.

Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that the PLCAA does not
shield Slide Fire from liability. Moreover, Plaintiffs have not
pointed to a statutory violation that would permit the Court to
find that an exception to the PLCAA applies. The Court, therefore,
grants Slide Fire's Motion to Dismiss without prejudice.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 17, 2018 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y9wfwczl from Leagle.com.

Devon Prescott, Brooke Freeman & Tasaneeporn Upright, Plaintiffs,
represented by Aaron D. Ford , Eglet Prince, Erica D. Entsminger ,
Eglet Prince, Jonathan Lowy , pro hac vice, Robert M. Adams , Eglet
Prince & Robert T. Eglet , Eglet Prince.

Slide Fire Solutions, LP, Defendant, represented by Danny C. Lallis
-- dlallis@pmlegalfirm.com -- Pisciotti Malsch, F. Thomas Edwards
-- tedwards@nevadafirm.com -- Holley Driggs Walch Fine Wray Puzey &
Thompson, James D. Boyle -- jboyle@nevadafirm.com -- Holley Driggs
Walch Fine Wray Puzey & Thompson & Jeffrey Martin Malsch --
jmalsch@pmlegalfirm.com -- Pisciotti Malsch PC, pro hac vice.


SNAP INC: Still Faces Securities Class Action over March 2017 IPO
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Snap Inc. continues to defend itself against securities class
actions related to its March 2017 initial public offering,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2018.

The Company said, "In March 2017, we completed our initial public
offering ("IPO") in which we issued and sold 160.3 million shares
of Class A common stock, inclusive of the over-allotment, at an
initial public offering price of US$17.00 per share and excluding
shares sold in the IPO by certain of our existing stockholders.

"Beginning in May 2017, we, certain of our officers and directors,
and the underwriters for our IPO were named as defendants in
securities class actions purportedly brought on behalf of
purchasers of our Class A common stock, alleging violation of
securities laws in connection with our IPO.

"Management believes these lawsuits are without merit and intend to
vigorously defend them.  Based on the preliminary nature of the
proceedings in this case, the outcome of this matter remains
uncertain."

Snap Inc. operates as a camera company in the United States and
internationally.  The Company was formerly known as Snapchat, Inc.
and changed its name to Snap Inc. in September 2016.  Snap Inc. was
founded in 2010 and is headquartered in Venice, California.


SONY MUSIC: Court Partly Affirms Strike Order in Serova Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, VERA SEROVA, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SONY MUSIC
ENTERTAINMENT et al., Defendants and Appellants, Case No. B280526
(Cal. App.), Judge Elwood Lui of the Court of Appeals of California
for the Second District, Division Two, affirmed in part and
reversed in part the superior court's order partially denying their
motion to strike under the anti-SLAPP statute.  

The Defendants and Appellants Sony, John Branca, as co-executor of
the estate of Michael J. Jackson, and MJJ Productions, Inc., appeal
from an order of the superior court partially denying their motion
to strike under the anti-SLAPP statute.  

Plaintiff and Respondent Serova filed the putative class action
against the Appellants and other Defendants for marketing a
posthumous Michael Jackson album entitled simply Michael.  Serova
claims that the album cover and a promotional video misleadingly
represented that Jackson was the lead singer on each of the 10
vocal tracks on the album, when in fact he was not the lead singer
on three of those tracks.

Serova alleged claims under the Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") and
the Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA").  She also brought a
fraud claim against Defendants Edward Joseph Cascio, James Victor
Porte, and Cascio's production company, Angelikson Productions, LLC
("Cascio Defendants"), alleging that those Defendants knowingly
misrepresented to the Appellants that Jackson was the lead singer
on the three tracks at issue.

Then Appellants brought an anti-SLAPP motion, which the trial court
granted in part but denied with respect to the two communications
at issue in this appeal.  The trial court concluded that the album
cover, including statements about the contents of the album, and a
promotional video for the album were commercial speech that was
subject to regulation under the UCL and the CLRA.

Judge Lui reversed this portion of the trial court's order.  He
concludes that the challenged representation -- that Michael
Jackson was the lead singer on the three Disputed Tracks -- did not
simply promote sale of the album, but also stated a position on a
disputed issue of public interest.  Before the album was released,
certain Jackson family members and others publicly claimed that
Jackson was not the lead singer on the Disputed Tracks.  The
Appellants disputed this claim.  An attorney acting for the Estate
released a public statement outlining the steps the Appellants had
taken to verify the authenticity of the tracks by consulting with
experts and persons who were familiar with Jackson's voice and
recordings.

Thus, the identity of the artist on the three Disputed Tracks was a
controversial issue of interest to Michael Jackson fans and others
who care about his musical legacy.  The identity of the lead singer
was also integral to the artistic significance of the songs
themselves.  Under these circumstances, the Appellants' statements
about the identity of the artist were not simply commercial speech
but were subject to full First Amendment protection.  They are
therefore outside the scope of an actionable unfair competition or
consumer protection claim in the case.

As a matter of law, Serova therefore cannot show a likelihood that
she will prevail on her claims under prong two of the anti-SLAPP
procedure, and her claims against the Appellants must be stricken.
The Judge therefore needs not reach the issue of whether the
challenged statements would be misleading to a reasonable
consumer.

The Judge emphasized that this holding is based on the record in
the case and the issues that have been appealed. The Cascio
Defendants have not appealed, and his holding therefore does not
reach any portion of the trial court's order with respect to them.
Nor does he purport to decide whether statements in another context
concerning the marketing of creative works might constitute
commercial speech.

For these reasons, Judge Lui affirmed in part and reversed in part
trial court's order.  The portions of the Complaint alleging claims
against the Appellants are stricken.  In all other respects the
trial court's order is affirmed.  The Appellants are entitled to
their costs on appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 28, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/Lz96od from Leagle.com.

Katten Muchin Rosenman, Zia F. Modabber --
zia.modabber@kattenlaw.com -- Andrew J. Demko , Charlotte S.
Wasserstein --charlotte.wasserstein@kattenlaw.com; Kinsella
Weitzman Iser Kump & Aldisert, Howard Weitzman --
hweitzman@kwikalaw.com -- and Suann C. Macisaac --
smacisaac@kwikalaw.com -- for Defendants and Appellants.

Moss Bollinger, Ari E. Moss and Jeremy F. Bollinger for Plaintiff
and Respondent.


SOUTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY: Judge Denies Ex-Doctor Class-Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dean Olsen, writing for Herald & Review, reports that a federal
judge has turned down "class-action" status for a lawsuit filed in
2015 by a female surgeon alleging systemic wage discrimination
against female doctors at Springfield's Southern Illinois
University School of Medicine.

But the case, initiated by former SIU surgeon Dr. Sajida Ahad and
joined by four other female doctors since then, will proceed after
the ruling by U.S. District Judge Sue Myerscough, according to one
of Ahad's attorneys, J. Bryan Wood, Esq. --
bryan@jbryanwoodlaw.com

"It essentially means Dr. Ahad can't pursue her claims on behalf of
other people," Wood said. "They need to pursue their claims on
their own."

Though SIU officials have denied Ahad's original allegation of wage
discrimination, they didn't respond to The State Journal-Register's
request for comment on Myerscough's Sept. 12 ruling.

In the ruling, Myerscough said Ahad failed to show there was a
"common cause" to produce a "common answer to the questions of
whether and why compensation for female physicians was lower than
compensation for similarly situated male physicians."

Myerscough wrote that Ahad acknowledges the medical school's
compensation plan doesn't explicitly discriminate against women.

Myerscough said Ahad contends the manner in which the compensation
plan is carried out -- by the medical school's dean and other
doctors on a compensation committee -- "resulted in gender
discrimination in the form of lower pay."

But the judge said Ahad, 43, didn't meet the legal threshold to
justify allowing Ahad to represent a female group of current and
former SIU faculty doctors that could number as many as 165 people
employed at the medical school since 2010.

Ahad was employed by SIU and treated patients through SIU Medicine,
a multispecialty group practice of doctors, from 2008 through
2014.

Compared with a conventional lawsuit, a class-action lawsuit could
have put SIU at risk of paying a larger amount of damages --
potentially millions of dollars through a settlement or a favorable
ruling after a bench trial or jury trial.

Wood, who is based in Chicago and working with lawyer Michael
Brown, Esq. -- mbrown@dvglawpartner.com -- of Appleton, Wisconsin,
to represent Ahad, said Myerscough's ruling was disappointing. But
Wood said "it has not weakened our or Dr. Ahad's resolve to pursue
her systemic wage discrimination claim."

Ahad's lawyers have argued that SIU female physicians were being
paid more than $12,200 per year less than male doctors for similar
work.

Joining Ahad in the case -- separate from the proposed class-action
proceeding -- are two former SIU doctors, Christina Vassileva, a
heart surgeon, and Erica Rotondo, a family physician, as well as
two current SIU doctors, Jan Rakinic, a colorectal surgeon, and
Janet Bauer, a surgeon and ear, nose and throat specialist.

Bauer, who joined the faculty in 1995 as an assistant professor, is
chairwoman of SIU's division of otolaryngology. She is the most
recently added plaintiff in the lawsuit, joining in August.

A July news release from SIU said Bauer was selected as the 2018-19
president of the American Otological Society.

Ahad spoke with the SJ-R about the lawsuit last year, but
Vassileva, Rotondo, Rakinic and Bauer all have declined interview
requests, according to Wood.

There has been no negotiations with SIU about settling the lawsuit,
Wood said.

A trial in the case isn't expected to take place this year, he
said.

SIU is fighting a 2016 order by an administrative judge from the
U.S. Department of Labor who ruled SIU must pay Ahad $223,884, plus
interest, for underpaying her in comparison with her mostly male
counterparts at SIU.

Ahad, a bariatric surgeon, received a base salary of $125,000 from
the medical school and $110,903 from SIU Medicine in fiscal 2013,
according to court documents.

The Department of Labor administrative judge, whose ruling was
affirmed by an administrative review board earlier this year, said
SIU made errors in applying federal wage requirements covering
workers from other countries for part of the time she was at SIU.

Ahad, a Pakistani national now working for the University of Iowa
health system, has permanent resident status in the United States.

SIU filed a lawsuit against the Department of Labor in U.S.
District Court in July to overturn the ruling.

In court documents that are part of the case, which remains
pending, SIU's attorneys in St. Louis say the ruling was
"arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in
accordance with law, contrary to the university's constitutional
rights, without observance of procedure required by law, and
unsupported by substantial evidence."[GN]


SPRINT/UNITED: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Burgains Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
BARRY BURGAINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SPRINT/UNITED MANAGEMENT COMPANY, Defendant,
Case No. 77131943 (Fla. Cir., Miami-Dade Cty., Aug. 28, 2018) seeks
to recover from the Defendant unpaid overtime compensation,
prejudgment interest, maximum liquidated damages, reasonable
attorneys' fees, and costs.

The Plaintiff Burgains was employed by the Defendant as non-exempt
employees.

Sprint/United Management Company, Inc. is based in Overland Park,
Kansas. Sprint/United Management Company, Inc. operates as a
subsidiary of Sprint Nextel Corp. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony M. Georges-Pierre, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          Court House Tower
          44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416-5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
          E-mail: agp@rgpattorneys.com


STERLITE OF OHIO: Ohio App. Reverses Dismissal of Lunsford Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DONNA L. LUNSFORD, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v.
STERILITE OF OHIO, LLC, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees, Case No.
2017CA00232 (Ohio App.), Judge Criag R. Baldwin of the Court of
Appeals of Ohio for the Fifth District, Stark County, (i) reversed
the trial court's dismissal of the Appellants' complaint for
failure to state a claim for which relief may be granted, (ii)
vacated the judgment, and (iii) remanded the matter remanded to the
trial court for further proceedings consistent with his Opinion.

The appeal arises from the trial court's dismissal of the
Appellants' complaint after finding that the complaint failed to
state a claim for which relief may be granted.  Appellants Adam
Keim and Laura Williamson were employees of Appellee Sterilite of
Ohio, LLC; and Appellants Lunsford and Peter D. Griffiths are still
so employed.  Appellee Sterilite of Ohio, LLC is a limited
liability company located at 4495 Sterilite Avenue, S.E., in
Massillon, Ohio.  Its Parent Company, Appellee Sterilite, LLC, is a
limited liability company that is the parent company of the
Appellee Sterilite.  Defendant U.S. Healthworks Medical Group of
Ohio, Inc. is a corporation located at 2626 Fulton Drive, N.W.,
Canton, Ohio.

Appellee Sterilite adopted a Substance Abuse Policy, a copy of
which was attached to the complaint.  The Policy warned of testing
for reasonable suspicion that an employee may be impaired by the
use of drugs or alcohol in violation of the policy, and that the
company would conduct random testing at periodic intervals to
maintain safety and productivity.  The Policy explained that
Sterilite would use a urinalysis method to test for the use of
illegal drugs or the improper use of prescription or
over-the-counter drugs.

The Appellants were notified by Sterilite to appear at a specified
location within the Sterilite plant to submit to a urinalysis.
Lunsford, Williamson and Griffiths were subject to a random
screening.  Keim was tested under the reasonable suspicion clause
of the policy and while he objected to the assertion that there was
reasonable suspicion, he complied with the directive of Sterilite
as did all Appellants.

Sterilite used what the Appellants describe as a direct observation
method of collecting the urine specimen for the test.  Each
employee was accompanied by an individual of the same sex to a
restroom facility designated by Sterilite for the exclusive purpose
of collecting urine samples pursuant to the Policy. While in the
restroom, the person accompanying the Appellant was obligated to
visually observe the Appellants genitals and the production of the
urine sample.  The U.S. Healthworks completed the collection in
this manner at the direction of Sterilite.

The direct observation procedure was disclosed to the Appellants
only immediately prior to conducting the test.  Direct observation
was not described in the Substance Abuse Policy maintained by
Sterilite.  The Appellants signed a consent and release form
shortly prior to the administration of the test, but the form did
not reference direct observation.

Sterilite began using the direct observation method in October 2016
and it was used for all analyses without any requirement that the
employee had engaged in any behavior that might alter the outcome
of the urinalysis.

All the Appellants were subject to the direct observation method of
collection.  Sterilite terminated Keim's and Williamson's
employment because they failed to produce a urine specimen within
two and one half hours, despite their good faith effort to comply
with the request.  Lunsford and Griffiths were able to supply a
sample, but Lunsford was particularly uncomfortable because it
forced her to reveal genital scarring she suffered from a surgical
procedure.  Lunsford and Griffiths are still employed by
Sterilite.

The Appellants filed a complaint on Dec. 22, 2016 alleging Invasion
of Privacy, Wrongful Discharge in Violation of Public Policy,
Failure to Remit Minimum Wages, Failure to Remit Wages, Breach of
Contract and seeking Declaratory Judgment, Injunctive Relief, and
Certification as a Class.

The Appellees filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure
to state a claim for which relief may be granted pursuant to Civ.R.
12(b)(6) and Appellants opposed the motion.  The trial court
granted the motion on May 9, 2017 with regard to Count One,
Invasion of Privacy; Two, Wrongful Discharge in Violation of Public
Policy; Three, Declaratory Judgment regarding the Direct
Observation Method; Four, Injunctive Relief regarding the Direct
Observation Method, and Five, Class Action for Declaratory and
Injunctive Relief.

On June 13, 2017, Appellant Williamson dismissed her claims in
counts Six through Eight without prejudice.  On Nov. 27, 2017,
after several pleadings involving an attempt to file an amended
complaint and other unrelated matters, the Appellants dismissed
counts Six through Eight and thereafter, on Nov. 30, 2017, the
trial court entered an order noting that no claims remain pending
and the order of May 9, 2017 was now a final appealable order.  The
Appellants filed a notice of appeal on Dec. 26, 2017 and submitted
assignments of error.

The Appellants submitted four assignments of error, but the common
element and lynchpin of all the assignments is the determination of
whether the Appellants have stated a claim for invasion of the
right of privacy.  Their case will survive or fail based upon the
resolution of that issue alone.  The first assignment of error
addresses that question and the remaining assignments assume that
the first assignment is decided in the Appellants' favor.  If the
first assignment of error is rejected, the remaining assignments
are rendered moot.  However, if the first assignment of error is
approved, the case must be remanded to the trial court to fully
address the issues described within the remaining assignments.

Judge Baldwin finds that the Appellants have stated a valid claim
for invasion of privacy pursuant to the requirement of the Supreme
Court of Ohio in Housh v. Peth.  He cannot agree that there is no
set of facts upon which the Appellants may recover.  Both the
Appellees and the trial court rely upon case law that does not
foreclose the possibility that the method of collection of a urine
sample could comprise a violation of the Appellants' right to
privacy.  He concludes that the Appellants have stated a valid
claim and that dismissal for failure to state a claim was not
supported by a review of the pleadings and the attachments.

Because the remaining assignments of error have at their foundation
the claims of invasion of privacy, because the complaint was
dismissed for failure to state a claim of invasion of privacy and
because he finds that decision in error, consideration of the
remaining assignments of error at this junction would be
premature.

For the forgoing reasons, Judge Baldwin reversed the decision of
the Stark County Court of Common Pleas, vacated the judgment, and
remanded the matter remanded to the trial court for further
proceedings consistent with his Opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 24, 2018 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/sl8NFi from Leagle.com.

S. DAVID WORHATCH, Law Offices of S. David Worhatch, 4920 Darrow
Road, Stow, Ohio 44224-1406, Akron, Ohio 44308, for
Plaintiffs-Appellants.

JOHN N. CHILDS -- jnchilds@bmdllc.com -- DANIEL J. RUDARY --
djrudary@bmdllc.com --  Brennan, Manna & Diamond, LLC, 75 East
Market Street, for Defendants-Appellees.


SUNOPTA INC: Accrues $5.0MM for De Jesus Settlement at June 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
SunOpta Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2018, that the Company has accrued US$5.0 million at June
30, 2018 in connection with the settlement of the case, De Jesus,
et al. v. Frozsun, Inc. d/b/a Frozsun Foods.

On April 19, 2013, a class-action complaint, in the case titled De
Jesus, et al. v. Frozsun, Inc. d/b/a Frozsun Foods, was filed
against Sunrise Growers, Inc. ("Sunrise") (then named Frozsun,
Inc.) in California Superior Court, Santa Barbara County seeking
damages, equitable relief and reasonable attorneys' fees for
alleged wage and hour violations.

This case includes claims for failure to pay all hours worked,
failure to pay overtime wages, meal and rest period violations,
waiting-time penalties, improper wage statements and unfair
business practices.  The putative class includes 10,611 non-exempt
hourly employees from Sunrise's production facilities in Santa
Maria and Oxnard, California.  The parties attended mediation on
October 12, 2017, and reached a general agreement to resolve the
matter on a class-wide basis for US$5.0 million.

After negotiating the remaining details of the settlement, the
parties obtained preliminary approval of the class action
settlement on May 14, 2018.

Settlement class members had until August 20, 2018, to opt out or
object to the settlement terms.  A final fairness hearing was
scheduled with the Court on September 17, 2018.

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

The Company said, "If the settlement is granted final approval at
or near the date of the final fairness hearing, funding of the
settlement is anticipated to occur before the end of the year.  The
Company expects to recover the full amount payable under the
settlement through insurance coverage and an escrow account
established in connection with the Company's acquisition of
Sunrise."

As at June 30, 2018, the Company had accrued US$5.0 million in
connection with this settlement, which is recorded in accounts
payable and accrued liabilities on the consolidated balance sheet,
and recorded a receivable in the same amount for the anticipated
full recovery, which is reflected in accounts receivable on the
consolidated balance sheet.

SunOpta Inc. is a global company focused on sourcing organic and
non-genetically modified ("non-GMO") ingredients, and manufacturing
healthy food and beverage products. The company is based in
Ontario, Canada.


SUPERCLEAN BRANDS: Web Site Not Deaf-friendly, Sullivan Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
PHILLIP SULLIVAN, JR., on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. SUPERCLEAN BRANDS, LLC, Case No.
1:18-cv-08570 (S.D.N.Y., September 19, 2018), seeks to put an end
to alleged systemic civil rights violations committed by the
Defendant against deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals in New York
State and across the United States.

The Defendant denies deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals
throughout the United States equal access to the goods and services
that it provides to non-disabled individuals, through
https://www.superclean.com/, notes the complaint.

Superclean Brands is an American for-profit corporation organized
under the laws of the state of Minnesota and has a principal
executive office located in Eagan, Minnesota.  The Company operates
the Web site, which provides information regarding its line of
SuperClean cleaning products, including how to use the products and
where to purchase them.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TASTE OF NATURE: Settles Class Action Over Candy Packaging
----------------------------------------------------------
Scott Johnson, writing for News4JAX, reports that the company Taste
of Nature Inc. has settled a class action suit over the sale of
many lines of candy.  The basis of the lawsuit was that Taste of
Nature Inc. unlawfully sold packages of candy with too much empty
space inside.

The 16 candy brands are below:

   -- Cookie Dough Bites
   -- Chocolate Chip Cookie Dough Bites
   -- Fudge Brownie Cookie Dough Bites
   -- Santa's Village Chocolate Chip Cookie Dough Bites
   -- Cookies N' Cream Cookie Dough Bites
   -- Cinnamon Bun Bites
   -- Red Velvet Cupcake Bites
   -- Moon Pie Bites
   -- Strawberry Dream Bites
   -- Birthday Cake Cookie Dough Bites
   -- Peanut Butter Cookie Dough Bites
   -- Muddy Bears
   -- Shari Candies Cherry Sour Balls
   -- Despicable Me 2 Sour Gummies
   -- Sqwigglies
   -- Hello Kitty Treats

The class action lawsuit was filed in May of 2018.  The woman who
filed it, Dacia Trentham, accused Taste of Nature Inc. of packaging
its candies in cardboard that you couldn't see inside with too much
empty space.

Despite the legal loss, Taste of Nature Inc. maintains it did
nothing wrong.  The company claims its packaging was legal, but the
two sides have agreed to settle the lawsuit so there will not be
any further litigation.

People who could get any settlement in the lawsuit would have to
have proof they purchased any of the listed products between Jan.
1, 2013 and June 18, 2018.  The products must have been purchased
in the U.S. as well.

Payouts would be minimal: a maximum $12.50 per household. [GN]


TD AMERITRADE: Judge Certifies Equity Trades Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
federal judge agreed to certify a class accusing TD Ameritrade of
routing retail equity trades to venues that pay it the most money,
without regard to best execution for customers.


TELECLARO LLC: Pineda Seeks Injunction Over TCPA Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
CESAR PINEDA, individually and on behalf of a class of others
similarly situated v. TELECLARO, LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-23854-JEM
(S.D. Fla., September 19, 2018), seeks permanent injunction
prohibiting the Defendant from violating the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act in the future through calling cell phones registered
with the national do-not-call registry.

Teleclaro, LLC, is in the business of selling international
telephonic services.  The Company sells telephonic "minutes" at a
rate typically cheaper than that charged by major telephonic
carriers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TELLIGEN: Faces Class Action Over Employee-Purchase Deal
--------------------------------------------------------
Clark Kauffman, writing for Des Moines Register, reports that in
January 2014, the West Des Moines healthcare company Telligen
posted a message to Facebook celebrating its new employee stock
ownership plan.

"It's official! Telligen is now an ESOP company. We are excited
about increasing employee participation in corporate ownership and
look forward to all 2014 has to bring!"

It wasn't long, however, before questions arose.

The company's workers paid $37.5 million for Telligen's 1 million
shares -- a price of about $37.50 per share. But just a few weeks
later, those shares were valued at just $6.25.

Were the workers overcharged?

That's the question posed by a class-action lawsuit now working its
way through the federal court system. Lawyers for the Telligen
employees say the workers were "ripped off" and lost millions of
dollars when they purchased the company.

The lawsuit coincides with a wave of enforcement actions by the
U.S. Department of Labor aimed at trusts that specialize in ESOPs,
or employee stock ownership plans. Federal officials say too many
companies are being sold to rank-and-file workers at inflated
prices that make corporate officers rich at the expense of their
own employees.

Because ESOPs are often promoted as a valuable source of retirement
savings, one that's corrupted by an inflated sale price can have a
devastating effect on workers' financial health.

In the past few years, the Department of Labor has filed lawsuits
challenging transactions involving ESOPs at several companies. In
each case, the employees bought shares of their company at inflated
prices and were subsequently saddled with crushing debt loads.

"Accurate company valuations are critical when it comes to
establishing an employee stock ownership plan," said Jonathan Kay,
a Department of Labor administrator. "Too often, company owners
seek to inflate the price to benefit themselves at the expense of
workers."

The Telligen lawsuits pit the company's ESOP against Bankers Trust
Co. of South Dakota, which acted as the trustee for the ESOP and
helped structure the deal that turned Telligen into an
employee-owned corporation.

As trustee, Bankers Trust represented the employees' interests.
After allegedly consulting with an independent appraiser, the bank
valued the 1 million shares of Telligen at $37.50 each, then
arranged for the plan to borrow the full $37.5 million from
Telligen, payable over 20 years at 6 percent annual interest.

But according to court records, shares of Telligen were valued at
just $6.25 a few weeks after the deal was executed. The lawsuit
alleges that Telligen's principal shareholders "profited by
saddling the plan and Telligen employees with millions of dollars
in debt."

The lone named plaintiff in the lawsuit, Deb Innis, is a
communications expert who worked for Telligen for 18 years. She is
suing Banker's Trust on behalf of herself and other employees who
bought into the plan.

Lawyers for the bank and the ESOP declined to comment but outlined
their opposing views in a court hearing last year.

At that hearing, an attorney for Bankers Trust stated that the
value of the employees' shares increased from $6.25 to almost $26
in the two years after the sale.

In response, plaintiffs' attorney Ryan Jenny said that the
increased value was irrelevant to the question of whether the
initial purchase price was inflated, noting that any added value
would only compound the losses sustained by employees.

"It doesn't matter whether there was, you know, a rise in stock
value down the road," he argued. "The question is, 'Did the plan
pay too much on Dec. 31, 2013?' . . . Every (employee) will get
fewer shares of stock if the plan was ripped off in the first
instance."

Mr. Jenny pointed out that the bank was engaged to handle the sale
of Telligen in November 2013 and completed the sale at the end of
December 2013.

"It took me longer to negotiate the sale of my house than it took
the trustee here to negotiate the sale of a $37.5 million company,"
Mr. Jenny told the court. "We see again and again in the ESOP
industry that these trustees are rubber-stamping these
transactions.

"That's what we're alleging happened here, and we have another
recent case -- against this same defendant -- where we got a $19.8
million settlement."

The settlement Jenny referred to is tied to a pair of lawsuits
filed by the U.S. Department of Labor and the employees of Mona
Vie, a multi-level marketing company that sold fruit and vegetable
juice concentrates. In that case, Mona Vie's owners sold $186
million worth of shares to its workers so they could assume
ownership of the company.

But the employees would later sue Bankers Trust, alleging the
per-share price they paid was "grossly inflated."

Four years after the ESOP was executed, the workers' shares were
almost worthless, while their debt, with interest, totaled $250
million. The case was ultimately settled for $19.8 million -- far
less than the $180 million the plaintiffs felt they could have
collected but which would have put Bankers Trust at risk of going
under.

As part of the settlement, Bankers Trust agreed to get out of the
ESOP business, but by that time, it had already cut the deal
involving the Telligen sale.

While the Telligen workers are suing Bankers Trust to recover their
alleged losses, there's another twist to the case: Because of an
indemnification clause in the 2013 ESOP agreement, Telligen itself,
now owned by the workers, is contractually obligated to pay for the
defense of Bankers Trust in the lawsuit brought by those same
workers.

Citing the potential for exactly this sort of conflict, some courts
have declared these indemnification clauses illegal, and earlier
this year the Department of Labor voided those clauses in two
cases, citing a federal law that labels them bad public policy.

Telligen was launched in 1972 as a nonprofit corporation called the
Iowa Foundation for Medicaid Care. In 2011, it changed its name,
and two years later, with 525 workers on its payroll, it became an
employee-owned corporation.

Telligen is now under contract with the federal government to
improve the quality of medical care for Medicare beneficiaries in
Iowa, Illinois and Colorado. Company officials declined to comment
on the ESOP's litigation with Bankers Trust.

Other ESOP lawsuits

Among the recent lawsuits that alleged over-billing of employee
stock ownership plans:

   * In May, the Department of Labor settled a case involving
Sonnax Industries, a Vermont auto parts supplier. In 2011, the
company sponsored an employee stock ownership plan. The ESOP's
fiduciaries hired First Bankers Trust Services to advise the
workers on the company's purchase price, but behind the scenes, the
fiduciaries allegedly arranged for the workers to overpay for the
company. Ultimately, the two fiduciaries agreed to pay $2 million
to the ESOP and the Department of Labor, while First Bankers Trust
Services agreed to pay $250,000.

   * In July, the Department of Labor entered into a $5.4 million
settlement with the fiduciaries of Cactus Feeders Inc., a
Texas-based feed company. The Lubbock National Bank allegedly had
relied on a deficient valuation of the company, which resulted in
the employees being overcharged for their shares.

   * In August, the Department of Labor settled a case against the
owner of a Manhattan laser surgery center for $5 million. Dr. Roy
Geronemus, owner of the Laser and Skin Surgery Center of New York,
had hired his own accountant to serve as the trustee of the
employee stock ownership plan. The accountant came up with a value
for the company that didn't factor in corporate debt and as a
result, the workers paid too much for the company. [GN]


TETRAPHASE PHARMA: Rosen Law Firm Files Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Tetraphase Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ:TTPH)
pursuant and/or traceable to Tetraphase's allegedly false and/or
misleading registration statement and prospectus issued in
connection with its July 2017 secondary public offering ("SPO" or
the "Offering"); and/or from March 8, 2017 through February 13,
2018, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks
to recover damages for Tetraphase investors under the federal
securities laws.

To join the Tetraphase class action, go to
https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-830.html or call Phillip Kim, Esq.
or Zachary Halper, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or zhalper@rosenlegal.com for information on
the class action.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.

According to the lawsuit, defendants during the Class Period made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) Tetraphase was increasing the patient enrollment
in its IGNITE3 trial from 1,000 patients to 1,200 patients to meet
the trial's primary endpoints (within the 10% non-inferiority
margin); (2) the enrollment of more patients in the trial indicated
that the existing population was inadequate to meet the trial's
primary endpoints; and (3) as a result, defendants' statements
about Tetraphase's business, operations, and prospects, were
materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims
that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than September
25, 2018. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-830.html to join the class action.
You may also contact Phillip Kim or Zachary Halper of Rosen Law
Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via email at pkim@rosenlegal.com
or zhalper@rosenlegal.com.

Follow us for updates on LinkedIn:
https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-rosen-law-firm or on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/rosen—firm.

View source version on
businesswire.com:https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20180920005709/en/

         Laurence Rosen, Esq.
         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         Zachary Halper, Esq.
         The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
         275 Madison Avenue, 34thFloor
         New York, NY 10016
         Telephone: (212) 686-1060
         Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
         Fax: (212) 202-3827
         Website: www.rosenlegal.com
         Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                pkim@rosenlegal.com
                zhalper@rosenlegal.com [GN]


TIBANA FINISHING: 2 Settlement Classes Certified in Vazquez Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled SALOME VAZQUEZ, on behalf of herself,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. TIBANA FINISHING, INC., and TIBERJE MIKSA,
individually, and ANA MIKSA, individually, the Defendants, Case No.
17-cv-1907 (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Peggy Kuo entered an order:

   1. certifying these classes for settlement purposes only,
      defined as:

      New York Class:

      "all individuals who worked as sewing and/or stitching
      machine operators for Defendants at anytime between April
      4, 2011 through the date of entry of the Preliminary
      Approval Order, and who may be owed unpaid minimum wage and
      overtime compensation and statutory damages; and

      Federal Class:

      "all individuals who worked as sewing and/or stitching
      machine operators for Defendants at any time between April
      4, 2014 through the date of entry of the Preliminary
      Approval Order, and who may be owed unpaid minimum wage and
      overtime compensation and statutory damages";

   2. appointing Arden Claims Service, LLC, as Class Administrator
to
      be responsible for communicating with Class Members,
      disseminating the Notice and Claim Forms, accepting and
      maintaining documents sent by Class Members, including
      Claim Forms, Opt-out statements and other documents
      relating to claims administration, and administering claims
      for allocation, according to the formula set forth in the
      Settlement Agreement;

   3. by no later than Sep. 27, 2018, directing Defendants to
      furnish Arden, in electronic form, with a list of all Class
      Members, identified by: (i) name; (ii) last known address;
      (iii) Social Security or Tax Identification Numbers (if
      available to Defendants); and (iv) dates of employment
      during the period of April 4, 2011 to present; and to Class
      September 27, 2018; and

   4. directing Class Counsel to file their Motion for Judgment
      and Final Approval on or before Nov. 20, 2018, no later than

       15 days before the Fairness Hearing.[CC]


TIGER NATURAL: Fishman Seeks to Certify Customer Class, Sub-Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Emily Fishman and Susan Faria, Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned
EMILY FISHMAN, et al. v. TIGER NATURAL GAS INC., et al., Case No.
3:17-cv-05351-WHA (N.D. Cal.), move the Court for an order
certifying these proposed Class and Sub-Class:

   * Tiger/PG&E Customer Class:

     All California consumers and businesses that were customers
     of Pacific Gas & Electric Company at the time they enrolled
     in Tiger Natural Gas, Inc.'s ("Tiger") capped rate price
     protection program (the "Program") after receiving a
     telemarketing Sales Call advertising the Program, at any
     time from August 18, 2013 to the present.

   * Tiger/PG&E Consumer Sub-Class:

     All California consumers, but not businesses, that were
     customers of Pacific Gas & Electric Company at the time they
     enrolled in Tiger Natural Gas, Inc.'s ("Tiger") capped rate
     price protection program (the "Program") after receiving a
     telemarketing Sales Call advertising the Program, at any
     time from August 18, 2013 to the present.

The lawsuit -- a putative class action involving California
consumers and businesses -- involves alleged fraudulent
telemarketing calls that telemarketers working for Defendant
Community Gas Center Inc. ("CGC") and other telemarketing companies
headed by CGC's Chief Executive Officer, Defendant John Dyet, made
to solicit customers for Defendant Tiger Natural Gas Inc.'s
("Tiger") capped-rate "price protection" program ("the "Program").
The Plaintiffs' claims include violations of California's Recording
Law for recording Sales Calls without the called party's consent,
breach of oral contract, violations of the Pacific Gas & Electric
Company ("PG&E") Gas Rule 23 tariff, breach of third-party
beneficiary contract (the Core Gas Aggregation Services ("CGAS")
Agreement between Tiger and PG&E, incorporating Gas Rule 23),
fraud, negligent misrepresentation, violations of the Consumers
Legal Remedies Act, violations of Regulations on Core Transport
Agents, violations of the False Advertising Law, and violations of
the Unfair Competition Law.

The claims are all based on Tiger's false claims about pricing in
the natural gas market, the Program's alleged protection against
the non-existent PG&E gas supply price increases, and the real
costs of Tiger's supposedly "free" Program.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as class
representatives, and to appoint Daniel Balsam, Esq., Jacob Harker,
Esq., and the law firm of Kralowec Law, P.C., as Class Counsel.

The Court will commence a hearing on November 8, 2018, at 8:00
a.m., to consider the Motion.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kimberly A. Kralowec, Esq.
          Kathleen Styles Rogers, Esq.
          KRALOWEC LAW P.C.
          44 Montgomery Street, Suite 1210
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 546-6800
          Facsimile: (415) 546-6801
          E-mail: kkralowec@kraloweclaw.com
                  krogers@kraloweclaw.com

               - and -

          Daniel L. Balsam, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL BALSAM
          2601C Blanding Avenue #271
          Alameda, CA 94501
          Telephone: (415) 869-2873
          Facsimile: (415) 869-2873
          E-mail: legal@danbalsam.com

               - and -

          Jacob Harker, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JACOB HARKER
          582 Market Street, Suite 1007
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 624-7602
          Facsimile: (415) 684-7757
          E-mail: jacob@harkercounsel.com


TIVITY HEALTH: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Jeffrey Katz Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
JEFFREY KATZ CHIROPRACTIC, INC., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TIVITY HEALTH SUPPORT, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-05400 (N.D. Cal., Sept. 1, 2018) seeks
to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls.

Tivity Health Support, LLC provides prevention health care
programs. The company was founded in 2004 and is based in Tempe,
Arizona. Tivity Health Support, LLC operates as a subsidiary of
Tivity Health Services, LLC. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jon B. Fougner, Esq.
          Edward A. Broderick, Esq.
          Anthony I. Paronich
          BRODERICK & PARONICH, P.C.
          99 High Street, Suite 304
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 738-7080
          Facsimile: (617) 830-0327
          E-mail: Jon@FougnerLaw.com
                  ted@broderick-law.com
                  anthony@broderick-law.com

               - and -

          Matthew P. McCue, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW P. McCUE
          1 South Avenue, Suite 3
          Natick, MA 01760
          Telephone: (508) 655-1415
          Facsimile: (508) 319-3077
          E-mail: mmccue@massattorneys.net

               - and -

          Andrew W. Heidarpour, Esq.
          HEIDARPOUR LAW FIRM, PLLC
          1300 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, 190-318
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 234-2727
          E-mail: AHeidarpour@HLFirm.com


TOLTECA ENTERPRISES: Hackler Sues over Debt Collection Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
SADIE HACKLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TOLTECA ENTERPRISES, INC. d/b/a PHOENIX
RECOVERY GROUP, Defendant, Case No. 5:18-cv-00911 (W.D. Tex., Aug.
31, 2018) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable
means to collect a debt.

Tolteca Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a The Phoenix Recovery Group (PRG) is
a Texas-based collection agency that provides professional Accounts
Receivable Management services in the U.S., Canada, Puerto Rico,
and Mexico. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William M. Clanton, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF BILL CLANTON, P.C.
          926 Chulie
          San Antonio, TX 78216
          Telephone: (210) 226 0800
          Facsimile: (210) 338 8660
          E-mail: bill@clantonlawoffice.com

               - and -

          Benjamin R. Bingham, Esq.
          BINGHAM & LEA, P.C.
          319 Maverick Street
          San Antonio, TX 78212
          Telephone: (210) 224-1819
          Facsimile: (210) 224-0141
          E-mail: ben@binghamandlea.com


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Former Engineer Supports Pay Equity Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bloomberg reports that the former Uber Technologies Inc. engineer
whose blog post on the treatment of women at the ride-hailing
company helped drive out its chief executive said she supports a
US$10 million settlement of pay equity and harassment claims filed
on behalf of almost 500 employees.

Susan Fowler, whose February 2017 post led to internal
investigations and ultimately the departure of Travis Kalanick,
said in a court filing on Sept. 7 that the settlement will help
compensate others subject to "illegal conduct" and puts in place a
monitoring program "to ensure there is follow-through concerning
Uber's commitment to a new direction."

"Fowler hopes for the best for Uber's talented and committed
workforce, and particularly the women and persons of colour who
continue to work at Uber and make it a better place," her lawyer
wrote in the filing in federal court in Oakland, California.

Fowler, who was named a 2017 "Person of the Year" by Time magazine
for breaking the silence on harassment, tweeted this year with Uber
CEO Dara Khosrowshahi seeking to end a company policy of forcing
female riders to go through arbitration when they complain of
assault by their drivers. In May, the company announced it would
allow sexual assault and harassment victims to sue in court.

Uber, which denies wrongdoing as part of the settlement, has said
the accord is fair and reasonable.

Jahan Sagafi, a lawyer for the women who sued, said Fowler's
statement is consistent with other positive feedback his firm has
received about "the substantial payments and strong policy changes
made possible by the settlement."

Fowler said she continues to face harassment on line and via email
for speaking out in her post titled "Reflecting On One Very, Very
Strange Year At Uber." She commended the two "brave women" who
initiated the class-action suit last year.

She also said that under a May US Supreme Court ruling that
bolsters the power of employers to force workers to use individual
arbitration instead of class-action lawsuits, women and minorities
"would receive nothing at all" if not for the settlement.

The settlement will provide an average of US$11,000 for 487 women
and minority workers for alleged pay disparities, plus an
additional US$34,000, on average, for 56 women who filed detailed
claims of harassment, according to an August court filing.

A hearing on final approval of the settlement is set for Nov 6.

The case is Del Toro Lopez v. Uber Technologies Inc.,
4:17-cv-06255, US District Court, Northern District of California
(Oakland). [GN]


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Judge Rejects Lfyt Drivers Spying Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Helen Christoph, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
a federal judge indicated on Sept. 20 she would toss a California
man's proposed class action accusing Uber of spying on Lyft drivers
to lure them away from its competition.

It would be the third time U.S. Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott
Corley in San Francisco dismissed the lawsuit, this time for
failing to satisfy pleading requirements under the federal Stored
Communications Act.

"What you're arguing for is a pretty broad expansion of the SCA,"
Judge Corley told plaintiff's counsel Caleb Marker --
caleb.marker@zimmreed.com -- in an afternoon hearing, using an
acronym for the statute governing data stored by third-party
internet service providers.

Michael Gonzalez, a former San Francisco Bay Area Lyft driver, sued
Uber in April 2017 after reading an article about the company's
alleged spying activity in tech-news publication The Information.

According to the article, Uber created fake Lyft rider accounts and
used spyware called Hell to intercept the information Lyft sent
those accounts, allowing Uber to access a driver's Lyft
identification number and to track the driver's location over
time.

Uber then combined Lyft's data with its own driver-location data to
determine which Lyft drivers also worked for Uber. Their names went
on lists distributed to Uber's city managers, who targeted them for
bonuses and steered more ride requests to them so they would devote
more work-time to Uber.

Judge Corley was interested in one key question on Sept. 20 -- had
Mr. Gonzalez pleaded Uber gained unauthorized access of
communications stored by Lyft for backup protection, as required by
the Stored Communications Act?

The judge said although Gonzalez's claims that Lyft stored the
communications were plausible, he had not convinced her it had done
so for backup purposes.

Mr. Marker, who is with Zimmerman Reed, countered Lyft's privacy
policy states the company stores communications for multiple
purposes, including complying with government investigation
requests.

But Judge Corley said both Ninth Circuit case law and the statute
itself require two copies of the data: the underlying data and the
backup.

"I see where the underlying data is; it's at Lyft. Where's the
backup?" she said.

Mr. Marker had no answer. But he explained that technology
companies like Lyft invariably back up their data to comply with
government investigations.

Pushing for dismissal, Uber attorney Kevin Underhill --
kunderhill@shb.com -- of Shook, Hardy & Bacon pointed out that
despite Mr. Gonzalez's claims Lyft sends a copy of the data to
riders, riders can't save the data, precluding the creation of a
backed-up version.

"You're certainly right there is no backup," Mr. Underhill told
Judge Corley.

Judge Corley nonetheless suggested she may allow Mr. Gonzalez to
amend his Stored Communications Act claim to strengthen his
allegations.

Mr. Marker, however, said there was nothing more to add without
discovery. He argued the claim was sufficient, because the alleged
copies of the data are actually backups.

"Why not consider copies a backup," he said, adding that "almost
any piece of data . . . is being backed up."

Judge Corley appeared unconvinced.

"The Justice Department would be interested in this argument," she
quipped.


UBS AG: Class Cert Denied in Suit Over Puerto Rico Govt Bonds
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York issued a Opinion denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification in the case captioned NORA FERNANDEZ; AUGUSTO
SCHREINER; EDDIE TORO VELEZ; VICTOR R. VELA DIEZ DE ANDINO; JUAN
VIERA; GEORGINA VELEZ MONTES; and ESTHER SANTANA, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. UBS
AG; UBS FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.; UBS FINANCIAL SERVICES
INCORPORATED OF PUERTO RICO; UBS TRUST COMPANY OF PUERTO RICO; UBS
BANK USA; CARLOS V. UBIÑAS; MIGUEL A. FERRER; BANCO POPULAR de
PUERTO RICO; and POPULAR SECURITIES, LLC, Defendants. No.
15-CV-2859 (SHS). (S.D.N.Y.).

This breach of contract action concerns investments that the
plaintiffs made in one or more of twenty closed-end mutual funds
(CEFs), each of which contained a high percentage of Puerto Rico
government bonds. The Plaintiffs are current or former clients of
defendant UBS Financial Services Incorporated of Puerto Rico. The
contract at issue is the client agreement (Client Agreement)
between the plaintiffs and the defendant subsidiaries of the Swiss
global financial services company UBS (UBS).

The Plaintiffs contend that UBS breached their broker-dealer Client
Agreement by failing to perform suitability analyses in connection
with the plaintiffs' investments in the Funds.

Before the Court is the plaintiffs' motion to certify the following
class:

     All persons who had client agreements with UBS Financial
Services Incorporated of Puerto Rico (UBS) requiring UBS to conduct
suitability analyses and who purchased shares of one or more of the
Twenty CEFs1 between May 5, 2008 and May 5, 2014 (the Class
Period).

Commonality: Rule 23(a)(2)

Rule 23(a)'s commonality prerequisite is satisfied if there is a
common issue that drives the resolution of the litigation' such
that determination of its truth or falsity will resolve an issue
that is central to the validity of each one of the claims in one
stroke.
Plaintiffs suggest several questions which they contend are common
to the proposed class. Those questions can be summarized as: (1)
What were UBS's duties to members of the proposed class pursuant to
the suitability provision in the Client Agreement, (2) did UBS
breach its duties pursuant to that provision, and (3) what are the
proposed class members' damages.

The Plaintiffs contend and UBS does not dispute that the
suitability provisions in the proposed class members' Client
Agreements were identical in all material respects. But the parties
differ with respect to how those provisions should be interpreted
and, specifically, whether and to what extent they are informed by
FINRA's Suitability Rule and related guidance. UBS's refusal to
concede the point is entirely perfunctory, but it nonetheless
preserves a concrete dispute that can be resolved across the
proposed class as a whole.

By contrast, the plaintiffs' second and third proposed questions
relating to whether UBS breached its duties to the class members
and what damages they suffered are not capable of classwide
resolution, at least by any of the methods suggested by
plaintiffs.

Because the question regarding UBS's duties to the proposed class
members pursuant to the Client Agreement is common to the class,
the Court finds that the proposed class meets the commonality
requirement of Rule 23(a)(2).

Typicality: Rule 23(a)(3)

To establish typicality under Rule 23(a)(3), the party seeking
certification must show that each class member's claim arises from
the same course of events and each class member makes similar legal
arguments to prove the defendant's liability.

Here, each proposed class member's claim arises from a course of
events that is unique to that class member. Put another way, the
manner in which UBS allegedly failed to perform a suitability
analysis before recommending a Fund to a proposed class member is
different for each class member.  

The Plaintiffs' arguments to the contrary are the same as their
arguments for why UBS's breach of its contractual suitability
obligations to the proposed class members can be established
through generalized evidence. The Court finds that UBS's alleged
breach is not susceptible to generalized proof.

Accordingly, the Court finds that the typicality requirement is not
satisfied.

Adequacy: Rule 23(a)(4)

Adequacy entails inquiry as to whether: 1) plaintiff's interests
are antagonistic to the interest of other members of the class and
2) plaintiff's attorneys are qualified, experienced and able to
conduct the litigation. With respect to the first element, the
focus is on uncovering conflicts of interest between named parties
and the class they seek to represent. In order to defeat a motion
for certification, however, the conflict `must be fundamental.

UBS challenges the first element only, and it does so on the basis
of its contention that the named plaintiffs suffered no damages.
However, the Court is not persuaded that, at least on the facts of
this case, such a conflict is so fundamental as to contravene the
adequacy requirement of Rule 23, and UBS has cited no contrary
authority.

Because UBS has identified no fundamental conflict of interest
between the named plaintiffs and the proposed class, and because
the Court is not aware of any such conflict, the Court finds that
the adequacy requirement is satisfied.

Predominance: Rule 23(b)(3)

Class-wide issues predominate if resolution of some of the legal or
factual questions that qualify each class member's case as a
genuine controversy can be achieved through generalized proof, and
if these particular issues are more substantial than the issues
subject only to individualized proof.

None of the plaintiffs' attempts to avoid these individual
inquiries are ultimately successful. According to plaintiffs,
generalized proof will establish that: (1) the Funds were
unsuitable per se and therefore UBS necessarily did not undertake
any meaningful suitability analyses, (2) UBS in fact undertook no
client-focused suitability analyses with respect to proposed class
members' investments in the Funds, and (3) every decision by a
class member to purchase or hold an investment in a Fund during the
Class Period was pursuant to a recommendation by UBS.

This generalized proof cannot answer the putatively common question
of whether UBS breached its suitability obligations to members of
the proposed class. As a result, that question splinters into an
enormous number of individual questions potentially as many as the
number of purchase and hold decisions made by each member of the
proposed class during the Class Period.

Accordingly, the Court finds that classwide questions do not
predominate over individual questions as required by Rule
23(b)(3).

Individual questions cannot be avoided by reference to product
focused suitability

The Plaintiffs point to evidence that: (1) the Funds were not
structured in accordance with one of their stated objectives (which
plaintiffs contend made them inherently unsuitable), and (2)
individuals within UBS were concerned about the Funds' riskiness
which plaintiffs contend suggests that UBS did not conduct any
adequate product-focused suitability analyses.

Proof that the Funds were not structured in accordance with one of
two or more stated objectives is not proof of inherent
unsuitability

There is some evidence that FINRA deems a security's consistency
with its enumerated objectives to be a factor that is at least
relevant to the product-focused suitability analysis. Citing this
evidence, plaintiffs' reasonable-basis suitability expert makes the
logical leap to conclude that a security's consistency with its
enumerated objectives is a requirement to satisfy reasonable-basis
suitability. Plaintiffs' expert then makes one further leap of
logic to conclude that a security with multiple enumerated
objectives is unsuitable per se if it is inconsistent with any one
of its objectives.

UBS objects to both leaps, but it is the second one that the Court
focuses on. According to defendants' reasonable-basis suitability
expert, it would be illogical to elevate one of the Funds' stated
objectives for evaluation in isolation because the different
portions of the investment objectives pose some conflict with one
another. Defendants' expert explained the possible tension between
the income generation and capital preservation objectives in
particular:

The Court agrees with Mr. Laursen. It would be illogical to
determine whether the Funds were suitable per se by examining their
compatibility with a single objective preservation of capital in
isolation, and plaintiffs cite no evidence that this standard has
ever actually been applied in the real world.

Accordingly, evidence that the Funds were not structured in
accordance with the preservation-of-capital objective would not
prove that the Funds were unsuitable per se, and therefore cannot
generate a common answer to the question of whether UBS breached
its contractual obligation to plaintiffs.

Proof that individuals within UBS were concerned about the Funds'
riskiness is not proof that UBS failed to conduct any
product-focused suitability analyses

With respect to UBS's reduction of its own holdings, plaintiffs'
own expert testified that this was of limited relevance. That is
hardly surprising, as there is no evidence that the Funds were
unloaded based on anything other than their riskiness pursuant to
UBS's general policy at that time to reduce holdings in risky
investments. As plaintiffs' client-focused suitability expert
admits, a security being excessively risky for one investor is not
itself proof that the security is excessively risky or unsuitable
for all investors. It is not apparent why that would be any less
true where the investor is UBS itself.

Evidence that individuals within UBS were concerned about the
Funds' riskiness would not prove that UBS failed to conduct any
product-focused suitability analyses, and therefore cannot generate
a common answer to the question of whether UBS breached its
contractual obligation to plaintiffs.

Individual questions with respect to causation

Under New York law causation is an essential element of damages in
a breach of contract action; and, as in tort, a plaintiff must
prove that a defendant's breach directly and proximately caused his
or her damages.

In the Court's decision denying UBS's motion to dismiss, it relied
on plaintiffs' clarification that the theory underlying their claim
is not a standard suitability claim, that an investment was not
suitable but rather simply that defendants were obligated to
conduct a suitability analysis and failed to conduct any such
analysis, regardless of whether the investment was suitable or not.
However, the issue of whether plaintiffs would have to prove
causation and what it would take for them to do so was not
presented to or considered by the Court at that time.  

In the absence of any meaningful reply from plaintiffs, the Court
finds that UBS is correct that plaintiffs cannot prove the
necessary element of causation without proving that the Funds were
actually unsuitable for them. The element of causation, therefore,
is another issue subject only to individualized proof.

Individual questions with respect to affirmative defenses

Individual and affirmative defenses, are factors that a court must
consider in deciding whether issues susceptible to generalized
proof outweigh individual issues, even though standing alone, they
are not sufficient to defeat class certification.

UBS contends that these class members would be individually subject
to affirmative defenses such as failure to mitigate and duty to
object, which would require individualized proof. Plaintiffs do not
disagree, but simply contend that such issues should not on their
own preclude certification of the class.  

UBS's affirmative defenses are another issue subject only to
individualized proof.
Individual questions with respect to damages.

First, under plaintiffs' theory of liability, a class member
suffered no damage as a result of any breach if the Funds were
actually suitable for them at the time they were recommended.
Plaintiffs' model, however, does not even attempt to measure
whether the Funds were actually suitable for any members of the
proposed class. Absent an appropriate model, the question of
whether the Funds were actually suitable for a particular client is
clearly an individualized one.

Second, to the extent the Funds were not actually suitable for
members of the proposed class, plaintiffs' model does not attempt
to measure the minuend of the market-adjusted damages formula
outlined above that is, what clients would have received if UBS had
performed a suitability analysis and recommended a suitable
investment.  

The Plaintiffs' model endeavors to avoid such highly individualized
determinations by proposing alternative benchmark investments that
(1) had risk/return profiles similar to those that the Funds were
represented to have, and (2) that were in fact structured in
accordance with the preservation-of-capital objective.  However,
plaintiffs do not contend that the benchmark investments would have
been suitable for members of the proposed class, or even that it
would be possible to find benchmarks that would have been uniformly
suitable.

The Court concludes that the manner in which plaintiffs propose to
select benchmark investments would almost certainly not satisfy the
requirements of their own client-specific suitability expert.  

Superiority

The superiority requirement asks a court to consider whether a
class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and
efficiently adjudicating the controversy.

This is not a case where members of the proposed class will be left
without a remedy if the class is not certified, because they may
arguably pursue their individual claims in FINRA arbitrations if
they so choose. However, because the proposed class fails to
satisfy the predominance and typicality requirements of Rule 23,
the Court need not and does not determine that FINRA arbitrations
are superior to a class action.

The Court finds that the sole question of law or fact common to
members of the proposed class is significantly outweighed by a
number of questions affecting only individual members. Accordingly
plaintiffs' motion for class certification is denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 17, 2018 Opinion
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ydejjta3 from
Leagle.com.

Nora Fernandez, Plaintiff, represented by Adam David Hollander --
adam.hollander@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann
LLP, Deborah A. Elman -- delman@gelaw.com -- Grant & Eisenhofer
P.A., pro hac vice, Jeremy Patrick Robinson -- jeremy@blbglaw.com
-- Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, Daniel Lawrence
Berger -- dberger@gelaw.com -- Grant & Eisenhofer P.A., Evan Robert
Hoey -- ehoey@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP,
Geoffrey Coyle Jarvis -- gjarvis@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer
& Check, LLP, Hannah Elizabeth Ross -- hannah@blbglaw.com --
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, Jacob Nachmani --
Jake.Nachmani@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann
LLP, James A. Maro, Jr. -- jmaro@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer
& Check, LLP, John Charles Kairis -- jkairis@gelaw.com -- Grant &
Eisenhofer, PA, Johnston de Forest Whitman, Jr. --
jwhitman@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Jon
Theodore Pearson, Ballard Spahr LLP, pro hac vice,  

UBS A.G., UBS Financial Services Inc., UBS Financial Services
Incorporated of Puerto Rico, UBS Trust Company of Puerto Rico, UBS
Bank USA & Carlos V. Ubinas, Defendants, represented by Salvador J.
Antonetti-Stutts -- salvador.antonetti@oneillborges.com -- O'Neill
& Borges, Ubaldo M. Fernandez-Barrera --
ubaldo.fernandez@oneillborges.com -- O'Neill & Borges, Aura A.
Montes-Rodriguez -- aura.montes@oneillborges.com -- O'Neill &
Borges, LLC, Janet Anne Gochman -- jgochman@stblaw.com -- Simpson
Thacher & Bartlett LLP, Jonathan K. Youngwood --
jyoungwood@stblaw.com -- Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, pro hac
vice & Joshua Coleman Polster -- joshua.polster@stblaw.com --
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP.


UMPQUA BANK: Settlement in Connolly FCRA Suit Has Prelim Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SARAH CONNOLLY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. UMPQUA BANK, Defendant,
Case No. C15-517 TSZ (W.D. Wash.), Judge Thomas S. Zilly of the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington,
Seattle, granted in part and deferred in part the Plaintiff's
second unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the class
action settlement.

The Judge certified the class, for settlement purposes, of all
individuals (i) who applied for employment with, or are/were
employed by, Umpqua Bank; (ii) who completed a disclosure and
authorization form during the Class Period, defined as April 2,
2010 to Sept. 21, 2015; and (iii) about whom Umpqua Bank obtained,
during the Class Period, a consumer report for employment
purposes.

Plaintiff Connolly is appointed as the Class Representative;
Elizabeth A. Ryan of Bailey & Glasser LLP and Nicholas F. Ortiz of
the Law Office of Nicholas F. Ortiz, P.C. as the Class Counsel; and
JND Legal Administration Co. is as the Settlement Administrator.

Judge Zilly preliminarily approved the Revised Settlement Agreement
executed by the Plaintiff and Umpqua Bank.

Within 14 days of the date of the Order, Umpqua Bank will provide
to the Settlement Administrator a Class List in the form
contemplated in the Revised Settlement Agreement.  The Settlement
Administrator may begin preparations for distributing notice, i.e.,
assessing whether the contact information in the Class List is
valid and updating the information as necessary and feasible, but
no notice will be sent until further order of the Court.  The
Settlement Administrator will set up a website for the matter so
that the address can be included in the revised proposed forms of
notice required.

The Judge deferred the scheduling of a final settlement approval
hearing until after the parties submit revised proposed forms of
notice to the class members.  

The parties will confer, and revised proposed forms of notice to
the class members will be filed by Oct. 5, 2018, addressing the
following concerns:

(a) Postcard Notice: The postcard notice should provide sufficient
information so that a class member can take appropriate action even
if he or she does not receive the longer notices that will be sent
via either email or first-class mail.

(b) Emailed or Mailed Notice: Unless the parties object, the
definition of the Class that is set forth in the proposed long form
of notice should be modified to track the certified class.

The deferred portion of the Plaintiff's second motion for
preliminary approval of class action settlement, is renoted to Oct.
5, 2018.  Along with revised proposed forms of notice, the parties
will indicate what dates they propose for the final settlement
approval hearing and related deadlines, and what dates, if any,
during the two or three months around the timeframe they propose
might present any scheduling conflicts for the counsel.

The Judge directed the Clerk to send a copy of the Order to all the
counsel of record.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 28, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/IRRxR4 from Leagle.com.

Sarah Connolly, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Beth E. Terrell --
bterrell@terrellmarshall.com -- TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC, E.
Michelle Drake -- emdrake@bm.net -- BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C., pro
hac vice, Elizabeth Ryan -- eryan@baileyglasser.com -- BAILEY &
GLASSER LLP, pro hac vice, Nicholas F. Ortiz, LAW OFFICE OF
NICHOLAS F ORTIZ, PC, pro hac vice & Michael L. Murphy --
mmurphy@baileyglasser.com -- Bailey & Glasser, LLP.

Umpqua Bank, Defendant, represented by James E. Howard --
jimhoward@dwt.com -- DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE & Lauren Ashley Dorsett
-- laurendorsett@dwt.com -- DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE.


UNITED STATES: Class Action Appropriate in Monk Case Against VA
---------------------------------------------------------------
DisabledVeterans.org reports that remember Monk v. Wilkie. This is
a gamechanger.

Based on this federal court decision, in which an eight-judge panel
reexamined the fairness of VA precedent barring larger lawsuits,
class action is now deemed appropriate in some cases.

VA now joins the fold of federal entities that we can sue in large
numbers. This could be huge for veterans who have suffered for
widespread reasons. Agent Orange, Gulf War illness, Camp Lejeune.
It seems like this may be a watershed moment.

Maybe there is even a possible class-action case for military
sexual assault. After all, military service is a form of
employment, and American employers are tasked with providing a
tolerant work environment to their employees, insofar as that might
be possible.

Well, the Armed Forces are American employers. Arguably the most
American of American employers.

Basically, the "hostile work environment" rhetoric shakes out like
this: if anyone hurts you, it should be the other guy. Your wartime
enemy, not your comrades in arms. Your unit has the same duty of
honor and trust toward you as you have to them.

But the real question is… now what? Which cases will come
together in true class-action form? Which cases are still better
fought as a single person or a small group?

Catherine McCarthy, a law student at Yale who handled the Monk
case, is excited about the possibilities. "It's still trial and
error at this point to see what will work," she said. "But it's a
great opportunity, because so much of what we hear wrong about VA
are systemic problems, not just one veteran dealing with a single
issue."

Systemic problems. Widespread dissatisfaction, unsafe living
conditions at inpatient facilities, appeals lost in the bureaucracy
for a year or more. Sound familiar?

John Rowan, President of Vietnam Veterans of America, immediately
recognized the potential for a knock-down and drag-out fight over
Agent Orange exposure, including the "Blue Water" veterans who
served on ships within twelve miles of shore.

"The good thing is once there is a court ruling, it's a done deal,"
he said. "If the court orders them to make a change, there's no
budget aspect to it like there is with legislative fixes."

Veterans dealing with burn pit exposure illnesses and other toxic
chemical exposure could use this new opportunity to force VA's
hand.

Of course, the major downside to the class-action lawsuit has not
changed: It takes forever to complete the discovery process for so
many people. So many pages of documents, so many combined years of
service… there is always a lot of information to uncover in class
action.

For big VA battles, class action just might be law done right . . .
but it would never be law done fast.

Agent Orange veterans, for example, have this annoying tendency to
develop rare cancers at elevated rates from the norm. But if you
have a rare cancer and may die from it, how much of your remaining
life do you want to spend in court? Asking the big questions here.

These kinds of cases are high-maintenance, high-profile . . . . and
high-cost. Even a law firm dedicated to VA cases, like Krause Law,
will likely not be accepting these types of complaints unless it is
large enough to shoulder the caseload.

That said, this is still a major step forward for veterans,
offering a major new avenue to legal victory that VA had always
jammed shut . . . until now. [GN]


UNITED STATES: Immigrant Families File Mental Health Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Macias Jr., writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that attorneys representing a proposed class of families separated
under President Donald Trump's now-abandoned zero tolerance
immigration policy said on Sept. 20 that ongoing mental health care
is needed to address the "systemic" harm they experienced while in
detention.

In a 61-page complaint filed July 12, plaintiffs said the federal
government inflicted "enormous emotional trauma" by separating
families, an act they claim violated their Fifth Amendment rights
to due process and equal protection.

Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief from the policies and conditions
that deprive them of appropriate mental-health services provided
under the Flores settlement and seek to represent a class of
parents who "were, are or will be detained" in immigration
detention.

Lead plaintiff J.P., a Guatemalan woman who entered the United
States seeking asylum for herself and her 16-year old daughter
L.P., fled her country after her husband threatened to kill her.

The pair was separated for weeks after a grueling ten-day journey
to the U.S-Mexico border. J.P., who speaks the Mayan dialect
Q'eqchi', said she couldn't understand documents given to her and
didn't know her daughter's whereabouts.

"It was really frightening to not know what was happening, how long
we would be there, or what would happen to us," J.P. said in court
papers July 12. "The pain of being separated from my daughter and
worrying about her every day is indescribable."

Kevin Fee -- kfee@sidley.com -- of Sidley Austin said on Sept. 20
that the government is obligated to provide "trauma-informed"
mental health care to the proposed class of over 1,000 parents and
3,000 children, even if some have been released from custody.

A health expert cited by plaintiffs said in court papers that
family separation can cause "both immediate and long-term
psychological consequences" if left untreated.

"This was a grievous and direct harm through concerted policy . . .
that inflicted harm on already vulnerable people," Mr. Fee said,
adding that the reunification of families doesn't address "future
mental disorders" that can come as a result of separation and
detention.

Plaintiffs claim the government is liable for their harm and should
provide mental health care on the basis of the state-created danger
doctrine.

U.S Justice Department attorney Michael Heyse called the lawsuit
"creative lawyering" and said the claims have already been
addressed in the Ms. L v Sessions case in the Southern District of
California.

Mr. Heyse said the claims were "cloaked in injunctive garb" and are
more appropriate as a tort claim. He added that the claims are
"moot" since Trump's zero tolerance policy had already been
enjoined when plaintiffs filed their July 12 complaint.

U.S District Judge John Kronstadt said it's not uncommon to have
overlapping class actions with similar claims.

Mr. Heyse agreed but argued that children in the proposed class
should be added as named plaintiffs in the case.

The government said in court papers that 437 children in Office of
Refugee Resettlement custody remain separated from their parents.
Seven of those children have parents who are currently detained by
the Department of Homeland Security.

A Syracuse University study published on Sept. 20 said 174 detained
immigrants challenged their confinement by filing habeas corpus
petitions in federal courts in August 2018, up from 136 in July.

The study found that habeas corpus petitions were up 98.6 percent
from levels reported in August 2013.

Mr. Heyse said it's unclear what health services plaintiffs are
seeking and said that any government obligation to provide such
care must come after the court has found "conscious shocking"
neglect.

In a motion to dismiss filed Sept. 17, the Trump administration
said that class members' fears of future harm due to detention or
family separation are "purely speculative" and don't prove that the
government should provide them with any post-release care.

"No court has ruled that a detention or custodial agency must
provide any such care after release from detention or custody, or
if at all, beyond a brief transitional period," the motion said.
"The Government does not owe a free-standing duty to provide
medical care to former detainees."

In a sworn statement to the court on Sept. 19, Office of Refugee
Resettlement Field Supervisor James De La Cruz said he reviewed
each plaintiff's case and found that staff determined they didn't
have "mental health issues warranting more intensive interventions"
or follow-up treatment.

While in custody, if a child is deemed to have mental illness they
can be referred to external services and treatment which can
include psychotropic drugs, De La Cruz said, adding that formerly
detained individuals can access case managers after release.

A safety and well-being check is performed for all detained
children 30 days after their release, the statement said.

Mr. Heyse said mental health "resources are out there" for
immigrant families in detention, adding that a listing of pro bono
services is made available.

Judge Kronstadt asked Mr. Heyse how he expects immigrant families
to navigate complex medical systems in a new country where they may
not speak the language.

Mr. Heyse said there was no evidence that requests for referrals
were ever ignored in detention facilities.

Judge Kronstadt asked how any potential relief -- compensatory,
injunctive or other forms -- would benefit people who have already
been released from detention or deported.

Mr. Fee said it was not plaintiff's "burden to come up with a plan"
but that they could be part of envisioning the best method for
relief.

Also before the court is defendant's ex parte motion to move a Jan.
7 hearing to Oct. 22.

Judge Kronstadt made no ruling on Sept. 20 on the defendants'
motion or plaintiffs' motions for preliminary injunctive relief and
class certification and did not indicate when he would rule.


UNITED STATES: Immigration Advocates to Fight Detention Proposal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nathaniel Weixel and Rafael Bernal, writing for The Hill, report
that immigration advocates are vowing to challenge a new effort by
the Trump administration that would allow the government to
indefinitely detain children in immigration jails with their
parents.

The groups say that the administration's proposal is cold-hearted,
would overturn important protections for migrant children, and
would not do anything to deter families from trying to illegally
cross the southern border.

Under the proposed rule issued on Sept. 6 by the Departments of
Homeland Security and Health and Human Services (HHS), the
administration said it plans to issue new regulations that would
terminate and replace the Flores agreement, which has governed the
detention of migrant children since 1997.

The proposal would allow immigration officials to keep children and
their parents detained together for the entire length of their
court proceedings, which could take months.

The move is almost certain to land the administration back in
court, where a federal judge has already ruled against previous
efforts to terminate the Flores agreement.

"The Trump administration's proposed regulations, purporting to
implement the Flores settlement, are nothing more than a
prescription for the mass internment of children," said
Leecia Welch, a senior attorney at the National Center for Youth
Law.

Ms. Welch's organization is a co-counsel in the Flores case, and a
spokesman said the group is likely to challenge the proposal if it
is implemented.

Peter Schey, president of the Center for Human Rights and
Constitutional Law and a leader of the legal team in the original
Flores case, said he was already preparing to challenge the Trump
administration plan.

"We will oppose in court any effort to terminate the Flores
settlement unless and until the government proposes regulations
that provide for the safe and humane treatment of detained children
and that are fully consistent with the terms of the settlement we
negotiated in 1997," Mr. Schey said in a statement.

The Justice Department, which represents the government in the
Flores litigation, declined to comment.

The Flores rules are the result of a settlement in a federal
class-action lawsuit over the physical and emotional harm done to
children held in jail-like settings for extended periods. The
settlement was only meant to be temporary, until it could be
written into federal law.

Multiple administrations have challenged the rules and attempted to
extend the time migrant children can be detained, but the federal
judge overseeing the case has rejected those attempts.

The most recent denial came in July. The Justice Department filed a
notice preserving its right to appeal that decision on Sept. 6, the
same day the proposed rule was released.

Omar Jadwat, director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project,
said the proposal is a new approach to try to circumvent the
courts.

No administration has attempted to replace the Flores agreement
with new regulations, but Mr. Jadwat said he expects this effort to
fail as well.

"It seems clear that the point of these regulations is to change
the status quo to detain more kids for longer, under worse
conditions than the settlement allows," Mr. Jadwat said. "It's
clear what they're trying to do, but I don't think they're going to
be successful."

Under the Flores settlement, detaining children for more than 20
days is illegal. The proposed regulations would end that
restriction.

Flores has been an obstacle for the Trump administration since it
enacted a "zero tolerance" policy on illegal border crossings in
April.

Under that policy, first-time adult offenders, including asylum
seekers, were remanded to the Department of Justice over a
misdemeanor that previous administrations had opted not to
prosecute.

Any children brought across the border were separated from their
parents, deemed to be "unaccompanied," and detained by HHS in
separate facilities sometimes hundreds of miles from their
parents.

The policy resulted in over 2,500 family separations and a
political headache for the administration.

Most of those families have been reunited, but more than 400
children remain in HHS custody.

The administration was harshly criticized from both Democrats and
Republicans over its family separation policy, and the new attempt
to withdraw from the settlement could revive that anger, less than
two months before the midterm elections.  

The proposed rules also show the Trump administration is proceeding
on its own, without the help of Congress.

Administration officials told lawmakers on several occasions that
it is Congress's responsibility to overturn Flores, but House
Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Minority Leader
Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) said that they could not endorse a GOP
plan that would keep families in extended detention.

Congressional Democrats railed against the proposed changes.

In her weekly press conference on Sept. 6, Pelosi said the policy
"has no practical value whatsoever," and called it "another
inhumane assault on families and children."

Rep. Michelle Lujan Grisham (D-N.M.), chairwoman of the
Congressional Hispanic Caucus, in a statement said ending the
agreement "will lead to more deaths and risks putting more children
and families in danger."

"The Trump administration's willingness to make this decision with
full knowledge of the atrocious repercussions is negligent and
illegal given that it violates federal and state laws enacted to
protect children," she added.

"If people were very disturbed by children being separated from
their families, they're going to be especially disturbed when they
see 20,000 families crowded into tents together," Rep. Ruben
Gallego (D-Ariz.) told The Hill. [GN]


UNITED STATES: Loses Summary Judgment Bid in GM Dealers' Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Federal Claims issued an Opinion denying
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment in the case captioned
COLONIAL CHEVROLET CO., INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED
STATES, Defendant, ALLEY'S OF KINGSPORT, INC., et al., Plaintiffs,
v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant, UNION DODGE, INC., et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant. Nos. 10-647C, 11-100C,
and 12-900C. (Fed. Cl.).

Pending before the court is the motion for summary judgment filed
by the defendant, the United States ("government"), pursuant to
Rule 56 of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims
("RCFC"). The government seeks summary judgment against all of the
General Motors plaintiffs from this consolidated case brought by
former General Motors and Chrysler dealers whose dealerships were
terminated as part of the United States government's bailout of the
auto industry in 2009.  Additionally, pending before this court is
the plaintiffs' "Motion for Leave to Supplement the Summary
Judgment Evidence While Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is
Under Consideration." The named plaintiffs owned franchise
dealerships to sell various General Motors ("Old GM") vehicles
before Old GM went into bankruptcy during the 2008-09 financial
crisis. The plaintiffs claim that the government is responsible for
a taking of their franchise agreements without paying just
compensation in contravention of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution. U.S. Const. amend V. Specifically, the plaintiffs
claim that before the government would agree to give more financial
resources to Old GM as part of the government's Troubled Asset
Relief Program ("TARP") during the 2008-09 financial crisis, the
government forced Old GM to terminate their franchise dealerships
through Wind-Down Agreements. This case has 59 plaintiffs who
contend that they were coerced into signing Wind-Down Agreements
and six plaintiffs who refused to sign the Wind-Down Agreements and
had their dealerships rejected in Old GM's bankruptcy.

The government makes four arguments as to why the court should
enter summary judgment in its favor. First, the government argues
that it cannot be held liable for a taking stemming from the
execution of any Wind-Down Agreement because the government was not
a party to any Wind-Down Agreement and thus the termination of the
franchise agreements through the Wind-Down Agreements did not
involve any government action. Second, the government argues that
even if there was government action in connection with the
termination of the plaintiffs' franchise agreements through the
execution of the Wind-Down Agreements, the government cannot be
liable for a taking because the plaintiffs who signed the Wind-Down
Agreements voluntarily relinquished their franchise dealership
agreements to Old GM in exchange for various concessions and a
onetime monetary payment. Third, the government argues with regard
to the plaintiffs who signed the Wind-Down Agreements that the
government cannot be liable for a taking under the Fifth Amendment
because those plaintiffs released the government from all liability
by agreeing, in their Wind-Down Agreements, to release the
shareholders of the 363 Acquirer of GM ("363 Acquirer" or "New GM")
from all liability following the Old GM bankruptcy. The United
States was a shareholder of the 363 Acquirer. Finally, the
government argues with regard to both the plaintiffs that signed
Wind-Down Agreements and the plaintiffs that were offered Wind-Down
Agreements but did not sign the Agreements that all of the
plaintiffs received or were offered economic benefits in those
Agreements that equal or exceed what they are seeking in this case,
i.e. the value of their dealership had Old GM not received a
government bailout. As such, the government argues none of the
plaintiffs can prove a takings claim.

Plaintiffs argue, in response, that there are disputed issues of
material fact that preclude the entry of summary judgment in favor
of the government. First, the plaintiffs argue that they have
presented evidence to show that the government forced Old GM to
terminate the plaintiffs' franchise dealership agreements and thus,
contrary to the government's contentions, the government and not
Old GM was responsible for the terminations of their dealerships.
Second, plaintiffs argue that they have presented evidence to show
that there are disputed issues of material fact which establish
that the plaintiffs did not voluntarily relinquish their franchise
agreements but were given no choice. Third, the plaintiffs argue
that the government is not entitled to summary judgment regarding
the 59 plaintiffs that signed the release in the Wind-Down
Agreements on the grounds that the release is ambiguous under
Michigan state law and that parole evidence is needed to discern
the parties' intentions. Specifically, the plaintiffs argue that it
is not clear from the language of the release whether the parties
intended to include the release of the United States government
from takings liability when the plaintiffs agreed to relinquish all
claims against the 363 Acquirer. Finally, plaintiffs argue that
there are genuine issues of material fact which preclude summary
judgment as to the value of plaintiffs' franchise dealership
agreements if Old GM had been forced to liquidate in bankruptcy.
Plaintiffs argue that they have presented sufficient evidence to
show that if Old GM had liquidated they would have received more
than they received or were offered in the Wind-Down Agreements.

Disputed Issues of Material Facts Preclude Summary Judgment for the
Government on the Issue of Whether the Plaintiffs' Franchise
Dealership Agreements Were Terminated Because of Government Action

The court agrees with the plaintiffs that there are genuine issues
of material fact that preclude the court from entering summary
judgment in the government's favor on whether there was sufficient
government action to support plaintiffs' takings claims. The facts
presented by plaintiffs from the SIGTARP report as well as the
deposition of Mr. Wilson and the accompanying exhibits demonstrate
that the government, through the Task Force, forced Old GM to
terminate more dealerships on a more expedited basis and thereby
forced the closure of at least some of the plaintiffs' dealerships.


In such circumstance, the court cannot agree with the government
that the Wind-Down Agreements and the termination of plaintiffs'
dealerships was not the result of government action but only the
product of a private transaction between the plaintiffs and Old
GM.

Plaintiffs Did Not Voluntarily Relinquish Their Franchise
Dealerships to the United States

It is not disputed that when an owner of property voluntarily
conveys property to the government or a third party by agreement,
the property owner cannot subsequently maintain a takings claim
regarding that property against the United States.  The plaintiffs
could not have avoided the loss of their franchise agreements by
not signing the Wind-Down Agreements. The plaintiffs who did not
sign the Wind-Down Agreements would have lost their franchise
agreements in bankruptcy court.  

Notwithstanding this, the court agrees with the government that if
the value provided for in Wind-Down Agreements equals or exceeds
the value of the plaintiffs franchise agreements in the "but for"
world there can be no taking. Without evidence regarding the value
of the franchises in the "but for" world, the fact that the
plaintiffs entered into Wind-Down Agreements with Old GM does not
end plaintiffs' takings claims against the United States.

The Wind-Down Agreement's Release Provision is Ambiguous

The court agrees with the government that the government as a
shareholder in the 363 Acquirer is without question included as an
intended beneficiary of the release. However the court agrees with
the plaintiffs that the scope and extent of the release contained
in the Wind-Down Agreements is ambiguous. A release is ambiguous if
its language is reasonably susceptible to more than one
interpretation.

The court finds that the scope of the release is ambiguous and thus
it is necessary for the court to hold a trial to determine the
scope of the Wind-Down Agreement's release. The release is
ambiguous because the government was not specifically named as a
third-party beneficiary, but became a third-party beneficiary
through its status as a shareholder of the 363 Acquirer. Whether
the parties thus intended to release the United States government
for Fifth Amendment takings claims is unclear.

Indeed, the evidence presented by plaintiffs shows that in other
agreements entered into with GM executives following the GM
bailout, the release language included all potential claims for
payment under the laws of the United States, including presumably
the Fifth Amendment. The absence of such express language in the
Wind-Down Agreements supports plaintiffs' contention that the
subject releases are ambiguous on this question. It is for all
these reasons that a trial to discern the parties' intentions is
needed in accordance with Michigan law.

A full-text copy of the Federal Claims Court's September 17, 2018
Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y9w4g248 from
Leagle.com.

COLONIAL CHEVROLET CO., INC. & MIKE FINNIN MOTORS, INC., on their
own behalf and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, represented by Marquette William Wolf --
mwolf@tedlyon.com -- Ted. B. Lyon & Associates, PC.

ALLEY'S OF KINGSPORT, INC, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by
Nancie Gail Marzulla -- nancie@marzulla.com -- Marzulla Law, LLC.

UNION DODGE, INC., doing business as UNION CHRYSLER JEEP DODGE,
Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan Ambrose Michaels --
jmichaels@mlgautomotivelaw.com -- MLG Automotive Law, APLC.

USA, Defendant, represented by Kenneth Michael Dintzer, U. S.
Department of Justice - Civil Div.


UNITED STATES: Migrant Families Sue Over "Zero Tolerance" Policy
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Griffith, writing for Think Progress, reports that
migrant families separated at the US-Mexican border under President
Trump's "zero tolerance" policy have suffered "life-altering"
emotional trauma, according to a lawsuit demanding that the
government provide counseling for those affected.

The federal class action lawsuit was filed by families torn asunder
at the US-Mexico border under the administration's family
separation policy, CNN reported.

The administration abandoned its zero tolerance policy amid a
public furor, but many children languished for weeks in detention.
Some are being held still apart from their parents, who in some
cases have been deported back to their home countries in Central
America.

ABC News said in a report that the lawsuit seeks to create a fund
that will pay for therapy for some 2,000 traumatized children who
were ripped away from their parents.

The report recounts numerous cases of children displaying anxiety
and other symptoms of emotional and psychological injury, long
after being returned to their parents, after separations lasting
weeks or even months.

Meanwhile, as ThinkProgress reported, some 400 children -- more
than a dozen of whom are younger than five -- remain apart from
their parents. Experts say such prolonged separations can cause
untold damage to children, particularly infants and pre-schoolers.

The head of the American Academy of Pediatrics told CNN in June
that the family separation policy, which the Trump administration
has since abandoned, amounts to "nothing less than
government-sanctioned child abuse."

"It's creating a whole generation of kids who are traumatized," Dr.
Colleen Kraft told CNN.

A study this past June by the Kaiser Family Foundation illustrated
just how damaging family separations can be, particularly on the
developing brains and fragile psyches of very young children.

"Separating children from their parents exposes them to trauma and
toxic stress that can have lifelong negative impacts on their
mental and physical health," the report read.

"Detention, for even brief periods, has short- and long-term
negative effects on the health of parents and children. Studies
show high levels of psychiatric distress, including depression and
post-traumatic stress, among detained asylum seekers, even after
short detention periods, and that symptoms worsen over time."

Similarly, the American Academy of Pediatrics issued a position
paper last year which concluded that young children should never,
ever be placed in detention centers like the ones scattered across
the country, where the Trump administration has housed thousands of
migrant children.

"Studies of detained immigrants, primarily from abroad, have found
negative physical and emotional symptoms among detained children
and posttraumatic symptoms do not always disappear at the time of
release," the report said.

"Young detainees may experience developmental delay and poor
psychological adjustment, potentially affecting functioning in
school," it said, adding that "expert consensus has concluded that
even brief detention can cause psychological trauma and induce
long-term mental health risks for children."

One would think that the Trump administration -- faced with the
prospect of permanent emotional damage to thousands of young
children -- might have heeded these dire warning from groups that
monitor children's health and wellbeing. Sadly, that is not the
case.

As Think Progress reported, the administration on Sept. 7 proposed
new rules that would allow the government to detain migrant
children for even longer periods while their parents face
immigration court.

That could mean millions of dollars more in psychological
counseling, and the far higher and more tragic cost of traumatized
young lives forever ruined. [GN]


UNIV OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Sued over Doctor's Sexual Conduct
--------------------------------------------------------------
JANE DOE 351; JANE DOE 352; JANE DOE 353; JANE DOE 354; JANE DOE
355; JANE DOE 356; JANE DOE 357; JANE DOE 358; JANE DOE 359; JANE
DOE 360; JANE DOE 361; JANE DOE 362; and JANE DOE 363, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA; THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA; ENGEMANN STUDENT HEALTH CENTER;
GEORGE TYNDALL, and JOE 1-500, Defendants, Case No. BC719408 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., Aug. 28, 2018) seeks to vindicate the
rights of young women who were sexually exploited, sexually abused,
harassed and molested at the hands of serial sexual predator Mr.
George Tyndall, while they were students at the University of
Southern California, under the supervision, management, and control
of the Board of Trustees.

The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that while attending at the
Defendant University, the Plaintiffs were forced to repeatedly seek
medical treatment from defendant-sexual predator Mr. Tyndall, due
to the fact that Mr. Tyndall was the only full-time gynecologist on
staff at the Defendant University's Student Health Clinic. During
which time, Mr. Tyndall used this position of trust and authority
to sexually exploit and serially sexually abuse the Plaintiffs on
countless occasions.

Despite the fact that the University and the Board of Trustees,
have publicly admitted that they have received numerous complaints
about Mr. Tyndalls's sexual abusive behavior dating back to at
least the 1990's, the University and the Board of Trustees,
deliberately concealed Mr. Tyndall's sexual abuse for decades and
continued to grant Mr. Tyndall unfettered access to young,
vulnerable female students at the University.

University of Southern California is a private research university
that offers undergraduate, graduate, and professional courses in
the fields of arts, technology, and international business. The
institution was founded in 1880 and is based in Los Angeles,
California. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Dale B. Ratner, Esq.
          MARC J. BERN & PARTNERS, LLP.
          201 Spear Street, Suite 1100
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (323) 642-5424
          Facsimile: (212)818-0164
          E-mail: DRatner@BemLLP.com

               - and –

          Adam P. Slater, ESq.
          SLATER SLATER SCHULMAN LLP
          909 Third Avenue, 28th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 481-7400
          Facsimile: (212) 922-0907
          E-mail: ASlater@sssfirm.com

               - and –

          Anthony T. DiPietro, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ANTHONY T. DIPIETRO, P.C.
          233 Broadway, Suite 880
          New York, NY 10279
          Telephone: (212) 233-3600
          Facsimile: (212) 202-7575
          E-mail: ANTHONY@ATDLaw.com


USANA HEALTH: Bid to Drop Rumbaugh Class Suit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Usana Health Sciences, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2018, that a decision is pending regarding
its motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the "Rumbaugh"
suit.

On February 13, 2017, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit
(Rumbaugh v. USANA Health Sciences Inc., et al., Case No.
2:17-cv-00106) was filed in the United States District Court for
the District of Utah by April Rumbaugh, a purported shareholder of
USANA, alleging that the Company failed to disclose that (i) the
Company's BabyCare subsidiary had engaged in improper reimbursement
practices in China, (ii) these practices constituted violations of
the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act or FCPA, (iii) as such, the
Company's China revenues were in part the product of unlawful
conduct and unlikely to be sustainable, and (iv) the foregoing
conduct, when it became known, was likely to subject the Company to
significant regulatory scrutiny.

On behalf of herself and a putative class of purchasers of USANA
stock between March 14, 2014 and February 7, 2017, the plaintiff
asserted claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act")
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The plaintiff sought, among other things, an award of damages,
interest, reasonable attorneys' fees, expert fees, and other costs.
The lawsuit named as defendants the Company; its former Co-Chief
Executive Officer, David A. Wentz; and its Chief Leadership
Development Officer, Paul A. Jones.

On June 2, 2017, the court appointed Chi Wah On (another purported
shareholder of USANA) as lead plaintiff.  On August 4, 2017, lead
plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint seeking similar
relief.  This new complaint asserted additional allegations and
added the Company's Chief Executive Officer, Kevin G. Guest, and
Chief Financial Officer, G. Douglas Hekking, as defendants.

On September 18, 2017, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint, and briefing was completed on November 8, 2017.
The motion to dismiss was argued on April 25, 2018 and a decision
is pending.  According to a Minute Order dated April 25, 2018, the
Court has taken the Motion to Dismiss under advisement.

USANA Health said, "The Company believes that the action is without
merit, and intends to vigorously defend against all claims
asserted."

USANA Health Sciences, Inc. develops and manufactures high-quality,
science-based nutritional and personal care/skincare products that
are distributed internationally through a network marketing system,
which is a form of direct selling. The company is based in Salt
Lake City, Utah.


VALHI INC: NL Industries Still Faces Lawsuits over Lead Pigments
----------------------------------------------------------------
NL Industries, Inc., a subsidiary of Valhi, Inc., still defends
itself against lawsuits arising from use of lead pigments in
paints, according to the Valhi, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June
30, 2018.

NL's former operations included the manufacture of lead pigments
for use in paint and lead-based paint.  NL, other former
manufacturers of lead pigments for use in paint and lead-based
paint (together, the "former pigment manufacturers"), and the Lead
Industries Association (LIA), which discontinued business
operations in 2002, have been named as defendants in various legal
proceedings seeking damages for personal injury, property damage
and governmental expenditures allegedly caused by the use of
lead-based paints.  Certain of these actions have been filed by or
on behalf of states, counties, cities or their public housing
authorities and school districts, and certain others have been
asserted as class actions.  These lawsuits seek recovery under a
variety of theories, including public and private nuisance,
negligent product design, negligent failure to warn, strict
liability, breach of warranty, conspiracy/concert of action, aiding
and abetting, enterprise liability, market share or risk
contribution liability, intentional tort, fraud and
misrepresentation, violations of state consumer protection
statutes, supplier negligence and similar claims.

The plaintiffs in these actions generally seek to impose on the
defendants responsibility for lead paint abatement and health
concerns associated with the use of lead-based paints, including
damages for personal injury, contribution and/or indemnification
for medical expenses, medical monitoring expenses and costs for
educational programs.  To the extent the plaintiffs seek
compensatory or punitive damages in these actions, such damages are
generally unspecified.  In some cases, the damages are unspecified
pursuant to the requirements of applicable state law.  A number of
cases are inactive or have been dismissed or withdrawn.  Most of
the remaining cases are in various pre-trial stages.  Some are on
appeal following dismissal or summary judgment rulings or a trial
verdict in favor of either the defendants or the plaintiffs.

The Company said, "We believe that these actions are without merit,
and we intend to continue to deny all allegations of wrongdoing and
liability and to defend against all actions vigorously.  Other than
with respect to the Santa Clara case, we do not believe it is
probable that we have incurred any liability with respect to all of
the lead pigment litigation cases to which we are a party, and with
respect to all such lead pigment litigation cases to which we are a
party, other than with respect to the Santa Clara case, we believe
liability to us that may result, if any, in this regard cannot be
reasonably estimated, because:

   * NL has never settled any of the market share, intentional
tort, fraud, nuisance, supplier negligence, breach of warranty,
conspiracy, misrepresentation, aiding and abetting, enterprise
liability, or statutory cases (subject to the final outcome of the
Santa Clara case),

   * no final, non-appealable adverse verdicts have ever been
entered against NL (subject to the final outcome of the Santa Clara
case), and

   * NL has never ultimately been found liable with respect to any
such litigation matters, including over 100 cases over a
twenty-year period for which we were previously a party and for
which we have been dismissed without any finding of liability.  

"Accordingly, other than with respect to the Santa Clara case, we
have not accrued any amounts for any of the pending lead pigment
and lead-based paint litigation cases filed by or on behalf of
states, counties, cities or their public housing authorities and
school districts, or those asserted as class actions and we have
determined that liability to us which may result, if any, cannot be
reasonably estimated at this time because there is no prior history
of a loss of this nature on which an estimate could be made and
there is no substantive information available upon which an
estimate could be based."

Valhi, Inc., headquartered in Dallas, Texas, is primarily a holding
company.  The Company operates through its wholly-owned and
majority-owned subsidiaries, including NL Industries, Inc., Kronos
Worldwide, Inc., CompX International Inc. and Waste Control
Specialists LLC.


VERISMA SYSTEMS: Court Won't Review McCracken Summary Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANN McCRACKEN; JOAN FARRELL; SARAH STILSON; KEVIN
MCCLOSKEY; CHRISTOPHER TRAPATSOS; and KIMBERLY BAILEY, as
individuals and as representatives of the classes, Plaintiffs, v.
VERISMA SYSTEMS, INC.; UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER; STRONG MEMORIAL
HOSPITAL; and HIGHLAND HOSPITAL, Defendants, Case No.
6:14-cv-06248(MAT)(W.D. N.Y.), Judge Michael A. Telesca of the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of New York denied without
prejudice Verisma's Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's May
15, 2017 Decision and Order denying its Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment.

The case is a class action by the Plaintiffs against Verisma, and
Highland Hospital, Strong Memorial Hospital, and the University of
Rochester ("Hospital Defendants").  The Plaintiffs allege that
Verisma and the Hospital Defendants systematically overcharged
patients who requested copies of their medical records, in
violation of New York Public Health Law ("PHL") Section 18.

Presently before the Court is Verisma's Reconsideration Motion of
the Court's May 15, 2017 Decision and Order denying its Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment.  The Plaintiffs and the Hospital
Defendants argue that a district court decision cannot be
controlling law for purposes of Rule 54(b).  Verisma counters by
rephrasing the reconsideration standard as being warranted when a
party points to a controlling or significant change in the law.

Judge Telesca finds that it is established beyond debate that
district courts are bound by the decisions of the Supreme Court of
the United States and those of the Circuit Court of Appeals in
their own circuit, but are not bound by those of a federal court of
co-ordinate jurisdiction, or even the decisions of a federal
Circuit Court of Appeals in another circuit.  It necessarily
follows that a district court decision cannot constitute an
intervening change of controlling law sufficient to warrant
reconsideration.

Even assuming arguendo that the March 2018 Ruzhinskaya v.
HealthPort Techs., LLC district court decision potentially could
qualify as "controlling law" for purposes of reconsideration, the
Judge holds that the fact that the case is currently on appeal to
the Second Circuit renders it an inappropriate basis on which to
overturn the Court's previous decision.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Telesca denied Verisma's Motion
for Reconsideration.  However, the Second Circuit in the
Ruzhinskaya appeal eventually may reach a conclusion contrary to
that reached by the Court on the proper interpretation of the scope
of PHL Section 18.  Therefore, the denial of reconsideration is
without prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 28, 2018 Decision and Order is
available at https://is.gd/0r8x69 from Leagle.com.

Ann McCracken, Joan Farrell, Sara Stilson, Kevin McCloskey,
Christopher Trapatsos & Kimberly Bailey, Plaintiffs, represented
by
Kai H. Richter -- krichter@nka.com -- Nichols Kaster, PLLP, Kathryn
Lee Bruns, Faraci Lange LLP, Stephen G. Schwarz, Faraci Lange LLP,
Anna P. Prakash -- aprakash@nka.com -- Nichols Kaster, PLLP & Mark
Edward Thomson -- mthomson@nka.com -- Nichols Kaster, PLLP.

Verisma Systems, Inc., Defendant, represented by Caroline Jacobsen
Berdzik -- cberdzik@goldbergsegalla.com -- Goldberg Segalla LLP,
James D. Macri -- cberdzik@goldbergsegalla.com -- Goldberg Segalla
LLP, Ryan Grant Pitman -- rpitman@goldbergsegalla.com -- Goldberg
Segalla LLP & Christopher J. Belter -- cbelter@goldbergsegalla.com
-- Goldberg Segalla LLP.

Strong Memorial Hospital, Highland Hospital & University of
Rochester, Defendants, represented by Eric J. Ward --
eward@wardgreenberg.com -- Ward Greenberg Heller & Reidy LLP &
Amanda B. Burns -- aburns@wardgreenberg.com -- Ward Greenberg
Heller & Reidy LLP.

Strong Memorial Hospital, Highland Hospital & University of
Rochester, Cross Claimants, represented by Eric J. Ward, Ward
Greenberg Heller & Reidy LLP & Amanda B. Burns, Ward Greenberg
Heller & Reidy LLP.

Verisma Systems, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Caroline
Jacobsen Berdzik, Goldberg Segalla LLP, Ryan Grant Pitman, Goldberg
Segalla LLP & Christopher J. Belter, Goldberg Segalla LLP.


VILLAGE OF RIDGEWOOD: Township of Wyckoff Sues over Water Rates
---------------------------------------------------------------
TOWNSHIP OF WYCKOFF, BOROUGH OF GLEN ROCK, AND BOROUGH OF MIDLAND
PARK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. THE VILLAGE OF RIDGEWOOD, Defendant, Case No.
BER-L-006088-18 (N.J. Super., Bergen Cty., Aug. 20, 2018) alleges
that the Retroactive Water Rate Ordinance discriminates against the
Plaintiffs and the class and violates the U.S. and New Jersey
Constitutions.

The Defendant adopted the Retroactive Water Rate Ordinance after
the Superior Court, Law Division, Bergen County, issued a July 20,
2017 written opinion by the Honorable Lisa Perez-Friscia, J.S.C.,
in Docket No. BER-L-5651-12, invalidating the Defendant's
pre-existing water rate ordinances as illegally premised upon a
"fictitious deficit."

Rather than awarding damages in the form of a refund of the monies
improperly charged under the invalidated water rate increase
ordinances, however, the court's July 20, 2017 opinion remanded the
matter to the Defendant to re-establish water rates and calculate
the amount of the refund to which the Plaintiffs are entitled.

As an initial matter, the Plaintiffs maintain that the entire
exercise of remanding the matter back to the Defendant to pass a
new municipal ordinance retroactively setting water rates and
calculating the amount of the Plaintiffs' refund is both
fundamentally unfair and in violation of the law of remedies, and
have an appeal pending under Appellate Docket No. A-000363-17
addressing these issues.

Ridgewood is a village in Bergen County, New Jersey, United States.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph B. Fiorenzo, Esq.
          SILLS CUMMIS & GROSS P.C.
          One Riverfront Plaza
          Newark, NJ 07102-5400
          Telephone: (973) 643-7000


VITAMIN SHOPPE: Plaintiffs Voluntarily Drop Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Vitamin Shoppe, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2018, that the appointed lead plaintiffs in a
federal securities class action has voluntarily dismissed the case
without prejudice.

On or about August 22, 2017, a federal securities class action suit
was filed in the United States District Court in the District of
New Jersey against Vitamin Shoppe and certain officers and
directors on behalf of purchasers of Vitamin Shoppe common stock
between March 1, 2017 and August 6, 2017.

The lawsuit sought remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, including monetary damages, alleging that the defendants made
false and misleading statements regarding the Company's reported
goodwill, initiatives designed to improve the Company's financial
performance, the Company's profitability trends, and its financial
results.

On April 26, 2018, the court appointed the lead plaintiffs.  On
July 14, 2018, the appointed lead plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed
the case without prejudice.

Vitamin Shoppe, Inc. is an omni-channel specialty retailer of
vitamins, minerals, herbs, specialty supplements, sports nutrition
and other health and wellness products. The company is based in
Secaucus, New Jersey.


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Dutch Asset Managers Join Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Sameer Van Alfen, writing for IPE.com, reports that three of the
Netherlands' largest pension managers are likely to participate in
a class action lawsuit against German car maker Volkswagen related
to the 2015 emissions scandal.

In addition to the EUR470bn Dutch asset manager APG and the EUR27bn
ABN Amro Pensioenfonds, the EUR215bn Dutch asset manager PGGM is
also likely to join the lawsuit, according to Pensioen Pro, IPE's
Dutch sister publication.

Pensioen Pro reported that it was not yet clear whether metal
industry schemes PMT and PME had also joined this action, or had
opted for another case against the German car manufacturer.

Last week, the giant litigation case -- in which approximately
3,500 investors claim damages as a result of their stake in
Volkswagen (VW) dropping by one-third -- started at the court of
justice in Braunschweig.

Both APG and the ABN Amro pension fund have confirmed that they are
among the participants of the class action, which also targets VW's
subsidiary Porsche.

In their annual reports PMT and PME both mentioned "legal
procedures because of the emissions scandal of diesel cars".

Other Dutch pension funds and providers declined to state whether
they were among the litigants.

'However, it is likely that PGGM has also joined the class action.
In its most recent sustainability report, it cited a "German legal
action against VW and Porsche because of ‘dieselgate'".

Andreas Tilp, Esq. -- Info@tilp.de -- of German law firm Tilp
Litigation, also declined to provide further details to Pensioen
Pro. In 2016 he told Dutch financial newspaper FD that he was
representing 30 large Dutch players.

MN, the EUR130bn asset manager for both metal schemes, declined to
confirm whether it would take part in the litigation case that
started last week.

Despite the emissions scandal, the large Dutch civil service scheme
ABP, healthcare pension fund PFZW and PME have remained invested in
VW, keeping both equity and bond holdings.

The EUR72bn PMT has since divested its entire stake in the car
maker, however. A spokeswoman explained that the decision was not
related to the current class action, but to the fact that VW no
longer matched PMT's investment criteria.

She said a screening had revealed that it was among the 10% of
companies with the lowest ESG score.

Approximately 1,000 institutional investors are claiming billions
of euros in damages in total from Volkswagen.

In 2016, Norway's EUR853bn sovereign wealth fund filed a suit
claiming roughly EUR2bn in damages. It was represented by Quinn
Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan and backed by US pension fund CalSTRS
among others.

The EUR21bn Greater Manchester Pension Fund, the UK's largest local
authority scheme, joined a class action suit financed by Bentham in
2016, while in the same year the German state pension funds of
Bavaria and Hesse filed suits claiming losses of EUR700,000 and
EUR3.9m, respectively.

The German court of justice, which will only examine the liability
question, is to reconvene at the end of November.[GN]


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Bill for Cheating Emissions May Reach EUR30BB
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bloomberg reports that Volkswagen's bill for cheating on diesel
emissions could potentially top EUR30 bn (Dh127.34bn) as a legal
battle with thousands of investors heats up in the German car
maker's own backyard.

A court in the town of Braunschweig, just over 30km from VW's
Wolfsburg headquarters, has scheduled a series of hearings starting
on Sept. 3 in a case combining claims by some 4,000 shareholders
demanding EUR9bn in compensation.

They argue VW failed to warn them soon enough about an
investigation by US regulators, who triggered a collapse in the
stock after they announced their diesel probe three years ago.

Enraged shareholders filed the first cases in October 2015. A year
later, a wave of institutional investors followed, among them
BlackRock, the California Public Employees' Retirement System and
Allianz Global Investors. The proceedings were moved to the
Braunschweig civic centre to make space for the hordes of lawyers
as well as investors who want to attend.

Volkswagen admitted in late 2015 that it rigged diesel vehicles to
cheat emissions tests in the US and that about 11 million worldwide
could be affected. VW has calculated the scandal's overall
financial impact at EUR27.4bn. That includes payouts to US
customers, states and regulators and a EUR1bn settlement with
German prosecutors.

Should the investors score a complete victory, that toll would grow
by a third. While a full award is unlikely and the company hasn't
made any provisions for the risks, VW has added EUR3.4bn to
contingent liabilities in its financial statements for that
litigation -- potentially bringing the overall cost above EUR30bn.
[GN]


WABASH NATIONAL: 2nd Amended Complaint Pending in Suit vs. Supreme
------------------------------------------------------------------
Wabash National Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2018, that a second amended complaint remains
pending in a securities class action lawsuit against Supreme
Industries, Inc.

Prior to the Company's acquisition of Supreme, on November 4, 2016,
a putative class action lawsuit was filed against Supreme, Mark D.
Weber (Supreme's former Chief Executive Officer) and Matthew W.
Long (Supreme's former Chief Financial Officer) in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California
alleging the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 by making material,
misleading statements in July 2016 regarding projected backlog.

The plaintiff seeks to recover unspecified damages.  On February
14, 2017, the court transferred the venue of the case to the
Northern District of Indiana upon the joint stipulation of the
plaintiff and the defendants.  An amended complaint was filed on
April 24, 2017 challenging statements made during a putative class
period of October 22, 2015 through October 21, 2016.

On May 24, 2018, the Court granted Supreme's motion to dismiss all
claims for failure to state a claim.  On July 13, 2018, the
plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint.  The case is stayed as
to discovery.

The Company said, "Due to the inherent risk of litigation, the
outcome of this case is uncertain and unpredictable; however, at
this time, management believes that the allegations are without
merit and is vigorously defending the matter.  As a result,
management does not believe this matter will have a material
adverse effect on the Company's financial condition or results of
operations."

Wabash National Corporation manufactures and sells semi-trailers,
truck bodies, specialized commercial vehicles, and liquid
transportation systems. The company is based in Lafayette, Indiana.



WABTEC CORP: 9th Cir. Wants Supreme Court to Tackle Wage Issue
--------------------------------------------------------------
Charmaine Little, writing for Northern California Record, reports
that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit handed off to
the California Supreme Court a case concerning the definition of
"public works" in the California Labor Code.

The appeals court determined on Sept. 6 that the state Supreme
Court can better resolve a dispute between John Busker and his
former employer, Wabtec Corp.

The question at hand is "whether work installing electrical
equipment on locomotives and rail cars falls within the definition
of 'public works' under California Labor Code 1720(a)(1)… either
as constituting 'construction' or 'installation' under the statute
or as being integral to other work performed for the PTC (Positive
Train Control) project on the wayside" such as "field installation
work," according to the opinion.

Considering no lawsuit in California has ever answered the question
and it is one that is relevant to several California workers, would
make the Supreme Court a more appropriate venue to resolve the
issue, the appeals court determined.

It also added the Supreme Court will have the ability to rephrase
the question, and that the appeals court will accept whatever
decision it rules.

Mr. Busker, who worked for Wabtec, was hired to fulfill on-board
work for the company. Wabtec had entered a subcontract with Parsons
Transportation Group to help Parsons fulfill its agreement with the
Southern California Regional Rail Authority (Metrolink).

Metrolink and Parsons were completing a project that called for
Parks to design, furnish, and install a communications network, the
PTC, which required two different types of labor. The "on-board
work" portion was meant to install PTC equipment to Metrolink's
rail cars.

"Field installation work" meant installing PTC systems on the
wayside and tracks. This involved trenching, welding, installing
towers for radio antennas, and operating cranes and forklifts.
Parsons brought on Wabtec as a subcontractor to help complete the
on-board portion and Metrolink okayed it.

Mr. Busker filed a wage lawsuit with the California Department of
Industrial Relations and the Division of Labor Standards
Enforcement. After the DLSE launched an investigation, it
determined the project was considered "public works." It charged
Wabtec and Parsons with a Civil Wage and Penalty Assessment that
resulted in $5,786,349 for prevailing wages and $682,215 for
related penalties.

Parsons and Wabtec then asked for the Labor Commissioner to
evaluate the case. Parsons, Wabtec, and Metrolink agreed that the
prevailing wage law doesn't protect on-board work as it is not
considered "fixed works" but "rolling stock."

Still, before they requested the review, Mr.  Busker sued via a
putative class action in Los Angeles County Superior Court, stating
Wabtec didn't pay workers a prevailing wage and DLSE released the
assessment so they could settle the issue in court.

Wabtec then transferred the lawsuit to federal district court via
the Class Action Fairness Act. That court denied Mr.  Busker's
request to remand the case back to state court, and the appeals
court confirmed.

All parties then agreed that the prevailing wage coverage issue
would be settled through a summary judgment motion, which the
district court granted for Wabtec.

Mr. Busker then appealed, bringing the case to the current court.

Circuit Judges Richard R. Clifton, Consuelo M. Callahan and
District Judge Kenneth M. Hoyt authored the opinion. [GN]


WARRANTECH CORP: Faces Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------
Angelica Saylo Pilo, writing for Madison St. Claire Record, reports
that a consumer filed a class action against two warranty companies
over their extended service plans.

Amy Jett, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, filed a complaint on July 9 in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Illinois against Warrantech
Corporation and AMT Warranty Corporation, alleging they violated
the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff purchased an LG
refrigerator from H.H. Gregg along with an extended service plan
from defendants. Soon thereafter, the refrigerator became
inoperable within the five years covered by the warranty, the
complaint states. The plaintiff alleges the defendants allegedly
refused to pay for the repair or replace the purchased items.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks an order
certifying the class. She seeks actual and exemplary damages. She
is represented by William M. Sweetnam, Esq. of Sweetnam LLC in
Chicago.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois case
number 3:18-cv-01366 [GN]


WORLD WRESTLING: Court Dismisses Retired Wrestlers' Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut
issued a Memorandum granting Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings in the case captioned RUSS McCULLOUGH, et al. Plaintiffs,
v. WORLD WRESTLING ENTERTAINMENT, INC., Defendant, WORLD WRESTLING
ENTERTAINMENT, INC., Plaintiff, v. ROBERT WINDHAM, THOMAS
BILLINGTON, JAMES WARE, and OREALPERRAS, Defendants, JOSEPH M.
LAURINAITIS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. WORLD WRESTLING ENTERTAINMENT,
INC. and VINCENT K. McMAHON Defendants. Civil Action Nos.
3:15-CV-1074 (VLB) Lead Case, 3:15-CV-994 (VLB) Consolidated Case,
Civil ACTION No. 3:16-CV-1209 (VLB) Consolidated Case. (D. Conn.).

The Plaintiff's counsel, Konstantine Kyros, filed the first of six
lawsuits on behalf of former WWE wrestlers, alleging they are
either suffering from symptoms of permanent degenerative
neurological conditions resulting from traumatic brain injuries
sustained during their employment, or are at increased risk of
developing such conditions.

Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

After the pleadings are closed, but early enough not to delay
trial, a party may move for judgment on the pleadings. A motion for
judgment on the pleadings is decided on the same standard as a
motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

Motion to Dismiss

To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient
factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that
is plausible on its face. A claim has facial plausibility when the
plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged.

Plaintiffs' Fraudulent Concealment and Medical Monitoring Claims
are Barred by the Court's Prior Rulings

The Plaintiffs assert separate counts of fraudulent concealment and
medical monitoring despite this Court's clear holding, in the very
first of the WWE concussion cases that Attorney Kyros filed, that
neither constitute causes of action under Connecticut law. Nor has
he filed or prevailed on an appeal of the Court's rulings or filed
a motion for reconsideration pointing out any error in the Court
rulings. Attorney Kyros simply ignores the Court's rulings in
violation of the law-of-the-case doctrine.   

These claims must therefore be dismissed once again.

Plaintiffs Have Asserted Numerous Patently Time-Barred Claims

The SAC does not allege that any Plaintiff wrestled for WWE and
suffered a head injury while wrestling later than 2011.

Tort Claims

Section 52-577 provides that no action founded upon a tort shall be
brought but within three years from the date of the act or omission
complained of. The three year limitation period of Section 52-577
begins with the date of the act or omission complained of, not the
date when the plaintiff first discovers an injury.

The Plaintiffs' tort claims arise out of their allegation that WWE
concealed the risk that concussions or subconcussive blows could
cause permanent degenerative neurological conditions in order to
induce Plaintiffs to continue to continue wrestling. This omission
must have occurred at a time when the Plaintiffs were still
wrestling and could still suffer head injuries while wrestling.
With the possible exception of Plaintiff James Snuka, discussed in
the next section, no Plaintiff has alleged that he or she wrestled
for WWE later than 2011.

Wrongful Death and Survival Actions

The estates of five wrestlers James Snuka, John Matthew Rechner,
Brian David Knighton, Timothy Alan Smith, Ronald Heard, and Harry
Masayoshi Fujiwara also assert wrongful death and survival claims.
Wrongful death claims must be brought within two years from the
date of death except that no such action may be brought more than
five years from the date of the act or omission complained of.

The complaint does not allege, and the affidavit does not support
any allegations, that Mr. Snuka suffered any head injuries or
risked incurring such injuries later than 1996. All these
wrestlers, with the possible exception of Mr. Snuka, retired more
than five years before this lawsuit was filed. And Mr. Snuka has
not alleged that any of his alleged injuries were incurred during
WWE appearances post-dating 1996. Wrongful death actions are
therefore barred by Section 52-555. Survival actions are barred
because the statutes of limitation or repose for each of the
deceased Plaintiffs' other claims have elapsed.

Misclassification Claims

The Plaintiffs assert misjoined claims that they were misclassified
as independent contractors and thereby denied the benefits and
protections of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the National
Labor Relations Act, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act,
and the Family and Medical Leave Act. Because the Plaintiffs assert
that the misclassification was part of a scheme to defraud the
Plaintiffs and achieved by the presentation to the Plaintiffs of
boilerplate Booking Contracts, the misclassification claims are
governed either by the three-year statute of repose for tort
actions.

The Plaintiff who most recently joined WWE did so in 2006
approximately ten years before this case was filed. Therefore, none
of the Plaintiffs can establish that they were first misclassified
as independent contractors within six years of the date they filed
the complaint in this action. Plaintiffs' ERISA and OSHA reporting
claims are predicated on this misclassification claim, and
Plaintiff has not offered the Court any authority to suggest that
these claims may survive after the misclassification claim is
dismissed.

RICO Claims

The Plaintiffs' claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organization Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 1132(a)(3) are also
time-barred. Civil RICO actions have a four-year limitations
period.  

Because the Plaintiffs' RICO claims are predicated on Plaintiffs'
alleged misclassification as independent contractors, and such
misclassification must have taken place when each Plaintiff was
first hired, the limitations period runs from when each Plaintiff
signed a booking contract, began working for WWE, first received a
tax statement classifying him or her as an independent contractors,
or noticed he or she was not receiving the benefits to which WWE
employees were entitled. No Plaintiff has alleged that he or she
did so less than ten years before this action was filed.
Plaintiffs' RICO claims are therefore time-barred.

FMLA Claims

The Family and Medical Leave Act provides that an action may be
brought under this section not later than 2 years after the date of
the last event constituting the alleged violation for which the
action is brought.

For a willfull violation, the limitations period is three years.
With the exception of Mr. Snuka, each Plaintiff stopped working for
WWE more than three years before this case was filed. They
therefore cannot establish that their FMLA claims arose within the
limitations period. Plaintiff Snuka has not alleged that he even
asked for family or medical leave between 2013 and 2016. He also
has not alleged that he was improperly denied such leave or
punished for taking such leave within the limitations period. The
Plaintiffs' FMLA claims are therefore time-barred.

Successor Liability

Because all of the substantive claims against WWE are time-barred,
and all the claims that arise out of Plaintiffs' work for ECW or
WCW predate their WWE claims, these ECW and WCW claims are also
time-barred. The Court therefore need not specifically address
whether WWE should be liable for claims arising out of its
relationship with ECW or WCW.

Plaintiffs' Unconsionable Contracts Claims are Frivolous

The Plaintiffs claim that their booking contracts were void as
unconscionable, but they attach the contracts of only two wrestlers
to their complaint, and identify no particular unconscionable
terms.  .

Even if the Court were to liberally construe these claims as undue
influence claims, they would not be actionable and are therefore
frivolous. The Connecticut Supreme Court has held that ratification
results, as a matter of law,  if the party who executed the
contract under duress accepts the benefits flowing from it or
remains silent or acquiesces in the contract for any considerable
length of time after opportunity is afforded to annul or avoid it.

The Statutes of Limitation Should Not Be Tolled Under the
Continuing Course of Conduct Doctrine

Under appropriate circumstances, the Connecticut statutes of repose
may be tolled under the continuing course of conduct doctrine. The
plaintiff must show the defendant: (1) committed an initial wrong
upon the plaintiff; (2) owed a continuing duty to the plaintiff
that was related to the original wrong; and (3) continually
breached that duty.

The Plaintiffs have not established that WWE had any continuing
duty with respect to their health or their employment status after
they left WWE. For example, the Plaintiffs allege that WWE sends
substance dependency letters annually to its former performers
offering free treatment, as well as community updates and quarterly
royalty payments and maintains a Talent helpline. It is reasonable
to infer, based on WWE's offer to provide substance abuse
treatment, that the hotline is related to substance abuse
prevention or treatment. It is not reasonable to conclude from the
allegations in the complaint that WWE has a continuing duty to keep
itself apprised of former wrestlers' health or to provide
comprehensive health care to these wrestlers.

It is similarly unreasonable to infer that retired wrestlers would
not seek medical treatment from sources outside of WWE after their
retirement. Indeed, Plaintiffs do not allege that WWE purported to
be their primary health care provider, or that WWE diagnosed,
treated, monitored, or advised the Plaintiffs regarding their
health, including their mental health, after they retired.
Similarly, the Court is at a loss to imagine how continuing royalty
payments give rise to any duty to the Plaintiffs regarding their
alleged misclassification as independent contractors decades
earlier.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 17, 2018
Memorandum is available at https://tinyurl.com/ybf7ockz from
Leagle.com.

Joseph M. Laurinaitis, also known as Road Warrior Animal, Paul
Ordndorff, also known as Mr. Wonderful, Chavo Guerrero, Sr., also
known as, Bryan Emmett Clark, Jr., also known as, James Harris,
also known as, Dave Hebner, Earl Hebner, Chris Pallies, also known
as, Ken Patera, Terry Michael Brunk, also known as, Barry Darsow,
also known as, Bill Eadie, also known as, John Nord, also known as,
Jonathan Hugger, also known as, James Brunzell, also known as,
Susan Green, also known as, Angelo Mosca, also known as, James
Manley, also known as, Michael Enos, also known as, Bruce Reed,
"Butch", Carlene B. Moore-Begnaud, also known as, Sylvain Grenier,
Omar Mijares, also known as, Don Leo Heaton, also known as, Troy
Martin, also known as, Marc Copani, also known as, Mark Canterbury,
also known as, Victoria Otis, also known as, Judy Hardee, also
known as, Mark Jindrak, Bernard Knighton, as Personal
Representative of Estate of Brian Knighton, a.k.a. Axl Rotten,
Marty Jannetty, Jon Heidenreich, Terry Szopinski, also known as,
Sione Havea Vailahi, also known as, Larry Oliver, also known as,
Bobbi Billard, Tracy Smothers, also known as, Michael R. Halac,
also known as, Rick Jones, also known as, Ken Johnson, also known
as, George Gray, also known as, Ferrin Jesse Barr, also known as,
Lou Marconi, Rod Price, Donald Driggers, Rodney Begnaud, also known
as, Ronald Scott Heard, on behalf of estate of Ronald Heard & Boris
Zhukov, Consol Plaintiffs, represented by Anthony M. Norris --
anorris@kyroslaw.com -- Kyros Law Offices, pro hac vice, Brenden P.
Leydon -- Bleydon@ tooherwoci.com -- Wocl Leydon LLC, Erica C.
Mirabella -- Erica@mirabellaLLC.com -- Mirabella LLC, pro hac vice,
Sylvester J. Boumil -- SJBoumil@Boumil-Law.com -- pro hac vice &
Konstantine Kyros -- kon@kyroslaw.com -- Kyros Law Offices.

Salvador Guerrero, IV, also known as Mr. Wonderful, Consol
Plaintiff, represented by Anthony M. Norris, Kyros Law Offices, pro
hac vice, Brenden P. Leydon, Wocl Leydon LLC, Erica C. Mirabella,
Mirabella LLC, pro hac vice & Sylvester J. Boumil, pro hac vice.

World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc, Defendant, represented by
Christopher M. Verdini -- christopher.verdini@klgates.com -- K&L
Gates, LLP, pro hac vice, Eugene J. Podesta, Jr. --
gpodesta@bakerdonelson.com -- Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell &
Berkovitz, PC, R. Bruce Allensworth --
bruce.allensworth@klgates.com -- K&L Gates, LLP, pro hac vice, Ryan
M. Tosi -- ryan.tosi@klgates.com -- K&L Gates, LLP, pro hac vice,
Stefanie M. Lacy -- Stefani.lacy@klgates.com -- K&L Gates, LLP, pro
hac vice, Terry Budd -- terry.budd@buddlawglobal.com -- K&L Gates,
LLP, pro hac vice, Curtis B. Krasik -- curtis.krasik@klgates.com --
K&L Gates, LLP, pro hac vice, Jeffrey Mueller --
jmueller@daypitney.com -- Day Pitney LLP, Jerry S. McDevitt --
jerry.mcdevitt@klgates.com -- K&L Gates, LLP, pro hac vice,
Jonathan B. Tropp -- jbtropp@daypitney.com -- Day Pitney LLP &
Thomas D. Goldberg -- tgoldberg@daypitney.com -- Day Pitney LLP.


WYNN RESORTS: Still Faces Ferris Securities Class Suit in Nevada
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wynn Resorts, Limited still defends itself against a securities
class action filed by John V. Ferris and Joann M. Ferris, according
to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018.

On February 20, 2018, a securities class action was filed against
the Company and certain current and former officers of the Company
in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York
(which was subsequently transferred to the United States District
Court, District of Nevada) by John V. Ferris and Joann M. Ferris on
behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's common stock
between February 28, 2014 and January 25, 2018.  The complaint
alleges, among other things, certain violations of federal
securities laws and seeks to recover unspecified damages as well as
attorneys' fees, costs and related expenses for the plaintiffs.

The Company said, "The defendants in these actions will vigorously
defend against the claims pleaded against them.  These actions are
in preliminary stages and management has determined that based on
proceedings to date, it is currently unable to determine the
probability of the outcome of these actions or the range of
reasonably possible loss, if any."

Wynn Resorts, Limited is a developer, owner and operator of
destination casino resorts (integrated resorts). The company is
based in Las Vegas, Nevada.


XPERTS CONSTRUCTION: Underpays Operators & Laborers, Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FRANKY TIRADO; and TEDDY E. LOZADA, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. XPERTS CONSTRUCTION
INC.; and ALBERTO GONZALEZ, JR., Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-01614
(D. P.R., Aug. 28, 2018) is an action against the Defendants for
unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for
missed meal and rest periods.

The Plaintiff Tirado was employed by the Defendants as operator on
December 2017. The Plaintiff Lozada was employed by the Defendants
as laborer from December 2017 to February 2018.

Xperts Construction, Inc. is a corporation organized and existing
under the laws of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. The Company is a
construction and general contracting firm. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
          SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 621-2277
          Facsimile: (713) 621-0993
          E-mail: rprieto@eeoc.net

               - and -

          Andres W. Lopez, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF
          ANDRES W. LOPEZ, P.S.C.
          P.O. Box 13909
          San Juan, PR 00908
          Telephone: (787) 294-9508
          Facsimile: (787) 294-9519


YRC INC: Workers Class & 9 Subclasses Certified in Alvarez Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Terry J. Hatter, Jr., granted the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification in the lawsuit styled FELIPE ALVAREZ, et al. v.
YRC, INC., et al., Case No. 2:12-cv-01374-TJH-E (C.D. Cal.).

Plaintiffs Felipe Alvarez and Jerald Shroeder have moved for the
certification of a class of all current and former hourly employees
employed by YRC at any time from December 14, 2007, to the
present.

Within this class, are nine subclasses:

   (1) Employees who worked a shift of over ten hours, but were
       not made aware of their right to, or did not receive, a
       second meal break ["The Second Meal Subclass"];

   (2) Employees who worked a shift of over ten hours, but were
       not made aware of their right to, or did not receive, a
       third rest break ["The Third Rest Subclass"];

   (3) Employees whose time records show that no meal period was
       taken, or that less than a thirty minute meal period was
       taken, but their hours were, nevertheless, automatically
       deducted for a thirty minute meal period ["The Auto-Deduct
       Subclass"];

   (4) Non-driver employees who worked a shift of more than five
       hours and whose time records showed the first meal was
       taken after the end of the fifth hour ["The Untimely Meal
       Subclass"];

   (5) Driver employees who were subject to YRC's control during
       their meal breaks ["Driver Meal Subclass"];

   (6) Driver employees who were subject to YRC's control during
       their rest break ["Driver Rest Subclass"];

   (7) Driver employees who were subject to YRC's control during
       meal or rest breaks but were not adequately compensated
       ["On Call Driver Subclass"];

   (8) Employees who were not provided an accurate wage statement
       ["Wage Statement Subclass"]; and

   (9) Employees who were not paid all of their earned wages upon
       termination of employment ["Final Wage Subclass"].

As part of their Motion for Class Certification, Plaintiffs Alvarez
and Shroeder attached the declarations of 28 putative class members
and a declaration from their expert, Kevin Taylor.

In his order, Judge Hatter granted the Defendants' motion to
exclude putative class member declarations.  Judge Hatter also
denied the Defendants' motion to exclude the Plaintiffs' expert
testimony.[CC]


ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Briefing Underway in Evans Case Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------
A unit of Zions Bancorporation continues to defend a civil class
action lawsuit styled Evans v. CB&T, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018.

The Company said, "A civil class action lawsuit, Evans v. CB&T,
brought against us in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of California in May 2017.  This case was filed on
behalf of a class of up to 50 investors in IMG and seeks to hold us
liable for losses of class members arising from their investments
in IMG, alleging that we conspired with and knowingly assisted IMG
and its principal in furtherance of an alleged Ponzi scheme."

In December 2017, the District Court dismissed all claims against
the Company.  In January 2018, the plaintiff filed an appeal with
the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  The appellate briefing
process is underway and is scheduled to be completed in the third
quarter of 2018.

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

Zions Bancorporation is a bank holding company, headquartered in
Salt Lake City, Utah, that is one of the largest banks in the
United States.


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: $2.1MM Awarded After Asbestos Trial
----------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that a Tennessee jury has awarded
nearly $2.1 million to plaintiffs asserting claims on behalf of a
former maintenance mechanic, allocating 13 percent liability to the
lone remaining defendant at the time of the verdict, Ameron
International Corp.

The Tennessee Circuit Court for Maury County jury reached the
verdict on Sept. 19 after an eight-day trial. Judge Robert E. Lee
Davies presided over the trial.

The claims were filed on behalf of James W. Davis. Davis, according
to the plaintiffs, was a career industrial maintenance mechanic for
Stauffer Chemical; his employment caused him to come into contact
with asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: $7MM Verdict vs Jenkins Bros. in Asbestos Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Digital Journal reported that a police Officer who developed
mesothelioma after being exposed to asbestos in a prior career has
won a $7 million verdict against Jenkins Bros., a manufacturer of
the asbestos-containing valves responsible for his disease, New
York law firm Belluck & Fox, LLP announced. This represents one of
the highest jury awards obtained in an asbestos case in Upstate New
York.

In a trial before the Honorable Deborah Chimes in the Supreme Court
of The State of New York, County of Erie, the jury unanimously
found Jenkins Bros. 50% responsible for the development of James
Stock, Jr.'s mesothelioma -- a deadly, incurable form of cancer
caused by asbestos exposure. The jury also unanimously found that
Jenkins Bros. had a duty to warn Mr. Stock about the hazards of
asbestos exposure associated with its valves, but that it failed to
do so, and that its negligence was a cause of Mr. Stock's
mesothelioma. Mr. Stock and his wife, Lynn M. Stock, were awarded
nearly $7 million for pain and suffering, loss of consortium, and
loss of earnings.

The case is James Stock, Jr. and Lynn M. Stock v. AIR & LIQUID
SYSTEMS CORPORATION, as Successor by Merger to Buffalo Pumps, In.,
et al., (No. 807846/2017).

James Stock, Jr. is a 60 year-old police officer in the town of
Atlanta, Georgia, who was diagnosed with incurable mesothelioma on
January 18, 2017. In 1979, when he was just 21 years old, Mr. Stock
went to work at the NY Wire Mills factory in Tonawanda, New York, a
decision he couldn't know would have profound consequences for the
rest of his life. Mr. Stock began as a laborer, but was quickly
elevated to supervisor. It was during his years at NY Wire Mills
that he was exposed to asbestos in valves manufactured by Jenkins.
During the routine and necessary maintenance and repair of these
valves, Mr. Stock would breathe in lethal asbestos fibers, which
eventually led to his development of mesothelioma.

"James Stock is suffering because of business decisions that
Jenkins Bros. made to increase its profits. We're thankful that the
jury has held Jenkins responsible for its actions, and we're
hopeful that the jury's verdict provides some measure of justice
and comfort to the Stock family," said James Long, senior litigator
at Belluck & Fox, LLP, who led the firm's trial team. Mr. Long has
a distinguished history fighting for people's rights, and in 2017
was named Best Lawyers' "Lawyer of the Year" in Mass Tort
Litigation / Class Actions-Plaintiffs for the New York City Metro
Area.

Belluck & Fox, LLP associate William Papain tried the case with Mr.
Long, and the trial team was assisted by partner Seth Dymond.

Asbestos is a mineral that has been linked to lung cancer and
mesothelioma, an aggressive and deadly form of cancer which results
from breathing in asbestos fibers that become lodged in the thin
membrane that lines and encases the lungs.

At trial, lawyers from Belluck & Fox, LLP presented evidence from a
series of experts on the use of asbestos components in Jenkins
valves, the state-of-the-art evidence relating to the dangers of
asbestos, the causation of Mr. Stock's mesothelioma, and the severe
impact mesothelioma will have on Mr. Stock's and his family's
lives, including the economic impact that will result from his
untimely death.

Jenkins was represented by Jeffrey Fegan from Clyde & Co.

"This verdict continues Belluck & Fox's tremendous track record of
getting the most compensation for Upstate New York's mesothelioma
and lung cancer victims, " said Joseph W. Belluck, one of Belluck &
Fox's founding partners.

Belluck & Fox, LLP was founded in 2002 and has been advocating for
mesothelioma patients for over 16 years. The attorneys at Belluck &
Fox help injured people recover damages resulting from asbestos,
unsafe products, mesothelioma, toxic chemicals, construction
accidents and serious injuries. Belluck & Fox, LLP is listed as one
of America's best law firms by U.S. News & World Report and a
number of their attorneys appear in Best Lawyers magazine. Joseph
Belluck has obtained an AV rating from Martindale-Hubbell (the
highest ethical rating for lawyers). Jordan Fox is one of the
nation's top mesothelioma lawyers in the United States and was
named "2013 Plaintiff Lawyer of the Year" for the NY metro area by
Best Lawyers. He has had two mesothelioma verdicts recognized as
among The National Law Journals' Largest Verdicts of the Year.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2nd Suit Filed Over Asbestos Cover-Up in Apartment
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Aimee Green of OregonLive.com reported that a former tenant of a
Southwest Portland apartment complex filed a class-action lawsuit
against her former landlord -- claiming that management negligently
exposed her and others to asbestos as they renovated decades-old
units.

Shana Maurer, 23, says she now worries that she might one day
develop asbestos-related cancer from inhaling microscopic fibers
while living at the Commons at Sylvan Highlands apartments. Her
lawsuit claims that management at the complex learned in June
during a renovation project that some of its units had tested "hot"
for asbestos.

"Rather than do the right thing upon discovering that its
apartments contained potentially harmful asbestos, Sylvan Highlands
orchestrated a massive coverup to keep the asbestos a secret from
its tenants and the government," reads Maurer's lawsuit, which
doesn't seek a specific dollar amount.

A man who answered the phone at the apartment complex declined
comment about the lawsuit, and referred comment to Tandem Property
Management, which manages the complex. Messages to Tandem Property
Management weren't returned.

Maurer's suit comes four days after two former employees filed a
$40 million lawsuit against Tandem Property Management -- claiming
they were fired in retaliation after learning that management had
allegedly continued to remodel units without taking proper steps to
contain the asbestos. That lawsuit alleges that managers directed
workers to carry asbestos-laden drywall through the halls without
following government regulations to contain the dangerous fibers.

Messages left at Tandem Property Management about that first
lawsuit also haven't been returned.

Maurer's lawsuit alleges that management hadn't notified renters of
the alleged exposure.

Maurer also worked for Sylvan Highlands' property management
company, and learned about the alleged asbestos from a former
co-worker in August, according to her lawsuit. Maurer said she quit
and moved out.

"Now, all at once, I have to find a whole new job and I have to
pick up and build a new life, ...because morally I can't stay with
this company," Maurer told The Oregonian/OregonLive.

It's unclear how many people live at the large complex, at 1380
S.W. 66th Avenue, about four miles west of downtown Portland and
just north of Oregon 26. Sylvan Highlands is comprised of
apartments ranging from studios to two-bedroom homes with monthly
rents ranging from $1,225 to $1,700 per unit, according to the
company website.

Garrett Lage, another former tenant who has signed onto the
lawsuit, said during three years of living at Sylvan Highlands, he
saw units in his building renovated and old materials thrown in
open-air Dumpsters. He said he worries he might have inhaled
asbestos in the interior hallways of his building.

"It's just going to sit there," Lage said. "It's not going
anywhere."

Lage said he also fears he might have been exposed in the process
of packing up and moving out last month when his lease was up. He
removed picture frames and nails from the drywall of his unit, he
said.

Portland attorney Michael Fuller is representing Lage and Maurer as
part of a class of tenants or former tenants. The lawsuit was filed
in Multnomah County Circuit Court.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 33-Year Old Woman Dies of Asbestos Cancer
----------------------------------------------------------
BBC News reported that Rose Wharton died of mesothelioma at her
Oxford home on 20 May, after being diagnosed in September.

Coroner Darren Salter said it was a "very unusual" case, because
the illness usually only affects those who worked around asbestos
for decades.

He told Oxford Coroner's Court he had never seen a case like it.

Most cases of mesothelioma are diagnosed in people aged between 60
and 80, according to the NHS.

In a statement Ms Wharton's family said she could have been exposed
to the material while building a school in Argentina during her gap
year when she was 18.

But Mr Salter said that as this could not be confirmed, he would
have to record a narrative verdict, stating the cause of her cancer
was not known.

Ms Wharton, who worked as a medical statistician and was born in
Cambridge, was described as "fit and well" with no medical problems
except asthma.

A crowdfunding page set up in her memory has raised almost £3,000
towards research into peritoneal mesothelioma.

Her colleagues at the Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences
at the University of Oxford said Ms Wharton would be "greatly
missed".

Mr Salter said: "I don't think I have seen a case like this.

"Mesothelioma normally affects men working as plumbers or heating
engineers for 30 or 40 years, but this is very different from
that."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal from $13MM Verdict in Lopez Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from a US$13 million verdict in an asbestos-related case
against Tyson Foods, Inc.'s subsidiary related to the death of Mark
Lopez is still pending, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2018.

The Company states, "The Hillshire Brands Company was named as a
defendant in an asbestos exposure case filed by Mark Lopez in May
2014 in the Superior Court of Alameda County, California.  Mr.
Lopez was diagnosed with mesothelioma in January 2014 and is now
deceased.  Mr. Lopez's family members asserted negligence, premises
liability and strict liability claims related to Mr. Lopez's
alleged asbestos exposure from 1954-1986 from the Union Sugar plant
in Betteravia, California.  The plant, which was sold in 1986, was
owned by entities that were predecessors-in-interest to The
Hillshire Brands Company.  In August 2017, the jury returned a
verdict of approximately US$13 million in favor of the plaintiffs,
and a judgment was entered.  We have appealed the judgment and
filed our initial appellate brief."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/4fwnjy


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Forces County Employees to Evacuate
-------------------------------------------------------------
NewsOK.com reported that asbestos found on the sixth floor of the
Oklahoma County Office Building caused a forced evacuation,
requiring dozens of employees in the public defender's office and
others to clear out.

Cleanup could take more than a year, officials said.

"I have 20 offices right now quarantined," Public Defender Bob
Ravitz said Friday during an emergency county commissioners
meeting. "That area is totally off limits. ... The most important
thing is my employees' safety."

With the entire sixth floor having to be evacuated, Ravitz must
relocate 73 of his employees. The public defender said his
attorneys and other staff will be dispersed throughout other floors
of the office building, the courthouse and off-site.

"It's a total mess," he said during the meeting. "Obviously, I'm
not happy to have to have five different locations to run an office
for the next potentially year and a half."

A roof project at the office building "shook loose" asbestos in the
ceiling, Ravitz told The Oklahoman. Leaks from rain could cause a
breach in the ceiling tiles, he added.

"We could have a real messy situation," he said.

The roof project has been suspended until the asbestos issue is
resolved, officials said during the meeting.

Ravitz also said many of his attorneys haven't been able to access
their files because of the asbestos.

"Several of them have jury trials," he said.

Ravitz said they've started packing up hundreds of boxes of files
and are cleaning files stored in locations with asbestos.

During the meeting, District Attorney David Prater said, "This is
more than a wake-up call."

"There is not an emergency contingency plan for things like this to
occur. The notification of department heads and how we handle
health and safety issues regarding our employees is wholly
inadequate and frankly unacceptable," Prater told the
commissioners. "Asbestos is dangerous."

Prater said he wasn't trying to blame anyone but encouraged the
commissioners to revisit how emergency situations are addressed.

The district attorney's office is on the fifth floor of the office
building. Prater, though, has 15 employees on the sixth floor.

"We are trying to determine exactly where they're going to go," he
said.

Two of the three county commissioners also have offices on the
sixth floor. They, too, will have to relocate.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Avon Still Defends Talc-Related Suits at June 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Avon Products, Inc. continues to defend itself in numerous personal
injury lawsuits related to asbestos-contaminated talc products,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2018.

Avon Products states, "The Company has been named a defendant in
numerous personal injury lawsuits filed in U.S. courts, alleging
that certain talc products the Company sold in the past were
contaminated with asbestos.  Many of these actions involve a number
of codefendants from a variety of different industries, including
manufacturers of cosmetics and manufacturers of other products
that, unlike the Company's products, were designed to contain
asbestos.

"We believe that the claims against us are without merit.  We are
defending vigorously against these claims and will continue to do
so.  To date, there have been no findings of liability against the
Company in any of these cases but we are unable to predict the
ultimate outcome of each case.

"Additional similar cases arising out of the use of the Company's
talc products are reasonably anticipated.  At this time, we are
unable to estimate our reasonably possible losses, if any.  Also,
in light of the inherent litigation uncertainties, potential costs
to litigate these cases are not known, but they may be significant,
though some costs will be covered by insurance."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/YuPGKB


ASBESTOS UPDATE: BNSF Still Defends PI Claims at June 30
--------------------------------------------------------
Burlington Northern Santa Fe, LLC ("BNSF") remains a party to a
number of personal injury claims by employees and non-employees who
may have been exposed to asbestos, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018.

The Company states, "The heaviest exposure for certain BNSF
employees was due to work conducted in and around the use of steam
locomotive engines that were phased out between the years of 1950
and 1967.  However, other types of exposures, including exposure
from locomotive component parts and building materials, continued
after 1967 until they were substantially eliminated at BNSF by
1985.

"BNSF assesses its unasserted asbestos liability exposure on an
annual basis during the third quarter.  BNSF determines its
asbestos liability by estimating its exposed population, the number
of claims likely to be filed, the number of claims that will likely
require payment and the estimated cost per claim.  Estimated filing
and dismissal rates and average cost per claim are determined
utilizing recent claim data and trends.

"Throughout the year, BNSF monitors actual experience against the
number of forecasted claims and expected claim payments and will
record adjustments to the Company's estimates as necessary.

"Based on BNSF's estimate of the potentially exposed employees and
related mortality assumptions, it is anticipated that unasserted
asbestos claims will continue to be filed through the year 2050.
The Company recorded an amount for the full estimated filing period
through 2050 because it had a relatively finite exposed population
(former and current employees hired prior to 1985), which it was
able to identify and reasonably estimate and about which it had
obtained reliable demographic data (including age, hire date and
occupation) derived from industry or BNSF specific data that was
the basis for the study.  BNSF projects that approximately 65, 80
and 95 percent of the future unasserted asbestos claims will be
filed within the next 10, 15 and 25 years, respectively."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/CFybrH


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chemours Accrues $38MM for DuPont Suits at June 30
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chemours Company had an accrual of US$38 million for
asbestos-related lawsuits pending against E.I. du Pont de Nemours
(DuPont) at June 30, 2018, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018.

The Company states, "Chemours, by virtue of its status as a
subsidiary of DuPont prior to the separation, is subject to or
required under the separation-related agreements executed prior to
the separation to indemnify DuPont against various pending legal
proceedings.

"In the separation, DuPont assigned its asbestos docket to
Chemours.

"At June 30, 2018 and December 31, 2017, there were approximately
1,600 lawsuits pending against DuPont alleging personal injury from
exposure to asbestos.  These cases are pending in state and federal
court in numerous jurisdictions in the U.S. and are individually
set for trial.

"A small number of cases are pending outside of the U.S. Most of
the actions were brought by contractors who worked at sites between
the 1950s and the 1990s.  A small number of cases involve similar
allegations by DuPont employees or household members of contractors
or DuPont employees.  Finally, certain lawsuits allege personal
injury as a result of exposure to DuPont products.

"At June 30, 2018 and December 31, 2017, Chemours had an accrual of
US$38 related to this matter.  Chemours reviews this estimate and
its related assumptions quarterly."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/ovxhRq


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Had $53.8MM Accrued Liability at June 29
----------------------------------------------------------------
Colfax Corporation had accrued asbestos-related liability of
US$53,834,000 and long-term asbestos liability of US$298,865,000 as
of June 29, 2018, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 29, 2018.

The accrued liability represents current accruals for probable and
reasonably estimable asbestos-related liability costs that the
Company believes the subsidiaries will pay, and unpaid legal costs
related to defending themselves against asbestos-related liability
claims and legal action against the Company’s insurers, which is
included in Accrued liabilities in the Condensed Consolidated
Balance Sheets.

The Company states, "Management's analyses are based on currently
known facts and assumptions.  Projecting future events, such as new
claims to be filed each year, the average cost of resolving each
claim, coverage issues among layers of insurers, the method in
which losses will be allocated to the various insurance policies,
interpretation of the effect on coverage of various policy terms
and limits and their interrelationships, the continuing solvency of
various insurance companies, the amount of remaining insurance
available, as well as the numerous uncertainties inherent in
asbestos litigation could cause the actual liabilities and
insurance recoveries to be higher or lower than those projected or
recorded which could materially affect the Company's financial
condition, results of operations or cash flow."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/AffjsW


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Had 17,574 Unresolved Claims at June 29
---------------------------------------------------------------
Colfax Corporation had 17,574 unresolved claims related to asbestos
matters as of June 29, 2018, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 29, 2018.

The Company also disclosed that in the six months ended June 29,
2018, there were 2,090 claims filed and 2,253 claims resolved.

The Company states, "Claims filed include all asbestos claims for
which notification has been received or a file has been opened.

"Claims resolved include all asbestos claims that have been
settled, dismissed or that are in the process of being settled or
dismissed based upon agreements or understandings in place with
counsel for the claimants."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/AffjsW


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colgate Awarded Costs on Appeal of Alfaro Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The appealed case titled LAOSD Asbestos Cases. Delgadina Alfaro,
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Colgate-Palmolive Company, Defendant
and Appellant, No. B281022, (Cal. Ct. App. 2d), is the second
appeal arising out of a lawsuit by plaintiff Elizabeth Alfaro, in
which she alleged that she developed mesothelioma as a result of
exposure to asbestos contained in talcum powder products. Her
claims for negligence and strict product liability proceeded to
trial against two defendants, including appellant Colgate-Palmolive
Company (Colgate), a talcum powder manufacturer. The jury found for
Colgate on the issue of exposure.

Colgate moved for summary judgment in February 2016. On April 6,
2016, the day before the hearing on the motion, Colgate served an
offer to compromise pursuant to section 998. Therein, Colgate
offered to settle the dispute for a mutual waiver of costs in
exchange for a dismissal of Alfaro's claims. Alfaro did not accept
the offer. On April 15, 2016, the court issued a written ruling
denying summary judgment. The court concluded Colgate had failed to
meet its initial burden and, further, that there were triable
issues of fact precluding summary judgment.

The case proceeded to trial against Colgate and Imerys. After
deliberations, the jury found that Alfaro was not exposed to
asbestos from Colgate's talcum powder. Accordingly, the court
entered judgment for Colgate and Imerys in August 2016.

Alfaro appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in excluding
testimony from one of her experts regarding her exposure to
asbestos. The Court of Appeals of California for the Second
District affirmed the judgment in a prior unpublished opinion,
Alfaro v. Imerys Talc America Inc. (Aug. 25, 2017, B277284).

Colgate filed a memorandum of costs in August 2016, requesting a
total of $311,544 in costs, as follows: $2,385 for filing and
motion fees; $150 for jury fees; $33,669 in deposition costs;
$115,610 in expert witness fees pursuant to section 998; $12,133
for models, blowups, and photocopies of exhibits; $7,046 for court
reporter fees; and $140,551 in trial travel and lodging costs.

Colgate also sought recovery of its expert witness fees pursuant to
section 998. Section 998 authorizes a prevailing party to recover
its costs from a losing party who rejected a reasonable, good faith
offer to compromise. Good faith requires the offer be
"realistically reasonable under the circumstances of the particular
case," and carry with it a reasonable prospect of acceptance.
Further, recoverable costs must have been "actually incurred and
reasonably necessary" to the preparation of the case.

Alfaro filed a motion to tax Colgate's costs, arguing that for all
of the costs requested, Colgate failed to show that the costs were
reasonable and necessary and failed to provide proof of the costs.
Alfaro also argued that Colgate's request for expert witness fees
was based on a "token" bad faith offer to compromise under section
998.

Colgate opposed, attaching receipts and invoices in support of the
costs it claimed. Colgate argued that the items sought were
properly recoverable, reasonably necessary and reasonable in
amount. Colgate withdrew $380 in travel expenses, stating those
costs were asserted in error.

In her motion to tax costs, Alfaro initially challenged all of the
costs as unsupported and unnecessary. She then withdrew her
objection to certain items based on supporting documentation
provided by Colgate. After the court raised the issue sua sponte,
Alfaro argued that the court could consider her inability to pay as
part of its assessment of the reasonableness of the costs. Colgate
countered that the court could not consider the losing party's
ability to pay.

In December 2016, the trial court issued a statement of decision
granting Alfaro's motion to tax costs and denying all costs
requested by Colgate. The court found, based on the evidence at
trial, that Alfaro was unemployed and unlikely to return to work,
there were no other possible sources of asbestos exposure, and that
she did not recover from any of the other defendants in the case.
The court also credited Alfaro's evidence "showing that she had no
means to pay any award of costs, and that she faces prohibitive
medical expenses in connection with her illnesses."

The court concluded it had the "inherent power to remit costs
whenever to do so would be in the interests of justice or where to
do so would infringe upon the right to seek redress of grievances,"
citing Martin v. Superior Court (1917) 176 Cal. 289 (Martin). The
court noted that section 1033.5 required allowable costs to be
"reasonable in amount," and concluded that "such language requiring
'reasonableness' permits the discretion necessary to decline to
award costs in a case such as this." The court further explained
its view that an award of costs against Alfaro would effect "an
inhumane and indecent result." It continued, finding that Alfaro
"is a seriously ill young woman caught in the middle of a hotly
contested scientific debate and a contested investigation of events
that occurred decades ago.

In light of this conclusion, the court did not reach the issue
whether Colgate's section 998 offer was made in good faith. The
court noted, however, that "there is a very substantial issue" on
this point and that Colgate's offer "made no attempt to compromise
this issue based upon the probabilities of an adverse outcome or
take into account the huge additional litigation expenses that
[Colgate would] incur in any event."

Colgate contends the trial court erred in granting Alfaro's motion
to tax all of Colgate's costs. Colgate argues it was entitled to
costs as the prevailing party under Code of Civil Procedure section
1032, as well as expert witness fees after Alfaro rejected an offer
to compromise under section 998. The court denied the entirety of
Colgate's request for over $300,000 in costs, finding that Alfaro
had no ability to pay and that it would be unjust to impose a large
cost award under the circumstances. Colgate contends the trial
court lacked the authority to exercise its discretion in this
manner and, further, that Alfaro failed to present sufficient
evidence of an inability to pay.

Colgate further argues the trial court improperly considered
evidence of Alfaro's financial situation in declining to award any
of the costs incurred by Colgate as the prevailing party in the
litigation. In addition, Colgate asserts the court abused its
discretion by failing to assess whether its offer to compromise was
made in good faith, instead denying Colgate's request for expert
witness fees based on Alfaro's inability to pay.

The Court agrees that the trial court abused its discretion in
denying all costs requested by Colgate and therefore reverses the
judgment. The Court concludes that Colgate is entitled to its
allowable costs under sections 1032 and 1033.5. Alfaro has conceded
that certain items are allowable; thus, Colgate is entitled to
recover them as a matter of right. The Court determines that the
trial court also erred in failing to determine whether Colgate made
its section 998 offer in good faith.

The Court also notes that the trial court did not consider Alfaro's
challenges to specific costs or assess which costs were reasonable
in amount and reasonably necessary to the litigation. Whether a
section 998 offer was reasonable and made in good faith is left to
the sound discretion of the trial court. There is no dispute that
Alfaro failed to obtain a more favorable result at trial than the
offer to compromise. However, the court expressly declined to reach
the issue whether Colgate's section 998 offer was made in good
faith, nor did it make any findings as to whether that offer was
reasonable, or whether the requested expert witness fees were
reasonably necessary to the litigation.

The Court decides that Colgate was entitled to seek recovery of its
post-offer expert witness fees pursuant to section 998. The Court
explains that in order to properly exercise its discretion
regarding what amount, if any, it was reasonable for Alfaro to pay,
the court was required to consider all of the relevant factors.
Thus, the court could consider Alfaro's financial circumstances,
but it also should have assessed whether the offer to compromise
was reasonable and made in good faith, and if so, whether the fees
requested by Colgate were incurred and reasonably necessary to the
litigation. Here, the trial court expressly declined to make these
findings and therefore failed to properly evaluate whether any
award was appropriate under section 998.

The Court also notes that while there was some evidence in the
record regarding Alfaro's limited income and her mounting medical
expenses, there was insufficient evidence from which the trial
court could have found she lacked the ability to pay any cost
award. Indeed, the trial court made several statements to that
effect during oral argument, noting that while it seemed Alfaro had
limited finances, the court did not actually know the full extent
of her assets or income.

The Court therefore remands to allow the trial court to exercise
its discretion in determining whether Colgate's section 998 offer
was made reasonably and in good faith; and if so, the amount of any
reasonably necessary expert witness fees. To the extent the record
contains sufficient evidence supporting a finding of Alfaro's
inability to pay, the court is within its discretion to consider
that factor as well.

A copy of the Decision dated August 8, 2018, is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y8f33cg2 from Leagle.com.

Foley & Mansfield, Gary D. Sharp -- gsharp@foleymansfield.com --
Keith M. Ameele -- kameele@foleymansfield.com -- Louis C. Klein --
lklein@foleymansfield.com -- Peter M. Mularczyk --
pmularczyk@foleymansfield.com -- and Margaret I. Johnson --
mijohnson@foleymansfield.com -- for Defendant and Appellant.

The Lanier Law Firm and Mark A. Linder for Plaintiff and
Respondent.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Companies Sued for D. Neal's Asbestos Exposure
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lhalie Castillo of Madison County Record reported that more than
two dozen manufacturing companies face a lawsuit over a family's
accusation of asbestos exposure.

Courtney Patterson, individually and as special administrator of
the estate of Donald S. Neal, filed a complaint on Sept. 5 in St.
Clair County Circuit Court against several companies, including
American Optical Corporation, Guard-Line Inc. and Lamons Gasket
Company.

According to the complaint, Neal was exposed to asbestos fibers
while working as a medic in the Vietnam War and while operating a
BP Amoco in Wood River. Neal was diagnosed with lung cancer in
October 2016 and died a month later, the complaint states. The
plaintiff alleges the companies knew about the toxic effects of
asbestos and failed to warn Neal.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks compensatory and
punitive damages of more than $50,000 and all further relief that
the court may deem appropriate. She is represented by Ethan A.
Flint and Laci M. Whitley of Flint Law Firm LLC in Edwardsville.

St. Clair County Circuit Court case number 18-L-585


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Conn. High Ct. Upholds Award in Asbestos Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Storace of Law.com reported that the Connecticut Supreme
Court has affirmed the ruling of the Compensation Review Board
awarding workers' compensation benefits to a former longtime
Electric Boat employee who died of lung cancer in 2012.

Originally, the Workers' Compensation Commissioner for the Eighth
District ruled against the estate of Donald Filosi Jr., and in
favor of Electric Boat, a company that designs and builds nuclear
submarines.

But that ruling was appealed by the family and the review board
reversed the commissioner's ruling.

In a 5-0 ruling on Sept. 18 by the Connecticut Supreme Court, Chief
Justice Richard Robinson wrote: "The plaintiffs contend that the
record in the present case demonstrates that the administrative law
judge relied on the plaintiff's medical experts and found that
asbestos exposure was a substantial factor contributing to the
decedent’s lung cancer. We agree with the plaintiff."

The case is now remanded back to the Workers' Compensation
Commissioner, where it will be determined how much in weekly
benefits the family was entitled to over the course of their
lifetime, and for how long.

The family had already secured compensation under the Longshore and
Harbor Workers' Compensation Act. Katherine Filosi, Donald Filosi's
wife, then sought to collect workers' compensation. Katherine
Filosi died of lung cancer herself during the appeal. The couple's
son, Daniel, was named executor of the estate after his mother
died.

"This is a fantastic win. We are very happy and Daniel is very
happy," said Amity Arscott, the Groton-based attorney for the
family. "I think the message here is that Electric Boat made a
business decision to continue using asbestos when they knew it was
harmful." Today, Arscott, an attorney with Embry & Neusner, said
the industry in general uses asbestos on a limited basis.

Donald Filosi was a smoker and Electric Boat had argued that the
asbestos on its premises was not a contributing factor in him
contacting lung cancer and subsequently dying from it. According
the Connecticut Supreme Court’s ruling, Filosi was a heavy smoker
of cigarettes from age 14 until his death at age 69. He did stop
smoking periodically, the court said.

At a hearing on the LHWCA claims, Dr. Laura Welch, who is board
certified in internal medicine and occupational medicine, testified
that "smoking contributed to [the decedent's] lung cancer, but his
asbestos exposure was a substantial contributing cause."

Filosi worked as a rigger in Electric Boat's shipyard from 1961
through 1998, when he retired. According to court papers filed on
behalf of the family, Filosi moved heavy machinery and equipment on
and off of submarines. His job, the court papers said, required the
dumping of 55-gallon barrels of asbestos-containing refuse from the
submarines. The Groton-based company is on a submarine base.

Arscott said she is hoping to get on the workers’ compensation
asbestos docket within the month. "They are quite diligent in
getting things scheduled," she said.

Electric Boat was represented by Peter Quay of the Norwich-based
Law Office of Peter D. Quay. Quay did not respond to a request for
comment. In addition, Electric Boat's public affairs department
declined to comment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contractor Finds More Asbestos in Mill Demolition
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Ellen Godin of Meriden Record-Journal reported that workers
clearing the Mills Memorial Apartments for demolition discovered
more asbestos than expected, leading to an estimated cost increase
of $110,311 so far, with city officials expecting additional
costs.

"We have had two change orders so far for additional asbestos
material, mostly tile located inside the buildings," said city
Economic Development Director Juliet Burdelski. "I anticipate a
third change order this week for additional exterior abatement."

Workers started the $3 million demolition earlier this summer and
plans call for all five buildings to be razed at once.

"It is not unusual to have change orders for projects this size,"
said City Planner Robert Seale, adding the demolition work on the
five buildings is continuing.

"The exterior abatement is for additional asbestos found behind
fabric, beneath the exterior brick," Seale said. "It is limited to
small patches on the columns and floors. We do not have an estimate
at this time regarding the cost of the abatement."

The demolition of the 1960s low-income housing project required
that all 144 families be relocated, a task finally completed last
winter. The Meriden Housing Authority turned the property over to
the city as part of a flood control project which entails
uncovering Harbor Brook and extending the Meriden Green to Cedar
Street.

In exchange, the city gave the housing authority a parcel on State
and Mill streets to build Meriden Commons I and II, a 151-unit
mixed income housing complex.  

The city received a $2 million state grant to pay for the
demolition and hired Bestech Inc. of Ellington for $1.9 million
through a competitive bid process. The company is performing
environmental cleanup and has begun to take down the buildings in
sections.

The company will remove the exterior bricks and then weaken the
base of each building until it "basically falls down on itself,"
Burdelski said this spring.

The project is expected to be completed by the end of the year. It
wasn't known if the discovery of additional asbestos would impact
the timeline.

City officials initially hoped to raze the Mills this spring,
however, the project hit several snags, including delays in
relocating the remaining Mills tenants, said Meriden Housing
Authority Executive Director Robert Cappelletti.

"Obviously it's very exciting for the new projects to go up and the
old to come down," Cappelletti said. "It will be an amazing
transformation for the downtown area."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Denial of WGAST's Motions for Judgment Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the appealed case Wallace & Gale Asbestos Settlement Trust, v.
William Edward Busch, Jr., et ux., No. 1055, September Term, 2017,
(Md. Ct. Spec. App.), the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
affirms the judgments of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City
denying WGAST's motions for JNOV, a new trial, and, in the
alternative, remittitur.

Following a 14-day trial, a jury returned a verdict in favor of
William Edward Busch, Jr., appellee, and his wife Kathleen. The
jury found that Busch suffered from mesothelioma caused by exposure
to asbestos-containing insulation products installed by Wallace &
Gale Co. during the construction of Loch Raven High School. Busch
worked as a steamfitter during the construction of LRHS. W&G was
the predecessor to Wallace and Gale Asbestos Settlement Trust,
appellant.

The specific construction project at which Busch asserts he was
exposed to asbestos-containing products installed by W&G is the
LRHS project. While employed by Honeywell, Busch worked on the
construction of LRHS for three to four months in the late winter
and early spring of 1972. Busch worked mostly in the school's
boiler room, near two large fifteen-foot by twenty-foot boilers.
Busch testified that during the time period that he was working in
the boiler room, he was exposed to a "snow storm" of visible dust
created when blocks of insulation were cut, stacked around the
boilers, and covered with cement.

The building specifications for LRHS required that magnesia blocks
be used to insulate the boilers. Busch presented evidence at trial
that, in 1972, magnesia block contained up to 15% asbestos by
weight. Abatement records from the Baltimore County Public Schools
were introduced to show that the block used to insulate boilers at
LRHS contained asbestos. Additional evidence was presented to
establish that the cement used to cover the magnesia block also
contained asbestos.

Prior to trial, in response to interrogatories, Busch identified
McCormick and Georgia-Pacific, LLC as the source of his asbestos
exposure at LRHS. Specifically, Busch averred that during the
construction of LRHS, he "worked with and around
asbestos-containing thermal insulation products sold, supplied and
installed by McCormick Asbestos Company (MCIC) and
asbestos-containing joint compound manufactured, sold and supplied
by Georgia-Pacific LLC." Busch also identified two witnesses with
personal knowledge of his exposure in his interrogatory responses:
Richard Huettel and Howard Sheppard. At his deposition, Busch
testified that he did not know the employer of the insulators
around whom he had worked at LRHS.

At trial, Busch testified that he did not have any recollection of
who employed the insulators during the LRHS construction project.
Huettel testified at trial that McCormick was the company
responsible for insulation of the boilers at LRHS. Sheppard's 2007
deposition was presented as testimony at trial. Sheppard also
testified that McCormick employed the pipe insulators at LRHS.
Neither Huettel nor Sheppard identified W&G as the party
responsible for insulation in the boiler room at LRHS.

WGAST acknowledged at trial that W&G insulators performed work
during the construction of LRHS, but contended that no evidence had
been presented to show that W&G insulators worked with
asbestos-containing products at LRHS. Invoices, order forms, and
delivery ticket shipment records were introduced into evidence
referencing "Foam Glass" pipe covering material, "FG PC"
[fiberglass pipe covering material], "Powerhouse cement," and
"Glass Board FSK Facing." It was not disputed that "FG" is an
abbreviation for fiberglass and that "Powerhouse cement" does not
contain asbestos.

Initially, Busch brought suit against seven defendants seeking
damages for his occupational exposure to asbestos-containing
products and subsequent development of mesothelioma. The case
proceeded to trial against four defendants involving eight
different worksites. By the close of the plaintiffs' case, only
three defendants remained, and only two defendants remained by the
close of evidence. The circuit court denied WGAST's motion for
judgment at the end of the plaintiffs' case and renewed motion for
judgment at the close of evidence.

The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs against both
defendants, WGAST and Georgia-Pacific. The jury found in the
defendants' favor with respect to their cross-claims against two
former defendants. The jury awarded the plaintiffs a total of
$14,568,528 in damages, which was subsequently reduced to
$7,284,264 by the circuit court due to the cross-claims against the
absent defendants. WGAST moved for JNOV, a new trial, and, in the
alternative, remittitur. The circuit court denied WGAST's motions.
WGAST noted a timely appeal. Georgia-Pacific noted an appeal as
well, but subsequently settled with the plaintiffs.

WGAST's argument on appeal is quite narrow. WGAST argues that
insufficient evidence was presented upon which a reasonable jury
could conclude that W&G was responsible for the supply and/or
installation of asbestos-containing magnesia block during the
construction of LRHS.

WGAST asserts that the evidence produced at trial failed to place
Busch near W&G installers using asbestos-containing materials.
WGAST emphasizes that the documentary evidence presented does not
expressly connect W&G to asbestos-containing products. WGAST
further points to documentary evidence demonstrating that W&G
installers applied non-asbestos containing insulation (including
foamglass and fiberglass) at LRHS. WGAST asserts that, because
Busch did not present direct evidence that W&G supplied or
installed magnesia block with asbestos cement on the boilers, the
jury's verdict cannot stand. WGAST characterizes the jury's verdict
as impermissibly speculative, arguing that Busch failed to prove
actual, specific exposure to asbestos from W&G's product.

The Court explains that, the evidence, though slight, was
sufficient to allow the case to go to the jury. In support of his
assertion that W&G installed the magnesia block insulation in the
boiler room at LRHS, Busch presented the following evidence:

      (a) Time sheets demonstrating that W&G insulators worked on
Job #5679 at LRHS for over 4,500 man-hours during the February --
June 1972 time period.

      (b) Partial billing statements sent by W&G to Poole for Job
#5679 on February 16, 1972 and May 15, 1972 indicating that W&G
performed work associated with insulating various plumbing, heating
and ventilating surfaces at LRHS. A second partial billing was sent
on May 15, 1972 for work on the same project.

      (c) The partial billings reflect that the value of Job #5679
was $145,250, but the invoices entered into evidence at trial
totaled less than $20,000.

      (d) A partial billing for Job #5679 sent by W&G on February
16, 1972 to A.C. MacDonald, Inc., for work performed by W&G in
association with insulating fire lines in boiler room.

The Court believes that this evidence could have led a reasonable
fact-finder to conclude that W&G was the primary, if not the only,
insulator working at LRHS during the critical time period. A
reasonable fact-finder could have inferred that, given the
significant number of hours W&G performed insulation services at
LRHS, the services provided included the insulation of the boiler
with magnesia block. A fact-finder might have considered it
unlikely that a separate insulation contractor would have been
hired for the limited purpose of insulating the boilers while W&G
was already on site performing a great deal of insulation work,
including work in the boiler room. This evidence does not
necessarily compel a conclusion that W&G applied
asbestos-containing insulation to the boiler in the boiler room at
LRHS. It is, however, evidence upon which a reasonable fact-finder
could have found it more likely than not that W&G was responsible
for the work. This is all that is required under the preponderance
of the evidence standard.

Based upon the evidence presented at trial, the Court believes that
a reasonable jury could have permissibly inferred that W&G was the
primary, if not the only, insulation contractor present during the
construction of LRHS, and, therefore, that W&G was responsible for
the installation of asbestos-containing insulation in the boiler
room. The Court finds that sufficient evidence was produced to
support this inference. The Court concludes that the circuit court
did not err by denying WGAST's motions for judgment.

WGAST's asserts that the circuit court erred in connection with its
instruction to the jury about the evidentiary weight of Busch's
interrogatory responses and statements in Busch's Complaints.

The Court, however, is not are not persuaded by WGAST's assertions.
The Court explains that the circuit court's statement that
interrogatory responses and statements in Complaints can be
considered evidence by the jury is an accurate statement of the
law, and the circuit court expressly explained why, in its view,
the requested instructions were likely to cause the jury confusion.
The circuit court's instruction informed the jury that the
interrogatory responses and statements in the Complaints were
certainly evidence for the jury's consideration, along with all of
the other evidence presented at trial. Thus, the circuit court
exercised its discretion when crafting an instruction very slightly
different from the verbatim text proposed by WGAST. Therefore, the
Court will not disturb this exercise of discretion on appeal.

A copy of the Opinion dated August 10, 2018, is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yb4nh9xr from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Expert Testimony Precluded in Talc Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that a New York trial court has
granted a motion in part to preclude testimony of
Colgate-Palmolive's cell biologist in a cosmetic asbestos talcum
powder lawsuit, finding that the expert could not testify as to the
biological effects on humans of tremolite cleavage fragments or of
fibrous anthophyllite cleavage fragments.

In the Sept. 7 order, the New York Supreme Court for New York
County did allow the expert, however, to testify on the biological
effects of minerals components or properties on humans.

The claims were asserted on behalf of Sandra Florence Cohen, who
allegedly developed mesothelioma from asbestos found in baby
powder.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Family Continues Fight for Asbestos Justice
------------------------------------------------------------
Sunderland Echo reported that the family of a Sunderland man who
died of asbestos-related cancer a month after being diagnosed are
continuing his fight for justice.

William Hutton developed symptoms including shortness of breath and
back pain towards the end of last year and was diagnosed in March
with mesothelioma -- a cancer of the lining of the lungs caused by
asbestos exposure.

A month later, he passed away aged 76 on April 28 earlier this
year.

Before he died, the retired civil servant contacted specialist
asbestos-related disease lawyers at Irwin Mitchell to investigate
how he came to develop the illness.

Now his loved ones are carrying on with the case in his memory and
are appealing for William's former workmates to come forward and
help them gain justice regarding the illness.

Lawyers want anyone who worked with William at the Department of
Work and Pensions' Plawsworth Resettlement and Reestablishment Unit
near Chester-le-Street between 1984 and 1991 to come forward and
help them gather information regarding the presence of asbestos at
the site.

His widow Janet, 72, said: "William recalled how the site was
short-term accommodation for a range of people and remembered that
he regularly needed to visit the boiler room, where it is likely
asbestos was present.

"However, he also talked about regularly visiting the nissen huts
which were on-site. They were around 40 years old and he recalled
they were built from a corrugated whitish-grey material which he
didn't believe was metal. Later on in his time there it was decided
the buildings should no longer be used, with one reason being the
apparent presence of asbestos in them.

"It has been very difficult losing William, particularly as he
passed away so quickly after the illness took hold. The entire
family misses him so much and we are all just desperate for answers
as to how this happened. We would be grateful to anyone who may be
able to come forward with information to help our case."

Kirstie Devine, the specialist lawyer at Irwin Mitchell who is
representing William's family, said: "While it is very common for
asbestos exposure to be linked to industrial environments, this is
one of a growing number of cases we have seen related to public
buildings like government sites and hospitals.

"William's family remain devastated at losing him and are desperate
for answers as to how his contact with asbestos occurred.

"We would be grateful to anyone who is able to shed light on this
issue and assist the case.”

William worked for the DWP -- then known as the Department of
Social Security -- from 1968 but said before his death that he
believed his asbestos exposure happened during his time as head
manager at the Plawsworth Resettlement and Reestablishment Unit.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gardner Denver Had $100.8MM Reserve at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gardner Denver Holdings, Inc. had total litigation reserve of
US$100.8 million as of June 30, 2018, with respect to potential
liability arising from its asbestos-related litigation, according
to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018.

Gardner Denver states, "The Company has also been named as a
defendant in a number of asbestos-related and silica-related
personal injury lawsuits.  The plaintiffs in these suits allege
exposure to asbestos or silica from multiple sources and typically
the Company is one of approximately 25 or more named defendants.

"Predecessors to the Company sometimes manufactured, distributed
and/or sold products allegedly at issue in the pending asbestos and
silica-related lawsuits (the "Products").  However, neither the
Company nor its predecessors ever mined, manufactured, mixed,
produced or distributed asbestos fiber or silica sand, the
materials that allegedly caused the injury underlying the lawsuits.
Moreover, the asbestos-containing components of the Products, if
any, were enclosed within the subject Products.

"Although the Company has never mined, manufactured, mixed,
produced or distributed asbestos fiber or silica sand nor sold
products that could result in a direct asbestos or silica exposure,
many of the companies that did engage in such activities or
produced such products are no longer in operation.  This has led to
law firms seeking potential alternative companies to name in
lawsuits where there has been an asbestos or silica related
injury.

"The Company believes that the pending and future asbestos and
silica-related lawsuits are not likely to, in the aggregate, have a
material adverse effect on its consolidated financial position,
results of operations or liquidity, based on: the Company's
anticipated insurance and indemnification rights to address the
risks of such matters; the limited potential asbestos exposure from
the Products; the Company's experience that the vast majority of
plaintiffs are not impaired with a disease attributable to alleged
exposure to asbestos or silica from or relating to the Products or
for which the Company otherwise bears responsibility; various
potential defenses available to the Company with respect to such
matters; and the Company's prior disposition of comparable matters.
However, inherent uncertainties of litigation and future
developments, including, without limitation, potential insolvencies
of insurance companies or other defendants, an adverse
determination in the Adams County Case, or other inability to
collect from the Company's historical insurers or indemnitors,
could cause a different outcome.  While the outcome of legal
proceedings is inherently uncertain, based on presently known
facts, experience, and circumstances, the Company believes that the
amounts accrued on its balance sheet are adequate and that the
liabilities arising from the asbestos and silica-related personal
injury lawsuits will not have a material adverse effect on the
Company's consolidated financial position, results of operations or
liquidity.  "Accrued liabilities" and "Other liabilities" on the
Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet include a total litigation
reserve of US$100.8 million and US$105.6 million as of June 30,
2018 and December 31, 2017, with respect to potential liability
arising from the Company's asbestos-related litigation.  Asbestos
related defense costs are excluded from the asbestos claims
liability and are recorded separately as services are incurred.  In
the event of unexpected future developments, it is possible that
the ultimate resolution of these matters may be material to the
Company's consolidated financial position, results of operation or
liquidity.

"The Company has entered into a series of agreements with certain
of its or its predecessors' legacy insurers and certain potential
indemnitors to secure insurance coverage and/or reimbursement for
the costs associated with the asbestos and silica-related lawsuits
filed against the Company.  The Company has also pursued litigation
against certain insurers or indemnitors, where necessary.  The
Company has an insurance recovery receivable for probable asbestos
related recoveries of approximately US$96.2 million and US$100.4
million as of June 30, 2018 and December 31, 2017, respectively,
which was included in "Other assets" on the Consolidated Balance
Sheets.  During the six month period ended June 30, 2018 the
Company received asbestos related insurance recoveries of US$9.6
million, of which US$4.0 million related to the recovery of
indemnity payments, and was recorded as a reduction of the
insurance recovery receivable in "Other assets" on the Condensed
Consolidated Balance Sheets, and US$5.6 million related to
reimbursement of previously expensed legal defense costs, and was
recorded as a reduction of "Selling and administrative expenses" in
the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations.

"The largest such recent action, Gardner Denver, Inc. v. Certain
Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, et al., was filed on July 9, 2010,
in the Eighth Judicial Circuit, Adams County, Illinois, as case
number 10-L-48 (the "Adams County Case").  In the lawsuit, the
Company seeks, among other things, to require certain excess
insurer defendants to honor their insurance policy obligations to
the Company, including payment in whole or in part of the costs
associated with the asbestos-related lawsuits filed against the
Company.  In October 2011, the Company reached a settlement with
one of the insurer defendants, which had issued both primary and
excess policies, for approximately the amount of such defendant's
policies that were subject to the lawsuit.  Since then, the case
has been proceeding through the discovery and motions process with
the remaining insurer defendants.  On January 29, 2016, the Company
prevailed on the first phase of that discovery and motions process
("Phase I").  Specifically, the Court in the Adams County Case
ruled that the Company has rights under all of the policies in the
case, subject to their terms and conditions, even though the
policies were sold to the Company's former owners rather than to
the Company itself.  On June 9, 2016, the Court denied a motion by
several of the insurers who sought permission to appeal the Phase I
ruling immediately rather than waiting until the end of the whole
case as is normally required.  The case is now proceeding through
the discovery process regarding the remaining issues in dispute
("Phase II").

"A majority of the Company's expected future recoveries of the
costs associated with the asbestos-related lawsuits are the subject
of the Adams County Case.

"The amounts recorded by the Company for asbestos-related
liabilities and insurance recoveries are based on currently
available information and assumptions that the Company believes are
reasonable based on an evaluation of relevant factors.  The actual
liabilities or insurance recoveries could be higher or lower than
those recorded if actual results vary significantly from the
assumptions.  There are a number of key variables and assumptions
including the number and type of new claims to be filed each year,
the resolution or outcome of these claims, the average cost of
resolution of each new claim, the amount of insurance available,
allocation methodologies, the contractual terms with each insurer
with whom the Company has reached settlements, the resolution of
coverage issues with other excess insurance carriers with whom the
Company has not yet achieved settlements, and the solvency risk
with respect to the Company's insurance carriers.  Other factors
that may affect the future liability include uncertainties
surrounding the litigation process from jurisdiction to
jurisdiction and from case to case, legal rulings that may be made
by state and federal courts, and the passage of state or federal
legislation.  The Company makes the necessary adjustments for the
asbestos liability and corresponding insurance recoveries on an
annual basis unless facts or circumstances warrant assessment as of
an interim date."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/9U8p0y


ASBESTOS UPDATE: GBP260,000 Payout for Asbestos Death
-----------------------------------------------------
Daily Mail reported that a builder who lost his two brothers to
asbestos-linked cancer has won a GBP260,000 payout after he also
fell ill with an incurable form of the disease.

Andrew Nicholson, 65, from Swanley in Kent, worked on construction
sites for Bovis Ltd and Wates Built Homes during the 1970s, and was
exposed to asbestos that led to a diagnosis of malignant
mesothelioma in September 2016.

Neither company provided any respiratory protection or trained him
about the threat of asbestos dust, which is the most common cause
of this form of cancer.

'It's almost beyond belief that as recently as 30 to 40 years ago,
large companies were knowingly exposing their employees to lethal
chemicals,' Mr Nicholson told MailOnline. ‘They placed ticking
time bombs over our heads while burying theirs in the sand.’

Mr Nicholson began feeling short of breath early in 2016, and was
forced to quit work as a contracts manager for a construction
company.

He soon suspected mesothelioma, having watched both his brothers
die from the disease -- Chris in 2008 and Terry in 2004.

Terry, a musician, came into contact with asbestos at a recording
studio. Chris may have been exposed while a long-term resident at
Cane Hill Hospital in Croydon following his diagnosis for
Asperger’s syndrome.

Mr Nicholson will have any future private medical expenses covered
as part of the legal settlement, including expensive immunotherapy
not available on the NHS. He is now responding well to an
immunotherapy drug trial at Maidstone Hospital.

He started in the construction in 1971 as a site clerk in Croydon,
south London, for Wates Built Homes. While in the stores he handled
sheets of Asbestolux, an asbestos insulating board, and swept up
the dust which came off them.

In 1974, he moved to the now defunct Bovis Ltd, progressing from a
junior surveyor to project manager of their Special Works Division
in Sidcup. Again, he was exposed to asbestos dust when visiting
sites where Asbestolux and Artex were being used.

'From the outset, I knew what mesothelioma involved and what the
prognosis would be,' Mr Nicholson said.

What is malignant mesothelioma?

It is an incurable form of cancer which stars in cells in the
linings of certain organs, including the lungs, and is normally
linked to asbestos exposure.

In the UK more than 2,600 people are diagnosed with mesothelioma
each year. More than 15% of men survive the cancer for more than a
year, but only 1% for five years or more.

It is estimated that in the UK more than 9 out of 10 men with
mesothelioma and more than 8 out of 10 women have been in contact
with asbestos.

He approached the industrial disease team at London solicitors
Hodge Jones & Allen to represent him in a claim against his former
employers.

He was seeking a compensation payout to immunotherapy which would
improve his quality of life and prolong the time he had.

His claim was initially contested by Wates and Bovis Ltd, now owned
by Lendlease Construction Holdings, on the basis that there had
been no breach of duty of care as any exposure to asbestos dust had
not exceeded 'permitted safe limits'.

However, at a pre-trial meeting between the two parties, Wates and
Lendlease tacitly acknowledged their responsibility for causing Mr
Nicholson’s illness and agreed to pay him compensation for
losses, past and future.

The £260,000 lump sum payment was agreed by the insurers of both
firms, as well as an indemnity agreement covering Andrew against
any future medical and legal bills.

'I am relieved to finally have this legal battle behind me, and
peace of mind that the treatment, which I so desperately need, is
secured,' he said.

His solicitor Isobel Lovett, partner and head of industrial disease
at Hodge Jones & Allen, said: 'Mesothelioma is only caused by
exposure to asbestos.

'Andrew contracted this disease as a result of his employers
exposing him to asbestos at work and failing to protect him from
this deadly substance.

'When held to account, many companies drag their heels through the
process in the hope that the issue will just go away, as survival
rates for mesothelioma don't involve long time frames.

According to HSE figures, there were over 3,000 deaths from
mesothelioma and asbestos-related diseases in 2015. These types of
diseases typically take many years to develop.

Widespread use of asbestos, particularly in the post-World War II
building industry had led to a large increase in asbestos-related
diseases.

Annual deaths have increased steeply over the last 50 years,
largely as a result of asbestos exposure prior to 1980, and are
expected to continue to current levels for the rest of the decade
before declining.

MailOnline has contacted Wates Built Homes and Lendlease for
comment.

Asbestos is a heat-resistant mineral that was popular in building
and construction until the 1980s until the dangers it posed became
clear.

As the material was cheap and resistant to fire, it was regularly
used as insulation for buildings and electrical hotplate wiring.

The first reports about the cancer-causing properties of asbestos
first emerged in Germany in the late 1930s.

However, it was not until the 1960s that serious diseases like like
mesothelioma were firmly established as being caused by asbestos
exposure.

The danger of asbestos comes from microscopic fibres which can tear
off the material and fester in the body to cause cancer.

Breathing in small amounts of the fibres does not cause any
problems, but it is with larger quantities when health conditions
occur.

It is now banned in the UK, but it is allowed to remain in some
buildings where it is in good condition and undisturbed.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graham Corp. Still Faces Lawsuits at June 30
-------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Corporation continues to face lawsuits alleging personal
injury from exposure to asbestos allegedly contained in or
accompanying its products, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018.

The Company states, "We have been named as a defendant in lawsuits
alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos allegedly
contained in or accompanying our products.  We are a co-defendant
with numerous other defendants in these lawsuits and intend to
vigorously defend ourselves against these claims.  The claims in
our current lawsuits are similar to those made in previous asbestos
lawsuits that named us as a defendant.  Such previous lawsuits
either were dismissed when it was shown that we had not supplied
products to the plaintiffs' places of work or were settled by us
for immaterial amounts.

"As of June 30, 2018, we are subject to the claims, as well as
other legal proceedings and potential claims that have arisen in
the ordinary course of business.  Although the outcome of the
lawsuits, legal proceedings or potential claims to which we are or
may become a party cannot be determined and an estimate of the
reasonably possible loss or range of loss cannot be made, we do not
believe that the outcomes, either individually or in the aggregate,
will have a material effect on our results of operations, financial
position or cash flows."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/bjHhXq


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grenfell Survivors At Risk of Asbestos Poisoning
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Guardian reported that hundreds of survivors of the Grenfell
Tower disaster could be at risk of asbestos poisoning and must be
monitored by the NHS, the senior coroner examining the deaths
caused by the fire has warned.

Dr Fiona Wilcox has written to Simon Stevens, the chief executive
of NHS England, urging him to take action to prevent the death toll
rising in a formal notice that cites the experience of firefighters
and others affected with health problems years after the 9/11
attacks on the US.

Her Majesty's senior coroner for inner west London told Stevens she
was concerned that no structured health screening programme is in
place for people including firefighters and other first responders
who were exposed to risks of smoke and dust inhalation.

"Without an appropriate system of health screening, there is a risk
that illness may arise unnoticed or present later in survivors,
first responders and site workers, and thus reduce their life
expectancy," she warned.

The tower was built in 1974. The now-banned fire retardant was
present in textured ceilings and in airing cupboards. If inhaled it
can cause mesothelioma, a fatal lung disease that can take decades
to develop. Seventy-two people died as a result of the fire on 14
June 2017 and most of them are believed to have died from inhaling
poisonous smoke, Dr Wilcox said.

She told Stevens: "Real concern has been expressed to me by the
bereaved in relation to the health of survivors, especially
children, and I have been informed that no physical health
screening programme has been put in place to monitor the health of
survivors on an ongoing basis."

Public Health England has previously said that tests of the air
within Grenfell Tower for dust and asbestos did not detect any
levels of concern, although they were carried out in the aftermath
of the fire.

A fortnight after the fire, Deborah Turbitt, the health protection
director for PHE in London, said: "Asbestos-related diseases are
typically associated with a long-term workplace exposure to high
levels of airborne asbestos fibres."

Dr Wilcox also highlighted the risk of ongoing mental health
problems caused by the trauma of the disaster, including to crime
scene investigators who spent months tracing through the charred
debris of the tower. She said that while extensive support for
mental health issues has been offered by Central and North West
London NHS Trust, funding remains in place only until March 2019.

"It may be that the provision of some care services, for physical
or psychological damage may be provided by occupational health
services outside the NHS, however a scale and risk assessment of
need and care provision needs to be undertaken to minimise persons
affected slipping through the net and being lost from appropriate
supportive services," she said.

She added: "Action should be taken to prevent future deaths and I
believe you have the power to take such action."

The survivors' group Grenfell United welcomed the coroner's
intervention.

"We are pleased the coroner has backed the calls from survivors and
bereaved for the need for long-term health screenings," a
spokeswoman said. "The potential long-term impacts of the fire must
be taken seriously. The NHS are just about to start some
screenings. We need to make sure this is the start of the long-term
healthcare for survivors now and for years to come."

A NHS England spokesperson said: "NHS staff provided extraordinary
care to the residents of Grenfell on the night of the fire and in
the months afterwards, including extensive mental health care to
help people manage the trauma of the disaster.

"We have received the coroner's recommendations and will continue
to work with the Grenfell community, other health organisations and
the emergency services to make sure survivors, victims’ relatives
and other residents continue to get the care they need."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Inc. Has US$858.8MM Liability at June 30
-------------------------------------------------------------
ITT Inc. had an undiscounted asbestos-related liability of US$858.8
million as of June 30, 2018, for pending claims and unasserted
claims estimated to be filed over the next 10 years, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018.

The Company states, "We record a liability for pending asbestos
claims and asbestos claims estimated to be filed over the next 10
years.  While it is probable that we will incur additional costs
for future claims to be filed against the Company, a liability for
potential future claims beyond the next 10 years is not reasonably
estimable due to the variables and uncertainties inherent in the
long-term projection of the Company's asbestos exposures and
potential recoveries.  As of June 30, 2018, we have recorded an
undiscounted asbestos-related liability for pending claims and
unasserted claims estimated to be filed over the next 10 years of
US$858.8 million, including expected legal fees, and an associated
asset of US$387.3 million which represents estimated recoveries
from insurers, resulting in a net asbestos exposure of US$471.5
million.

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/wmpUdQ


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Units Had 25,000 Claims Pending at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
ITT Inc.'s subsidiaries had 25,000 pending asbestos-related claims
at June 30, 2018, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2018.

The Company states, "Subsidiaries of ITT, including ITT LLC and
Goulds Pumps LLC, have been sued, along with many other companies
in product liability lawsuits alleging personal injury due to
asbestos exposure.  These claims generally allege that certain
products sold by our subsidiaries prior to 1985 contained a part
manufactured by a third party (e.g., a gasket) which contained
asbestos.  To the extent these third-party parts may have contained
asbestos, it was encapsulated in the gasket (or other) material and
was non-friable.  As of June 30, 2018, there were approximately 25
thousand pending claims against ITT subsidiaries, including Goulds
Pumps LLC, filed in various state and federal courts alleging
injury as a result of exposure to asbestos.

"Frequently, plaintiffs are unable to identify any ITT LLC or
Goulds Pumps LLC products as a source of asbestos exposure.  Our
experience to date is that a majority of resolved claims are
dismissed without any payment from ITT subsidiaries.  Management
believes that a large majority of the pending claims have little or
no value.  In addition, because claims are sometimes dismissed in
large groups, the average cost per resolved claim can fluctuate
significantly from period to period.  ITT expects more
asbestos-related suits will be filed in the future, and ITT will
continue to aggressively defend or seek a reasonable resolution, as
appropriate.

"Asbestos litigation is a unique form of litigation.  Frequently,
the plaintiff sues a large number of defendants and does not state
a specific claim amount.  After filing a complaint, the plaintiff
engages defendants in settlement negotiations to establish a
settlement value based on certain criteria, including the number of
defendants in the case.  Rarely do the plaintiffs seek to collect
all damages from one defendant.  Rather, they seek to spread the
liability, and thus the payments, among many defendants.  As a
result of this and other factors, the Company is unable to estimate
the maximum potential exposure to pending claims and claims
estimated to be filed over the next 10 years."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/wmpUdQ


ASBESTOS UPDATE: MetLife Unit Had 1,754 New Cases Jan-June 2018
---------------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc.'s subsidiary, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company,
received approximately 1,754 new asbestos-related claims during the
six months ended June 30, 2018, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018.

The Company states, "MLIC is and has been a defendant in a large
number of asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state courts.
These suits principally allege that the plaintiff or plaintiffs
suffered personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos and
seek both actual and punitive damages.  MLIC has never engaged in
the business of manufacturing, producing, distributing, or selling
asbestos or asbestos-containing products nor has MLIC issued
liability or workers' compensation insurance to companies in the
business of manufacturing, producing, distributing, or selling
asbestos or asbestos-containing products.  The lawsuits principally
have focused on allegations with respect to certain research,
publication and other activities of one or more of MLIC's employees
during the period from the 1920's through approximately the 1950's
and allege that MLIC learned or should have learned of certain
health risks posed by asbestos and, among other things, improperly
publicized or failed to disclose those health risks.  MLIC believes
that it should not have legal liability in these cases.  The
outcome of most asbestos litigation matters, however, is uncertain
and can be impacted by numerous variables, including differences in
legal rulings in various jurisdictions, the nature of the alleged
injury and factors unrelated to the ultimate legal merit of the
claims asserted against MLIC.  MLIC employs a number of resolution
strategies to manage its asbestos loss exposure, including seeking
resolution of pending litigation by judicial rulings and settling
individual or groups of claims or lawsuits under appropriate
circumstances.

"Claims asserted against MLIC have included negligence, intentional
tort and conspiracy concerning the health risks associated with
asbestos.  MLIC's defenses (beyond denial of certain factual
allegations) include that: (i) MLIC owed no duty to the
plaintiffs-- it had no special relationship with the plaintiffs and
did not manufacture, produce, distribute, or sell the asbestos
products that allegedly injured plaintiffs; (ii) plaintiffs did not
rely on any actions of MLIC; (iii) MLIC's conduct was not the cause
of the plaintiffs' injuries; (iv) plaintiffs' exposure occurred
after the dangers of asbestos were known; and (v) the applicable
time with respect to filing suit has expired.  During the course of
the litigation, certain trial courts have granted motions
dismissing claims against MLIC, while other trial courts have
denied MLIC's motions.  There can be no assurance that MLIC will
receive favorable decisions on motions in the future.  While most
cases brought to date have settled, MLIC intends to continue to
defend aggressively against claims based on asbestos exposure,
including defending claims at trials.

"As reported in the 2017 Annual Report, MLIC received approximately
3,514 asbestos-related claims in 2017.  During the six months ended
June 30, 2018 and 2017, MLIC received approximately 1,754 and 1,896
new asbestos-related claims, respectively.  The number of asbestos
cases that may be brought, the aggregate amount of any liability
that MLIC may incur, and the total amount paid in settlements in
any given year are uncertain and may vary significantly from year
to year.

"The ability of MLIC to estimate its ultimate asbestos exposure is
subject to considerable uncertainty, and the conditions impacting
its liability can be dynamic and subject to change.  The
availability of reliable data is limited and it is difficult to
predict the numerous variables that can affect liability estimates,
including the number of future claims, the cost to resolve claims,
the disease mix and severity of disease in pending and future
claims, the impact of the number of new claims filed in a
particular jurisdiction and variations in the law in the
jurisdictions in which claims are filed, the possible impact of
tort reform efforts, the willingness of courts to allow plaintiffs
to pursue claims against MLIC when exposure to asbestos took place
after the dangers of asbestos exposure were well known, and the
impact of any possible future adverse verdicts and their amounts.

"The ability to make estimates regarding ultimate asbestos exposure
declines significantly as the estimates relate to years further in
the future.  In the Company's judgment, there is a future point
after which losses cease to be probable and reasonably estimable.
It is reasonably possible that the Company's total exposure to
asbestos claims may be materially greater than the asbestos
liability currently accrued and that future charges to income may
be necessary.  While the potential future charges could be material
in the particular quarterly or annual periods in which they are
recorded, based on information currently known by management,
management does not believe any such charges are likely to have a
material effect on the Company's financial position.

"The Company believes adequate provision has been made in its
consolidated financial statements for all probable and reasonably
estimable losses for asbestos-related claims.  MLIC's recorded
asbestos liability is based on its estimation of the following
elements, as informed by the facts presently known to it, its
understanding of current law and its past experiences: (i) the
probable and reasonably estimable liability for asbestos claims
already asserted against MLIC, including claims settled but not yet
paid; (ii) the probable and reasonably estimable liability for
asbestos claims not yet asserted against MLIC, but which MLIC
believes are reasonably probable of assertion; and (iii) the legal
defense costs associated with the foregoing claims.  Significant
assumptions underlying MLIC's analysis of the adequacy of its
recorded liability with respect to asbestos litigation include: (i)
the number of future claims; (ii) the cost to resolve claims; and
(iii) the cost to defend claims.

"MLIC reevaluates on a quarterly and annual basis its exposure from
asbestos litigation, including studying its claims experience,
reviewing external literature regarding asbestos claims experience
in the United States, assessing relevant trends impacting asbestos
liability and considering numerous variables that can affect its
asbestos liability exposure on an overall or per claim basis.
These variables include bankruptcies of other companies involved in
asbestos litigation, legislative and judicial developments, the
number of pending claims involving serious disease, the number of
new claims filed against it and other defendants and the
jurisdictions in which claims are pending.  Based upon its regular
reevaluation of its exposure from asbestos litigation, MLIC has
updated its liability analysis for asbestos-related claims through
June 30, 2018."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/2y5IIJ2


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minerals Technologies Faces 25 Cases at July 1
---------------------------------------------------------------
Minerals Technologies Inc. has 25 pending asbestos cases, according
to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended July 1, 2018.

Minerals Technologies states, "Certain of the Company's
subsidiaries are among numerous defendants in a number of cases
seeking damages for exposure to silica or to asbestos containing
materials.  The Company currently has three pending silica cases
and 25 pending asbestos cases.  To date, 1,493 silica cases and 54
asbestos cases have been dismissed, not including any lawsuits
against AMCOL or American Colloid Company dismissed prior to our
acquisition of AMCOL.  Three new asbestos cases were filed during
the second quarter of 2018.  No asbestos case were dismissed during
the second quarter.  No silica cases were dismissed during the
period.  Most of these claims do not provide adequate information
to assess their merits, the likelihood that the Company will be
found liable, or the magnitude of such liability, if any.
Additional claims of this nature may be made against the Company or
its subsidiaries.  At this time management anticipates that the
amount of the Company's liability, if any, and the cost of
defending such claims, will not have a material effect on its
financial position or results of operations.

"The Company has settled only one silica lawsuit, for a nominal
amount, and no asbestos lawsuits to date (not including any that
may have been settled by AMCOL prior to completion of the
acquisition).  We are unable to state an amount or range of amounts
claimed in any of the lawsuits because state court pleading
practices do not require identifying the amount of the claimed
damage.  The aggregate cost to the Company for the legal defense of
these cases since inception continues to be insignificant.  The
majority of the costs of defense for these cases, excluding cases
against AMCOL, are reimbursed by Pfizer Inc. pursuant to the terms
of certain agreements entered into in connection with the Company's
initial public offering in 1992.  The Company is entitled to
indemnification, pursuant to agreement, for sales prior to the
initial public offering.  Of the 25 pending asbestos cases, 19 of
the non-AMCOL cases are subject to indemnification, in whole or in
part, because the plaintiffs claim liability based on sales of
products that occurred either entirely before the initial public
offering, or both before and after the initial public offering.  In
three of the four remaining non-AMCOL cases, the plaintiffs have
not alleged dates of exposure, and in the fourth remaining
non-AMCOL case, exposure is alleged to have been after the
Company's initial public offering in 1992.  The remaining cases
involve AMCOL only, so no Pfizer indemnity is available.  Our
experience has been that the Company is not liable to plaintiffs in
any of these lawsuits and the Company does not expect to pay any
settlements or jury verdicts in these lawsuits."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/8HwR5V


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Moore Couple Sues for Failure Warn Exposure
------------------------------------------------------------
Lhalie Castillo of Madison County Record reported that a couple
recently filed a lawsuit against nearly two dozen companies over
their alleged exposure to asbestos.

Bobby K. Moore and Unav Moore filed a complaint on Sept. 5 in St.
Clair County Circuit Court against several manufacturing companies,
including Albany International Corporation, Cleaver-Brooks and IMO
Industries Inc.

According to the complaint, Bobby Moore inhaled or ingested
asbestos fibers while working as a factory worker from 1953 to
1995. In addition, Bobby Moore believes he was secondarily exposed
by his wife, Unav Moore, who worked as a secretary in a paper
factory. In October 2017, he was diagnosed with a type of lung
cancer consistent with asbestos exposure, the complaint states. The
plaintiffs allege the companies negligently included asbestos in
their products and did not warn him about the toxic effects.

The plaintiffs request a trial by jury and seek compensatory and
punitive damages of more than $50,000 and any further relief that
the court sees fit to award. They are represented by Randy L. Gori
of Gori, Julian & Associates PC in Edwardsville.

St. Clair County Circuit Court case number 18-L-582


ASBESTOS UPDATE: More Asbestos Found in Minnie Water
----------------------------------------------------
Grafton Daily Examiner reported that a remedial action Plan is
being developed to manage the unexpected discovery of fragments of
asbestos-containing materials on the Minnie Water foreshore.

Clarence Valley Council works and civil director Troy Anderson said
that since the council was notified of the fragments a certified
and qualified staff member had been doing weekly "emu picks" of
exposed asbestos-containing materials. It is believed the fragments
of fibrous cement sheeting (fibro) were from dwellings that were
previously located on the beach reserve.

Mr Anderson said the initial advice from an independent consultant
was that any risk could be managed by continuing to undertake
weekly inspections and removing any material found.

"This has been occurring and will continue to occur. Smaller
amounts are being found at each inspection," he said.

"We have engaged consultants to do further assessment and once
their report is received we will advise the community of further
treatment options."

Mr Anderson also countered claims in media reports last week the
council was unresponsive when notified of the possibility of
asbestos-containing materials on site.

"That is not the case," he said. "We treat asbestos contamination
seriously and urgently.

"We got a phone call from a resident suggesting asbestos might have
been exposed, but it wasn't clear from that call where she was
referring to. Relevant staff tried to call her back to get further
details but there was no response.

"As soon as we got further details we sent a qualified asbestos
assessor to have a look. He found three sites where he believed
there were former building products containing ACMs
(asbestos-containing materials). We then engaged an independent
assessor and fenced off areas where ACMs were found.

"Closer inspection found traces at a fourth site and barrier
fencing has been installed around it as well.

"There has been and will be no mowing or maintenance of the site
until remediation is complete or we have ACM clearance for the
site.

"Public safety is the number one priority and council is evaluating
the most suitable remediation options."

Mr Anderson said the EPA had been notified of the find.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Nelson Man Dies of Asbestosis
----------------------------------------------
Sophie-May Clarke of Lancashire Telegraph reported that Herbert
Gribble, from Nelson, was responsible for the running and making of
boilers, a job which often meant he had to climb inside the vessels
which were thought to be lined with asbestos.

He worked at various mill sites throughout Nelson during the 60s
his daughter said, making it difficult to pin down where or when he
had been exposed to the lethal mineral.

An inquest was launched into the death of Mr Dribble after he died
at the Royal Blackburn Hospital in February of this year, where he
had been admitted for shortness of breath.

At the time he was treated for an infection which initially
improved, but doctors then believed the pensioner contracted
pneumonia.

Despite treatment by a team of doctors, the father-of-five died on
February 23.

At the time of his death his treating doctor believed that while
his cause of death may well have been pneumonia, there was evidence
to believe that asbestosis could have been a contributing factor.

A CT scan which took place in 2013 revealed plural plaques were
found in his body and this combined with his history of exposure to
asbestos during his working life meant the doctor could not rule
out the affects the asbestos may have had on his body.

Because of these factors a post mortem was authorised and an
Inquest was opened.

A statement from Mr Gribble's daughter, Yvonne Mcnamara, read: "He
had a history of working at various mill in the Nelson Area as a
boiler man, responsible for running and making different boilers.

"He was a smoker, but hadn't been since 1976. In the past when we
spoke about why his chest was bad he thought it may have been down
to his smoking, but also due to the fact he used to have to climb
inside of boilers to clean and maintain them."

The inquest also heard how Mr Gribble had worked in a number of
locations as part of a team which removed old boilers and installed
new ones.

The older versions would have been lined with asbestos, it is
believed.

A post mortem examination was carried out at the Royal Blackburn
Hospital by Dr Al-Mudhaffer, who offered a medical cause of death
as bronchopneumonia.

But due to a chest X-ray which revealed inflammation to the chest
and given the CT finding, Dr Al-Mudhaffer could not rule out
asbestosis and consequently said: "In my examination, asbestos
bodies were identified, which would indicate asbestosis."

Residing that asbestosis would have been a contributing factor to
his death, Coroner Richard Taylor said: "It appears as though it is
not clear when or where during his working life he was exposed to
asbestos, but there is no doubt on balance that he was, given his
working history and the finding of the CT scan.

"Herbert Gribble died on the 23 February 2018. He was exposed to
asbestos during his working life, but when or where that occurred
cannot be more clearly ascertained."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NL Industries Still Defends 110 Cases at June 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NL Industries, Inc. continues to face 110 asbestos-related cases,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2018.

The Company states, "We have been named as a defendant in various
lawsuits in several jurisdictions, alleging personal injuries as a
result of occupational exposure primarily to products manufactured
by our former operations containing asbestos, silica and/or mixed
dust.  In addition, some plaintiffs allege exposure to asbestos
from working in various facilities previously owned and/or operated
by us.  There are 110 of these types of cases pending, involving a
total of approximately 583 plaintiffs.  In addition, the claims of
approximately 8,676 plaintiffs have been administratively dismissed
or placed on the inactive docket in Ohio state court.  We do not
expect these claims will be re-opened unless the plaintiffs meet
the courts' medical criteria for asbestos-related claims.  We have
not accrued any amounts for this litigation because of the
uncertainty of liability and inability to reasonably estimate the
liability, if any.  To date, we have not been adjudicated liable in
any of these matters.

"Based on information available to us, including facts concerning
historical operations the rate of new claims, the number of claims
from which we have been dismissed, and our prior experience in the
defense of these matters, we believe that the range of reasonably
possible outcomes of these matters will be consistent with our
historical costs (which are not material).  Furthermore, we do not
expect any reasonably possible outcome would involve amounts
material to our consolidated financial position, results of
operations or liquidity.  We have sought and will continue to
vigorously seek, dismissal and/or a finding of no liability from
each claim.  In addition, from time to time, we have received
notices regarding asbestos or silica claims purporting to be
brought against former subsidiaries, including notices provided to
insurers with which we have entered into settlements extinguishing
certain insurance policies.  These insurers may seek
indemnification from us.

"In addition to the litigation, we and our affiliates are also
involved in various other environmental, contractual, product
liability, patent (or intellectual property), employment and other
claims and disputes incidental to present and former businesses.
In certain cases, we have insurance coverage for these items,
although we do not expect additional material insurance coverage
for environmental matters.

"We currently believe the disposition of all of these various other
claims and disputes, individually and in the aggregate, should not
have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial
position, results of operations or liquidity beyond the accruals
already provided."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/2xRzi4e


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parsons Class Lawsuit vs. Liggett Still Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vector Group Ltd. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2018, that subsidiary Liggett Group LLC is still a
defendant in the asbestos-related class action case Parsons v. AC &
S Inc., which is currently stayed.

The Company states, "In February 1998, in Parsons v. AC & S Inc., a
purported class action was commenced on behalf of all West Virginia
residents who allegedly have personal injury claims arising from
exposure to cigarette smoke and asbestos fibers.  The complaint
seeks to recover US$1,000,000 in compensatory and punitive damages
individually and unspecified compensatory and punitive damages for
the class.  The case is stayed due to the December 2000 bankruptcy
of three of the defendants."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/2RjhDLe


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Richards' Bid to Supplement Expert Report Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Ferris W. Wharton of the Superior Court of Delaware has
denied Craig Charles Richards and Gloria Jeanne Richards' Motion
for Leave to Supplement Expert Report Due to Changes in Substantive
Law, and/or for Reargument in the case styled In Re: Asbestos
Litigation. Limited to: Craig Charles Richards and Gloria Jeanne
Richards, his wife Plaintiffs, v. Copes-Vulcan, Inc., The Fairbanks
Company, Ford Motor Company, and The Goodyear Tire & Rubber
Company, et al., Defendants, C.A. No. N16C-04-206 ASB, (Del.).

On June 16, 2017, Plaintiffs served Dr. Mark Ginsberg's initial
report on Defendants. Dr. Ginsberg's conclusion, applicable to all
defendants, was that: "Mr. Richard's cumulative exposure to
asbestos was a substantial contributing cause of his malignant
mesothelioma. It is my further opinion, to a reasonable degree of
medical certainty, that the cumulative exposure from each company's
asbestos product or products was a substantial contributing factor
in the development of Mr. Richardson's malignant mesothelioma. Each
such product for which exposure can be shown was a cause of said
disease."

On February 8, 2018, the Supreme Court of Ohio released its opinion
in Schwartz v. Honeywell. In Schwartz, the Court held that
cumulative exposure causation was incompatible with Ohio statutory
law, which requires an individualized determination for each
defendant. The Court also found other problems with cumulative
exposure causation beyond its incompatibility with Ohio's statutory
scheme. Because the Court found that Dr. Ginsberg's cumulative
exposure causation opinion would not pass muster under Ohio law, it
granted the defendants summary judgment.

On July 10, 2018, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of
all four defendants. In each instance, the Court based its decision
on the recent opinion of the Ohio Supreme Court in Schwartz v.
Honeywell, in which the Ohio held that the theory of causation
predicated on cumulative exposure, such as advanced by Plaintiffs'
expert Dr. Ginsberg, was insufficient to establish substantial
factor causation under Ohio law.

Plaintiffs' sought and were granted an opportunity to seek leave
for Dr. Ginsberg to submit a supplemental report. In their Motion,
Plaintiffs attach a supplemental report from Dr. Ginsberg dated
July 18, 2018. In his supplemental report, Dr. Ginsberg concludes
that Mr. Richards' exposures to each defendant's products "were
sufficient to constitute a substantial factor in causing his
mesothelioma."

In support of its excusable good cause/excusable neglect argument,
Plaintiffs argue that: 1) they submitted their expert report eight
months before Schwartz was decided; 2) there were only 22 days
between the issuance of Schwartz and the due date for expert
reports; and 3) the substantive law of Ohio had not been ordered as
controlling on the date Plaintiffs' expert reports were due.

The Court finds no particular significance of the fact that
Plaintiffs produced their expert report eight months before the due
date. What is significant is how much time they had to produce a
supplemental report after the decision in Schwartz. It is true that
there were only 22 days between the issuance of Schwartz and the
deadline for the submission of expert reports. But, it took
Plaintiffs only eight days to produce a supplemental report from
Dr. Ginsberg. Obviously, Plaintiffs could have produced a
supplemental report before the expiration of the expert report
deadline if they had undertaken to do so immediately following the
release of Schwartz.

The Court explains that the real problem for Plaintiffs is that
they never sought leave for Dr. Ginsberg to supplement his report
until after the Court had entered summary judgment against them.
The Court notes that Plaintiffs did not seek leave to submit a
supplemental report in the 81 days between the expiration of the
expert report deadline and the service of the summary judgment
motions of Ford Motor and Copes-Vulcan nor did they seek leave in
the 105 days between the publication of Schwartz and their filing
of their oppositions to the summary judgment motions of Ford Motor
and Copes-Vulcan, despite addressing Schwartz in both responses, or
in the 153 days until oral argument on the motions. Further, the
fact that Ohio substantive law was not ordered controlling until
after the expert deadline is of no significance.

Plaintiffs designated Ohio law as controlling in their complaint,
and they have not suggested that there was any other state whose
substantive law realistically might apply. In short, Plaintiffs
always knew Ohio substantive law would apply. The date of the
Court's Order confirming that fact is of no help to them. By
failing to seek leave to supplement their expert report until after
summary judgment was entered against them, the Court finds that
Plaintiffs have not demonstrated good cause/excusable neglect to
warrant granting them leave to submit Dr. Ginsberg's supplemental
report or to grant them reargument.

A copy of the Order dated August 8, 2018, is available at
https://tinyurl.com/ybhog2c9 from Leagle.com.

Bartholomew J. Dalton, Esq. -- bdalton@bdaltonlaw.com -- Ipek K.
Medford, Esq. -- imedford@bdaltonlaw.com -- Andrew C. Dalton, Esq.
-- adalton@bdaltonlaw.com -- Michael C. Dalton, Esq. --
mdalton@bdaltonlaw.com -- Dalton & Associates, Cool Spring Meeting
House, 1106 West Tenth Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19086; Adam
Balick, Esq. -- abalick@balick.com -- Michael Collins Smith, Esq.
-- msmith@balick.com -- Patrick Smith, Esq. -- psmith@balick.com --
Balick & Balick, LLC, 711 King Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801,
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Craig Charles Richards and Gloria Jeanne
Richards, his wife; Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C., 700 Broadway, New
York, New York 10003, of counsel.

Paul A. Bradley, Esq. -- PAB@maronmarvel.com -- Antoinette D.
Hubbard, Esq. -- ADH@maronmarvel.com -- Maron Marvel Bradley
Anderson & Tardy LLC, 1201 North Market Street, Suite 900,
Wilmington, Delaware 19801, Attorneys for Defendant Copes-Vulcan,
Inc.

Timothy A. Sullivan, III, Esq. -- tsullivan@wlbdeflaw.com --
Wilbraham, Lawler & Buba, 919 N. Market Street, Suite 980,
Wilmington, Delaware 19801, Attorneys for The Fairbanks Company.

Christian J. Singewald, Esq. -- singewaldc@whiteandwilliams.com --
Rochelle L. Gumapac, Esq. -- gumapacr@whiteandwilliams.com -- White
and Williams LLP, Courthouse Square, 600 N. King Street, Suite 800,
Wilmington, Delaware 19801, Attorneys for Ford Motor Company.

Jason A. Cincilla, Esq. -- jcincilla@mgmlaw.com -- Amaryah K.
Bocchino, Esq. -- abocchino@mgmlaw.com -- Ryan Browning, Esq. --
rbrowning@mgmlaw.com -- Paul S. Seward, Esq. -- pseward@mgmlaw.com
-- Manning Gross + Massenburg, 1007 N. Orange Street, 10th Floor,
Wilmington, Delaware 19801, Attorneys for The Goodyear Tire &
Rubber Company.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Roper Tech, Units Still Defend Suits at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Roper Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2018, that the Company and its subsidiaries have been
named defendants along with numerous industrial companies in
asbestos-related litigation claims in certain U.S. states.

The Company states, "No significant resources have been required by
Roper to respond to these cases and Roper believes it has valid
defenses to such claims and, if required, intends to defend them
vigorously.  Given the state of these claims, it is not possible to
determine the potential liability, if any."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/FR8Qey


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sempra Energy Units Still Face Suits at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sempra Energy's units are still defending themselves in
asbestos-related lawsuits and claims, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018.

On March 9, 2018, Sempra Energy completed the merger of Energy
Future Holdings Corp. (renamed Sempra Texas Holdings Corp.) (EFH)
with an indirect subsidiary of Sempra Energy, with EFH continuing
as the surviving company and as an indirect, wholly owned
subsidiary of Sempra Energy.

The Company states, "Certain EFH subsidiaries that we acquired as
part of the Merger are defendants in approximately 115 personal
injury lawsuits brought in state courts throughout the U.S. These
cases allege illness or death as a result of exposure to asbestos
in power plants designed and/or built by companies whose assets
were purchased by predecessor entities to the EFH subsidiaries, and
generally assert claims for product defects, negligence, strict
liability and wrongful death.  They seek compensatory and punitive
damages.  Additionally, in connection with the EFH bankruptcy
proceeding, approximately 28,000 proofs of claim were filed on
behalf of persons who allege exposure to asbestos under similar
circumstances and assert the right to file such lawsuits in the
future.  We anticipate additional lawsuits will be filed.  None of
these claims or lawsuits were discharged in the EFH bankruptcy
proceeding."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/90jl7G


ASBESTOS UPDATE: SPX Had $615.3MM Asbestos Liability at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
SPX Corporation recorded US$615.3 million for asbestos product
liability matters at June 30, 2018, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018.

The Company states, "Numerous claims, complaints and proceedings
arising in the ordinary course of business have been asserted or
are pending against us or certain of our subsidiaries
(collectively, "claims").  These claims relate to litigation
matters (e.g., class actions and contracts, intellectual property,
and competitive claims), environmental matters, product liability
matters (predominately associated with alleged exposure to
asbestos-containing materials), and other risk management matters
(e.g., general liability, automobile, and workers' compensation
claims).  Additionally, we may become subject to other claims of
which we are currently unaware, which may be significant, or the
claims of which we are aware may result in our incurring
significantly greater loss than we anticipate.  While we (and our
subsidiaries) maintain property, cargo, auto, product, general
liability, environmental, and directors' and officers' liability
insurance and have acquired rights under similar policies in
connection with acquisitions that we believe cover a significant
portion of these claims, this insurance may be insufficient or
unavailable (e.g., in the case of insurer insolvency) to protect us
against potential loss exposures.  Also, while we believe we are
entitled to indemnification from third parties for some of these
claims, these rights may be insufficient or unavailable to protect
us against potential loss exposures.

"Our recorded liabilities related to these matters totaled US$658.7
million (including US$615.3 million for asbestos product liability
matters) and US$685.7 million (including US$641.2 million for
asbestos product liability matters) at June 30, 2018 and December
31, 2017, respectively.  Of these amounts, US$627.7 million and
US$651.6 million are included in "Other long-term liabilities"
within our condensed consolidated balance sheets at June 30, 2018
and December 31, 2017, respectively, with the remainder included in
"Accrued expenses." The liabilities we record for these claims are
based on a number of assumptions, including historical claims and
payment experience and, with respect to asbestos claims, actuarial
estimates of the future period during which additional claims are
reasonably foreseeable.  While we base our assumptions on facts
currently known to us, they entail inherently subjective judgments
and uncertainties.  As a result, our current assumptions for
estimating these liabilities may not prove accurate, and we may be
required to adjust these liabilities in the future, which could
result in charges to earnings.  These variances relative to current
expectations could have a material impact on our financial position
and results of operations.

"We have recorded insurance recovery assets associated with the
asbestos product liability matters, with such amounts totaling
US$571.5 million and US$590.9 million at June 30, 2018 and December
31, 2017, respectively, and included in "Other assets" within our
condensed consolidated balance sheets.  These assets represent
amounts that we believe we are or will be entitled to recover under
agreements we have with insurance companies.  The assets we record
for these insurance recoveries are based on a number of
assumptions, including the continued solvency of the insurers, and
are subject to a variety of uncertainties.  Our current assumptions
for estimating these assets may not prove accurate, and we may be
required to adjust these assets in the future, which could result
in additional charges to earnings.  These variances relative to
current expectations could have a material impact on our financial
position and results of operations."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/isaEAw


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Steel Partners Unit Has 50 Claims at June 30
-------------------------------------------------------------
A unit of Steel Partners Holdings L.P. has approximately 50 pending
asbestos claims as of June 30, 2018, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018.

The Company states, "A subsidiary of BNS Holdings Liquidating Trust
("BNS Sub") has been named as a defendant in approximately 1,390
alleged asbestos-related toxic-tort claims as of June 30, 2018.
The claims were filed over a period beginning in 1994 through June
30, 2018.  In many cases these claims involved more than 100
defendants.  Of the claims filed, approximately 1,340 were
dismissed, settled or granted summary judgment and closed as of
June 30, 2018.  Of the claims settled, the average settlement was
less than US$3.  There remained approximately 50 pending asbestos
claims as of June 30, 2018.  There can be no assurance that the
number of future claims and the related costs of defense,
settlements or judgments will be consistent with the experience
to-date of existing claims.

"BNS Sub has insurance policies covering asbestos-related claims
for years beginning 1974 through 1988 with estimated aggregate
coverage limits of US$183,000,000, with US$1,543,000 at both June
30, 2018 and December 31, 2017 in estimated remaining
self-insurance retention (deductible).  There is secondary evidence
of coverage from 1970 to 1973, although there is no assurance that
the insurers will recognize that the coverage was in place.
Policies issued for BNS Sub beginning in 1989 contained exclusions
related to asbestos.  Under certain circumstances, some of the
settled claims may be reopened.  Also, there may be a significant
delay in receipt of notification by BNS Sub of the entry of a
dismissal or settlement of a claim or the filing of a new claim.
BNS Sub believes it has significant defenses to any liability for
toxic-tort claims on the merits.  None of these toxic-tort claims
has gone to trial and, therefore, there can be no assurance that
these defenses will prevail."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/2y7GHvS


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment vs. Mohn Affirmed on Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the appealed case Mary Ellen Mohn, Individually and as Personal
Representative on Behalf of the Estate of Thomas L. Mohn,
Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CBS Corporation and Dairyland Power
Cooperative, Defendants, Sprinkmann Sons Corporation,
Defendant-Respondent, Appeal No. 2017AP861, (Wis. Ct. App.), Mary
Ellen Mohn appeals the trial court's decision granting summary
judgment in favor of Sprinkmann Sons Corporation on the grounds
that Mohn's claims against Sprinkmann were barred pursuant to the
construction statute of repose.

Mohn argues that the protections of the statute of repose do not
extend to Sprinkmann. Additionally, Mohn raises constitutional
challenges to the statute of repose, asserting that it violates the
right to remedy clause of the Wisconsin Constitution as well as
equal protection rights.

This lawsuit stems from Mohn's claim that Mr. Mohn was exposed to
asbestos while working at construction sites between 1960 and 1980.
He was diagnosed with malignant lung cancer in February 2009 and
died in April 2009. Mohn then filed this action in February 2012
against numerous manufacturers and suppliers of asbestos products
that were involved in construction projects where Mr. Mohn worked.

Sprinkmann filed a motion for summary judgment, heard in November
2015, asserting that Mohn's claims against it were barred by the
construction statute of repose. The statute provides that after ten
years following the substantial completion of improvements to real
property, no cause of action may accrue against "any person
involved" in those improvements for injuries arising out of any
defect related to the construction of those improvements. Wis.
Stat. Section  893.89(2). However, this bar does not include
actions against "manufacturers or producers" of defective
materials.

In its motion, Sprinkmann asserted that it is covered by the
protections afforded by the statute because its involvement in the
construction of the power plant was limited to furnishing defective
materials -- the asbestos-containing turbine blankets -- not
manufacturing the materials. Furthermore, Sprinkmann asserted that
Mohn's claim was made outside of the ten year exposure period
established by the statute, in that the power plant had been
completed by the late 1960s. The trial court initially denied
Sprinkmann's motion but Sprinkmann filed a motion for
reconsideration.

Prior to the trial court issuing its ruling on the motion for
reconsideration, the parties entered into a stipulation of certain
facts related to the motion. Included in that stipulation were the
following facts:

     (1) The original construction of the nuclear power plant in
Genoa, as well as the construction of the turbine-generator unit,
were improvements to real property;

     (2) This construction occurred during the mid-to-late-1960s;

     (3) Sprinkmann furnished materials, including the insulated
turbine blankets that allegedly contained asbestos, during the
original construction of the power plant;

     (4) There is no evidence that Sprinkmann performed any work on
the improvements during the original construction of the power
plant, nor any subsequent repair work on that project; and

     (4) There is no evidence that Sprinkmann supplied any
insulation products to the power plant after 1969.

Upon reconsideration, the trial court identified that it had made
an error of law in denying Sprinkmann's summary judgment motion.
Ultimately, relying on Kohn v. Darlington Community Schools, 2005
WI 99, 283 Wis.2d 1, 698 N.W.2d 794, as well as the stipulation of
the parties, the trial court found that the statute did apply to
protect Sprinkmann from liability: (a) the turbines constructed at
the power plant were improvements to real property; (b) Sprinkmann
had been involved only in furnishing the defective materials --
turbine blankets containing asbestos -- with regard to the
improvements; and (c) that Mohn's claim had been filed after the
ten year period following the completion of the improvements.
Therefore, the trial court found that Sprinkmann met the
requirements of Wis. Stat. Section 893.89(2). As a result, the
court granted summary judgment in Sprinkmann's favor. This appeal
follows.

The Court of Appeals of Wisconsin affirms the trial court's
decision finding that the trial court did not err in granting
summary judgment in favor of Sprinkmann on the grounds that the
statute of repose bars Mohn's claims against Sprinkmann.

Mohn argues that the circumstances surrounding Sprinkmann's
involvement in the construction of the power plant do not meet all
of the requirements for protection under the statute of repose, and
thus the trial court erred in granting Sprinkmann's motion for
summary judgment.

The Court explains that the statute of repose imposes a time limit,
referred to as the "exposure period," for bringing claims related
to the improvement of real property. The exposure period runs for
ten years after "the date of substantial completion" of the
improvements. Accordingly, claims for injuries to person or
property cannot be made against anyone involved in the construction
of the improvements for any defect or deficiency related to the
construction after the end of the exposure period. The statute
specifically includes in this protection those involved in the
"furnishing of materials for" the construction of improvements.

However, the Court also points out to specific exceptions to the
protections of the statute. For example, the owner of the property
where the improvements were made can be held liable if the claim is
based on the owner's negligence in maintaining the property.
Additionally, manufacturers or producers of defective materials
used in the construction of the improvements are not afforded
protection under the statute. In other words, the statute "protects
all persons involved in the improvement to real property but does
not protect individuals whose liability arises based on conduct
occurring prior to or subsequent to the improvement."

In this case, the Court recognizes that the parties stipulated to
facts that trigger the protections of the statute of repose:
Sprinkmann's role in the construction of the improvements at the
power plant was to furnish materials used during construction which
have been deemed to be defective (i.e., containing asbestos).
Additionally, the parties agreed that construction of the power
plant was substantially completed in the late 1960s, and thus
Mohn's lawsuit was filed well after the end of the ten-year
exposure period set forth in the statute. Indeed, Sprinkmann's role
in the power plant construction fits squarely into the protections
afforded by the statute of repose.

On appeal, Mohn does not dispute these stipulated facts, nor does
Mohn argue that there are other reasonable inferences that may be
drawn from them. Instead, Mohn argues that the protections of the
statute of repose do not apply to Sprinkmann because its act of
furnishing the insulation was not in and of itself defective;
rather, the insulation it supplied was defective. Thus, under this
interpretation of the statute, Mohn contends that Sprinkmann does
not meet the requirements for protection under the statute.

The Court rejects Mohn's interpretation. The Court refers to Kohn
v. Darlington Community Schools, 2005 WI 99, 283 Wis.2d 1, 698
N.W.2d 794, where the court pointed out that the legislature
conveyed its intent behind this statute in the distinctions it set
between those who are protected against long-term liability and
those who are not protected: anyone involved in the actual
construction of improvements is protected from long-term liability,
while those whose liability arises from conduct before construction
(such as manufacturers of defective materials used for the
improvements), or after construction. The Kohn court opined that
the reasoning behind this distinction is that persons involved in
construction have limited involvement in the improvements and thus
should have limited liability. In contrast, the owner of property
improvements has a continuing duty to maintain those improvements,
and a manufacturer of materials used in construction continues to
have the duty and ability to change a defective design. Thus, this
distinction advances the purpose of the statute.

Moreover, the Court explains that the statute plainly states that
those who simply furnish materials to a construction project are
protected from long-term liability, which comports with the
legislature's intention. Based on the stipulation entered into by
Mohn and Sprinkmann, Sprinkmann's sole role in the power plant
construction project was to furnish materials to the contractors.
Therefore, the Court resolves that the statute of repose is
applicable to protect Sprinkmann against claims made outside of the
exposure period. Mohn's claim against Sprinkmann was filed outside
of that time frame and, as a result, is barred. Accordingly, the
Court affirms the trial court's determination that the statute of
repose bars Mohn's claims against Sprinkmann.

As an alternative argument, Mohn asserts that the statute of repose
is unconstitutional as applied to asbestos-related claims. Mohn
first argues that the right to remedy clause of the Wisconsin
Constitution is violated when the statute is applied to take away
the rights of an individual with injuries due to asbestos exposure
before those injuries have manifested.

In contrast, Sprinkmann argues that the legislature had the
opportunity to include exclusion in the statute for latent
diseases, but did not. Sprinkmann points out that the court in Kohn
addressed the same constitutional arguments as those presented by
Mohn, and upheld the constitutionality of the statute. In fact, the
Kohn court specifically stated that the statute of repose does not
violate the right to remedy clause because "a statute of repose
does not merely extinguish a party's remedy, it extinguishes the
right of recovery altogether" and thus "any right of recovery is
extinguished at the end of the repose period and the right for
which the litigant seeks a remedy no longer exists." The Kohn court
also recognized that the statute of repose is a "policy choice"
made by the legislature "to which we must defer."

Furthermore, the court in Kohn determined that the statute of
repose does not violate the equal protection clause, as the
distinctions it draws among those groups it affects serve a
"legitimate governmental interest." Moreover, as pointed out by
Sprinkmann, it is the role of the legislature -- not the judiciary
-- to carve out statutory exceptions for latent diseases such as
asbestos-related illnesses, and the legislature has chosen not to
do so.

A copy of the Per Curiam dated August 7, 2018, is available at
https://tinyurl.com/ya9fm3yf from Leagle.com.

Robert G. McCoy , for Mary Ellen Mohn, Plaintiff-Appellant.

Roshan N. Rajkumar -- roshan.rajkumar@bowmanandbrooke.com -- for
CBS Corporation, Defendant.

James A. Niquet -- jniquet@crivellocarlson.com -- for Dairyland
Power Cooperative, Defendant.

James A. Niquet -- jniquet@crivellocarlson.com -- Noelle C. Muceno
-- nmuceno@crivellocarlson.com -- Travis J. Rhoades --
trhoades@crivellocarlson.com -- for Sprinkmann Sons Corporation,
Defendant-Respondent.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tenneco Faces Less Than 500 Cases at June 30
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tenneco Inc. continues to face less than 500 active and inactive
cases by claimants alleging health problems as a result of exposure
to asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2018.

The Company states, "For many years we have been and continue to be
subject to lawsuits initiated by claimants alleging health problems
as a result of exposure to asbestos.  Our current docket of active
and inactive cases is less than 500 cases nationwide.  A small
number of claims have been asserted against one of our subsidiaries
by railroad workers alleging exposure to asbestos products in
railroad cars.  The substantial majority of the remaining claims
are related to alleged exposure to asbestos in our automotive
products although a significant number of those claims appear also
to involve occupational exposures sustained in industries other
than automotive.

"We believe, based on scientific and other evidence, it is unlikely
that claimants were exposed to asbestos by our former products and
that, in any event, they would not be at increased risk of
asbestos-related disease based on their work with these products.
Further, many of these cases involve numerous defendants, with the
number in some cases exceeding 100 defendants from a variety of
industries.  Additionally, in many cases the plaintiffs either do
not specify any, or specify the jurisdictional minimum, dollar
amount for damages.

"As major asbestos manufacturers and/or users continue to go out of
business or file for bankruptcy, we may experience an increased
number of these claims.  We vigorously defend ourselves against
these claims as part of our ordinary course of business.

"In future periods, we could be subject to cash costs or charges to
earnings if any of these matters are resolved unfavorably to us.
To date, with respect to claims that have proceeded sufficiently
through the judicial process, we have regularly achieved favorable
resolutions.  Accordingly, we presently believe that these
asbestos-related claims will not have a material adverse impact on
our future consolidated financial position, results of operations
or liquidity."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/2P352tT


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Thomas-Fish Claims vs. Delaware Defendants Severed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Renee Marie Bumb of the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey has issued a memorandum opinion and
order severing the claims against the Delaware Defendants Avborne
Accessory Group, Inc.; Dover Corporation; Dover Engineered Systems,
Inc.; RBC Bearings, Incorporated; Sargent Aerospace & Defense, LLC;
Sargent Industries, Inc.; RBC Sargent Airtomic; and Roller Bearing
Company Of America, Inc. and transferring those claims to the
United States District Court for the District of Delaware, pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a).

This matter comes before the Court upon the Court's Order to Show
Cause why the case entitled Helen Thomas-Fish, Plaintiff, v. Aetna
Steel Products Corp., et al., Defendants, Civil No. 17-10648
(RMB/KMW), (D.N.J.) should not be transferred to the District of
Delaware or another more convenient District, and Defendants'
Motion to Transfer this case to the District of Delaware, filed in
response to the Court's Order to Show Cause.

Plaintiff opposes transfer primarily arguing that transfer is "not
possible" because two of the ten Defendants to this suit (excluding
the "John Doe" Defendants) -- Sonic Industries, Inc./RBC Sonic and
Aetna Steel Products Corporation -- might not be subject to
personal jurisdiction in Delaware. However, Defendants respond, and
the Court agrees, that severing Sonic and Aetna Steel is a viable
option, thereby allowing the transfer of the claims against the
other eight Defendants to the District of Delaware.

The Court points out to the case of D'Jamoos ex rel. Estate of
Weingeroff v. Pilatus Aircraft Ltd., 566 F.3d 94, 110 (3d Cir.
2009) in applying 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a), where the court have
held that "where a case could have been brought against some
defendants in the transferee district, the claims against those
defendants may be severed [pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 21] and
transferred while the claims against the remaining defendants, for
whom transfer would not be proper, are retained."

Moreover, severing and transferring the claims against the eight
Delaware Defendants furthers interests of judicial economy because
transfer will moot those Defendants' argument that the District of
New Jersey lacks personal jurisdiction over them.  This outcome
undermines Plaintiff's assertion that severance will be
"inefficient."

As the Court observed previously, venue in this District is based
upon the tenuous connection that "the alleged asbestos exposure
allegedly occurred on a U.S. government-owned ship docked in
Camden, New Jersey during 1960," almost 60 years ago. On the other
hand, the connection to Delaware is much clearer. Plaintiff does
not dispute Defendants' assertion that seven of the nine physicians
who treated the decedent have Delaware addresses, whereas none have
New Jersey addresses.

In addition, Plaintiff emphasizes that the decedent lived and
worked in New Jersey in 1960 -- almost 60 years ago -- when the
alleged exposure occurred over the course of a single year.
However, in the Court's view, the more pertinent inquiry is
Plaintiff's location when this suit was filed. Plaintiff's
residence, not decedent's residence when his claim allegedly arose
so long ago, is more pertinent to each forum's interests in
adjudicating controversies local to it. That is, Plaintiff's status
as a Delaware resident who is bringing suit against Delaware
Defendants renders this case of most concern to Delaware, and
therefore outweighs Plaintiff's forum choice of New Jersey.

In the meantime, the Court will hold a telephonic pre-motion
conference concerning RBC Sonic/Sonic Industries, Inc.'s proposed
motion to dismiss the remaining claims against RBC Sonic/Sonic
Industries, Inc., and Aetna Steel Products Corporation for lack of
personal jurisdiction.

A copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order dated August 7, 2018, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yc6vhurg from Leagle.com.

Helen Thomas-Fish, individually and as Executrix of the Estate of
Robert C. Fish, Plaintiff, represented by Amber Rose Long , Levy
Konigsberg, LLP & Joseph J. Mandia , Levy Konigsberg LLP.

RBC Sonic, Defendant, represented by William D. Sanders --
wsanders@mklaw.us.com -- McGivney, Kluger & Cook, P.C..


ASBESTOS UPDATE: WestRock Co. Had 725 PI Suits at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------
WestRock Company is facing approximately 725 asbestos-related
personal injury lawsuits as of June 30, 2018, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018.

The Company states, "We have been named a defendant in
asbestos-related personal injury litigation.  To date, the costs
resulting from the litigation, including settlement costs, have not
been significant.  As of June 30, 2018, there were approximately
725 lawsuits.  We believe that we have substantial insurance
coverage, subject to applicable deductibles and policy limits, with
respect to asbestos claims.

"We have valid defenses to these asbestos-related personal injury
claims and intend to continue to defend them vigorously.  Should
the volume of litigation grow substantially, it is possible that we
could incur significant costs resolving these cases.  We do not
expect the resolution of pending asbestos litigation and
proceedings to have a material adverse effect on our consolidated
financial condition or liquidity.  In any given period or periods,
however, it is possible such proceedings or matters could have a
material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial
condition or cash flows."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/KiwtDk



                            *********

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 ***